Linux-Advocacy Digest #126, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (WhyteWolf)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What UNIX is good for. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How many times, installation != usability. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! (Matt Francis)
So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux app spec... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 16 Jun 2000 20:00:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
[snip]
>>Normal users, (Statistically speaking) bring the machine back to the
>>store for such additions.
>
>And the store will laugh at them when they bring there Linsux box to the store to
>have a SB
>Live installed.
they will? huh ... I"ve installed a few SBlives in Linux boxes
sounds like the Tech at your store don't know there heads
from holes in the ground
>>Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
>>does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
>>affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
>>and memory management much better.
>
>NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>ought to be enough for anybody!"
oh wow .. let me go out and buy Nt so I can have a second NIC...
oh wait ... never mind ... I"ll just through in three more to my
linux box and let that handle it ... humm ... lets rip out the
so I have room to put in more NIC's .. let see ... total number of
NICS ... how ever you can get your bios to suport with out filling up
all of the IRQ's
>>One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>>symlink "modem" to ttySn.
>
>And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the shortcut.
uh ... no ushaly they just click on a nice little gui ap ... I beleave
that control panel in Red HAt has this feture
>
>>I have yet to use a Postscript printer under Linux, I have not idea what
>>you're smoking.
>>Actually these 10K one function programs build one hell of a lot of
>>functionality. This is a different, and arguably better, method of doing
>>things than the Windows way.
>
>Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer to do
>something that
>would be simpal under Windows.
humm I"ve done countless things and I have yet to even touch a
shell script ... not that I couldn't just that I have no need
it all already works ...
>Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in genneral?
3D rendered graphix ...
Mpeg/AVI/Quicktime multimedia
Real Audio Multimedia
altho if thats your idea of shuffle text around
then thats all windows does to is shuffle text around
and I hafta say that microsoft doesn't even get
Text shuffling right
>>> >X11
>>> >People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>>> >limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>>> >features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
>>> >A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>>> >both applications and OS.
>>>
>>> ..and bloated as hell.
>>
>>What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
>>components in NT?
>
>Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6 different versions of
>every drawing
>function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote ends up in
>the libearies
>like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use Xlib are usually
>use monochrome.
but the point is you don't need to be compatable with all of them
in fact ... I"Ve never seen a app that needs all the libs
that there are out there ... I mean come on ... a QT bridge to GTK?
that would end up a bloated peice of work ... but ushaly ya just
need GTK or QT .. I personal have both but sence all my apps are dynamicaly
linked with either I don't end up with bloated programs but slick little
programs that get the job done and done right
>The purpoe of the X server is analogous to the WIN.COM of the Win3.11 days. It gets
>you from
>"DOS mode" to "Windows mode".
um ... in case ya havn't figered it out yet ... win.com is still
there in your system .. and it still does the same thing it
always has ...
>
>>only loads the
>>machine on which it is running.
>
>Nice observation.
>
>>It does not load the machine on which
>>the client program is running (unless it is the same machine, of
>>course).
>
>Which it usually is, so you gane nothing.
ushaly ... but not always ... unlike windows
in which case it always is ..
>But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the kernal so
>you mite as
>weal reboot.
altho you can log into it through telnet and
just kill the locked prossess
altho I still have yet to see X Windows lock the console
--
-=-=-=-=-
The scum also rises.
-- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:17:18 GMT
Pete the Linux camp did exactly the same thing about 2 months ago when
someone posted that Windows Find was so much faster than find under
Linux....
They used exactly the same lame arguments and techniques to try and
prove otherwise and they failed miserably.
On the same exact system with stock installs Windows feels faster, the
GUI is faster,File operations ARE faster and in general the system
seems noticably faster than Linux running either Gnome or KDE.
Video in the kernal (Windows) is most like one reason, but the end
result is on decent hardware (450 Pentium, 256 meg ram Matrox etc)
Windows 98SE is much faster.
Just resizing Windows and moving icons around is enough to convince
anyone.
Open up the /dev directory and see for yourself how long kfm takes to
post all the icons.....
