Linux-Advocacy Digest #121, Volume #26 Fri, 14 Apr 00 03:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates on T.V. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: The truth is often painful... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (Donn Miller)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (Donn Miller)
Re: Vehical Comparisons ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: How does WINE work? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Programming Languages (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates on T.V.
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:47:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:21:27 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:41:43 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Microsoft is trying to convince the
> >> > Supreme Court (through the mass
> >> > media and popular opinion) that the
> >> > consumer is better of with
> >> > the Microsoft Monopoly that it would
> >> > be in the competitive market.
> >
> >Let's look at some of Microsoft's other "Contributions" and compare
> >them to more competitive markets (UNIX).
> [snip all sorts of interesting stuff]
>
> here in NYC the subways are littered with ads for Windows2K. the
> slogan is "a new standard in reliability" or something like that.
> Although I first read this as a bizarre admission by M$ that windows
> is buggy and crashes all the time, I think I now understand where they
> are going.
Bottom line is that Microsoft Windows crashes have become a joke that
isn't even funny. Several television commercials show users sitting
in front of a crashing windows console begging the computer not to
crash, and furious when it does.
Time and labor lost due to windows crashes is a serious problem,
especially when the crash wipes out the work of a consultant charging
$200+/hour.
The bottom line is that Windows crashes were hitting the bottom line.
Microsoft at one point had almost 30% of the Internet server market,
and has been going down hill since. Meanwhile Linux has jumped from
17% to 26% of the server market from January 1998 to January 1999, and
that was only based on number of units sold, not the number of actual
servers installed. Worse, Linux, BSD, and Solaris make up almost 80%
of the server market - and in July of 1998, Linux declared that Linux
should take over the desktop.
> M$ is trying to convince the consumers
> that an operating system that
> doesn't crash all the time is yet another
> M$ "innovation."
Like some of Microsoft's other "Innovations".
Availability on:
Feature Microsoft UNIX
Heirarchal File System MS-DOS 2.0 (1983) Version 2 (1978)
Multitasking Windows 3.1(1991) Version 1 (1978)
Preemptive Multitasking Windows NT (1994) Version 1 (1978)
ShortCuts/Symbolic Links Windows 95 (1996) BSD 4.0 (1983)
MTS/Fork() Windows 2000 Version 2 (1978)
Message Queues Windows 2000 SysV.R1 (1984)
Remote Console Windows 2000 SunOS 1.0 (1984)
Windows Windows 3.0 (1990) SunOS 1.0 (1984)
Integrated Software Office (1994) Open Desktop (1991)
Use of C Visual C 1.0 (1990) Version 2 (1978)
Object Oriented Design Windows 1.0 (1990) bdevsw (1979)
Plug and Play Windows 95 (1996) Linux 1994
Internet Windows 3.11 (1994) BSD 4.0 (1983)
E-mail Windows 95 Version 6 (1979)
Communities/NewsGroups Windows 95 Version 6 (1979)
Messaging/Talk Windows 98 Version 7 (1979)
Messaging/Chat Windows 98 BSD 2.1 (1981)
Damand Paged Virtual memory Win NT (1994) BSD 4.0 (1983)
Protected Memory Segmentation Win NT (1994) Version 6 (1979)
Directory Services Windows 2000 Perpos (1983)
Some "Innovations" Microsoft hasn't introduced yet:
Fast context switch fork() Unix 1979
Full Interprocess Communications Version 2 1978
Hard links Version 6 1980
Parser generators (YACC) Version 7 1980
Fast Rules Engines (Prolog) BSD 4.1 1984
Process level components Version 2 1978
Unix domain Sockets BSD 4.0
Protected shared Libraries BSD 4.2/SysVr3 1985
Posix Level Three Compatibility 1991 (X11/R3).
Effecient use of SCSI BSD 4.2 1986
High Speed Fiber Optic Interface(FDDI) SysV 1987
Fully Distributed Clusters (RAIS) Perpos (1984).
> Here's the logic.
> 95 percent of desktops run windows.
Ignorance is bliss. Linux has been available Since 1992. It had
full support for X11 Windows by January of 1993, complete with a
user interface nearly identical to the $10,000 Sun.
