Linux-Advocacy Digest #26, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! ("RCS")
Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
Re: Netscape 6.0 Linux version (Cihl)
Re: About GNU kernels (Chris Lee)
Re: Rumors ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: Rumors ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:38:27 +0200
Why?
RCS
tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:byyH4.3440$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> man I can't believe you took the time to post this bullshit, (your either
a
> bad troll, liar or just plain ignorant) what a waste of bandwidth!
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Isn't is just a riot! I can't believe peoples stupidity.
> >
> > People still debating which OS is superior Linux or Microsoft.
> >
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 8 Apr 2000 15:12:32 GMT
I look forward to Apple's new OS. I think it is valuable in a couple
ways. First, it should provide an ease-of-use UNIX solution for
non-technical users this year. Linux will probably take a bit longer to
get to that point. Secondly, it will provide a good baseline for what
ease-of-use on a UNIX system can be.
A fragment from Miguel de Icaza's interview on Slashdot was:
"Talking to [Andy Hertzfeld - ex. Mac/Apple] has changed a lot my view on
what GNOME should be. In the beginning I thought "We need a desktop for
free systems", now I think 'We need the perfect user interface for end
users to use on a free system'. Achieving the best user/computer interface
is a goal that many of us share."
I think this is it all over. Linux needs competition from within, as well
as from things like MacOS X. I think Linux suffers from years of
competing with bad UNIX examples. We need to see a rich, integrated, and
consistent UI on MacOS X, so that Linux hackers can see it ... and then
try for something better.
John
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.windows98,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,hk.comp.pc,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Netscape 6.0 Linux version
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:29:24 GMT
Jerry Wong wrote:
> Linux netscape 6.0 can be download
> now. ftp.netscape.com=C7=E3 pub/netscape6
>
> http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124
> (In Chinese Big
> 5) http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm
>
> (In English)
What a terrible, *terrible* pair of sites!!
I couldn't even READ the first one. (chinese or
something?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: About GNU kernels
Date: 8 Apr 2000 15:33:59 GMT
In article <G5uH4.4154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>"Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Pedro Ballester wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi everyone, I've been hearing about HURD to replace Linux kernel
>> > and have a little questions :
>> >
>> > 1) Can you uncompress and compile under GNU/Linux and then
>> > just replace Linux kernel hoping the whole system to work ?
>>
>> Take a look here:
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-install
>>
>> > 2) Which are the differences between Linux and HURD as GNU
>> > kernels ? I mean license and technical differences.
>>
>> I think that Linus has stated a number of times that his interpretation
>> of the GPL allows binary-only modules. I doubt that this is the case
>> for the HURD. I'm not certain about either though. Clarification
>> anybody?
>>
>> As for the tech. side of things, the HURD run's on top of a microkernel,
>> which allows for things like filesystems that are installable by normal
>> users, etc. The general idea is that a number of "servers" run on top
>> of the microkernel, giving things like UNIX compatibility, filesystems,
>> etc.
>>
>> I think Linux is faster because it's a monolithic design, however the
>> HURD can have it's servers restarted without rebooting. I think that
>> the HURD is developed in C++ (or some kind of object oriented C) whereas
>> Linux is developed in C.
>>
>
>It does not surprise me if someone start thinking of
>replacing the Linux kernel somehow.
>
>There are two major areas I am quite concerned about
>Linux future.
>
>(1). monolithic kernel architecture
>
> Linux uses obsolete monolithic OS architecture for
> the gain of speed. But as the computer hardware speed
> increases, the speed gain of monolithic Linux kernel
> will be less significant.
>
> What Linux loses for using monolithic kernel instead
> of microkernel are what Linux cannot afford to lose for
> the long run.
>
> We are matching into the new millennium with an old
> tech....
Mircokernels are a farce. The Linux and BSD monolithic kernel architecture
has proven themselves to be far more portable than the
Mircokernels have been. Face it, you mircokernel advocates have got egg all
over your face.......
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:34:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:38:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >It doesn't matter because Apple does not have a monopoly position
on
> >> >the desktop.
