Linux-Advocacy Digest #946, Volume #26 Wed, 7 Jun 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Christopher Browne)
Re: The sad Linux story (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The State of the System Address (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SVGALib (David Steinberg)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
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: 7 Jun 2000 05:00:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>"Pascal Haakmat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >> That businesses cannot live without some single vendor solution after
>they
>> >> have been locked into using that single vendor's solution is pretty
>> >> obvious.
>> >> Does it signify anything other than that most businesses are suckers
>for
>> >> short term benefit?
>> >
>> >I know you don't *like* the fact that it is propriety, but this is as
>> >nothing next to the fact that it *works*.
>>
>> No, I'm more or less indifferent to proprietary. What is important to me
>is
>> (hate that word) interoperability. Proprietary systems often fail to meet
>> my standards in that respect, though.
>
>Microsoft's stuff is unusually good, as proprietary stuff goes.
Maybe. I suppose I don't use the stuff that makes it unusually good.
>And frankly, I just don't see that the 'open' stuff has much to
>crow about in this area. Interoperability is not the same as saying
>"if you all just used the same stuff we're using, we could
>interoperate"; and that's what I hear from the 'standards'
>people.
Look, it's other people telling me that I need to get Excel, Word, blah blah
blah on my machine. I try to tell them that it's not about the stuff that
I'm using but about the data that I can access -- however thanks to the
Windows monoculture, these two have practically converged for the common
public. Surely you don't think that's somehow "good"?
>It's when you have *different* systems that interoperability
>becomes a problem.
That is the whole point of interoperability ..
>[snip]
>> >You are fooling yourself. Expecting users to put up with DOS-style
>> >printing is expecting far too much. Condemning their desire for
>> >software that can print without so many problems as an addicition
>> >is quite silly.
>>
>> Yes, that would be very silly. But I don't have any problems printing
>stuff
>> and I don't use Windows.
>>
>> Perhaps more tellingly I rarely print anything these days.
>
>Well, that would explain that, then. :D
Mind you that when I do, I never have problems. These problems you are
talking about are alien to me. Sure, there exist problems with Unix
printing, but with Mac printing as well, and Windows printing, and printing
in general.
>[snip]
>> >> What is the incentive to support these things? Will people flock to
>> >> HaakmatOS after I implement them? Or will they continue to use Windows?
>> >
>> >You will need to provide something *better* than Windows, and enough
>> >better to justify switching. Just matching Windows probably won't enable
>> >you to replace Windows as the dominant desktop OS; even if your
>> >price-tag is 0, there are major costs to switching to a new OS.
>>
>> Didn't IBM produce a better Windows in OS/2?
>
>No. It did try to market it that way, but what they had was
>a more expensive Windows in hardware terms, not
>a better one.
To be honest I don't know. I got the impression that it's Windows
compatibility was very, very good.
>Had they had a raft of applications that took advantage
>of OS/2 specific features (say, the workplace shell)
>that would be different. But they hadn't.
I don't know that either.
The problem is that I can say Windows sucks (which I think it does for
reasons that I don't expect anyone else to share), and you can say that
Windows is top notch, but it's all just bunk as long as there is no viable
substitute to compare it to. And that's a bit sinister.
What I mean is that the influence of the network effects that Windows enjoys
is so great that no other OS compares to it. For example, if you claim that
DanielCoke is much better than Coca Cola, I'll want to know where I can get
it. But most likely, I won't be able to get it in Europe. That fact alone
makes DanielCoke incomparable, as a substitute, to Coca Cola.
Now in operating systems, availability may even be the least of problems.
Other factors, like functionality, cost, compatibility, support and
interoperability are much more important. It's impossible to satisfy all of
these demands simultaneously so as to provide an alternative to Windows,
especially if the dominant player (Microsoft) can actively obstruct the
alternative in attaining (say) full interoperability.
It is of course always possible to invent something completely new and
simply supercede Windows. But that's not the point. One might as well say,
"here is an alcoholic beverage, throw away your sugarwater". The point is
that I want to compare different sugarwaters.
