Linux-Advocacy Digest #718, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
How can use linux? debates (Osugi Sakae)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
("horst")
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How can use linux? debates ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ("horst")
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (piddy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:52:26 -0300
Cool reply. Is there any particular reason why you post
anonymously? Of course, you have every right to do so -
I'm just being curious...
Francis.
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:38:12 -0300, mr_organic pronounced:
> >> As readers of my previous rants probably know by now, I have emarked
> >> on something of a Jihad against sloppy programming. The target of my
> >
> ><long rant cut>
> >
> >I was wondering, you talk a lot about programming, but you don't mention
> >design methodology at all. Now, do you ever abstract from the programming
> >level? If so, what methodology do you use?
> >
>
> I tend to be quite old-fashioned in this respect; I start with a Proposal,
> move on to a Preliminary Spec, get feedback, refine the spec, move on to
> the Design Document (which is usually composed of *many* smaller documents),
> and then code from the Design Documents. We tend also to make use of UML
> and ER diagramming tools (although I feel that these tools often obscure
> rather than illuminate the problem at hand).
>
> I've had some Federal projects I've worked on go through five or six
> spec/design document revisions before a line of code was written. I'm not
> saying this is the best way to do it, but it does tend to focus the mind
> on what is necessary.
>
> I also encourage my programmers to write pseudocode before doing the
> real thing (and I mean *pseudocode*, not real code disguised as
> pseudocode). We do a lot of code-reviews, and on a democratic level; my
> code receives the same treatment as anyone else's. I'm a stickler
> for coding correctly, too; I've made people re-code things that worked
> but were coded badly.
>
> >
> >A lot of people in the open source community seem to believe that software
> >design is equivalent to coding ("hacking"). What happened to the distinction
> >concept / algorithm / code? Where can a find a high-level, but *formal*,
> >specification of, say, Linux?
> >
> >Francis.
> >
>
> I'm sure a high-level specification (didn't Addison-Wesley produce one?)
> exists, but it was probably done after-the-fact, which sort of reduces
> its usefulness. Still, UNIX is a well-specified system architecture,
> so re-implementations don't really have to re-invent the wheel. But I
> agree that lots of Open Source projects would benefit greatly from formal
> design.
>
> I think this goes back to my point that many programmers are simply
> never taught how to *engineer* code, but rather to simply sit down
> and write it. That's how we get into those deadly wash-rinse-repeat
> debug cycles.
>
> Regards,
>
> mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:02:43 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when David Steinberg would say:
>Matthias Warkus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: XFree86 4.0 is already out.
>
>My bad. Oops... :)
>
>: And don't forget that we've got three major steps to GNOME 2.0
>: scheduled for this year:
>: April GNOME will give us a little overhaul and general improvement of
>: the suite again, preserving compatibility.
>: August GNOME will release Nautilus, the Eazel file manager developed
>: by members of the original Mac development team, and Evolution (the
>: mail/groupware app) upon the GNOME world.
>
>Really, I had no idea that GNOME was progressing so quickly. I haven't
>heard nearly as much noise about it as I have about KDE recently. I
>didn't realize that Nautilus and Evolution were coming up so soon.
>
>I didn't mean to offend. Personally, my desktop gets its look from
>E and GNOME, and it's very sweet. Of course, I've got the KDE packages
>installed too, and use some KDE apps. But, when KDE 2 is released, I'll
>be giving the desktop another look. It seems that KDE is winning the
>hype war, at least from where I'm sitting. I've been eagerly anticipating
>their new release, but have remained clueless about what's up in GNOME
>world. I think it's the state of KOffice, more than anything else, that's
>really caught people's attention.
>
>Last I'd heard AbiWord and GNUmeric didn't really offer the kind of
>integration (embedable parts) that KOffice apps do/will. Is there an
>effort underway to move in that direction?
I saw Bonobo embedding in action at ALS last fall; Miguel was running
a Postscript image manipulator embedded inside Gnumeric.
