Linux-Advocacy Digest #196, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 21:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Harlan Grove)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Ciaran)
Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors] (OSguy)
Re: Windows come in, your time is up. (2:1)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Colin Smith)
Re: Windows98 (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (Charlie Ebert)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Doc Shipley)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows ("Bobby D. Bryant")
10 things you can do with Windows... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
The Linux Challenge ("BR")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Shock Boy")
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Bill Unruh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:45:08 -0700
Not wanting to do your job for you, I'll ask leading
questions.
Linux is descended from what operating system (OS)?
That precursor OS is how old?
That precursor OS was or was not available in source code
in many (most?) colleges and universities with good to
excellent Computer Science departments?
There are how many other open source descendents from the
precursor OS? And they're how old?
Flip side: how many programmers does Microsoft admit to
having working on Windows? How long has Windows been in
existence? Do versions prior to 3.0, 3.1, 95 count? Has any
piece of Windows ever been open sourced?
Answer these, and you'll get an idea about the relative
mind-hours comparison. Using a biological metaphor, Windows
is highly bred for a rather narrow set of environments
(there are Alpha (and Mips?) ports). Linux is the product
of several dozen generations in a much, much broader set of
environments. Which is likely to be more robust?
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web
Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:00:45 -0700
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In Windos, if the softwhere is beta, you won't see it on the
market.
Congrats. This comment gave me a great laugh. Exactly how much
do you know about the realities of cemmerical software
development ?
Cheers,
Ciaran
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:24:31 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/editors_note.asp
> >
> >abraxas wrote:
> >
> >> > What's going on here?
> >>
> >> Microsoft is trying to fool you, and theyve drastically underestimated your
> >> intelligence and computer experience. I.e.; theyve assumed that you're
> >> one of their customers.
>
> Wow - that's bizarre. The pages claim to be Newsweek's but the
> navigation menus on the left where you expect them belong to
> MSN. You have to hunt to find the Neweek content.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C'mon Guys....Can't you read?
It says in the Editor's notes:
"We're pleased to welcome you to Newsweek.MSNBC.com, the new home of Newsweek
magazine on the Web."
As in Newsweek online has moved their pages/services to MSNBC.
I apologize if I missed something other than Newsweek being a sellout, but I
don't think so.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows come in, your time is up.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:28:07 +0100
Cihl wrote:
>
> 2:1 wrote:
> >
> > I just downloaded the latest version of Wine. it's pretty impressive.
> > Soon, one of the main advantages of windows --- the applications
> > avaliable (although I'm happy with the linux ones), will cease to be an
> > advantages.
> >
> > In all other areas (except driver support), windows is playing catchup
> > now. How else can windows becoming more like UNIX every release be
> > explained.
> >
> > It's only a matter of time...
> >
>
> What's better about this version than the last? (Just curious)
I just downloaded the latest version and was impressed. It's the first
Wine I've seen and I think its good.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Smith)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:36:22 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:16:54 GMT, Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know much
>about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
>Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because a) Linux is
>better designed b)it attempts to do less, c) more people have invested
>time in making it work and/or c)smarter people (and, hey, let's say
>better looking while we're at it) have invested time in making it work
>(I guess there's some overlap with "a)" here).
What about d) The source code is available to all? Read the Cathedral
and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar.html
--
UCE probe.
Don't send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] there's nobody home.
The address captures spammer addresses and /dev/nulls all their mail.
Regards, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:00:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Robert L." wrote:
>
> Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
> I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled it.
Conversely, I have NEVER re-installed a Unix or Linux system.
Why is that?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:59:49 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> NOTHING
>
> Hey, trim your posts, you asshole
>
> Gary
About a century ago, the response would have been to waive
your torch at the entrance of your cave.
Today we have this.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:01:27 GMT
Oliver Baker wrote:
> Would anyone care to compare--either quantitatively or
> qualitatively--the number of mind hours that have gone into developing
> Linux as an OS verus what has gone into developing Windows as an OS?
>
Totally unworkable comparison. MS products' development is directed at
and dictated by commercial goals. Linux development, while building on a
base of commercial design (Websearch: UNIX), has been directed almost
exclusively toward functionality. Before anybody jumps, I *do* include
games, UI, and user comfort as components of functionality. You're
comparing an AutoCAD blueprint to a commercial webpage.
> I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know much
> about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
> Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because
> a) Linux is better designed
See above.