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:29:14 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper) wrote
>in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Care to properly document those tests? Maybe I missed them, my ISP
>>does seem to be missing a lot of posts recently.
>
>I have been thinking about posting the results on my web site.
>
>Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:18:09 GMT
Seeing as WebTV has a higher market share than Linux, it might not be
a bad idea.
On 16 Jun 2000 13:47:28 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that "powerfull". I call
>it
>>"pointless".
>
>You probably have another device with a video tube in your house
>that doesn't have a keyboard for you to enter the text you
>dislike so much. Maybe you should stick to that one instead
>of the computer...
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:23:36 GMT
Yawwwnnnn...Same old Linux lies...
And I'm sure you get to use all of those features that work under
Windows with your shiny new SBLive under Linux?
How about Livewire?
SoundFonts?
Synth A+B?
Hmmmmmm?
On 16 Jun 2000 20:00:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(WhyteWolf) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>Normal users, (Statistically speaking) bring the machine back to the
>>>store for such additions.
>>
>>And the store will laugh at them when they bring there Linsux box to the store to
>have a SB
>>Live installed.
>
>they will? huh ... I"ve installed a few SBlives in Linux boxes
>sounds like the Tech at your store don't know there heads
>from holes in the ground
>
>
>>>Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
>>>does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
>>>affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
>>>and memory management much better.
>>
>>NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>>ought to be enough for anybody!"
>
>
>oh wow .. let me go out and buy Nt so I can have a second NIC...
>oh wait ... never mind ... I"ll just through in three more to my
>linux box and let that handle it ... humm ... lets rip out the
>so I have room to put in more NIC's .. let see ... total number of
>NICS ... how ever you can get your bios to suport with out filling up
>all of the IRQ's
>
>
>>>One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>>>symlink "modem" to ttySn.
>>
>>And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the shortcut.
>
>uh ... no ushaly they just click on a nice little gui ap ... I beleave
>that control panel in Red HAt has this feture
>
>
>>
>>>I have yet to use a Postscript printer under Linux, I have not idea what
>>>you're smoking.
>>>Actually these 10K one function programs build one hell of a lot of
>>>functionality. This is a different, and arguably better, method of doing
>>>things than the Windows way.
>>
>>Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer to do
>something that
>>would be simpal under Windows.
>
>humm I"ve done countless things and I have yet to even touch a
>shell script ... not that I couldn't just that I have no need
>it all already works ...
>
>
>>Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in genneral?
>
>3D rendered graphix ...
>Mpeg/AVI/Quicktime multimedia
>Real Audio Multimedia
>
>
>altho if thats your idea of shuffle text around
>then thats all windows does to is shuffle text around
>and I hafta say that microsoft doesn't even get
>Text shuffling right
>
>>>> >X11
>>>> >People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>>>> >limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>>>> >features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
>>>> >A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>>>> >both applications and OS.
>>>>
>>>> ..and bloated as hell.
>>>
>>>What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
>>>components in NT?
>>
>>Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6 different versions of
>every drawing
>>function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote ends up in
>the libearies
>>like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use Xlib are usually
>use monochrome.
>
>but the point is you don't need to be compatable with all of them
>in fact ... I"Ve never seen a app that needs all the libs
>that there are out there ... I mean come on ... a QT bridge to GTK?
>that would end up a bloated peice of work ... but ushaly ya just
>need GTK or QT .. I personal have both but sence all my apps are dynamicaly
>linked with either I don't end up with bloated programs but slick little
>programs that get the job done and done right
>
>
>
>>The purpoe of the X server is analogous to the WIN.COM of the Win3.11 days. It gets
>you from
>>"DOS mode" to "Windows mode".
>
>um ... in case ya havn't figered it out yet ... win.com is still
>there in your system .. and it still does the same thing it
>always has ...
>
>
>>
>>>only loads the
>>>machine on which it is running.
>>
>>Nice observation.
>>
>>>It does not load the machine on which
>>>the client program is running (unless it is the same machine, of
>>>course).
>>
>>Which it usually is, so you gane nothing.
