Linux-Advocacy Digest #154, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Russell Wallace)
Re: how do i change the system date? (mlw)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: Linux....The Cold Hard Truth.... (mlw)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq ("Jeff Hummer")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Ciaran)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:14:51 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:57:15 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is incorrect. WindowsNT runs a modified
>> microkernel design. Windows9x is a tad more like
>> your description, but there is an awful lot more to
>> it, that doesn't quite fit with your contention.
>
>The original design for NT was for the an NT operating system that contained
>no windowing components or a command shell. The user would be able to plug
>into the NT OS any of a number windowing system or command line shells that
>Microsoft was touting. There was going to be a Dos like shell and several
>of the standard unix shells. There was going the be a Windows 3.x windowing
>system, a new NT windowing system, a X windowing system, a Motif windowing
>system, etc. Even though the graphical user interface was first developed
>by Xerox and then perfected through project Athena; this was during the big
>legal battle between Microsoft and Apple over the control of the graphical
>user interfaces. When the first version of NT was offered to the public
>only the Windows NT windowing system was available, with the promise of more
>to follow. There were claims by Microsoft that one day soon, any program
>written for any windowing environment could compiled for run on the NT OS
>and the correct user interface Then the legal trouble was over and the
>promise of the other interfaces dissappeared.
>
>That was when NT was promoted as a better unix than unix. It would permit
>the user to run their programs using whatever they were comfortable with. A
>dos user would not know he was not running dos. A unix user would not know
>he was not running unix. etc.
>
>So the original NT OS and the Window NT interface were totally sepperate.
>If Microsoft lost the control of their Windowing environment they could sail
>right along by offering the remaining user interfaces which were either
>publc domain or they had licensed from the owner(s). This ploy was a fall
>back position in case they lost the legal battle with Apple. What was
>called the NT OS is what is now called the NT microkernel. If the
>distinction between Windows NT and NT OS has blurred then that is more proof
>that Microsoft takes steps to artificially bind their products together.
Not sure where you dreamed all of this up.
The original NT system was going to run presentation manager (the same
as OS/2 did). As the NT design was started *before* Windows 3.x, it
is hard to imagine how a Win3.x shell was going to be part of it. The
success of Win3.x and the problems MS and IBM were having meant the
project shifted direction and the Win32 API was born to make it much
easier to port the Win16 programs instead of the virtual rewrite
required to port to OS/2.
How do you explain the OS/2 Presentation Manager subsystem which was
available for NT 3.51 if as you claim there were no other interfaces?
As for X windowing and Motif windows being separate things, do you
really understand X?
I think your history is a bit screwy here.
[snip]
>> Windows95 and Windows98 run DOS applications just fine, if
>> they are run from DOS mode only
>
>Do you know that there is in fact no such thing as Dos mode? The term "Dos
>mode" implies that your are running Windows in a mode that makes it
>compatible with the behavior of Dos. That is very misleading Microsoft
>Speak for running the Dos OS, in a way that is designed to trick users into
>not knowing that Window 95 and 98 are still as dependent on Dos as was
>Windows 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x. The only difference is that Microsoft has
>bundled the sale Windows and Dos together and have reduced the quantity of
>utilities that they provide for Dos.
You mean you haven't looked at a .pif file and seen the term 'MS-DOS
mode'? The fact Win9x is still dependant on DOS is obvious - apps can
be run in DOS mode, you can start with a DOS command prompt, the
command prompt is labelled 'MS-DOS prompt' etc.
Saying there is no such thing as DOS mode is denying the blatantly
obvious text inside the dialog box which says 'MS-DOS mode'.
>> (running them in a Windows
>> DOS session can cause problems). However, WindowsNT does
>> have problems with some DOS applications, because it does
>> not allow any direct hardware access whatsoever. But all
>> things considered, I think the VDM works pretty darned well
>> for an emulated environment.
>
>For programs that need special hardware access through a Dos driver, they
>could run if the VDM provides the ability of running a VDM driver that
>provides the services that the Dos program needs. For Dos programs that
>require direct access to standard hardware the VDM could provide hardware
>emulation or the equivlence of the VDM driver that I mention for the
>previous situation. For direct access to special hardware for which a
>program would not have a Dos driver, a VDM driver that provides emulation of
>the hardware or otherwise controls access the the hardware could enable
>those programs. For really unusual situations or for hardware for which
>there no possibility to provide any support by the methods covered above;
>VDM could permit limited direct hardware access as configured by a system
>administrator. There could be risks in this last procedure, but weighing
>the benefit against the risks would br the administrator's job.
