Linux-Advocacy Digest #621, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 --- ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 21 May 2000 02:03:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> W2K is slower than NT as well as it still
>> blue screens.
> It's significantly faster than NT if it has it's minimum requirements. 10%
> faster on average.
And it still bluescreens. Linux doesnt do that. Point.
> Personalized Menus
Thats fabulous. My windowmanager has done that for going on 5 years.
Point.
> Unified All User/Specific User settings
Not that youd notice. Oh yeah, all the icons for everything are
consistent now. Neat.
Point.
> Integrated Index Engine into search system.
Which barely anyone actually uses, BTW.
Point. Game.
> Numerous small enhancements, like settings to make the control panel,
> printers, etc. a cascading menu
Youve been able to do this with my windowmanager for going on 5 years.
Point.
> The ability to customize the start menu. You can turn on and off things
> like Favorites, whether to scroll or tile the menu, etc..
Just like I can with my windowmanager for going on 5 years.
Point.
> So, are you still going to say there are *NO* improvements?
A big pile of shit with a big bow on top is just that...
A big pile of shit with a big bow on top.
Point.
>> How could it be possible that the Team at
>> Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
>> and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
>> meet it's design goals?
> uni-os? It's most certainly a multiprocessor OS. It's also got tons of
> backend features.
Linux looks at more processors.
And dont even begin to blather about W2K ADVANCED SERVER FARM SUPER
DUPER EDITION. No one has seen it yet. Itll probably be another
couple of years at this rate, and with the dissolving of Microsoft,
possibly not at all.
Point, match.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 ---
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:15:14 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
abraxas wrote in message <8g7743$10r1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Alright, I have to admit---as much as I think Stephen S. Edwards is a
>tard, I really do love these. :)
Exactly why am I a "tard"? Because I don't share your love
of Linux? That definition is merely an island of your own.
Exactly what is it that makes you so intelligent? Your insightful
posts? As for what you "think"... I rarely see you "thinking" in
these forums at all.
>Therefore, I shall quote it in full in case anyones incoming spool
>missed it the first time:
[SNIP]
What?! You mean you actually are admitting that it is possible
for a UNIX operating system to _fail_?! I'm going to give hell
a call, and see if they've been getting any snow.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:31:24 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
>> over-run to get out the door.
>
>Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
Of course, when you say things like this, he will
probably accuse you of picking on Linux users, and
that "they don't have big budgets to work with".
I suppose the difference between OSS and commercial
software is the 38th parallel of computing.
[SNIP]
>> Also reported goals were to eliminate the
>> problem of blue screening as well as
>> maintain performance levels in multitasking.
>
>No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
>eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
>wouldn't need to be there.
At this point, I don't know what happens to Linux when a
driver fails, but I know that NetBSD automatically tosses
the system into an interactive debugger if a faulty kernel
driver throws the system into a panic (my NetBSD v1.4.1
install did this with my Yamaha OPL3SA sound system; it's
been fixed in v1.4.2).
If it never happens, then the instructions to do so wouldn't
be in there, as you already stated.
Frankly, I wouldn't mind WindowsNT doing something similar.
It would make life a tad easier for WindowsNT sysadmins who
know how to use such things.
[SNIP]
>> And at the same time have provided the public
>> with no improvements to the desktop.
>
>More absolutes? All it takes is *ONE* improvement to prove you wrong, and
I
>can name several.
>
>Personalized Menus
>Unified All User/Specific User settings
>Integrated Index Engine into search system.
>Numerous small enhancements, like settings to make the control panel,
>printers, etc. a cascading menu
>The ability to customize the start menu. You can turn on and off things
>like Favorites, whether to scroll or tile the menu, etc..
>
>So, are you still going to say there are *NO* improvements?
I think Charlie is going to say absolutely nothing until
he either grows up, or suddenly gets a little more tissue
mass in his brain.
>> How could it be possible that the Team at
>> Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
>> and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
>> meet it's design goals?
>
>uni-os? It's most certainly a multiprocessor OS. It's also got tons of
>backend features.
I'll say. Windows2000 DataCenter Server can access up to 64GB of
RAM, and 16 processors. Throw clustering in there, and you have
a very powerful and cost-effective high-end solution. Not bad at
all for a boxed OS.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:00:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
' > Of course it is hardware accelerated.
