Linux-Advocacy Digest #187, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 17:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Tim Palmer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Jason Bacon)
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (Brian Langenberger)
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Perry Pip)
Re: How Can I contribute? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 16:16:36 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >>And xterm is a Lie-nux DOS box, but Lie-nux loosers insisst on calling
>> >>it "xterm", probly to avoid traidmark infridngement.
>> >
>> >xterm existed long before DOS boxes, and comparing an xterm to a DOS box
>is
>> >a bit of a joke.
>>
>> Their both the same thing- you tipe commands in them and stop using GUI.
>>
>> >Any of the UNIX shell's easily beat the crap out of DOS
>> >boxes - apart from readability.
>>
>> Tha'ts why Windo's has a GUI. DOS box's sucks.
>
>Are you suggesting that the Windows graphical user interface has totaly
>replace the command line in all functionality to the point that it nolonger
>includes Dos Boxes? Are you also suggesting that Windows no longer ships
>with any non-GUI programs?
>
>
Windo's has a few legasy DOS programms, but noboddy ever uses them. Its' not like UNIX
whear peopole still half to rite shell script workarounds and eddit config fials all
the time because THEAR IS NO OTHER WAY.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 2 Aug 2000 16:16:46 -0500
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >> Then they could explain to the average user why
>> >> Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
>> >> graphics.
>> >
>> >Because the vendors haven't published the specs or mad binary drivers?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
>> >> SVGA kernel.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because they half to to make their graffics work.
>>
>
>I have graphics, and I haven't compiled a framebuffer SVGA kernel.
You must have one of the holy graffix cards that Lie-nux actulley SUPPORT'S.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
>> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
>> >> business people.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
>>
>> Window's 98.
>>
>
>It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
>
>Colin Day
>
It wa a hell of an emprovement over DOS.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 2 Aug 2000 16:16:56 -0500
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Are you aware that a vt100 terminal is what they nowadays call
>>>`thin client' that *doesn't* run vi?
>> You meen VT-100's can't even run VI?
>No. And they don't have to. The whole point of a terminal is that
>the computer runs the software, the terminal just serves as an interface
>to the user.
>
>You can think of a terminal like an hardware-implemented telnet appliance.
>There isn't virtually any difference from the user's point of view.
So the terminnal telnet's to the computor and runs VI thear. Big differance.
>>>> Deffinnately. Big deal.
>>>It is. For such places as computerized grocery stores or libraries or
>>>hospitals, cheap terminals are a good choice.
>> Just what a hospital nead's. The secertarys ca'nt even use them.
>They can if they're taught to. I've seen it work.
>
>>>> So give all the work to the usors.
>>>Can't do. That requies the users be trained and that,
>> Exact;y. Terminnal's make users tipe UNIX command's and they half to be traned.
>> A GUI let's user work without traning them.
>No, it doesn't do that automatically. The users still need to be trained.
>By the way, for a textual interface it's pretty straightforward to leave
>help sheets for all the access points with unambiguous instructions such
>as "Now enter the customer's VAT registration number". How would you
>do that for a graphics-based user interface?
With a dilog box.
>
>Not to mention that unnecessary bells and whistles tend to draw the users'
>attention from what really matters. The work. Especially on evenings.
>
>>>terminals? The practice has shown that it's better *not* to let Joe
>>>Sixpack do any maintenance on a system more complicated than a wooden
>>>hammer.
>> So why do you wan't too give him UNIX?
>So he don't have to do t he maintenance. So he can't even think of doing
>that. Terminals are very difficult to break accidentally--and if they
>are, you can just plug in another one and on the show goes.
But all UNIX does is manetannence! All you due in UNIX is try to make it work. What
else is thear to do in UNIX?
>I know you can implement a ``only qualified personnel can maintenance''
>policy for a MSW shop too, but it requires that a dedicated person (or,
>not infrequently, a whole squad of them) is loaded with support and
>handholding a whole day full. And in public access environments,
>such as libraries or archives or airports, you can't effectively enforce
>the policy.
>
>>>>> Terminals also don't break down often or require a special
>>>>>reconfig if terminal needs to be replaced. Terminals are generic
>>>>>enough that replacements or repairs are very standardized. Because any
>>>>>wyse 75 is a wyse75 and the configuration is not likely to change from
>>>>>one wyse 75 to another. The users don't have the ability to physically
>>>>>add a soundcard or a fibre channel card to a terminal.
