Linux-Advocacy Digest #417, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Sylvain
Louboutin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Christopher Browne)
System Administration Tools, Innovation... (Christopher Browne)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:02:06 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 12:40:40 -0700,
Timberwoof, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <3916b8d6$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 05/08/2000 at 09:37 AM,
>> "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > Anyway, the whole world (not only software) is moving to the existence
>> > of two companies having a theatre competence between them and being
>> > happy to have only one and known enemy. Coca v.s. Pepsi, Playstation
>> > v.s. Nintendo, Intel v.s. AMD, and the so ... sometimes (by now) some
>> > third company borns and then either buys or is bought by one of the
>> > other bigs. It is something we all must fight against.
>>
>> Maybe that is true in your native country. It is certainly not true in
>> the
>> United States or most of the world.
>>
>> Your understanding of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
>> and Japan
>
>"One of these things just doesn't belong here; one of these things just
>doesn't belong. Can you guess which thing just doesn't belong here by
>the time I finish my song?"
>
>Mexico isn't exactly one of the G7. Bob, can you name some more of the
>G7 nations?
1) Where was the G7 mentioned above? are you saying that the rest of the
world is irrelevent?
2) What does the G7 have to do with it?
>
>>is obviously very limited. US, Canadian, etc. consumers have a
>> much broader range of competing products today than we did 20, 30, 40
>> years ago. Much of the innovation in our lives comes from startup
>> companies offering better products than the traditional manufacturers.
>
>At the same time, the range of things available to the consumer seems to
>be shrinking as companies discover thatthe greatest profits lie in the
>fat part of bell curves. Why sell obscure medieval folk music when
>everyone wants to hear rap? Why sell clothes for tall skinny people when
>so many more people are average sized?
Um, Obscure medieval folk music may not be the hottest seller at
Tower records, but I assure you, that you can get a lot of CD's of the
stuff easily, just try a web search. As for tall and skinny clothes (not
that *I* need them mind you) they too are out there.
>> Even your "examples" above are spurious. Intel and AMD are not the only
>> companies offering processors. Ever hear of Motorola, IBM, or Texas
>> Instruments? CocaCola and Pepsi the only soft drink bottlers? Not by a
>> long shot. There are regional companies in every part of the United
>> States
>> offering competing brands.
>
>Every try to get a cola other than Coke or Pepsi at any of the major
>fast-food chains? Every try to get a processor other than Intel or AMD
>in a Wintel box?
Taco Bell around the corner from my current workplace carries (beats memory
stick against head) Dr Pepper, Pepsi/Diet Pepsi, some orange concoction,
Lipton's Iced tea, Mountain Dew? (I think) and something else which escapes my
memory at the moment.
Cyrix, and winchip you mean?
>> Not so very long ago, there were only 4 automobile manufacturing
>> companies
>> in the US. Today there are at least twice that number. Today besides GM,
>> Ford, and Chrysler we have Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Humvee
>> at
>> a minimum being made here in the United States and/or Canada and/or
>> Mexico.
>
>Ford now owns Jaguar and Saab. BMW now owns Rolls Royce. VW, Porsche,
>and Audi are a worldwide conglomerate. Jeep and Chrysler merged,
>abdorbing Renault somewhere in the process. Isuzu owns Opel. GM owns an
>Italian sports car manufacturer. If it's not just two, it is a much
>smaller numebr of manufacturers than there used to be. The difference
>between the large and the small is fairly vast.
>
You missed Daimler eating Chrysler-Amc, but you also miss Geo, Kia and
others, (and the fact that the automobile industry is one of the most
regulated there is. )
>> Even in industries where manufacturing firms have been consolidated such
>> as refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, we have different totally
>> independent marketing companies offering different products with
>> different
>> features although the sources may be the same manufacturing company. Off
>> the top of my head, I can think of at least a dozen different brands of
>> refrigerators including Sears, General Electric, Hotpoint, Frigidare,
>> ColdSpot, Gibson, Westinghouse, Whirlpool, Tappan, Amana, Montgomery
>> Ward,
>> and Kelvinator. Moreover, there at least five makers of large (greater
>> than 24 or so cubic feet) units for the upper end of the consumer market.
>
><sarcasm> And the diversity of product offerings available to purchasers
>of washing machines and refrigerators is stunning beyond belief!