'
' No. It isn't.
'
' It may have the potential to be accelerated at some point in the
' future, but, as of this writing, it is not. NVIDIA has flatly stated
' that they will not be doing hardware-accelerated OpenGL until XF86
' 4.0. As XF86 4.0 is not the official XF86 at this point, there is
' not, officially, any hardware-accelerated OpenGL at this point.
This is a function of your video hardware as well as the drivers and
what systems the drivers are available for. The GLINT chips that are
on many video cards are hardware accelerators for OpenGL. I'm sure
SGI boxes have hardware accelerated OpenGL.
OpenGL has, what, ten primatives? It _was_ designed for hardware
acceleration.
' It seems to me that if they were more interested in wrapping hardware
' acceleration, OpenGL would look more like Direct3D (which is
' considerably more minimalist).
Direct3D is a rip off of OpenGL soley for the purpose of tying people
into the Microsoft architecture. It is a direct result of The
Microsoft Method (do a deja search on that).
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:00:51 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 22:59:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>[is OpenGL hardware-accelerated?]
SGI's has been hardware-accelerated for longer than Direct3D has
existed. Mesa has been hardware-accelerated for a couple years now.
XiG's GL implementation just became hardware-accelerated and the new
SGI workstations with the Nvidia Quadros will be hardware-accelerated
under OpenGL under Linux.
>
>> >No. It isn't.
>
>> >It may have the potential to be accelerated at some point in the
>> >future, but, as of this writing, it is not. NVIDIA has flatly stated
>> >that they will not be doing hardware-accelerated OpenGL until XF86
>> >4.0. As XF86 4.0 is not the official XF86 at this point, there is
>
>> Says who? There's already at least one distro that's shipping it.
>
>Sorry. I was operating under outdated information.
>
>You're right; it is the official XF86. (I must've checked its status
>the day before it was released...)
>
>> >> > A killer app is something that most computer users will find
>> >> > useful.
>
>> >> Of course Apache is a killer app.
>
>> >Of course it is not.
>
>> Netcraft and the hype in general about the Web would tend
>> to flatly contradict you.
>
>I really don't see what's so hard to understand here.
>
>Here are some requirements for a killer app:
>
>1. Lots of people have to use it.
60% marketshare of the server part of THE current
killer microcomputer app.
>2. Lots of people have to know about it.
>
>Obviously, then, to be a potential killer app, a program must appeal
>to lots of people.
>
>Does Apache appeal to lots of people?
With a 60%, I would imagine it does.
>
>No. I'm sorry, but this is bloody obvious, and I really don't
>understand how anyone can argue with it. The vast - *VAST* - majority
No, your obstinance is not 'bloody obvious'.
>of computer users have not installed Apache, and never *will* install
>Apache, no matter that it's the best thing since sliced bread.
True, however the VAST MAJORITY of computer users USE
Apache on a daily basis.
[deletia]
Your position is just as aburd as claiming that OSS 'hasn't
delivered' while ignoring sendmail, bind and BSD sockets.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:01:17 GMT
On 20 May 2000 18:07:12 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 May 2000 05:00:02 GMT, David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) writes:
>>>
>>>' The QPL requires software be free (as in free beer). It also requires
>>>' you to submit any software you link with QT to them, even if it is not
>>>' distributed and from the wording it seems that they want you to give
>>>' them unlimited rights to even your own personal (again, non
>>>' distributed) programs that you link to Qt.
>>>
>>>It requires your software to be GPL, if you use the Qt Free Edition.
>>>Naturally, if you don't like that, don't use Qt.
>>
>> This alone makes the QPL more restrictive than the LGPL.
>
>Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
>change and they don't like the LGPL much.
Bullshit.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:01:31 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
abraxas wrote in message <8g7g4l$17ih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> W2K is slower than NT as well as it still
>>> blue screens.
>
>> It's significantly faster than NT if it has it's minimum requirements. 10%
>> faster on average.
>
>And it still bluescreens. Linux doesnt do that. Point.