>>>Correct.
>>>
>>>> ...not to mentian graffics!
>>>whatd'ya mean?
>>>in relation to a grocery store?
>> Eaze of use. Ever herd of it?
>I don't know how the grocery stores in your area work but in mine the
>cashier's main tool is a barcode-reader.
At Customer Service desk they have computors. The computors run Windows.
>The cash terminals usually
>don't even have CRTs and keyboards are used only when dealing with
>damaged barcode. What could be easier? What difference would it make
>to the cashier if she had a graphical or a colourful monitor? Or a mouse?
>Or a joystick? A VR helmet?
>
>> Thats' why the adminnistrater has to do the work not make the user's work that i
>> s what UNIX terminnals does.
>Would you explain how exactly, please?
>
It maks users tipe command's.
>--
>Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>BEWARE! People acting under the influence of human nature.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 2 Aug 2000 16:17:07 -0500
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> >> ...and what programmms wuold they run? VI? HA-HA! You cant' run Ofice on VT-100
>terminnal, you know!
>> >>
>> >
>> >And this is a disadvantage of VT-100's?
>>
>> Yes. People want to run Ofice, and they nead a GUI for it not a crappey VT-100.
>>
>
>And why do they want to run Office?
>
Because it gets there wokr done. VI just doesant due the job.
>
>> >>
>> >> > While for a small home or business environment some would say
>> >> >"Big Deal".
>> >>
>> >> Deffinnately. Big deal.
>> >>
>> >> >This can be a very big deal in a larger environment were
>> >> >the system administration needs to not only maintain the hardware
>> >> >including the Uninteruptable Power Supply (UPS) or the backup
>> >> >generator(s)).
>> >>
>> >> So give all the work to the usors.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The users should not be doing system administration.
>>
>> and they shouldunt half to memmerize dum UNIX command's iether.
>>
>
>But there are no dumb UNIX commands.
>
Yes their is. Their all dum.
>
>> >>
>> >> >Setting up NFS and NIS on both the server and clients and maintaining
>> >> >backups across my planned 3 node network would have been an excersize
>> >> >in frustration. (If thats bad for a 3 node, what about 40 node?)
>> >>
>> >> ...the problem migte be your using UNIX. UNIX is dum. You half to forst it too
>due everything.
>> >>
>> >
>> >As opposed to Windows, where even forcing doesn't always help.
>>
>> In Windo's you don't half to force it works through the GUI.
>
>Or fails to work through the GUI.
UNIX just fales to work. The user has too due al the work.
>
>> UNIX just sais NO I DONT WANT TO DUE IT YOU HALF TO 'make' ME!
>
>Get binary RPM's, they're already made.
>
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Your comments on this piece are welcome.
>> >>
>> >> I'll replay to this: Your idea is dum. A terminnall is dum because it cant have
>GUI.
>> >
>> >What if one doesn't need a GUI?
>> >
>>
>> Then your probly a UNIX nerd.
>>
>
>Some people just run their computers as servers that don't require
>a user interface at all.
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:19:40 -0500
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:09:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:53:57 -0500,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> 'support' is really an absurd feature when it comes to
>>>>> consumer computing.
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>
>>> Companies that don't want to waste the time or the money on you.
>>> TEch support people that are no more than people willing to read
>>> the manuals and are just paid to answer the phone for calls from
>>> people not willing ot read the manual. TEch support people that
>>> aren't even that bright and just drone off of a script.
>>>
>>> I never bother with the first tier of support drones for exactly
>>> that reason. Niether do any of my colleagues in or out of MIS,
>>> regardless of the service level involved.
>>
>>I know plenty of people who'd rather pay $.15 per minute to speak with
>>someone rather than read the manuals.
>
>$.15 per minute??
>
>$.15 per minute == $9.00 per hour. Who works for that wage?? You must
>be getting some pretty sharp tech's for $9.00 per hour...huh?? Hell,
>telco charges are more than that in most cases. If you are getting
>what you think is usefull tech support from someone who makes $9.00
>per hour then you must be worth even less.
