Linux-Advocacy Digest #939, Volume #26 Tue, 6 Jun 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit! (Gary Hallock)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft OS, no full OS CD Re: More Dirty Microsoft Tactics ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft OS, no full OS CD Re: More Dirty Microsoft Tactics (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The sad Linux story (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Innovation (H H Chau)
Re: Homebrew (Was: Beer Wars at CSMA) (Lars Duening)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Linux is so stable... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Date: 6 Jun 2000 17:54:30 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Why do it that way? The old massive central server and lite workstations
>>>instead of powerful PC and lite servers!
>>
>>Processing is processing - it doesn't really matter where you
>>do it.
>
>This is false, it matters a great deal. Memory bandwidth and bus
>bandwidth are not constants.
What matters there is cost to provide what one user needs. It
may or may not be cheaper to increase capacity in a single
large host than to buy a suitable machine per user, or it
may be possible to cluster the central servers to get more
capacity if many small boxes turn out to be cheaper. A
bigger issue is where the data you need resides and how
much bandwidth the display takes.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:01:54 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Full Name wrote:
>
>
> I really hate to mention the obvious, however Microsoft have clearly
> chosen an operating system which typically will not carry a virus for
> which windows is susceptible. They are simply taking all possible
> precautions (as they should).
>
> They could just as well as chosen VMS. They are willing to take some
> of the inevitable mindless criticism in order to protect their
> customers.
I'm not criticizing MS for using Unix. I think it was a wise choice.
But Drestin insisted that MS did not use Unix in its manufacturing
process. That had to be answered.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:04:00 GMT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 18:11:26 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>All right, stop right there. Don't even get me started on these
>>>ridiculous attempts to define what an OS is and what it should and
>>>should not do. The academic definition of "OS" is totally irrelevant
>>
>> Oh sure, ignore the point of view of those that have
>>to actually build and maintain these systems that are now to
>>be driven by the incompetent ramblings of the liberal arts
>>graduates in the marketing department.
>>
>
>The point is that the retail products currently being called operating
>systems - things like Windows, MacOS, Redhat Linux, Solaris, etc. -
>have nothing to do with the academic definition of the term "operating
>system". They all *INCLUDE* things the scientists would call operating
>systems, but they also all include much more. Therefore, it's totally
>unfair to restrict Microsoft from including in Windows functionality
>that falls outside the academic definition of "operating system",
That is not what is occuring. You lie to imply otherwise.
Microsoft has been quite able to bundle elements not
academically OS components for over a decade now without
any serious complaint. They've been allowed to increase
what they have been bundling while putting 3rd party
vendors out of business, for over a decade, without any
serious complaint.
They crossed a line with Netscape between system utility
and end user application.
NO ONE ELSE bundles a web browser with the express intent
of preventing 3rd party vendors from being able to stay
in business developing alternatives.
>especially when the competition includes equivalent functionality.
They could easily solve the problem by choosing to also
include Netscape and Opera and allowing the end user to
choose, or simply allow the OEM to choose.
This is roughtly equivalent to what Linux distributors do.
>
>By the way, why the hell should computer scientists have any say in
>product design? They don't sell products. When it comes to product
>design, *THEY* are the incompetent ones. Perhaps some of the more anal
...easy to say from the peanut gallery.
>ones would be happier if the products I mentioned were labeled
>something else - like application platforms or something - but that's
>just a bunch of whining.
...except IE is just an application, rather than an applications
platform. It is not an extension to Win32 so much as it is
orthogonal to it, and present primarily to prevent someone else's
variant from undermining the hegemony of Win32.
Microsoft's position in the market is also relevant. Although, without
it the whole point would be moot as people could merely choose to
"shop elsewhere" without serious repercussion.
>
>>>
>>>here. We're talking about the marketing term. And just like that of
>>>"word processor", the marketing meaning of "OS" has changed over the
>>>years, and must be allowed to continue changing. If you think
>>
>> No it hasn't. That 'murky boundary' has always existed in
>>pretty much the same place. It only changes to suit the whims of one
>>particular company and it's supporters.
