Linux-Advocacy Digest #876, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: windows annoyances (again) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: windows annoyances (again) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: windows annoyances (again) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Arthur Frain)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("John Hall")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("John Hall")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("John Hall")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("John Hall")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("John Hall")
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:53:16 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:41:16 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in
the
> >>
> >> It's not moot at all.
> >
> >It is moot in anything except computer science. Ie, most of the world.
>
> <sarcasm>
>
> ...yes, we all know that computer science has nothing
> to do with actual computing...
>
> </sarcasm>
<sarcasm>
Yes, I'm sure most people you ask will identify ntoskrnl.exe instead of
Windows 2000 as the Operating System.
</sarcasm>
Proper CS definitions have very little to do with how those definitions are
used in the real world.
> Next you'll be telling us that Civil Engineering has
> nothing to do with bridge building.
An entirely different analogy to what I said.
> >> It defines an industry standard and allows a reasonable
> >> start for a definition of what does and doesn't constitute
> >> tying for an OS vendor.
> >
> >Then by the computer science definition, anything that isn't a kernel
> >constitutes tying.
>
> Pretty much.
Glad we agree that every OS being sold is being "tied".
> Although, some of it is tolerated more than others. This is
> typically the sort of stuff that tends not to wipe out
> aftermarket products or is necessary to be able to use that
> kernel at all (shells, text editors, core APIs).
A text editor is in no way necessary to use a kernel. Neither are 90% of
the things that ship with every commercial OS on earth.
They *are* required to make the OS _useful_. Then again, for most people,
so is a web browser and an email client. Go and ask a few thousand Windows
users what they consider to make the computer more useful - IE or notepad.
I know what my money will be on.
I also recall the inclusion of a TCP/IP stack in Windows 95 "wiped out" the
aftermarket TCP/IP stack for Windows industry. Not many people were
complaining. Ditto for disk maintenance utilities and multimedia tools.
> >> Notice the plural: "distros". That is something quite
> >> lacking in the WinDOS equivalent. A single entity gets
> >> to dictate to a captive market pretty much who can or
> >> can't do business.
> >
> >It is not Microsoft's fault that no-one else can develop a viable
> >alternative.
>
> Of course it is.
I see. So Microsoft should be developing OSes for their competitors.
> They own the interfaces.
Really ? Microsoft own x86, the BIOS, PnP etc ? Fascinating, I never knew
that.
> The whole reason that there are multiple Unixen and Multiple
> Linux is is that the interfaces aren't owned by anyone and
> in the case of Linux, neither is the OS itself.
So anyone is free to wander off and make an exact copy of AIX ? How, pray
tell ?
> Furthermore, Microsoft specifically undermines attempts by third
> parties to provide the equivalent of alternate distributions.
You can't have alternate distributions of Windows anymore than you cna have
alternate distributions of MacOS. Both are the intellectual property of
their respective developers and hence, totally under their control.
> This
> was one of the issues in the anti-trust case.
You mean when certain OEMs breached their contract terms ?
> >> >editors, networking programs, office apps etc etc. Presumably you
also
> >> >advocate that these should all be wiped from the market and everyone
> >should
> >> >have to build their Linux machine from scratch ?
> >>
> >> Your false strawman conveniently ignores the fact that quite
> >> a few entities do infact do just this.
> >
> >Do what ?
>
> Caldera, TurboLinux, Bastile, Slackware, Debian, Storm,
> Corel & Mandrake for a start...
I know Caldera, Corel and Mandrake all base their distros off others.
Besides, I fail to see the connection between using some examples of
companies who are building their own distros to build their OS from scratch
and advocating that everyone, everywhere should have to do the same thing.
> >> Some people do it in
> >> a different style and others and thus differentiate themselves.
> >> You can take someone else's distro and freely build on it or
> >> just start over. Anyone is free to join in and join the market.
> >
> >Anyone is free to join in the Winows market as well, if you can male a
> >compelling alternative.
>
> This is the 'pseudo-capitalists' cop out.
