Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Jim Richardson)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joe Ragosta)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (John Gluck)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:01:52 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 May 2000 19:54:48 GMT,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[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).
>
>Pete
Or you could use it via your webbrowser.
--
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] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 29 May 2000 18:49:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : In article <8gp9f3$20h0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> : > *snip stuff about os/2*
> : >
> : > And BTW, why are you posting this to comp.os.linux.advocacy?
> : >
> : > You are most assuredly doing what you always swore you never did:
> : > Trying to start a fight.
> : >
> : > May I be the first to say: Fuck off drestin.
> : Sorry, you are not the first to say it. Still, Drestin if fun to
> : torment. He gets so pissed when you ask him to back up his claims. Of
> : course he never can. Then he tries some personal attack. So predictable.
> Oh please! This is such typical "kettle" behavior. If anyone has an
> inherent disability to post proof of wild claims, it's you, bright boy.
>From the master of all kettles himself.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 18:55:30 GMT
In article <43uY4.4218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
>
On a 200 baud modem, sure.
Let's say that there are 1000 files in the C:\Windows directory. Then,
let's say that there are an average of 100 bytes in each path name. That
means you only have to upload about 100 kb--hardly prohibitively
expensive.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free -- no strings attached. Just sign up.
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web:
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 29 May 2000 19:11:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
:>
:> No. I am questioning your basic tenets. One of those tenets is that
:> linux development is an engineering process, with objectives, plans,
:> milestones, problem tracking and so on.
: I think you're replying to someone else. I have never made any statement
Very possibly. With people posting under pseudonyms I can only tell who
the poster is by the tone and content! You're entirely too reasonable
to be the main protagonist in this thread.
: espousing such tenets. In particular, I think OS's lack of schedules is
: one of its biggest strengths.
:> Once you accept that it is possibly not what you think it is
: First you need to accept that you've gravely misunderstood my position.
It's quite possible. Out of mild interest, what is your position?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
Date: 29 May 2000 19:16:59 GMT
[crossposted, just to see what folks from the different OS camps might
have to say about this...]
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Is this it?? They [Micro~1] must have innovated something?
: Come on boys , THINK!
Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of computing
power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides, Commodore,
Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX weenies at
Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah... _right_.
Answer me this... exactly how has Sun Microsystems put computers into the
hands of general consumers? Please tell me which retailer I can visit, in
order to purchase a Sun computer system... what's that?... I can't do that
you say? Gee, why not? I'll tell you why Sun doesn't sell in the retail
market... it's because they want to keep their products in the corporate
markets, where they can jack up the prices, and take advantage of
corporate executives who have more money than sense. Sun could easily
make a killing off of Intel-based boxen running Windows if they wanted to.
But Sun knows that Intel-based hardware is easily eclipsing theirs by wide
margins, and that little fact is a huge dent in their pride, and they know
that the only way to keep selling their hardware is to be able to hide
behind the lack of scrutiny that exists in tightly controlled and
ambiguous corporate markets: corporate markets that Microsoft is
beginning to blow wide open. A product that is readily available to the
general consumer is very open to scrutiny, externally, or internally,
depending upon the product's license.
PC technology wouldn't have come as far as it has, if it wasn't open to
external scrutinization by the general consumer.
Tell me, how much do you know about IRIX, or VMS? Unless you've been
fortunate enough to work in a place that uses either of them, I'm willing
to bet next to nothing. Since I'm a 3D animator, I've used IRIX quite a
bit. But how would some average joe get a chance to use it? He'd have to
find an expensive university that would teach him how to use it, most
likely. But in order to use Windows, all he'd need to do is save enough
money to get his grubby little hands on a PC.
Corporations like Sun and SGI restrict their target markets for a simple
reason. It's because they know that cheaper PC technology like the Intel
Pentium, and the PowerPC vastly outclasses their expensive hardware...
hardware which they could easily sell at enormously jacked-up prices to
mindless corporate boobs, if there were no other viable options available.
Options like Microsoft Windows.
I know some SGI or Sun weenie is probably going to jump in here, and deny
all of this, and probably call me a "PC dummy" or something (which
wouldn't make sense, since I own several SGI systems myself), but it's
hard to ignore the implications following events such as the DOJ trial.
Microsoft has, for years, been pounding companies like Sun into the dirt.
They've been doing this for a reason: because they think companies like
Sun will ultimately hurt their business. No, it has nothing to do with
good intentions for the people. It's all about capitalistic wanting
(which some might translate into "greed"). But still, in their endeavor,
Microsoft is continuing to strive for appealing to everyone, from 3D
animators, to gamers, to home users, to business users, to data centers,
etc.