Why didn't people hear about this? Because Microsoft controlled
advertising revenue in excess of $4 billion/year including direct
ads, co-op ads, and tie-in ads. Publications like Byte Magazine
that attempted to give Linux positive coverage were punished by
having advertisments pulled - in some cases as many as 20-30 full
page equivalents were pulled from a single publication. Dow Jones
even had full page ads pulled from the Wall Street Journal.
> Therefore, the experience of 95 percent of desktop users is that pc's
> are buggy and difficult creatures.
But remember, for the average Microsoft user, the transition from
Windows 3.0 which crashed about once an hour to Windows 3.1 which
crashed 3-5 times a day to Windows 95 which crashed once a day,
Windows 95 was the best thing they had ever experienced. Those
fortunate few who had Windows NT 4.0 installed on their desktops
were thrilled that Windows NT 4.0 only locked up or crashed about
once or twice a week.
Suddenly, the prospect of Windows 2000, a system that - when running
redesigned custom applications designed to exploit MTS and other
Windows 2000 features, can run for 2 weeks without an unscheduled
failure is thrilling.
Of course the legendary stories of Linux really do need to be
taken with a grain of salt. Linux servers are quite easily capable
of going 3-6 months without a reboot, and there are reports of
Linux machines that have run as long as 5 years without a reboot,
scheduled or otherwise.
To set more realistic expectations, X11 does occaisionally lock-up
(specific versions of the Xfree SVGA server). Netscape 4.x has a
memory leak that can suck 30 megabytes in 3-5 hours under just the
right circumstances (very large text-boxes). In general however,
the are generally ways to "rescue" even the most "locked up" system
without rebooting it.
> this perception is reinforced
> because virtually everyone they compare notes with has the same kind
> of experiences. the perception is further reinforced by selective
> recollection of experiences, such as being told by some customer
> service agent over the phone (e.g., cell phone company) that the
> system is "down" and they should call back later.
Bottom line - - -
Until we start seeing Linux desktop machines, fully operational, on
the retail sales floor, probably as dual-boot machines (both Windows
and Linux) so that the curious and mildly interested can get an
"up close look" at Linux, fully configured as a desktop environment,
Microsoft can protect it's monopoly with "smoke and mirrors".
In the server market, Linux is winning, and it's growing at a
phenominal rate. According to the Netcraft survey, Apache is
growing at a rate of over 1 million sites per month - mostly Linux and
BSD (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) systems. The recent merger of Walnut
Creek (FreeBSD) and BSDi has confirmed my predictions that commercial
interests would try to "take over" FreeBSD with a proprietary version.
> So, average computer user is conditioned to regard computers as
> inherently susceptible to crashing and freezes. M$ comes along with a
> "reliable" o/s and takes credit in the consumer's eye for finally
> taming the wild beast of the pc.
Except that the hype and the reality are still too far apart. Sure,
if you run EXCLUSIVELY Microsoft Software designed for Windows 2000
(Office 2000, Enterprise Edition, SQL Server 2000...) you might have
a more reliable system. Unfortunately, if you are running third party
applications such as Netscape, Lotus Notes, DB2, Sybase, Oracle, or
even something like Norton Utilities - - you can still expect
some problems. Of course, you also need more memory, more drive
space - cheaper to get a new computer - and keep the old one to
run --- Linux!
Microsoft may be slitting it's own throat. Most charities won't
even take machines less than a Pentium 133 with less than 1 gigabyte
drives. But Linux runs very nicely on these systems. Rather than
pull the old system, you can give second machines to those who want
to learn/try Linux. You can even run Linux from a Windows X11
interface.
> This is coming along just when linux is beginning to rear its fair
> head.
Literally. Microsoft has had to walk a very thin line with Windows
2000. If they use too many strong-arm tactics, it would be like
throwing gasoline on the DOJ fire. Since this case is definately
going to the Supreme court, Microsoft doesn't want the DOJ pulling
up contempt of court charges and numerous examples of new ways that
Microsoft has been trying to protect it's monopoly.