>>
>
>Bullshit (see above).
No, that boundary has always been there and there has been always
some resistance to MS breaching it. They have tended to run 3rd
parties out of business in the process.
>
>>
>> There is certainly a correlation between the existence of
>>competitors and price competitiveness. All the other players described
>>have to deal with the real possibility that they may be done in by another
>>company that 'does it better'.
>>
>
>As does Microsoft. Unfortunately, nobody seems to "do it better",
Bullshit.
>where the "it" refers not just to coding, but to the whole enchilada.
This is simple circular & post factum bullshit.
The "whole enchilada" is not something Microsoft can take credit
for but they can exploit it as a natural monopoly.
Thank you for acknowledging that market barrier for me.
It makes justification of the Sherman Act so much easier.
>
>>
>> Thus 32bit consumer Windows with a reasonable desktop shell in
>>1995 rather than 1985.
>>
>
>According to whose definition of "reasonable"? Yours? Give me a break.
Yours actually.
>Microsoft designed and implemented a modern operating system - fully
>preemptive, multithreaded, robust, virtual memory, etc. - back in the
>mid '80's. In fact, they wanted it to be fully 32-bit and target the
>then-upcoming Intel 80386, but their partner IBM insisted on it being
>able to run on their 16-bit PC-AT. That OS was OS/2 1.x. Look it up.
So? QNX ran fine on a 8088 & it didn't hurt it any. That's a
side effect of sane system design, things advocated by the
academics you show such obvious anti-intellectual bias against.
Besides, a product in the labs doesn't mean squat if your captive
customer base is still stuck doing manual memory management.
>
>>
>> Prior to August 1995, the 'market leader' was still subjecting fools
>>like you to DOS, yes that's MS-DOS, 10 YEARS after the introduction of the
>>Macintosh and the 386.
>>
>
>That is total bullshit, Jed. I was running OS/2 1.x with a nice GUI
>back in 1988. In 1992 I was running Windows NT. These were both
Both of these were limited scope non-consumer systems. Also,
NT didn't get a full desktop until version 4, much like
DOS/Win.
Also, version 1.x of OS/2 was a joint venture with the really
interesting GUI being strictly an IBM development and no GUI
of any kind initially.
>Microsoft operating systems (OK, Microsoft had help from IBM on the
>former), and were both solid, modern GUI operating systems. MacOS in
>2000 is still a joke as far as OS design is concerned. It's a great
...not compared to the competition. It still manages to be
more robust in some ways (registry) than the most numerous
competitor.
>product, but a terrible operating system in the academic sense.
...depends on which part of the department you ask.
[deletia]
The field is a bit wider than you seem to understand it to be.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:05:28 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Typical Linux...You need all of the add ons to perform basic
> functions.
>
> "Sir, would you like 4 tires with that new Corvette or will you take
> the stock model"?
>
> What a joke....
The print function is in any standard distribution.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:06:28 GMT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:33:13 -0700, John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I never said Linux was not targeting the desktop. I said or
>rather implied that Linux is not and will not be the weapon of
>choice for the naive or casual user. I use Linux on the desktop.
>But I am neither a newbie (wrote my first program in 1968) or
>just a casual user. Its not the platform but the kinds of users
>that distinguishes Linux from windoze. To use Linux you have to
>know about it, make the effort to get it, and fight through the
...that is true to some degree of ANY interface, even
MacOS. WinDOS has the benefit of being the first and
typically only thing that shoved down most consumers
throats.
>install process. Joe and Jane average user simply won't go
>through all that, assuming that they have even heard of Linux.
Ditto for WinDOS, or even WinDOS upgrades.
>And since they simply launch a few familiar applications and
>games or surf the net they won't have any reason to appreciate
>Linux. The kind of person who used to tune his own sportscar or
>develop his own pictures is the kind of person attracted to
>Linux. The majority will always go with the herd, and use
>windoze.
