Linux-Advocacy Digest #535, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Motif Open Source? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Here is the solution ("Todd")
Re: Here is the solution (Craig Kelley)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Ian Bell)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:12:07 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 15:53:32 GMT, R. Christopher Harshman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>I'm continually frustrated by Linux on the desktop, in all honesty. Not
With your only 'real' problem being that Star Office loads slow...
[deletia]
You may not be taken seriously enough to be flamed.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 16 May 2000 11:14:19 -0500
In article <8fre9c$b84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which brings up an interesting question --- is there *any* currently
>shipping MS product with a 1.x version number?
>
>Or does anyone know anybody who ever productively used a version 1.x
>MS product in the last ten years?
And more telling, is there any product written to the specs of
the 1.x MS version that continued to be usable on any subsequent
version? This is one thing that AT&T got absolutely right in
their early unix releases. There was source compatibility as
you would expect, but they also maintained binary compatibility
to an extent beyond what anyone now would consider possible.
I think the add-on's like Multiplan for their earliest 3B2 SysV
release continued to run up through SysV3r2 in spite of vast
differences in the loader and libraries.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Motif Open Source?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:10:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 13:32:05 GMT, Christopher Browne
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donn Miller would
say:
> >>Donn Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/intro.html
> >>
> >>All the ftp sites listed were overloaded. Damn, I was just about
to
> >>make the move from Motif to Qt or Gtk. Who knows where this will
> >>lead, though... now that it is Open Source.
First the good news. The availability of Motif under Linux will mean
that you can use the "shared library" version of Netscape. This
reduces the footprint from nearly 16 megabytes that can quickly grow to
32 megabytes to about 4 megabytes which can grow more slowly.
> >One problem is that, despite the manifold use of the word "Open,"
> >OpenMotif is _NOT_ Open Source according to the OSD.
Correct. IBM, HP, & Dec collaborated when they formed the Open
Software Foundation, and developed Motif. Part of the development
included adopting software from HP that was covered by an agreement
with Microsoft. This included NDAs and restrictions that weren't
publicly disclosed but were part of a settlement over "look and feel"
issues.
A key concern was that the OSF was afraid that AT&T and Sun
Microsystems would formalize UNIX International under Open Look,
and take control of the UNIX desktop market. Sun refused to pay
royalties for Motif, and retailiated by putting Open Look into
(not GNU) Public License.
Viola was developed using Athena Widgets but was less than glamourous.
Mosaic and Netscape were developed using Mosaic Widgets and Gadgets.
Netscape ended up driving the market for Motif. The Athena widgets
were enhanced with the 3D look and feel, and the GTK and QT toolkits
were widget set neutral. In fact the QT API can serve as a front
for not only X11 widgets, but also for Microsoft Foundation Classes.
> >That's not me "license-lawyering;" the FAQ at the Open Group
> >site states this...
> >--
> >When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
> >-- Steve Hoflich on compl.lang.c++
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
>
> You get the source. You get it free.
If you seek to migrate from Linux to Solaris, however,
you would either have to license the Motif runtime (about $400 per
desktop), or use static linkage (adding 10 meg to each application).
> If that ain't open, what is?
There are a number of different definitions of "Open Source",
and even within the Open Source community, there are different
stretches. The GNU purists would say than only GNU GPL source
code is truly open source (preventing proprietary extensions).
At the other end of the spectrum are licenses like QT and Motif
that specify Open Source availability for certain platforms and
commercial licenses for other platforms (such as MS-Windows).
In the middle is the BSDL licenses, which have created some
interesting issues such as Microsoft's attempt to have
Kerberos declared a "trade secret", posting the entire web
page and portions of the spec (including the nondisclosure
agreement) on web sites such as slash-dot and deja-news, and
then threatening court action against the web site unless
they block access to the specification.
In 1997, I suggested that BSDI could take over FreeBSD and
suddenly proprietary enhancements critical to the function of
FreeBSD would be unavailable to the rest of the UNIX community,
even though FreeBSD was supposedly Open Source.