> b)it attempts to do less,
Linux not only attempts to do more, it DOES more. Anecdote:
When I started my current job running an NT/Win98 subnet, I was
woefully ignorant with NT Server. I wanted to set up the telnet daemon
on my server, but could not find the configuration dialog. Nor was
telnet service mentioned in any Help file. Finally, in my NT Server
Resource Kit, I find that "NT Server does not ship with a telnet
service. For those who wish to provide this function, there are many
freeware and shareware telnet servers available on the Internet."
Excuse me. NT Server was shipping at ~$800 for a 5-seat license. And MS
tells me to download shareware to provide a BASIC service.
> c) more people have invested time in making it work and/or c)smarter people (and,
>hey, let's say better looking while we're at it) have invested time in making it work
Linux = Time Invested In "Making It Work"
Microsoft = Time Invested In Selling Product
See above.
Oliver, no offense, man, but you're not qualified to do what you're
trying to do. You keep saying you're not a computer person, and that's
painfully obvious. This is like a guy without a driver's license
comparing Kenworth & Peterbilt. I'm not telling you to go away. We/I
don't WANT to run you off. But you really need some personal
understanding of the questions you're asking.
At the very least, you need to start with a blank harddrive, a copy of
Mandrake, SuSE, or RedHat, and a copy of NT. Workstation will do, Sever
would be a better comparison. Install. Configure services. Write papers,
play Freecell, dial up your ISP. Come back in two weeks.
While you're at it, if you want a REAL demonstration, post this & your
previous questions to some NT newsgroups...
--
Doc Shipley
Network Stuff
Austin, Earth
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:00:17 -0500
Oliver Baker wrote:
> I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know much
> about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
> Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because a) Linux is
> better designed b)it attempts to do less, c) more people have invested
> time in making it work and/or c)smarter people (and, hey, let's say
> better looking while we're at it) have invested time in making it work
> (I guess there's some overlap with "a)" here).
d) Windows is written by people who want to *sell* it, whereas Linux is
written by people who want to *use* it.
There is probably a strong element of a) as well. For Windows, everything
is "integrated" either for marketing reasons or else for speed, but for
Linux everything is layered according to good engineering principles; speed
rightly takes second place to correctness and reliability.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 10 things you can do with Windows...
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:07:33 GMT
#1. Install that needed service pack!
#2 Wait for that needed service pack!
#3. Launch 3 applications in ultra priority and wait for the blue
screen!
#4. Play a game of Quake and watch it blue screen!
#5. Upgrade to the next version!
#6. Upgrade all your applications to match your new Windows Version!
#7. Help spread deadly viruses!
#8. Re-install your windows version!
#9. Lauch your disk drive de-fragger!
And the top reason!
#10. Break out on a cold sweat over this breakup thing and post to
COLA!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:10:17 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:26:12 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> A company with these things [a monopoly - ed]has special
>> responsibilities, according to the law.
>
>So we keep being told. Yet you offer no *moral* defense of this;
I think the burden of proof is on you to defend your position that
anti-trust laws are not moral. These laws were passed originally
because of serious abuses by the so-called "robber barons" of the late
1800's. These were real abuses that caused real hardship for workers
and for consumers. The laws have been applied successfully many times
in many different industries (railroads, oil, shoes, and communications
to name a few). You need to convince the Congress to repeal the law if
you think it is immoral. Wishing it were so won't make the verdict go
away.
However, as a point of information, the moral justification for the
restriction is that to allow a monopolist to leverage a monopoly into
new areas is bad for both the market and for society. If, for example,
we allow Standard Oil to parley their oil monopoly into an automobile
monopoly, I think it is easy to see how this could be bad for consumers
and for the functioning of the market. While it may be true that "in
the long run" the market will take care of itself, it is also true that
in the long run we are all dead.
Contrary to the simplistic idas of Ayn Rand and her followers, pure
capitalism does not work for the good of society any better than pure
socialism does. And it is the overall good of society, of the people,
that representative government is supposed to maximize. Corporations
are not people and the maximization of their wealth and power is good
only insofar as it furthers the larger goals of society. It is
therefore moral to put limits on corporations. What these limits ought
to be and how they are to be decided is of course a legitimate subject
of debate, but I think it is self-evident from history that government
has some role to play in the market.