No, it's the blatant truth. If you can make a compelling alternative to
Windows then nothing stops you from selling it.
> >That it is so easy to make a compelling alternative in the Linux market
and
> >not in the Windows market is not Microsoft's fault.
>
> Sure it is.
No, it isn't.
> They actively seek to put barriers in place to
> prevent this sort of thing.
No more than any other company with a product and market to protect.
> A great historic example of this
> was DR-DOS.
Pfft. DR-DOS was never especially popular because of compatibility issues.
> Caldera recently won a big settlement over this.
You mean when Caldera settled for less than 1/10th of the amount they were
asking for because they knew they'd lose ?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:11:56 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You are wrong.
>
> That was Tim, not me
Hah. Serves me right. My appologies.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:14:08 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Really? Try doing a network install of RedHat on a machine with two
> > ethernet cards installed (it's intended to be a firewall).
>
> That's why they have 'expert' install mode. You can just choose which
> card you want (assuming they are different types). How do I do a
> network install for Windows again? :)
Several ways. If you only have DOS, and your files are on a Windows server,
you can install the LanMan client and connect, run install, and off you go.
Yes, this is more complex than the Linux install. That's not my point
though, which was simply that Linux also has similar hickups to those stated
in the original post.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:15:31 -0500
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message > I think he was referring to a second CD-ROM *reader* unit.
> I've had similar issues, in the case of "The Starship Titanic"
> (an otherwise entertaining and gorgeously rendered
> game narrated out by one of the Monty Pythonites -- John Cleese,
> I think).
I thought it was Douglas Adams, author of Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 22:03:55 +0100
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l9tuv$6r7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Such as? Do you mean running as a service, or otherwise? As we all know,
> Windows NT doesn't do multiuser at the desktop (multiple interactive
> sessions) unless you're using Terminal Server. How does that executable
run
> from the server?
Not much point asking him that. If you follow the few posts I've had with
him, he doesn't know the difference between an application and a server. Its
all making sense now.... Mikey, are you the Captain of the USS Yorktown?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:15:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> [...]
>> >Gates and his crew are pathalogical criminals, and should be locked
>> >up, hanging by their toenails.
>>
>> You are *not* good for my attitude, Aaron.
>
>Can I interest you in a sniper-grade AR-15....accurate to 1,000 yards...
Goddammit! Stop that!
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:32:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Considering that MS didn't even exist when Unix was born, it would be
hard
> > for them to have done it first. Even so, MS was a PC equipment company,
> > multiprocessor PC's were not even invented until the mid-80's, and
weren't
> > common enough to warrant a consumer OS until the 90's.
>
> So, then, what's their excuse for not having implemented these things
> ASAP.
>
> DR-DOS implemented true Multi-processing in 1985, yet Microsoft
> didn't accomplish the same task for another 8 years.
>
> AND DR-DOS WAS ONLY 2 YEAR OLD!!!!!
Wrong again. DR-DOS *NEVER* implemented multi-processing (the ability to
use multiple processors) on PC's. Ever.
> > > 9 years AFTER Unix.
> >
> > MS was doing networking in the 80's with OS/2. It made no sense to
include
>
> Microsoft did no such thing.
> OS/2 is an IBM product, you ninny!
God, have you NO clue about PC history? MS developed OS/2 *FOR* IBM. It
was a partnership, until 1993 when they broke up.
> > > 1984, Sun Windows (Sun Microsystems)
> >
> > I don't think X had local framebuffers in 84.
>
> SunWindows is not X, dork.
Ahh.. the requisite name calling.
> > Yes. Terminal services provides complete multi-user capability. And it
> > ships with Win2000 server and advanced server.
>
> So, finally, after 20 years, Microsoft accomplishes the same
> thing that their predessorcs accomplished in the 1960's on puny
> little 16k machines.
>
> Forgive me if my applause is silent.
Just shows how little you know about PC's, and how you have no credibility
when discussing them.
> > > Hardware configuration changes under Unix do NOT force a kernal
change.
> >
> > Really? In every single Unix that has existed since 1970?