In 1994, I warned that if NCSA modified it's license to take
ownership from the contributors, that would be possible for
some company to take control of the source code, add proprietary
enhancements, and cover them with nondisclosure agreements. Spyglass
obtained "branding rights" from NCSA, and sold them (along with
code modification rights) to Microsoft who turned Mosaic into
Internet Explorer, which was then used to exclude all other 3rd
party competitors and to give Microsoft the ability to impose
proprietary standards such as ActiveX, Office Document Formats,
and middleware - onto the Internet community. A move that also
prevented the adoption of Linux or UNIX as a desktop workstation
standard for nearly 5 years.
> Paul
>
--
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] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:20:25 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 10:34:02 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] fr> wrote:
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a icrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 16 May 2000 01:46:44 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande)
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Apparently www.microsoft.com , www.dell.com , www.compaq.com ,
>> >www.bigcharts.com , www.nasdaq.com, www.ebay.com among others disagree.
>> >
>>
>> These sites prove nothing about the stability of a single machine
>> under heavy load, they are farms.
>
>Of course, but do you know of sites that big that run on one x86 machine ?
No one said any did. But Charlie was saying that NT machines crater
when put under heavly load. These farms you gave as an example do not
prove it doesn't.
>> And why is it that these NT success stories I hear are always
>> companies that have some ties to Microsoft?? Some sell MS products,
>
>Does that change the fact that NT is running those large availability sites
>?
Did I say it doesn't?? Why are you changing the context?? But these
cases do not even begin to prove that NT would be *practical* choice
for those who do not have such close ties to Microsoft.
>> others want to trade MS stock, and one is Microsoft. How do you know
>> how much additional support these companies recieve from MS
>> (i.e. debugging crashes) that a company without a finacial tie to MS
>> wouldn't receive. Any additional support at all sways the TCO curve.
>
>Charlie more or less argues that you can't do things on a large scale with
>NT.
No, I believe Charlie was saying NT machines crater when under heavy
load. That doesn't mean you can have a large farm of moderately loaded
machines.
>Others [corporations which are in it for the money] seem to diasgree.
But these companies that are "in it for the money" as have ties to
Microsoft. I am still waiting for an independant success story for NT.
>> How about an independant success story for NT.
Here is my question from my last post. I am still waiting for an
independant success story for NT.
>> >Have a look at this http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc , it seems
>that
>> >WinNT/Win2K is up there with the bad boys.
>>
>> TPC != TCO. Benchmarks don't say a thing about stability, and thus
>> don't say much about TCO.
>
>Unless I'm mistaken, the TPC benchmarks stress the platforms [heavy load],
>and that you wouldn't have high marks if you platform crashed thru the test.
And how long do these benchmarks run. Weeks?? Months?? Memory leaks
are cumulative.
>> >Who am I going to believe, some evidence that stuff can be done on
>WinNT/2K
>> >platfoms or some random usenet persons blanket statements. Hmmmm.
>> Anyone with half a brain wouldn't believe either. I am waiting for
>
>His blanket statement is much more difficult to believe in light of evidence
>of corporation apparently using WinNT/2K successfully.
I never said you should believe his blanket statement. But why do you
believe corporations that have ties to Microsoft?? You don't get it do
you?? When www.dell.com gets BSOD's in their server farm their
engineers call Microsoft Engineers that they know personally and get a
level of support other companies don't get. Why?? Dell is selling W2k
servers.
>> some independant evidence to say that W2K can keep it's head above
>> water under heavy load. NT4 certainly can't.
>
>I don't know [since I'm not a server person], all I can say is that there
>are large sites that use Windows NT/2K,
>which IMO, ruin his blanket
>statement.
Charlie's statement was that NT/2K machines BSOD under heavy load. Web
sites that are large farms do not disprove that.
Perry
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 10:30:50 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Second, drive letters have absolutely nothing to do with
> microcomputers. You are just displaying your ignorance of computer
> history by stating this. That great microcomputer system known as the
> VAX used drive letters (labels, actually) when running VMS. So did the
> PDP-11 operating systems such as RSX-11 and RT-11 (which, if you
> actually knew the basics of computing history, CP/M, and thus MS-DOS
> and Windows, were derived from). To continue my compelling attack of
> your fallacious argument, that great mainframe computer known as the
> Apple II did NOT use drive letters.