>John Culleton ---------> Please visit http://ccpl.carr.org/~john/
>
>My Linux Slackware system on Tuesday June 6 2000 at 6:33pm
>up 23 days, 20 hours 11 mins since last reboot ;-)
...the last distro we should be expecting desktop saavy to come from.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:07:34 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>
>>You know, I just love the look of a Jaguar sedan. I think it's
>>absolutely gorgeous. I can't afford a Jaguar, but I love the look so
>>much that I wouldn't mind owning a Jaguar body on top of an
>>OldsmoBuick frame. Unfortunately, nobody makes such a beast, and
>>because I'm neither mechanically inclined nor rich enough to pay for a
>>custom job, I have to settle for less than my ideal car. Should I be
>>whining to the DoJ like you are?
>
>This is called an "analogy".
>
No, it's called an illustration. This particular one is designed to
illustrate the idiocy of your view that Microsoft must be punished
because you can't get precisely the Windows configuration you want.
>
>One can use an analogy to explain one's reasoning, but if the above is
>truly an accurate insight into your point of view, it shows that you don't
>really understand the case at all.
>
On the contrary, I understand it all too well. That's why I'm so
vehemently against it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:09:52 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Gimp has an interface to do whatever you want to an image
>>from within it. If you want to print, get the print plug-in:
>> http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
>
>Aha... so, by default, Gimp does not have print? Do you need this plugin to
>print? So that might explain why my version of Gimp does not have print on
>the menu?
No, your version includes print (right below 'mail image' if you have
the one that came with Mandrake 7.0, but there is more than one
way to do it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:07:24 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However, on a home users desktop, it's a different story, because the user
>suddenly has to become a sys admin. Linux has somewhat adapted to this, and
>as a result is much easier for the home user than a traditional UNIX.
>However, it still does take some patience on part of the user as well as
>a "can-do" attitude. I'd say these two things are sufficient as well as
>necessary btw.
If this sort of user is willing to accept the canned choices
in one of the distributions, most of those problems go
away or at least become the equivalent of the other popular
systems. Updates can be a simple as clicking the 'updates'
icon on the Mandrake desktop.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft OS, no full OS CD Re: More Dirty Microsoft Tactics
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:20:07 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:12:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Something to think about is this. Major OEM's *CHOOSE* to use this
method.
> >The OEM could easily buy complete OEM liscenses from MS as well, but they
> >would end up paying a slightly higher price. OEM's are doing this to
hike
> >up their profits.
>
> They exist in the proverbial prisoners dilemma.
>
> It is wrong to blame the prisoner for this.
Funny, small mom and pop shops exist, and make a profit. They sell the OS
on CD.
OEM's are not prisoners, they're indentured servants. They've chosen their
fate, and they must live by it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:11:48 GMT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:07:34 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You know, I just love the look of a Jaguar sedan. I think it's
>>>absolutely gorgeous. I can't afford a Jaguar, but I love the look so
>>>much that I wouldn't mind owning a Jaguar body on top of an
>>>OldsmoBuick frame. Unfortunately, nobody makes such a beast, and
>>>because I'm neither mechanically inclined nor rich enough to pay for a
>>>custom job, I have to settle for less than my ideal car. Should I be
>>>whining to the DoJ like you are?
>>
>>This is called an "analogy".
>>
>
>No, it's called an illustration. This particular one is designed to
>illustrate the idiocy of your view that Microsoft must be punished
>because you can't get precisely the Windows configuration you want.
Actually it's a false strawman.
In the market being used for the "illustration", products are
perfectly replaceable. If you want an Oldsmobile driving experience
you can choose to buy an 88 and not be inconvenienced in any way.
You could even build your own car custom or from a kit and not be
inconvenienced or locked out of using the same roads as the owner
of a jaguar could.