>
> Yup
Really? Let's see you change the number of processes without a kernel
recompile on circa 1990 BSD.
.
> > > The only time you need to modify the kernal is to:
> > > a) fine tune the kernal (buffer or shared mem allotment).
> > > One CAN do this by running a debugger in /dev/kmem.
> > > b) upgrade the O/S.
> >
> > Really? Let's see you do that on SCO Unix from 1985.
>
> So, you want to compare M$ -2000 products with 1985 Unix.
>
> That's an admission of defeat if I've ever seen one.
No, I'm saying you're full of shit when you say that Unix has had this for
30 years.
> > Wait a minute... You just said "Only when...does the file become
> > fragmented". So how does that dispute the fact that I said all
filesystems
> > fragement? Clearly this does fragment under the right conditions.
> >
> > > On the large majority of installations, this works good enough so that
> > > NO file is ever fragmented.
> >
> > Funny, my redhat box claims a 2.7% fragmentation.
Note, no response.
> > > > NT has always had remote administration.
> > >
> > > For *some* tasks.
> >
> > Never used SMS?
>
> I keep my hands clean of such abominations.
Because you didn't know they existed.
> > > By your definition, Windows doesn't have a gui.
> >
> > No, the GUI is simply part of the OS, not a seperate app.
>
> spin spin spin...
What the hell are you talking about?
> > > So my dates are off on M$ implementation dates.
> >
> > In some cases, off by over a decade.
>
> but not about who implemented what first....which is the fundamental
> point...M$ is a "market leader" in absolutely NOTHING...because
> M$ is a follower...and usually can't even do that right...so they
> just buy the competition after they figure out that not only do
> they not know how to develop a competing product, but that they
> can't.
You're forgetting something. Microsofts consumer OS's are not in the same
market as a Unix system from 20 years earlier. Nor do they cost anywhere
near the same.
> > > You still haven't pointed out a single technology where Microsoft
> > > has implemented a *modern* technology in even the same year as
> > > Unix...let alone before.
> >
> > Well, consider that MS was doing things like DirectX first.\
>
> And what is so special about DirectX other than the fact that it's
> a big freaking security hole? DirectX accomplishes NOTHING of
> benefit which can't be accomplished by other, MUCH more secure means.
You're thinking of ActiveX, not DirectX. Again, your ignorance shows
through.
> > > And how come some things that Unix had implemented since DAY ONE
> > > still have not been implemented in Windows (for example, true
> > > multi-user functionality...something which has been industry
> > > standard since the late 1950's).
> >
> > I already proved that wrong.
>
> introducing multi-user ability in the year 2000 is nothing to brag
> about.
>
> If anything, it's something to be ASHAMED of.
You were wrong.
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:36:22 -0700
Jim Richardson wrote:
> Given that perl python and java are note compiled to machine executable code
> until they hit the interpreter (or JVM) how in heavens name would you write
> an OS Kernel in one?
Mind you I think this is a *terrible* idea, but you
simply need to build the byte-code interpreter into
the kernel. This is the original IBM PC design - if
you didn't boot an OS off of floppy or HD, it defaulted
to a ROM'd BASIC interpreter. Same as the Sinclair ZX-80,
or Intel 8052-BASIC, which is (was?) an 8 bit
microcontroller (8051 family) with BASIC built in.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:08:16 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:08:38 -0700...
...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Can you tell me why you couldn't write an OS kernel in BASIC? Then, why
> >couldn't you in Perl or Python or Java or ...?
>
> Given that perl python and java are note compiled to machine executable code
> until they hit the interpreter (or JVM) how in heavens name would you write
> an OS Kernel in one?
Obvious answer: You'd need a CPU that executes the bytecode natively.
Java CPUs have largely failed, and I can't imagine a reason why people
should me making Perl, Python or Tcl CPUs.
There is a CPU that natively executes Forth, however. That may have a
future.
mawa
--
> Aber sonst geht es dir noch gut, oder? X11 ist gegenueber dem NICHT
> NETZWERKFAEHIGEN WINDOWS-ANSATZ die bei weitem ueberlegene Technik.
