Linux-Advocacy Digest #765, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Of Free OS's and M$ pricing a little side trip! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Gerrit Knol)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft's new ".NET" ("Spud")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Kernel 2.4 (mlw)
Re: Help with printer (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Spud")
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ("Jeff Hummer")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("sandrews")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:47:55 -0600
void wrote:
>
> You're insulting my intelligence with these obvious falsehoods. Macs
> *do* crash, applications *do* die horribly, programmers fuck up on a
> such a regular and frequent basis that I often wonder how most of them
> stay alive.
What, you *NEVER* make mistakes!?
And just what would your response look like had you been forced to use a
serial input device to compose said response?
;->
Only gurus can use cat on a raw mode terminal to write defect free C
compilers . . .
Guru == GOD! :-)
> I would guess that someone before you has thought about how to tweak a
> scheduler for the best interactive experience. I would further guess
> that they did not recommend implementing cooperative multi-tasking.
And, they have indeed. There are a fair number of scheduling policy
tweaks to the HPUX scheduler that make the system more responsive to
interactive use . . . and they work so well that on a single processor
workstation running a background task that can and will use every single
processor cycle available, the GUI is absolutely smooth and responsive.
> When I hear people going on about the "end-user's perspective", it seems
> to me that they're usually defending a position of ignorance. Ignorance
> is not worth defending.
Ignorance, bad (unproductive) work habits, and a situation where desire
is given a higher precedence than *need*.
Hence the cardinal rule of the customer-liason officer: half teacher,
half baby sitter (NO! You CAN'T have that, it will ruin your dinner!)
;-)
(Yes, I'm kidding . . . sorta).
--
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:51:26 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I mean, even something as simple as "the rtprio command does all the
> stuff you want, Max. It can ...." and proceed to explain in, I don't
> know, English?
Forget rtprio for a moment, Max, and instead, explain to me how a MacOS
user can tell the MacOS which process generates the most value for the
user per processor cycle spent.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Of Free OS's and M$ pricing a little side trip!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:01:14 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8l19n2$d0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8l11gd$ni3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In South Africa, your net saving on the above scenario will be in the
> > region of R 510 000 - 00 !!!!!!!!!! (US$ = R/6.7 - approx.)
> >
> > MS Solution : R 800 000 - 00 (2 x W2K Server, 200 x W2K Pro, 200 x O2K
> > Standard)
> >
> > Linux Solution : R 290 000 - 00 (1 x ??? distro, 200 x Corel O2K Pro)
> >
> > Of course, the StarOffice Path could see the net Linux solution shrink
> > to less then R 100 - 00 (Net Saving : R 800 000 - 00 > for all
> > practical purposes).
> >
> > Repeat this with an upgrade cycle every 5 years, and where will you be
> > in a decade???
> >
> > Some people just won't get it - no matter how hard we try...
> >
>
> From your measure the ratio of the cost of a Microsoft solution ot a Linux
> solution is approx 1.76:1. But I think that the ratio would be even more
> slanted in favor of Linux.
800,000:290,000 is about 2.76:1 Then 510,000 is the savings, not the cost
of MS.
Colin Day
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:59:31 -0600
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I was under the impression that this is what I had, by way of these
> > advocacy groups, yes. Imagine my surprise when I get ridiculed, not for
> > being so clueless as to ask questions, but for knowing enough to ask
> > them in ways that contradict the easy answers.
>
> You are getting ridiculed for asking questions, receiving answers,
> dismissing the answers on no solid grounds, and then asking the
> questions again.
>
> It also doesn't help that you continually insist everyone who disagrees
> with you is some kind of narrow-minded specialist who refuses to
> question assumptions. PMT's superiority for general purpose multitasking
> desktop operating systems is not an assumption, it is a logical
> conclusion that anyone who understands the issues will come to, and it
> is one that holds up very well in the real world.
. . . because, after all, CMT is a proper sub set of PMT.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:04:29 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Letting the market create winners and losers isn't "perfect" but it's the
> >best thing man has come up with so far. Insert the government into the
> >equation, who's sole misguided solution is to strip the OS of any extra
> >applications and give the consumer "less" for the same or more money
isn't a
> >logical answer.
>
> Lets say we do nothing -- That gives us a M$ monopoly over society --
since
> the computer and the information controlled with it will, in the future
> determine how government and business and society work.
I like the way the word "monopoly" gets used to define everything here.
"Monopoly over Society?" What the hell is that?
Here's what you do - don't buy the software.
> Get over it. M$ is not going to be allowed to control the future. It is
going
> to be broken up. Get use to the idea.
Wrong - there's a slim chance they won't get to control their own future,
there was never a chance that anyone would be controlling "The Future".
> >Microsoft won't lose anything in the deal, as a matter of fact they will
> >probably increase their revenue because of it.
>
> So? M$ will probably need it to pay all the civil suits that are going t
> come.
