Linux-Advocacy Digest #423, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win xx (mark)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE (Cihl)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Mike Byrns")
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (mark)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (John Sanders)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
PostgreSQL (mlw)
Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Win xx
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:42:00 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johnny Lee wrote:
>Stuart Krivis wrote:
>>
>> Why is it that, when talking about consumer OSes, I kept hearing that NT/Win2K was
>> not a consumer OS, so I shouldn't try to compare it to x? Now we hear that the
>future
>> is an NT-based consumer OS, so we shouldn't try to compare Win 9X to x.
>
>Well, that's how MS markets it. 9x (including Me) is the consumer OS
>and 2K is for the corporate users.
>
>>
>> The tune changes at a whim.
>
>It's actually rather consistent from MS, regardless of what you might
>have read on this NG.
>
>>
>> 9x is for consumers, so don't expect the robustness of Solaris. NT/Win2K isn't for
>> consumers, so don't expect it to...
>>
>> The latest little mantra is that the future consumer OS will be NT-based. It seems
>to
>> be the answer to all the ills of the world. :-)
>
>Query - W2K isn't what? Not a good office/corporate OS?
>
>>
>> Pardon me, but I've heard this before. MS was flapping their gums about a real
>32-bit
>> OS back in '93 or '94. Cairo or Win 4 or whatever was supposed to be a consumer OS
>> with robust underpinnings. Just like Whistler or whatever they're calling it.
>> Instead, we got Win 95. And they didn't even include any lubricant with it. Ouch!
>
>Just like MacOS or any other bussiness. Models change. Consumer
>markets change. Whilst in '93 perhaps the goals was for a uniform 32
>bit OS, but it didn't happen or wasn't needed. Question is, what are
>you comparing this trend to.
Ah, so it's not Microsoft caught uttering untruths/failing to delivery or
whatever, it's the market's fault for changing, right?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:39:46 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nbtv9$klk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, Explorer is more or less just a filemanager. It is the
> reimplimentations of winfile.exe the Windows 3.x filemanager. For some
> reason so many of the Window's users will point to it as their analog to
the
> X window manager, so for their sake in this thread I have ignored the
> inaccuracy of it. On the other hand to make the resource consumption
> comparison fair, I did count the usage of Midnight Commander compiled for
> and linked with the GPM for mouse support running in an xterm. Actually
> running three instances of it. There is a problem there as well, since
> Midnight Commander has features that explorer.exe can not match like being
> an ftp client that makes remote FTP archives appear another directory on
> your host for most functions. But I am not using that as part of the
> comparison.
Explorer is also the "shell", which provides the desktop environment (though
not the window environment). When people look at fvwm, they see mostly the
little applications button, the taskbar, etc.. these things are provided by
explorer in Windows.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 17:28:34 GMT
OSguy wrote:
>
> Perry Pip wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:21:21 -0500,
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Do you know what an MCSE is? An MCSE has nothing to do with software
> > >development.
> >
> > And it has even less to do with Engineering.
>
> MCSE = Microsoft Catalog & Sales Entertainer
I've just GOT to tell this to my cousin. He's studying to become one.
:)
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:14:31 -0500
> Other than support for "drag an drop" I am unaware of any service that
> Explorer provides that fvwm does not. Even then most of the "drag and
drop"
> is provided by shared libraries and explorer proper.
>
> Imagine if explorer was another window manager for X, what features would
it
> have that could cause someone to switch to it as their window manager?
Um. Explorer is not a Window manager. That's built into kernel-mode
Win32K.sys. Explorer is a file manager that presents a transparent
fullscreen window with a dockable taskbar that includes the start menu et
al. It also displays overlapping windows with views into:
* it's own namespace like "Control Panel"
* the local filesystem like C:\
* remote filesystems through local filesystem emulation like G:\
* remote filesystems through extension to it's own namespace like
\\myserver\
* and seamless combinations of the above like the desktop which *is* a file
system object and displays filesystem objects but also displays shell
namespace objects.
Explorer could best be termed a "shell". The window manager and it's
supporting GDI primitives run in kernel mode along with the video device
driver to prevent the expensive context switches that X has to contend with.
The window manager in NT is actually quite a bit thinner than most window
managers in X. It knows about extents and rudimentary stuff about styles.
Much of the "appearance" stuff is in user mode.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:26:13 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>KLH wrote:
>>
>> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Mike Marion wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, but look at who bought them out. Two "Windows Rocks!" sites
>> merge
>> > > > and I don't think we will see a big shift in focus.
>> > >
>> > > No kidding... Middle of the front page now: "Prepare your PC for Windows
>> > > ME." the article says that ME won't be in stores until 9/14 but "it's
>> > > never too early to begin thinking about and planning for installing the
>> > > new operating system on your computer." This "Oh geez, MS is going to
>> > > release something new soon.. we must install it the moment it hits the
>> > > shelves!" crap makes me want to puke.
>> >
>> > Reason # 3,467 for dumping Windows on my systems: I got sick of the *you
>> > suck if you don't buy everything we put out the first day it's
>> > available* cram it down your throat and tell you you like it bullshit.
