Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #27 Sat, 10 Jun 00 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451706 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Your office and Linux. ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux & MySQL vs. Windows & SQL Server ("Serge J.Luca")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (rj friedman)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 10 Jun 2000 02:19:49 -0500
In article <onf05.2678$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Seriously, some of their compatibility efforts are so badly executed that
>> you have to wonder about Microsoft's intent in creating them in the first
>> place.
>
>I haven't had a problem with them.
How much have you used them?
>> Take for example NT's "Services for Macintosh". The promise is: buy NT
>> Server and interconnect your existing systems. So you do just that and
>hook
>> your existing Macs up to the NT machine. But then performance proves
>abysmal
>> and a host of printing problems ensues. This has management conclude "Macs
>> suck. We must move everything to Windows".
>
>Well, I ask you how many *other* server OSes even go this far: how many
>support Apple's protocols at all?
Most. There is an add-on for Netware. There are 2 free packages
for unix, CAP and netatalk, and probably commercial versions.
>> Or take the telnet client that ships with Windows. The promise, again, is:
>> buy Windows and connect to your legacy systems. So you do just that; but
>> not surprisingly, the client's VT100 emulation is so abominable that many
>> applications refuse to work correctly or at all. Leaving management to
>> conclude, again, that "Unix sucks. We must move everything to Windows".
>
>If they are using VT100s, they are going to conclude that *anyway*.
No, only if it is done wrong.
>I've used Window's telnet. It's pretty limited, but it is servicable.
No, it is horrible. It doesn't notify the remote end on
window resizing and handles some of the cursor postitioning
wrong.
>> They could, but for less dominant players, interoperability is a
>_benefit_.
>> To monopolies, it is a _threat_.
>
>No. If interoperability allows people to switch to the monopolies
>product. That is why MS is so gung ho about it.
They are gung ho about non-interoperability the other way.
>Far, far better to head for new, untapped areas. Get innovative; come up
>with something new. That's where the real money is, *and* where the
>real excitement is.
Sure - we are going to see a bunch of 'appliance' boxes like
the TIVO where there the thing does one job and needs next
to no user interface. These are almost certainly going to
built on top of a free unix system or maybe even java.
>What possible inducement could there be for a creative, driven,
>ambitious individual to want to build a better Windows?
To have somethin that is not so painful to make interoperate
with anything else. But WINE may take care of that soon.
>> It's hardly surprising that people don't favor variety in their OSes
>> considering that a part of the Microsoft strategy is to penalize such
>> variety ("decommoditization").
>
>Do you know what a "commodity" is?
Things like televisions, DVD players, VCR's, camcorders, PC compatible
computers.
>It isn't noted for variety.
No, they may be very different in their implementation, yet
they follow standards that allow them to be interchanged
and still work.
>"Commoditization" is when a class of product becomes essentially
>indistinguishable, so that the only differentating factor is price.
Really? Is the PC hardware you would buy today indistinguishable
from one from a few years ago?
>"Decommoditization" favors variety; MS wants to be different
>from the next guy, so you'll want their software instead of
>his.
No, they want to take advantage of making it difficult to
work with anything else. They have the customer base and
use it to annoy everyone else.
>I don't either. MS is quite ruthless. But the *source* of this power is
>MS's ability to woo customers (and developers) to Windows; only
>once this is accomplished can threatening to withhold Windows
>work.
>
>And after it is done, the rest is just a formality- Windows has won.
Yes, they have a monopoly. No one is arguing about that.
>MS fixed this, eventually. It was, potentially, an opportunity for someone
>to come out with a better OS for games and sell it into the home
>market- gawd knows DOS wasn't exactly good at them- but nobody
>tried it. Perhaps 4 years (91-95) wasn't enough?
Is it really fixed? My kids have been installing games and I think
we've been through 4 different versions of DirectX overwriting
each other in the last couple of days, and at least one of
the games runs a few minutes then crashes.
>I think there *is* a market for a non MS OS that products like
>Linux can fill; I just don't think it's the same market Windows 98
>is filling.