The customer generally pays only the long distance fee; the
Quicken/Microsoft/whoever pays the tech support person to answer the
phone and support you with any problems.
That was pretty obvious....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:22:57 -0500
On 2 Aug 2000 15:09:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Would Intuit provide support to a customer running Quicken in VMWare?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see why they wouldn't - or why any particular support
>>>>>would be necessary unless you lose your CD or something. If
>>>>>you want to be paranoid about being able to run under normal
>>>>>conditions you can configure VMWare to run from a partition
>>>>>that can be booted under its native OS. That way if you need
>>>>>help from someone who doesn't understand your configuration
>>>>>you can change it.
>>>>
>>>>But an entry level user would never know how to do that, would they?
>>>
>>>Every entry level windows user I've seen learned how to reboot
>>>right away. I think most could handle making one extra choice
>>>there.
>>
>>What? To:
>>1. Pay $200 for VMWare.
>>2. Pay $100 or so for Win98.
>>3. Install all of it, magically telling VMWare the "right" info.
>>4. Get it all working
>>5. Be on your own as far as support goes
>
>No, unless you have some computer experience (but then you
>probably have another computer for the windows programs).
>I think it would make sense for a hardware vendor to preload
>this configuration as an extra cost option. Throw in
>everything you can for free, say Linux with StarOffice
>and all the usual goodies on the first drive, then for
>an extra charge include a 2nd drive configured for
>'windows-as-usual' and add the dual-boot and VMWare
>setup. Drives are cheap enough and the configuration
>work would only have to be done once by the OEM. I think
>the retail price of VMWare is a bit too high but maybe
>a dealer might work something out (and there is a project doing
>a free version).
Or, a person can just get Windows for between $200 and $350 less
money, and be happy.
>> - or -
>>
>>1. Buy a machine with Win98 or Win2k on it in the first place, for
>>less money, be able to take it back to the store for support, and be
>>able to call any of several places (and local support places) if
>>something goes wrong with the software.
>
>All of the support issues on the Win side become the same if
>you boot from that drive. The difference is that you have
>access to all of the free software, and you don't have to
>quit using that while you reboot Windows when you run it
>under VMWare.
/sarcasm
I can -so- see people doing this.
/sarcasm
Let's just say that's a marketer's worst nightmare - trying to sell
this stuff to the, as someone here put it, Kitchentop audience.
I eagerly await the day it can be done, but I don't think it will be
anytime soon.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:24:43 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I alreaddy told you its a DOS box on LIE-nux.
> >
> >You can't spell "already," and xterm doesn't have a command line.
> >It requires a shell for that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >C/
>
> What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up, compleat with a COMMAND
>prompt.
Enough!
It is not a DOS box. A shell on Unix is not a DOS prompt. I know that
no matter how many times it is said, Windows users are not going to
believe that a Unix shell is not a DOS prompt and they aren't equivalent
in any way other than both being command lines (and that does not mean
they are equal). But the two are not equal.
An xterm does not give you a DOS box. It gives you a shell in which to
enter commands, but it isn't a DOS box. Please, try to understand that.
Of course, you have yet to figure out how to spell, so I don't really
expect you to understand this either.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bacon)
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.os.linux.suse,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.unix,comp.os.unix.misc,comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd,comp.unix.bsd.net
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 20:29:52 GMT
References: <8m1hck$r49$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Medical College of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, WI
Distribution:
m.hoes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hi.
: Currently, I am trying to learn Unix on my PC. However, I am not sure which
: Unix flavour I should choose for learning this OS?
Most Unix clones are reasonable well compliant with standards POSIX,
Xopen, etc. these days, so the "flavor" shouldn't be a big issue.
If you want to make it easy on yourself, I'd recommend SCO UnixWare 7,
since it seems to have the best documentation, it's easy to set
up, and for administration, about all you have to remember is "scoadmin".
SCO OpenServer is a mountain of links and patches, so I wouldn't recommend
it to a newbie. It's being replaced by UnixWare 7 anyway.
FreeBSD and Linux are solid systems, too, but as a newbie, you'll probably
to a lot more head scratching. Then again, maybe that's the better way to
learn...