>>
>> It is also a similar reason why I despise the entertainment industry.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Kevin Holmes
>
>Get into books. They are cheaper, they last longer, and nobody is
>throwing a hissy fit about buying the latest 'boy-band' type of book.
Except if you _really_ want the next one from author x or y, you need
to shell out for the hardback, or if you can hold back, then the large-
page version, then, finally, sometime in the future, the standard
paperback. It's not that much better.
Or, watch out for the 'ASIMOV' that's really written by someone else.
And so on.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:19:54 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee escribió:
> >
> > [Ok, snip a hell of a lot]
> >
> > > I'm really glad you still don't understand.
> >
> > I think I understand, I just find your position kinda lame ;-)
> >
> > > Does the idea of code fork
> > > mean nothing? I'm hoping that is another thing that doesn't happen.
> >
> > Code forking does happen. Who cares?
>
> If the Linux kernel forks it will lead credence to one of the MS
> supporters primary arguments against using Linux. THey keep saying,
> "Unix forked, Linux will too." ANd even the slightest sign that it is
> can cause problems. Look to Linux.com if you don't believe me. There
> was a fictional story about a guy considering a code fork (completely
> fiction) and people raised such a stink about Linux forking (forgetting
> that it was just fiction) that I think they pulled the plug on the
> entire series. It's a scary concept because it would be one more strike
> against Linux.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
There are forks for handhelds, the real time project, several embedded
systems and I'm sure there a private companies that have their own
forks. This is one of the major strengths of Linux. It's not a strike
against it in any way.
If it should become a fact that there is a Linux version which has an
embedded GUI in the kernel, the best thing in the world that could
happen is that it become a fork. This way its identity will be known,
easily tracked and will not affect the 'standard' kernel. This way you
can embrace it or avoid it.
It will also have its own unique name which everyone will know. And
whatever that name might be, I would like to give it its nick name now:
DORX.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:37:58 -0500
OK, this all started with me saying basically 'let's be careful' and it
escalated from there.
I understand your point of view in this, I'm just saying my point of
view is just as valid as yours or the people that have no clue what
Linux is.
I realize I sound like a freak because of the way this conversation is
going. One major problem I have (and it's my problem to deal with) is
when people tell me that my perspective doesn't matter. And that's
basically the vibe I've gotten here. We should just shut up if we feel
that we shouldn't do what Corel has done to the base Linux system.
I have my opinion, you have yours. We are arguing in circles at this
point because it seems (and I may be wrong here) that you are saying I
have no right to express my opinion on this matter. And I'm trying to
say that my opinion on it is no less valid than any other. The
discussion is fragmenting and turning into a big mess. So, before we
turn it into another pointless name calling session (check out the
programming thread that ran forever for what I'm talking about) why
don't we just say "Draw!" and be done with it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:00:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 14 Aug 2000 14:48:23 GMT
<8n90rn$6oo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>>> Which would you find more acceptable for road travel?
>>> A boat with wheels, or an automobile? Which would you
>>> find more acceptable for GUI applications? UNIX, or
>>> WindowsNT?
>>
>>Unix. The separation of the GUI from the kernal forces better
>>programming discipline on the programmers.
>
>IMHO, that sounds much like convoluted reasoning.
Stephen is right; the *integration* of the GUI into the kernel would
force better programming discipline -- the separation of the two would
result (and has resulted) in some very sloppy constructs since the
user-side programmer knows that the user-side can't really touch the kernel
constructs, and the kernel-side programmer knows that the kernel-side
program can't touch the user constructs. Both sides can cheat a bit.
(Presumably, at least one user-side programmer has written
protocol records -- see /usr/include/X11/Xproto.h on most systems --
directly to the server!)
While this separation can enhance and has enhanced reliability
(definitely a good thing) and allows for further shims to be
placed within the firewall -- in the case of X, the ability to
do network-transparent GUI development -- it's clear that it won't
do much for programmer discipline, as both sides can play all
sorts of games and not bring the system down.
By contrast, integrating the GUI into the kernel would call for some
rather precise specifications and a lot of QA resource. I would
also throw in code analysis tools in there to ensure that the
GUI part isn't referencing things it isn't supposed to (but aren't
enforced by the boundary), and vice versa.
There are also issues in the system becoming more closed as a result
of the integration; those doing the integration are privy to both
data structures (and may have to sign an NDA even if they're only
interested in one side, assuming one side is available to
everyone but the other is not), whereas a split system such as X could
have part of it proprietary (the server), and part open-source (the
user interface library), allowing for some flexibility. In fact, this
model is used for such as Metro-X and AccelX, if I'm spelling
them correctly, on RedHat systems; both of these are payware X servers.
(Some X servers even use a framebuffer, which is a virtual device
maintained by the kernel. I don't know how to talk to a framebuffer,
but presumably there are ioctl()'s to allow for a sufficiently
privileged app to write directly to some virtual memory which will
appear on the screen, and the X server would presumably be just
such an app.)