To sort of get back to what you were saying, I don't think that a raft of
OS/2 specific applications would have made any difference. What is required
for an operating system to succeed is the blessing of Microsoft; or they'll
FUD you, buy you, cut off your airsupply, or pressure your partners into not
doing business with you.
>> >"Just the same, but you never heard of us!" is not much
>> >of an advertising slogan, ya know. :D
>>
>> "We're better and we're IBM" doesn't seem to work either.
>
>True. :D
>
>But the reality behind the slogan counts; OS/2 wasn't
>a better Windows than Windows.
If you say so.
>[snip]
>> >I do not see any non-profit OSes that *are* a threat to Windows 98.
>> >
>> >I don't think any will *become* such a threat because their developers
>> >are completely non-responsive to the real problems facing desktop
>> >users. For instance, they don't see a problem with the DOS mode
>> >of printing, still less that of Unix. :D
>>
>> You treat the "real problems facing desktop users" as if it were some kind
>> of constant. But in reality the "real problems facing desktop users"
>evolve
>> with time.
>
>That is so. But I don't think that they've evolved enough to render
>Windows obsolete yet.
Sadly, regrettably, I think you're right (just voicing an opinion).
>> I'd say that currently macro viruses are "real problems" facing desktop
>> users.
>
>Sure, but not a very big one.
Bwahahaha. Perception matters. Well. Let's just agree to disagree on this,
OK?
>> And in twenty years time desktop users will face the "real problem"
>> of accessing their then-ancient Word and WordPerfect documents.
>
>They have this kind of problem now; it's not exactly a show stopper.
>
>> This is not to detract from what I think is your central argument, namely
>> that the open source Unices are too hard to use for the desktop user. I
>> agree.
>
>That isn't really what I was saying: I was saying that they lack critical
>features and they don't seem to be getting them.
Well, you talked about printing, where your experience doesn't mimic mine,
and about game peripherals, which didn't do anything for the adoption of the
PC until the early nineties.
>They *do* seem to be getting- slowly- a user interface.
Yes, well. A buggy piece of shit many Gnome GUI tools are. Bit immature when
compared to the CLI tools. KDE's a bit better but looks horrible.
>> Where I don't agree (if that is what you're saying) is that this is
>somehow
>> bad. People wear different clothes, depending on their taste and the
>> occassion. People also choose different operating systems, depending on
>what
>> they think are (going to be) real problems.
>
>I would agree with that. I would *not* agree that the most of the
>users out there have been duped into buying a bad product.
It might not have been a bad product at the time. I liked Win NT 3.51 for
example. But I think it is getting worse every day. Have you read the media
lately?
Let me relate something that strikes me as particularly amusing. Of course,
I'm more than a little biased, especially in this thread, where I feel
compelled to play the role of Microsoft hater.
Just two years ago, if someone would send me a Word or Excel document, my
protestations that I didn't use Word and Excel were met with laughter.
People scorned for not relying on these pillars of society.
Now when I say that I don't use Word and Excel, people offer to translate it
into some other kind of format or to fax or mail me a print-out. Suddenly,
for some dark mysterious reason, not using Word and Excel has become
"professional".
Does the trial have something to do with it? The many security alerts? Solar
wind? The position of the stars? I don't know. But something is changing
[insert music].
>I'm not sure you're saying they have been, but some
>people around here seem to think they have.
>
>> In making that choice, there is a tradeoff. There are no "real problems"
>to
>> be solved, just tradeoffs to be made.
>
>Here I must disagree. Technology in a vacuum is a toy; there *are*
>real problems to be solved.
Most (if not all) solutions pose other problems. That is what I meant and
surely you must agree.
>They aren't technological problems; they are things like
>'advertising'.
>
>That could be a flyer or a TV-spot or a web page; either
>way computers may be able to help.
Not sure I understand. It's probably too early.
>[snip]
>> >> Conversely the issues will not be resolved so long as Windows doesn't
>> >> evaporate. Pick your poison.
