Linux-Advocacy Digest #995, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Jack Troughton)
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Bob Lyday)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Mandrake not Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:49:39 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:45:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:04:29 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>>
>>> >I'm not knocking Feeble Virtual Window Manager's flexibility. I am knocking
>>> >the alarming tendancy of Linux programs to want to look like Windows programs.
>>>
>>> Just how do you propose to distinguish them without that
>>> distinctiveness being entirely gratuitive? Besides, there
>>> are plenty of applications and window managers that chose
>>> to follow some other path.
>>
>> I don't know about Window Managers, I can change those and still use
>> the same programs. But the programs are a different story.
>>
>> AbiWord is a clone of Word.
> Word is a clone of WordPerfect.
>> Gnumeric is a clone of Excel.
> Excel is a clone of 123.
>> StarOffice is a clone of Office.
> This still doesn't point to a useful resolution of the problem
> which is not merely limited to Linux.
>
> Besides, there are other office apps that are either 'the original'
> or make no attempt to be like Windows.
>> Gnome and KDE are heavily copying Windows Explorer.
> Explorer heavily copies MacOS and has glaring similarities to just
> about any other desktop shell that preceeded it.
> Just where in Windows are there anything like the gnome or kde panels?
Not to mention the wps... but badly.
>> Evolution is a clone of Outlook.
> Fortunately there are at least 10 other mail apps that aren't.
>> GIMP is busily cloning Photoshop.
Well, they got the interface right, so there you go (been using ps for
quite a while now, so gimp is an easy jump for me. I just want it to
run seamless, not in a full-screen XFree86-OS2 session.)
>> XMMS is a clone of WinAMP.
> Just how would you make a 'distinctive' tape deck?
> Besides, xmms is only one of several alternatives that
> DON'T strive to look like winamp (a good thing since
> winamp is a UI train wreck).
Heh, I like running z! detached and passing commands to it from named
pipes controlled by icons on the desktop.
>> Killustrator is a clone of Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator.
>>
>> It goes on and on. I haven't seen any true originality or creativity
>> expressd on the Linux platform /anywhere/.
>
> This is the bit that is really quite vexing. This is the
> subtle bit of FUD: that Windows is somehow any less
> derivative than anything else, or a useful source for new
> ideas.
>
> It isn't. Most of it's interfaces are just as 'stolen'.
Yep... that's the truth. However, you're assuming that Chris is a
windows advocate, which he's not.
>> It's as if Free Software was good for only one thing: Copying the
>> Proprietary.
>>
>>
>>> So your whole premise is really just an excessively lame
>>> troll, the rantings of someone unwilling to scratch the
>>> surface or go beyond someone else's bad rumours.
>>
>> *squawk!* *twitch!* "TROLL!" *twitch!* *convulse!* "PaiD bY
>> MIcROsofT!" *twitch* "WinTroLL!"
>
> No, you're just another Windows running loser who hasn't
> bothered to actually scratch beneath the surface of another
> alternative. HELL, you haven't even scratched beneath the
> surface of Windows apps.
>
> THIS is the single most annoying aspect of Lemming culture.
> You brag about how you can 'run everything' and then you
> reduce the platform to single choices.
Actually, he's a warp/*BSD guy. The twitch roll convulse routine is
simply his imitation of some of the more ...active... os2 advocates.
That's why you have the Ed^H^H in the signature... being one of the
aforementioned ...active... os2 advocates.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:11:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Loren Petrich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 26 Jul 2000 05:21:55 GMT
<8llshj$7nr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [a lot of stuff on Linux plug-and-play...]
>
> The ideal would be to have it as transparent as the MacOS's
>plug-and-play (the AmigaOS is supposed to have good PnP, but I have much
>more experience with the MacOS).
Pedant point: the Amiga variant was at one point called
AutoConfig(tm). (Yes, that's right, it was in fact trademarked!)
But it definitely worked reasonably well, except for one old Supra
2 meg memory card that I had to put in the first slot in
one of my Amiga 2000s. Never really had to concern myself with
interrupt assignment or DMA channels or anything like that;
the software just worked.
And that's how it should be. :-)
I have little experience with the Mac, myself, beyond the
Amiga's Mac emulation (achieved with a small box attached
to the floppy port -- I forget the name -- Mac ROMs, and
some software).
>
> How close can one get with Linux-x86? How do non-x86 Linuxes
>fare? How far do BSD, Solaris, etc. go?
PnP is a hardware function, not a software one. While an x86 variant
of the OS in question would probably be expected to support PnP
in some form (Linux uses the utilities pnpdump and isapnp), it's
not clear to me how well a non-x86 variant would be required
to support PnP, as it is rather dependent on the specifics of
the x86 microprocessor and supporting hardware. (It's not
clear to me whether ROMware gets involved, either.)
I'm not even sure the PCI bus and the concept of PnP match up
at all, or how.
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:09:36 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > First GUI 1984 1990
>
> Windows 1.0 was in 1985.
