Linux-Advocacy Digest #737, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Mike Marion)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Misconceptions about Mozilla (was: Star Office to be open sourced) (Austin
Ziegler)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:14:34 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> KDE != Linux.
>
> KDE is not restricted to Linux.
Just in case noone believes you... I've personally run KDE under Solaris
and am running Gnome (using sawfish as the wm) under Solaris now.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
_Colonel Slade_: "There is nothing like the sight of an amputated
spirit. There is no prosthetic for that." - From _Scent of a Woman_
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:22:47 GMT
Jacques Guy writes:
> [...]
>> Not as long as Joe Malloy is around.
> [...]
>> Who are those?
> [...]
>> You're presupposing the existence of source code.
> L'a vraiment que dalle a foutre alors, le mec.
Any particular reason for switching languages?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Misconceptions about Mozilla (was: Star Office to be open sourced)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:27:04 -0400
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:10:50 +0100...
> ...and phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> However, making a big complex program open source won't necessarily
>> attrack many outside developers -- look at netscape.
> Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) has attracted a very large number of outside
> developers (about 150). That's an impressive number of contributors,
> especially for a project that uses C++ and that features so many
> idiosyncrasies.
>
> The only reason why the participation in Mozilla looks less than
> impressive is that Netscape themselves employ about 300 developers.
>
> Now do you want Netscape to lay off 250 people in order to make the
> project look more popular?
Mozilla had a very difficult time attracting developers for a while. It's
since picked up.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:24:08 -0500
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> > Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <DvSb5.316617$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
> > > >> 3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
> > > >> more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
> > > >> average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
> > > >> using linquistic skills)
> > > >
> > > >Personally, I find the differences between the thinking of men and woman
> > > >similar to the differences between KDE and GNOME; not very interesting and
> > > >far too slight to really matter.
> > >
> > > Maybe you aren't paying attention. Do you really understand why
> > > anyone would want more than 2 colors of shoes? Or how they
> > > could spend time shopping for them without being bored senseless?
> > >
> > > Les Mikesell
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Whoah there pard.
> >
> > Seriously, while *some* women do this, not all do. And I've known a few
> > men that do that (shopping for clothes and shoes for hours or even days,
> > having a full closet and saying, "I don't have a thing to wear"). I
> > think that's more about how you are raised then something internal
> > between men and women. A guy raised in a house that's all women (dad
> > left when young, left with sisters and mom) is going to display some of
> > this same behavior. Same goes the other way around. I would say most
> > of this is about the way you are raised, environment around you, and
> > personality. That is not a fundamental difference in thinking style.
> >
> > And, BTW how many women would go to a car lot and look at cars for three
> > or more hours, talk to salesmen, talk about prices and such knowing full
> > well that they can't even think about affording a car? I know a number
> > of men that would. A difference in preference of what they are looking
> > at, not a fundamental difference in behavior.
> >
> > Now, more than likely you were joking, but I thought I'd throw in my
> > $.02 (+tax). :)
>
> Perhaps he wasn't comparing men and women, but simply saying
> that just as there isn't one or two colors of shoes or cars, so there
> should be a choice of desktop environments.
>
> Colin Day
Ah, missed that idea the first time around (that's what you get when you
are only half paying attention scanning through posts). :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:34:37 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tinman wrote:
> >
> > In article <IDvc5.36603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> > Writing problems, Dave?
> [snip]
> > No, else I would not have asked.
> [snip]
> > Yet you insist on using it incorrectly.
> [snip snip snip snip snip snip snip]
>
> Behold, the TinBot is risen! All hail to
> to TinBot!
While I am happy to accept your hails, I am not a bot.
I..... am..... a ......cyborg.
> Soon, these newsgroups are going to consist of
> nothing but messages from bots and to bots. Raw
> bots, rough bots, tin bots, tholen bots
> (those with a speech impediment). I wish
> they'd post the source code.
That's all carbon based. ("
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:38:29 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> > Not as long as Joe Malloy is around.
> [...]
> > Who are those?
> [...]
> > You're presupposing the existence of source code.
>
> L'a vraiment que dalle a foutre alors, le mec.
Pardon, mais je ne comprende pas. "Foutre," bien sûr, mais qu'est-ce que
ca va dire "dalle a foutre alors"? (ask I, hoping my french is good enough
to have been clear.....)
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:41:30 -0400
In article <UZBc5.213$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > In article <9dQb5.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >> > In article <bVub5.36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> tinman wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Tinman wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That's tinman. ('
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Jumping into conversations again Slava?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Illogical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
> >> >
> >> > What alleged "the"?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Reading comprehension problems, eh tinman? The question was:
> >>
> >> "On what basis do you make that claim?"
> >
> > What alleged "claim?"
>
> "That's tinman. ('" -- Tinman
Exactly, except your attribution is mispelled.
> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > And why else would I post?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Don't you know?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Why do you ask?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you know?
> >> >
> >> > Illogical.
