Linux-Advocacy Digest #53, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Slipping away into time. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Not For Smoking!)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: LINUX GUI CRASHPROOF? (Anh Lai)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:19:37 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 06:22:17 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:16:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:50:38 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:11:12 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:40:50 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:16:38 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:46:02 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:11:26 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >Chris Wenham wrote:
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [deletia]
>> >>> >Geez you are thick. I'm not saying I *can't* do it. I'm merely mentioning
>> >>> >that there is an alarming trend in a lot of Linux software to produce a
>> >>> >Windows-like environment on Linux.
>> >>>
>> >>> Why should it alarm you? What network effects do you think are
>> >>> going to force you to suffer a 'bad windows clone interface'?
>> >>
>> >>It alarms me because I see effort wasted on cloning something that sucks when
>> >>brand new concepts can be introduced instead.
>>
>> If aren't at least capable of expressing an intermediate step in
>> terms of a 'fixed' version of the interface that vexes you so then
>> it is not clear something 'truely interesting' would not be a waste
>> on you.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> It is time for me to do for Windows what I often do against it.
>>
>> You can't seem to support your criticisms of the Windows
>> user interfaces with actual details.
>
>Why does "I find it nauseating" need to be backed up with facts? Those were
It's a meaningless statement by itself and is entirely subjective
and without any real meaning. It has NULL informational value.
>the words I actually wrote. What does that translate to in your mind? You've
>got a serious problem there guy.
The translation: "I have no clue what I want, and wouldn't know
what my ideal interface would be if it bit me in the ass."
Personally, I think you're just a mindless troublemaker.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 27 Jul 2000 09:05:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Oh, oh, he's at it again...
>It's been pretty well known, for the last couple of years, that FreeBSD
>is probably the fastest
>server OS there is. Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD. NT
>was just about tied
>with Linux 2.2 kernels, falling behind only a slight measure. Then
>slightly trailing or leading
>were the other OS's. Mostly trailing.
Here you say NT is similar in performance to Linux 2.2, falling behind
slightly. In other posts you've proclaimed Linux to be three times faster
than Windows.
>The problem with Microsoft OS is the cost, the poor performance, poor
>reliability, the fact the
>government will break them up,,,, it goes on,,, total lack of security
>in design,,, on and on and on....
Now you're saying Windows has "poor performance". Which is it Charlie? If
the first comment is true, then does Linux have poor performance too?
"Poor reliability"? Based on what?
The court case still has another court to go through yet. Nothing is
certain.
"Total lack of security"? Care to justify that - you're implying there is
no security, which simply isn't true!
>There will probably never be another showdown between Microsoft and
>Linux in the OS department.
>Windows 2000 was a factor slower than NT. And the NEW Linux is
>significantly faster than the OLD Linux. The two OS's are headed in
>opposite directions of the performance spectrum as time goes on.
>Linux just keeps getting faster while Microsoft just keeps edging it's
>way slower.
Can't say I've noticed Windows 2000 being slower. Comparing it to Windows
98 SE it holds up better.
>The two operating systems are no longer in the same ball park as they
>once were. You couldn't do a
>side by side test between them today.. What would you test if you did?
>Linux would easily outrun
>Windows 2000.
>If it were ease of use on the
>desktop, they are currently
>tied. There's nothing I can do on a Windows 2000 desktop I can't do on
>a Gnome desktop.
Which Linux are we talking about here? 2.2? 2.4? You've already stated
Linux 2.2 and Windows NT are similar in performance. You've asserted
Windows 2000 is slower than NT. How much slower?
>I don't even need to point out the fact that the government is going to
>break Microsoft into pieces.
We're still waiting on this one. Nothing is certain.
>What I do want to point out is that Microsoft has an inferior operating
>system from this point in time
>forward. The amount of money they will be required to spend on their
>system in an effort to catch up
>with Linux will be enormous. Chasing Linux down the software trail is
>similar to your family dog
>attempting to retrieve a semi truck cruising through your neighborhood.
>It's an impossible task.
>Truly the efforts of 100,000 some odd volunteers working across the
>entire Linux spectrum simply
>dwarf the efforts of the total population of Microsoft employee's world
>wide.
Catch up with Linux? Linux still doesn't have a lot of hardware support
than Windows 2000 does (better with Windows 98 SE).
