Linux-Advocacy Digest #741, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... ("Nicolás Brenner")
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Hey Pete Goodwin (2:1)
Re: any screen capture package? (2:1)
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (mlw)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Drestin Black, more proof of the success of OSS (2:1)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Marc-Andre Dion)
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (DanH)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux kernal - mode GUI? (mlw)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nicolás Brenner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 08:37:38 -0700
Have you found out about application ports from IRIX, the Unix used on SGI
(Silicon Graphics Workstations), cuz they have pretty nice designing
software, I mean, they must have, you know. Well good luck in your search,
I'm not a designing specialist or anything, but try to ask someone who knows
about those systems, maybe he/she can help.
--
Nicolás Brenner | Win95 & Win98: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system
ICQ: 19861222 | originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by
http://www.asd-asd.8k.com | a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of
competition.
"Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gsmci$k81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ....but.....
>
> I am a digital artist. I could use LightWave, I expect, on Linux. And
> that would be great. But I also need to run good image manipulation
> software....
>
> No, please don't even suggest the GIMP. Jeeeezuschrist. I just made a
> 25MB blank image in TheGIMP, and filled it with a gradation from black
> to white, diagonally, across the whole image. Took 30 seconds to do
> that, and it takes PhotoShop about 1 to 1.5 seconds on NT....
>
> I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
> it.
>
> I tried the same procedure using PhotoGenics (beta):
> http://www.paulnolan.com/Linux/index.html
>
> And I had pretty much the same results --- about 30 seconds to do the
> gradation fill. Almost as long (in both programs) to do a rotation of
> 90 degrees of the resulting image.
>
> Sheeeeesh.
>
> Maybe someone here can enlighten me and show me some really fine paint
> software for Linux that blows PhotoShop and / or Painter out of the
> water and really shows off the performance superiority of Linux over
> something like NT. I honestly would love to see it. I'd love to believe
> that Linux blows NT out of the water in this area....but right now, I'm
> just not seeing it......
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:44:33 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> > I realize that no book will completely cover my fears, but
> > at least I might learn a little more about why Windows is puking up the
> > last three days work I did, or maybe I'll even be able to prevent it
> > from puking at all.
>
> I found that formatting the disk and installing Linux provided more anti-puke
> protection than reading a whole stack of books.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
What a coincidence, me too. Unfortunately, until I find a killer audio
tracking app for Linux that does the MIDI and digital audio side well,
I'm stuck with Windows. Unless maybe I find the same thing on a Mac.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hey Pete Goodwin
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:48:22 +0100
> You are having troubles, just like virtually everybody who makes the same
> mistake.That's why Windows is still number one and they can't even give Linux
> away.
They sold it to me.
> You are trying in your mind to justify running Linux for some reason or another.
> Maybe you hate Microsoft, experienced dll hell with an older version of Windows,
> maybe you just want free software, it really doesn't matter as the result will
> be the same. You will waste your life away tinkering and reading documentation
> when you could easily perform the same tasks under WIndows will little effort.
Find a grpahics app that gives you the ease of bulk manipulations (such
as making thumbnail images) that the shell and pnmutils give you. The
same applies to many, many things. You can do simple things in windows
with your eyes closed. It expects you to close your eyes. When you come
to doing a difficult thing, even _opening_ your eyes doesn't help ---
its either tedious or impossible.
> Take a good look at how much extra work is required just to do mundane tasks
> under Linux. You could do this stuff under Windows with your eyes closed because
> WIndows has a good, unified help system unlike Linux which is a scattered
> collection of half written documentation.
All of the mainstream linux apps have good docs. Any `fringe' apps, much
like most of the windows stuff you can download for free have varying
docs. BTW man seems like a pretty standard help system, although info is
taking over.
> It only gets worse as you finally get the beast installed. You will be hooked
> into a loop of constant upgrading, patches and incompatibilities. Gnome libs,
> kde libs, qt libs libc etc. You will soon discover that Linux is the hard way
What the fsck??? As far as I heard, with *Windows* you get locked in to
an upgrade cycle. The computer which I use for most of my _useful_ work
is a vanilla installation of an old (RH5.2) distro, which has never been
upgraded. and it works great (on my P133).
> of doing things. There is always some disjointed utility to do what you want but
> everything is scattered all over the place. Tried Email and news yet? How about
Most things are where you expect them to be. email and news couldn't be
easier.