> >>
> >> What you think is illogical is irrelevant. What you can prove is
> >> relevant.
> >
> > What I can prove is irrelevent.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who claims to have a "polycarbonate
> exterior".
On the contrary.
> > What I can enjoy is relevent.
>
> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your illogical claim that
> what you can "enjoy" is "relevent".
>
> >
> >> > Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
> >>
> >> On the contrary, you simply failed to locate the response.
> >
> > Where is your logical response? Why, no where to be found!
>
> It has been there all along. Of course, it takes decent logic and
> relevancy skills to recognize that fact.
Where?
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Not surprising, considering that you are being digestified.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On the contrary.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What I can prove is irrelevent, only what I write is relevent.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> > On the contrary.
> >>
> >> How are the daisies on irrelevancy lane, tinman?
> >
> > Blooming well,
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
I gaze at the wonderous blossoms fed by Tholen emissions and know it to be
true. ("
> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
> >
>
> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that he's
> "back on CSMA".
Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <*tink* *tink*> This one.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Evidence, please.
> >> >
> >> > Reading comprehension problems, Slava?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Obviously not.
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
>
> Bladerdash. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided evidence of
> this alleged "polycarbonate exterior".
<*tink* *tink*>
There is your proof.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 17 Jul 2000 21:32:19 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Lars Träger wrote:
>> Context: So if I plug a USB mouse into a Sun box, it just works?
>>
>> In case you still didn't get it: Suns don't have USB, so you can't just
>> plug one in.
>If you don't by hardware made for the platform.. then you're just a
>moron.
Or get a SunRAY which does support USB stuff.
>That's like buying an sbus card and complaining because it doesn't fit
>in your PC or Mac.
>BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun has USB on their boxes soon.. but
>only if they see a benefit from it. I know many new HP unix
>workstations use USB already (which kinda sucks because they changed
>without warning so parts aren't interchangeable).
Yes, new workstatiosn will have USB.
BTW, USB appears to have all the same problems PCI and ISA have;
I plugged in a USB keyboard and my USB camera's microphone stopped
working (on our win98 "family PC", I just like to ahave a Sun keyboard
on it )
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:41:19 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:40:28 GMT
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >You keep repeating such things. CMT doesn't put the user in control, it
> >puts the apps in control. This is bad, because the apps can't know what
> >else the system is doing, so they have no idea when they should be
> >yielding CPU time.
>
> What is bad is forgetting that the user is supposed to be in control of
> the apps, not the other way around.
Yes. Which is one of the reasons that PMT is superior to CMT.
> That is a valid reason not to put the apps in charge. In PMT, the apps
> are in charge (via the consistent and algorithmic rules of the
> scheduler.)
Wrong. In PMT the user is in charge, through the use of priorities and
setting scheduling policy.
> In CMT, the user is in charge, not the apps.
Wrong. If you run an application that refuses to give up control of the
processor, the app is in charge, not the user.
> If the app I
> bring to the foreground doesn't yield sufficiently and stops my
> download, then I will get rid of that app and get one that works.
Which may well require you to reset your computer, especially if the
application in charge gets locked into an uninterruptible infinite loop.
On the other hand, this kind of control (choosing not to run an
application) is just as available to you in a PMT system as it is in a
CMT system.
In short, once again, PMT gives more control to the user than CMT does.
> Personal computers should always put the user in charge. If the user
> cannot be assumed to know what they're doing, then it is the job of th
> engineer to present the choice through an interface analogy they can
> understand, not to make the decision for them, nor to put the software
> in charge.
You are arguing for PMT, and against CMT.
> Second guessing the user is what Windows does wrong. I'm
> not saying that putting PMT on a desktop is as bad as Windows. I am
> saying that the assumption that technical issues for the engineer are
> the same as, or even pre-eminent in comparison to, the operational
> issues of the PC user is something I've noticed causes a lot of subtle
> problems on down the road, while everyone is concentrating purely on the
> task at hand.
Engineers are *also* users.
> No doubt the future system will do PMT, sure, because it
> is technically important when dealing with servers and high-speed I/O,
> and desktop need to do those things as well as be a client. But it will
> mimic a CMT system, if it is going to be optimized for efficiency by or
> for the user operations which is its purpose for being there.
No, it won't. All workstation PMT will do is (as HPUX already does)
give good interactive response even under heavy load.
> >A real-time OS is an OS that _guarantees_ a given response time. I'm not
> >quite sure why you seem to be against the idea, given what you've said
> >about the importance of the issue.
>
> For the same reason I am against the *ideal* of "guaranteed response
> time" in all guises and facets. Its a doomed proposition.
No its not. It's already here, it already works.
> The Internet
> only works because some very smart engineers back in the early 70s
> realized it wasn't necessary.
You over generalize. Real time response is not necessary for all
situations, but where neccessary, it is *critical*!
Also, you very example proves you wrong, as one of the things that IPV6
fixes is QOS problems inherent in the design of IPV4.
> Maybe someday soon software engineers
> will recognize the same.