>At this particular point in time, Microsoft is staying in business on
>it's past reputation solely as
>Microsoft has no future. Microsoft has had 0% growth in the market
>place in the last year. That's
>the first year we've been able to measure this accurately since the
>inception of the company.
Where did you get the 0% figure?
>AND, while I'll probably be reading the usual brain dead comments from
>the so-called in-the-know
>future fast food employee's association, I just wanted to let the rest
>of the user base know how things stand.
You make up facts like nobody's business, Charlie, and you never quote your
sources. That's why I think your posts are nothing but a troll.
>I encourage everyone I know to try Linux. I want you to be on a winning
>team and be happy.
It's not a winning team for me, not yet. I found yet another sound card
unsupported by Linux.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:37:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said I R A Darth Aggie in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:20:00 -0700,
>KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
><L0vc5.91120$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>+ This is one of the times that I think they are doing it precisely for the
>+ publicity. Notice the qualifiers, hence: "Sun is *considering* GPLing
>+ StarOffice" not that they are actually doing it.
>
>Good point. And why the GPL when they already have their own "open
>license"?
Actually, this is the only reason I can think of that Sun would make
this announcement. As in "they're considering going even farther than
their own open license, and using GPL." Probably, I figure, because
they have no reason not to, and they know it.
The suggestion that Sun is somehow "the bad guy" and "proprietary"
strikes me as odd. They opened sBus, NIS, NFS, and several other
proprietary developments, with the specific and open and purposeful
intention of *encouraging* competition within their markets, in order to
increase innovation, and thus increase the size of the market.
Sun doesn't open the technology until they have achieved sufficient
market penetration with it to ensure that no other vendor can
"de-comodotize" it. Other than that, they aren't interesting in
profiteering, but merely in building and selling high-end workstation
and server computer systems. Just how much do they charge for a license
to use Java, anyway?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Not For Smoking!)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 07:56:24 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:07:42 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Marcus Turner wrote:
>>
>> "Not For Smoking!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:19:51 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Not For Smoking!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> You have a funny definition of "mutual."
>> > >
>> > >Ummm...
>> > >They both agreed to it because it made them more money than a
>> non-exclusive
>> > >contract would have.
>> >
>> > They both agreed to it becasue if they didn't, MS would have cut the
>> > vendor out completely.
>> >
>> > Real mutual...
>>
>> Hmmm. Where did you get that? Do you have any examples where Microsoft cut
>> a vendor out?
>>
>> Klein certainly didn't.
>
>You haven't read Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact, which include
> a couple of contracts and nondisclosure shenanigans.
Facts are anathema to Microsoft defenders. They like to stay safely
ensconced in a thick wooly blanket of principles.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 28 Jul 2000 08:01:13 GMT
>Theyre wrong to begin with, the average desktop machine uses as
>much power as two lightbulbs. And you spelled 'especially' wrong,
>you illiterate bastard.
Let's see: My machine (K6-2/400, one hard drive) uses 250W, and the monitor
another 100. Without scanner and printer concerned, that's almost nine times
as much as the 40W bulb I use in my desklamp.
>Mine pulls 120 watts actually. The biggest sucker I have is 350watts;
>and thats a PIII 450 w/4 hard drives.
>
I would think a terminal could be made that drew less current now (the drive
and high-wattage CPUs do count for something)
The smallest I've ran a standalone box on is 150W, plus the monitor's draw.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anh Lai)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: LINUX GUI CRASHPROOF?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 08:04:03 GMT
well, i don't anything is crash proof...but for me, if it were to crash, i
would like it not to hang user input and it has to be viusally appealing. my
pick: Enlligtenmet, ALONE...not with GNOME or KDE. they are curses.
if Enlightenment crashes...you fly to console, but that is very rare. if you
code with vim, just make sure you have the backup option on if you are
paronoid of crashes of the gui. or code in console =)
if you have a machine that isn't whimpy, and you like a fast and easy to
customize interface without that silly bar at the bottom of the screen, use E.
actually, E fanatics don't call E a windowmanager...we like to say "graphical
shell" =)
and it has a nifty termincal called Eterm. E is the MOST configurable
"graphical shell" and without a doubt Eterm is the most configurable terminal.
and if you want to brave Eterm out of CVS, it has even more fæatures like font
fx..emboss...drop shadow..some others i can't think of...
cheers!
