Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: About GNU kernels (mlw)
Re: Rumors ... ("Robert Moir")
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Tim Jackson")
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Bloody Viking)
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Bloody Viking)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Rumors ... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Make linux primary OS at work? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Rumors ... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Jim Ross")
Re: Rumors ... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Running as administrator all the time Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Bloody
Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: About GNU kernels
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:33:40 -0400
ax wrote:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:51:14 GMT,
> > ax, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >
> > >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> ax wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 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....
> > >>
> > >> This whole micro vs monolithic kernel debate is stupid. There is
> nothing
> > >> that keeps a microkernel from gaining the bloat that is mostly
> > >> attributed to monolithic kernels. There is nothing that says that a
> > >> monolithic can't implement features attributed to microkernels.
> > >>
> > >
> > >We can rewrite Linux in machine code '0' and '1' which can do
> > >everything Linux can do and may be even faster than Linux.
> > >But nobody really wants to go back to the good old 70s to do so.
> >
> > It is in "0"s and "1"s, thats why we compile the C source code...
> >
>
> Cannot find anyone around me still code directly with '0's and '1's.
> I did that in 70s but that remained in my memory only.
>
> > >
> > >Technology is the driving force. An OS built with old tech
> > >has the risk of being challenged sooner or later.
> >
> > But you first have to show that the old tech, is not as good as the
> > new tech. Which you have failed to do. So.
> > 1) What are the advantages to a micro kernel design that cannot
> > be duplicated in a monolithic kernel
> > 2) Are there any examples of a micro kernel that demonstrate these
> > advantages, or are they purely theoretical.
> >
>
> I remember someone posted old discussions between Linus and
> the professor who built minix a while ago. In my memory, even Linus
> agreed that he made a poor choice to use monolithic architecture
> (correct me if I misunderstood Linus).
My personal take on Linus, and this is in no way an informed opinion, is
that he is a pragmatist. The arcane dispute between Microkernels and
Macrokernels can be brought to a well defined debate, however, in the
real world, distinctions are usually quite blurred. I don't suspect
Linus cares if he is working on a "micro" or "monolithic" kernel, it is
all just buzz words. Sort of like the people who draw a distinction
between "Grady Booch" or "Rumbaugh" methodologies of object oriented
programming. (forgive spelling errors of the names, please.)
>
> >
> > >> As we have seen with many microkernel implementations, monolithic
> kernel
> > >> practices are creeping in. (Anyone taken a good look at NT lately?)
> With
> > >> Linux, we are seeing many microkernel-esque features, like kernel
> > >> modules and loadable filesystems.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yes. Linux had incorporated many microkernel-like features.
> > >That's a good effort, I believe.
> >
> > So does this remove the need you see, to recode the kernel as a micro
> > kernel? if not, are you aware of the MkLinux (Micro Kernel Linux) project?
> >
>
> I am not aware of MkLinux. I will look into it later. Thanks.
>
> > >I had looked into the Linux kernel lately and found it full
> > >of kludge, inconsistency and lots of low programming skill
> > >code segments. Looked like some students had not attended
> > >programming and software engineering courses before they
> > >contributed their code. There are areas in Linux kernel
> > >so poorly coded that changing one line has the risk of breaking
> > >hundred things. It's monolithic nature makes Linux relatively
> > >difficult to maintain in the course of its future evolution.
> >
> > This is a little misleading, in any program, changing one line
> > somewhere can have catastrophic effects.
> > You may be right about the quality of some of the kernel code, I don't
> > know, I am no hotshit C hacker, but why do you think Linux differs in this
> > way from any other OS? Why do you seem to think that Linux being
> monolithic
> > contributes to this "bad code" ? After all, were the standard linux kernel
> > to be rewritten in micro kernel form, it would likely be these same
> programmers
> > doing it.
>
> I taught in universities before. This is probably why I can feel
> the level of the programming expertise by just looking at the code.
Most of the worst code comes from universities, especially professors.
There are many ways in which one must audit code. OS code should, and
does, look quite bad at times. Efficiency, either in speed or size, or
both, are WAY more important that it looking good. I have looked at some
of the code in Linux as well. While I do agree with you to a point, I
don't think I see anything fundamentally wrong. There are times I will
look at the code, and say to myself that I would do it differently, but
if it works and isn't "wrong" then it is OK.
