Linux-Advocacy Digest #73, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
("Ville Niemi")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Ville Niemi")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (sfcybear)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (sfcybear)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: Windows+Linux=True
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:43:24 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize
> >without
> >> >> being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were
having
> >> >> with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
> >> >>
> >> >Actually - you're not. I did - follow the thread...
> >>
> >> Perhaps. Ville's software is making following the thread rather
> >> impossible. Crappy Microsoft stuff.
> >
> >Crappy Microsoft stuff handles it OK - I don't often use thread by
> >conversation but it works OK. I prefer just to read by date received.
>
> Still don't have handle on that 'interoperability' thing, eh, Stu? I
> don't blinkin' *care* how you read things. Why the hell should that
> matter to me? Your sort order isn't what determines NNTP threading, and
> it certainly *shouldn't* screw up the subject line (as Ville's seems to
> do, as you'll notice.)
>
> YOUR crappy Microsoft stuff might handle threading OK, but apparently
> there is some problem on Ville's end. You can go to Finland and do the
> ol' "blame-shift troubleshooting" routine through email, if you want.
> I'd advice him to just replace the stuff; I'll wager Agent won't have a
> problem maintaining threading, no matter what your preferences.
>
> Then again, maybe he's posting through a Microsoft 'NNTP' service. That
> would explain the munging, and I'm afraid Ville might be unable to avoid
> monopoly crap in that case, as well.
>
> Try Agent, Ville; its worth a shot at least.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
Actually, its the subject line issue I think. Microsoft translated the 'Re:'
to 'Vs:'. Apparently Microsoft 'crap' understands both, but some 'not crap'
thinks it is a new subject and fucks up threading. Incidentally, the 'Vs:'
seems to be coded in, so I'll apparently have to get an English language
version.
It's rather elegant from M$ point of view. They get internationalization to
use in the marketing AND get to cause problems to competing products at the
same time.
I'm dropping out BTW, been a pleasure to miscommunicate.
Ville
------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:43:24 GMT
> >> Good question, though. Many people assume that if a country calls
itself a
> >> capitalist country its market practices are capitalism. This is not the
> >> case.
>
> I think what you mean to say, Ville, is that not every country that is
> capitalist uses a free market system.
Nope. I was talking about the definition of capitalism, and why so many
people get it wrong. Although if you replace 'uses' with 'implements
correctly' you got my point from another aspect, I think.
Dropping out, sorry...
Ville
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 13:49:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Sidlinger in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> David Sidlinger wrote:
[...]
>In this respect, I'll have to grant you your point, Chris. I don't know
>what version of Unix the currently affected system is running. I do know
>that it's a Compaq Alpha machine. Our company does run AIX and Tru64(sp?)
>among other "flavors".
Oh, that it explains it, then. I will agree that I've seen AIX cause a
'Unix server' to be down for outrageous periods, just as you claim; it
is a notoriously problematic platform on occasion (and notoriously
reliable on others); a bit of the old 'monopoly thinking', perhaps.
None of the rest speaks of a great amount of wisdom in building reliable
Unix systems, either.
I guess your point did have some validity, then, David. It is possible
for non-Microsoft systems to suck and be poorly designed or implemented.
But that doesn't speak to the general case.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:43:10 GMT
In article <qNlt5.8925$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p012v$jjs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Now we fired up the FTP client, CuteFTP 2.6 in Windows and Igloo-FTP
in
> > Linux. We connected to a local FTP site where RH is mirrored and
> > started a download.
> >
> > After one hour the downloads were:
> >
> > Linux - 18MB
> > Windows - 6.5MB
> >
> > After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
> >
> > Linux - 32MB
> > Windows - 14MB
>
> This should be a red blinking neon sign here that something is wrong
with
> your tests. If you could honestly benchmark times, then your two hour
time
> should be exactly twice the time of your one hour time on both
systems.
> But, since the Windows 2 hour time is more than twice, and the Linux 2
hour
> time is less than twice, clearly these are not anywhere near "the
same".
What are you talking about? They stated howmuch was transfered after 1
hour and howmuch was transfered in two hours. The fact that the AMOUNT
of data that has been transfered is different between the first and
second hour does NOT mean that "time" is different for the test.
>
> Secondly, you should really be using a CLI based ftp program, like the
> built-in FTP of both systems. There is simply way too much going on
with
> CuteFTP to know if the issue is related to the FTP client or the
stack.
> I've actually heard that the authors of CuteFTP deliberately slow down
> transfers in the non-registered versions. (don't know if that's true
or
> not).
>
> Further, please post the MTU and Recieve window sizes of both systems
and
> ping results of both systems to common destinations.