></sarcasm>
Yep, from cheap>>Extravagant, with numerous models at each level. As a
liveaboard, I really like having choice on refridgeration since I am not
tied to a 110VAC grid all the time, the propane, solar and DC options are
nice too.
>> Walk into any store specializing in home entertainment or the home
>> entertainment department of any major retailer and one will find products
>> from dozens of different, unrelated manufacturers. There are many makers
>> of competing cell phones from Japan, Europe, the US, each beating their
>> brains out to outsell the others.
>>
>> So far this year, I have purchased computer motherboards from at least 6
>> different manufacturers each of which builds its own products. They
>> include AMI, Compaq, IBM, Tyan, PCWare, Acer, and Dell. Whoops, that's
>> seven. And while I have not purchased from them, HP is another company
>> which manufactures its own motherboard.
>
>How many manufacturers supply CPUs for those boards?
At least 4 for the x86 architecture. 3 I think for PPC, 2 or 3 for Sparc
and 3? for Alpha...
>> Memory DIMMS? At least a dozen manufacturers.
>>
>> And the list goes on. Every time there is a major consolidation, new
>> makers surface to compete. It is an unalterable maxim of capitalism that
>> profits breed competition. As long as no one is able to establish a
>> monopoly,
>
>And here is the one nugget of truth in your diatribe. At least you got
>this part right.
monopolies arise from govt sanctioned force.
>>competition thrives and consumers benefit. In the US, we have
>> choices even in many regulated industries. I can choose from a list of
>> about 8 different electric generation companies who beat each other over
>> the head for subscribers. I can choose among literally dozens of long
>> distance telephone companies and between two competing local service
>> providers.
>
>Only two? Hmmm.
well, they are regulated by the local govt level. Not exactly a free market
really.
>>In some communities in New Jersey, consumers have a choice of
>> cable tv providers and rates in those communities are much lower than
>> adjoining places which do not have a choice.
>>
>> Since the cost of initial wiring, etc. for cable tv is so expensive,
>> costs
>> have prevented more communities from granting multiple franchises. But
>> new
>> changes in our Federal law now allow satellite providers to carry local
>> channels and Cable TV is facing a competitive challenge from at least
>> four
>> different companies which did not exist 10 years ago.
>
>But let's talk about the real trend that Alberto described:
>
>There are some enormous conglomerates forming that are in control of
>entertainment and news. They own everything from the companies that make
>the news and entertainment to the devices that play them back at you.
>They even control what you hear about on the news and what they want you
>to like. (It's easier to provide for the needs of less-diverse people.
>Sure, you make more money when you also include "ethnic minorities" in
>your product mix, but wouldn't it be easier if you didn't have to have
>all that duplication of effort?)
yup, and the web is rapidly making them obsolete, they're dinosaurs, they just
haven't fallen over yet.
>And we're certainly seeing that effort in the personal computer
>industry. There is a massive effort to get everyone to standardize on
>one hardware platform so that one software company gets to supply the OS
>and applications. People who buck the trend -- Maccies and the *n*x
>folks -- get ridiculed and denigrated.
>
and it doesn't do one bit of good, because we want choice, and we make
them.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:07:20 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 11:05:49 GMT,
Karen Mansbridge-Wood, in the persona of
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brought forth the following
words...:
>On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
>
>>If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
>>case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
>>software company--Microsoft.
>
>And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
>Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
>their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
>therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
>horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
>
It sure sounds to me like Gates is saying that the whole industry would have
been better off if M$ had opensourced Windows in the first place. After all,
then, all the developers would have good access to the API's in windows.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:02:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
> case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
> software company--Microsoft.
We already had that when I was first starting my career. It was called
IBM. It sucked then, it sucks now.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Sylvain Louboutin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 00:40:44 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I long for the good old days when they sent floppy disks in the mail. At
>least those I could use as free blank disks. Those CDs just get tossed in
>the garbage.
sorry but you are missing a good opportunity: all these 'free CDs'
one keeps receiving in the mail make really neat decorative items:
you can glue them as some kind of wall-paper thing, you can adorn
all sort of objects with these shiny stuff; looks great.
I also remember the days in kindergarten when I was the provider of
discarded (well, except once...I can still hear my dad complaining :-)
punch cards which can be used creatively as well; but certainly didn't
look as good as discarded CDs...
:-)
--Sylvain
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 00:52:56 GMT
On Fri, 5 May 2000 13:29:38 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
wrote:
>But what do you do when somebody sends you an Excel worksheet and you
>are on an earlier version of Excel? You are flat out not able to read
>the format, much less read it with Works, another microcrud product!
