Linux-Advocacy Digest #161, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Roberto Alsina)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Loren Petrich)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Hardware supported list? (nf)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:11:03 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 5) The native OS for the S/390 still handles the bulk of the
> > work in keeping such real "big iron" running and running well.
> > Linux just serves as an efficient compatibility layer. It
> > doesn't in any way interfere with any inherent niftiness that
> > might motivate someone to by an S/390.
> >
> > It's a complete win-win situation.
> >
>
> Definitely. You can run OS/390 in one LPAR and Linux in another. Or you can
> run them both as guests under VM. And with the recent introduction of the Virtual
> Image Facility ( http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/usalets&parms=H_200-261 ) you can run
> thousands of copies of Linux on an LPAR without the expense or administration cost
> of full VM/ESA. Linux provides the front end with OS/390 handling, for example,
> data base functions.
It is wise to hand off the 'heavy lifting' to a real OS.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:38:16 +0200
"James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8q2ts5$jbq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article
>
> <snip>
>
> > Since there evidently is nothing new worth mentioning in W2K there is no
> > reason for me not to "knock it" the same way I "knock" Win98.
> >
>
> Win98 and Win2k aren't even for the same markets. Win2k is NT5. It has
> very little in common with Win98 except the UI.
Your forgot the API and maybe the common Windows Driver Model.
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:44:57 +0200
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
> I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
> the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
> some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
Some quick pointers of the top of my head:
Win2K is full 32 bit OS, whereas Win98 is still a 16/32 bit hybrid. Win2K
has a security model, is multiuser, has full memory protection, a faster
multitasking scheme, is scalable to enterprise level, has SMP, no GDI
resources limitations, better memory management, etc, etc...
They are not the same beast at all, even if they share the same UI and API.
Hope this helps.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:31:19 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>Doesn't KDE do this (at least partially) - I know it does reopen any
> applications
> that were open at last logout but I am not sure if files in those
> applications are
> also reopened.
It doesn't matter. KDE does not, and CANNOT reopen an "unsaved"
game of Quake. Orthogonal Persistence means that applications
don't need to provide a "save" function.
Moreover, in an OPOS, it should be possible to snapshot the system
regularly and reboot to an arbitrary snapshot. So you could shut down
your computer today and reboot into your computer as it was a week
ago, then work in it for a while and switch back to how it was this
morning. And since it shouldn't be /too/ much trouble to emulate an
entire machine, you should be able to "virtually reboot" your machine
(and see both snapshots in different desktops) so that you can retrieve
processes that existed a week ago into your current snapshot.
Ha! Now tell me that KDE does *that* even partially.
> Again when was the last time that windows reopened all applications that
> were in use
> last time it was shut down (or more likely shut itself down with that nice
> blue screen)?
Do I give a damn? Why are you spending all your time comparing
Linux to Windows? If your only achievement is that you're better
than Windows ... I can't even find a sufficiently negative adjective
to describe your software in that case.
> Reopening all applications on a reboot (or logout and re-login) is not
> always the ideal response - what
Yes it is. With the caveat that in an orthogonally persistent OS, you
are never "reopening" anything, you're only swapping back in the
processes that were flushed to disk for the shutdown.
> if you opened 20 or 30 applications and are logging out to quickly close
> those applications, you would
That's what killall, or a suitable derivative, is for. If you're logging out
to close all applications then you're using the wrong tool for the job,
as proven by the fact that logging out will have the unwanted side effect
of ... logging out!
> hardly want to wait while they are all reopened again on relogin, on the
> other hand if you are busy using
> a few applications and need to leave the building for a while and logout for
> security you do want them
> reopened on relogin so it needs to be configurable at logout time which apps
> will restore themselves
> at login time.
> There is one good reason why the programmers write linux to work the way
> they want - it is because
> they are the ones who are going to be using it, at least to start with so
> why would they write something
> that doesn't fit the way they want to use their machines?
Because they're restricted by the overall Unix paradigm?
Because they don't know of any better way?
Because they don't know their own needs?
Because they're being lazy?
Because they lack self-confidence?
Because they lack imagination?
How many reasons did you want?
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:34:41 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:01:03 GMT, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Zenins post hasn't made it here yet... so I'll follow up on
this one.
> >: BSD - do what you like... including taking away other people freedom to
> >: view and modify the code.
> > That's just it; The BSD license does not take away any such freedoms
> > whatsoever. If you think it does, prove it by making it impossible
Yes it does. You can get a copy of a BSD licensed bit
of code, change it, not let anyone see the changes.