>
>Full support for all Dos applications by NT is possible, limited only by the
>unwillingness of Microsoft to provide this support for it's user base.
>There are many reasons that could be cited against this position but there
>is no valid excuse when one considers the resources that could have been
>placed on the project, if Microsoft cared in the least for the needs of
>their customers.
Do you actually understand anything about the VDM on NT?
i) You need to write a special user mode driver (a VDD) for the VDM to
intercept interrupts, DMA or other things. How do you expect MS to
write VDD for every piece of hardware that a DOS program may decide to
access?
ii) There *are* VDDs for standard hardware. There are not VDDs for
sound cards or other less standard hardware.
iii) You do realise that hardware vendors can write VDDs to support
their hardware if they want to?
iv) Direct access to hardware from a VDM is impossible - you have no
idea when you are going to be interrupted, context switched, killed or
anything else. Read a book on NT Device Drivers if you really want to
understand how it works. Aside from that, I'm interested in your
views on how a VDM could safely access hardware without the
possibility of crashing the machine even under normal operation.
v) The main reason DOS programs don't work is they run their own
memory manager which attempts to switch the processor into protected
mode. This is blatantly impossible whichever way you try to twist
things unless you write something like VMWare.
[snip]
>> By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
>> oil lamps on them.
>
>Your analogy and the point that you are trying to make are both invalid and
>incorrect. The type of automobiles that you are citing are to old to
>represent the programs written for Windows 1.x, if you were to consider the
>length of the time line of computer history. I would say that an Edsel
>would be a better match.
>
>Now restating your analogy, "By your logic, we should all be driving
>Edsels." Even when restated your anaology is still incorrent. I would
>never say, "we should all be driving Edsels". However, I would say "that we
>should be permitted to drive Edsels, if we own them and we choose to do so."
>Now expanding on your analogy, if WIndows is the roadway, it should not be
>purposely designed to prohibit the use of an Edsel on it.
Except of course, the analogy is just broken. As are most
computer/car analogies. They are useful for proving a point when you
have no facts to back up your case.
[snip]
>> Such as? If you're referring to how well each of them handles
>> legacy software, yes, that is true to a point. If you're
>> referring to this "lack of a standard API" thing you keep stating,
>> then you are very misinformed.
>
>If you believe that, then I suggest that try to run any software that is
>written to the unique features of any of the varations of Windows that are
>in regular use and run the program flawlessly on all of the other varations.
If developers can't read the *documented* difference between versions
of Windows then it's Microsoft's fault? ROFL.
I've just spend ages trying to compile apps written against an older
version of qt. Perhaps one should remove the log from their own eye
before complaining of the speck in someone elses.
>> True Win32 applications run just fine on both platforms. As
>> far as this topic is concerned, I really have no idea what
>> you're complaining about. I've never had an application
>> that would only work under WindowsNT but not Windows9x, or
>> vice versa.
>
>What about the other varaitions of Windows? And why are you limiting the
>discussion to Win32 applications only?
Now you are just being stupid. Claiming that a Win16 program should
run on Win32 is like claiming a program written for minix should run
in binary form on Linux.
[snip]
>> If it doesn't work on both platforms (assuming DirectX
>> isn't an issue), then it's not a true Win32 application.
>
>So, you are saying that if a given program proves you wrong, it should be
>eliminated from the discussion? It would be like you saying that all the
>dishes in your house are clean, and when someone finds a dirty dish in your
>kitchen sink, you say that it doen't count because it is not really clean.
...or of course that pthreads don't work on Linux because it doesn't
support a few of the calls that Linus doesn't like. ;-)
>> They have had to make some sacrifices, but leaving old
>> and cumbersome technologies behind is not a "bad" thing.
>
>Microsoft did not have to make sacrifices, they choose to abandon the
>support. It is not a bad thing, unless you are the one that is hurt by
>their choice.