Good luck,
-Jason
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about
Date: 2 Aug 2000 20:33:51 GMT
ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I'm sure this will probably start a whole set of Linus is geekier than
: Bill
:> Gates discussions...
: hmmm...bill calls himself the ultimate hacker..and linus calls himself
: the ultimate programmer. i've heard bill doesn't know crap about coding
: or anything, certainly not about real hacking and real hackers. linus
: has the kernel to back him up. what did bill code?
I believe Bill did a nice port of BASIC to the Altair and
singlehandedly started the pay-software movement by
accusing the users of being thieves. Since then, I've seen
no evidence that he has any programming aptitude whatsoever.
I guess he's a geeky-looking businessman more than anything.
By comparison, Linus is a normal-looking coder with skills in
both cat herding and patch juggling. Pretty much the
complete opposite.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:50:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m982m$35m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8m731b$lfb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please, enlighten us. How can a reliable and efficient GC prevent
> > memory leaks without extra book keeping to determine when a piece of
> > dynamic memory is no longer in use and prevent fragmentation of
> > memory without runtime overhead?
>
> I don't know how mark-and-sweep GCs work. I don't know how they
> perform compaction (except that you are usually not guaranteed to have
> the address associated with a reference stay constant throughout the
> lifetime of that reference.) It's years since I worked with this sort
> of stuff, and I didn't fully understand it then. But I do know that
> you can do it without ref-counter management on every pointer twiddle,
> since making that right is one of the things that is hard and which GC
> systems typically stop you from having to do; it is one of their
> touted advantages. (It might have something to do with the fact that
> these systems are usually set up so that they know the type of
> everything referred to by every reference, and can determine with a
> fair degree of accuracy if a random word is actually a ref or not...)
In otherwords they have memory consumption and performance reducing overhead
at runtime.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:16:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bgeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m9rhr$6iq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows people tought us the "three-finger salute" & what "BSD" means.
The "three-finger salute" Ctrl-Alt-Del was on the PC from the beginning long
before Windows. To avoid confusion with BSD unix, it would be better to use
BSoD for the infamous blue screen.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 21:51:24 +0100
Tim Palmer wrote in message ...
>Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >> Then they could explain to the average user why
>>> >> Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a
S3-based
>>> >> graphics.
>>> >
Well it works great on both my S3 Virge and my S3 Trio64 based PC's (and the
virge can run at up to 110hz on linux when windblows can only manage 85hz
and can also manage 1600x1200 when windoze can only handle 1024x768 on this
card)
>>> >Because the vendors haven't published the specs or mad binary drivers?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
>>> >> SVGA kernel.
>>> >
>>> >Why?
>>>
>>> Because they half to to make their graffics work.
>>>
>>
>>I have graphics, and I haven't compiled a framebuffer SVGA kernel.
>
>You must have one of the holy graffix cards that Lie-nux actulley
SUPPORT'S.
>
It currently supports a huge range of the latest cards fron Nvidea, Matrox,
3DFX and several others.
Try the same under NT.
>>
>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the
computer
>>> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists
rather than
>>> >> business people.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
>>>
>>> Window's 98.
>>>
>>
>>It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
>>
>>Colin Day
>>
>
>It wa a hell of an emprovement over DOS.
>
>
Yes, now instead of reliably running one application at a time you can now
crash several at the same time under windows and lose more hours worth of
work. Until Microsoft came along FreeBSD was an operating system, under
windows it is a feature.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What are all you nix trolls doing in the WINDOWS advocacy list?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:32:40 GMT
Actualy, the advocacy groups were formed to so that this kind of flame war
did not go on in the technical news groups. Not for like minded people...
In article <AfNh5.8463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:12:24 -0500,
> > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >So there are idiots on both sides of the fence. What I don't understand
> is
> > >that every time I snip the crossposts to the nix groups on of my replies,
> >
> > Could the reason you snip the crossposts to the nix groups is becuase
> > you're spreading lies and FUD about nix and nix users and you don't
> > want to get their rebuttal. Some of your posts that I found via
> > deja.com tend to suggest that.
>
> I've only been here for a few days and that's been my assessment of the
> situation to date from my perspective. I just don't know why advocacy
> forums, which are forums of LIKE-MINDED people discussing advantages of
> their OS-of-choice and helping to educate readers, need to be "invaded" by
> trolls from the other advocacy groups. I know there are some Windows folks
> that do the same thing. I'm justr asking people to consider their motives
> in doing this crap. Are you that recognition deficiant?