>> >
>> >I do not think it is reasonable to ask the rest of the world to give up
>> >a working solution *just* to encourage Unix developers to implement
>> >such features.
>>
>> I'm not saying the world should give up on Windows. What I'm saying is
>that
>> with the world hooked on Windows, alternatives are not likely to gain
>> popularity _based on merit alone_.
>
>I think that if you see 'merit' in narrow technical terms, this is true.
>
>But yet 'dominant' firms do get displaced in this business. It happens
>when a new product comes along that is different, not just better.
This is what I addressed above. I'm not looking for someone who tells me to
get an airplane instead of a road vehicle when what I want is a road vehicle.
Is this really what you want to be suggesting, Daniel?
"I want to see your PC operating systems."
"We have quantum computers."
"PC operating systems please."
"Wearable PC?"
"Desktop PC operating systems please."
"Brain implant?"
>The classic example is the mainframes->minis->micros thing,
>but closer to home Windows was able to take over from DOS despite
>having to overcome the classic product lock-in problems: Users
>of Windows had to upgrade their hardware and buy new applications
>with new data formats.
I've addressed this above, too. Windows could triumph because it had
Microsoft's blessing.
>They did so because Windows offered them stuff they couldn't
>get with DOS, period. Not even with improved DOSes, like DR-DOS.
Digital GEM?
>[snip]
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 258 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:06:07 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would say:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:59:26 GMT,
> Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Jun 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>I was sorta wondering how long it would take NT to catch up to
>>>UNIX/Linux; ya know, like open industry standards, published APIs,
>>>scalability, interoperability, reliability, blah blah blah....
>>>
>>>The bullies at Redmond don't want to play with the rest of us, tho.
>>>Hope they choke and die, in a strictly business sense of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>>Before you buy.
>>
>>Exactly my opinion.
>>
>>When it comes to security, Windows has none.
>>When it comes to UPTIME, Windows has none.
>>When it comes to Multitasking 1000 processes with complete control, Windows
>>can't seem to get beyond 180 before bluescreening.
>>
>>When it comes to large memory access, large hard drive access, windows
>>can't do either.
>>
>>When it comes to the desktop, Gnome and KDE pretty well have their number.
>>
>>Windows is like the girl who doesn't smoke, drink or stay up late.
>
>And isn't very pretty either...
"Purportedly easy" as well as "virus-ridden" both come to mind as added
monikers...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
You shouldn't anthropomorphize computers; they don't like it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:06:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 06 Jun 2000 13:38:22 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> However, in a few months/years Linux is going to completely destroy any
>> remnants of any other system, and there literally won't even be a
>> possibilty of using VMS (or any other non-Linux system): my only choice
>> in software will be Red Hat, Corel, or Debian.
>
>I hope (and believe) you're wrong.
>
>NT will not be going away any time soon, neither will (unfortunately)
>DOS. Amiga just released their SDK for Elate/Tao, but it lacks memory
>protection *by design*, so I doubt it'll even take off. Be recently
>came out with version 5, but they use the BSD userland tools.
>Speaking of which, MacOS X will be even more invested into UNIX.
One also can look at the higher-end commercial market.
Solaris is an obvious choice (and some of their newer machines
sound very interesting, with 64 processors!), but there's also HP-UX,
AIX, and DEC's (Compaq's?) Tru64 (I'm assuming that's what OSF/1
eventually mutated into). Dunno about SCO, but they're presumably
still out there with their Unix (and possibly even Xenix) offerings,
and QNX is a good real-time OS, I've heard -- dunno offhand who makes
it, or what machinery it runs on.
I would assume VMS is still out there, too. It ain't broke,
why fix it? :-)
On even more esoteric fronts, there's a machine
called the Tandem which has its own very weird, but very robust,
ideas on what precisely an operating system is; the various
subsystems essentially throw messages at each other in a
more or less chaotic fashion, but yet, somehow, it all works.
(Probably because the messages, the subsystems, and the results
are all well-defined, and the subsystems are replicated like crazy,
which means that if one subsystem dies, another can take up the slack.
Or something.)