> a firewall? Multimedia? Want to turn that high end video card into a loser? Try
> Linux. Games? look again.
> KDE and Gnome run as slow as molasses. Try selecting a directory with a lot of
> files (/dev will do) and see how long kfm takes to stop churning. Now try the
> same thing under Windows. Instantaneous. How about moving WIndows, re sizing and
> so forth. Sluggish under Linux, fast as can be under WIndows.
If you have accelerated graphics under X, moving and resizing is faster
than I can see. Under windows or linux, opaque drags with generic video
drivers are very slow.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: any screen capture package?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:52:04 +0100
paokai chang wrote:
>
> Is there anybody tell me : where to find a "screen capture" package
> for KDE 1.1 (except Ksnapshot)
xv
comes with most linux distros.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 08:52:23 -0400
Tom wrote:
>
> Maybe someone here can enlighten me and show me some really fine paint
> software for Linux that blows PhotoShop and / or Painter out of the
> water and really shows off the performance superiority of Linux over
> something like NT. I honestly would love to see it. I'd love to believe
> that Linux blows NT out of the water in this area....but right now, I'm
> just not seeing it......
Image processing speed and performance, when sufficient ram is
available, have little to do with the operating system. There should be
no system calls during low level operations like that.
It seems a little odd that a digital artist would describe a bitmap
image as a "25 mb" image, and not 2.8kx2.8k RGB, or a 5k x 5k palette.
The actual file size tells very little about the image.
Anyway, gimp is an application. Its performance, or perceived lack, is
not indicative of the OS. File I/O, task scheduling, IPC, and things
like that are where an OS can impact performance. Stability is also an
important factor. Linux clearly has all this going for it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:54:59 -0500
Streamer wrote:
>
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> > This was a concern _five years ago_ when Caldera started producing a
> > distribution that had more proprietary properties than anything RHAT has
> > ever put together.
> >
> > A couple years ago, the "Works With Red Hat" thing was something many were
> > concerned about.
>
> OK, Chris,
>
> Can you please tell me what is it exactly that made/makes RedHat's distro
> more proprietary than any of the others? Am I mistaken to believe that you
> could just install whatever packages needed and run all the applcations on
> any Linux distro? Other than run-level assignments, what makes RedHat really
> different from the other distros that mandate that one application can only
> run on RedHat and no others? I'm not flaming, I just would really like to
> know.
> Thanks.
It's not that Red Hat includes proprietary things, but they
occassionally do things in a non-standard way. Case in point, thier
print filters are completely thiers and there is nothing you can do to
make them work on another system (believe me when I say I've tried). HP
print server software makes use of the Red Hat filters only, and will
not work with ghostscript/lpr commands the way all other distributions
seem to do things. Of course, you don't need to run HP print server
software in order to access the print server (just send it to port 9100
on the IP of the print server itself after running through the
appropriate filter), but a newby would not know the work-around and
think that they had to use Red Hat to make it work. Also, some binary
only commercial products actually do search uname for Red Hat version,
and if they don't come up with a Red Hat match, they will not install.
And it isn't simply a matter of untarring something with a binary only
version, as they have a proprietary way of storing and installing the
program as well.
Not to say that Red Hat doesn't have the right to promote thier version
over others, but I think other distros do a little better job of
prompting vendors of proprietary software/commercial software to promote
Linux. Red Hat prompts vendors to promote Red Hat, not Linux. This is
where the problem lies (in my mind). It wouldn't be a problem if Red
Hat didn't have programs that promoted the "Runs on Red Hat" way of
thinking. I much prefer the idea of a "Runs on Linux" type of thinking,
but that's my opinion.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Drestin Black, more proof of the success of OSS
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:58:13 +0100
abraxas wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Our favorite M$ troll uses OSS every time that he posts to Usenet.
>
> > Trying 207.126.101.30...
> > Connected to www.supernews.com.
> > Escape character is '^]'.
> > HEAD / HTTP/1.0
>
> > HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> > Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:35:14 GMT
> > Server: Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.5.0 OpenSSL/0.9.4
> > Last-Modified: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:38:40 GMT
> > ETag: "5a08c-d56-38e439e0"
> > Accept-Ranges: bytes
> > Content-Length: 3414
> > Connection: close
> > Content-Type: text/html
>
> > SuperNews, aka Remarq is an open source shop and has been since its
> > inception in 1995. NT simply can't handle the type of volume they deal
> > with.