I would have little problem with going along with the notion that
AbiWord is "not quite where you'd like;" it is rather more a replacement
for Microsoft WordPad rather than Word.
In contrast, Gnumeric is *quite* impressive, vastly moreso than the
"vaporware" that is kspread at this point. The Koffice web site
may have screen shots of kword, but not of kspread...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #91. "When I create a multimedia
presentation of my plan designed so that my five-year-old advisor can
easily understand the details, I will not label the disk "Project
Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Subject: How can use linux? debates
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:03:40 -0800
Some people claim that linux is only for programmers /
researchers. These same people are generally upset with recent
attemps to make linux accessable to less technical types.
Others claim that linux would make a great os for anyone and
everyone - and that it is just as easy to use windows or mac and
is much more stable and powerful. Good evidence is kde and
gnome, Caldera and Corel. Maybe lokigames.
Ok, the above positions are greatly simplified. But they are not
fiction or the opinions of trolls (I think) - this programmer /
general user debate seems to be for real. Which surprises me.
One thing that almost every linux advocate agrees on is that
open source, free-as-in-speech software is better, in part
because anyone is free to make changes.
So, if everyone is free to make changes, why should anyone be
surprised or even care if some people want to make linux "easy"
enough for windows users to use? It isn't like the programers /
researchers are forced to install kde or gnome. A computer
running linux with apache and no x-windows is still a linux box.
So if some nice folks want to write the ACME Desktop
Environment, how is their project any less worthy than the
statistical analysis project from another group?
Even if linux (with kde, gnome, or some other GUI) should take
over the world - say 90% of all desktops - it is still
configurable enough that anyone can use or not use whatever they
want or don't want. So how is making linux "more like windows"
(in appearence only) hurting, hindering or otherwise damaging
linux? It isn't, it is just making linux an option for more
people.
Perhaps some people worry that "easy to use" means "less
powerful." This doesn't have to be true, but even if it was,
linux still has the command line. Personally, I never knew how
powerful the it could be until I tried linux. Now I use the
command line even in windows (at work). I never would have found
this power if Caldera hadn't made installing linux even easier
than installing windows and if someone (kde, gnome, whoever)
hadn't given the command line a friendly face to help ease the
transition.
So I guess what I am saying is that there is IMO no reason for
the debate programmers vs casual users. With linux's stability
and reliability, there is no reason why it couldn't be (one day)
on everyone's desktop. With its configurability and power, I
think linux could be all things to both groups.
Disclaimer: I like choice. Choice is good. Thus, I am not saying
that everyone should use linux. Everyone should use the os and
computer that they want to use. What I am saying is that I see
no reason that linux should be limited to "power users" and that
putting a pretty face on top of linux is not the same as dumbing
it down.
Or am I missing something?
--
Osugi Sakae
my identity has been "spam shielded" please remove the shielding
before attempting to email me.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "horst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:10:41 GMT
check out slashdot today, or the new york times business front page...
Gerstner himself is behind a unified linux strategy, although I doubt they
will abandon Aix, they are certainly emphasizing linux much more and predict
that it will become the predominant os in about 5 years.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; net wrote in message ...
>And your proof of IBM moving Aix to Linux?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:21:38 GMT
In article <8b6k9r$n6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Francis Van Aeken"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cool reply. Is there any particular reason why you post
> anonymously? Of course, you have every right to do so -
> I'm just being curious...
>
> Francis.
>
The intrusiveness of our government and corporations increases year by year,
and I find it comforting to keep my public profile fairly low. Having said that,
I think that one should stand behind one's public comments; so if you're *really*
interested in my bona fides, you can contact me via e-mail at the dejanews
account. If I find the correspondence interesting enough (i.e., not one of those
endless
"you're a dumbass" flames), I'll usually reply via my private account.
I find as I get older that paranoia seems more and more reasonable. In this day and
age
when every utterance can be taken out of context and used against you, it seems only
common sense to keep things anonymous.