Over and over we have seen that some regulation is in fact required to
prevent exploitation of workers and consumers and to allow freedom of
choice in the market to provide the benefits of healthy competition.
This is not a new idea, nor is it a bad one. And it is not the same
thing as the government setting up a five year plan for how many shoes
are to be made, or deciding what features are to be put into Windows
next year.
>Anything that hurts Microsoft must be good.
And anything that Microsoft does must be good, according to you.
Frankly, if they can't survive without their tying deals, exclusive
OEM deals, "integraton", et al, then they are weak and they need to
fall now so some better company can take their place. I think they
will survive though, just as Standard Oil's 30-odd parts did, and just
as AT&T's parts did. Note that both were split into more than two
parts, and AT&T still lives with much more regulation than the DoJ is
asking for in the MS case. You'll still have a job post-split.
Let me ask you this. Is there any business practice that MS employs
that you will not defend? Have they, in your opinion, ever done
anything unethical? Have they, in your opinion, ever broken any laws,
and if so, were those laws good laws or bad ones?
>Welcome to the land of capitalism. I know, you suppose
>that nothing good can ever come of greed. Yet it works.
Please don't tell me what I suppose. Greed does cause some people to
do great things. Others do great things out of other motives. I do
not want to live in a society that honors and encourages greed to the
exclusion of all other motives, and this has not historically been the
case in the US. Our society is not the pure-capitalist utopia that you
appear to think it should be. We have a thing called "representative
government" here, whereby a diversity of motivations and approaches to
life are supposed to be supported.
And in fact, greed alone does not work to build a good society, unless
perhaps you think the Mafia is an example of such. Greed may be good,
but greed alone is most certainly bad.
>Well, at least you realise that the most common approach to
>proving this (ie, MS didn't do it the Unix way! WAAAAH!) is
>unconvincing. Leslie hasn't figured that one out yet. :D
The original discussion was about whether or not MS has intentionally
sabatoged interoperability to make competitors look bad. It think it
is clear that they have, and not because of working or not working with
Unix specifically. We just tend to use Unix examples around here
because we're posting from a Linux group and various flavors of Unix is
the major competitor on the server right now.
What you are doing, and what MS does, is to throw out some alternate
explanation for what happened that could possibly be true if you look
at that one incident in isolation. Then when a "smoking gun" is
produced in the form of an email or a witness or a piece of code or
whatever, you explain it away as the action of a "rogue employee" or as
a "simple misunderstanding" or "incompetence" or that we just don't
understand how business works. We are supposed to look at each
incident in isolation and not see the recurring pattern.
So we have MS being supposedly "gung ho" on interoperability yet they
can't make a simple telnet client work right and play NDA games with
Kerberos.
We have email from Bill Gates asking about ways to sabotage
compatibility with the Palm OS, and we get spin about how that's not
really what he was talking about even though the words seem perfectly
clear. We're not supposed to notice that MS has a competing product
that isn't doing well.
We have IBM testifying that MS threatened to withold Windows if they
preloaded OS/2, and that kind of thing is supposedly just "good hard
captialism" and not an unethical abuse of a monopoly. Apparently
anything short of guns is ethical in the world of the future.
We have Marc Andreeson testifying that MS wanted to create a browser
cartel, and we are to believe that he's just disgruntled and a liar.
We are presented a picture of MS being the only company that was smart,
that they did not need to do anything unethical, that all of their
competitors lost simply because they were stupid and made mistakes, in
spite of the fact that MS has made as many mistakes as any of them.
And on and on. This may be convincing the first time, or the second,
or the third, but at some point it begins to look like an exercise in
prevarication. Rather than being an actual defense, it is simply an
attempt to create doubt, like a small child making up a new story to
fit the situation. That is not a convincing defense. Not to the
judge, to me, or to Leslie. What Leslie and I have a hard time
figuring out is why it convinces you.
Now, when the case is lost and MS is to be broken up, you begin to
attack the law that was applied. You say it is immoral according to
some new economic theory of yours. You attack the government, saying
it is on a vendetta on behalf of MS's competitors. You attack the
judge, a Reagan appointee, as being on an anti-business crusade.
This sounds a lot like whining to me. MS lost the case because they
did not put up a credible defense. The reason for that isn't some
amazing strategy they have up their sleeve, or a conspiracy against
them, or a lazy judge, or any of the other things you cite. The reason
is that they are guilty and don't have a credible defense.