It may not good at being a kid's toy - but then Win98 isn't
doing that well here either.
>> Current software engineering practices cannot deliver (say)
>> an .AVI, .MOV or DVD player for (say) Linux?
>
>Maybe.
>
>Linux is not exactly a really media friendly sort of OS, when
>you get right down to it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but
>certainly it is a challenge.
Funny, the TIVO is built on Linux and it records/plays back
video just fine. Maybe what you are trying to say is that there
is some conflict between patented and trade secret device
driver hardware and driver and the open source world.
>And there's only so much talent out there to meet that
>and many, many other challenges.
Microsoft may have a lot of developers, but nowhere near
the number contributing to open source projects.
>> This is the second time you're confusing "magic" and "power".
>
>Forgive me, but I think you have confused them. You are saying
>that Microsoft's "power"- whatever that was before Windows took
>off- just suddenly *caused* Windows to succeed without so much
>as a mechanism.
>
>Sure seems like magic.
It is entirely because Windows would drop into an existing
DOS/Netware system painlessly, whether on existing boxes
or new ones, and now they have made sure that a change
to any other system will be painful.
>They were not able to. They lacked the power to make developers swtich
>suddenly. They had to try to lure them over, and they ahd mixed success.
>They were a *long* time wooing the game developers, in particular.
But it didn't matter - if you are playing games on the computer
you can reboot it into DOS.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451706
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 07:29:52 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> Are you going to answer my question?
Would it do any good?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: 10 Jun 2000 02:23:13 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I've never called you a liar, yet I am surprised when you describe
>>things that I know do not match a stock Mandrake system and
>>omit any mention of changing it.
>
>Well, you know, it could be that the differences between different hardware
>could be causing some of the problems I'm seeing. What may work for you may
>be a dog's dinner for me simply due to small differences.
But you have never admitted that possibility in your postings. You always
claim that it is 'Linux' fault, not that it is your hardware or
something unusual that you did.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 04:08:27 -0400
Alan Boyd wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >I'm not saying that gates is right in what he says. I am, however
>> pointing
>> > >out that what you claim is not what gates is saying.
>> > >
>> > >It simply is true that lots of Windows' new features were first
>> introduced
>> > >in Office and other apps. It's also true that those implementations
in
>> the
>> > >apps are seperate from the OS ones.
>> >
>> > Both the OS and Office implementation of OLE were seperate?
>>
>> OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office only
>> solution.
>
>Wrong.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/remedies/05-10SummaryResponse.asp
>
> The toolbar example is just one of many instances in which
> collaboration between Microsoft’s operating system and
> applications developers resulted in innovations that
> benefited consumers. Another example is Microsoft’s Object
> Linking and Embedding ("OLE") technology, which was developed
> for use in Microsoft Office. Using OLE, it became possible
> to embed a chart in a word processing document and have the
> chart update itself automatically as information in a
> spreadsheet used to generate the chart was modified. This
> technology later migrated to Windows, where it evolved into
> Microsoft’s Component Object Model ("COM"), a technology
> used by large numbers of software developers to write Windows
> applications.
This is not exactly correct. A separate team developed COM which was used in
the second OLE version.
2 + 2
>--
>"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
>program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
>will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 08:15:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I found a version of dhrystone.c and tried to build it on both Linux and
Visual C++.
This is the first part of the file:
----
/* EVERBODY: Please read "APOLOGY" below. -rick 01/06/86
* See introduction in net.arch, or net.micro
*
* "DHRYSTONE" Benchmark Program
*
* Version: C/1.1, 12/01/84
*
* Date: PROGRAM updated 01/06/86, RESULTS updated 03/31/86
*
* Author: Reinhold P. Weicker, CACM Vol 27, No 10, 10/84 pg. 1013
* Translated from ADA by Rick Richardson
* Every method to preserve ADA-likeness has been used,
* at the expense of C-ness.
---
I had to make some changes to get it to build - VC does not have a function
called 'times', so I switched to 'time'. I also increased the number of
iterations to 5000000.
Windows 98 SE 1000000 dhrystones per second.