At the same time, Microsoft has to keep as many people as possible as
ignorant as possible. The Linux Desktop initiative began in July of
1998, the first fully functional version of KDE wasn't available until
July of 1999. The first versions of Mandrake - which came with
Partition Magic (Lite) and Boot Magic came out around September.
Red Hat didn't include PM/BM until the release of 6.2.
Linux still needs the literal "bells and whistles" (sound cards),
and USB and DVD support to really eat the market. This won't go
unnoticed by the DOJ - especially given the influence of Microsoft
on these standards. Also, the use of Winmodems will probably decrease.
Right now OEMs are beginning to experience "Linux Pressure". For
example, users are requesting CD-ROM drives instead of DVD, ISA
modems instead of PCI Winmodems, and more are ordering "Bare bones"
configurations containing as little extra software as possible
(usually Win98 and Works) which will be either removed or shrunk.
More users are buying second drives, partition magic, and system
commander, all symptoms of Linux installations. Linux companies
are growing at the rate of 100%/year even when there are more
competitors.
> As consumers start to hear the popular buzz on linux, that it's
> stable and doesn't crash, M$ will counter with "hey, WE innovated the
> stable o/s with windows2000, don't be fooled by cheap imitations....."
But Windows is a cheap imitation of UNIX - remember, Bill Gates dubbed
Windows NT "A Better UNIX than UNIX" - comparing it to $20,000
workstations like Sun, Linux actually delivered what Microsoft
promised. Linux solved the configuration problems associated with
the PC environment with Plug-n-Play Linux. It solved the problem
of Driver management with driver Modules.
> I do think however that linux is gaining momentum. We are using it
> more and more in my office. Once you've experienced the joys of
> linux, you never go back.
>
Yes, Linux is gaining momentum. The big name OEMs are now competing
with Cobalt Qube and Raq systems, and VA Linux workstations and servers
as well as "Netwinder" style Linux Workstation/Servers.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 05:52:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A lot of half-truths and diatribes here, but the simple truth is this:
> when it comes to business oriented desktop software Linux applications
> are AT LEAST TWO GENERATIONS BEHIND the stuff Microsoft produces.
Well, hosehead, in case you hadn't noticed, generations in this industry
are measured in months now. I can wait....
> Please note that I am a Linux advocate. My home network is Linux. I
> believe in the principles, the ethics, of open source and admire the
> people who have made GNU/Linux a reality. I use Netscape 4.7, both
for
> email and news, not because I ACTUALLY PREFER Netscape, but because
> there is nothing better available on Linux.
Well you're certainly the kind of advocate Linux needs. It would be
better if you used Netscape because it was superior to Internet Explorer
in some way, not just because it "sucked less" than something else.
> Personally, I think that's pathetic, given the quality of the Linux
> OS--but it's true. Applixware? StarOffice? Get real. If I had a
> choice, based purely on functionality, I'd take Office 95 over either.
I use MSOffice, WPO2K, and StarOffice, and MS is the award-winning worst
in features and functionality. But I'll bet I do different things with
them than you do.
> In fact, I'd take Word 2.0, Excel 5.0 and Access 2.0 over any similar
> programs currently available for Linux.
You have got to be kidding. That's the office software list from hell.
> I use Linux because I love its open nature, its flexibility, its
> empowerment, and because I believe in the philsophy/ethics of the Free
> Software Foundation. I cannot contribute as a programmer, because I
> don't possess the skills.
No shit.
> But I can offer an honest evaluation based on
> years of experience with a wide range of business oriented desktop
> software in a business environment, and the truth is that in this
> particular realm Linux SUCKS.
If you were really in a business environment, you would know that the
average user has a rough time finding their way home after eight hours
at the office. Give them weekends off and they forget where they work.
Change a menu item, and they blindly keep typing whatever it was they
used to type that used to work until a cow-orker with a surviving brain
cell sees that they need help. Swap out Microsoft for Linux, UNIX, or
PACMAN, and your business user won't notice until you tell them. Then
they'll complain about how wonderful the old system was even though they
were never able to make it work. Put it back the way it was and they'll
complain about the "new" system, even though its really the old system.
> I fervently hope to see the day when that
> is no longer true.