>
> YES IT CAN YES IT CAN!!!
>
> Ok, maybe it cant, but AS SOON AS SUPERNEWS CONVERTS TO W2K SUPER-SERVER-
> EDITION IT WILL BE ABLE TO! I HAVE A BETA COPY OF IT IN MY HAND RIGHT NOW!
> IT EXISTS! ITS GOING TO WHIP UNIX COMPLETELY! WHO NEEDS APACHE WHEN YOU
> HAVE IIS! IIS IS SUPERIOR! IT LOADS BETTER! ITS THE BEST! YOU DONT
> KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT! HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF UN-NAMED ONLINE
> BOOKSTORES HAVE BEEN USING DATACENTER FOR 15 YEARS AND NEVER HAD A PROBLEM
> WITH IT!
>
> -----YTTRX
YOU FORGOT TO SAY THAT LINUXSUXXX AND CALL LINSUX LINSUX AND YOU FORGOT
TO BE REALLY UNSUBLTY RUDE TO PEOPLE
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:47:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2000 18:47:52 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
> wrote:
>
> >It was the Sun, 28 May 2000 14:47:40 +0200...
> >...and Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Nonsens.. Gnome is nothing else than a KDE klone....
> >
> >Bovine dung. This isn't even worth arguing with.
>
> That's true. Gnome has a better foundation even though at this time it
> is less developed. They should look at the source before they proclaim
> their expertise.
And here I ask for the 142nd time. What specifically in the GNOME
foundation is so cool compared to KDE2, or even KDE1?
I mean, GNOME has lately shown as big news that they can print, and that
they have non-blocking I/O. Is that actually supposed to be cool?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc-Andre Dion)
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 29 May 2000 13:08:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc-Andre Dion)
Dave ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No version of any microsoft software has ever been as fast as the
>> previous version.
>
> Not true. IE 5 on the Mac is *much* faster that IE 4.5. SQL Server 7
> is faster than 6.5. Win2000 *Server* is more responsive as a desktop
> OS than Win98se. IE 5 on Windows is faster than IE 4.
I think what the person meant is that "Later versions (on the same
hardware) of the same Microsoft software are (often) slower". For example:
Win98SE with 64MB will be more responsive than Windows 2000 (Server) on
the same hardware. Once you add more memory, then the tables turn.
> That's the problem with absolute statements. They're so *easily*
> disproven!
Very true. :)
--
Marc-Andre Dion can be reached from these places:
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 3063664
------------------------------
From: DanH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 09:08:19 -0500
In article <8gsmci$k81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe someone here can enlighten me and show me some really fine paint
> software for Linux that blows PhotoShop and / or Painter out of the
> water and really shows off the performance superiority of Linux over
> something like NT. I honestly would love to see it. I'd love to believe
> that Linux blows NT out of the water in this area....but right now, I'm
> just not seeing it......
Try Houdini. It's the graphics package used to make The Matrix and that level
of movie. They have ported it to Linux.
Of course, it's $17,000 per user, but if you want something that will blow
photoshop out of the water...
You might also try SGI, with IRIX. Extreme high-end graphical stuff.
DanH
--
UNIX - Not just for vestal virgins anymore
Linux - Choice of a GNU generation
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:57:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Then don't use both KDE and Gnome.
>
> Unfortunately to get full desktop support you need both KDE and Gnome
> shared libraries (linuxconf runs in an xterm without Gnome).
Is that a problem? ;-)
Ok, let's assume it is, and try to work on it logically.
You can take three courses of action.
a) Install KDE alone and use linuxconf in a terminal.
Let's call the amount of inconvenience a) causes A.
b) Install GNOME alone, and use graphic linuxconf, not using any KDE
apps.
Let's call that inconvenience B.
c) Install both, use mainly one, and just use the apps of the other that
have no replacement.
In this case, you have no inconvenience beyond a certain amount of
UI inconsistency (which could, maybe, just be limited to linuxconf?)
that is not also in A and B. Let's call that C.
It will also cost you about 30MB of HD space, which these days is
worth about a quarter.
Think what is less inconvenient. Do it. No need for further discussion,
except if you have any suggestions about how to quantify A, B or C.
IMHO, C < A < B, or, if you prefer the GNOME apps (or feel very repulsed
by Linuxconf in text mode), C < B < A.