>
> > >some nixer puts them back. It's like they are looking for notoriety
> amongst
> > >their peers.
> >
> > Name some *nix users that do that.
>
> Mr. Kulkis and petilon come to mind. I'm sure there are more.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:37:46 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> Then they could explain to the average user why
> >> >> Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
> >> >> graphics.
> >> >
> >> >Because the vendors haven't published the specs or mad binary drivers?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> >> >> SVGA kernel.
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >>
> >> Because they half to to make their graffics work.
> >>
> >
> >I have graphics, and I haven't compiled a framebuffer SVGA kernel.
>
> You must have one of the holy graffix cards that Lie-nux actulley SUPPORT'S.
>
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
> >> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
> >> >> business people.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
> >>
> >> Window's 98.
> >>
> >
> >It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
>
> It wa a hell of an emprovement over DOS.
Um, you seem to have missed a little in MS software evolution if you
went from DOS to Windows 98.
DOS
Windows 1.x (laughed out of production)
Windows 2.x (started to gain a little attention)
Windows 3.x (some later versions started to actually get some use)
Windows 95 (actually 4.x, and the first Windows version to be taken
seriously)
Windows 98 (actually a continuation of the 4.x line, made to
integrate the web browser into the interface)
and around the same time as the 3.x line started:
NT 3.x (I've heard different stories, but I believe
as 3.2 as a replacement for Win 3.1 systems)
NT 4.x (With the 'much improved' Win95 type interface)
W2K (actually NT 5.x, made to improve stability and integrate
the web browser into the interface)
I think, unless you skip major amounts of time you will see MS (as with
most software companies) has made evolutionary progress with their
software, and never truly made any revolutionary products. And looking
closely you will also see that a lot of the evolutionary changes are
driven more by business and marketing rather than by technical
considerations.
This is the way of MS. Not revolution, evolution. (Plus absorption of
competition through buy-out or force-out.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:40:00 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
> >>
> >> Window's 98.
> >>
> >
> >It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
>
> It wa a hell of an emprovement over DOS.
Please, everyone, disregard my previous post. I forgot I was talking to
TIMMAY!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:40:57 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:45:18 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You don't need hundreds of different network cards to build a netowrk,
>>and that's what those 40 different drivers support.
>
> Yes you do actually. Some Beowulfs go up to the 500 range.
500 nodes yes. But 500 *different* *types* network cards? No. Follow the
links to different clusters from www.beowulf.org and find me a URL to
a beowulf cluster using more than 40 *different* *types* of network
cards.
> That and how distinct those 40 cards are is not entirely known.
40 drivers, Jedi. Look at the source code to those drivers and you'll
see they support hundreds of cards.
> There could be some redundancy in there.
Some code reuse, yes. However this does not change the fact the Becker
has done an enormous amount of driver development work above and
beyond what he needed to do for Beowulf.
And FYI, Becker does not work for NASA. He worked for CESDIS which was
under contract to NASA. That contract has expired, and the Linux
driver support has been taken over by Scyld Computing Corporation, for
whom Becker is the CTO. http://www.scyld.com/linux_network_drivers.html
> No, I'm talking about the other US government departments that
> are completely outside of NASA and have been able to better
> contain costs with this work.
That's why the government shares technology. Like I said originally,
it has more than paid for itself.
> So is hacking into the wee hours of the morning if that sort of
> activity is your idea of fun...
Sure.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Can I contribute?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:52:44 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> Contact you're butholl.
> >
> >He wasn't asking how to get in touch with you Timmay!
> >
>
> Sorrey I'm not a fudje-packing faggit like Linux.
>
How often do you cum in your pants when you see someone actually
responds to your drivel TIMMAY!? I'm just wondering, because there
doesn't seem to be any other possible reason for you to post as often as
you do.
By the obvious talent and knowledge you used in that last post, I would
say you are barely able to type on the keyboard as you masturbate
furiously over the words that pop up on your screen. If only you could
let the world know how much it turns you on you'd be all set wouldn't
ya!
Easy TIMMAY! You're gonna wear yourself out.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