> >>
> >> So Apple can be just as aggressive and draconian as Microsoft, and
> >> it's OK because they don't have a monopoly? Are you saying that
> >> Microsoft is getting nailed for actions that would be perfectly
legal
> >> if Microsoft weren't a monopoly? I'm assuming your answer is yes.
> >.
> >?????
> >Show me ONE place where Apple has strong armed a hardware vendor
> >(independant of Apple its self) into pre-loading to the exclution of
> >every one else the Mac OS. In deed, show me any vendor that Apple
strong
> >armed into suppleing ONLY Apple products (you must PROVE that Apple
> >strong armed or threatened the company) Without doing so, you can NOT
> >claim Mac is being just as aggressive and draconian as MS.
> >
>
> I'm not saying that Apple is as aggresive as Microsoft. I'm just
> saying that, from what I've been able to gather, Apple *COULD* be that
> aggressive, and it wouldn't be illegal because they don't have a
> monopoly. Am I right?\
With out a monopoly the tactics used by MS would not be as successful.
The law is designed to prevent a monopoly from using that status
unfairly. If
Apple developed an OS that ran on PC's then went to hardware vendors
and said `if you pre install any other OS but ours, we will double the
price of
our OS` they would be laughed out of the office. Thus, because of nature
of the competition, Apple would be unsuccessful at doing the same strong
arm
tactics even if it tried.
>
> >>
> >> Interesting. Lets recap:
> >>
> >> 1. A given company action may be legal or illegal depending on
whether
> >> the company is a monopoly.
> >>
> >> 2. Apparently, it takes a roomful of lawyers, a ton of paperwork, a
> >> two-year-long court saga, and some careful interpretation to
prove
> >> that a company is a monopoly. In fact, it's been said that
> >> establishing monopoly status is one of the most difficult things
to
> >> do in American law.
> >>
> >> Given this, I must ask: If it's so difficult for a team of lawyers
to
> >> establish monopoly status, how the heck is a regular employee
supposed
> >> to know - when faced with a decision - whether his company has
crossed
> >> the "monopoly line"? How can we have a body of law that doesn't
make
> >> it perfectly obvious what is and what is not legal?
> >..
> >Read the judgment. It is not illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal
to
> >ABUSE the monopoly status. It is much easier to define abuse than
that
> >of monopoly.
> >
>
> If monopoly status is so difficult to establish in a court of law,
> then how is a regular employee (not a lawyer) supposed to know whether
> his company has a monopoly? When working with an OEM, for example, how
> can Joe Corporate Dealmaker be expected to know whether what he's
> proposing is illegal?
.
.
there are many cases of law were this is the case. Thus it is best not
to engage in questionable business practices.
.
>
> The more I learn about antitrust law, the more it seems that it was
> made deliberately vague - so that the government could interpret it as
> necessary to rein in whomever they wanted for whatever reason. I do
> see the need for antitrust law, but if it's this difficult to figure
> out whether a company has a monopoly, then I don't think it's fair to
> punish that company for actions taken before monopoly status was
> established in court. Isn't "hindsight law" unconstitutional?
>
actually, no, I think the problem is that you worship MS so you mind is
closed to the facts to the law and open competition. There is no
hindsight law
here. And there is no foresight law here either. MS used it's monopoly
position to control the distribution sources of OS's for the PC. They
were found
GUILTY in the same way that a thief can be found guilty after he has
stolen something, but NOT before he has stolen something. Proving
someone has
done some thing is not hindsight law. Hindsight law is when a law is
passed prohibiting someone from doing something he already has done then
prosecuting him for a crime that was not illegal when he committed it.
It is also difficult to prove a monopoly for just the reason you have
stated above. it
is difficult to determine when a monopoly starts. Thus the law is
written to error on the side of CAUTION! In other words a company may be
a
monopoly but get off because it is so hard to prove. Thus, by the time a
company is convicted under the antitrust laws, it must have been VERY
blatant
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: 8 Apr 2000 15:40:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leonard F. Agius allegedly wrote:
>Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
>
>> Keith T. Williams allegedly wrote:
>> >
>> >Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Matt Gaia wrote:
>> >>
>> ><SNIP>
>> >> Edit an autoexec.bat file because of a lock up from a new anti-virus
>> >program?
>> >> Use System Configuration Utility to keep something from starting with
>> >Windows?
