Linux-Advocacy Digest #519, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Peter da Silva)
Re: How low can they go...? (JS/PL)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: food for thought...flame suit on (Dr. Alex M. Clark)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 8 Oct 2000 13:32:11 GMT
In article <8rpciu$isp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds to me like WINE's developers don't know their arses from their
> elbows. Win32 is perfectly usable -- you just have to take the time and
> energy to understand it.
The problem is not in understanding Win32, it is in emulating it.
Emulating something, when you don't have internals information, or even a
real spec, is a LOT different from using it.
Back in the '80s emulating the vt100 terminal was a big deal. DEC had three
main operating systems that talked to the vt100, each with heir own collection
of applications and libraries. They all used odd sort-of-documented side
effects of the VT100 escape sequences.
I wrote one of these. After a year I was still finding special cases I hadn't
noticed in the spec, or undocumented side effects that I hadn't run into, and
I'd been writing code that used the VT100 interfaces for 5 years when I
started.
There was a file floating around called the "vt100 torture test". I don't know
of anyone, including terminal vendors, that produced exactly the same results
as a real vt100 when displaying this file. Many of the software emulators, even
big-name ones, crashed.
And yet everything in the file was almost certainly used by some program
somewhere.
And this was just for a terminal emulator.
Emulating stuff is hard. Even stuff orders of magnitude simpler than Windows.
And just about everything is simpler than Windows.
> It's like the Mac -- perfectly usable APIs, but if you come from a different
> part of the computing world, it'll stump you at EVERY turn, because you're
> not used to the way they thought when they put it together.
I've done Mac programming, and UNIX, and Amiga, and Apple-II, and RSX-11, and
CP/M, and MS-DOS, VMS, and RTE-IV, and half a dozen Honeywell boxes that
probably three people in the world still know how they work... I've forgotten
long since. Plus lots of hacking on raw hardware using front panels, paper
tape readers, and the software equivalents thereof. About the only major
system I haven't written code for would be IBM mainframes and minis.
Win32 is an order of magnitude more complex than anything I've seen anywhere
else. It's not just a programming environment, it's an ecosystem. One of those
Mad Max dysfunctional ecosystems with animated vines that trap the protagonist
in scene 3, just before the crusty old guy with the limp shows up to rescue
him or her. I'm still amazed that the Wine folks have managed to get Solitaire
running, let alone Office.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:57:37 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> You've again missed the point. I don't care.
> >
> >Your typical response to being proven a liar.
>
> My typical response to you, when you pretend to have 'proven me a liar'.
Is that what you call it when your asked to cite an official reference
to laws and facts you seem to make up off the top of your head.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:12:36 GMT
"Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <QZ_C5.25759$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >Yes, I've used it. And I agree... it's legacy.
>
> How could you know that by using it? Very little in a modern UNIX is
> even 20 years old. Just because it started near the epoch doesn't
> mean it stayed there.
>
> Most of the important parts are actually new, leading edge, and very
> well tested. The legacy part is mostly API and such. It's
> portability, scalability, and philosophy have given it much strength.
It's archaic, doesn't seem to be advancing on any front, but content
to stay in it's own bath water and attempt to discredit anyone who
has a new idea.
Support for any new design concept newer than 20 years old is half-assed
supported on most Unix platforms (especially Linux) at best.
>
> Microsoft could learn a lot from UNIX.
On the contrary, the reverse is true.
> Likewise, Microsoft's attempts to crush the competition are equally
> foolish.
I don't see any signs of them "crushing" the competition. I see them
investing in Apple, investing in Corel.
MS knows that they're the best and that their competitors are falling
on their faces due to really poor management, leadership and
lack of visiion (Netscape, Novell, Corel, Apple, etc). The only way
MS can keep competition in the market is to give money to it's
competitors. It's pretty sad, really. MS doesn't squash anyone, it
just lets its competitors blow themselves up.
> >You mean each version of Win2K was a complete rewrite?
>
> No, but Microsoft does have a bad habit of moving on without letting
> their code bases stabilize.
This is a conjecture, you have no idea what you're talking about. Any
chance to dig Microsoft, true or not...
>
> >> UNIX can scale from a Workstation (such as an SGI or
> >> Sun Ultra Sparc 5) up to a mainframe class system.
> >
> >So can Windows. Note the the TPC-C results.
>
> Which mainframes does Windows run on?
Unisys, NEC, and now Compaq 16 and 32-way boxes. I wouldn't be surprised
if IBM jumped in this market. It would be more accurate to say that
companies are doing away with their old "mainframe" systems and replacing
them with mainframe-class systems running Win2K DC.
> TPC-C is one of the most misused benchmarks in the computing world.
> They are also very often completely contrived (i.e. some of the early
> TPC-C results done by Oracle and DEC).
Uh-huh. So when Unix is at top, they're accurate, but when Windows
takes the lead, suddenly they're irrelevant.