An "illustration" that would better reflect the reality of the market
would be that there is some sort of artificial constraint preventing
you from using normal roads should you decide to customize a jaguar
yourself, or decide that you really wanted an F series pickup truck.
>
>>
>>One can use an analogy to explain one's reasoning, but if the above is
>>truly an accurate insight into your point of view, it shows that you don't
>>really understand the case at all.
>>
>
>On the contrary, I understand it all too well. That's why I'm so
>vehemently against it.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Microsoft OS, no full OS CD Re: More Dirty Microsoft Tactics
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:13:48 GMT
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:20:07 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 15:12:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >Something to think about is this. Major OEM's *CHOOSE* to use this
>method.
>> >The OEM could easily buy complete OEM liscenses from MS as well, but they
>> >would end up paying a slightly higher price. OEM's are doing this to
>hike
>> >up their profits.
>>
>> They exist in the proverbial prisoners dilemma.
>>
>> It is wrong to blame the prisoner for this.
>
>Funny, small mom and pop shops exist, and make a profit. They sell the OS
>on CD.
They are too smalltime for the local "prosecutor" to be concerned
with. They exist in a different economic reality from those who
make up the bulk of the units sold.
>
>OEM's are not prisoners, they're indentured servants. They've chosen their
>fate, and they must live by it.
Indentured Servitude (besides Military service) is illegal in the US.
I presume it is illegal in the EU as well.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies
Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:16:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You raise good points, however the one thing that put me off Java was the
>rock bottom controls you have for GUI applications.
Have you seen swing, or are you thinking of awt?
>Of course, now with JavaBeans this ought to have changed but these weren't
>around with the earlier versions of Java.
I thought beans just added a self-describing interface to the
classes. What do they have to do with the GUI-ness?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:20:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I believe it's vfat; everything else can see it, just not StarOffice.
>>
>>Are you perhaps running 'everything else' as root and staroffice
>>as some other user that doesn't have permission to go there?
>>What happens as you cross the mount point?
>
> I dunno, I think vfat partitions are typically at least readable
> by normal users even if you mount it as root. I wouldn't see this
> being a problem unless the mountpoint was activated with options
> that this fellow likely is unaware of.
Doesn't make any sense to me. I've got approximately the same
setup: a dual boot Mandrake/win98 and there is no such problem
with staroffice accessing the files on a vfat partition.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Innovation
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:36:12 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:47:02 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In a reply to someone, i reminded myself of the fact that the
> >Linux-community as a whole hasn't really come up with any good
> >innovations yet. We're blaming Microsoft for something we're ourselves
> >guilty of.
> >Everything we have is basically copied from Unix, Apple and Microsoft.
>
> So? We don't make any pretenses otherwise.
>
> That's the crucial difference. Also, those things that get copied
> in Linux that 'appear' to be copied from Microsoft are ultimately
> copied from where ever it was that Microsoft plagarised them.
I've already pointed out many cases where MS has innovated (As per the
dictionary defiinition of the word Innovate, not the term Innovation which
has a different meaning and is not just a form of Innovate).
But, suppose for the sake of argument, we say MS has never innovated
anything. What reasons might a company like MS have for claiming it has and
does? Well, for starters, they need to protect their Intellectual Property.
Whether they bought it from someone else or not, that company is now a part
of MS and thus MS has the right to claim that they created it, since the
company that created it is now part of MS.
Like it or not, Internet Explorer *IS* Innovative in many ways. Nobody else
created a componentized web browser (Netscape 6 copies IE in many ways in
this regard). Nobody else has integrated a web browser into the shell
(whatever you attribute the motive to, it was still an innovative design).
Nobody else created major API's to allow 3rd parties to integrate whatever
portions of the componetized browser they wanted into their own apps.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 18:37:21 -0500
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Speaking as a Windows user. I did not put up with Windows 3.1 (except
at
> > work). I use OS/2 before Win95 came out, and I used my Amiga since
1986.
> > I've been using PM and PMT for 14 years. I would never do without it.