>> >> NO WAY. They'd rather turn their computer off and never use it again.
>> >>
>> >> If control of personal computing gets returned to the "techno geek/techno
>> >> nerd", that will be "all she wrote" for the continued acceptance of the
>> >PC. The
>> >> general public, as a whole, wants PC to turn into another household
>> >appliance,
>> >> and anything more technical than that turns them off and keeps their
>> >dollars in
>> >> their wallets. Keep in mind that, at least in the USA, most people never
>> >read
>> >> their cars owners manual. Same mentality with computers. Put the key in
>> >and
>> >
>> >There's a manual with cars?
>>
>> As a matter of fact, yes. I have actually read parts of mine.
>> (on an as-needed basis, looking for oil capacity, how much refrigerant I can
>> put into the AC etc.)
>>
>
>We must be a rare breed, then. I read my owners manual, and actually bought the
>shop manual to the car, as well. I may not do all the work on it myself, but the
>more Iknow about my car, the less likely any service shop will try pull the wool
>over my eyes.
Unfortunately, there isn' a shop manual for my car, otherwise I would have
that too.
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:38:56 GMT
In article <ODmH4.854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ckab9$4nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ?????
> > Show me ONE place where Apple has strong armed a hardware vendor
> > (independant of Apple its self) into pre-loading to the exclution of
> > every one else the Mac OS. In deed, show me any vendor that Apple
strong
> > armed into suppleing ONLY Apple products (you must PROVE that Apple
> > strong armed or threatened the company) Without doing so, you can
NOT
> > claim Mac is being just as aggressive and draconian as MS.
>
> Apples Authorized Dealer program prevents an apple dealer from loading
> anything other than MacOS on machines for sale.
>
> Also, Apple denied Be critical information it needed to continue to
operate
> under Apples hardware, forcing them out of the market.
>
>
Then I would suggest Be take them to court for anti trust violations, if
what you say is true. I see no poof offered just your word Franky an you
have be wong SOOOOOOOOOOO many times before that I don't trust your
word.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:55:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 08 Apr 2000 04:05:55 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Isn't is just a riot! I can't believe peoples stupidity.
>
>People still debating which OS is superior Linux or Microsoft.
I suspect people debate the superiority of, say, Nintendo versus Sega,
Ford vs. Chevy, steel vs. wood (roller coasters & buildings),
Redskins vs. Niners (OK, maybe not that one :-) ), Metallica
vs. The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, etc.
So? Nothing wrong with that per se, although some of the Windows
advocates occasionally come unprepared, IMO. :-) Of course, that
doesn't mean that all Linux advocates are omniscient, either. :-)
(I certainly am not.)
>
>Well,
> It's totally true that my linux desktop hasn't been re-booted
>in 6 months. In that time, I've written
>maybe 20 or so C++ programs, and compiled a kernel a couple of times,
But never installed it?
Maybe someday one will be able to "hot-swap" a kernel (I know one
can hot-swap a CPU in Sun's new hardware -- delightful concept!
Also, Visual C++ 6.0 has the ability -- don't ask me how they do it --
to recompile code modifications and incorporate them into a process
being debugged), but as of right now, one has to recompile kernel,
copy, rerun LILO (to set up the ancillary data structures properly),
and reboot.
Perhaps you meant "loadable kernel module" (which *is* possible)?
(Side point: I've just discovered that my one desktop has been in Linux
for 38 days. My firewall box hasn't been rebooted in 118 days. Not
that impressive for Linux, actually -- but not bad, either.)
>web browsed till bed-time every
>night, wrote letters to freinds and newsgroups, experimented with
>different X desktops, played with
>strange and exotic GNU software and read thru about 10 man pages and
>info pages.
>
> At work I've got NT 4.0 for my OS and I compiled, and wrote
>business letters yet I have to re-boot
>my NT box every morning or it will blue screen on my by around 1-2 pm
>every day I forget to re-boot.
This could be because of a number of factors. My NT machine at work
is not nearly as unstable -- although it's possible our IT department
runs around like daemons rebooting NT machines during the weekend or
something. (I doubt it, admittedly.)