Linux 877,912 - 909,090 dhrystones per second.
With Linux I used gcc -o dhrystone dhrystone.c -O3; with Visual C I used
standard Release mode options.
What does this prove? I don't see Linux running three times faster than
Windows, in fact Linux is running _slower_ than Windows. A commercial
compiler is faster than a free one!
Pete
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 04:45:07 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>John Travis wrote:
>>
>> Streamer wrote:
>> >
>> > John Travis wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Charlie, I'm afraid I have some bad news. Linus just called and he
>> > > wants you to stop using linux immediately. He thinks you are
>> > > embarrassing the rest of us (go figure). He has even threatened to
>> > > start a petition (which he assures me every linux user will sign),
just
>> > > to get you to stop posting this crap.
LOL!
The good news is that Charlie has calmed down from the time that HE FIRST
BOUNDED IN THE NG WITH THE BIG CAP POSTS.
Now he has actually been seen taking a breath in the middle of a big rant.
Yes, and this has caused him to actually notice that there were other
posters in here.
Even some who knew a MINOR point or two, and occasionally one or two on the
"other side."
2 + 2
<snip>
>Then shut the hell up jerkwad.
>
>Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Serge J.Luca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & MySQL vs. Windows & SQL Server
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:53:39 +0200
take a look at www.tpc.org
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <393bfbf1$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Nemenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hi there!
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to pursuade my employer
> > > > to use Linux & MySQL as a database for
> > > > high performace production environment
> > > > with multi gigabyte dataset.
> > >
> > > Let's try to sort out the problem you are trying to solve.
> > >
> > > Often, you can combine an optimal set of options to provide
> > > the results you really want while still managing risks and
> > > getting a high Return on Investment.
> > >
> > > You wouldn't try to pull a 10 ton trailer with a Honda Civic
> > > and you wouldn't use a Kenworth Tractor for your daily commute.
> > >
> > > MySQL is very useful for read-mostly databases that can be managed
> > > as one or more relatively simple queries. MySQL with Web servers
> > > is very efficient because you can issue multiple requests to multiple
> > > databases or tables - concurrently if you wish, and aggregate the
> > > responses as you generate the response.
> > >
> > > MySQL is NOT a good place to do massive updates to multiple tables
> > > at the request of multiple concurrent users. Don't use it to
> > > file the checks!
> > >
> > > Progres is a bit slower, but is good for simpler transactions that
> > > don't require complex large records and complex joins.
> > >
> > > DB/2 is a good industrial strength database that provides good
> > > beefy load-hauling ability. DB/2 is also designed to cluster
> > > quite well as well.
> > >
> > > Sybase is well liked because it supports stored procedures and
> > > cursers. It's also popular because it's very similar to SQL Server
> > > (Microsoft obtained SQL Server from Sybase), but it doesn't support
> > > all the nasty garbage generated by Access databases (which is where
> > > most SQL Server solutions seem to originate). So much the better,
> > > you really want to clean up the code as soon as it moves into a
> > > multiuser environment anyway.
> > >
> > > Oracle 8i is a nice internet solution with reasonable licensing,
> > > but to get the really good stuff - you need to go to a commercial
> > > distribution - and that gets expensive.
> > >
> > > Also, you can often boost performance of simple lookups - especially
> > > when doing a webServer/mod_perl solution by using simple DBM calls
> > > (perl hash arrays).
> >
> > Check out the recent issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal. It compares
> > MySQL and SQL Server, and tells where each one is best used.
>
> Or is it Oracle? Agggh, try www.ddj.com!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: 10 Jun 2000 09:59:06 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 01:37:41 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
¯> ¯> ¯What "work" is it that you do?...
¯> ¯> Technical documentation; editing; translation; online help
¯> ¯> systems; business web page design and implementation
¯> ¯What are you using to get these jobs done?
¯> Lotus SmartSuite; SmallEd plus HTML extensions; DragText;
¯> PMView; CorelDraw; Gismo; Photo Tiger; Impos/2, Ventura
¯> Publisher; Framemaker; CFMTwain; RSJ; AutoCad; Visio;
¯In short, some older Windows software and a few OS/2 utilities?