>
> Linux provides the opportunity for less skilled undergrads
> to participate in the kernel development. Based on my
> personal experience, kernel level work requires higher
> level of expertise. There is nothing wrong for undergrads
> to participate in the kernel development since Linux
> was originally a university project. But Linux was pushed
> to the commercial stage which may incur different
> requirements and issues. There is always some gap
> between university work and industry.
>
> Monolithic architecture is harder to maintain. Bad code makes
> things worse.
This is a bogus argument. A well written monolithic kernel will be much
easier to maintain than a poorly written microkernel. It is a quality
issue, not an approach issue. It is obvious you have a bias against
monolithic kernels, and that's OK, but it is sort of like the RISK vs
CISC debate. Techniques of both are important to making a good processor
chip. Both are inefficient at both ends of the scale, it is the balance
between the extremes that makes a good system.
>
> If the OS kernel is better structured, the bad coded OS is much
> easier to refine and evolve over time.
>
> > What you are suggesting is that everyone stop advancing, and go back and
> redo
> > years of work that have allready been done. Unlikely to happen. You are of
> > course, welcome to begin and start showing us how it's done. That is the
> beauty
> > of open source. Don't like it? start to fix it. If others agree, they'll
> help.
> >
>
> Software refinement and enhancement is integral part of software
> development.
> Linux is no exception.
And we see it happening at a constant rate.
>
> > >> >
> > >> > (2). GPL
> > >> >
> > >> > Linux gains its popularity due to GPL. But Linux businesses
> > >> > are suffering from the lack of sound business model due
> > >> > to GPL too.
> > >> >
> > >> > Without GPL, Linux will not achieve what it has achieved
> > >> > to date. But with GPL, Linux businesses will attempt to
> > >> > challenge the traditional business wisdom with its
> > >> > so called "bizarre business model".
> > >> >
> > >> > It's hard to tell if the "bizarre wisdom" will win. But
> somehow,
> > >> > the stock market seems to start punishing the "bizarre".
> > >>
> > >> The GPL is just one way to make a living with Linux. Applix sells
> > >> software which is not GPL, which runs on Linux, they are making a
> > >> profit. What is bizarre about that? Once you think about it, they only
> > >> bizarre thing is that there is no need to pay Microsoft for what can
> > >> only be called "sub-standard" software.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I am interested in knowing more about Applix and the
> > >ways to escape GPL.
> >
> > Simple, write software that doesn't link to any GPL code, and sell it.
> > What's to explain. Loki does it with games, Applix with office S/W, and
> > many others do it with other programs. Including kernel modules and device
> > drivers. Linux is GPL, that does not mean that everything running on a
> linux
> > system has to be. You could make a totally (except for the kernel) GPL
> free
> > system if you chose. (it'd be tough to live without some of the gnu-tools
> > but it can be done. ) I doubt this distrol (call it, um Foonix :) would be
> > real popular, but hey, someone might buy it.
> >
>
> Thanks. I am still quite fuzzy on the boundary between GPL and non-GPL.
> I need to collect more information on this.
One is allowed to link to shared libraries without actually being a GPL
program.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 23:29:15 +0100
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> 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?
>
> 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?
What they are saying, I think, is that you can go into work and do something
legally monday, and because it was so successful that your company expands
in size and market share, you can do the same thing tuesday and break the
law. But only if someone six months down the line reviews what you did and
feels that way inclined. If they are in a good mood then maybe you didn't
actually break the law until you did it again on Thursday. Well that makes
sense.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:42:13 -0500
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cl7ad$cfu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Apple hasn't been tried yet, but assuming the same exact yardstick were
to
> > be applied to Apple, then Apple would also be convicted for things such
as
> > killing the Mac clone market and forcing Be out of the PPC market.
>
> Apple is not capable of taking any action that would negatively impact the
> *vast* majority of the PC market.
That's PPC (PowerPC) market. Not PC market. Judge Jackson has ruled that
Apple is not in the PC market. Therefore, any actions they take can only
effect the PPC desktop market.
> Your logic, like your education and your facts, is flawed.