Ever tried getting paid support for Linux 0.x? That's the timeframe
we are talking here.
>> You can't run Windows9x, or WindowsNT, expecting
>> to be able to run all of your DOS 3.3, or Windows v2.x apps
>> seamlessly.
>
>And why not?
>
>>Such a request is simply absurd.
>
>The only thing that is absud here is that you could possibily believe that.
>Unless you have a vested interest that your statement supports.
Face it, you are being stupid. Expecting software to work on today's
OSes that was written more than ten years ago is daft. The fact you
can still run the old OSes to run the programs is more than enough.
How many Minix programs do you expect to run in binary form on Linux
2.4?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:16:04 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arthur wrote:
> I've only looked at a few Windows mail clients, but they all use
> either mbox or a similar single large file to hold messages, and
> from what I've heard are all susceptible to the same problems.
> The ones that use a text based format (Pegasus, Eudora) can be
> fixed easily with a text editor and re-indexed. With the ones
> that use a proprietary format (guess who) you're SOL from what
> I've heard.
I use Netscape 3, which stores all the messages in a single plain text
file, plus an ancillary index file (that will be automatically rebuilt
if not found) - the ideal combination IMO. Never had any problems with
it.
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:17:55 -0400
> WYSIWYG is a step backwards. Human labor is used to do that which the
> computer
> can do better.
> Andrew S. Tanenbaum
In deference to our friend Mr. Tanenbaum, WYSIWYG is a methodology and
paradigm to allow creative people to create on the computer what they
wish to see in real life. Does one assume that the paintbrush should be
allowed to dictate the appearance of a painting to the artist? In some
cases, the computer can place things logically, in artistic endeavors, I
shudder to think how a computer would evaluate taste.
The problem with wysiwyg is that people with no taste attempt to
override the computers defaults.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 17 Jun 2000 23:22:45 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So......you type characters to select the file, and type another
> command to open it. Where does the GUI part come in? This sounds like
> an embedded CLI to me. A GUI is a "graphical user interface." An
> interface (to anything) consists of both output AND INPUT. Clicking
> icons and buttons, and selecting menu items with the mouse is
> graphical input. typing commands is COMMAND INPUT.
The GUI allows one to drag through n levels of nested folders, popping
them open with a slight hesitation until the target folder is reached.
_Then_ the initial letter is typed to complete the selection (a
combination of GUI and CLI inputs). Now, CMD-delete, or click-drag to
move it, or option-click-drag to copy it out or whatever is your
pleasure.... _You_ may call the entry of the initial character of the
filename or cmd-delete a COMMAND INPUT. I call the overall task a _GUI
operation_ which took significantly less time than a "pure" CLI would
have required, at least in the case where you didn't _know_ the exact
path before starting to enter a "pure" CLI input (which must be entered
without a single keystroke error or all bets are off).
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:14:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> SUBST was not removed, it still in Windows 98SE, I just tried it and it
> worked. I doubt it was pride that made them remove JOIN and ASSIGN more
> likely users had it blow up in their face. User can be very dumb, if
they
> are in control of their machine.
I recall that after the installation of a Dos upgrade the subst utility did
disappear. I guess that for whatever reason it was brought back again. I
wonder when tha happened?
In the hustle and bustle and flash and furor of getting set up for a
computer show, errors can and do happen. This was one of them, I did not
see it myself but instead I read about it in a couple of computer magazines.
Computer show foul ups were quite commonly covered back then it was just one
of many foul ups at the shows that were covered in passing in the magazines.
The occurence of an error was not something that would have been unusual.
The only reason that particular story stood out as much as it did from the
rest of the stories is because of the fact that here the error exposed the
fraudulent demonstration.
Do you mean that when a user gain control of a computer they are prone to
loose the power of speech? I have been in control of many computers over
the years, and I have never lost my voice. Neither has any one else that I
know who have used or have been in control of their computers. Is there any
medical research into this condition?
> Atleast with Windows 98SE a SUBST drive comes up a normal drive, I can't
> comment on networking or SUBST before DOS 6.0 and Windows for Workgroups.
I
> never used either before then....