You're correct. Linux never bluescreens, because it
wasn't programmed to display grey text on a bright
blue background. I know Linux used to display a
hexidecimal dump similar to a WindowsNT BSOD, but I
seem to recall that someone mentioned that Linux
launches an interactive debugger. NetBSD does this
as well, as I stated in another thread.
>> Personalized Menus
>
>Thats fabulous. My windowmanager has done that for going on 5 years.
I don't seem to have any troubles doing this under LiteStep,
so WindowsNT v4.0 is able to handle this for me just fine.
Of course, you do realize that Windows9x and WindowsNT can
use alternate interfaces, yes?
>> Unified All User/Specific User settings
>
>Not that youd notice. Oh yeah, all the icons for everything are
>consistent now. Neat.
And what's wrong with that?
>> Integrated Index Engine into search system.
>
>Which barely anyone actually uses, BTW.
And how do you know this? Proof, please.
>> Numerous small enhancements, like settings to make the control panel,
>> printers, etc. a cascading menu
>
>Youve been able to do this with my windowmanager for going on 5 years.
That's fine. Read above about alternate interfaces.
>> The ability to customize the start menu. You can turn on and off things
>> like Favorites, whether to scroll or tile the menu, etc..
>
>Just like I can with my windowmanager for going on 5 years.
Again, read above.
>> So, are you still going to say there are *NO* improvements?
>
>A big pile of shit with a big bow on top is just that...
>
>A big pile of shit with a big bow on top.
Exactly how is this comment even remotely useful,
or relevant?
>>> How could it be possible that the Team at
>>> Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
>>> and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
>>> meet it's design goals?
>
>> uni-os? It's most certainly a multiprocessor OS. It's also got tons of
>> backend features.
>
>Linux looks at more processors.
WindowsNT Datacenter Server can recognize up to 16 processors.
Exactly how many can Linux handle? The most I've ever heard
of was 16, and that was with a major kernel renovation.
>And dont even begin to blather about W2K ADVANCED SERVER FARM SUPER
>DUPER EDITION. No one has seen it yet. Itll probably be another
>couple of years at this rate, and with the dissolving of Microsoft,
>possibly not at all.
>
>Point, match.
The only point I can see here is atop your head. And you call
me a "tard"? You don't even know enough to check article headers
before you lash out and call someone else a "winfag".
abraxas, you really are, to put it simply, a jerk.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:04:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 20 May 2000 21:07:00 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8g6q6g$9im$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > OH please! Stephen want's proof that NT or W2K blue screen.
>> >
>> > Although I have no hard evidence (I didnt take pictures), the second
>> > time W2K professional bluescreened on this very desktop machine,
>> > I let linux finally eat its partition in favor of a nice devel
>> > ext2fs.
>> >
>> > My S.O.s laptop (running W2K professional as well) has now
>> > bluescreened 4 times, twice while trying to quite RealPlayer.
>> > (trying to quit IE was what did it the first time on my desktop
>> > machine). Luckily the last couple of bluescreens on that laptop
>> > havent been as bad as the first (when I horror of horrors, plugged
>> > a USB mouse into the machine) which resulted in a 'NO KERNEL FOUND'
>> > (or something very close to that) error apon reboot.
>>
>> I always find it amazing that this sort of thing:
>> a) *Never* happens to anyone I know
>> b) Always seems to happen to faceless people on usenet who spend most of
>> their time cursing Microsoft.
>>
>> I'm thinking my WindowsAI theory might be right :).
>
>If you've NEVER got a Microsoft product to blue screen then
>what are you doing with it?
>
>We'd be curious?
I've never seen a blue screen on my computer at work. However,
I have seen some strange behavior, both on my machine, and
on other machines.
My favorite -- if one can call it that -- had to be the "gosh, you
don't like the icons for this file type, so I'll change them for you
before asking" syndrome. That one was just plain weird. The more
normal one, which is mostly an annoyance, is the "oh, I forgot how
to do the tooltips across the bottom icon bar" (under normal operation,
NT (Explorer?) shows tooltips -- the full title of the iconified window
appears therein). This particular problem also afflicts my boss's (?)
machine. (I'm running SP5, in case it matters; I think he is, too.)