Integration can also enhance performance. By how much I don't know;
X can (and usually does, for most single-computer home users of Linux)
run in a local mode with local Unix sockets (which are basically pipes);
these Unix sockets might even be shared mapped memory, using mmap() or
a variant thereof, deep in the kernel. I'd have to look at the Linux
kernel source code to be sure; but in theory mmap()'ed memory would
have similar performance characteristics as any other memory, except
for an extra page fault for locating the pages since it has to go
through the file system and not merely some sort of logical swap addy
to physical sector correspondence. By contrast, an integrated system
can pluck a value directly from wherever it's being stored, trading
off flexibility for speed.
It's not clear that managerial types care as much about flexibility as
they do about speed -- so the nod goes to the system with the better
performance, namely NT. (This may change as Linux either tightens
its structure or becomes better known and better tuned.) NT also
has other perceived advantages -- namely, support contract support from
the vendor/writer -- which help as well. (It's not clear to me
that this is an actual advantage.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:48:35 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> >Real wrestling has its place, just realize that TV wrestling (WWF,
> >> >WCW, ECW, etc) has nothing to do with real wrestling. It makes the
> >> >watching much more enjoyable. And I should know. My wife started me
> >> >watching wrestling when we started dating. Once you get past the
> >> >lack of 'sport' in wrestling, it really is quite entertaining.
> >>
> >> Well, not to me. I suppose I just don't get it.
> >
> >You'd be suprised what can seem 'entertaining' when your wife tells you
> >it is.
> >:-)
>
> LOL!@# :-)
>
> My fiancee' did get me kinda hooked on Ally McBeal. We
> both hate Calista Flockhart vehemently, but Peter McNichol
> makes for a hilarious character.
I couldn't ever get into Ally McBeal. Waaaaaay too many sexual
references (what is it, like one every 10 seconds?). My parents also
watch it religiously (I guess I'm still rebelling huh?).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:47:18 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Oh _GOD_ I used to _LOVE_ that show!
>
> I think my favorite memory of MST3k is when they
> were showcasing some movie called "Curse of the
> Zombie", or some such, where a dead high-school
> student is brought back to life by some voodoo
> lady, in order to get revenge for his death on
> the other students who caused his demise. Anyone
> know the actual title of the movie I'm referring to?
>
> There's a scene where a cop (one of the main characters
> is sitting in his car under a tree at night, whilst a
> whole bunch of rather obnoxious birds are chirping
> away loudly. Crow makes a comment in a feigned serious
> voice, stating "This is car 37! I've got birds! Over.",
> or something similar.
>
> I was howling for 15 minutes. :-)
I remember that movie you are talking about, but can't remember the name
of it :-(. But my favorite was the one where they went looking for
bigfoot (or something along similar lines, I didn't catch the beginning
of it). The group is all locked up in a house, and the
bigfoot/monster/whatever crashes through the door and crow (I think)
says, "SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!" and then the other little robot dude says,
"Eat me!" in that snotty voice on the slim jim commercials. I was
laughing for a good 15 minutes, and I laughed so hard that my wife
actually ran out of the shower to see what was wrong with me. God that
was funny.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PostgreSQL
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:04:13 -0400
Wow read this:
http://apachetoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-08-14-008-01-PR-MR-SW
A benchmark shows that PostgreSQL is faster than MySQL and some other
proprietary databases. I do not usually put a lot faith in benchmarks,
but PostgreSQL has always been a personal favorite of mine. Fairly
complete SQL, pretty fast, and free. Now it seems that it is just as
fast and scalable as the big boys.
Anyway, the article mentions two database vendors that have restrictive
clauses in their licenses about making benchmarks public. The only two I
can think of are Oracle and MS-SQL. Any one know any others?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.windows.advocacy,comp.os.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway?
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:51:56 -0500
George Coulouris wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> >Wow, one of my hobbies is to try to figure out the latest coniving
> >scheme of MS, but I totally missed this one. Probably because I don't
> >pay much attention to the 'gaming consoles' like the X-Box is 'supposed'
> >to be.
> >
> >However unlikely it might be, I wouldn't be completely suprised if this
> >actually had a bit of truth about it.
> >
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
> Well, with broadband access becoming more widespread and PXE coming along,
> this sort of thing seems plausible, maybe even desirable. Your
> computer/xbox/whatever would netboot from your local provider, and the OS
> rental fee could be lumped in as a "value-added" ISP service. Ostensibly it
> would reduce complexity for the user, as the OS could fetch new components
> as necessary and the user wouldn't have to worry about upgrades. Basically
> the xterm/thin client/etc. concept applied to the masses.
>
> This of course hinges on a robust, scalable, secure implementation.. :-)
Yeah, and it also hinges on users trust, or complete lack of knowledge
of where files are coming from at any given moment.
Personally, no matter how robust and secure it was, if it was stamped
with MS on the server side (for a thin-client type of environment over
the internet) there is no way I would trust it. But I suppose I'm not
the average user.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:40:15 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > Somehow you have yourself convinced that anyone not interested in a
> > Windows clone has something against any progress.
>
> Who, me? Man are you confused.
All right, all right.
Maybe this had something to do with your "Don't change anything!" line?
Anyway, can we walk away from this while we still have a shred of
dignity to share between us?
--
[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
******************************