I thought Windows 1.0 was character based, not a GUI . . . ?
> > Full networking support 1984 1995
>
> Windows for Workgroups was released in 93.
Considering that the term was "full", I suspect that your use of WfWG is
still debatable.
> 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?
Shared Memory support. 1985, I think.
> > Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
>
> Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without rebooting.
That's ambiguos . . . Ok, I modified my kernel, and didn't have to
reboot.
They're called: modules.
> > full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
> > including O/S install
>
> NT has always had remote administration.
The phrase was "full remote administration", and no, NT has not always
had full remote administration . . . or even partial remote
administration.
> > GUI's available 10 1
>
> X is the GUI,
Wrong. X is not a GUI. It is a network transparent graphical windowing
system.
> that severely limits the number of non-X interfaces.
??? How is that relevant? Windows severely restricts the number of
non-Windows interfaces, too.
> A window
> manager is not a GUI.
Yes it is.
It's graphical, it's a user interface, it's a Graphical User Interface.
"Debate by definition" is a poor substitute for having a real and valid
point.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:14:08 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 1984, Sun Windows (Sun Microsystems)
>
> I don't think X had local framebuffers in 84.
"Local Frame Buffers"?
Since a Frame Buffer is hardware, therefore, X has always had local
frame buffers, as has every other GUI system every written.
What did you really mean to say?
> > 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.\
That isn't so, either.
GL is pretty old.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:18:58 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:45:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:04:29 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> >>
> >>>
> > This is the bit that is really quite vexing. This is the
> > subtle bit of FUD: that Windows is somehow any less
> > derivative than anything else, or a useful source for new
> > ideas.
> >
> > It isn't. Most of it's interfaces are just as 'stolen'.
>
> Yep... that's the truth. However, you're assuming that Chris is a
> windows advocate, which he's not.
He sure as hell acts like one...
>
> >> It's as if Free Software was good for only one thing: Copying the
> >> Proprietary.
> >>> >>
> >>> So your whole premise is really just an excessively lame
> >>> troll, the rantings of someone unwilling to scratch the
> >>> surface or go beyond someone else's bad rumours.
> >>
> >> *squawk!* *twitch!* "TROLL!" *twitch!* *convulse!* "PaiD bY
> >> MIcROsofT!" *twitch* "WinTroLL!"
> >
> > No, you're just another Windows running loser who hasn't
> > bothered to actually scratch beneath the surface of another
> > alternative. HELL, you haven't even scratched beneath the
> > surface of Windows apps.
> >
> > THIS is the single most annoying aspect of Lemming culture.
> > You brag about how you can 'run everything' and then you
> > reduce the platform to single choices.
>
> Actually, he's a warp/*BSD guy.
Chris no longer runs Warp at all.
--
Bob
USER ERROR: Replace user and press any key to continue.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:16:48 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
Wrong. Multi-processing does not mean "the ability to use multiple
processors". Multi-processing means "running multiple processes".
You need to brush up on your terminology.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[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!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:29:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> > AbiWord is a clone of Word.
> Word is a clone of WordPerfect.
> > Gnumeric is a clone of Excel.
> Excel is a clone of 123.
> > StarOffice is a clone of Office.
> This still doesn't point to a useful resolution of the problem
> which is not merely limited to Linux.
>
> Besides, there are other office apps that are either 'the original'
> or make no attempt to be like Windows.
> > Gnome and KDE are heavily copying Windows Explorer.
> Explorer heavily copies MacOS and has glaring similarities to just
> about any other desktop shell that preceeded it.
How does this change the point that most Linux applications are
copies of something else?
> Just where in Windows are there anything like the gnome or kde panels?
I don't know, I won't speculate on third party equivalents
either. But that would be why I said "heavily copying" instead of
"clone", wouldn't it?
They've copied the "start bar" and they've copied the task bar and
the system tray. They've copied the idea of putting a URL field in
every folder view. They've even copied the icons and button positions
pretty closely, too.
It doesn't matter if Microsoft copied all this from someone
else. Linux software definately appears to be copying from
/someone/. I don't know what Outlook copied, but I'd be interested to
know if Evolution /wasn't/ copying the Microsoft program.
> > Evolution is a clone of Outlook.
> Fortunately there are at least 10 other mail apps that aren't.
But that's not the point. The point is that new software currently
being developed for Linux copies heavily.
> > XMMS is a clone of WinAMP.
> Just how would you make a 'distinctive' tape deck?
> Besides, xmms is only one of several alternatives that
> DON'T strive to look like winamp (a good thing since
> winamp is a UI train wreck).
I don't know how one would make a distinctive tape deck. But then, I
don't think that one needs to copy the concept of "skins" either.
> This is the bit that is really quite vexing. This is the
> subtle bit of FUD: that Windows is somehow any less
> derivative than anything else, or a useful source for new
> ideas.
>
> It isn't. Most of it's interfaces are just as 'stolen'.