I've also had at least one crash with Visual Studio (fortunately, I
save my work often!) and at one point my computer was working
v--e--r--y s--l--o--w--l--y so that I could see each and every
redraw of each and every polygon, line, and text string while it was
updating its display. (It also was very slow in responding to mouse
clicks.)
And then there was the peculiar problem with my disk drive.
(Or was it?) The disk drive, over the course of a week, suddenly
decided to develop some sort of a problem that would slow down
performance very noticeably, and I was getting time-out events,
(and in one case, "old firmware" notifications)!
Funny thing, though -- after the machine was slated to be replaced
(my new machine's quite happy) I decided, out of desperation,
to shut it down (that took a good half-hour!) and power-cycle it.
Problem solved....maybe??? Bizarre! But the "ticking" and performance
problems stopped. I'll never know, now, whether it was a hardware
problem or a software one; the computer was duly replaced, and the
other one is now .... somewhere, probably back to the manufacturer
to be analyzed.
Problems should be more obvious than that.
Even HP-UX on an HPPA isn't this unreliable (and even during the bad
old days of 8.x, I at least could count on it 99.9% or so). HP-UX
occasionally gives me "dead" xterm windows in 10.20; I've had 1 panic
that I can count and today a problem where my screen lock (HP-UX has
CDE) wouldn't do anything intelligent with my password; I had to log
in on another machine and kill the session. There are also a number
of problems if the network goes bad (HP-UX's favorite behavior in that
case is "OK, my X server is going to freeze up now!"). I will admit,
to my employer's credit, that their network rarely has problems. :-)
And dead xterms I can just iconify out of the way. (Try that with
a hung process on Windows....)
And then there's Outlook, and its susceptibility to viruses
(mostly because apparently some people are dumb enough to click on
love letters :-) ). But that's a separate issue, and I for one
wasn't suckered. (Of course, enabling display of the suffixes
in the options of Internet Explorer may have had something to
do with that.)
Compared to that, Linux on my home machines has been a dream.
My main problem is modem line hangups -- and I can't blame that
on the OS. (Even something I thought might be a bug turned out
to be pilot error -- which may annoy a newbie, but I guess
that just means I have to read the dlopen() manpage more carefully
next time... :-) )
Now, one might say that NT is the best solution out there. It
may be -- for some weird definition of the term "best", although
large corporations with a heavy investment in (infestment with?)
Microsoft software may have to give preference to NT, so that things
work together.
But Linux is right in there...and I hope it gets a lot of visibility,
even more than it has now.
>
>Charlie
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:06:58 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 23:48:30 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>: >The man in black theory again :)? Nobody was/is forced to use Windows.
>:
>: What else were the PC VARs offering them?
>
>Make your own offer, the last OS what I bought with PC was Windows3.11. And
That doesn't answer the question.
>that was by choice.
>
>: >Oh yes, the arrogant Apple at that time. They didn't care about the
>personal
>: >use of the PCs since they had all of the of the fat government contracts.
>Do
>: >you see now why Windows became popular?
>:
>: No. The Apple ran circles around DOS kludge klones. Compare like
>: brand name hardware and the prices weren't even THAT different.
>
>All it proves that price isn't the only concern for the end users, if your
>statement is true.
Then there also must be some other manner in which 'Apple arrogance'
bit them in the butt. It certainly wasn't prices. Non shitty PC's
weren't that cheap either. Even the shitty PC's weren't that cheap.
>
>: If anyone should have won the market 'based on price' it should
>: have been Atari or Commodore.
>
>Let's see.... Usability, applications, etc might've done them in.
Who are you trying to kid? Both of those ran circles around
the Kludge Klone when it came to usability. Both had GUI's
and both could fully exploit their respective hardware without
any user level gymnastics (like manual memory management).
For me, in this respect, an 8M 486 was a step DOWN from
an Atari 520 ST.
>
>: Apples still manage to outperform DOS kludge klones when it comes
>: to end user usability.
>
>Hardly true now days, but then again that's just a question of opinion.
Sure it is. Mention USB anytime in a public web forum and the
disatisfied Win98 users come crawling out of the woodwork. The
Mac has always been 'easy by design' and it shows.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