As if drive NUMBERS are all that different...
CAT,d1
Gak, I hated that. Of course the Commodore64 was even worse; It
started labeling at 8 (because of the biggest kludge in the universe:
the 1541).
[snip]
> (you state no reason why mount points are better than drive labels).
It's pretty obvious why mount points are better. <g>
But, we've had this discussion before and I respect your myopic
vision. <GG>
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 10:31:55 -0600
Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, NT handles drives in a good way, you can change from one
> > to another at your will. NT has some partition support that GNU/Linux
> > does not (I think so), like using last partitions bytes to build a usable
> > volume, I like that idea.
>
> AFAIK you can't migrate the NT installation itself from say drive C:
> to drive D:. So much for sane handling of drive letters.
I've tried doing it. It's futile.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:39:37 +0800
Leslie Mikesell wrote in message <8fnt91$lhn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <8fnsje$9ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>My original point is this:
>>
>>Can you show me an undocumented call that you couldn't otherwise do with
>>something in the Win32 SDK freely available?? -- such that MS could use
to
>>their advantage in writing Office or something else.
>
>If you are trying to argue that MS does not have an unfair advantage
>here, you would have to show that the same documentation and
>tools were available to competing apps developers at the same
>time the in-house MS apps developers got them.
Leslie, you have a completely valid point.
However, given the richness of the Win32 API today, is there any application
that you can think of that you couldn't do with today's Win32 API? I
personally can not, given that you could even write a system level driver to
do the stuff that the Win32 API can't (the DDK is also freely available for
download on MS' site).
>>MS whiners try to make one think that these APIs allow MS to develop there
>>applications 'ahead of time' or before competitors... however, most of the
>>core Win32 API has been around for *years*.
>
>And how long have the MS apps been around and under development?
>
>>Anyway, if you've read this far, hopefully you see my point -- anybody
>>should be able to compete with MS head to head -- with or without these
>>alleged undocumented APIs.
>
>Not unless you got the information at the same time that the
>MS developers had it.
Same valid point as above, but again, most of the Win32 API has been around
for years. I believe there are some recent calls added for Windows 2000
added functionality, but then again, if you used those, your app. wouldn't
run on 95/98/NT.
Also, the beta of W2k was out more than a *year* before the official
release, and MS released the SDK at the time the beta came out. So
developers had more than a year to see the new additions to the API.
-Todd
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 10:36:34 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > That's just it, there aren't hundreds of examples of undocumented API's
> that
> > > MS's applications use (which is the subject, not just undocumented
> API's).
> >
> > So Corel knew how to use the IIS Office extensions at the same time as
> > Microsoft did?
>
> Which IIS Office extensions might those be?
Nevermind. You obviously don't want to have a discussion.
[snip more of the same]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 10:35:07 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 17:47:07 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >There are so many more of these '70's quick and dirty hacks, why do we
> >continue to use them? Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a
> >few yourself. If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
> >designing programs.
> >
>
> What nonsense.
>
> Unix has antiquated file permissions. It uses text files for system
> configuration. Text files are not the native language of a computer.
And here I thought that computers should be as human as possible...
[snippage]
> You people are in desperate need of a reality check.
Uh-huh. Come back after your Exchange and SAM databases go up in
flames, NT Backup reports errors on *all* the tape backups of it (bad
tape drive) so that you can only get 99% of the file back...
This actually happened to one of our departments.
Long live plain text.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Ian Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:39:27 GMT
On 5/16/00, 1:13:08 AM, Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding=20
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks:
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 20:50:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Syphon wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. Netscape as the primary gui browser. Need I say more? Netscape s=
ux
> >> even under Windows. IE 5.0 is light years ahead.
> >
> >All a matter of taste.
> Ypou better like the taste because you have no other choice. Unless
> you actually consider kde or Mozilla or Opera version .000000001
> viable.
Wow, a pre 1.x.x version number, that must mean that no work has gone=20
into the software, or maybe it's just that open source doesn't have to=20
stick with whole numbers. Floating point anyone?
> >> 2. Email clients...Pine? Sendmail? Archaic kludges. If you want to
> >> MANAGE and play with your email instead of read it Linux is for you=
.