And then there's IBM's offerings, which I can't even begin to
catalog; the only one I know of is VM/CMS, and I doubt that's
even close to dead. (Hell, IBM was apparently emulating virtual
machines when DOS was but a gleam in someone's eye, looks like.
I was using VM/CMS in the early 80's in college, along with
V6 -- later V7 -- Unix. Classic APL on IBM was....interesting. :-) )
In a word...heavy stuff.
Linux source code -- since it's essentially free and robust -- might
make it into many of these environments, but it's not clear that
Linux itself will push them off the stage. (Although I do wonder
if S/390s normally run VM/CMS. :-) )
I don't know what the microcontroller development environments are
(beyond the rather obvious -- and apparently pathetic -- one
offered by Microsoft, namely the aptly-named WinCE). Linux might
be used there, but would probably be overkill for things such as
a pocket thesaurus, dictionary, or calculator. Then again, I
can't say I know for sure; it would be awfully nice to develop
on, though. :-)
There's also the low-end game console market. Linux on a
Playstation or Dreamcast, anyone? :-) I haven't got anything
newer than an Atari 2600, so I can't say diddly-squat about
modern consoles. (I doubt an Atari 2600 can do much with Linux. :-) )
And then there's Microsoft's X-box. One hopes it becomes an ex-box. :-)
And, finally, the sibling, or perhaps cousin (at least, I consider
it such) to Linux -- FreeBSD. My understanding is that it's
picky about hardware, but even more robust than Linux is.
It's what drives ftp.cdrom.com, for starters.
>
>Hmmm.
Indeed.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux. One of many choices for the GNU generation. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The State of the System Address
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:09:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:04:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:44:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>> 1. Much of the GNU/Linux operating system is free software, giving the
>>>users the same rights as the developers or software vendor.
>>
>>This is not an advantage in certain applications. Check the license
>>carefully!
>>
>>There was a fairly long thread some months back about how "free"
>>the GNU public license actually is. My take on this is probably
>>a reasonable one, though; if a company incorporates unmodified
>>GNU source code into a project, it need merely note it; if a company
>>incorporates modified GNU source code into a project, it needs to
>>publish its modifications back into the GNU system, as a public service.
>
>>These modifications do not need to be anything more sophisticated than
>>hooks into their own proprietary code, however -- think C++ virtual
>>methods, for example, or callbacks into C function pointers, allowing
>>"arm's length" development.
>>
>>Richard Stallman may complain (I don't know; I've never met him
>>personally :-) ), but I think this is the tack most companies
>>would take with GNU code. At least, I hope so.
>
>
>Richard Stallman may not only complain...he'll likely sue your ass off
>for violating the license. No compainy is going to take that chance.
>You simply can't link (static or dynamic) your proprientary code with
>GPL code...and still keep your code proprientary.
I would hope that you're wrong -- nothing personal. :-)
I'm not all that expert in this licensing stuff.
>
>The license you descibe is more like the Mozilla public license (MPL).
>Which is alot more business friendly then the GPL.
Yes, although it does have the peculiarity of declaring Netscape
to be the prime licenser or something. Probably unavoidable,
considering they did write a good chunk of the code, and it
*is* their product, after all. :-)
>
>
>James
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:41:36 -0500
Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is no new functionality in the 3.11 release of Windows
> and all of the drivers being added or refreshed have been
> available on the Windows Driver Library and Microsoft's
> Download Service.
> So, no 32-bit disk and file modules for 3.11.
I clearly remember seeing the checkbox for 32 bit disk access in Windows
3.11. This seems odd.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: SVGALib
Date: 7 Jun 2000 05:32:53 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Before we get way too far afield, let me remind the peanut gallery
: that the original question was to dump an SVGALIB app, not an X one.
Remind? That's optimistic isn't it?
It's obvious that Steve has never even heard of svgalib...not that that
stopped him from making a nonsensical comparison to Windows.
I was trying to steer him to a more valid comparion, and maybe messing
with his mind a little at the same time...
Right, Simon...err...Steve?