Excel * will * read newer versions of the file format. Or you could
simply ask them to send it in one of the older formats which Excel can
save in...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:31:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> system.
A better example might be a system that crashes on a regular basis.
> Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
> piece of shit and finally gave up.
Given a choice of either you or the operating system, I would have a
difficult telling which was the piece of shit.
> I have installed every OS under the
> sun and moon since DOS 1.0
You are infinitely full of shit. If you can't install Linux, you
wouldn't have a chance in hell with AIX, HP-UX, VMS, or any number of
other OSen released since DOS 1.0.
> and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
> to operate correctly.
That makes a statement more about you than it does about Linux.
> Is this what you call a next generation OS?
Are you what we call the next generation? Mankind is doomed....
> What generation is that? The year 2025?
If Allah is good, there won't be a Win2025.
> Shitty looking fonts under X windows,
Yours maybe, not mine.
> Netscape?
> Netscape sucks under Windows also. NOBODY uses Netscape.
I use it exclusively, at work and home.
> Security?
A wintroll attacking security? You are indeed a clueless moron.
> Every fucking port is WIDE OPEN WITH A DEFAULT MANDRAKE INSTALL...GOOD
> SHOW!!!!!
So lock it down. Just like you would have to do with NT.
> Just setting up a simple network with a secure firewall has led me
> down a garden path of no less than 10 poorly written How-to's
I would bet they were poorly read...
> and a
> trek to numerous websites for information much of which is either
> outdated or in conflict with the last website I visited.
Yeah, sorta like MSDN and Technet....
> Example, try the FAQ link on the samba website. It is a dead
> link...Great show guys..
I find dead links at microsoft.com all the time; great show.
> Apache seems to have been hacked, as I doubt they run Microsoft Back
> Office.
You didn't even read the whole article, you clueless wimp.
> Tasks that are soooooo easy under Windows are a nightmare under Linux.
> Networking for example....
UNIX/Linux _IS_ the fucking internet, jerkoff.
> A couple of clicks and it works under Windows. How is this even
> remotely possible under Linux?
A couple of reboots under Windows and you ain't even started....
> Quite frankly I really don't give a flying fuck because Linux has
> pissed me of so much
Attention deficit disorder; try overdosing on some Ritalin....
> with it's archaic style of doing things
You're obviously illiterate and can't type. (My apologies to the truly
illiterate folks out there reading this).
> that I
> intend to let every single person I know
Couldn't be too many. I doubt you get out much. Or they let you out.
> the truth about Linux and
> spread the word that LINUX SUX to all that will listen.
Well, again that shouldn't be too many.
> It really does suck the big Onion.....
And you can bite the big wasabi.
> PROCULOUS
More like Proctologist of Borg, asshole.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:40:38 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when I R A Darth Aggie would
say:
>On Fri, 05 May 2000 14:29:14 GMT,
>bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
><8eulr6$u97$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>+ Is it such a bad thing to completely overhaul a dinosaur?
>
>No. Where is your code? You may want to take a look at
><url:http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/xbloat.html>, you might be able to
>find a suitable project to work on...
Indeed. That page is more likely to be regarded as an apologia for
the continued persistence of X, despite its being a "dinosaur."
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #80. "I will see a competent psychiatrist
and get cured of all extremely unusual phobias and bizarre compulsive
habits which could prove to be a disadvantage."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: System Administration Tools, Innovation...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:40:41 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Lewis would say:
>"Luke Webber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
>>[snip]
>>>There is none, there. However, innovations abound elsewhere.
>>>X (The X Window System, that is, but I'll just call it X
>>>for the sake of brevity :-) ), for instance, was "innovated"
>>>in the mid-80's; TCP/IP was created in the early to mid-80's
>>>by the Woolongong group, IIRC.
>
>>Cripes I hope not! No, TCP/IP originated at Berkely. The Wollongong Group
>>just put out a commercial implementation called something like
>>Pathway/Access. It always struck me as being very expensive for what it was,
>>especially since it sprang out of work done at the University of Wollongong
>>(that's an industrial city south of Sydney, BTW).
Which all goes to say that sometimes people _half_ know history...