> BTW which show was the demo at? I guess MS is great at having demos
blow
> up. ;)
Based on this, I have check my Window 95 dos utilities and have discovered
that it is back with this release as well. A subst drive on Windows 95
appears as a normal drive and not a network drive in both explorer and file
manager. I guess some where between Windows 3.x and this version the bug
that caused a subst drive to appear as a network drive was fixed.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux....The Cold Hard Truth....
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:42:37 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My firm sponsors retail space for computer shows around NYC and the surrounding
> areas including CT and NJ. We were commissioned by a local computer club to
> attach a survey form to the tickets that the attendees received. These shows
> attract a variety of different socio-economic types but in general I would say
> there are more computer geek types present. After all we did originate as a
> Ham-Fest type swap meet show.
>
> Our latest flyer (which gives $2.00 off the price of admission for a filled out
> questionnaire) was about Linux, a pet project of mine.
>
> It turned out to be a real eye opener to me after compiling the data, which the
> pollster contracted us to perform.
>
> Question #1. Do you intend to try Linux in the next year? 78 percent said yes.
So 78% said they intend to try Linux. Remember that.
>
> Question #2. Have you tried Linux in the past year? 97 percent said yes.
After 78% said they were going to try Linux, now 97 percent said they
already did. Interesting.
>
> Question #3 If you HAVE tried Linux in the past year, have you continued to use
> it? 99 percent said no.
99% huh? Have you ever worked at polling the public. Jeez, 99% of the
people can't agree that the sky is blue.
>
> Question #4 If you said no to question 3 what is the reason? (This was a write
> in)
>
> 72 percent said "Linux Sucks"
> 12 percent said "there are no useful applications"
> 9 percent said I like Windows.
> 4 percent said I just don't like it.
> 1 percent said I like it and will continue using it.
So, if the answer to #3 is that you will no longer use Linux, 1 percent
said I like it and will continue using it?
>
> This is the result of 26 shows and 100's of thousands of forms..
100's of thousands of forms, huh? Have you ever worked at polling the
public? You get, at best, a 10% return. More often than that it is much
lower. You really need a lively topic to get 10% return on
questionnaires. If you get multiple "100's of thousands of forms" you
must be polling multiple millions, or multiple tens of millions, of
people.
>
> I think the results speak for themselves....
Yes, they are bogus. There is no way that anything in your post is
statistically credible.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 17 Jun 2000 23:47:38 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8ic9il$e65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Well I must say that I think that's a silly definition to use :).
> > > Like I said before, where would a voice control system fit into
> > > this ?
> > >
> > > How about keyboard alternatives ?
> >
> > I think Rich (correct me, please, if I'm overstepping) would like
> > us to be more specific, though to what purpose, I'm still unclear.
> > Perhaps the following suggested list will stimulate thought:
> >
> > KUI keyboard CLI command line GUI graphics EUI eyeball VUI verbal
> > NUI neural HUI handshake (literally, for wearable computer )
> >
> > Perhaps some of these could be "pure" interfaces (HUI, NUI?). Most
> > of them would wind up being combined with others in a functional
> > system.
> >
> > -- Jim Naylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The original "purpose" was to dispute the use of keyboard shortcuts
> in comparing a GUI's efficiency with that of a CLI. My contention was
> that keyboard shortcuts are part of a CLI that is available through
> the GUI, not part of the GUI itself. Even by Mr. Smith's definition,
> and I quote,
While I agree that you are technically correct, I find it to be a
distinction without a cause. The end result of entering an initial
character (say "x") in a lengthy list of filenames results in instant
selection (highlighting) of the desired directory entry, in most cases.
To me, that seems more a graphical effect than anything else. It's very
visual, if you will. After selection, it is amenable either to mousing
or to another KB shortcut. I fail to see the importance of claiming it
either GUI or CLI. One place it falls woefully short of anything in my
experience with a CLI at this point is that the need for correct syntax
has been obviated by the fact of the selection and availability of a
_set_ of clear cut, specific GUI operations. The _selection_ itself may
be dragged about (either move or copy) with the mouse to any point in
the directory hierarchy, or opened (or deleted) with a keystroke.
> "A CLI is a command *line* interface that relies on you knowing the
> commands, how they operate and what the results will be."
>
> This defines keyboard shortcuts to a Tee in my book. Just because you
> don't have a cursor blinking at you is irrelevant.