Which ones are those?
> >Where in history has the government been successful at running a
business?
> >Now they want to help the poor stupid ignorant consumer get the most for
his
> >buck in computer software. People just weren't making the correct choices
on
> >their own.
>
> You have a phony issue here. Government has been very suscessful in some
> business -- usually the ones that free-enterprise couldn't figure out how
to
> handle. In any event, the government is not proposing to run M$. They
are
> just getting ready to make sure M$ doesn't run everyone else -- any
longer.
Which business has the U.S. government been successfull at running?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:14:48 +1000
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > unreliability and poor cost/performance? You couldn't be more wrong
and
> > if
> > > > you'd quit living in 3.51 days you'd know this. When is the last
time
> > anyone
> > > > not a linux zealot ever saw a blue screen? I can't remember. It's
been
> > over
> > > > a year I think. Crashes? That's what W98 is for, and even the beta
of
> > > > Windows ME is as stable as most would want. W2K is as stable as any
*nix
> > you
> > > > could name.
> > >
> > > Oh Please, Our local windos zealots running W2K and I am running
RedHat
> > > 6.2,
> > > Care to guess who has the longest uptime?
> >
> > The one who hasn't turned his machine off for the longest time ?
>
> No the one you don`t have to reboot daily (hint it`s a distribution).
Well I know you don't have to reboot Win2k daily, so it's not that.......
------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:19:12 +1000
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 'Course, CMT stopped being the "right" decision for any system about 4
> and 1/2 years ago . . .
You're being quite generous. I'd say 10.
------------------------------
From: Gerrit Knol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:13:22 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> It is also rare to have so few crashes on any windblows machine in that
> length of time.
>
> I work for a small software company and the windoze development machines
> crash several times per day.
>
> The only time I have managed to get anything resembling a crash on linux in
> the 5 years I have been using it regularly at home is about 4 years ago when
> I thought it would be fun to see how many copies of X-Doom I could run at
> the same time and after I had 5 copies running at the same time on a 486
> PC it got so slow I was unable to do anything except CTRL-ALT-Backspace to
> kill the GUI. After running StartX it came up again with no problems (It was
> difficult to run even 1 copy of Doom on the same PC under windoze).
I've never seen linux crash here, I've got windows too, the last crash
must have been about two months ago, that was my own fault, still, imho
linux is better for most things, except gaming.
Cheers,
Gerrit.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:21:46 +1000
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[chomp]
> Time Slice - The minimum amount of time a running process will be
^^^^^^^
> allowed to run before it becomes eligible for being switched out.
Shouldn't that be "maximum" ?
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's new ".NET"
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:18:51 -0700
[snips]
"TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VVca5.2798$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (RealCea) wrote:
> the worst type of monopoly this country has ever seen? Innovation my
> > ASS!! Whats up with the crappy BIOs/IRQ architecture? You'd think
they
> > would develop something beyond
> > 1970 technology there. All I see is a lucky man who got his OS
(MS-DOS)
> > on all
> > of IBM's PC's. And that was not even developed by him!!!
> >
> > P.S. Internet Explorer was originally developed by Spry, Inc.
>
> Uhm, what does Microsoft has to do with BIOS/IRQ architecture?
Simple logic: "It's bad, therefore it must be Microsoft's fault -
regardless of who actually did it."
------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 11:27:28 +1000
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I was under the impression that this is what I had, by way of these
> > > advocacy groups, yes. Imagine my surprise when I get ridiculed, not
for
> > > being so clueless as to ask questions, but for knowing enough to ask
> > > them in ways that contradict the easy answers.
> >
> > You are getting ridiculed for asking questions, receiving answers,
> > dismissing the answers on no solid grounds, and then asking the
> > questions again.
> >
> > It also doesn't help that you continually insist everyone who disagrees
> > with you is some kind of narrow-minded specialist who refuses to
> > question assumptions. PMT's superiority for general purpose multitasking
> > desktop operating systems is not an assumption, it is a logical
> > conclusion that anyone who understands the issues will come to, and it
> > is one that holds up very well in the real world.
>
> . . . because, after all, CMT is a proper sub set of PMT.
Eh ? How can a user space app in a PMT system grab the CPU to the exclusion
of all other processes ?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel 2.4
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:37:51 -0400
I have been looking at the test kernels, and the alpha kernels before
it. I have only seen odd behavior copying very large files from two
drives on the separate channels of a Promise technologies 20262 Ultra66
DMA card. I am very willing to call it a driver problem, but the
hardware is suspect to begin with.
Short of that, the kernels seem to be coming along nicely. Greater than
2G files on ext2 (Finally!), support for some cool hardware, and lots of
other features.
In short, if you tried 2.1 while waiting for 2.2, take a look at the 2.4
test kernels!
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:46:19 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> No the lienux poepal are the ones drueling because they wish they had Windo's.