Well, it ain't true for me today. But it'll never, never ever work for
you anytime. And that's an honest evaluation based on more years of
business experience than you've been alive.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:15:40 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Bastian wrote:
> A light bulb hardly ever screws up when it's running. The dangerous point
> (as with every electrical device) is the time when you switch it on. It has
> something to do with Ohm... (don't ask me about the details please :-)
Well, the problem is with incandescent light bulbs. By switching the
thing on and off a bunch of times, the tungsten filament warms and
cools, causing thermal stresses, which in turn shortens the life of
the filament. If you leave it on constantly, though, there is no
warming up and cooling down; it's just warm all the time.
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 02:19:20 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What's really bizarre is that we accept, as normal, downtimes with
> personal computers that we wouldn't tolerate with anything else we
> owned. If my auto quit working for no apparent reason at all two or
> three times a day, I'd be at the dealer raising bloody hell. If my
Also, cars last longer when you put a given amount of miles on them by
going on long trips (analogous to leaving your computer on) as opposed
to putting the same number of miles with a lot of little stop-and-go
type trips. Those little stop-and-go trip drivers are a lot like
Windows users. Unix users (FreeBSD, Linux) are like the drivers who
go on long highway trips.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:12:56 GMT
In article <8d1q7b$6p7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Computer OS's were Vehicals then Linux would be a car.
Yeah. A '70 AAR 'Cuda. An awesome beast in the hands of a skilled
motorhead....
>
> When the fuel runs out you fix the problem your self or you can hit
the horn
> and someone might come out to fill the tank up for you.
A horn? Adds weight, raises the ETs. No horn. rm horn.
> When you get a puncture you can either fix the puncture your self or
you
> might beable to call out a breakdown company to do it for you.
Or you could teardown and rebuild the engine yourself with a only a pair
of pliers and a rounded-off screwdriver, by the side of the road, and
get it back together in time to blow the doors off the rich kid's 'vette
before the sun comes up. (guess which OS is the rich kid's 'vette?)
> When you head gasket goes you can either get someone to replace it for
you
> or you can dismantle the head your self and replace it.
Replace it, hell. While it's off, polish and port the damned thing.
> Now if Windows was a vehical it would be a Ship
It was. Navy. Bluescreened. Had to be towed into port, too.
> If it Runs out of fuel then you drift about until the Helicopter finds
you
> If it runs out of food then you starve until the Helicopter finds you
> If the captain has messed up then there is nothing you can do about it
> If it hit an Iceberg, Youre f****d
> So what would you rather travel in
The helicopter.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism
Date: 14 Apr 2000 02:31:01 -0400
On 14 Apr 2000 02:23:21 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>"Democratic government" is as much of an oxymoron as "communist country".
>
>: How so ? Choose your favourite definition of "democracy" or "democratic",
>: and explain your viewpoint.
>
>Three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
I like it ! I'd call that "utilitarianism" though.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:43:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Keith T. Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:06:43 -0400
<%ftJ4.6294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Wine implements the win32 API under Linux. When it is per-
>> > fected, any win32 application that runs under Windows should
>> > also run well under Wine and Linux without modification (if
>> > the app itself is bug-free). Wine will be, in effect, a
>> > win32 subsystem for Linux.
>> >
>>
>> Any programmer knows bug-free software is near impossible. The day that
>> happens, we're God.
>
>There are no bugs, just unintenitional features.
And once they're documented, they become documented unintentional
features... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and some of these "features" could drive one buggy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:46:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:37:48 +1000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>
>>
>> I will agree with you that Wine will never be a match to Windows. Also,
>> Wine doesn't solve the pesky .DLL overwrite fun and games whereby adding
>> an app overwrites a .DLL and an earlier app loses some .DLL call and of
>> course crashes. So, you have to hit ALT-F2 and login as root to type in
>> "shutdown -r now".
>
>Uh isn't that the windows solution to app crashes. How about just 'kill
><bad-app-pid>'.
That doesn't always work, unfortunately. Much as I dislike Windows,
Netscape is worse, at least on Linux (I don't precisely know why,
either). Maybe when Mozilla gets good enough to build (it's not
all that bad now, but it's slow as a pig in molasses), or Netscape
6 gets ported (or even better, open-sourced!), we'll be better off.