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:48:35 -0700 Moses Milazzo wrote:
>Arthur wrote:
>
>> Christopher's explanation is a good discussion of the underlying
>> mechanics of apps under GUIs on Linux, and I doubt I can improve
>> on it. What I can do is give you my actual experience:
>>
>> The system I'm typing this on has been running now for 38 1/2 days
>> without reboot. I use it for web surfing/email/news, business stuff
>> (mostly spreadsheets at the moment), and development in C++ and
>> Perl (I'm just learning Perl, so there are lots of errors). I
>> run KDE almost exclusively for everything I do - if I do command
>> line stuff, I do it in a KDE xterm. I have also installed at least
>> half a dozen pieces of software over that period.
>
>I've been running the Open Look Virtual Windows Manager (OLVWM)on
>Slackware 7.0 for well over 100 days, with basically no problems at all. I've
>had
>a couple applications crash on me, but that had nothing to do with the WM, and
>didn't do anything to the WM.
>Whenever there is a problem, I can kill off the offending program generally with
>out touching the WM. When I do have to touch the WM, it NEVER hurts the
>rest of the system (yeah, I have to kill the apps that are running over the WM),
>I
>haven't rebooted the machine in about 120 days, and that last reboot was because
>I upgraded the kernel.
>I had KDE and Gnome running on this same machine running RedHat 6.1 for a while,
>but it wasn't nearly stable enough for me, and I had to return to Slackware.
>I use this machine for image processing, so I need something which is very
>stable, and on
>which the Window Manager uses very little memory. Slack's stable, and OLVWM is
>the most stable, smallest memory hog I've used.
>
>
>Cheers,
>Moses
>
--
Anh Lai <[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Student of Computer Engineering
~ yeah, i'm a Pimpin-Penguin
'v'
// \\
/( )\
^`~'^
Linux, ain't it cool?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 02:11:16 -0500
"1$Worth" wrote:
> Like it or not, many posters to this very NG and some vocal sections of
> the GNU-Linux community see "ease of use" as synonymous to a Microsoft
> OS design.
Be careful not to overgeneralize. Some of us don't associate "ease of use"
with "Microsoft" at all. Quite the contrary.
Also, do not assume that "ease of use" and "GUI" are synonymous. I use a
GUI on my Linux systems, but I also launch some Xterms during my login,
because for some operations it is easier to type the command in at a
terminal than to click around through a lot of menus.
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering" and
"use the right tool for the right job". And of course, "reliability",
since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due to lost work are the
very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:30:31 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > freezing the kernel for minutes is no better than rebooting.
>
> At worst, the freeze, even if the operations were performed by hand,
> would be less than 30 seconds.
Still completely unacceptable in many production environments.
> > No, but real-time response is most certainly a constraint in many
production
> > systems.
>
> "Some", not "many". And those systems do not run either Unix, or NT,
> the run real time operating systems.
How do you define many? My current client produces 10's of thousands of
such productions systems. I call that many.
> > > That's just pitiful, Erik.
> >
> > I work in real-time systems, that's why it's such an important issue for
me.
>
> In which case, you don't run either an MS operating system, or Unix, you
> run a real time OS.
Actually, I do work with a MS OS. It uses a RT driver system.
> > I said the constants in the kernel needed to be
> > changed.
>
> If that is what you meant: then why did you bring up the subject of PS
> and TOP?
Because those applications access those constants.
------------------------------
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, 28 Jul 2000 04:15:21 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >That's because Unix is bloated as well. The base Linux system is not too
> >bad (yet), at least by comparison to Windozes, but X has always been a
> >disaster in terms of code complexity, code size, and resource demands. You
> >can build a Linux file/print server on a 486 with 4 Mb - add some more ram
> >and it will be a web server too. But MS cannot even claim to have
> >"innovated" code bloat for GUIs.
>
> True, but that's simply why you can't run X comfortably on a 486. Or,
> for those who are used to real software on a decent system, any
> low-level Pentium, or at least for me.
>
> Do you think there's any chance that the commercial possibilities of
> developing Linux might produce a "re-draw" of X that's still somewhat
> compatible without the bloat problem? That would be just *nasty*,
> wouldn't it? A new super-optimized X? You could run it over the
> Internet!
>
> Anyway, (holy shit, he suddenly realizes in one of his characteristic
> flashes of cross-linked ideas: that means you'll just use an interface,
> and the *network* will be the *computer*.... - nah, he thinks,
"The Network IS the Computer" -- 1985,Sun Microsystems
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:31:12 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > I said BSD, not FreeBSD.