Yes, you have to know what you're doing in both cases, but to me, the
major advantage of a GUI isn't the graphic nature of the operations so
much as the freedom from a "fat-fingered" extra character entirely
destroying the (perhaps complex) entry. I used to think of the return
and enter keys as the "OH NO" keys, since I usually noticed the typo
simultaneously with hitting return. YMMV.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:48:08 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 12:04:45 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>> As long as Rex Ballard spreads lies about the number of Linux users,
>
>prove it.
Typically the burden of proof lies on the person making the outrageous
claim. Rex Ballard can concoct some evidence proving that the Easter Bunny
exists, but I don't have to disprove him. Saying that there are 90 million
Linux users is an outrageous claim, in line with the existence of the
Easter Bunny. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Rex Ballard's "evidence" consists of a several year old user base estimate
grown exponentitally with the rate of growth at the time. The room for
propagation of error is just tremendous; if either number were off by a
hair, the entire number could be off by an order of magnitude. Evidence is
not formulated by taking off hand comments made by non-experts, and then
propagating them to your ideals.
Of course, since IDC said 0.3% of desktops run Linux, that means with Rex
Ballard's estimate of 90,000,000 Linux users that there are 30 billion
computer users in the world. Interesting, considering there are only 6
billion humans. This is evidence that Rex Ballard is wrong in counting the
number of Linux users. In fact, it puts an absolute limit of 15 million
Linux users, and that's only if EVERY human had a computer. China and
India alone account for over 1/3 of the world's population, but PC's there
are limited to the elite. There probably aren't more than 600,000,000
computers in use worldwide, which puts the actual Linux user base at 1.8
million, almost two order of magnitude less than Rex Ballard's figure.
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:51:14 GMT
If there is a FAQ for this group, please send it. I'm really sick of
windows, but don't know where to start with Linux.
Thanks
Jeff
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:52:12 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >Of course, I'm running as root.
> >>
> >> Here: have some chainsaws to juggle while you're at it... '-ppp
> >
> >But that's the sport of it!
>
> Remember that on win95/98, everybody is always root.
But being root on Linux is more fun!
>
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:53:54 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:53:25 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You're one of them.
>
>Ever use a web-browser?
>
>These days, over 90% of web servers are either Linux (30%) or Unix
>(60+%).
By the same logic, anybody who conducts an electronic fund transfer is a
VMS user since all such transactions are done on VMS. Anybody who reads a
newspaper is a Mac user since all the layout is done with Mac's. Anybody
who watches movies is a Windows user because all the editing is done on
Windows. Anybody who use microprocessors is a VMS user because all
microprocessors are manufactured with VMS.
Why don't you stop being silly and realize that the discussion is what
people have on their desk, and not what they are using incidentally?
>You know what's really funny? In Russia, there are no copyright laws,
>so people burn both Linux AND LoseDows CD-Roms and sell them in kiosks,
>etc. Linux actually commands a HIGHER price than does LoseDows.
Proof please?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 20:54:48 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:39:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>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".
>
>Obviously you didn't know that there are 30,000,000,000
computer users
>in the world. Proof: According to Rex Ballard, there are 90
million Linux
>users. According to IDC, Linux is 0.3% of the computer market.
Therefore,
>there are 30,000,000,000 computer users in the world.
>
>Accordingly, only ~1/5 of computer users are human. The other
>24,000,000,000 must be animals, minerals, plants, or aliens -
I'm not
>quite sure actually, but I'm sure Rex Ballard knows. I also
wasn't aware
>that East Africa and Southeast Asia got fully populated with
computers,
>either. Perhaps I'm in a time warp?
Small point.Most of the computers in the world(and no I dont
know how many that is... tho 30x10^9 wouldnt surprise me) are
embedded somewhere(usually process control/SCADA etc). Some of
the most popular OSes in the world(in terms of the numbers
running on computers) are things like QNX2/4/neutrino, vxWorks
(no not WinCE :) and custom OSes etc.
Cheers,
Ciaran
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:59:25 -0400
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> In fact, I *avoid* the GUI whenever possible.
> CLI rules.
>
Hey, GUI's are good for something. After all,
you can have four terminal windows on a
single screen.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