>
>ushaly ... but not always ... unlike windows
>in which case it always is ..
>
>>But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the kernal so
>you mite as
>>weal reboot.
>
>altho you can log into it through telnet and
>just kill the locked prossess
>altho I still have yet to see X Windows lock the console
------------------------------
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: 16 Jun 2000 15:26:47 -0500
In article <ITo25.4487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not in 1994-1996. The Internet was much more geek-oriented then.
>
>That is just to say that back then, ordinary users didn't use the 'net.
>
>Probably because it was too hard. :D
You mean before Netscape became popular? Back when you had to
add in third party TCP dialers to Windows to use it?
[snip]
>> Yup, they are "gung-ho" about interoperability *between their own
>> products*, just not with other vendor's products or standards-based
>> products.
>
>That's not so. MS goes *much* farther than any Unix does to
>interoperate with other vendors products.
Yes, unix just implements the standards correctly...
>> They actively try to sabotage interoperability with other
>> operating systems by claiming full compatibility and then doing the
>> absolute minimum required by the letter of the spec, never mind that
>> every single other product in the space has certain common extensions.
>
>IMHO, this is a problem with the specs- a problem that is almost inevitable
>given the standards process used to produce them.
And a problem that can be avoided with a single test run. If you
want to avoid it.
>> They then go and make an incompatible version that does do what people
>> expect and say "see, our stuff works better than that other crap,
>> we have better features than the standard, switch to MS".
>
>Yup. That's their strategy for beating open source in a nutshell.
And it is evil, if not strictly illegal when they bundle this
stuff with products where they already have a monoply.
>> How do you make NT authenticate to an NIS database? You buy a third
>> party product, which is likely to break with the next service pack. It
>> isn't clear to me how this is "better".
>
>What makes you think it is likely to break with the next service pack?
>Most things don't.
MS has demonstrated their readiness to break authentication to
a competing service in a service pack. How can you even ask
that question now?
>With "open" standards, you are just committing to Unix. This is no
>better in princinple than committing to OS/2 LAN Manager would
>have been.
First of all, it is better even if you were committed to unix
because it is available from multiple vendors, but your
statement is wrong by definition. If you follow protocols
you are not committed to anything.
>Well, if you do that you get to have the features of an NT server;
>this may or may not be worthwhile. For a long time, many people
>used NetWare servers for this because they felt that NT 4's
>directory services were not up to snuff.
And it is the last choice you ever get to make. The incompatibilities
then prevent you from ever separately changing clients and servers.
>> That's why there are so many non-MS clients for Exchange. That's why
>> there are so many non-MS PDC and BDC servers.
>
>Now I don't know much about Exchange. But I *do* know there's a
>documented API with which you can provide your own domain
>controllers. If no-one has done it, maybe that's because no-one
>feels it is worthwhile to go up against MS and NetWare both.
More likely because no one trusts the next version release or
service pack to work the same way.
>> Once again, MS redefines
>> the language. MS's idea of interoperability is for their products to
>> interoperate with their other products.
>
>And other peoples products.
Like J++ works with real JVM's for example.
>> >> Leveraging a monopoly in this way is illegal.
>> >
>> >Very dubious.
>>
>> No, that's what the law says. It is not a "strange interpretation"
>> either, as it has been applied before. AT&T was prevented from getting
>> into the computer market because they had a communications monopoly.
>
>That's not even the same interpretation you had before. *Now* you
>are saying that if a company is successful in one market, they
>are not allowed to expand into any other market, *regardless* of
>how they do it. 'Leveraging' is not the point; you just can't expand.
No, it was a matter of having end-to-end control of computers and
their communications lines (both local and LD) that would give them
the ability to leverage things. They could have entered a business
field completely unrelated to communications.
>That is a *horrible* stupid policy; it's destructive, immoral, and wrong
>it just about every possible way.
Having given up your choices to a monpoly controlling one thing
should not force you to give them up in all related areas.
>> I don't think the DoJ has
>> any interest in directing software design.