Okay, cool. Windows copies manaically. Now why does everyone else
have to do the same?
> No, you're just another Windows running loser who hasn't
> bothered to actually scratch beneath the surface of another
> alternative. HELL, you haven't even scratched beneath the
> surface of Windows apps.
A windows running looser. Hmm...
Running Windows.
Hmm...
Actually I don't use Windows at all. But let's not allow those
irrelevancies to get in the way of a Good Old Fashioned Unfounded
Bullshit Ad-Hominem Attack, eh?
I mean, when one is too /stupid/ to know how to say anything else, or
lacks any confidence in his own points, one has to back it up with
pointless flamage, right?
I mean it makes you feel good to shoot off your mouth and say things
that not only arose from hasy conclusion jumping
(leaping... conclusion LEAPING) but don't actually affect the
argument itself. I mean you can do that because you're a Big Man and
you don't need to take facts, or logic, or reason, or any of that
shit, right?
> THIS is the single most annoying aspect of Lemming culture.
> You brag about how you can 'run everything' and then you
> reduce the platform to single choices.
You've a very silly person. Already you've made assumptions about the
software I use and the claims I make. I think you ought to pay more
attention. I use FreeBSD 4.0-Release and composed this messages (and
all previous ones) in Emacs.
I never bragged about being able to "run everything". You see? You're
a liar already and I can prove it.
Now how about recognizing that the above crap has nothing to do with
the argument and... hey! How about actually getting on with the
argument!
Software being written for Linux today is not very imaginative and
copies too much from other products in the proprietary realm. Be that
Microsoft, the Mac, OS/2 or the Jolly Green Giant.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:33:09 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.
> >
> > I'm talking about running MULTIPLE PROCESSES concurrently. The
> > number of processors is irrelevent.
> > That's called Multitasking.
Wrong. Tasks are not the same as processes.
Aaron is right.
Multi-processing does indeed mean: running multiple processes, it has
nothing to do with how many processors are in the box.
> > Right... i'm only a computer systems engineer who studied at one of the
> > top 10 universities in the world for the subject.
>
> Then why is it that you didn't know that MS wrote most of OS/2? Why do you
> consider Multitasking to be Multiprocessing (though I will admit that the
> term Multiprocessing was used synonymously with Multitasking
So, you admit you were wrong?
Guess what: Multiprocessing is not the same as multitasking. A process
is a form of VMS-lite, while a task is a separately scheduable entity.
Processes contain tasks, tasks never contain processes.
> in the old IBM
> mainframe days, before multiprocessor machines were invented)
Wrong again. You might want to research just when the first MP machine
was created . . .
Your confusion stems from not knowing that the terms process and task
refer to two different things.
> > Simple.. bring up adb, dbx, or gdb on the /dev/kmem, allocate a
> > new process table, copy the contents of the old process table to the
> > new process table, and change the pointer to the process table.
>
> And you do this without stopping the kernel process?
FOUL! The point of contention was *rebooting*, not *very temporarily
freezing the OS*!
> > He used this method for tuning some Gould Electronics systems which
> > we were Beta testing at Purdue. Once he got a good tuning of buffer
> > space, etc., THEN he recompiled the kernal.
>
> Not something you can do on a production machine, now is it?
Yes, it is. It is not recommended or "supported" practice, but yes, it
can be done on a production systems that access the process table
through indirection.
> We're talking about my "supposed" definition of a GUI, not "a new face on an
> old lie".
There's no supposition required: GUI means Graphical User Interface.
Therefore a Window Manager supplies part of the GUI, while the apps
supply the rest.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:36:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stefano Ghirlanda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 26 Jul 2000 12:26:23 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> So if Linux is a UNIX-like OS (as it's frequently termed) and Mandrake is
>> Linux-like then maybe we are making some progress away from that old dog,
>> UNIX. Face it -- it's the oldest technology around
>
><rest snipped>
>
>I would like to see a stop to this "old technology".
>Cooking is thousends of years old.
>The best violins are centuries old.
>Calculus is 300 years old.
>Our brains are more than 150000 years old.
You forgot the wheel, the pulley/block and tackle,
the inclined plane, and the seesaw lever. :-)
Not to mention the telescope, the pendulum/escapement,
and the steam engine.
>They all work great.
>Old or new is not a merit by itself.
>Stefano
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unix may be old, but it's reliable; Linux can
leverage Unix code, too
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:37:12 GMT
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yep... that's the truth. However, you're assuming that Chris is a
> > windows advocate, which he's not.
>
> He sure as hell acts like one...
Well isn't that nice. The best you can come up with is "he acts like
one" and then subsequently produces the evidence to....
Well produces examples tha....
Oh well then he obviously must have reached the conclusion by
holistic means :-)
> Chris no longer runs Warp at all.
So your entire presense in this thread has nothing to do with what we
were discussing? I see. You keep this up a lot, Bob? The old
hit-and-run-like-mad routine?
What, the easy targets and cheap shots the only ones you can get it
up for these days?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