Sun Microsystems, and the others involved in this whole DOJ nonsense
aren't interested in justice at all... they merely want Microsoft's cash
cow to end, so that they can take the market away from consumers, and as a
result, take the public scrutiny along with it... and as a result, sell
their substandard and less-featured hardware. Personally, I hope that
Microsoft and its subsidiary(ies) (assuming that they are divided
eventually, and that Janet Reno's mindless persecution isn't called on
for what it is), continues to produce their products. I like Microsoft's
products. I support Microsoft. If that makes me an "idiot", or a "shill"
in someone else's eyes, I really couldn't care less.
So, if anyone in these forums wishes to return to the 1980's way of
computing, to depend upon "slow as goose shit on sandpaper" Java
technolgy, or to use black and white Xterminals well into the next
century, please, support Sun with all of your fervor. I'm sure they'll
reward you by giving you a link to a used SPARC5 for sale on eBay.
Companies like Apple, IBM, Atari, Commodore, and Microsoft have brought
computing to the general consumer. A company like Sun would likely bring
advances in computing, that benefit the general consumer, to a halt. I
think that if Sun actually got into the position that Microsoft is in now,
I just might go to work for the tobacco industry... at least that way, I'd
be contributing the slow deaths[0] of Sun's software engineers. *grin*
[0] NOTE: I do not in any way endorse the killing of Sun programmers, or
any Sun employees, as plant life is precious to our Earth's
atmosphere. However, I do endorse giving them atomic wedgies
at any given moment... that, and floppy raids[1].
[1] Similar to "panty raids" except that panties cannot be used to store
data and support large beverages after being stolen.[2]
[2] Or maybe they could be used as coasters for beer bottles[3].
[3] That's while they are _not_ being worn[3a].
[3a] Or maybe you'd prefer the other[4].
[4] Please, no "longneck" inuendos.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:22:41 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> Out of mild interest, what is your position?
I have a tendency to reply only to parts of posts I disagree with. :) In
this case, the parts were 1) Linux development is 'free' (as in beer,
not as in speech), and 2) since Linux is successful, that means that
bug-tracking isn't necessary.
Not being privy to the innards of Linux development, I wouldn't dare
suggest that bug-tracking _is_ necessary--simply that it's worth
discussing. It does seem to me that with a hyperdistributed development
effort, some standard engineering tools can help manage communications
(Brooks' bugbear). But I don't really know, which is why I only comment
on the parts I have done.
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:26:30 +0100
Ray wrote:
>
> But the projects I listed arn't even part of the kernel and in one case
> isn't even Linux specific.
I see what you mean. In that case, I'd say that it would perhaps be
_desirable_ to have a bug-tracking database that could manage project
interconnections like those of which you speak, but it's not feasible.
That is, I feel that such a database would be better than doing
full-text searches against mailing list archives, which you disagreed
with.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:33:54 +0200
Roger wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 May 2000 02:03:03 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
> Colla wrote:
>
> >Arclight wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:29 +0200, Giuliano Colla
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >Arclight wrote:
>
> >> >> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I got Office 97 the month after it was released as a prize for a
> >> competition, and it has the filters on the cd.
>
> >Was an MS competition? That tells a lot.
>
> You see, when Giuliano runs out of ways to advance his point
> legitimately, he'll accuse you of having a connection to MS -- the
> worst crime imaginable, and one which automatically invalidates
> everything you have to say.
>
> At least o MaxWorld.
A connection with MS can impair judgment because of thinking
habits, and because of a quite natural bias.
>
> >> >> There was a filter on the office 97 pro CD which allowed you to write
> >> >> real word 95 DOC files.
>
> >> >Now I understand. It was a professional feature. Great! How
> >> >could you tell if a file was RTF or DOC? There was another
> >> >professional tool? Or you had to hire a sensitive? Doesn't
> >> >sound so professional after all.
>
> >> I know they were DOC because they wouldn't load in a program I had
> >> which used RTF files.
>
> >OK. You have a program which may write two kind of files, with same
> >extension, only one kind is readable by some programs and the other kind
> >is readable by other programs. And you don't find anything wrong with
> >Microsoft?
>
> No, since if you had saved the file as an RTF, it would have the RTF
> extension. A .DOC could have bee neither, which was a bad choice on
> MS's fault, which they acknowledged, corrected, and did not repeat
> (nor had they done anything like this before.)
OK. Everybody can make mistakes, and correct them.
I only resent when mistakes are not acknowledged, because I
feel that they will happen again.
>
> >If you can explain why "save as" printing differently from "save" can be
> >connected to faulty printer driver then please do so. Try to be
> >convincing, because it's not so easy.