In short, you don't know what you are talking about - but
that doesn't stop you from making pronouncements as if you
were the Oracle itself. No different than your preposterous
claims wrt the reason you failed as an OS/2 vendor.
No wonder why IBM gave you a 'no confidence' vote.
¯> ¯What are you using for editing? Wordpro is pretty long in the tooth...
¯> Bullshit. When it first came out, WordPro had its problems.
¯> But between the updates and the fixpacks, it is now the best
¯> wp I have used - and I have used most of them - including
¯> that abomination MS Word.
¯Uh sure you have, RJ. Sure you have.
That's right - I have. But you know better - right? Your
problem is you act as if you know everything (the Wardell
ego in action), when you actually know nothing.
The more you write, the more we can understand why IBM was
unwilling to deal with you.
¯> ¯ and Star
¯> ¯Office I don't think is supported on OS/2 officially now is it?
¯>
¯> Don't care - never liked it. But as someone who has been out
¯> of touch with the software doings on OS/2 for quite some
¯> time now, it may come as a surprise to you - who pompously
¯> proclaims that "no one" is writing software or OS/2 - that
¯> Papyrus (a word processor; dtp; and html editor) recently
¯> came out; that Maul Publisher recently came out.
¯>
¯> Some 'expert'
¯I am aware enough to know that Papyrus didn't just come out for OS/2...
Which has nothing to do with the fact that its existence on
OS/2 gives the lie to your false assertion that "no one is
writing software for OS/2".
¯ It
¯has been out for OS/2 (and Atari btw) for years. They simply updated it
¯recently on all their platforms. It is not a bad entry level word
¯processor.
So now you can write 100 times on the blackboard, "I was
full of shit when I said that no one is writing software for
OS/2 - which proves it is dead."
¯> ¯And on web
¯> ¯page design, things are even more bleak when it comes to professional web
¯> ¯design from a tools standpoint.
¯> I have absoulutely no problems doing the type of web page
¯> design that I do to earn my living with the tools available
¯> to me. They are just as 'professional' as anythign out
¯> there. There is nothing 'bleak' about it.
¯Do you have a URL for one of your webpages then?
Yes, I have numerous URLs.
¯ Technically you could do
¯your kind of web design with a text editor on a modified C-64 probably.
Technically, I could do a lot of things. Actually, I proved
that your assertion was just more of the same 'full of shit'
debate style that you resort to when you don't have a leg to
stand on.
¯> ¯I am not saying you can't do any of these things on OS/2 today but you
¯would
¯> ¯be doing them at a far than optimal situation...
¯> How would you know? You don't even know what is available -
¯> you're just going back to the 'full-of-shit' debate style.
¯> Making extreme pronouncements with nothing but your own
¯> over-inflated opinion to back it up.
¯RJ, you really need to get out more...
Wardell, you need to go to your room more.
¯It isn't exactly difficult to keep up
¯with what is happening on OS/2.
If it's all that easy, how come you haven't the faintest
idea of what is happening on OS/2.
¯> ¯ In fact, it
¯> ¯was the necessity of moving to Page Maker 6 that forced me to switch from
¯> ¯OS/2 in the first place. What do I use Page Maker for? Technical
¯> ¯documentation.
¯> I've used Page Maker - I pity anyone who used it for
¯> technical documentation. It has to be the worst tool for the
¯> job I have ever had the misfortune to run across. It's
¯> strength is single page layout - you can use it to do
¯> manuals, but there are so many other tools out there that
¯> are better for the job.
¯This coming from someone using an older version of Framemaker via OS/2's
¯WinOS2 support.
"How old" is irrelevant to how the tool gets the job done.
Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that. I suppose - since
your livlihood depends on it - you want to convince everyone
that you have to have the latest and greatest instead of
"the best tool for the job" so you can sell more software.
But people who actually use tools to do their work don't
fall for that baloney.
¯> Choosing to leave OS/2 so you can use Page Maker 6 has to be
¯> the most pitiable reason I can think of. Frankly, I don't
¯> believe you.