>
><SNIP>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How can use linux? debates
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:35:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Osugi Sakae
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><SNIP>
> So, if everyone is free to make changes, why should anyone be
> surprised or even care if some people want to make linux "easy"
> enough for windows users to use? It isn't like the programers /
> researchers are forced to install kde or gnome. A computer
> running linux with apache and no x-windows is still a linux box.
> So if some nice folks want to write the ACME Desktop
> Environment, how is their project any less worthy than the
> statistical analysis project from another group?
>
If our only intention is to copy windows or the mac, then we are going
to inherit all the problems those platforms currently have (and there
is some evidence that this problem is happening already). We can add
value by producing better quality code, more secure code, and more
modular code. But I happen to believe that this can only be done
independently of marketing timetables; good software takes time to
create (it's taken Linux nearly a decade to get this far!). I just don't
want everyone to get in a big hurry and leave us with the same problems
Windows and Mac users suffer with.
>
> Even if linux (with kde, gnome, or some other GUI) should take
> over the world - say 90% of all desktops - it is still
> configurable enough that anyone can use or not use whatever they
> want or don't want. So how is making linux "more like windows"
> (in appearence only) hurting, hindering or otherwise damaging
> linux? It isn't, it is just making linux an option for more
> people.
>
It hurts in a way because it blinds us to other (and maybe better)
ways of doing things. Ever since the Mac GUI came out (which was itself
a copy of the Xerox PARC GUI), most graphical environments have been
the standard window-icon-menu-pointer (WIMP) metaphor, with minor
differences here and there. Some were implemented better (NextStep) and
some worse (Windows 3.1), but all are simply variations on a theme.
But even if we accept that the WIMP interface is the best way to do things,
we sacrifice a lot in the name of "compatibility" with Windows. For example,
consider the key bindings -- Windows users are used to using CTRL-C to copy
and CTRL-V (or SHIFT-INSERT) to paste. Now, there is nothing fundamental
about these key combinations; in fact they are counterintuitive to someone
who uses Emacs all the time. But since Windows does it that way, both GNOME
and KDE feel compelled to do it too. (Yes, I know the bindings can be changed,
but I'm trying to make a point here.)
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing (necessarily), but it tends to
perpetuate an already-questionable metaphor. I'm just saying that users
may *need* to be shaken up every now and then, like they were in 1984 when
the Mac came out.
>
> Perhaps some people worry that "easy to use" means "less
> powerful." This doesn't have to be true, but even if it was,
> linux still has the command line. Personally, I never knew how
> powerful the it could be until I tried linux. Now I use the
> command line even in windows (at work). I never would have found
> this power if Caldera hadn't made installing linux even easier
> than installing windows and if someone (kde, gnome, whoever)
> hadn't given the command line a friendly face to help ease the
> transition.
>
> So I guess what I am saying is that there is IMO no reason for
> the debate programmers vs casual users. With linux's stability
> and reliability, there is no reason why it couldn't be (one day)
> on everyone's desktop. With its configurability and power, I
> think linux could be all things to both groups.
>
I think programmers fear that Linux will be robbed of its flexibility
and power by successive layers of eye-candy and the associated
baggage. Just look at Windows NT, and the hard-drive-busting
size of Office.
>
> Disclaimer: I like choice. Choice is good. Thus, I am not saying
> that everyone should use linux. Everyone should use the os and
> computer that they want to use. What I am saying is that I see
> no reason that linux should be limited to "power users" and that
> putting a pretty face on top of linux is not the same as dumbing
> it down.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
>
> --
> Osugi Sakae
> my identity has been "spam shielded" please remove the shielding
> before attempting to email me.
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
------------------------------
From: "horst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:35:38 GMT
try installing zip drive...oops dll's are corrupted,
try installing anti-virus, oops blue screen like crazy
both on nt, both live at work
in the past week
while my 486 happily chugs away.
are some packages a pain to install and configure sometimes? sure. Of
course it is a pain to read the readme, and then install, and all the man
pages, but know what? it's worth it, get it running and they will almost
always do what they said they would,
work.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ; net wrote in message ...