Apple is certainly capable of, and has strong armed their own market.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:43:38 -0500
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cleq0$ra3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's exactly what Judge Jackson ruled. Microsoft is a monopoly in the
> > Intel Desktop PC market, not the Desktop PC market.
>
> There are dozens of manufacturers of Intel equipment. There is one
manufacturer
> of apple equipment.
Because Apple forced the clone makers out of the market. There used to be
companies like UMax that made Mac clone hardware.
> I'm not sure that I understand why youre missing the exceedingly obvious
> here.
You're missing it. There are no longer any Mac clones because Apple forced
them out of the market. They did this by refusing to sell them ROM and OS
liscenses.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 00:23:06 +0100
This is going a bit off topic, but I can bring it back.
Haynes car manuals spread beyond the States long ago.
Here in the UK they are the main source of inspiration for home mechanics.
In my youth they were considered badly written,
eg I had one which omitted to mention fitting pistons when building an
engine!
However they are much better now.
A common phrase was "to have been Haynesed",
ie to have followed instructions blindly and so wound up with something that
didn't work.
Now which OS does that remind me of???
--
Tim Jackson, UK
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 8 Apr 2000 15:40:28 GMT,
> Jeremy Crabtree, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Leonard F. Agius allegedly wrote:
> >>
> >>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.
> >
>
> Check for a Haynes manual, (making a huge assumption here that you are in
> the US.) Haynes manuals are nice because of the way they are set up. They
> really help IMHO.
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:38:54 GMT
Ilya Grishashvili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
You didn't have to shout the obvious. I'm a Linux fan, but I admit it's
not for everybody, certainly not yet. Techie types are the most likely to
adopt Linux. In this case, I'm not a techie but I came to enjoy using it,
in CLI mode no less.
So far, mostly techies are UNIXheads. For the Joe Average, Linux isn't
well-suited. That's becuse it can get hard to configure. Consider adding
hardware. Windows 95 does a fairly good job with the plug and play thing.
I've even used it for diagnostics. With Linux, you often have to compile
the kernel, a task most people find confusing.
I'm more of a Joe Average than a techie, but I got persistent and
ultimately adopted Linux. It has the features I like. I chose it becuse
it's freeware. It does have limitations in terms of office style apps, and
this problem is getting better. I live in the "dark ages" whereby I still
prefer a CLI over a GUI. Apps are not a major turn-on for me but a cool OS
is. I first got into computers in the mid-80s with a Commodore but
couldn't afford the disk drive and the apps were all on disk. I merely
compensated by learning some programming. I still have that habit around
computering, and it's why this Joe Average likes Linux. (:
My only minor complaint with Linux is that there's no good QBASIC with it.
The solution is to simply learn some C instead. There is a QB2C converter
out there too, and I have a copy. That's why I consider this a minor
complaint. I found a solution I like.
The age-old hardware problem is more of a problem, but it's solved by
careful shopping. So, I have no real complaint here either. I merely
learned to live with Linux over time.
The biggest problem with Linux is the fact it's pretty much of a hacker
OS. Most Joe Average types are not willing or able to get the hacker
mentality. From my computer beginnings, I have the mentality, while others
are willing to "just" throw money at the problem.
--
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/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:47:26 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8cnjqe$k87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
And every time i've proven you wrong.
http://www.be.com/support/faqs/faqs/be_faq-00083.html
"Will BeOS support newer Macs? G3s, iMacs, G4s, etc.?
Short explanation
Not without Apple's support and encouragement, which we have asked for and
has been declined. "
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:43:14 GMT
Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Linux looks better than Windows. Just look at the enlightenment/Gnome thing.
: But you're right, everything bears some kinda resemblance with M$.
You should try my desktop out. Hope you like the C Shell! And I login with
the Minicom term proggie and use a shell account to get on the net. CLI
all the way. I don't even bother with X most of the time.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:48:33 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:38:54 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ilya Grishashvili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Neither is WinDOS.
This is why choice, and a genuinely free market are good things.
It allows the consumer to make meaningful choices rather than
being restricted to a single option out of practical necessity.
[deletia]
Those that would put one of those 'pissing on Ford' stickers on
their Chevy truck should have the option to use the product that
they would choose, rather than one dictated by a natural monpoly.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:54:24 GMT
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 23:30:55 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8cl4ub$cei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <ODmH4.854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ckab9$4nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> ?????
