Linux-Advocacy Digest #116, Volume #29 Thu, 14 Sep 00 21:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (John Doherty)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Rob Barris)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Barry Margolin)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (D G)
Re: Why NT is shite (Glitch)
Re: Why NT is shite (Glitch)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Jim Richardson)
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Steve Mading)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux) (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:29:30 +0100
>Quite impressive, really; it's an excellent system and people are
>starting to wake up. If nothing else, it will keep Microsoft honest :-).
>
If it keeps microsoft honest then why are they on trial for dishonest
business
when linux has been around for over 6 years (my first version was on an
october
1994 magazine cover disk). Nothing except a rocket permanently aimed at
their
head office will ever keep microsoft honest :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:15:27 GMT
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:57:59 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>> ...which for just about any Unix is simply a matter of recompling
>> them. For any other OS, the source is readily available should any
>> more serious modifications be required.
>
>If you have to recompile, then it's not binary emulation, it's source code
>compatibility. Since some programs are not distributed with source code,
...pretty much a requirement if you aren't going to limit yourself
to kludge klones and then take a bit hit for x86 machine code
emulation.
>binary emulation is often better than just source compatibility.
No it isn't. Being stuck in 1981 is seldom "better".
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Doherty)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 17:18:54 -0500
In article <8prik2$e425e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nothing except a rocket permanently aimed at their head office
> will ever keep microsoft honest :-)
My brother has been calling for air strikes on MS for at least a couple
of years now.
If the Justice Department doesn't get 'em, the Air Force can. ;-)
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 00:25:10 +0100
In article <8pqs3k$vr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Follow the link. It's more than *A* developer.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[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 22:16:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Conix licensed OpenGL libraries for the Mac OS starting in April '97.
> In fact, I think that Apple merely bought Conix and repackaged their
> libraries.
Including the staff such as John Stauffer. Assimilated..
Rob
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:29:17 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> well...good for you "." what i meant was that a os (such as linux) built
> primary for X86 machines .
>
> *WORKS BEST ON A X86 MACHINE*
>
Well, it works extremely well on S/390, so, regardless of the origins of
Linux, it is now very good OS for a wide variety of platforms.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:42:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:57:59 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>binary emulation is often better than just source compatibility.
>
> No it isn't. Being stuck in 1981 is seldom "better".
Stuck in 1981? There was no Linux then, so how can Linux binary
compatibility have anything to do with that time?
If you mean "stuck running existing binaries", that's not the case. You
can still recompile if you have source code. So you can do anything that
you can do with source compatibility, plus you can also run programs that
don't come with source. Being able to do more is better, no?
The only sense in which I can imagine it's not better is that binary
compatibility creates an excuse for vendors to not ship source. They can
say "if you don't have the <insert OS here>, you can run it under the
emulator." But I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Vendors
were already not shipping source (and customers without the appropriate OS
were SOL), and that wasn't likely to change any time soon, which created
the impetus to implement the emulator, not the other way around.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:55:35 GMT
Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> > The previous attribution in this thread.
>
> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
> > I was just being consistent.
>
> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
> >>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
> >>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
> >>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>
> >> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>
> > Incorrect.
>
> Tyopical pontification.
What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
> >> No surprise there.
>
> > No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>
> What alleged answer, Marty?
See above.
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>
> >>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>
> >>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
> >>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>
> >>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>
> >>>> Why?
>
> >>> Because that is what I would like.
>
> >> Why?
>
> > Because I would like that.
>
> Why?
Because I would find that to my pleasing.
> >>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>
> >>>> Perhaps.
>
> >>> Aren't you sure?
>
> >> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>
> > Not surprising.
>
> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
What alleged "inconsistency"? I see you failed to note my consistent use of
the attribution in this thread.
> >> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>
> > Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
> > this thread.
>
> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy' Tholen" and
your responses to such postings.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:17:04 GMT
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:42:23 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:57:59 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>binary emulation is often better than just source compatibility.
