Linux-Advocacy Digest #671, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (Richard Charles Harlos II)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (Richard Charles Harlos II)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (Richard Charles Harlos II)
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:21:46 +1000
"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kn61l$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : : I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do
with the
> : : amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT
scheduler
> : : have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
>
> I should have said, as someone who had been assembly programming 8080s
> running a 1 MHz, a 8 MHz 68000 did not seem remotely slow ;-).
But to run a GUI system like the Mac ?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:31:25 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Common is the measure of how frequently something will occur in a given
> sample population. Unlikely is the measure of how frequently it occurs
> in a single predetermined individual. They are, as you said, extremely
> similar. Unless you're trying to analyze statistical data, and then
> they mean practically opposite things.
>
> >You just want me
> >to say things with the exact same words and exact same phrases that you
> >would use. And then when I don't you use that as an excuse to say there
> >is a glitch in my brain. If this isn't what the problem is, well
> >sorry.
>
> It is what the problem is, and I can understand why you're frustrated,
> and I apologize for frustrating you. The root of the problem is that
> you aren't (and shouldn't be, I'll admit, but I gotta try) willing to
> assume that I have any idea what I'm talking about. That is my own
> frustration, because sometimes it really helps if you give the other
> person the benefit of the doubt before insisting they are wrong,
> clueless, or mistaken. That you would not give me that benefit is OK,
> and I as well harbor no ill feelings. But please let me explain,
> because this comes up a lot when I try to explain things to people.
>
> Yes, I want you to say things with the exact same words that I would
> use. But it isn't arrogance. The reason I want to you use the exact
> same words (no, I want you to *want* to use the exact same words) is
> because I need to understand what you are saying in order to understand
> what you are saying. And if you're just picking words casually, using
> general definitions instead of precise, potentially technical, meanings,
> then I can't be sure I know what you mean simply because I can parse
> your words. I have made extensive and conscious efforts (unknown to
> you, but none of them have come up in this thread) to distill an
> accurate, consistent, and practical vocabulary, and try to use it within
> a framework which is also accurate, consistent, and practical. Forgive
> me, I don't have an extensive formal education, and it is the only way I
> can manage to make sense of all this stuff. Because I've noticed that
> people who do have extensive formal education are unconcerned with the
> fact that they use terms often in a way which is not accurate outside
> their field, not consistent across all fields, and not practical for
> people who have to deal with these things without being within a
> specialized field.
>
This paragraph summarizes again how we are saying the same thing with
different words. Try as you might, you cannot change the entire english
speaking population to use exactly the same vocabulary in exactly the
same way as you. This was part one of my problem with your assumption
that I am wrong simply because I use not common instead of unlikely. To
me they are similar enough in this case to mean exactly the same thing.
To you, they are completely different. Your assumption that I am
telling you you are wrong for saying what you said isn't my intention.
My intention was simply to get you to admit that you are not the only
person that can express an opinion and that if someone expresses the
same opinion as you with different words that does not make them wrong.
Whether you can admit it or not is the question. I have not at any
point said that your basic assumption is wrong. I have said that you
blatantly false accusations are wrong. I seriously do no think that by
using the words 'not common' instead of 'unlikely' you can conclude that
I am:
1. Narrow minded.
2. A bad trouble shooter
3. Blaming others for my problems.
4. Making up factually incorrect statements to back up my claim.
I am expressing my opinion and using actual information that I have
gathered through my life and carreer to back that up. The fact that I
use slightly different wording doesn't necissarily make me incorrect.
This is all that I am saying. And I got angry because you falsely
accused me of things I didn't do or say (where exactly did you
supposedly get the quote from me: "It isn't my fault, it must be someone
else's."?). This was the stem of my anger. And this remains my number
one problem with you and your statements. I still say that at the
outset we both started with the same idea, we expressed them slightly
differently and you used this to attack my character with absolutely no
basis on facts. Why this troubles me so greatly is that you actually
seemed to think we are saying two completely different things, when the
english language is designed in such a way that you can often say things
in different ways that mean exactly, or nearly the same thing. If this
means that I have a glitch in my brain, then so be it.
> So I want you to understand why the precise words I use are important,
> and agree with the importance if not the words, and try to be concise
> and correct (that is, whatever way maximizes both communication and
> understanding of the concepts) instead of making do as most have with
> vague, general concepts and assumptions.
I see this logic as fundamentally flawed. You want me to agree that
only your exact wording has importance? And only your exact wording is
precise and correct? The fact is the statements:
It is not common for Windows stability to be predicted.
and
It is unlikely for Windows stability to be predicted.