>
Hey, most dial up users do not know about setting up MTU's and Recieve
window sizes. The tester also said that they did not change the
defaults. The settings would be the settings that MOST newbies would
use. Meaning that newbies would get a faster connection using Linux.
> > Next we connected to the local mirror of Norton and started to
download
> > virus definitions. Linux finished downloading a 2.5MB file in just
> > under 7 minutes, while Windows took 22 Minutes and 15 seconds for
the
> > same file. We waited then for about 5 minutes and did it again, this
> > time starting the Windows FTP 5 seconds earlier. The time was: Linux
-
> > 9 Minutes and 13 seconds and Windows - 18 Minutes and 35 seconds.
>
> Another red blinking neon sign. The second time your Linux box took >
2
> minutes longer, while the Windows box tool almost 4 minutes less.
Seeing a
> pattern here yet? Could it be that two systems connected next to each
other
> are not anywhere near comparible?
>
> > It was now just after 14:00 when we started testing International
> > sites. We started with CNN. We then tried Microsoft, Redhat and
> > Netscape sites. Again the speeds were very similar, except Netscape
> > really rocked with the CNN site, downloading everything a whole 17
> > seconds faster then Windows. With the other sites, Netscape was on
> > average 2.5 seconds faster then IE5.
>
> 2.5 seconds is not even in the realm of margin for error. Human
reactions
> are slower than that.
Yeah but the 2 hour download test IS long enough to overcome this issue.
>
> > It seems Web Browsing is afterall about the same speed, giving the
same
> > circumstances, but FTP was a huge difference.
>
> Using two radically different clients.
>
> > Then we disconnected and checked the system:
> >
> > Linux have not touched the swapfile yet, while the Windows swapfile
was
> > reported as 15MB (total size).
>
> The windows swap file includes running applications. Data that is
only used
> once is paged out to disk, even if there is free memory in order to
maximize
> free available memory. For instance, also Windows treats executables
as
> demand paged swap files. Thus, a running application is considered
swap
> because Windows uses the same mechanism to demand page the executables
into
> memory as it does for a swapfile.
>
> > Time to authenticate:
> > --------------------
> >
> > Average times:
> >
> > Linux: 4 Seconds
> > Windows: 9 Seconds
>
> Did you turn off "Log onto network"? This is the default option, and
should
> be turned off when connecting to an ISP. Also make sure the IPX/SPX
and
> Netbeui checkboxes are cleared.
>
> > That was that.
> >
> > I am now convinced. Linux IS faster on dial-up then Windows,
especially
> > on FTP. Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
> >
> > PS. This test is still not 100% scientific. I KNOW THAT. Take it for
> > what it is. I believe that this is typical times you should get from
> > other machines in similar configurations.
>
> Do what I suggest here and you'll see much more accurate results.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:56:12 +0100
jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
> QL (remember it - Sir Clive's baby), Atari, Amiga - all lost out because they
> could not make up their mind where to pitch their products - in the gaming
> market or in the office market. They also did not allow cloning
Actually, that's not entirely true in the case of the Sinclair QL.
Several clones made it to market.
The OPD (One Per Desk) made by BT with a built in phone/modem.
The CST Thor (Several models were made)
I think another one made by Eidersoft all got made in the '80s.
Now, there's a new higher-tech QL compatible called the Q40.
(68040 based).
The reason the QL failed is because it took sir clive too long to finish it
after its initial release. The first models sold needed rom updates and
dongles hanging off the rom port to be usable at all.
That caused most of the damage.
The Amstrad takeover was the final deathblow.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:47:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which at best proves Linux has a better default configuration. The
> test pretty much means nothing.
>
That means it is easier for the newbe to get better performance! The
newbe would have to change the default setting to get the same
performance as Linux defaults! Making Linux easier and faster than MS
software for this case.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:04:28 GMT
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:28:37 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Yannick wrote:
>>
>> > Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > Mark Johnson wrote:
>> > > The community is working on scalability in
>> > > both directions, had PnP before Microsoft, and is efficient.
>> > >
>> > Errr, sorry ? are you speaking of "Plug and Play" here, or is there a
>> > second meaning to this acronym ?
>>
>> Yep, plug-and-play. First develop by Yggdrasill
>>
>> Colin Day
>
>So I suppose that's why I always had so much problems getting my
>ISA SB AWE64 and my ISA NE2000 compatible card to work correctly ?
I had no problem getting an ISA SB AWE64 to work under Linux.
The same is true for genuine NE2000 clones as well. However
there is a whole section in the Ethernet howto about slightly
non-conformant NE2000, the problems they cause, and possible
pre-canned solutions for dealing with them.