> It also doesn't seek to secure them for subsequent users either.
Correct. THat is what I am talking about.
> > for me to get a copy of 4.4BSD Lite in source form easily and modify
> > it. If you can't, you have no argument here.
After I modify it are you guranteed to be able to see the changes?
No. It is less "free" (wrt the GPLs idea of "free").
> > This is the bread and butter of your argument against the BSD
> > license; surely if it holds water at all you should be able to
> > fulfill this request trivially.
> I severely doubt he's arguing against the BSDl at all.
No I am not... I am just pointing out that it doesn't have the
same guarantees as the GPL wrt view/modify the code of
derivative works. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I was
talking about derivative works.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:48:55 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:14:44 GMT...
> ...and Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I don't know how you
> > can say that programmers don't hate users with a straight face
> > when on this very same thread there are posters complaining
> > about Real Lazy users, which apparently includes everyone who
> Do you honestly believe that these posters are programmers?
I honestly don't know.
> > and if there was more than one option then it would display them all,
> > just like filename completion
>
> This shell exists, its name is zsh. Maybe you should have a look at
> it. Nice, but I'm too comfortable with bash to switch to zsh
> altogether.
Everything old is new again. Well, there goes that idea. :-)
> > At one point they emphatically state that 3Dsia is not just a filesystem
> > viewer, that it adds a lot of functionality that the filesystem does not
> > have. This is correct, but all it proves is that the standard Unix file-
> > system is broken and that it lacks the functionality that it should have.
>
> Unix's approach is providing small, functional and stable units of
> functionality which pile up, one on top of the other, to provide as
> much or as few functionality as the end user needs. You want all of it
> in one monolith. I think that is more than a bit unwise.
I *don't* want it all in one monolith. I /do/ however expect everything
that is logically related to be in one place. And keep in mind that I'm
talking about the components of an OS (because that's what I'm working
on) not the utilities built on top of those components. A simple example
of what 3Dsia provides (I think) that the filesystem should provide is
bidirectional links. Another example of what 3Dsia provides that Plan 9
*does* provide is a filesystem interface to the networking stack. It just
goes on and on but it also gets a lot more theoretical. Mostly, Unix is a
collection of kludges, piled one on top of another.
> If you're working inside a GNOME or KDE session where all of your
> programs understand and support session management, your vision is
> already reality.
Keep dreaming. I think you have a very limited understanding of just
how far-reaching my vision is. Besides, the requirement that programs
"support" session management is arbitrary, onerous and intolerable. If
you're a programmer, you shouldn't even need to provide a "save" function.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:52:02 -0300
El sáb, 16 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribió:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
>> I prefer to have no assumptions at all. And while you might want to
>>> pretend that it is a matter of Troll Tech being innocent until actually
>>> doing something, the reason the issue comes up is because Troll Tech
>>> didn't seem to feel that way about Harmony.
>>
>>I'm sure you can show me the actions TT took against Harmony.
>
>Did I say they took actions? Did you say they took actions? Is there
>some reason you're trying to obfuscate?
You said TT doesn't hold Harmony innocent until doing something.
Since they held them not innocent, they must have done something,
right?
>You're the one who posted the email showing Troll Tech threatening
>Harmony with a lawsuite, dude. I'd suggest you stop screwing around,
>unless your intent is to mess up any chance there might be that
>consumer's won't avoid KDE like the plague, for fear of getting stuck
>like we have with Microsoft.
C.o.l.a has zero influence beyond the perhaps 75 guys who read it.
>GO AHEAD; pretend you can't understand what I'm saying; EXAGERATE the
>issue and try to make my position seem ridiculous; PRETEND to refute the
>facts by building a strong man; MAKE SURE we know how utterly clueless
>you are.
"building a strong man"? I am not familiar with that figure of speech.
>Just in case you haven't realized it by now, Roberto: BULLSHIT DOESN'T
>WORK when your opponent is only concerned with straightforward
>discussion, honesty, and integrity, regardless of the positions or
>rhetoric presented.
Funny coming from you.
> [...]
>>> I'll bet you still don't even know what infringement is, or how (or if!)
>>> it differs from anti-trust.
>>
>>Since we gonna drag unrelated things in, I bet you still believe
>>everything you can't see without mechanical help is abstract.
>
>Well, I can't see hardly anything without mechanical help. I've got
>20/400 vision, last time I checked.