Mean almost precisely the same thing. They are close enough that in
this broad of a statement that the essentially are equal. I agree with
the statement you make, but I do not agree that it is the only way to
express that idea. This is your justification for all of the other
accusations you have hurled my way. I constantly question. So I ask:
How? Why?
> I'm just no good at being able
> to deal with general concepts and assumptions.
I think in actuality you are able to deal with the concepts (you seem to
actually know what you are saying with regards to this subject, if not
the subject it brought up: wording) and assumptions, it is the
expression of these concepts and assumptions through words that you are
having difficulty with. Now, I will throw one of your arguments back in
your face and say if you fail to see the difference between these two
things, then you are not trying hard enough. Any concept can be
expressed in infinite ways (at least in the English language). You
assume that anyone that doesn't express it exactly as you would is
wrong. I say, that assumption on your part is wrong. We are both
making the same statement with slightly different words. This to me
isn't bad. It gives way to free thought, and open expression. To you
it seems to be a problem. If it is a problem, it is a fundamental
problem of language.
> That's my problem and
> this is the way I handle it. I've noticed that it seems to give me an
> edge in troubleshooting, particularly in systems where I don't actually
> have any of the technical details at my disposal. An educated guess is
> not an assumption, unless you forget it is only an educated guess.
>
So, you assume that since I don't use the same words as you I am a poor
trouble shooter. OK, at least I see where this part of your argument
came from. This is much better than your assumption that I said "it's
not my fault, it must be somebody else's". But, just because you have
one area that helps you with your trouble shooting, it doesn't mean that
I am incapable of being a troubleshooter just because I don't posses
that exact quality. Another of the tenets of humanity. Saying one
condition depends on only one other condition can never be assumed. If
you prove it, then that's another thing. But you are making the
assumption that because I don't agree that there is only one way to say
this particular statement, it means I will be a poor trouble shooter. I
realize that may be correct in your way of thinking if that is what you
feel makes you a good trouble shooter. But perhaps I posses other
skills that help me in that area. For instance, I do not say: That is
not possible because my little book says it isn't, therefore you are
lieing. Instead I say: Show me what you did leading up to the error,
and I will see if we can duplicate it. If I see what caused the error I
can fix the problem. 9 times out of 10 I will see what the problem was
within 2 minutes. So, I use other skills from you, but that does not
mean I have no skills at all.
> [...]
> >I just wonder where
> >the hell this all came from.
>
> Naked monkeys, doing what naked monkeys do.
I guess I was asking where all the baseless accusations came from. But,
as per usual my anger, combined with my fast typing speed made me miss a
few beats. So, do all of those accusations actually come from something
like the above? To me, it is a poor assesment of the situation. It
demonstrates a single minded approach that says, "my way is right, and
therefore all other ways are wrong." I find this especially interesting
as you continually said you have a broad view of things and I am narrow
minded. I never told you your original statement was wrong, just that
you cannot accuse me of being wrong because I didn't use the exact same
words as you. That was may argument. Your was based on false
accusations (as far as I saw) until the last few posts. Now, we
actually seem to be getting somewhere. But you still insist that only
your way of saying this is correct, and on that I cannot agree.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 14:37:13 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8kn61l$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > I should have said, as someone who had been assembly programming 8080s
: > running a 1 MHz, a 8 MHz 68000 did not seem remotely slow ;-).
: But to run a GUI system like the Mac ?
What part of the GUI are you thinking of?
You have to push the same number of pixels with either scheduling method.
You loose some CPU utilization under PMT due to the time-slice ISR and the
should-I-task-switch decision, but you gain back the time under CMT when
the appliation calls the OS to explicitly yield for the
should-I-task-switch decision.
The big win in PMT is the reduction in application complexity. That
easily tips the scale IMO. I once wrote a program called the nShell. It
allowed somewhat POSIX-like shell programming on the Mac. I implemented
it under CMT to allow 20 concurrent shells. That is, you could have 20
scripts in 20 windows all in loops like this (i forget my exact syntax
;-):
while (sleep(1)) echo hello ;
Now, on a PMT system I could have simply done a system sleep() from each
of my 20 processess (or threads). The code complexity and the decision
overhead within my application would be very small. Under the Mac's CMT
on the other hand, I had to implement a very painful three-level state
machine to achieve my goal.
So sure, PMT involves some overheat, but leaving the application to manage
things involves overhead as well - perhaps a redundent level of overhead.