Seems like every trusted metric in this industry suddenly becomes
untrusted when Windows dominates it. It's the typical Head -> Sand
ideology that most Unix advocates and Microsoft haters take. They
just can't comprehend Microsoft kicking Unix's butt in almost
every area.
> >No, it really is because of it's technical superiority. It has almost all
> >the benefits of Unix, plus it has applications. NT wasn't too great in the
> >largest of enterprises which is where it couldn't compete with Unix.
>
> Observe this statement...
>
> >Windows 2000, however, can and does, and kicks the pants off of big iron
> >Unix boxes. Cite: TPC-C
>
> ...and this one. How can this be true when Win2000 is basically a
> modified version of NT?
You just said it... Win2K is a newer version of NT. Improvements were
made. Do you not understand this concept? Have Unix implementations been
around so long, and Unix developers so arrogant that they see no room
for improvement anymore? Is that why unix development is so stagnant?
Many of the issues with NT have been fixed and now far excel similar
applications of their competitors OS'.
> Maybe you are right, and Microsoft can finally get Hotmail running
> under NT... :)
By the time they finally got Hotmail working on Unix (which was a chore
and a half by itself, they had to write some of their own OS patches
to get Solaris to scale half as well as Win2K is doing right now under
the same load) Win2K was months from release. Why spend 3-6 months in
a deployment planning and implementation cycle when a much better OS
is coming out in a few months.
Get your facts straight. Hint: try not to read Slashdot as much, or at
least don't believe everything (or anything) you read there.
> >See, this is what I'm talking about. You've obviously never used Windows NT
> >or 2000 because you would know that it is rock-solid stable as well, and
>
> "Rock-solid" and NT/2000 is an oxymoron. It's improved, I'll give it
> that, but it's hardly rock-solid.
Thank you for proving my point. You obviously have never used it
or know what you're talking about. Windows 2000 is rock solid.
Either know what you're talking about and post, or don't post. Please
refrain from reading FUD from Slashdot and then posting here like you
know what you're talking about, because you only serve to embarrass yourself
> The most solid machines are headless servers, trimmed down to the
> essentials. You can't even do that with NT/2000.
See above. Please know what you're talking about before making ignorant
statements like these.
> >KILL a process and it goes away immediately, just as in Unix. You're
confusing
> >Windows 9x (crap) with Windows NT/2000 (Good(tm)) which means you really
don't
> >know what you're talking about.
>
> No, "active zombies" seem to be a serious NT problem that has
> definitely not gone away in 2000.
Have any proof of this? Of course not, because you only read Slashdot which
is filled with lies like these. NT 4 had some problem with this in
certain situations, but was not the norm. Win2K has no problems like these.
> Some large shops actually schedule nightly reboots for this (and other)
> reasons.
Ah yes, the typical mantra. Are you copying/pasting directly from slashdot?
This is a load of crap and you know it.
If, in fact, this is true (which it probably isn't) it's due 100% to the
fact that the operators are completely incompetent.
I could set up a linux box (and have) which is equally unstable. In fact,
in most cases, it's easier to get a linux box this unstable than is an
NT box.
> Compaq sells software to facilitate this (also a feature in their
> UPS control software). From talking to a lot NT admins, this is not
> at all uncommon. The problem has NOT gone away.
Ok, two more idiotic statements from an uneducated shrill...
a.) Compaq's software is designed to update to the latest support software,
drivers, firmware etc. Most of the time when updating drivers, especially
in NT, you must reboot. This is not for the imaginary problem you described
above.
b.) Their UPS software has a reboot feature because you will have
to reboot to test the UPS. Last I checked, Unix can't run without power
either.
This is moronic attempting to explain the obvious to someone who has their
head so deep in the sand, there's no hope of salvation.
Perhaps someday you will attempt to remove your head and educate yourself
on the revolution happening, but until then, it's worthless trying to
explain the obvious to you...
*PLONK*
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr. Alex M. Clark)
Subject: Re: food for thought...flame suit on
Date: 6 Oct 2000 19:51:00 GMT
You have a point, but you're severely overstating the case. I can't say
there isn't an enormous amount of utter rubbish out there, "version 0.10"
of something some bored teenager wrote one night because nobody invited him
to the party everyone else went to, and then subsequently forgot about, but
not before uploading it to some site with some hyped claim that just wastes
everyone's time...
But so what? You didn't pay for it, and you were probably bored yourself if
you downloaded, compiled and tested it...
As a general rule, setting up free software takes more time and expertise
than commercial software. That's the price you pay - time and effort
instead of money.
In my experience, I've found that free software without any sort of user
interface, or at least without any fancy graphics, tends to be excellent
quality - e.g., the linux kernel, sendmail, apache, gcc, cron, less, grep,
perl... the list is very long. There must be something about the
instrinsic unappeal of such programs, and only hardcore people tend to be
interested in writing them, and they do a damn fine job.