However, 'killall -9 netscape' always works for me; the main
problem is removing .netscape/lock afterwards. It's mainly
a problem with Java, looks like.
I do look forward to having a nice fast freeware browser, though.
Maybe I'll write my own... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:37:47 +0200
> > > >> I'm a computer scientist.
> > > > me too
> > > Really? Which field?
> > developing high-performance image-processing solutions
> > for medical diagnosis systems.
>
> Which makes you a software engineer . . . not a computer scientist.
well, I am working in an institut for research of computer aided
diagnosis,
imho the part of 'science' in it is realy big.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:40:23 +0200
> > what about SQL?
> What about it?
it does not have flow-control, because you do describe the desired
result, like you do with html :)
> SQL does have conditional processing (e.g., the "where" clause) and
> implied looping.
> Also, SQL has the capability to create and destroy objects and data.
> Does HTML have such capabilities?
with the right link in it you could 'destroy' a windows-box :))))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:27:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
<snippage>
> What development tools are there for KDE - what toolkit does it use?
I've been using TCL/TK for a few projects recently. Its really only a
glue-language, but it builds reasonably good looking GUI apps quickly,
and the customer can run the same app on UNIX/Linux/NT which gives the
customer a good comfort zone if they have concerns about committing to a
specific OS architecture. Not fast, as it's an interpreted language,
but platform independence has been the deciding factor, not speed. And
it's consistent in appearance, even when the behavior changes for the
different OSen.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:41:16 +0200
> > > If I write a .h file in C containing the following:
> > >
> > > int a;
> > > I give a property to a but not an algorithm (but in your view this .h file
> > > already contains an algorithm)
> > It gives an algorithm, the empty one (no joke)
>
> Urmmm . . . no, not really. The algorithm, in pseudo code, is something
> like:
>
> 1) Allocate sizeof(int) bytes of memory in the data segment.
> 2) Store 0 in this memory.
> 3) End
yes, of course, what makes it a more inefficient version of the
'do nothing' algorithm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 06:41:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:24:53 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Shumway, Gordon" wrote:
>>
>> I had been under the impression that WINE was an emulator (possibly
>> requiring Linux kernel hooks) that intercepted Windows system calls.
>>
>> http://www.winehq.com specifically states that WINE is not an emulator,
>> but it can execute Windows executable.
>
>It's not an emulation. It should be almost as fast as native
>code.
It is and it isn't. It emulates the WinAPI, when needed;
otherwise it just runs in native mode. (There are thoughts of
incorporating something such as Bochs for the x86 stuff;
then WinE would be a double emulator, emulating x86 AND Windows stuff,
on non-x86 machines.)
Ugly? You bet. But Windows is not noted for its prettiness. :-)
>>
>> So how does it work? Is it just a replacement for the windows DLLs?
>> Will it crash if a windows program makes a windows system call without
>> calling a routine in the DLL?
>
>They are making a library of the Win32 API and then inserting it
>into Unix. Supposedly, IBM has already done this with OS/2. I
>know someone who works there and he tells me that lots of people
>there run Win32 apps on OS/2 every day. They just can't run it
>outside the campus is all due to M$. Not sure exactly how it
>all works. With OS/2 they were converting a lot of the Win32
>system calls to OS/2 system calls.
Same with WinE. The calls are a bit muckier, in that X and
Win32 are very different environments (I think OS/2 and Win32
are a bit closer, although not having used OS/2, I can't say
for sure).
Threading is a problem. :-)
(OS/2 also had the advantage of having a Windows version
specifically for it -- or perhaps a patch; I don't remember now.)
> >
>> "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Corel is contributing to the development of Wine, the win32
>> > emulator for Linux. This is a good thing, as it will allow
>> > a lot of Windows software to run under Linux directly, without
>> > needing any modification, nor a copy of Windows.
>
>Yes and it is being ported over to OS/2 (Odin project) and BeOS
>(BeWine project).
One hopes that the code mods get folded back into the main
WinE stuff, as well.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:44:07 +0200
> >What are scripting languages than?
> Why, they're not "programming languages," of course!
you forgot a :), right?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