> >> You can sort catalog and score all that email on a bit by bit basis=
> >> under Linux. real great geek stuff. Reading email seems to be
> >> secondary to playing with it.
> >
> >And all those wonderful viruses just waiting for "outlook" (Which=20
should
> >me renamed to "look-out")
> I don't use outlook. Can't stand it in fact. I use Eudora....
Great, Eudora, and when the rest of your family can read your email=20
dues to windows's c*** security, at least you can comfort yourself=20
that they can read it in a pretty window.
> >> 3. Multimedia...Run antique versions of Real Player and not be able=
=20
to
> >> run Real Juke box (no Linux version). Run cheap Winamp Clones that =
suck.
> >
> >I have a modern realplayer. What are you talking about.
> You have Real JukeBox? Where did YOU get it?
RealJukebox, aah yes... Rip CDs and turn them to mp3s, like that's=20
challenging. Maybe it's the CDDB function that attracts you, that one=20
that won't connect via a UK University proxy. Or maybe you just like=20
your software to play a nice tune as it starts up.
Cheap Winamp clones that suck? Cheap? I thought WinAmp was free=20
anyway. And xmms doesn't suck.
> >>
> >> 4. Graphics... Gimp? Name says it all. Even the trial versions of
> >> Adobe included with scanners are more powerful.
> >
> >"Adobe?" Adobe what?
> Stop wasting my time....
> Adob ANYTHING is better than lamer Gimp....
Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs more=20
thatn the scanner itself.
> >> 5. Internet? Call your favorite ISP and tell them you run Linux...=
> >> Make sure and listen to the laughter at the end of the phone....
> >
> >All the ISP's I talk to say, "great, that's one less person we have=20
to
> >worry about."
> True because they will have to leave and go somewhere else....
You know that internet thing yeah? That one that's been run on UN*X=20
since the dawn of time, yeah?
Let's all get our internet access from ISPs who install custom=20
software which only runs on windoze. Let's not use the robust,=20
standardised software that the net's supposed to run on.=20
Oh and another thing, if no ISPs support Linux, how am i sending u=20
this message with Linux? How are the millions of other Linux users=20
doing the same? Doh! Microsoft logic, forgot. Maybe windoze detected=20
the truth was occurring and threw up the blue screen.
> >> 6. Supported printers? Damm better be a Postscript printer, linsux
> >> seems to be the only folks using these printers these days....
> >> Otherwise you will be burdened by some filter that a pimple faced=20
geek
> >> dreamed up that won't utilize 10 percent of your printers
> >> capabilities.
> >
> >I have an HP 870cse, it is not a post script printer, but it works=20
fin
> >under Linux. Your claim is baseless.
> Yawwwwn...Try running one of the current non windows printers under
> Linux and see what a great monochrome printer you end up with....
Well, admittedly, if all the page rendering etc. has to be done by the=20
computer, instead of by the printer like it's supposed to be, thus=20
stealing all the processor time, then you might have a problem. Who=20
wants a printer like that anyway? Maybe you won't notice that if u=20
think computers are supposed to be slow. Easy mistake if you've used=20
windows all your life.
> >SCSI scanners work fine. I few printer port ones work too. This is an=
> >OEM issue, not an OS issue. try to get a scanner driver for Windows=20
NT.
> Most folks don't waste money on a SCSI scanner,. There is really no
> need to...
What would you prefer. Parallel? Fancy joining me on a swim through=20
treacle?=20
> >I have friends that connect to media-one using Linux and share to the=
> >kid's Windows machines. Very happy family.
> Yawwnnn..Tell it to Comp.os.linux.networking. They are dying to know=
> how you did it....
Yawwnnn.. Windows is starting up. Think i'll catch forty winks while I=20
wait. Oh look, the peaceful sound of a windoze user talking c*** to=20
lull me off to sleep. Lucky noone else agrees with him. Wouldn't want=20
it too noisy.
> >> You'll be reading How-To's till the cows come home...Or your wife
> >> leaves you, whichever occurs first.
> >
> >Better public "HOWTOs" than hard to find obscure readme's in Windows
> >various resource kits which are available for a price.