>Welcome to Linux :(
>
>Answers you will get from the Linux community, in no special order:
>
>1. Didn't you try the RPM? Took ME 5 seconds.
>2. Didn't you try the DEB? Took ME 5 seconds.
>3.SuSE's website has the file. Just use YAST. Took ME 5 seconds.
>4. You are an idiot. I installed it in 5 seconds.
>5.You are blaming Linux because YOU did NOT install the proper
>Libraries? Gnome is not Linux.
>6. It's better than Windows which overwrites *.dll's at will.
>7. You DO know about AutoRPM?
>8. You are an idiot if you don't.
>9. I always compile from source.
>10. Never have a problem. Took ME...........
>
>Try installing Gnome some time. You need 20 or so packages not to
>mention all the different pre-reqs for each one, You could easily
>spend half a day just figuring out what you have and don't have.
>
>Same goes for Xfree 4.0.
>
>Same with kde, if you can wade through their website that is. All to
>run some half baked, Quicken wannabe program like GnuCash.
>Why bother at all?
>
>This is so typical of Linux.
>
>Spend time, time and more time trying to install some program that is
>inferior to virtually anything you can find for Windows.
>
>Take a look at the Linux groups and see how many questions are related
>to "x program is looking for y libraries, what are they and where do I
>get them?"
>
>Under Windows setup.exe and that's it.
>It just works.
>
>This weekend I installed Windows SE, fresh install not an upgrade.
>All went fine.
>Installed updated Canon scanner and printer drivers fine.
>Installed updated SBLive driver fine.
>Installed updated Matrox driver fine.
>Installed new Laplink program fine,
>Installed new MusicMatch Jukebox fine.
>Installed Cakewalk 9.0 and update fine.
>Installed TaxCut fine.
>Installed updated Logitech Mouse driver fine.
>Installed patch for SoundForge fine.
>
>Note, no upgrades were REQUIRED, I just wanted to start fresh with the
>latest patches.
>
>This is why Windows succeeds and Linux is a miserable alternative for
>someone who doesn't want to waste time looking at configuration
>options and searching for libraries and pre-reqs.
>
>As far as I am concerned ALL Linux software should carry a .99 version
>or less because it is never really finished and much of it runs that
>way.
>
>Steve
>
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:47:22 GMT, Jeff Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
>>are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
>>programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
>>Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
>>packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
>>lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
>>program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
>>version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
>>anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
>>deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
>>install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
>>on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
>>
>>If I can't get this sucker installed there is a serious problem here.
>>I'm no linux guru, but I am not a newbie. I have set up ip
>>masquerading, cd burning, apache, php, mysql, my digital soundblaster
>>live, etc.
>>
>>Can someone tell me what the problem is with the Gnome developers? I
>>would rather them use lower version numbers to indicate that their
>>programs are not ready for general use. Many users will be turned away
>>from linux by gnome programs which suck to install.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:34:21 GMT
In article <8b6f9k$2212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On a personal note, I am in the midst of setting up a home system
> > gateway based on PitBull and will be giving away the root account on
> > /etc/issue to start to show people what kinds of things can be done
with
> > a secure OS.
>
> On a similar note, I have a cisco router in my house that is doing a
fair
> amount of actual work that is almost entirely B1 compliant. The only
> snag is the remote access interface; unfortunately it is a simple
analog
> modem on an entirely insecure line.
>
> -----yttrx
Pretty cool. What model router is it?
Jeff
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:32:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8b67ho$1ds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Argus will also be launching a new program called the Argus
Revolution
> > that will be giving away free non-commercial licenses to our PitBull
> > product. These licenses are currently available for Sparc and x86.
We
> > will be officially launching this program at SANS and during the
first
> > Bay Area PitBull Users Group (BAPUG - www.bapug.org). Information on
> > the Revolution will be found at http://www.argusrevolution.com/
> > Using PitBull allows individuals to protect their home systems from
> > attack and can change your chance of system wide penetration due to
> > application exploits from 99% to almost 0%.