>>[snip]
>>>Hardware for Unix has always been a problem. One issue with Unix
>>>is that it bangs on hardware very hard (Windows 9x merely taps it
>>>more lightly), because of the inherent multitasking/multiuser nature
>>>of Unix, and Linux as well.
>
>>Not from where I sit. You can still run Linux comfortably on a 486 with
>>16Mb, which can't be said for any modern version of Winblows.
>
>>[snip]
>>>It is clear that Microsoft OS provides sufficient value added for
>>>the public to purchase it outright. It is *not* clear that the Linux
>>>OS provides sufficient value for an *uneducated* public to acquire
>>>it for free [*].
>
>>Agreed. Linux admin is simply too much of a black art. Not that Winblows
>>admin is always a cakewalk, but Linux, and Unix in general, really does need
>>to pull its socks up. A good start might be to begin keeping all those many
>>configuration files in one central config directory off /etc rather than
>>scattered all over the disk, but a GUI admin tool is really the only answer.
>>Even something along the lines of HP's SAM, AIX's SMIT and SCO's SCOADMIN
>>would be a huge improvement. And it'd be nice if the effort could be
>>translated to a *standard* tool, so we didn't have to treat each version of
>>Unix so differently.
>
>I like WEBMIN very much. It has a good interface and access to many
>Linux administrative functions. And it's free.
My bias is towards cfengine. <http://www.iu.hioslo.no/cfengine/>
It is decidedly _not_ a GUIed system; the point of it is to provide a
user interface whereby you create a rule that cleans something up
_once_, and then have that run as needed on a regular basis so that
you never have to worry about that piece of configuration again.
What I'd really _like_ to see is a tool that can generate Cfengine
scripts from some moderately "pretty" front end.
This would parallel the way that SMIT is built so you can log the
changes that it makes, but with the benefit of making it
_intentionally_ automatable.
The point I'm trying to make here is that a GUI too is _not_ the only
answer; it may be a _better_ answer to come up with the way of having
the computer do the Right Thing without there being any need for the
user or administrator to intervene at all.
It may be friendlier to have a GUI to let me ask the computer to do
something, but I think it rather friendlier to have crond tell the
computer to do it without any need to ask me at all...
What a concept: Having a computer do the work so that you don't have
to do _anything._
I've built some cfengine scripts that do network configuration and set
up various other such stuff; if I take a "fresh" box and drop Linux
onto it, one of the first goals is to install cfengine. I then plop
in a floppy/CD, or link in an NFS mount, and a few moments later, the
system is a WHOLE lot more configured...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #80. "I will see a competent psychiatrist
and get cured of all extremely unusual phobias and bizarre compulsive
habits which could prove to be a disadvantage."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linuxsysconfig.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:40:42 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Tim Tyler would say:
>In plenty of places, dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>:> And finally apparently even PC Week believes the PC era is over.
>:> They are changing their name from PC Week to eWeek:
>:
>: The PC era is nowhere near over. The only thing coming to an end
>: is Microsoft's reign of stupidity.
>
>Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
>Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
>
>With no crappy x86 instruction set, the rest of the hardware might
>have some chance to overcome the traditional drawbacks of the ancient
>IBM-clone.
Ah, but if you're stuck with:
a) The traditional drawbacks of thunking to Win16 calls,
b) The traditional drawbacks of the ISA slot that _will not go away_,
c) The _new_ drawbacks of using memory models that crappy programmers
that can only conceive of what can be _done_ with the x86
instruction set,
Life is pretty much as bad as it was before, with a mere thin veneer
of shellac over the Bad Old Stuff.
After all, with a cure for lung cancer, people would still die,
they'll merely die of the things that come up if you survive past the
"lung cancer" point. Ditto for heart disease.
Eliminate cholesterol from your diet and (problems of having too
_little_ cholesterol aside) there will still be some problems.
--
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go,
because, man, they're gone.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 01:40:46 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>> There is none, there. However, innovations abound elsewhere.
>> X (The X Window System, that is, but I'll just call it X
>> for the sake of brevity :-) ), for instance, was "innovated"
>> in the mid-80's; TCP/IP was created in the early to mid-80's
>> by the Woolongong group, IIRC.
>
>Neither TCP/IP nor X were originally developed in Unix. Neither are
>even good protocols. DECnet (which was invented in 1974) continues to
>outpace TCP/IP especially on gigabit and faster installations, since
>TCP/IP has such a small MTU, not to mention DECnet's superior user
>space features. But since you're a Linux weenie, I'm sure you think
>Linus Torvalds invented TCP/IP so it is Really Good, and I'm sure you
>never have heard of DECnet.