Then the world is abstract to you? Are you a sollipsist?
>So you're saying *both* infringement and anti-trust issues are
>'unrelated things'? I've got no problem with your being pig-headed,
>Roberto. In fact, its quite useful, in some respects, if only to
>provide instructional opportunities to the reader. But thick-headedness
>puts neither you nor KDE in a good light.
Indeed infringement of copyright is unrelated to antitrust.
>I'm not trying to bully you, Roberto. You'll recall that I wasn't the
>one in earlier exchanges to point out how your elitist attitude
>reflected badly on your attitude towards community supporters, though I
>did concur with that sentiment. I just want to make things clear;
>you're being an ass, and should shut up now.
Whatever, Maxie.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:55:51 -0300
El sáb, 16 sep 2000, T. Max Devlin escribió:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>>> > Ok, so let's just accept that I will not emit an opinion about it.
>>> > It's my right.
>>>
>>> Accepted.
>>>
>>> Let us also accept that you would have been better served by not commenting
>>> on the example in the first place.
>>
>>Whatever. I suppose you would have held that against me, too.
>
>Small hint: when it seems like no matter what you do, you will be
>accused of being an ass, it might well be because you're being an ass.
Then you must be an ass of olympic caliber.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:04:11 -0300
El sáb, 16 sep 2000, Rev. Don Kool escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool explained:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
>> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
>> >> That proves Linux has not passed.
>
>> > Indeed it does. It also proves that LINUX is not a UNIX system.
>
>> No. It would do so if it had been submitted and failed.
>> For example, you probably have never had a DNA exam to prove you
>> are your father's son. By your logic, you are not your father's son.
>
> Without the facts you make the rather large assumption that LINUX
>would pass. I prefer to withold judgement until someone has enough
>faith in the system to submit it for testing.
Wrong, and you get a F in logic. I have not said Linux would pass.
You said Linux would not pass. You are the one making judgement
without facts, I am the one witholding judgement.
>> >> You said Linux can not pass.
>
>> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
>
>> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a fact,
>> again, you should provide *some* proof.
>
> Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
>Bob.
That F in logic I gave you is starting to look like a gift!
As I said: "you should provide *some* proof". Notice that when I say "you"
It means Rev. Don Kool, not Roberto Alsina. I am not saying it would pass,
(or not) so I need not prove anything.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 17 Sep 2000 21:11:54 GMT
In article <8q35sb$1kne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
>> I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
>> the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
>> some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
>Win2K is full 32 bit OS, whereas Win98 is still a 16/32 bit hybrid. Win2K
>has a security model, is multiuser, has full memory protection, a faster
>multitasking scheme, is scalable to enterprise level, has SMP, no GDI
>resources limitations, better memory management, etc, etc...
Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
features, the works.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:31:24 -0500
"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
> > support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
> > bitch because it's gone.
>
> I wasn't one of those people. But, yes I am bitching now because my
machine
> configuration >BROKE<. Why? Because MS decided to remove support for it,
> while telling me it is still fully compatible with Win95 and Win98 which
DOES
> support legacy systems. According to MS, WinME is just a large upgrade to
> Win98....nowhere in any of their documentation included (And I got a full
> version....no upgrade here) does it say that some legacy peripherals may
not
> work.
You seem to be confused on what "fully compatible with Win95 and Win98"
means. It doesn't mean fully compatible with DOS. It means fully
compatible with Win95 and Win98 applications.
------------------------------
From: nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hardware supported list?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:32:44 -0400
Is there a list somewhere of what hardware is supported by Linux?
I'm looking to see if my USB Scanner and USB Printer are supported.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:38:50 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Replacing default NC_PAINT behavior is performs the same
> >> >function as replacing the window manager in X.
> >>
> >> Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager with
> >> X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
> >
> >Never seen Window Blinds, have you?
> >
> >www.windowblinds.com
>
> Never seen anyone using it.
Doesn't change the fact you said you couldn't do this. Further, the 1.3
version has had over 2 million downloads from www.download.com alone.
> >> And you should note that such things are available on Unix, and are not
> >> on Windows. You should also note that your newsreader sucks, as it
> >> can't handle line-wrap even as well as real newsreaders.
> >
> >Really, I seem to be able to run X clients just fine under Windows.
>
> Not without an X server add-on, you can't.
You said only that "such things are available on Unix, and are not on
Windows". Available does not mean "ships with the OS".
Stop backpeddling.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