¯It really doesn't matter what you think, RJ. You're so out of touch with
¯mainstream society based on what you say here...
Sure - according to the Wardell 'full-of-shit' debate style,
anyone using OS/2 *has* to be out of touch. After all,
(according to you) 1) It is dead; 2) No one writes software
for it; 3) there are only 3000 - 5000 users left.
You call me out of touch - but with statements like yours,
it is obvious that YOU are the one that is out of touch. You
call me out of touch because your natural debate style
response to anyone who effectively refutes your outlandish
claims is to try to ridicule them.
¯ I'm quite comfortable with
¯the facts as placed in front of you.
What "facts"? That "no one is writing OS/2 software?" We
already showed how much that "fact" was worth.
¯The whole world is wrong but you?
So now you - and those who agree with you - are "the whole
world?" Like I said, your overbloated ego is what is
responsible for your failure.
¯Well, someday you'll be forced to
¯reintegrate yourself with society and we'll see how "wrong" it is.
Here we go - it's back to the Wardell "full-of-shit" debate
style. Here's another one where the meter goes into the red
zone.
¯You
¯sound almost like someone who'd join a militia or something.
Now, there's some devastating repartee. I'm crushed -
CRUSHED - by the degree of intelligence that went into that
remark.
Actually, I'd never join "a militia or something" since they
all seem to be run by dumbos with overbloated egos who think
they know everything when in fact they know nothing. Look in
the mirror - you'll see who I'm talking about.
¯So basically your problem is that we don't define "dead" the same. At what
¯point do you consider something "dead"? Where do you draw the line?
How many ways can you define dead? You claim OS/2 is dead as
an excuse for your own failure - that's my problem with you.
That, and your pompous ego, know-it-all attitude, and your
tarbrush style of debate tactics.
¯Please show me where I said that "nobody writes software for OS/2"?
You said it earlier in this exchange with me, for one.
¯*I*
¯write software for OS/2. My employer writes software for OS/2. However,
¯new software and support for OS/2 is at such a low level that it does not,
¯in my opinion, cross the threshold of being a viable desktop platform for
¯someone to switch to.
Which is not the same claim that you were making and what I
challenged you on. Aside from the fact that it is not
accurate - IMO - I would have taken an entirely different
approach to answering it.
¯The point of OSWars 2000 is for someone on one OS to see how the others are
¯doing...
Which is why you got jumped on for not portraying the
current OS/2 situation accurately.
¯ I don't see how someone using another OS would be terribly convinced
¯to jump on OS/2...
Given your jaundiced perspective - which is why you got
brought up short for not portraying an accurate view.
¯> What most people "think" about OS/2 does not correspond
¯Yea, if you live in an isolated compound in Taiwan...
Isolated compound? Here goes the "full-of-shit" meter into
the red zone. Duck everybody - here comes "Tarbrush Wardell"
on the rampage again.
¯> ¯> Papyrus just came out for OS/2;
¯> ¯Have you actually used Papyrus?
¯> Yes.
¯And how does it rate as a word processor in your opinion?
Very fast; very efficient; small footprint. I like it. It
does the job. There have been several reviews of it. Get in
touch with what's happening in the world of OS/2. Then
perhaps your pronouncements from on high will have a little
more credibility.
¯> ¯Now it's been while since I played with it
¯> ¯(I think it was 5.0 which came out a couple years ago if memory serves)
¯but
¯> ¯it was a nice but limited word processor on par with Clearlook...
¯> Which proves how out of touch you are. Version 8.1 just came
¯> out. That your pronouncements about the world of OS/2 are
¯> not based in reality - they are based on some vague memory
¯> you had of the time when you used to be involved in OS/2 "a
¯> couple of years ago."
¯Before you type, do you read? I mention below that 8.2 just came out. I
¯haven't tried 8.2.
Yes - and what I read told me that you have no idea of what
is currently going on. You have a vague notion of what the
program was like years ago, and NO NOTION of what it is like
now (except you saw somewhere that there was a new version),
yet that didn't stop Mr. Bullshit from disparaging the
product a priori.