[deletia]
Nevermind the fact that ISA was never really pnp to begin with,
even if certain cards can be successfully autoprobed for their
XT resources.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: 12 Sep 2000 18:07:46 GMT
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:31:47 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Funny, we have all sorts of Wintrolls posting
"Wintroll", huh ? Unlike most of the usenet goons here, I've contributed
to Linux ( code, documentation ).
I don't need to carry on like an obnoxious zealot to prove anything,
because unlike the zealots, I am content to let my contributions
to the community do the talking.
> that these tests are
>meaningless but have NOTHING to back up the claim!
One doesn't need any data to argue that a test is meaningless.
On the contrary, those who are trying to argue that the test means
something need to provide the data.
> No numbers to counter
>the claims. Nothing at all to back up there claims!
Well, it's the Linux zealots who are making the "claims" here, so the
onus is on them to submit some supporting data. Thus far, the data
submitted is vastly inadequate. By your absurd logic, you'd have to
do test that show Linux serving webpages faster to refute the mindcraft
test.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 12 Sep 2000 18:10:38 GMT
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:21:03 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>against Ht, link against Ht, and then run. Would *you* in that case
>consider Ht to be an infringement on Qt?
Last I checked, Roberto is not TT's legal counsel. They'd be infringing
if the law said that they were doing so. If you want to know what the
law says, go ask a lawyer. My guess would be that the answer you'd
get is something like "probably not".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:09:58 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:41:04 -0500, David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>sandrews,
>
> Do tell, do you have *any* experience administering *any* OS in a real
>enterprise environment at all? No OS that I have ever seen being used on a
>large scale has offered anything close to that. When evaluating performance
Yup. 99.9% for the underlying OS is actually quite mundane.
[deletia]
What's sitting on top of the OS might not fare that well. However,
any reasonably mature server OS will be more than capable of that
kind of reliability.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:13:17 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:57:24 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8pk249$hgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The simplest, and most efficient way to interact with a computer is
>through
>> the command line. Instead of all that bullshit she would have to do in
>> Windows
>> 95, all she would have to do at a command line is 'copy a:\nongmao.txt
>c:\'.
>
>Which brings up the eternal question: who determines of a given interface
>is easy to use or not? Why do people keep insisting that a graphical user
>interface in the style of Windows or MacOS is easy to use and the command
>line is not user friendly? There are so many things that are easy from the
>command line but so difficult from the graphical user interface.
and visa versa. They both have strong and weak points. Having to do 'man
-k's to learn about CLI commands is a royal pain in the ass. Having to
waggle a mouse and go through 5 menus/dialogs on repetitive tasks is
equally a pain.
GUI's are easier to use for infrequent tasks. CLIs are better for
repetitive tasks.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:16:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:39:06 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|
>| The massive curve of the price/performance ratio of hardware may indeed
>| level out a good bit, once Linux is the de facto standard OS. Hardware
>| is, after all, limited by Moore's Law; software efficiencies are limited
>| only by imagination, with some small nod to engineering capabilities and
>| bandwidth.
>
>Software inefficiencies are limited both by the problems they are
>trying to solve and by the high cost of writing software.
The high cost of writing software is always infinitesimally minuscule
compared to the high cost of using the software over and over for years,
once written. That is the fundamental value proposition of software!
The higher the cost of writing it, the greater the cost savings of using
it (unless there is no competition in a free market to prevent stupid
ideas from bloating the cost with no benefit to anyone but the
monopoly.) You have merely recast the phrase 'imagination' as something
like 'difficulty of innovating new ways of solving difficult problems,
which may require new approaches or theories not yet imagined, I think.
>(For example, no amount of engineering magic is going to make it
>possible to sort an array in constant time. Similarly, you can try to
>write your word processor in x86 assembly, but will you ever finish
>it?)
Who cares? Such reductionist thinking is pointless arm-waving. I don't
recall anyone asking me, in all the twenty some years I've been using
computers "I'd really like to sort an array in constant time." Software
isn't built for the designer's benefit, but the user's. If you are
saying it requires such a thing in order to, for instance, model traffic
patterns or weather, then I'll repeat that you simply haven't thought of
a better way of doing it which does not require such impossible or
unfeasible approaches.
>In contrast, use for hardware is limited only by needs and wants.
>Needs and wants are unlimited, so there will always be scarcity in the
>hardware market.
There will always be scarcity in any market, or it will cease being a
market. My statement was that the feed-back mechanism of ever-expanding
bloatware will ease greatly. There's no need for more memory to use the
new capabilities of a wordprocessor, for instance, if the code of the
wordprocessor is made more efficient at the same time. Assuming that
all software is as efficient as it is ever possible for it to be, so we
need bigger hardware to get more capabilities, is merely a measure of
the limitations of software developer's imagination. I'm not trying to
be condescending; I've never claimed that imagination can be manifested
on demand. But I refuse to believe that there is never a better way of
supporting a given requirement than the one that already exists,
particularly when very little attention has been paid to optimizing such
efficiencies, given the price/performance curve of hardware under the
monopoly.