Soetwas braucht eh keiner. Wer hat schon mehrere Rechner vernetzt.
-- Jost Boekemeier
------------------------------
From: "John Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:03:47 +0100
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l7b0j$1ch$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The trouble with that is that when it comes to introducing the student
> to OO, they must learn a different language as well. Mind you, I'm
> actually a supporter of using a functional language as a first lang,
> since it is probably going to be new to everyone, and yet the results
> are comprehensible in terms of mathematics/logic, which most people
> have at least some intuitive feeling for.
That's what the university of Cambridge do - we learnt ML (pure functional
language) before moving on to Java.
john
------------------------------
From: "John Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:06:54 +0100
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Another point -- exceptions themselves are somewhat dangerous, for the
> same reason that gotos are dangerous -- they make it easy to break out of
> things that you shouldn't be breaking out of. Using exceptions for
anything
> other than exceptional circumstances is widely frowned upon and considered
> an abuse ( at least in C++ programming, this is true ).
Java has a finally clause on the end of an exception block which is executed
whether you drop out of the block normally or break out with an exception.
john
------------------------------
From: "John Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:10:20 +0100
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l49rh$2or$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But there are a great many tasks for
> > which it is not really suitable.
>
> Outside of a few performance critical areas, these would be ?
Anything reasonably large. VB lacks decent error handling and writing larger
projects which are robust in it is difficult IME.
john
------------------------------
From: "John Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:14:12 +0100
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LlId5.36590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, I mean it's a simple language, good for simple jobs. Not for large
> scale
> > complex jobs, or jobs with specific hardware interface requirements.
> >
>
>
> Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale that
is
> not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no trouble
> using VB for most anything.
VB has very poor error handling (well certainly the versions I've used) -
it makes it very difficult to write large-scale, robust applciations.
john
------------------------------
From: "John Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:28:35 +0100
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8knvge$1tst$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please don't insult Dresden. It is a nice german city and would never
> > say anything positive about Windows or lie about something.
> >
>
> Its an inside joke, but as you wish....:P
and a hilarious one at that....
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 22 Jul 2000 22:59:08 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> No differentiation between remote 1984 never implemented
:> users and console users
: There was no such thing as a console user in Unix until the 80's. Even the
: "console" was a serial terminal in the old days.
: Likewise, we could add:
: When did Unix start getting direct video support for local users instead of
: forcing all UI data to go through sockets?
You seem to be operating under the false impression that sockets on
localhost are just as slow as sockets on the network, and therefore
constitute a performance hit, which is a bad thing. They don't.
Localhost sockets are basically nothing more than moving bytes around
in memory. So, yes, it's true the Unix didn't corrupt the kernel
by infecting it with GDI code (which, since it is device-driver
dependant, can be glitchy and crashy). But this is not a bad thing.
:> First Multi-user kernal 1970 never implemented
: For what it's worth, Windows 2000 has full multi-user capabilities, and NT
: had basic multi-user support since it's creation.
:> Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
: Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without rebooting.
At least we can change something as trivial as an IP address without
getting asked to reboot. The things you are referring to are the
things that NT won't even LET you change, so it hardly consititutes
a lack on Unix's side.
:> First non-fragmenting filesystem 1983 never implemented
: There's no such thing as a non-fragmented filesystem. All filesystems
: fragment, some more so than others.
True, they all fragment, but Unix filesystems tend to self-correct
that fragmentation on their own.
:> full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
:> including O/S install
: NT has always had remote administration.
Apparently you missed the all-important word "full".
:> GUI's available 10 1
: X is the GUI, that severely limits the number of non-X interfaces. A window
: manager is not a GUI.
Bull, X is more akin to a set of device drivers than the GUI. It's a
device driver for the video, keyboard, and mouse, that works remotely
over the net. It doesn't implement jack diddly squat on top of that.
Everything above that is done by the window manager and the toolkit
libraries chosen by the programmers of the apps.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
