Linux-Advocacy Digest #112, Volume #29 Thu, 14 Sep 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Mike Byrns)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Mike Byrns)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (John Jensen)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why NT is shite (Tim Kelley)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) (Paul E.
Larson)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (.)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:02:59 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <8pqph9$2slf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Wow, the numbers are up to two! Still, it is hardly headline news
> that
> > > *a* developer likes mac software. It proves NOTHING. I'm not saying
> that
> > > Mac OS is bad, I am saying that one, now 2, developers opinion are
> > > hardly proof of ANYTHING.
> >
> > I'm saying that you clearly have no experience with MacX, and should
> > therefore not be commenting in such a way at all.
> >
>
> WOW, how many times to I have to say it???? I'm not talking about the
> OS! I'm wondering why it is such a big deal that *A* developer likes it.
> The fact that *A* developer likes it *SHOULD* be a given. Oh well, I
> guess W2K is better because more Developers Like it.
There is something to be said for popularity along with the ease of use
and stability of it's competitors. Then there are those little niceties
that Windows users can't get on any either of the leading competitor's
products and wouldn't want to live without.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:06:46 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <8pqpfu$2slf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > WOWIE One software developer likes it. Gee, I think I dump every
> thing I
> > > own and switch. Get real!
> >
> > No one is saying that thats what you should do. You need to settle
> down.
>
> You are the ones getting there rocks off on the fact that *A* developer
> likes the OS! If the fact that *A* developer likes an Apple OS seems to
> be such big news makes it sound as if developers NEVER liked Apple. I
> know that's not true but you all are sure acting like it is.
Game developers, as a rule, never liked Macintosh because it failed to
support many technologies available on Windows -- technologies that made
their programming easier and more productive. Now game developers can
use OpenGL on both platforms (and linux too if you count MESA :-)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:11:51 -0300
El jue, 14 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Whenever I am giving a statement of fact, I try to. If you are talking
>> about, for example, my failing to mention kde.com's search form, I must
>> say I did no research whatsoever, and just replied from memory.
>>
>> I also feel that since I was not the one saying kde.com and kde.org
>> are entangled, it was not my job to do it. After all, there is no
>> way to prove we are NOT entangled, is there?
>
>Have you not not said something the the effect that you have the pages of
>the www.kde.org stored on your local machine? A simple grep for
>"[Mm]ie[Tt]erra" and "[kK][Dd][Ee]\.com" of your copy those pages would have
>shown your *all* of the connections between MieTerra/KDE.com and including
>another connection that has not yet been addressed here yet.
I am not saying there is no other connection. If you know of another
one, say what it is. It's probably as small as the search form.
>Here is a little test of your research ability can you search those pages
>and discover that other connection (if you don't already know it) and then
>tell us about it?
You seem to have missed the point: I do the work to prove my own
points, and expect others to do the work to prove theirs. You are
asking me to do the work to prove your point. That I will not do.
>> BTW: I'm still weaiting for the message IDs of that alleged quote
>> of me. Do you have them or not?
>
>If you want the data, be a man and work for it. -- Roberto Alsina
May I point out that I am not convinced those posts actually exist?
You called me a liar, the onus is on you. Those quotes look
phony to me, and there is no way to prove they *are* phony
beyond what I already did.
Now, maybe they are not phony. I am not 100% sure. Please,
post the Message-IDs. That could prove your point about me
being a liar. Right now, you have not done so.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:06:46 GMT
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:55:08 GMT, Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>hey Aaron...a computer is a machine that gets the work done...its not a
>religion...
Operative expression: "get the work done".
>
>/IL
>
>> I know a winner when I see one.
>>
>> Too bad you can't.
>>
>
>
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 14 Sep 2000 17:12:26 GMT
Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: MacX is an old application from Apple that provides an X11 server for
: the Mac, and if you ask me, it's the best X11 server ever made. Run Unix
: apps rootless on you Mac. Neat.