>
> Since the only report I've ever heard of this happening is yours, and
> your have demonstrated a willingness to play fast and loose with the
> truth, how about you prove it actually happened before anyone spends
> any time troubleshooting it?
I think that faulty printouts have been thrown away. Besides
I don't owe you any proof. Either you believe it or not. In
either case you must agree that attributing it to a faulty
printer driver is so idiotic to make someone asserting it
completely an unreliable source of information.
About playing games with truth, I must take many lessons
before I can approach your ability, so please refrain to
praise others for capabilities you show in such a high
degree.
>
> >Till then I'm entitled to affirm that you don't understand absolutely
> >anything about software and should refrain to express any opinion on the
> >subject.
>
> ATAOILHTN, as they say on a.r
Sounds Cambodian. Is it?
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 15:00:29 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Still MS's profit margins are so excessive the argument is moot. If
> they did have higher costs, it would show in their profits.
MS's profit margins are so large for one reason only: Volume.
MS spends ungodly amounts of money on product design. Orders of magnitude
more, in some cases, than it's competitors in the marketplace. It can do
this, and create a more polished product because it has volume sales. If
Microsoft lowered it's prices to keep it's profit margins in line, then
nobody else could compete with them based on price alone, and would be
driven out of business. Even at MS's high profits, their prices are
significantly less than competitors in many cases (for instance, OS/2's
retail price is about $40 more than Windows 9x's).
You can't have it both ways Joseph. If MS lowers their prices to keep their
profits "in check", something that no company would do, then they'd be
accused of dumping to drive their competitors out of the market (as they
have been with IE).
> I would also argue MS's proreection of a monopoly makes their software
> more costly, integration is bad software engineering.
Customers prefer integrated products. For instance, in the audio market.
Bookshelf systems, and integrated recievers are much more commonly sold than
component systems. Yes, discrete tuner/pre-amp/amplifier sets are much
higher quality, but for most end-users, the integrated product works just
fine for their needs, costs a lot less, and is much more convenient.
Quality of engineering has a threshold of "good enough" for most users,
which beyond that is not of value to them.
> A CPU is better tested and more reliable than any stand alone MS
> software product. They which often have need for repair without any
> consideratons for 3rd party addons or any hardware specific defects.
Intel is taking a huge loss this quarter because they have to replace many
defective systems.
Hardware engineering is a discipline that has had over 75 years to mature.
In the early days, it was just as unreliable as software is today. True
software engineering began about 35 years ago, mostly as internal IBM
processes. It did not start spreading to the general industry until about
10 years ago. It needs time to mature and become a standard across the
industry.
Even Microsoft is recognizing this. Steve McConnell's latest book (MS
Press) is titled "After the gold rush" and talks exclusively about turning
software engineering into a discipline as well structured as hardware
engineering.
> > 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.
>
> Credit the CPU makers for doing a superior job of backwards
> compatibility. MS doens't load CPU and platffrom specific codes to
> correct for hardware differences.
To some extent, they do. for instance, the Pentium FDIV bug patches are
still present, even in Windows 2000, despite the fact that MS's minimum
requirements are outside the range of hardware the could be effected by the
bug.
But backwards compatibility is more about periphials. Windows 95's design
was mainly about keeping backwards compatibility with drivers of legacy
hardware.
> Functionality is increasing. The smaller size and power consumption are
> features.
Office 2000 is also getting smaller (the actual applications) and using less
resources. I guess those are features as well.
> > 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.
>
> Baloney. Even old OS/2 has a modular design and is mostly written in
> C/C++. As MS defines the OS a vast majority of software does indeed
> fall under these technqiues.
C. OS's are not usually written in C++. Applets might might be, but even
then they usually are not.
Since the majority of tools are focused on OOP methodologies, they do little
to help with the design of the OS.
> > 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.
>
> Visual basic is a bad exmaple. I'm not sure many software packages we
> use today are made in the crippled product visual basic.
How about Java? How about Pascal? MacOS was originally written in Apple
Pascal, but over the years has migrated mostly to C. But we're talking
about PC OS's here.
> > Hell, quite a few don't even apply to *shrinkwrap application* design;
> > they are really for custom apps.
>
> Visual basic is a bad choice as an example. Powerful frameworks for
> program development exist. MS used MFC for IE and IE is part of the
> Windows OS. Sun offers SWING.
IE is *NOT* written in MFC. Not a stitch. It's actually written in a
custom framework that ATL was based on.
------------------------------
From: John Gluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:46:45 -0400
Tom wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
> it.
>
[snip]
By default most linux distributions don't see more than 64 Megs of RAM.
You need to tell the kernel at boot time that you have more.