>
> BSD isn't Unix either, if you want to pendantic.
I chose BSD because I knew that recent versions of FreeBSD had a /proc. I
was commenting on versions that didn't.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:16:56 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> >> You're one of those people who thinks that the U.S. Government is
> >> >> perfect
> >> >Absolutely not. it's FAR too socialistic.
> >> In what way?
> >AFDC
> >Social Security
> >WIC
> >HUD
> >Dairy price supports
> >Food Stamps
>
> I'm sure that the real reason Mr. Kulkis objects is a lack of
> virility in this stuff.
The above programs constitute SLAVERY...as the productive
people in society are forced to support the lazy and
unproductive.
All federal Government welfare programs are unconstitutional.
--
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.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 01:15:36 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I have yet to see one single definition for "geek"
> > that has a connotation that is not negative.
>
> Your lack of exposure to this particular usage is your particular
> lack. The usage human beings put words to frequently precedes
> definition in textbooks, which, after all, are populated by stodgy
> old academicians who struggle very hard indeed to keep up with
> a highly dynamic language.
If there is a positive definition for the word, post it. including the
source of the definition.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:21:39 -0400
"Serge J.Luca" wrote:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/solutions/ecommerce/lycoscs.htm
Because Microsoft audited them, and they had a couple more
copies of word installed than their receipts showed, and
Microsoft gave them two alternatives
1) Go to court, and even if we fail, YOU will have such high
legal bills that you will be out of business, or
2) Let us dictate your Information Technology decisions.
So, guess what Lycos did?
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 03:38:52 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > OS/2 was co-written. MS did not write OS/2 all by it's self.
> >
> > No, but it certainly wrote most of it (pre 2.0)
>
> References, please?
Lan Manager was written by MS. HPFS was written by a MS employee. PM was
written by MS. The kernel was co-written by MS and IBM. The vast majority
of subsystems in OS/2 were written entirely, or almost entirely by MS. Read
"The design of OS/2" by Deitel, H.M. and M.S. Kogan
> > > > Ever heard of Windows NT, released by MS in 1993 (which did both
> > > > multi-processors and multitasking)?
> > >
> > > But didn't do multi-processing.
> >
> > Even by your definition it did. It had multiple processes. Hell, the
DOS
> > compatibility box alone would meet that definition.
>
> But by your definition of multi-processing, NT did not do
> multi-processing in 1993.
>
> In short: in 1993, NT did not do SMP.
NT did in fact do SMP in 1993. The very first version was SMP enabled.
> > Some. For instance, changing your video driver requires a reboot,
>
> Not neccesarily. If the video driver is a module, changing it does not
> require a reboot.
We're talking about Windows here.
> > Aaron's credibility left in his first message, in which every statement
he
> > made was wrong.
>
> Except that not every statement he made was wrong.
Yes, every statement he made was wrong. Every date in each statement was
wrong.
> > > Considering what Aaron meant by "full multi-user capabilities", he was
> > > correct.
> >
> > And, as I pointed out. Windows 2000 has full multiuser capabilities,
even
> > considering what he meant.
>
> For his point of discussion, which wasn't W2K, he was correct.
His point was about MS operating systems, and his claim that MS has never
had a multiuser OS.
> > > > Again, no answer.
> > >
> > > Neither GCC nor GDB run on NT.
> >
> > Tell that to Cygnus.
>
> They, themselves, point out that the GNU tools run on their POSIX
> compatibility layer.
I didn't say they didn't.
> > > They run on a POSIX compatibility layer . . . in essence, they don't
run
> > > on NT.
> >
> > They most certainly do run on NT. That's like saying Windows doesn't
run on
> > NT because Win32 isn't the native API either.
>
> No, it's not like that at all. If you create a gasoline powered car,
> then I come along and add a refinery to it, and an oil tank . . . your
> car doesn't suddenly start running on oil.
>
> Your contention is like saying that all Windows programs run on the Mac.
No. Win32 is not he native API of NT. It's a subsystem that runs at the
same level (as peers) with the OS/2 and POSIX subsystem. POSIX is just as
much an NT API as Win32 is.
> > Really? Since when were Unix X servers providing direct frame buffer
access
> > to X apps?
>
> So, is that all you think DirectX is . . . a great, gaping hole ripped
> out of the security layers surrounding the hardware?
That's one of the things that DirectX does. It's a suite of technologies.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