>>
>> No it isn't. Being stuck in 1981 is seldom "better".
>
>Stuck in 1981? There was no Linux then, so how can Linux binary
>compatibility have anything to do with that time?
That's when the current 800lb pound legacy gorilla of the
market came into being. We're still suffering from the
mistakes of poor engineering and bad assumptions that came
out of that time.
[deletia]
If the current "market leader" were a bit less hardware
specific, this discussion would be rather moot and the
idea of supporing 8 or 10 binary platforms wouldn't seem
that remarkable.
Binary emulation is primarily the side effect of bad
engineering and a good trademark winning out over
sensibility.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: D G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:41:05 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 2000 19:19:15 +0800, Lee Sau Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >So, why would any corporate buy MS Windows -- a non-clonable product?
>
> Because for years MS software (the OS's in particular) have been the
> best thing available. IMO, they still are, though there is some
> argument that it's changing. Linux isn't ready for the masses. It
> doesn't have nearly the variety/quality of software, it isn't nearly
> as easy to use.
I'll give you the variety part, but not the quality part. The majority
of *nix software is of far higher quality, IMO. (Unless you equate eye
candy with quality.)
For the masses, though, windows is still hard to beat.
>
> Regardless, when MS took over the market, they weren't competing with
> linux.
--
DG
e-mail is: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the Z's--they're what I do when I read SPAM!)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:52:14 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
I don't think the point is that the person was one letter off, more to
the point is that they ended up spelling a totally different word in the
process. Now maybe the person just was typing too fast and typed
something they didnt mean to ( I do the same thing, sometimes I catch
the mistake and sometimes I dont) however it is very possible, after
knowing the history of people talking in here as well as other groups,
that the person just didn't know how to spell a simple word and ended up
spelling a totally different one in the process.
I wonder how this would affect their image on the job?
Nathan Crause wrote:
>
> So, being one letter off on a single word dictates whether you're stupid or
> not? You're obiously a pompous ass.
>
> "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > The problem is that if you use popular development tools such as VB,
> > > or any third-party OCX controls, those depend on relatively recent
> > > versions of system libraries (DLLs). There is no way to make them
> > > work without installing them, and there is usually no decent
> > > versioning on these libraries and no way to make multiple versions
> > > coexist.
> >
> >
> > Off topic, but this is the first guy I've found so far, working my way
> > up the list of posts from the bottom, who was able to spell 'decent'
> > correctly. I thought we had smart people in here? You know, Linux
> > people and dare I say it, MS people, are in here-- IQs should be higher
> > I'd think considering the environment.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:59:41 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :> The problem is that if you use popular development tools such as VB,
> :> or any third-party OCX controls, those depend on relatively recent
> :> versions of system libraries (DLLs). There is no way to make them
> :> work without installing them, and there is usually no decent
> :> versioning on these libraries and no way to make multiple versions
> :> coexist.
>
> : Off topic, but this is the first guy I've found so far, working my way
> : up the list of posts from the bottom, who was able to spell 'decent'
> : correctly. I thought we had smart people in here? You know, Linux
> : people and dare I say it, MS people, are in here-- IQs should be higher
> : I'd think considering the environment.
>
> I think two factors explain this: (a) for many regular contributors
> here, English is not their native language; and (b) technical skills,
> which most of the regular contributors here *do* have, correlate very
> poorly with verbal skills.
>
The following points are something I have noticed too. You bring up a
good argument Joe.
I have found many times in here that people just can't spell. I always
yearn for the time when I can ask a person how they spell a word that
they ended up spelling when trying to spell the word they meant to
originally. I would just want to see what they would say. I think in
most cases it would be funny. For example in this case instead of
spelling decent we get descent. I can understand if your hands type
something different than what your brain thinks b/c I do it myself
sometimes b/c I type too fast a lot of time. However many people it
seems (probably the fault of our school systems for passing someone who
shouldn't proceed to the next level) just can't spell correctly and I
wonder how they actually do on the job.