: You were probably going for "MacOSX" :)
It's kind of interesting to note, that had Apple gone with X11 in OS X,
then MacX would have allowed remote display/execution of OS X applications
on older Macintoshes.
John
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:37:21 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pqqtd$2slf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Linux is, in many ways, superior to most Unix systems. Some Unix
systems
> > are much more feature rich (AIX for instance), and are really tailored
to
> > work in specific environments better. Linux is a general purpose
Unix-like
> > OS.
>
> > What old school Unix has going for it though, is a legacy feature set
> > (specific API's that have been around for years that Linux may or may
not
> > always fully support). Generally, anything written to POSIX will run
under
> > Linux, but not all things written to Linux will run under POSIX or other
> > Unix systems (unless they have Linux emulation, such as FreeBSD).
>
> Freebsd linux binary emulation is just that; binary emulation. Posix
> compliancy has nothing to do with binary adherance to specific kernel
> architecture.
I didn't say it did. But not all Linux API's are POSIX. Thus, in order to
have binary emulation, you must also emulate non-POSIX API's as well.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:17:24 -0500
Rich C wrote:
>
> Mistakes made:
>
> 1) Installing unkown software on your "main" server;
> 2) NOT having made a recovery disk for your "main" server prior to the
> disaster;
>
> 3) NOT having made a backup of your "main" server prior to installing new
> software.
>
> Despite the fact that an app destroyed your OS, which it shouldn't have done
> in the first place, you brought this disaster on yourself. After all, it's
> NT you're playing with here...did you forget???
Well I think he realizes that he made mistakes. What the above
really tells us is this: windows advocates admit it is
dangerous, even possibly catastrophic, to simply install software
on their machines. "It's your fault, stupid end user!"
So have a blast backing up your server & making recovery disks
every time you install anything. Some people have developed more
sane methods of software distribution.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:29:14 GMT
uhu and?....
/IL
> Operative expression: "get the work done".
>
> >
> >/IL
> >
> >> I know a winner when I see one.
> >>
> >> Too bad you can't.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy
grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:54:31 -0500
"Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > No, you can't do what you like. If i'm linked to GPL code (whether my
code
> > actually uses it or not) I *MUST* distribute my code with it, regardless
of
> > whether it was my intention to do so, or if I agreed to the GPL. If I
> > employ someone to write code, and they use GPL'd code or link to GPL'd
code,
> > then i'm forced to distribute my (my in the sense that I've paid for the
> > code to be written) code despite not agreeing to GPL myself.
>
> My first question would have to be: why are you linking to *any* code if
> you haven't agreed to its terms?
It happens. Mistakes are made frequently. See Corel's original liscense
for instance. Not everyone understands the liscense when they read it, or
maybe they've been "told" by someone else what the GPL means and what they
were told is wrong. In any event, mistakes happen.
> > Once that code is distributed, I must legally distribute my code as
well,
> > whether it was an accidental use or some mistake in a make file or on
> > purpose.
>
> I'm not quite sure how you accidentally link in unrelated code, but I
> certainly hope it doesn't happen very often! What do you do if the code
> you're "accidentally" linking to required redistribution royalties, or
> refused distribution rights at all without a further agreement?
I would pay the royalties. However, those commercial libraries aren't
claiming they're "free" (a concept which always confuses people that are new
to the GPL, since they assume free means "at no cost".)
> > Further, the author of the GPL'd code can't even make an exception to me
> > since I've used code that is liscensed under GPL. He might be able to
make
> > an exception in a different release, but cannot do so for the release
that
> > I've already put out.
>
> My knowledge gets a bit hazy here; but I think the standard GPL allows
> future revisions of the license to apply to existing code, should the
> user so choose. If the author created a revised license with an
> exemption for you, you have the option of accepting the old code with
> the revised license. Best to ask someone who knows a bit more on that
> point though.