And, of course, you can always use linuxconf's web mode, in which case
C < A < B again (unless you really prefer GNOME apps to KDE apps).
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux kernal - mode GUI?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 09:11:00 -0400
CAguy wrote:
>
> To quote a Microsoft researcher:
>
> "In early versions of Windows NT [Custer 92], Microsoft implemented
> the Win32 GUI subsystem as a user-level process. With version 4.0,
> Microsoft moved the GUI subsystem into the kernel address space to
> improve performance. The differences between the two environments,
> particularly the semantic differences between system calls and IPC,
> necessitated a partial redesign of the GUI subsystem. It took ten
> months to stabilize the resulting system, longer than any previous NT
> release, although many other factors (for example, switching to the
> Windows 95 user interface) also contributed to this delay [Cutler
> 97]."
>
> Is there any on-going Linux project to do the same? or is this viewed
> in the Linux community as a Bad Thing to do?
>
> IMHO it's a good thing for a comsumer type of OS (for speed) and
> a non-issue for a server OS. Unless you believe that a GUI system
> in kernal mode makes the system inherently unstable.
>
> I think Microsoft made a wise choice.
I have to disagree. Moving a GUI, which in Windows world is mandatory,
into the kernel is a disaster. NT Servers will kernel fault on a bad
printer driver. Think about that for a minute.
There are projects to get various drawing primitives down into the Linux
kernel, and I'm not sure if I think that is a good idea. As long as it
stays optional, then that should be OK, but if companies start requiring
it, then it isn't.
Almost unilaterally, any decision Microsoft has made about how to make
NT more "consumer" has made NT worse. I think it is a long and
questionable path to try similar approaches for Linux.
Windows NT, on its first release, was unstable because the bugs in the
core needed to be shaken out. Around 3.51, it was almost stable. Then in
4.0 they torpedoed it by putting the GUI in kernel space. Yuck, more and
more serious bugs. I used to be on all the NT beta programs. Now, I
simply don't care. NT is irrelevant. If you want a server, use Linux or
FreeBSD. If you want a desktop use Linux. If you want to run games, buy
a toy: Nintendo, PlayStation or Windows 9x.
>
> James
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:14:40 GMT
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 23:29:46 GMT, Chris Wenham wrote:
[snip]
> True Chris,
>
> It would be much better to say "To install FP 13, please install FP
> 1-12 in order, and then proceed"... or you could just use MS's
> invasive "Let's scan your hard drive" method and upload
> whatever info they want.
MS's "Windows Update" feature works just like an ordinary
installer; it interogates your system to decide what files need
to be updated, then updates them. It just draws its new files from
a website, not a CD-ROM.
The installer that does this is downloaded from the website, too;
it does not "upload whatever info they want"; that would be
prohibitively expensive. Potentially, Windows Update might
check every bloody file in C:\Windows; uploading all that to
Microsoft would take a long, long time.
> Perhaps the background secure connection to your browser that
> they tried pulling off till a very legal stated complaint was issued
> way back early this year?
What are you on about? Somebody complained about Windows Update
using secure connections?
I'd hope it would use secure connections; it'd be real shame
if it were spoofable!
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:14:42 GMT
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > He *tried* making a deal with the DoJ. Remember the consent decree?
> > He got them to agree to "no bundling, but integration is okay". But it
> > didn't do any good, they came after him anyway.
> >
> > He can hardly expect the DoJ to keep its promises *now*. This is
> > true even if you feel that "browser integration" is positively
> > sinful; they gave him the okay to do it, and then sued him
> > anyway.
>
> A lie is only as good as the money it's printed on so who cares what is
> said as long as there is increasing shareholder value.
That's a remarkably unintelligable sentance you've got there.
> MS will get sued by shareholders for losing the case IF and only IF
> shareholders lose money. By the definition of liablity that results
> from losing so badly, MS management is culpable when they lose the case
> - Period. That the DOJ won so easily is proof enough MS botched the
> case and it will enrage the shareholders they were mislead so badly by
> management IF MS does NOT WIN on Appeal.
Oh, I dunno. You are assuming the DoJ will win this thing; MS seems
to be betting they can beat this on appeal.
If they are wrong, they may face some shareholder complaints about
their conduct during the trial; even if they never had a chance with Judge
Jackson presiding, it still does not mean they should've acted as
goofy as they did.
Nevertheless, Bill Gates has a pretty good explaination for why he
didn't settle: tried it once, didn't work.