>
Hardly. I do have Windo's - it came with my machine. I just choose not to use it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:46:09 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > I mean, even something as simple as "the rtprio command does all the
> > stuff you want, Max. It can ...." and proceed to explain in, I don't
> > know, English?
>
> Forget rtprio for a moment, Max, and instead, explain to me how a MacOS
> user can tell the MacOS which process generates the most value for the
> user per processor cycle spent.
Peek-a-Boo.
http://clarkwoodsoftware.com/peekaboo/
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:58:10 -0700
[snips]
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kgkps$kur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft is being very honest and very streight for a change.
> They are saying that if all you want to do is play games, buy
> a toy machine like Windows 98. If you actually care about the
> information on your machine, and you want to stick with Windows,
> you should buy 2000. True, the hardware is 3-5 times more
expensive,
I've got a listing here for an HP 600Mhz Celeron based box, 64Mb RAM,
10.2Gb HD, assorted other crud - sound, accelerated video, software
bundle, etc. Price is $974. Add in another $100 to get an additional
64Mb RAM and you have a box perfectly capable of running Win2K. Add
in the cost of Win2K (from this vendor, $299.99 for the upgrade, with
a $100 rebate available) and you're talking a total increase in price
of about $400 - versus the initial list of about $1000. That's about
a 40% increase in system price... not 3-5 times, and that's including
the added cost of the software; the hardware costs went up about 10%.
> If you want to save about 60% off the price of Windows 2000 hardware
> and software, and are willing to pay about 20% more than 98, you
> can get a fully configured Linux professionally installed on
hardware
> engineered to support Linux (and vice versa). You might even be
able
> to get a PC that runs BOTH Linux and Windows (Wine emulation).
Linux's big problem right now isn't that it's a technically inferior
product... it isn't. It's big problem right now is that it is
competing against a system which already has a large installed
software base. Example: I use Office 2000. What has Linux got to
offer that allows me to maintain all my existing O2K documents -
including all the scripting and suchlike behind them?
> Microsoft is relying on it's ability to keep Windows NDAs, Windows
98
> "no modification" clauses, and obligatory incorporation of
Windows-only
> hardware,
"Windows-only hardware"? How do you manage that? As far as I can
see, if you could write a Linux driver for a given piece of hardware,
you could use it under Linux. If hardware vendors aren't providing
Linux drivers, there may be a reason for it... perhaps a perception -
correct or not - that Linux is but a bit player, not worth the effort.
> I don't know if Microsoft is just rolling over and playing dead,
> hoping to get off with a gentle slap on the wrist from the Supreme
> court, or if they have a new bag of tricks planned to torpedo Linux
> systems and all Linux-friendly applications.
To be honest, I'm not sure they care about Linux... at least not in
terms of where Linux is today. Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
depends on a lot of things, not least of which is whether it can
sustain the effort to provide a truly competitive solution for the
home-user and office-user desktops - which means, among other things,
compatability with existing document formats, even if with different
software, and a vastly improved user interface (yes, it has improved a
lot lately.)
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:58:37 GMT
Yes, I am still at school. What's wrong with that? I realize newbies might
be annoying, but most don't stay newbies for long. Play out some slack.
Everyone's inexpert about something. You know what you're doing, so why not
help us out?
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:397098e7$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Strange? Struggled installing W2k for ~6 hours (whilst assisted by
> "knowledgable friend"). Got Gnome running & tried nothing else in Linux,
> but converted. From what we may ask?
>
> Geez, are you still at school ?
>
> James
>
> "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
> > Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
> > hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking
> at
> > the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
> > On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
> > installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time,
> and
> > it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
> > wait to learn!
> > I'm converted.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 22:02:48 -0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <8l2v27$oq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Drestin Black wrote:
>> > > > unreliability and poor cost/performance? You couldn't be more
>> > > > wrong
> and
>> > if
>> > > > you'd quit living in 3.51 days you'd know this. When is the
>> > > > last
> time
>> > anyone
>> > > > not a linux zealot ever saw a blue screen? I can't remember.
>> > > > It's
> been
>> > over
>> > > > a year I think. Crashes? That's what W98 is for, and even the
>> > > > beta
> of
>> > > > Windows ME is as stable as most would want. W2K is as stable
>> > > > as any
> *nix
>> > you
>> > > > could name.
>> > >
>> > > Oh Please, Our local windos zealots running W2K and I am
>> > > running
> RedHat
>> > > 6.2,
>> > > Care to guess who has the longest uptime?
>> >
>> > The one who hasn't turned his machine off for the longest time ?
>>
>> No the one you don`t have to reboot daily (hint it`s a
>> distribution).
>
> Well I know you don't have to reboot Win2k daily, so it's not
> that.......
>
>
It`s not a m$ product and it`s NOT full of bugs nor security holes.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