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 05:45:16 GMT
On 6 Jun 2000 07:32:49 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 5 Jun 2000 14:06:17 -0500,
>> Tim Palmer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>><snip>
>>>NT is easy. It's fast. It's stabal. Your ramming hot soldiering irons up your ass
>when you put up
>>>with UNIX and it's slownice and its' nead for you to tipe commands.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I can understand why you might have difficulty with "tipeing" commands.
>>
>
>No moddern OS should ever make you type commands.
Yuo are right! Do'nt worry about spelleeng, just tiepe. The content of
your masage ees what really cunts.
>You should be abal to do evything that the OS can
>do with ONLY the mouse. In this respect UNIX is stil way back in the SEVENNTY'S!
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >In store loaded linux boxes can be used by
>>>>> >windoz lusers (like myself) as easily as a mac.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think compialing kernals is as easy as macintosh.
>>>>
>>>>At least you CAN compile your kernel under Linux and add/change things.
>>>
>>>Microsoft compials the NT kernal for you and you make the chainges in the Control
>Panel not by
>>>compialing everything yourself like in UNIX where if they did'nt make you compial
>the softwhare
>>>wouldn't evin work because no 2 UNIX boxes are binairy compattibal.
>>
>>Ok, so how do I change the kernel of a Windows NT system to not use a GUI for
>>use as an embedded device?
>
>You dont' nead to get ridd of the NT GUI because their's nothing wrong with it. Not
>like UNIX weir
>you have to try 100 diferrent Windo managers to find one that works the way the
>700-page HOWTO says
>it works.
>
>> Oh, and can you show me how to change the kernel for use in a non-x86
>>cpu?
>
>If you do'nt have the rite cpu you can upgrade.
>
>>
>>>Compair this with Windos, whear the EXE fromat will run on anny Windos box
>>>in the world. That kind of compattabillity takes genius that UNIX does'nt
>>>halve. You don't even nead the C format in Windos so "open source" is
>>>irrellevent.
>>
>>Hm, I have a windows.exe file here that seems to fail miserably to run on
>>my friends WinCE palmtop... must be that legendary portablility you speak of.
>>(or "tipe" of, whatever)
>
>No PC Windos not WinCE! In UNIX you cant even use one binarry on 2 differen't
>computers you half to
>commpile it.
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >The stability of unix,
>>>>>
>>>>> whitch is nothing compeared to the stability of Windows 2000,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>W2K doesn't have any stability. IT still blue screens!
>>>
>>>W2K is perfectly stabile. It even bloes NT4 out of teh watter.
>>
>>A task of superhuman difficulty no doubt...
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >the ease of a
>>>>> >graphical user interface,
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that Linux cant provide. (It has some graffics, but it does'nt have
>any ease you still
>>>>> half to tipe command!)
>>>>
>>>>X is a graphical interface for which you can run KDE which just happens
>>>>to blow the doors off of
>>>>W2k in functionality and features.
>>>
>>>KDE doesnt' make UNIX easy to use. It gives you graffics but it doesn't give you
>any ease it still
>>>makes you tipe. And like everything else in UNIX, you half to spend years setting
>it up to werk the
>>>way it's suppost to after you install it when in Windos it works rite rite out of
>the box.
>>>
>>
>>I would suggest you try using KDE before commenting on it, but why bother?
>>
>
>Exactly. Why bother spending months reeding HowTo's just so you can use Linux when
>you can just use
>Windos without even halving to rede. Just turn it on and go. Poepal go thru to much
>trouble just so
>thay can say "Powered by Linnux" in their ".signature" fial. But when they half to
>USE there
>computer insted of just admire how "powerfull" and 70's-like Linxu is, threy
>doul-boot to Windos,
>because thats' were all the functionality is.
>
>>
>>Thanks for the entertainment. Please, keep posting like this, you are doing
>>no end of good for the open source community, and while I rarely indulge in
>>casual flameware over spelling (not being perfect in that area by any means
>>myself) may I suggest Ispell or some other spell checker?
>>--
>>Jim Richardson
>> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
>>WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
>> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy 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
******************************