> The latter fact fascinates me, because it explains why one will
> sometimes find:
>
> * otherwise competent reporters who can't differentiate between an
> OS kernel and a kernel of popcorn, even after you've explained it six
> or seven times;
>
> * otherwise competent doctors who mumble and whose handwriting even
> a pharmacist can't read;
>
> * otherwise competent lawyers whose writing is so poor that 18 year
> old secretaries must clean up their pleadings before they can be
> submitted to any court;
>
> * technical documentation that either isn't technical, or isn't
> readable
>
> Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:14:11 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 14 Sep 2000 18:42:50 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>
>Nice try, Tholen. Sorry, I'm not going to get drawn into one
>of your silly little "did, didn't, did too " style dewbates.
>
>I hereby warmly welcome you to my killfile.
><plonk>
>--
>Donovan
Is Tholen and the anti_Tholen still around? damn, gotta love that slrn
scorefile...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:05:04 +1030
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 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".
Similar, but not the same -- KDE is not asking for third parties to
grant permission by relicensing their code; they are moving to GPL
themselves. This will make them currently legal, but does not alter
their past transgressions. If the licenses were all retroactively
altered (and again, I don't actually know for sure this is allowed) it
would be a different situation (by changing the original conditions). I
don't think RMS made too many friends with his statement on KDE, anyway.
> Yes, guarnatee certain rights while removing others. I disagree that this
> was the "only way" to guarantee that your own IP remains free.
What alternatives do you propose?
> > Total freedom includes, paradoxically, the ability to unilaterally take
> > away the freedom of future users.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding
source)?
(honest question; haven't read the BSD license entirely yet)
> 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.
You've made alterations and additional enhancements to that person's
code, without providing those changes to others. Part of the Free
Software movement is that everyone benefits from access to the source.
If you come up with an enhancement based on someone else's code, your
obligation is to give them the same courtesy with yours.
The GPL sets up a system of mutual obligation.
> > "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?
The primary motivation with GPL was to ensure that if you make changes
to the code, those changes go back into the source pool so others can
benefit. (The viral nature of GPL is secondary, I think, in keeping with
RMS's philosophy.)
If you want the benefit of freedom of use (without changes), minus the
obligation of sharing your code, use LGPL software. This is a more
pragmatic license, and allows linking.
> > 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.
In what ways?
> 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.
That's right, it was effectively an admission that the GPL can't coexist
with the existing market. (The GPL effectively creates an independent
market.)
Perhaps at this point I should make something clear -- while I agree
with many aspects of the Free Software movement, I accept that its
ideals are not currently achievable, unless you are willing to turn your
back on the rest of the industry completely.
I don't disagree with some of your points. You're right, the GPL does
*not* provide absolute freedom. By trying to promote an ideal, it has
also twisted the meaning of the word somewhat.
And I'm certainly not trying to convert you or anything! It's just a
very interesting discussion.
> I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
> elses rights.
By opening up the code to all and sundry, the author has allowed anyone
else to become additional developers of his software. He also wants to
ensure free access to that source, now and in the future.
If one of those developers comes up with a wonderful new enhancement,
and does not share it with others, then he is not honouring the original
author's wishes -- a part of the source tree is not freely available any
more.
With regards to linking without alteration to source, that *is* why the
LGPL was created.
> 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 can still say it; you'll just have to say it in your own words, and
without reading his script!
> > 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.
Here are the choices with the current model:
(1) You can provide software, but withhold the source. No-one can
further benefit from the work you have done; development stops at you.
(2) You can provide software and source without restriction (public
domain). Everyone can do as they wish, meaning at any point down the
tree, anyone can choose to close it off and withhold further access
(becoming a new point (1) themselves).
(3) You can provide software and source, but require all future
development do the same. Everyone can do as they wish *except* close it
off at a future point. The software will always conform to (3) at any
point in the tree.
Take your pick. Only one of the above guarantees what rights you'll have
at any point in the future.