> Like crummy software, MS's defense is supposed to get better on appeal,
> the next release. Well if it doesn't get better MS managent could well
> be be sued for making misleading statements to the shareholders.
I think the theory is not that MS's defence will get better, but that they
believe they'll get a court that doesn't have it in for them.
Whether this is true, of course, remains to be see; but there are some
promising indicators.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:14:43 GMT
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > > Windows 2000 is $300.
>
> > Hardware and software are not the same. Manufacturing technology has
> > improved; computer components are cheaper.
>
> Computer manufacturing requires billion dollar fabrication plants to
> manufacture. Software cheap - there are not costs for duplication
> software. Software is by far cheaper to manufacture - the cost of an
> FTP site and a connection will generate unlimited quantities of
> software.
Yes; as you point out, hardware and software are different. Software
manufacturing is very, very cheap compared to hardware manufacturing.
But software design is very expensive, and the demands placed on it
are growing faster than the demands placed on hardware.
> > Programming technology *has* improved, but it hasn't improved very
> > much in this area. The main improvement that can be applied to
> > an OS is the emergence of C++.
>
> Hardware is programming logic and it too needs to be designed.
Some of it is; CPU design is comparable. But most of a computer
is simpler than that.
Even a CPU is *much* simpler than a large software project, like
Windows 2000. It's not *simple*, of course, but the really big software
systems are just mind-numblingly complicated.
Which may be a Bad Thing (tm); many have argued against such
complexity. It's just that nobody has found a way to deliver the
functionality that is in demand without it.
> It also
> has to be orders of magnitude more reliable than a MS software product.
No, actually, it doesn't. Most hardware is assembled by manufacturers,
not end users; they have a fairly clear idea of what it will be working
with,
and can test the configurations they sell.
Software has to work, as if by magic, on practically any hardware
and with practically any other software that happens to be there;
and you do not get to test the configuration in advance.
It is hard to be reliable like that.
> Still prices are dropping, not increasing.
However, functionality isn't increasing very much; computers have
more storage and run faster, but don't offer very much in the new
features department.
They expect the software to do that, for the most part.
> > There *are* advanced tools that can greatly simplify program development
> > in *some* sectors; but they don't apply to OSes.
> >
> > (Really. Just *try* building an OS in Visual Basic. I dare you. :D )
>
> I don't do crack. If I wanted to market and develop a new OS I could do
> it in one day. I'd repackage LINUX or FreeBSD and call it JOS. MS even
> repackages some BSD networking code in their Windows OS.
A new Linux distribution is hardly a new OS.
My point, I think, remains unscathed: most of the software development
technologies and techniques that have come out over the years do not
apply to OS design. There really isn't anything that can help you build,
say, a VM subsystem in the way that Visual Basic will help you build
a (simple) user interface.
Hell, quite a few don't even apply to *shrinkwrap application* design;
they are really for custom apps.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:14:43 GMT
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gs781$pn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <J8gY4.9130$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Certainly the history of this industry suggests that this is *not* the
> >case; typically the succesful competitors are *not* those that
> >make a snap-in replacement, but those with something new
> >and *different*. ...
>
> I don't find that very convincing -- the whole computer industry
> has had a superabundance of backwards compatibility, suggesting that
> successful competitors have often made "snap-in replacements".
I don't think these two things are the same. Backwards compatibility is
mostly what a company does to easy its own users to new versions of
their software, or new products; it allows them to discontinue old,
obsolete products.
For a *competitor* to overtake its rival by offering a snap-in replacement
is very rare; indeed I can think of no clear-cut example. One could
argue, I suppose, for Linux replacing BSD this way- at least if
BSD does, in fact, go the way of the dodo.
I suspect that may be because in the land of Open Source, the rules
may be different, though.
> Consider freeware Unixes vs. payware Unixes -- Linux and the
> BSD's have been moving in on the payware x86 Unixes and even the payware
> Alpha Unix (Tru64).
It seems to me that these products haven't exactly taken over; they
made the already very fragmented Unix market even more fragmented,
but they don't seem to have dislodged the leaders per se.
And it seems to me that Unix part of the market is anomalous;
I can't think of anywhere else where such fragmentation was
sustained for a long time, as it has been with Unix.
It does seem sometimes that some people are *demanding*
that the entire remainer of the industry be made to work like the
Unix part of it; but I'm really not so sure that would be an improvement.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