Unfortunately the same can't be said for most X programs. Building a good
user interface is true craftsmanship, and of course the program has to
actually work as well. It takes a great deal of experience and dedication
to do it well - this is where your post rings true; it isn't done properly
all that often. And these crappy little programs seldom generate any
interest, so nobody else takes up on the task of improving them.
But once again, who cares? If there's one really good version of each good
program category, and they're all free, all you have to do is figure out
which is which. Take the time, and quit your whining, bitch... :-/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:15:47 GMT
"Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rpt0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8rpciu$isp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds to me like WINE's developers don't know their arses from their
> > elbows. Win32 is perfectly usable -- you just have to take the time and
> > energy to understand it.
<SNIP: diatribe about how poorly implemented VT100 is/was>
> And this was just for a terminal emulator.
So you're attempting to compare a poorly architected, archaic terminal
emulation system to a modern, 32-bit OS API?
Pretty weak.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:24:26 +0200
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> lol! Very funny... :)
Well, the joke is old and Bob changed the punchline.
> Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> > It doesn't hurt to keep track of plus and minus signs either. As a
> > freshman in Civil Engineering class surveying the campus as a lab project,
> > I located the campus chapel somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
> > because I subtracted when I should have added. Of course many of my
> > classmates wished I were correct since chapel attendance was mandatory
> > back in the 50's and really cut into the drinking time.
A young officer hands his position calculations to the captain. He looks
at the maps and says "Take of your hat." "Why?" "According to you, we
are in the middle of Westminster Abbey."
Bob extended and embraced, more proof he's a paid agent provocateur of
MS.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:24:28 +0200
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> > Contraband laws are either idiotic, or for the purpose of amassing
> > power.
>
> > They are pointless, as merely POSSESSING any thing causes no
> > harm to anybody....but usually, the list of things which are
> > banned are those which, if removed, allow certain parties
> > (politicians) to amass power, or (drug companies) to amass wealth
> > at the expense of others.
What's bad about amassing wealth at the expense of others? Are you a
communist?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:24:28 +0200
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Low-IQ correlates with low incomes and unemployment.
So your unemployment is the reason you post so much?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:25:34 +0200
joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Träger wrote:
>
> > In the last years Apple has made the logo much bigger than before. Now
> > Macs are still used and quite recognizable in movies, but the logo is
> > often taped over. If Apple would pay "Big Bucks" to get Macs in the
> > picture, wouldn't they ask that the logo were recognizable?
>
> Moives need props. Macs have been awarded for their design. It makes sense
> they'd appear in movies sans the icon - the icon being covered indicates the
> producers did not want to provide free advertising but they did want the mac
> as a prop.
Tell that to the people saying Apple pays "Big Bucks" to get Macs in
movies, and that no moviemaker would put Macs in if they didn't get
paid.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:24:29 +0200
Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:43:36 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >What do you pay in taxes? Take 8% of that. Ask yourself if it's worth
> > >that amount to prevent millions of children from starving to death.
>
> > NO...it is NOT.
> > If the child's own parents have no interest in feeding their own
> > offspring...why should I?
> > You see...YOUR method means STEALING MY RESOURCES so that they will
> > be used for the benefit of the progeny of some lowlife scum sucking
> > welfare whore and her equally contemptable alcoholic "boyfriends"
>
> Given this sort of hateful venom toward welfare recipients, I'm
> surprised that there have not been lots of firebombings of places where
> they live.
>
> Even if a lot of them *are* losers, I don't see how they are worth
> that kind of venom.
Aaron is probably impotent, and hates them because he can't have kids.
Which is a good thing.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 00:56:59 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"Works except find/find next."
> >
> >THe problem being that people submit sporadic reports like these and
don't
> >test the app in question thoroughly.
> >
> >Anyway... come on... Notepad is about the simplest application short of
> >Hello World that you can write. If this isn't working fine, there's no
hope.
>
> Pretty pathetic, isn't it. WINE can't even get a fucking NOTEPAD to
> work correctly. Sounds to me like Win32 is a complete piece of shit,
> and MS ought to be taken out and shot just for pretending its a useable
> API.
Max again concisely and succintly demonstrates why his credibility hovers
only slightly above zero.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 10:53:55 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Nope. I tried SysRq. Nothing happened.
>
> Only recourse was to reboot.
>
For some reason, many distributions come with the SysReq function
disabled. You have to recompile the kernel to turn it on. It really
would be nice if the default was on.
Gary
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 08:11:05 -0700
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:53:11 -0000, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The *documented* parts of Win32 are well covered...it's the
> *undocumented* parts which have caused WINE developers extreme
> pain. You'll note that from small (notepad) to large (MS Office),
> MS applications are of course the most common abusers of such
> undocumented "features"
Undocumented features in notepad? Like what? All it is is an edit
control in a window with a menu.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