This doesn't mean I trust it, though -- it *is* NT, and I *did* have
Visual Studio go belly-up on me at least once. Of course, that's
Visual Studio, not the entire system [*]. I've also had some other
funny behavior ("what icon did you want to view for this filetype today?",
or "Oh, you really didn't want those tooltips anyway" [+], or
"Network? *WHAT* network?").
>
> Just about all my Linux desktops have multiple desktops to
>switch back and forth into and out of.
>My Windowmaker has 8 seperate desktops for my use. I wish NT had 8
>seperate desktops. I wish
>NT had a free C++ compiler and database.
I'm pretty sure one can get G++ to work on NT, although I for one
haven't tried it. (There might not be much of a point; the compiler
is less of an issue than all of the procedure call declarations needed
to compile a proper Windows program. :-) )
As for separate desktops -- there are options; not sure how well
they work. The one that comes to mind is called "Zones" -- I think it
had to do with XVision, an X Windows server running on NT. HP also
had some sort of port.
>I wish NT ran as quickly as
>linux does. I wish NT multi tasked
>as well as linux does. I wish NT could network as easily as linux does.
I for one wish that Linux could be accepted as easily into the corporate
community as NT and Win2K apparently is. :-) (Maybe, given time... :-) )
>
>But it doesn't. And I could debate a Microsoft fan until I were blue in
>the face and it wouldn't matter to him how good linux is as he's never
>going to leave Microsoft. He doesn't care.
Or he may not know.
I've knocked around for a bit -- couldn't avoid it, really -- on
various machine types; perhaps it's because I graduated back in '83.
Maybe my perspective is totally skewed from working on Vaxes, PDP 11/34s,
Apollo DOMAINs, That Ugly Monstrosity Formerly Known As Daisy,
Suns and HPs, and at home the Amiga, and of course the Linux x86
machine I'm using now, using COBOL, a smattering of Fortran, Pascal,
C, C++, and a bit of Java.
(I still have a certain fondness for a certain removable disk pack
that was sold by Apollo. It was the size of a washing machine,
and could hold all of 300 megabytes. Today I can hold 5 times that
amount of data in my palm [I have a Syjet 1.5 Gb unit]; tomorrow, it
might be 20 [I don't know what Zip drives can do, since I don't have
one!].)
Maybe all they need is a bit of perspective. :-) I'd like to see NT
*try* to compete with some of Sun's newer hardware, or a Tandem machine
running a database with gigabytes -- or perhaps terabytes! -- of
information. (Or even a multiprocessor Sparc running Oracle, for
that matter.)
Does Intel have a 64-processor box that runs NT yet? :-) (Nothing
against Intel, actually -- for some reason, I don't hold a grudge
against their hardware. I feel sorry for them! They still have
to support ancient 8086 code for reasons only known to the
software market.)
[snip for brevity]
>The day for commerically written OS's has passed into history.
>
>Whether you debate about it or not. Who gives a flip.
Microsoft might, since they have an economic interest :-).
>
>Charlie
>
[*] One could conceivably have vi dump core on a Linux box as well.
There are three differences: [1] this is recoverable from using
'vi -r', [2] one can merely reinvoke vi within the same xterm,
and have a reasonable chance of not missing a beat, and [3] vi
is so small and so old that the code's probably had most of the bugs
beaten out of it :-). I suspect Emacs has similar recoverability
options, although I can't say I know since I don't use it.
[+] These particular tooltips float around the icon buttons to the
right of the Start menu button. They mirror the icon titles, which
sounds silly until one realizes that they can be long titles.
The bug in this case is that the tooltips shrink to almost nothing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 16:00:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 08 Apr 2000 02:00:41 GMT
<dpwH4.4373$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: But there are others, and hopefully some of them will either
>: find that Linux is far improved from their expectations,
>: or have requirements that Windows (NT or 2K) simply can't meet,
>: but Linux can.
>
>I use Linux to near-exclusion. Thanks to Y2K, I about abandoned Windows
>altogether. Now, about Y2K+38....
January 19, 2038, 03:14:08 GMT. time_t flips sign.
Consider yourselves warned. :-)
(Hopefully by that time it won't be an issue and we'll all be using
256-bit integer hardware or something.)
>
>--
>CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
>
>4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT? Not There. No Thanks.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