I have 256Megs so in /etc/lilo/conf i added a line that says: append
"mem=256M" (if i remember the syntax correctly)
There are several ways to check if you are using all your ram.
One is in the KDE control center, choose information memory
Second is do a top command. That will show you all processes but will
also give you info about memory usage.
--
John Gluck (Passport Kernel Design Group)
(613) 765-8392 ESN 395-8392
Unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed here are strictly my own
and do not reflect any official position of Nortel Networks.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:02:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote in <8gtpeu$bnu$1
@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Is that a problem? ;-)
Not really, just a potential pot hole for the unwary to fall into.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:05:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I'm sitting at the bottom of the Linux tree and shaking the base,
>>yelling, "HEY GUYS! WAKEUP!".
>>
>>Pete
>
>Hey Pete!. We're over here, getting work done...
Ah you're behind that rock are you? Coooeeeee....
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:08:30 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > Still MS's profit margins are so excessive the argument is moot. If
> > they did have higher costs, it would show in their profits.
>
> MS's profit margins are so large for one reason only: Volume.
Monopoly.
> You can't have it both ways Joseph. If MS lowers their prices to keep their
> profits "in check", something that no company would do, then they'd be
> accused of dumping to drive their competitors out of the market (as they
> have been with IE).
Monopoly 101.
In markets where MS hasn't aquired monopoly peower they cut prices. In
markets MS has aquired monopoly power they raise prices.
> > I would also argue MS's proreection of a monopoly makes their software
> > more costly, integration is bad software engineering.
>
> Customers prefer integrated products. For instance, in the audio market.
> Bookshelf systems, and integrated recievers are much more commonly sold than
> component systems.
Bad exmaple -
> Yes, discrete tuner/pre-amp/amplifier sets are much
> higher quality, but for most end-users, the integrated product works just
> fine for their needs, costs a lot less, and is much more convenient.
bad exmaple -- What version of Windows comes without IE? NONE. MS
claims it is impossible.
When asked to build Windows without IE MS shipped a crippled product and
insulted the judge. I can CHOOSE to by an integrated stereo or
components. I can CHOOSE. MS says consumers cannot CHOOSE so IE is
integrated and shipped in every MS PC OS.
> > A CPU is better tested and more reliable than any stand alone MS
> > software product. They which often have need for repair without any
> > consideratons for 3rd party addons or any hardware specific defects.
>
> Intel is taking a huge loss this quarter because they have to replace many
> defective systems.
MS is a monopoly and doesn't have to service the customer by taking back
defective software.
> Hardware engineering is a discipline that has had over 75 years to mature.
Software has been around since weaving looms were programmed with
punchcards cards in the 1800's.
> Even Microsoft is recognizing this. Steve McConnell's latest book (MS
> Press) is titled "After the gold rush" and talks exclusively about turning
> software engineering into a discipline as well structured as hardware
> engineering.
and...there have been books about this topic since before MS was
created. It isn't relevant to the fact MS has monopoly profits and
shows no fear of competive OS pricing.
> > > 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.
> >
> > Credit the CPU makers for doing a superior job of backwards
> > compatibility. MS doens't load CPU and platffrom specific codes to
> > correct for hardware differences.
>
> To some extent, they do.
They do not ship hardware patches - they stop production and or recall
product. Their business takes a hit for bad performance. MS does not
- they ship version x.1 and patches.
> But backwards compatibility is more about periphials.
Backwards compatibility is about software. The excuse for lame Win95
was to have backwards compatibility - OS/2 still did a better job that
that crummy OS.
> > Functionality is increasing. The smaller size and power consumption are
> > features.
>
> Office 2000 is also getting smaller (the actual applications) and using less
> resources. I guess those are features as well.
Office 2000 is not an OS.
> > Baloney. Even old OS/2 has a modular design and is mostly written in
> > C/C++. As MS defines the OS a vast majority of software does indeed
> > fall under these technqiues.
>
> C. OS's are not usually written in C++. Applets might might be, but even
> then they usually are not.
Well MS used C++ in Windows 2000.
> Since the majority of tools are focused on OOP methodologies, they do little
> to help with the design of the OS.
Baloney.
> > Visual basic is a bad exmaple. I'm not sure many software packages we
> > use today are made in the crippled product visual basic.
>
> How about Java? How about Pascal? MacOS was originally written in Apple
> Pascal, but over the years has migrated mostly to C. But we're talking
> about PC OS's here.
Visual basic is a crummy example.
> IE is *NOT* written in MFC. Not a stitch. It's actually written in a
> custom framework that ATL was based on.
Still a framework and a code base MS tells us all is part of their OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