[deletia]
>> >Apples Authorized Dealer program prevents an apple dealer from loading
>> >anything other than MacOS on machines for sale.
>>
>> Make sense. Unlike Microsoft, and like Atari and Commodore, Apple
>has/offers
>> a warrenty on these machines....
>>
>> >
>> >Also, Apple denied Be critical information it needed to continue to
>operate
>> >under Apples hardware, forcing them out of the market.
>> >
>>
>> Since people have ported linux to Apple's hardware, that says something
>> about the skills of the BE crowd,doesn't it?
>
>Nicely avoiding that this sounds way more monopolistic than anyone else
>(except possibly sun) in the whole computing business spectrum there!
No it doesn't. Others are successfully co-existing with the
'monopolist' just fine. Be could infact exploit the information
represented by Yellow Dog and friends. They choose 'not to bother'.
[deletia]
For the most part, current Macs are little more than PC's with a
different sort of CPU. There's not that much tha Apple can withold.
Lack of cooperation from ATI (wrt current Macs) is much more relevant
than lack of cooperation from Apple itself.
Be just doesn't want to undertake the effort, this 'documentation
issue' just presents a way make it appear to some (gullible) people
that Be not quite so lame as they are.
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Make linux primary OS at work?
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:55:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: So here's my current situation:
[cut or clamp, your choice]
In theory, if you own a business, you could indeed use Linux throughout.
The trick is that you'll have to learn SOME programming and techie stuff.
For example, keyboard-wedge scanners do work on Linux and you only have to
code up a cash register proggie. This is not hard to do, and you could add
in inventory control stuff as well. I did something like this on a lark,
just for fun. So, if I owned a business I could indeed code up the
software I would need, and I'm no hot-shot C programmer.
The biggest problem with Linux is interfacing with OTHER businesses, and
that's due to the bullshit file formatting Megalosloth uses. That's where
you'll find problems.
--
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/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:57:30 GMT
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 23:24:46 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[...]
[deletia]
>Is it *really* microsoft's fault the competition produced good operating
>systems and then hired Monkeys to sell them?
NO, it's Microsoft's fault that they extorted those who typically
sell operating systems to end consumers (OEMs). Calling the marketing
department of various software companies incompetent is just a
convenient circular & post factum argument.
Coke brand soda doesn't need to be consumed only with Coke-compatible
products. That's a considerable market barrier that the likes of the
Weinhard's brewery don't have to contend with when trying to sell
their 'Coke replacement'.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:49:36 -0400
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Daniel O'Nolan wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > >: Try this:
> > > >: cd /
> > > >: cd ..
> >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Actually, when you type:
> > cd \
> > cd ..
> > in DOS it does the same thing.
>
> <pedant point>
> c:\foo> cd \
> c:\> cd ..
> Invalid Directory
>
> c:\>
>
> </pedant point>
>
> -Ed
The behavior is very close, but not identical.
Does this prove anything really?
Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --Dan O'Nolan
>
> --
> Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
> which
> is over three trillion years old?
> -The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 00:02:01 GMT
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:47:26 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8cnjqe$k87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > 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.
>
>And every time i've proven you wrong.
>
>http://www.be.com/support/faqs/faqs/be_faq-00083.html
>
>"Will BeOS support newer Macs? G3s, iMacs, G4s, etc.?
That's more due to their own lack of initiative than any barriers
put in place by Apple. The Apple-proprietary aspects of Apple's
current machines are actually rather minor.
>
> Short explanation
>Not without Apple's support and encouragement, which we have asked for and
>has been declined. "
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running as administrator all the time Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 00:07:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Timothy J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Probably not to the degree that Windows users tend to run as
: administrator all the time. Many Windows users have become
: accustomed to "run as administrator all the time" because:
I do have the bad habit of using Linux as "root" all the time. At least I
know that this is a dangerous habit. I got into this bad habit thanks to
DOS. That's becuse of course DOS has no system for setting up normal
accounts like UNIX and Linux has.
I can easally see where a new NT user would develop this bad habit due to
95 being a single-user type of OS like DOS is. I fell victim to this bad
habit myself, after all. This situation makes for a cool psychological
thing to study.
--
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/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