>
>Nonsense. They keep insisting on making product design
>decisions for Microsoft. What is that if not directing software
>design?
Preventing a single company that already has a monopoly from
dictating what everyone sees when they connect to the internet
seems like a reasonable anti-trust action to me. Actually it seems
even better to prevent the same company from controlling television
networks. AT&T would never have managed that in their monopoly
days. Don't you even question *why* MS wants absolute control in
these areas? They could have easily backed away from bundling the
browser and avoided the legal issues a long time ago. This has
nothing to do with the look or action of the desktop which could
be handled without internet browser capability.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:33:12 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:17:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Pete the Linux camp did exactly the same thing about 2 months ago when
>someone posted that Windows Find was so much faster than find under
>Linux....
>
>They used exactly the same lame arguments and techniques to try and
>prove otherwise and they failed miserably.
...actually, for one of the examples given by the MS Shills
(an mp3 archive), Windows find infact did not end up being
any faster than the most inefficient file find method you
could try under Linux.
[deletia]
Try to do more than one thing at once of a non-trivial nature
and whatever speed/responsiveness advantage one may grant you
for WinDOS goes straight out the Window.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Matt Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:37:55 -0500
I used the windows update feature earlier this week. There is a new critical
update that has something to do with a dos attack or something. That is the only
software I have installed in months, and now suddenly, my machine freezes up for
about 10 seconds every 20 minutes or so. Irritates me to death. You can
uninstall these updates, but my machine still hiccups.
On a side note, win95 has only been installed once on this machine--three years
ago. Is that a world record??? I am accustomed to wiping and flushing twice a
year.
aflinsch wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > I thought I would try Linux Mandrake 7.0's update. So, I fired up Kppp and
> > tried to connect to the internet. First attempt failed (hmmm... Windows has
> > yet to fail), second attempt got through.
> >
>
> Failed connects happen all the time in every OS, depends a lot on the
> lines between you and your ISP. This is not a problem with Linux.
>
> > Clicked on Updated, invited to select local mirror. Selected UK mirror, and
> > waited... and waited... ah mirrors down. How do I get back to select the
> > mirror again... ah I can't. So, close window. Run update again - it goes
> > straight to the same mirror... um...
>
> Downed/busy server is a problem at the server youy tried to connect
> to. Not a problem at your end. As for rerunning update, it went to the
> server you told it to go to.
>
> > Killed internet connection, suddenly screen files with 'failed connection'
> > from several updates and I had to click on OK to kill them all.
>
> I have used the Mandrake Update, it always worked for me.
> Most likely you clicked on some button multiple times. Opened a new
> instance each time.
>
> > Tried again, same result, goes to mirror that's down. Killed internet, got
> > a button that said 'select mirror', tried that, reconnected and finally got
> > a mirror that worked.
>
> And downloaded your update(s) and went on your merry way.
>
> > That was far more complex than it ought to be! Comparing that to Windows
> > Update, which worked just fine, whoever designed the Update needs shooting!
>
> As compared to Windows Update?
>
> Where certain updates cannot be applied at the same time as others,
> causing you to connect to the update site multiple times.
>
> Where you have to use IE or else it won't work
>
> Where your updates are deleted after you apply them, so you need to
> redo your updates when you need to reinstall Win9x.
>
> Where you need to reboot after you are done -- so the updates can
> "take"
>
> Seems to me like Windows Update is broken, not Mandrake's Update.
--
Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.unt.edu/~mf0004
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:39:31 GMT
The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
instead.
So where are all of these folks?
Last count it was .3 percent of the market. WebTV did better. Win2k
did better. Virtually everyone did better than this great "savior of
operating systems".
Why is this?
The figures speak for themselves and again I ask "Where are all of
these users?"
I know many people who have TRIED Linux, I don't know of ONE who has
STAYED with Linux. Not a single soul.
Corel just laid off a couple of hundred workers.
They can't even produce a native Linux Office Suite that doesn't
depend on Win libraries via WINE.
TurboLinux (backed by IBM $$$$) did the same.
So what gives here?