John
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:52:59 +1000
"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kn8ip$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8kn61l$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : > I should have said, as someone who had been assembly programming 8080s
> : > running a 1 MHz, a 8 MHz 68000 did not seem remotely slow ;-).
>
> : But to run a GUI system like the Mac ?
>
> What part of the GUI are you thinking of?
The whole graphical part - video cards did have much (any ?) acceleration
back then.
> You have to push the same number of pixels with either scheduling method.
I was actually thinking more in the context of your PMT example on a 1Mhz vs
and 8Mhz system.
> You loose some CPU utilization under PMT due to the time-slice ISR and the
> should-I-task-switch decision, but you gain back the time under CMT when
> the appliation calls the OS to explicitly yield for the
> should-I-task-switch decision.
However, back then (personal) computers weren't really used for multitasking
much, if at all, so a CMT system only running one process at a time would
*appear* to be more respnosive, would it not, since that process could grab
as much CPU time as it needed whilst a PMT system would always be switching
between running processes.
With such a limited amount of CPU time, would an application which only gave
up the CPU when it wanted to not appear faster than one which was constantly
giving it up ?
I'm pretty young, so I don't have much experience I can remember (in
context) with really slow machines.
> The big win in PMT is the reduction in application complexity. That
> easily tips the scale IMO. I once wrote a program called the nShell. It
> allowed somewhat POSIX-like shell programming on the Mac. I implemented
> it under CMT to allow 20 concurrent shells. That is, you could have 20
> scripts in 20 windows all in loops like this (i forget my exact syntax
> ;-):
>
> while (sleep(1)) echo hello ;
>
> Now, on a PMT system I could have simply done a system sleep() from each
> of my 20 processess (or threads). The code complexity and the decision
> overhead within my application would be very small. Under the Mac's CMT
> on the other hand, I had to implement a very painful three-level state
> machine to achieve my goal.
>
> So sure, PMT involves some overheat, but leaving the application to manage
> things involves overhead as well - perhaps a redundent level of overhead.
But you must consider that in the context of what is was going to be used
for - mainly a single application running at once.
------------------------------
From: Richard Charles Harlos II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:49:10 GMT
Good advice, and already taken. Thanks! :)
--
richard harlos
freethinker & linux user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Welcome,
>
> I hope you experience with Linux will be rewarding.
>
> Once note while nice in the beginning, UMSDOS is rather slower and a bit
> more wasteful of disk space as I recall. I have not played with the UMSDOS
> filesystem for years. So in the long run if you descide that Linux is right
> for you, I would recommend setting up one or more ext2 partitions.
>
> Since you are now using a unix operating system, be sure to take advantage
> of what it can offer you that was not available to you before. For example
> be sure to setup a user account for yourself and use it regularly. Only
> use the root account when you absolutly must. SO if you do somthing like
> accidently issuing a command that would delete all your program executable
> iin /usr/bin, you will be safe because the system will deny you the
> privilage to lobotomize you system that way.
>
> richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
> >
> > I installed Slackware 7.1 (BigSlack, the UMSDOS install) on my PC and am
> > now happily up and running on the 'net.
> >
> > Aside from a little tweaking to get my cheap, ISP-supplied network card
> > enabled, I'm good to go.
> >
> > And even though it's going to take some time to learn my way around X
> > and Linux in general, I'm much happier to be *doing* something about
> > my dissatisfaction with Microsoft product (by not using them anymore
> > than necessary!) than just *talking* about it.
> >
> > Don't flame this newbie too bad :)
> >
> > richard harlos
------------------------------
From: Richard Charles Harlos II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:50:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
> >
> > I installed Slackware 7.1
<snip>
> > Don't flame this newbie too bad :)
> >
> > richard harlos
> >
>
> Welcome to the Linux world!
Thx! :)
--
richard harlos
freethinker & linux user
------------------------------
From: Richard Charles Harlos II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:53:30 GMT
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> Hey alright good for you! I rember how I felt seeing my first # and $
> prompt... It was Solaris though.. Anyway cool though...
Very cool. I've installed several times and never could get out to
the 'net. I've got a cheap isa ne2000 nic clone, courtesy of my
isp, that was giving linux real fits. Finally with this latest
release of Slackware (7.1) I was able to get all the right
files/entries and - voila!
It's a real 'feel-good' experience...
--
richard harlos
freethinker & linux user
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:53:49 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I'm trying to see if its more than just personal preferences. I mean, it
> can't be personal preference if one thing works better than another?
>
Here's an error Pete. Maybe, Windows works better in your opinion
because it is more like what you are already used to. Maybe for me
Linux works better because it is more like what I am already used to.