They won't, because your basic premise is flawed. Generalizing from a
single case to every system is a mistake.
> Build the apps so they don't *need* guaranteed
> response time, even if you think the operations they are supposed to
> perform seem to require it.
That is not possible. In some cases, guaranteed response time is not a
requirement that can be "engineered out".
> Somewhere real-time OSes might be positively and unavoidably necessary.
Yes. In all time-based systems, real-time is an absolute requirement.
> There is no reason to think that they are anywhere near where humans are
> trying to get work done.
Wrong. Try watching your TV at 1 frame per minute, and tell me that you
don't need real time. Try playing Quake at 2 FPS. Try burning a CD . .
.
The cost of modifying human beings so that their visual systems would
actually perceive 2 FPS as "smooth video" is excessive (and probably
illegal!).
> I see your point. I did miss it; my apologies. Hmmm. See, the
> background app that grabbed it is even easier to identify than the
> foreground app that didn't yield it. Engineers are trained not to leave
> things to chance. But the market isn't, and this is a
> consumer/user/operator/end/client/desktop system we are talking about.
And your point is . . . ?
> CMT systems encourage proper app design.
CMT *requires* "proper app design".
> PMT allows the app designers
> to handwave the issue because the OS has already taken the decision out
> of their hands.
No, PMT allows the app designer to *ignore* the situation, because it
isn't any of their business (unless they are designing multi-threaded
applications, of course).
> A much more responsive PMT system, responsive to
> *human* things, not just *interface* things,
Do you suppose you could translate the above into something meaningful?
> able to provide
> optimization to the user without second-guessing him, would be optimal.
Hence: PMT.
> Like I said; a PMT system that pretend to be CMT might be optimal in
> practical terms.
What, precisely, would you like a PMT system to simluate about a CMT
system? Greater wastage of resources? The ability of any single
application to lock up the OS? The lack of user control over the
system? What?
> None of this is theoretical stuff. Compare the performance of my Aunt
> Sue, who's sixty one and types 100 words a minute while also keeping
> books in Quicken, to my son Alex, who surfs the web at two clicks per
> cheat code, or Gary down the hall, who gets three stock tips per three
> vendor presentations. There is no contest; the human has to be in
> charge.
If you truly believe that, then CMT is an absolute no no.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:51:01 -0600
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:40:28
> > GMT
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [...]
> > >You keep repeating such things. CMT doesn't put the user in control,
> > >it puts the apps in control. This is bad, because the apps can't
> > >know what else the system is doing, so they have no idea when they
> > >should be yielding CPU time.
> >
> > What is bad is forgetting that the user is supposed to be in control
> > of the apps, not the other way around.
>
> The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
> The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
> (PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
Not quite true . . . the user sets *policy* in a PMT system.
> > That's already happened; MS is just trying to re-capitalize on it.
> > Almost every non-engineer in the world is entirely and completely
> > convinced that putting an interface on a web page makes it work *the
> > same* as all the others, in direct and obvious contrast to their
> > senses.
>
> I can't wait for the first productivity studies....
What productivity studies? There is no need to do a productivity study
when the system under study already owns its market. . .
> Innovation might require diversity, but usability requires consistency.
No, it doesn't. Reducing the length of the learning curve is somewhat
dependent on consistency (as it reduces the amount of learning
required), but usability can be as high, if not higher, in systems that
promote diversity.
> It seems to me that the innovation should be kept off the users'
> desktops until its ready to become the standard.
I would strongly disagree. One of the prime selling points for Unix is
that its diversity encourages and allows the users to shape their
systems to fit their needs, instead of requiring them to reshape
themselves to fit their systems.
> I don't see how that puts the user in charge. You're not choosing where
> the CPU time is going, the app is. If an app yields to CPU too much, it
> takes a performance hit. If it doesn't yield it enough, other apps take
> a performance hit. Any given app has no idea how much it should be
> yielding, because it has no idea what else is running on the system.
> There's no way to write an app that is "friendly" under all conditions
> in a CMT system.
And, in fact, CMT lacks the very thing that he seems to want: an
overview of, as well as control over, the scheduling policy and complete
set of processes running on the system.
> Again, putting the user in charge is not an option here. The closest you
> could come would be a PMT OS that provided a very easy interface for
> setting priorities.
. . . and policy.
> But I suspect a good scheduling algorithm would be
> better at it than any user could be in the vast majority of cases.
True . . .
> It's done every day. QNX is primarily used in embedded applications
> (e.g. engines, robotics) where things will go very wrong if there aren't
> guarantees for response time.
Imagine a gas well head, a fire detector, a control computer, a cracked
casing, and a carelessly thrown cigarette . . . real time saves lives.
> Again, it is impossible to design an app that "plays nice" under all
> circumstances, because the app doesn't even know what other processes
> are running, or how much the user cares about them.
. . . because the responsibility of setting scheduling policy is spread
out over the OS, and the currently executing set of programs, none of
which know about any of the others.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[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
******************************