Seems to me the Linux FAD is going the way of the Pet Rock and
Hoola-Hoop.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 16 Jun 2000 15:34:33 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>But, back to the original
>>mention of it not adding itself to the Windows program menu,
>>mine did.
>
> There is also the likihood that it did but I just can't
> find it. After awhile of 'everything' adding itself to
> particular repository, things can get easier to lose
> track of. Or it's idea of where it should be in relative
> terms is different from my idea.
It adds a top level entry under 'Seagate Crystal Reports' which
you have to pop out to find the programs. But this is a very
good point. If more than a screenfull of programs install
themselves in the menus, the resulting mess is about as
unhandy as scrounging through the filesystem directly.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: 16 Jun 2000 15:38:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Jun 2000 14:30:42 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Microsoft has done a similar thing with the Windows logo program.
>>>They've added many requirements over the years. Isn't it about time
>>>Linux tried to clone it?
>>
>>No. They are doing fine - just delete the programs you don't like
>>instead of letting someone else dictate how they must work.
>
>Exactly. Ignore usability. Ignore the users. Ignore the consumer.
>You've proved my point.
What point? How do you think offering choices and letting
the user decide for himself has any relationship to
ignoring consumers?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:47:21 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux is taking marketshare from everyone, including win32, as an ftp,
mail, http, dns, proxy server, firewall, and database.
What will happen longterm on the clientside remains to be seen. I
suspect that the class of users isn't as dumb as micros~1 believes they
are, and that windows will become a niche player as better informed,
more literate users continue to come up the pipe.
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
> > achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
> And what if the portion of the marketshare that Linux "takes over" is that
> share that once belonged to other Unixes and the Mac and "Others" - it's
> definately not taking over any of the NT share.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:47:02 -0500
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:42:52 GMT, John Bode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> And sure, I-Appliances will have their place, but they'll never
>> replace computers. Neither will the PS2. You ever try web-surfing at
>> 800x600 with a gamepad?
>>
>
>I agree, the technology isn't there yet. And yes, I do remember the
>hype about thin clients. Hell, I remember the hype about the "paperless
>office" (judging by our recycle bins, I'd say that was a bust). I'm not
>thinking in terms of a thin client as such. What I envision will still
>have its own internal storage and software, but will be tailored to a
>specific purpose.
>
>The general purpose desktop box won't go away completely, but I do think
>that it will be less prominent in many people's lives as dedicated
>information appliances become more common. People who just want email
>and Web access and games can now get it without needing a PC.
>
>I don't see the PS2 as the future of surfing per se, but I think it
>represents a major step in the evolution of this kind of appliance.
>
>I freely admit that my crystal ball is very hazy, and I may just be
>misinterpreting some random patterns.
I see the future as thin clients using technology like Microsoft
Terminal Server. With a fast network (100BT, but soon gigabit
ethernet will be affordable) it becomes more and more difficult, for
non-games, to tell a difference between local and remote access. When
gigabit (or perhaps one step beyond that) gets here, I doubt most
people will be able to tell the difference. For the office
environment, that makes for a very easily controlled but very powerful
setup.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:59:05 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Open up the /dev directory and see for yourself how long kfm takes to
> post all the icons.....
You obviously haven't tried Konqueror, the replacement for kfm. Not only
is it much faster than kfm, it is much faster than Windows explorer.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Date: 16 Jun 2000 15:52:01 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>a) It is _vastly_ more common for processes to be I/O bound than for
>>them to be CPU bound.
>
>True, true
>
>>If the system is waiting around for the disk to spin to the right
>>spot, it is hardly suffering from the code not being optimized well
>>enough.
>
>Um, well, Linux is installed on the newer and faster of my two disks. So...
>shouldn't it benefit from this slight speed advantage?
If you are concerned about this sort of thing you (a) use busmastering
scsi controllers for everything, and (b) arrange for operations
that happen in parallel to run on different drives. If you
don't do these steps first, you aren't going to see much difference
in how one operating system handles bottlenecks because in
typical use you are going to be waiting on one disk to seek
and spin.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