>
> Sounds like products like BlackICE Defender...
>
>
As Abraxas mentions, PitBull is nothing like BlackICE. BlackICE is
essentially a network intrusion detection system. PitBull is a security
platform that enhances the security on an OS. It allows you to
encapsulate applications so that they are isolated from eachother and
gets rid of uid 0 and replaces it with least privilege concepts.
I highly recommend you take a look at our online demo in the PitBull
.comPack section under demo. I'm more than happy to answer questions on
this group, via email, or on the phone.
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff Thompson
Software Evangelist and Visionary
Argus Systems Group, Inc.
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: www.argus-systems.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge
yet again)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:40:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>> The government *tried* to stop them. But to this day, IBM retains a
>> hammerlock
>> on the big iron market and at this point they have pretty well come to own
>> the minicomputer market as well.
>>
>
> Actually, for a while, IBM was losing a lot of business to Hitachi. It was
> only with the introduction of the S/390 G5 in 1998 that IBM regained the
> mainframe market and now owns about 95% of it.
>
> Gary
>
For awhile in the '80's, it was a free-for-all: Fujitsu, Siemens, Hitachi,
and Amdahl all undercut IBM's mainframe business. By the late '80's,
IBM was hurting pretty bad. However, they got back on track around
1993 or so and Big Blue's big iron came roaring back -- it turns out
those big beasties made great "enterprise servers"!
Fujitsu and Hitachi are still major players in the market, though,
especially in Europe and Japan. IBM may have 95% of the market in
the U.S., but I don't think that's true everywhere else.
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:41:33 GMT
True the original thread was about GnuCash, but you responded to MY
post about Gnome.
BTW I have, at least from an install and general setup perspective
tried every major distribution, current versions of course, except for
Mandrake.
See dejanews searching on linux distribution comparison.
I don't have the time to screw around trying some Quicken wannabe. If
it works for you under RedHat that's fine. Make sure you let your
accountant know though cause chances are your data will be useless to
him/her. Unless of course he/she is using GnuCash which is highly
unlikely.
Steve
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:21:31 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> I am talking about Gnome, you are addressing GnuCash.
>>
>> And how well does that rpm work with SuSE, Caldera, Slackware or
>> shudder, Corel?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>No, this thread was started by someone who had trouble installing gnucash. You
>jumped
>in saying how this is typical of Linux and you knew what the answer would be. When I
>responded that he should use the rpm if he wanted an easy install, you ridiculed my
>response. In fact I was right. The rpm install was trivial. As for other
>distributiions, why don't you give it a try and let us know (as if you have ever even
>tried Linux).
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:43:27 GMT
Maybe he is right?
Steve
On 21 Mar 2000 09:48:40 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2000 14:58:21 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Please stop arguing on the side of linux. You're making the rest of us
>>look very foolish.
>
>PLEASE do *not* EVER speak for me.
>
>Abraxas comments are his own, not mine, nor anyone else here.
>
>>
>>Thank you.
>Fuck off
><plonk>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----yttrx
>>
>
>
>
>Unkind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:43:24 GMT
In article <BSAB4.19253$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "horst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> check out slashdot today, or the new york times business front page...
> Gerstner himself is behind a unified linux strategy, although I doubt they
> will abandon Aix, they are certainly emphasizing linux much more and predict
> that it will become the predominant os in about 5 years.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; net wrote in message ...
>>And your proof of IBM moving Aix to Linux?
>
>
They'll most likely follow the same path with AIX that they did for OS/2; it
will be supported and maintained, but not extended. Then, at some point,
it will be end-of-lifed and that will be that. Between Monterey on the
high end and Linux on the low end, there isn't much reason to have AIX
around anymore (even if you have RS/6000 hardware, you can run LinuxPPC
on it, or NetBSD if you're really adventurous).
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:41:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Mar 2000 17:23:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Steinberg) wrote:
<snipped>
You, sir, are a troll!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