If that were the case, Stallman wouldn't have recently wrote an article
about how the KDE developers need to beg for forgiveness for their prior
violations. The GPL'd codes author can forgive a violation, but cannot
retroactively change the liscense of code that was liscensed under the GPL
earlier. All forgiveness means is "I won't seek damages for your
violation". Not that "The violation never happened because I retroactively
reverse the liscense".
> > The GPL ties both my hands and the GPL'd codes authors hands. That's
not
> > "freedom". The GPL is an anti-patent. Instead of preventing someone
from
> > using my IP, it forces someone who wants to use my IP to follow my
personal
> > politics.
>
> Yes, that is correct. The GPL was designed to work within the current IP
> system to guarantee certain rights to all users, present and future; but
> the only way to do so was to withhold a specific set of other rights
> (eg, the right to take someone's software, close it off from public
> access and sell it for a profit as your own work).
Yes, guarnatee certain rights while removing others. I disagree that this
was the "only way" to guarantee that your own IP remains free.
> > Now, the BSD liscense is freedom. It can be used any way you like, for
any
> > purpose, without any restrictions.
>
> Total freedom includes, paradoxically, the ability to unilaterally take
> away the freedom of future users.
No, it doesn't.
> As a result, we're left with the irony that, for the GPL to guarantee
> freedom, it had to take away some rights.
If someone else re-uses my code in their closed source application, that
doesn't change the fact that *I* still offer that code for free, and that
*I* still offer that code in any way I see fit. This doesn't change the
fact that the code is already out there. For instance, look at DeCSS. It's
been distributed in so many forms there is no possible way for that code to
ever be "taken away".
> > And how is that freedom? Freedom to "do anything you want as long as
you
> > don't do it here and with my stuff" is not freedom.
>
> "Do anything you want, as long as you don't stop others from doing what
> they want too."
And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from distributing
theirs?
> > I have no problem with the fact that the GPL has conditions for it's
use.
> > What I have a problem with, is the claim that this is somehow more
"free"
> > than something like the BSD or X liscenses.
>
> I wouldn't agree with claims that the GPL offers more personal freedom
> than BSD licensing. It does, however, *guarantee* certain freedoms to
> *all* users.
No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still guaranteed
without the GPL.
> > Because the GPL tells me how I *MUST* use my IP, it is no better than a
> > despot telling me "You're free to do whatever you like, as long as you
can
> > do so while you are locked in prison, bound, gagged, and stuck in a dark
> > hole. [...]
>
> Do you really see all that open-source software as a "prison"?
> Does that make proprietary software a "Walled City" -- with you on the
> outside?
No, actually, it makes GPL'd code a "Walled City" with me on the outside if
I don't want to distribute my own source. That's why the LGPL was invented.
> Here's another analogy for you:
> The Lord of that county keeps all his citizens as slaves. They are all
> well-fed, but can do *nothing* on his property without his permission.
> Slaves often take others as their own slaves.
> However, all are free to live within this Lord's county. While
> citizens may have to tend their own fields for food, they are happy, and
> all free to do as they wish on his land; with one exception -- *none may
> take another citizen as a slave*.
>
> There are of course flaws with this analogy too, but there always are;
> the point is, the only right you lose is the ability to take away the
> rights of others.
> (A friend once said, "push an analogy too far, and it breaks. Just like
> a fridge.")
I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
elses rights.
> > [...] If you don't like it, don't say things I don't like."
>
> Actually, if you don't like it -- don't use GPL software. Very simple.
> Just like Free Software "fanatics" refuse to use proprietary software.
Many people, including Stallman believe that source code is speech. Thus,
what you just said "If you don't like it, don't use it" is the same as
saying "If you don't like it, don't say things I don't like".
> You have the freedom to choose the software you use :)
No, I don't. I have the freedom to decide to give up freedoms in order to
achieve some end, but so do indentured servants.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:36:12 GMT
In article <rt0w5.859$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ingemar Lundin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>that was in the 70:s Aaron...wake up! were in the 21:st century now...
>
Not 'til 01/01/01 00:00:00:001.