People have different preferences. In fact, I like that I can dig into
the guts of Linux and modify plain-text configurations files to make the
system obey me. You have stated that this isn't something you like.
That's opinion. But I have also seen you say this means that Linux lags
behind Windows in this area. Not to me, it is the other way around.
Now, I think we are back to the fundamental question of saying: What is
just my opinion, and what is a fact?
I know you are actually trying to be realistic about this. But there
have been a few moments where something you says comes across like: This
is what I like in Windows, why doesn't Linux do it just like Windows?
And if Linux doesn't do it just like Windows, then in your opinion Linux
lags behind Windows. Now, if you said, "in your opinion" before saying
Linux lags behind Windows it wouldn't be a problem. It's the sweeping
statement without qualifiers that bothers some here (including me, as
you've seen). Adding qualifiers to make it correct can be a tricky
business. But no one can dispute that your opinion is your opinion.
That is one thing I will fight for with anybody. If someone comes in
here and says, "in my opinion Linux is shit" I may ask them why they
feel that way, but I will not tell them that statement is wrong. But,
if they say, "Linux is shit" that is a statement that is their opinion,
but they are stating as a fact which makes it wrong.
Being picky? Probably, but it is just this kind of pickiness that can
keep a conversation moving forward rather than down into the gutteral
spiral (shithead-dumbass-moron-etc).
Now, if all of your arguments were based on things that actually didn't
work at all, I wouldn't have posted this. But many of your arguments
are, "I had to do this in Linux, but it was this much easier in
Windows." To me I would say, "In Windows I had to do this, but it was
just a matter of adding this in Linux." The two statements look
similar, but in my mind the Linux set-up was just as easy as the
Windows. Plus, I know I won't have to mess with it again. In my mind
the Windows way is more difficult and more likely to screw-up of its own
volition at some arbitrary point. To me, this mean Windows lags behind
Linux. To you, the opposite.
So, once again (not to be an ass), make sure you state your opinions as
"your opinions" and not as given facts. This is what leads to the
insults.
> >No, just politics:-)
>
> Politics! Dirty word!
>
I agree that politics suck. Which is why I am so picky about language
sometimes. Politicians will play with words until they mean subtly
different things from the original intent of the phrase. Being careful
to be factually correct is far more important to me than proving my
point "by any means possible". Just my point of view.
> Pete
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:58:07 -0400
John Jensen wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : >
> : > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
> : > >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
> : > >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
> : >
> : > The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
> : > bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>
> : But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>
> We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
> itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
>
> As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
> resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
> memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
> have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
> valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
I implemented PMT on a 6809 system using a only a few hundred bytes of
overhead, plus a set aside for stack-space for MAX_PROC-1 processes.
>
> When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
> was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
And it definitely is a hack.
>
> (I can't believe I'm in such a stupid thread.)
>
> John
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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, 14 Jul 2000 09:59:52 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
>>
>> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
>> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>
>But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
Poor Mac. When did the Mac get 256k or 512k?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:01:50 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> everybody ends up just waving dead chickens, proud of their voodoo power
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >HA!
>
> I take it you recognize the issue I'm trying to discuss, right?
>
> Whenever I ask an MCSE a tough question, and they start their little
> "Microsoft shuffle" where they pretend to know how to answer, as if the
> Lego blocks they saw in those diagrams have any relation whatsoever to
> the code they're supposedly competent on but have never seen, I always
> get this image flashing into my head of those ceremonies where the
> islanders shake and spasm, claiming that they're being "ridden by gods".
> I think of this line you've highlighted, and have a little giggle. ;-}
>
I'm gonna have to go out and buy a couple of rubber chickens!
When the NT guys start having problems...I'll get my dead chickens,
and say, "Here, try these"
When they ask "for what?", I'll simply reply, "I don't know, but
that's what the NT guys used at the last site where I worked..."
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
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, 14 Jul 2000 10:02:54 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:53:34 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>> >> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>> >> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
>> >>
>> >> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
>> >> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>> >
>> >But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>>
>> That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
>> overcharging their customers...
>
>Hardly. The Mac came about as a direct result of the Lisa; a more
>expensive system that nobody bought. Incidentally, the Lisa supported
>PMT. This was one of the corners Apple had to cut when trying to build a
>lower cost system.
...which in no way contradicts Jedi's poing, that Apple likes to skimp
on hardware while overcharging customers. After all, if the C= Amiga
could do it then, why not a much larger Apple Computers, Inc.?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