>
> Amiga never had protected memory. In fact, the next generation Amiga OS
> isn't planned to have protected memory either.
>
> Despite that, the Amiga has managed to be a very stable platform.
I assumed PM meant Pre-emptive multitasking and PMT meant Preemptive
multi-threading.
In either case, you are correct.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H H Chau)
Subject: Re: Innovation
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:00:32 +0100 (BST)
In alt.os.linux Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> other OS's either, please. Try to make this a pure Linux issue.
Personally, I ain't bothered by the pureness of *?
If it works for me, that's fine. In fact, I just
want to get my work done, and don't even want to
use a computer if I could.
Cheers
Hau Hing
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Duening)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: Homebrew (Was: Beer Wars at CSMA)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:36:09 GMT
On 6 Jun 2000 22:10:46 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>: On 6 Jun 2000 15:59:32 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: STOP CROSS POSTING YOU DICKHEAD.
>
>*sigh* Tell me, what's more annoying... crossposting, or people who whine
>about crossposting?
Crossposters who mistake complaints for whining.
--
Lars Duening; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bearnip.com/
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 16:41:12 -0700
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
> >>
> >>All right, stop right there. Don't even get me started on these
> >>ridiculous attempts to define what an OS is and what it should and
> >>should not do. The academic definition of "OS" is totally irrelevant
> >
> > Oh sure, ignore the point of view of those that have
> >to actually build and maintain these systems that are now to
> >be driven by the incompetent ramblings of the liberal arts
> >graduates in the marketing department.
> >
>
> The point is that the retail products currently being called operating
> systems - things like Windows, MacOS, Redhat Linux, Solaris, etc. -
> have nothing to do with the academic definition of the term "operating
> system". They all *INCLUDE* things the scientists would call operating
> systems, but they also all include much more.
You might want to read the packages of the software. I do and the vendors
list all the additional features that come with the core OS and they
admit they are bundeling addons but not INTEGRATING them as a core part
of the OS.
You don't see any OS you named claim the browser is the Operating system
or a core part of the operating system. None.
> Therefore, it's totally
> unfair to restrict Microsoft from including in Windows functionality
> that falls outside the academic definition of "operating system",
> especially when the competition includes equivalent functionality.
MS is a monopoly which means they are burdened with being treated
differently - welcome to anti-trust laws 101.
Let me help you further. The DOJ isn't tasked with defining operating
systems - that's MS's irrelevant agrument that helped lose the case. The
DOJ says IE isn't part of the OS. They are not burdened with defining
what the codes are IE and windows or creating a univerisal standard for an
operating system definition.
So there are two reasons why this "fairness" argument isn't fruitful - in
fact it has been distructive.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux is so stable...
Date: 6 Jun 2000 18:34:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Did you do something like rely on a windows-shared directory
>>as a mounted file system - and then turn off the other PC?
>
>The other PC was running Linux and had some Samba shares. The main PC was
>running Linux when I rebooted it to get to the other OS. During shutdown,
>the problem occured. The other PC was not rebooted during this time.
For linux-linux sharing, at least where the users are equivalent
I'd always choose NFS over samba. It is designed to survive
reboots on either side. I don't think the smbfs code is as
well tested.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 23:34:19 GMT
You REALLY need to follow the thread. Drestin was harping on Linux care
for using MS products. That MS used Unix in it's manufacturing and
Drestin demanded, in a rather rude way, that I sould prove this
statement. The only one doing the MINDLESS posting was drestin.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 12:39:51 -0400, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q80/5/20.ASP
> >
> >Care to wriggle out of that, Drestin?
> >
> >Gary
> >
>
> I really hate to mention the obvious, however Microsoft have clearly
> chosen an operating system which typically will not carry a virus for
> which windows is susceptible. They are simply taking all possible
> precautions (as they should).
>
> They could just as well as chosen VMS. They are willing to take some
> of the inevitable mindless criticism in order to protect their
> customers.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