>(Examples: Speech recognition for general purpose use; A system
>smart enough to bag groceries without breaking the eggs, squashing the
>bread, mixing frozen and dry foods or putting rat poison in with the
>flour; Modeling of traffic patterns in LA 3 weeks in advance.)
Are you saying if you 'only had more hardware', these would be trivial
problems? More hardware can always be built; its the software that's
the hard part. In fact, if you *can't* build more hardware (Moore's law
is a limitation, as much as a projection), then you can use software
instead; I hear beowulf is causing massive increases in the efficiencies
of weather prediction and similar modeling requirements.
Since you seemed to have been trying to refute my statement, but haven't
had any success in doing so, IMHO, I'll repeat it, in case you'd like to
try again. If you'd like, we can reduce the discussion to the examples
you've provided, and examine whether these are not feasible due to
limitations in production of hardware, or limitations of software
development (or simply irreducible problems which cannot be solved
precisely by either, though greater approximations may be possible due
to increases in software design and the trivial availability of more
powerful hardware).
"Hardware is, after all, limited by Moore's Law; software efficiencies
are limited only by imagination, with some small nod to engineering
capabilities and bandwidth."
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:19:00 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:02:11 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said A transfinite number of monkeys in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:03:20 -0500,
>> David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Let's say, hypothetically, that Red Hat sells 10,000 copies of the optimized
>>: OS. I think this is a fair conjecture, as many companies would like to run
>>: Oracle, and Oracle for Linux is free, so the relative cost of running Oracle
>>: on a Linux server is small compared with running Oracle on NT or Unix.
>>
>>Oracle on Linux != Free. Oracle lets you do *development* on Linux for
>>free. However, to deploy production systems on Linux is subject to the
>>same licensing terms as other platforms.
>
>Thank god. I was afraid that free software might screw up a perfectly
>good business model. Now if only Oracle didn't monopolize....
>
>>You also do NOT need to "optimized" version. I've got a couple of Oracle
>>dev machines in my office that were installed on a copy of RedHat that was
>>on a burnt CD (I dl'd the ISO of RH 6.2).
>
>Just so. So let's clear out the FUD and bullshit; this is going on
>comp.os.linux.advocacy. So let's get with the advocacy: Just how
>optimized, and optimized how, is Red Hats Oracle-optimized kernel? Does
>anybody know?
This "Oracle optimized Redhat" sounds like nothing more than
a Sun style service contract for Linux for people who intend
to run serious installations of Oracle.
IOW: it's not the product, it's the service contract that is $2500.
For anyone familar with serious support contracts, this Redhat
arrangement is nothing spectacular. I would only expect the
totally clueless to make a big deal out of the dollar figure
involved.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:21:36 GMT
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:07:51 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mW1u5.1824$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I do hope MS port IE 5-5.5 to Linux (as they have to Solaris) i want a
>> *real*
>> browser in Linux not that piece of crap Nutscrape.
>
>Try running IE under wine or vmware.
A Linux IE port would really put the question to rest:
What is faster or more efficient?
Porting an MS product to Unix, or just emulating
the whole system and OS and letting that run your
Windows OS and web browser instead?
'-)
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:28:56 GMT
On Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:35:43 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
>
>Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
>somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
>laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
>
>"For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> running a browser and my mail program. And when
> I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
>
>I must apologize. I had been giving Linux FAR too much
>credit. I had assumed that they had at least a decent
>PMT implementation, but according to this article, it
>appears it's no better than the MacOS's CMT.
>
>Can't watch a movie and check email at the same time?
>And this is supposed to be the OS that's the death of
>the MS OS? Give me a break!
>
>Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
>
>Case in point?
>http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2285/1/
>
>Let's look at the screenshot up in the upper-right
>corner of this web page.
>
>- At the top of the screen, we have a MS Win95-ish
> task bar, completely with pop-up menus, shortcuts
...which is rather like a Motif task box, classic
X11 style popup root menus, and applications and
icons swallowed by goodstuff respectively.
IOW, Microsoft was the thief: not Miguel or Matthias.
[deletia]
>Shall I go on?
No. Beyond the "browser as filemanager" which is
only really just a more sophsicated version of
what Netscape 1.x could do, you really don't
have anything meaningfull or truthfull to
contribute.
>
>It's sad, really. It's sad that they bash on Microsoft for
>the same things they try to emulate (and do a shitty job
>of, BTW).
Some of us Linux users will quite willingly criticize KDE
for going down that "buggy uber app as default user shell"
garden path...
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