I take it that you're talking about Project Athena?
Right, it was not originally based on UNIX. It was based on BSD.
[There be flamage there :-).]
<http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N19/history_of_athe.19f.html>
<http://web.mit.edu/afs/.athena/astaff/project/logos/olh/Welcome/Welcome.html>
>> And Mosaic was created on Unix, AFAIK, starting it all. (Internet
>> Explorer was created from Spyglass code; I think Netscape might
>> have been, too; both are now heavily mutated, of course.)
>
>There is some mighty historical revisionism!
>
>The first wide-spread web browser was Lynx, which was developed on VMS.
>Unix was playing catchup to the web when it finally got its own Lynx
>port and several years later with Mosaic.
Ah, that seems to be historical revisionism.
I seem to remember the first web browser being Mosaic, developed on a
system that's almost-UNIX, but almost-not, NeXT.
And Chimera being the other major early one.
>Ah, but you're a Linux dweeb: you think Linus Torvalds invented the
>Internet, you have never logged onto a VMS system, and you think the
>only two operating systems which exist are Lindows and Winux.
I thought it was Al Bore? Or did I miss spell that? And I never
heard of Tenex or Twenex, GCOS, or TRSDOS either.
If Digital had offered free access to VMS to university students the
way that they did with Ultrix, then perhaps it would be in wider use.
If they hadn't gotten in bed with Microsoft to transfer over the OS
development team so as to dilute Prism into Windows NT, things might
have been better too.
We'll never know.
If you suggested ways of getting some useful _portions_ of the "VMS
way" deployed outside the VMS environment, so that people might have
visible examples, that might provide better food for thought than
merely bashing at Linux folk, showing them that while they may be
"Linux dweebs," there are at least some of us that have better manners
than the embittered "ex-VMS dweebs."
>> Old-style Unix also had rather poor memory management, compared
>> to today's hardware; if an process wanted more memory, it had to
>> tack it onto the end of the physical image of the process. If
>> another process got in the way, well, that other process had to
>> be physically moved to somewhere else in physical memory. If it
>> didn't fit, it got shoved to a swapfile somewhere ("swapped out").
>
>During this time the companies dealing with the more robust systems
>such as DEC already had sophisticated memory management features, more
>robust than Unix today (does Linux support working set quotas, yet?
>Heck, does it properly alert you of a memory allocation failure, yet?)
>Unix installations were known to crash regularly until 1989 or 1990,
>when DEC already had perfected clustering for several years. But
>you're Linux weenie: you do not know what DEC made, and think Linus
>Torvalds invented memory management.
No, you're merely being rude.
There are two sets of "Linux weenies":
a) Those that are simply clueless, that don't know _anything_ about
memory management. To them, your comments amount to so much
gibberish, and simply display that you're rude.
b) Then there are those that _do_ know something about MM, clustering,
paging, and such, to whom your message is intellectually insulting,
showing that you are merely an embittered ex-VMS weenie.
>> (One of the more interesting displays was the ability to show the
>> physical location of each process on a cursor-addressable screen.)
>
>Which was available in RSX-11 in 1972!
... And the wheel was invented in the deep dark mists of time ...
>> I think a variant of Unix running on the VAX -- I don't know if it
>> was Ultrix, or BSD -- finally figured out that each individual page
>> could be sitting anywhere in physical memory, or swapped out
>> to disk. (VMS might have been there first, though; I don't remember
>> now.)
>
>Boy, the things they teach the kiddies these days!
>
>It is difficult to tell whether you are trolling or just clueless. But
>here's a clue: the first operating system native to VAX was VMS, which
>supported virtual memory. VMS came out four years before BSD (which was
>the first Unix to support virtual memory).
>
>Other DEC systems such as the 36 bit systems supported virtual memory
>long before VMS. All of this was way before Unix. Way before. But I'm
>sure you didn't know this because since you're a Linux weenie you think
>that Linus Torvalds invented operating systems.
Most of this stuff seems to date back to Multics.
<http://www.multicians.org/>
Yes, there are a bunch of clueless people. If you offer a bit of the
benefit of the doubt, discussing this with a _bit_ less of a chip on
your shoulder, you might actually help educate people on this stuff,
which would _certainly_ be a worthy thing.
--
He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/oses.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