> You don't need any doc under windows...That's a clue....
No you don't... if you like it the way Billy G does. (clue... if you=20
use lube when you let him shaft you, it'll hurt less)
> >> 9. USB...Most devices barely, if at all, function.
> >
> >Hey, it is a Microsoft driven standard. It is meant to hurt=20
competition,
> >but, hey, the 2.4 kernel will handle it.
> I'll believe it when I see it. Typical Linoshit busllishit...When,
> it's coming, anyday now....etc....
I thought that was the answer to "When will windows stop inexplicably=20
crashing?"
> >> 10. Graphics...Take a look at the shitty font display of Netscrape
> >> under Linux...Makes your eyes tear doesn't it.
> >
> >I have great fonts. There is a great "HOWTO" to make your fonts=20
great.
> They work fine out of the box with Windows...Why should I have to fuss=
> under Linux...
OK everyone! Let's STANDARDIZE! Everyone put on the same shirt and=20
trousers. Paint all the walls in the world the same colour. Replace=20
all the buildings with cloned boxes. The cars too.=20
Out the box is fine if you want everything the same... Don't tell me=20
you've never changed your fonts. Or do you write all your documents in=20
Times New Roman 10pt?
> So 90 percent of the market is wrong? I doubt that...Linux is a flea
> on a fly on the ass of Windows... It is going nowhere and will
> continue to do so mainly cause it sucks... The more people tht try it
> the more that will know the real truth...
Betamax was better than VHS, but we don't all use that, do we? Why=20
not? Because "everyone" already used VHS... "Everyone" already used=20
MS-DOS, so now "everyone" uses windows. Why did everyone use DOS?=20
Because of the Anti-competitive IBM deal.=20
It's not merit that makes windows popular, just inertia.=20
That and that microsoft bribes all the PC mfrs.
> Linux has nowhere near the numner of useful, not GEEK ORiented but
> useful applications that WIndows has. And it never will.
No, it never will.... I have to give you that one, no-one will ever=20
develop any applications for the fastest growing OS platform in the=20
world...
> Linux sux...You can't argue out of it...It plain sux...
Yeah, and if you close your eyes, that fire burning down your house in=20
front of you won't be there anymore.
-
thezulu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 16 May 2000 11:34:59 -0500
In article <8fqqcf$8a7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Give me a break, tell me how using drive letters does not constitute a
>> "programming model" in a programming.
>
>Because it's a direct consequence of the operating system. This does
>not change an application writers design strategy - in fact, the
>application designer does not even need to know about it. I have not
>heard of drive letters getting in the way of Unix to Windows porting
>efforts, for example.
It is really more of a management issue - programs usually let you
specify locations at configuration time, but you want to set things
up consistantly across a network of machines. If you aren't
careful about the number of local drives you allow, you can
end up with a mess trying to make the network connections all
map to the same place. And back when the drive-letter setup
was conceived, the memory penalty for allowing unused letters
was important.
>A discussion of Windows vs. Unix programming models would be
>interesting, but this issue is really one of filename semantics, not of
>programming.
In the unix model you mount what you want where you want, and if
directory granularity isn't enough you can make symlinks to
get the structure you need.
>So what do you perceive at the limitations of DOS drive letters, _which
>are not limitations of multi-character drive labels_?
Requiring a ':' in the name is annoying for things like rsh/rsync that
use the colon as the remote host delimiter.
>The only limit I see is that you cannot have more than 26 local drives
>on a system. This also, I would like to point out, is a rather
>pedestrian observation, and not really very interesting. Remember,
>network drives can be accessed through UNC.
With UNC, each application has to be aware of the server name which
can be very bad compared to first mapping a server to a separately
configured local name. If you change servers you shouldn't have to
reconfigure all your apps to know about it.
>I do not know of many
>machines, which have more than 26 local drives. Have you run into this
>limitation on Windows servers that you are deploying? Have you ever
>heard of anybody trying to plug 26 local drives into a Windows machine?
Remember that besides being problematic, UNC is a recent addition
to MS networking. Win 3.x versions couldn't use it, and apps
running in dos windows must have drive letters and lpt numbers.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