(Thanks for a very interesting thread!)
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:34:19 -0400
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Because I don't know you and I have seen too many script kiddies who
> > > might use the code to do damage. If you can satisfy me that you are
only
> >
> > I'm a 39 year old professional who's been running NT and UNIX on systems
> > since about 1981 (for UNIX, '92 for NT) I've participated in every beta
for
> > NT since 3.1 at Microsoft's request. I don't think I qualify as a
"script
> > kiddy" what are your credentials?
> >
> > > going to crash your own system, I will give you the name of the book
> > > where the code has been published. It caused a big flap six or seven
> > > years ago when it was first published. Nice to see nothing has been
> > > fixed in all that time.
> >
> > Put up or shut up.
> I just posted a responce to another message about using CPL. See it. If
> your bonifieds are valid, you should understand it. If not, oh well.
I understand what you think you understand, I also understand that you've
been offered the opportunity to put "theory" to the test in response to your
complaint that nobody running NT would let you try your program. My offer
still stands, you are still backing away from accepting.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 20:36:07 -0400
<peter@p> wrote in message news:8ppgd3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ttUv5.10769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nik says...
>
> >> and such, so the chances of doing it by mistake are *much* smaller.
Give
> >> me command lines and config files over point-and-click any day :-)
Watch your attributions, somebody said this in response to something I said.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 00:20:58 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8p3sbb$bd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> [much snipped]
:>
:> Look, People, it doesn't matter whether Erik is right about how
:> Windows uses memory or not. The point was that he was wrong about
:> how Linux reports memory usage with the "free" command, and from
:> this he tried backing up some claims about how much memory the GUI
:> takes up. I really don't care if Windows does it the same way or
:> not. What matters here is that Windows and Linux don't *report*
:> it the same way, and Erik was acting like they do.
: No, I said that similarly configured systems use similar amounts of memory.
: I didn't say what that memory was used for (caches or otherwise).
: Please quote me alledgedly misinterpreting how Linux uses memory. I think
: you'll find that if you go back and re-read the whole thread, I said no such
: thing.
(I've been away from this newsgroup for a few weeks, so I've just seen
this now. The original post has expired from my news server, and a
Deja News search would be a bit of a pain. But here is my re-creation
of what I saw. If you contest that you did something like this after
I offer this explanation, THEN I'll go through the bother of a DejaNews
search to back it up.)
Here's an example output from "free" on my machine:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 257644 167708 89936 113836 31672 46020
-/+ buffers/cache: 90016 167628
Swap: 128484 0 128484
In the above example, you acted like there was 167708 Kb of memory that
was being hogged up, with only 88936 Kb left that could be used. You
deliberately ignored the fact that the more useful numbers are given
by the second line - 90016 Kb is *really* tied up, and 167628 Kb is
still available (some is being *TEMPORARILY* used as extra I/O buffers
and cache by the OS, but that's not really necessary and will be dropped
the instant some program needs the space) I don't really care if NT does
the same thing behind the scenes or not. If you compare free memory on
NT and Linux, and you don't subtract the buffers and cache first on
the Linux numbers, you are comparing apples and oranges.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 15 Sep 2000 00:38:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
But, as I recall, the Solaris port was really awful. It hogged way
too much memory for a browser due to the fact that it was fused to
the win32 api. Large parts of win32 had to be ported to make IE
work, and so when the Solaris IE is running, it has a huge win32
subset in memory too, which repeats much of what libc, libnet, and
so on are already doing in UNIX.
The only problem I have with Netscape is that it crashes on
a lot of Java pages, which is really annoying when you know that
Linux can do Java just fine, as evidenced by the Blackdown
port of the jdk. It's just that *Netscape* can't figure out
how to make a working Java engine on Linux.
For user interface, Netscape beats IE hands down for me in most
areas except for one: long lists in pulldown-menus make cascading
menus instead of scrollable lists when the list is really big.
That's really a minor flaw, but it's annoying.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