¯> ¯Additonally, Papryus has support for things like the Atari ST computer as
¯> ¯well. I think they just released 8.2 recently but what does that prove?
¯> For one thing, it makes your claim that "nobody writes
¯> software for OS/2" look ridiculous. Which, by extension,
¯> makes the rest of your pompous pronouncements wrt the death
¯> of OS/2 look ridiculous. None of them are based in reality -
¯> only your obscured and jaundiced view.
¯And where did I write that nobody in the entire world writes any software
¯for OS/2?
Earlier in this thread - for one.
¯> ¯> PMView was just updated for
¯> ¯> OS/2;
¯> ¯A great graphics viewer. Possibly the best graphics viewer available but
¯it
¯> ¯is still ultimately a graphics viewer.
¯>
¯> So, can we now say that "people DO write software for OS/2?"
¯Absolutely...
So, as long as we can now say that people DO write software
for OS/2, can we now go to the next step and say that OS/2
is NOT dead?
¯I write software for OS/2 too. Please show me the post where I
¯said nobody writes any
You said it earlier in this thread - among other places - it
was one of your rationales for claiming that OS/2 was
"dead".
¯< long winded paranoia deleted>
Duck and run - here comes "Tarbrush Wardell" on the rampage
again. Don't have an answer? Call it paranoia; call the
writer a "kook"; call the writer "unqualified"; ANYTHING but
look at yourself.
¯Well RJ, I think I've put things as succinctly as I can. It's really not
¯point arguing with you further. I think the facts are plain enough to any
¯objective observer to determine for themselves whether OS/2 is a reasonable
¯desktop OS at this point.
Yes - I think theya are plain enough. I hope this means that
you are going away. Don't go away mad - just go away
quickly. Don't trip over your lower lip on the way out.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 10 Jun 2000 10:07:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I found a version of dhrystone.c and tried to build it on both Linux and
>Visual C++.
>
>* "DHRYSTONE" Benchmark Program
>*
>* Version: C/1.1, 12/01/84
>*
>* Date: PROGRAM updated 01/06/86, RESULTS updated 03/31/86
>*
>* Author: Reinhold P. Weicker, CACM Vol 27, No 10, 10/84 pg. 1013
>I had to make some changes to get it to build - VC does not have a function
>called 'times', so I switched to 'time'. I also increased the number of
>iterations to 5000000.
>
>Windows 98 SE 1000000 dhrystones per second.
Right, Windows did *exactly* 1,000,000 per second. Given
a variation of 10%, there's about one chance in 100,000 of
that happening. How do these guys expect us to believe
their phony, made-up numbers if they don't take the time
to make them look real? He should have said that Windows
did 1092647 dhrystones per second. You just poke your
fingers randomly on the digit keys; that number looks much
better!
Doesn't Microsoft's PR department give these people any
training? You'd think with all the money Gates has, he'd
allocate enough to buy a smarter class of liar. Maybe he
doesn't think Usenet is very important.
>Linux 877,912 - 909,090 dhrystones per second.
>
>With Linux I used gcc -o dhrystone dhrystone.c -O3;
Is that optimized for the pentium?
>with Visual C I used standard Release mode options.
>
>What does this prove? I don't see Linux running three times faster than
>Windows,
This is Goodwin's latest line of bullshit. Where does it
say that Linux runs three times as fast as MS-Windows? The
speeds are generally similar, except that Linux multitasks
better. What GNU/Linux/OSS is famous for is reliability,
scalability, and an abundance of software at no cost. Plus,
you can see inside it, so if problems do arise, they're much
easier to diagnose and fix.
>in fact Linux is running _slower_ than Windows. A commercial
>compiler is faster than a free one!
As of a few years ago, at least, Microsoft's C compiler emit-
ted horribly buggy code if you told it to optimize. Even
if compute-bound programs do run 10% slower compiled by gcc
than VC, who cares? I'd rather have them work correctly.
Anyhow, the difference is imperceptible. If it matters, you
can spend $25 more and get a 10% faster CPU.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