>> >Perhaps we're smarter than Unix developers. :D
>>
>> Fuck you. 8->
>
>Awwww. Did I hurt your feelings? :P
You have a habit of saying insulting things and then sticking a :D in
there so that I am supposed to take it as a joke. I wanted to call
your attention to this.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:07:49 -0500
David Cancio wrote:
> I mean, why have only GNU/Linux at my home when a magazine
> gives an English course (for Windows) ? Why can't I test all those new games
> ?
As long as lots of people maintain that attitude, those companies producing the
courseware and games will not be motivated to port to Linux.
Personally, I can live without a lot of commercial software. If they expect me
to use a second rate OS just so I can run their product, then they have lost a
customer.
Software customers need to start showing more backbone. Software shops are as
much at the mercy of their customers' good will as any other business is. They
just don't try, because too many of us set our expectations too low. Our
spinelessness is rewarded with overpriced, second-rate software that will only
run on an overpriced, fourth-rate excuse for an operating system.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:10:44 -0500
"Robert L." wrote:
> Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
> I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled it.
Incredible! Where can I buy this paragon of reliability!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 20 Jun 2000 00:15:53 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I expect that after their appeal, Microsoft's NEXT court case
: will involve RICO, and precisely how many years Gates, Ballmer,
: and Allen will be spending at club fed.
It would be nice to know that even the rich and powerful are not
completely exempt from the law, and I hope you are right, but the
cynic in me says this is not real likely to happen. :(
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:19:51 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> But it doesn't force you to tipe password EVERY TIME you use Windows like UNIX does.
>UNIX makes
> you tipe a password even when your on the consoul.
Which happens to be pretty convenient when you don't want unauthorized parties
screwing around with
your system.
> But LinuxLosers like to brag that their CLI can multitask without the GUI running. I
>say who cares?
People who run servers and scientific/engineering simulaters often care. I get a lot
of good out of
GUIless Linux systems when I run days-long number crunching jobs on Linux batch
servers.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:25:28 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> In Windos you can have no password without getting cracked.
Ever worked in an office where everyone had a computer, but no one had passwords to
control access? Not a pretty sight.
> >> This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to most
> >>users. Windows still wins.
> >
> >That doesn't follow. How is Windows, which provides no over-network feature,
> >winning?
>
> Nobody neads an over-network feeture. Windows wins without it.
a) I need it, and so do lots of other people I know. If you ever worked on an OS that
*had* it, you might realize the power of some of the things you've been missing.
b) No, logically the best Windows could do is tie, not win. You can't win by offering
the same thing. And of course, Windows can't really even tie in the real world, due to
(a).
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 20 Jun 2000 00:27:17 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:42 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>>Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of its functionality.
>>
>>Nice try.
>
>Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
(1) Sorry, I have no idea what "RMP" is. I take it that you don't either.
(2) You can always use one of these graphical tools if you like. They
are not very hard to use.
>KDE takes forever and a day to load up.
So does Windows. But that's hardly an issue unless you are booting your
computer every few minutes. But most Linux users don't need to restart
every two minutes. I leave KDE running for months at a time.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "BR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Linux Challenge
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:28:34 -0500
http://www.networkcomputing.com/1112/1112f1.html
Read it. Reflect on it. Enjoy it.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:29:01 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ijdec$trh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:ABJ25.3969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with the
> old,
> > > > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying
> volumes by
> > > > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the
> longer
> > > it's
> > > > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely more
> > > modern
> > > > system.
> > >
> > > Because when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> > > yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one
> letter
> > > volume names.
> >
> > I dare you to change the drive that your system root resides on to a
> > different letter.
>
> What do I win if it works ? :D
Yea.. mine is not on C:\ as well :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: 20 Jun 2000 00:39:55 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Smith)
writes:
>What about d) The source code is available to all? Read the Cathedral
>and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond:
Although his contention is that all bugs are shallow in open source,
this is less true than it should be. See the recent bug report on the
PGP5.0(?) disasterous bug for automatically generated keys. For two
years this open source program had a disasterous bug, and it was only
discovered recently. Of course you could argue that the the only reason
it was actually discovered at all was that it was open source, but 2
years is a long time for a shallow bug to stay hidden.
Ie, to find the bugs, the code actually has to be read and studied. With
something like linux, I suspect there are vast tacts of it which have
only ever been studied by the original writer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