>/IL
>
>> Actually, EVERYTHING you now see on the internet was FIRST developed on
>> Unix.
>>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 13:36:29 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> You're getting to be quite the little troll, Erik. I'd suggest you back
> away, slowly, or I'm going to have to spank you.
That would be quite a role reversal
>This ankle-biting is
> for kindergarten; you're supposed to present reasoned arguments of your
> opinion in your posts, not just empty contentions and meaningless
> protestations and ignorance in defense of criminal behavior.
No - your continued trollish "invitation" for ankle biting and subsequent
complaints about it are for kindergarten. Grow up or get out. Actually -
just get out.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:49:29 GMT
FUTILE....
/IL
> Not 'til 01/01/01 00:00:00:001.
>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:52:46 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pqvi5$8it$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : Although funnily enough after all that, if we read option 3) Hybrid DNS,
you
> : get a solution which is rather like the one I proposed earlier, with the
> : conclusion that "Most large organizations will want to consider this
option,
> : since it allows them to leverage their existing DNS infrastructure,
while
> : also providing a higher level of security for the DNS updates for the
> : essential Windows 2000 servers.". Strange really, considering I've been
> : told that my solution is unworkable for large organisations.
> :
> :
>
> Stop living in denial Stuart. Define "interoperability". How does third
> strategy constitute interoperabililty? The third strategy is just a
> STUPID workround combining strategy (1) and (2).
So you were quite prepared to post from the document when it appeared to
support your position, but are not willing to accept it now that it supports
mine? Either it's a reputable source or it's not.
>
> It in effect states that you should COMPLICATE your network and split it
> into two.
Minor point - complicate your DNS and split it in two. Your network can do
what it likes
>One set of DNS handled by Win2000 for Windows2000 workstations,
> and the other handled by your old system. Thats complicating the issue and
> merely creating a network within a network. How is that interoperability?
It's creating a subdomain within your root domain (as opposed to a network
within a network). It means you don't solely rely on Windows based DNS for
your organisation.
>
> Note that it says Windows2000 workstations and servers (NOT 'NT, '98,
> or '95). Still living in denial Stuar. Care for some more hand-waving?
Yes, because the only machines that actually rely on the Windows 2000 DNS
entries are unsuprisingly the Windows 2000 machines...
>
> Why is strategy ONE the "most highly recommended by Microsoft" but you
> contend that strategy THREE (a HUGE kludge if ever there was one) is
> the most trivial?
Of course Microsoft would most highly recommend Strategy 1 - it's the most
elegant solution if you don't want/care about the Unix DNS at all. Of
course Microsoft will recommend a solution based on all Microsoft products.
They didn't get to be one of the largest software companies in the world by
recommending other products than their own.
>
> The article states:
>
> "Organizations that choose to utilize strategy three will retain their
> existing DNS infrastructure and will implement Windows 2000-based
> DNS only when absolutely necessary."
>
> A technology you have to limits its use to "when absolutely necessary"
> is definition of CRAP technology if ever they was one.
Hmm, like restoring from backup. I only do that when absolutely necessary.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:54:29 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pqpeg$20i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Btw, the writer of the article is from the Evil Empire...erm sorry!
> Microsoft Alliance.
As opposed to Microsoft Corp. The writer would appear to work for Lucent,
given the description of the Microsoft Alliance
http://www.lucent-networkcare.com/company/who/partners/index.asp#Consulting
------------------------------
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: 14 Sep 2000 17:58:13 GMT
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:19:30 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Whenever I am giving a statement of fact, I try to. If you are talking
>> about, for example, my failing to mention kde.com's search form, I must
>> say I did no research whatsoever, and just replied from memory.
>>
>> I also feel that since I was not the one saying kde.com and kde.org
>> are entangled, it was not my job to do it. After all, there is no
>> way to prove we are NOT entangled, is there?
>
>Have you not not said something the the effect that you have the pages of
>the www.kde.org stored on your local machine?
I don't recall him saying that.
> A simple grep for
>"[Mm]ie[Tt]erra" and "[kK][Dd][Ee]\.com" of your copy those pages would have
>shown your *all* of the connections between MieTerra/KDE.com and including
>another connection that has not yet been addressed here yet.
I don't believe he is terribly interested in doing your research for
you. Do it yourself. You can either download the KDE website or use the
search engine.
>
>Here is a little test of your research ability can you search those pages
>and discover that other connection (if you don't already know it) and then
>tell us about it?
I'm sure he can, but I don't see why he should.
Look, if you are too mentally to do your own research and argue your own
case, then that's not Roberto's fault, and he is not obliged to
compensate for your lack of intelligence by arguing your side of the
debate for you.
>>
>> BTW: I'm still weaiting for the message IDs of that alleged quote
>> of me. Do you have them or not?
>
>If you want the data, be a man and work for it. -- Roberto Alsina
Exactly. You are making the claim that Roberto said (X). So *You* are
the one who has to prove it.
It's not Roberto's job to substantiate your drivel.
If you think he said that, show us where he said it. If you can't do
your own research, then bugger off and leave the debating to your
intellectual superiors.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 14 Sep 2000 17:58:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, if you recall, Doom was first created on a NeXT. Guess what MacOS X
>> > is based on?
>>
>> If you're insinuating that its based on NeXT, youre only partially correct.
>>
>> While NeXTStep/Openstep used BSD kernel architecture and filesystems,
>> MacX does not.
> BULLSHIT. See http://slashdot.org/bsd/00/05/21/1030223.shtml that MacOS
> X uses BSD an in fact they are "inseparable".
Oh. I didnt know MacOSX used the BSD 4.4 kernel. I thought it used
a Mach kernel.
> Also see
> http://www.yarc.com/mach1.htm and note that NeXT's Avie Tevanian
> replaced Ellen Hancock in the top development position. Also see
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/NeXT.release.
Oh. My apologies. I see now that I was completely incorrect.
> The only place where you might be right is that OS X uses HFS+ as it's
> filesystem although it's not the same HFS+ implementation used in OS 9.
Its identical actually, you idiot. HFS+ is HFS+.
> It's a new IFS implementation of the same filesystem but a BSD UFS
> system could be dropped in in it;s place.
Oh I see. So BSD writes inodes exactly the same way HFS+ does. I must
have been mistaken. So sorry.
> Apple's even been working out
> the compatibility issues between the two. See
> http://www.maccentral.com/news/0007/05.macosx.shtml
Oh I see. Compatability issues.
> So what you get with MacOS X is NeXT 2001
What I seem to be getting from you is alot of regurgitated hype and
no understanding of the actual details.
> with an integrated Mac
> emmulator and a candy colored shell. What was black cube is now a
> silver cube.
Why dont you impress the hell out of me and tell me why what they used
for their DSP (in the "cubes") was so damned impressive.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: 14 Sep 2000 17:59:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pqqtd$2slf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Linux is, in many ways, superior to most Unix systems. Some Unix
> systems
>> > are much more feature rich (AIX for instance), and are really tailored
> to
>> > work in specific environments better. Linux is a general purpose
> Unix-like
>> > OS.
>>
>> > What old school Unix has going for it though, is a legacy feature set
>> > (specific API's that have been around for years that Linux may or may
> not
>> > always fully support). Generally, anything written to POSIX will run
> under
>> > Linux, but not all things written to Linux will run under POSIX or other
>> > Unix systems (unless they have Linux emulation, such as FreeBSD).
>>
>> Freebsd linux binary emulation is just that; binary emulation. Posix
>> compliancy has nothing to do with binary adherance to specific kernel
>> architecture.
> I didn't say it did. But not all Linux API's are POSIX. Thus, in order to
> have binary emulation, you must also emulate non-POSIX API's as well.
This may be splitting hairs; but you dont really HAVE to emulate non-posix
APIs in order to have binary compatability. That they did has no bearing
on what was possible in the first place.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
