Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Jim Cameron)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Nick Condon)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:04:57 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:54:11 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I'll include comp.sys.ms-windows.nt.advocacy since it may be of interest to
>them.
>
>> >Well, if one solution is operating at peak power and the other one is at
>33%
>> >to do the same task, the reliabilty of the second one is likely to better
>> >than the first one, anti-Microsoft bias aside, of course.
>>
>> ...all real world experience aside as well.
>
>You have examples of Win2K failures while dealing with databases ?
Sure. However they're all covered by NDA's.
>
>> >You may wave hands all you like, but the NT toy seems quite competitive
>next
>> >to the 'real' OSes.
>>
>> ...except for that little catch about possibly needing to
>> change the structure of the data.
>
>That what makes NT a toy OS ?
Sure. Unix and AS/400's actually can support enough hardware
in a single machine to run in the tpc-c top 10 without the
need to indulge in loosely coupled clustering.
>
>> The fact remains that the only systems in the tpc-c top ten
>> that require clustering to get there are the Windows boxes.
>
>What prevents the real OSes vendors to cluster their mighty boxes ? In
Considering that the data is right there in black and white
on the "top of the pops" chart, there really isn't any need
to. Any professional with some semblance of objectivity can
clearly see the whole picture once they start drilling down.
>price/performance and top perfomance, they are currently thoroughly
>embarassed by this little toy OS. All your twisting, turning and squirming
>won't change that simple cold fact.
What's to be embarrassed about?
Compaq still doesn't have a machine that will do 160K TPM.
This is true no matter how much you lemmings squirm.
--
Ignorance must certainly be bliss or there wouldn't be so many people
so resolutely pursuing it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:06:02 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:31:14 GMT, Mike Byrns <@technologist,.com> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:42:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >Here is the part of the article I like best:
>> >********************************************************************************
>> >Meanwhile, Linux backer Compaq Computer is taking the open source
>>
>> ...not exactly what I think of when enterprise computing comes
>> to mind. Although, not being suited for the glass room hardly
>> keeps other OSes from decending upon the land like a plague of
>> locusts.
>
>The glass room is just like a glass house. Don't throw stones.
You are saying this to someone who prefers VMS when the
load gets really interesing. You are just another Lemming
fool that thinks that the whole world is just as stupid
as you are.
--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
-- Bill Vaughan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:10:36 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:47:32 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >It's not that MS didn't care, but Win9x was to designed to support as
>much
>> >as possible legacy with old DOS/Win16 software and drivers which needed
>>
>> ...which itself was another example of pisspoor engineering on
>> Microsoft's part. MS had 14 years to 'fix' DOS and no real
>> motivation to make Windows 16 bit ever.
>
>Well, there are things as installed user base to support, capabilities of
>the hardware current at the time to take into considerations. Of course you
The 386 dates back to 1985.
>can write the greatest OS ever starting with a clean slate, but in the real
>world, things are rarely that simple.
Why are you excusing "the world's greatest software vendor".
If they're so great, why didn't they do better. Why didn't they
do more than just what was barely necessary? Why couldn't they
be forward compatible as well as backward compatible planning
for the inevitable when Moore's law would catch up to what would
be their ambition if they had any.
>
>Do you beleive that Linux would be where it is today if it was not that
>compatible/similar with UNIX ?
That compatibility doesn't require treating the machine as if
it were a PDP/8. This is what sound engineering gets you.
It is obscene to require an applications programmer using a high
level language to be concerned about what legacy addressing mode
the microprocessor is using.
The whole point of operating systems is to abstract such things.
--
Burnt Sienna. That's the best thing that ever happened to Crayolas.
-- Ken Weaver
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:11:33 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Good move!
>Why the others don't do the same is a mystery to me?
In a free market, such 'mysteries' need not be tolerated.
>
>claire
>
>
>On 10 Oct 2000 13:23:15 -0200, Roberto Teixeira
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "claire" == claire lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> claire> Not to mention that the average newbie installing Linux
>> claire> tends to take the Install Everything selection so as not
>> claire> to miss anything, and this typically starts up all kinds
>> claire> of services that leaves her wide open to attack.
>>
>>It depends on the distro. For instance, our distro Conectiva Linux
>>installs but does not starts the servers. You may install inetd, but
>>you will have to configure it to start. This was made exactly so that
>>users don't start things they don't need.
>
--
I think that I shall never see
A billboard lovely as a tree.
Indeed, unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all.
-- Ogden Nash
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:14:34 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:21:03 GMT, Mike Byrns <@technologist,.com> wrote:
>They already have. People have complained that Windows 9x was not stable so Microsoft
>took a long hard look at it and said they were right. The game plan is to get Windows
>2000 to be just as easy to use as Windows 9x was but with all the security and
Except it is 5 years later and NT5 is something that mere consumers
are specifically discouraged from using.
[deletia]
DOS is dying a really slow death.
--
Killing turkeys causes winter.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:16:33 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:47:32 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >can write the greatest OS ever starting with a clean slate, but in the
real
> >world, things are rarely that simple.
>
> Why are you excusing "the world's greatest software vendor".
>
> If they're so great, why didn't they do better. Why didn't they
> do more than just what was barely necessary? Why couldn't they
> be forward compatible as well as backward compatible planning
> for the inevitable when Moore's law would catch up to what would
> be their ambition if they had any.
Why didn't anyone else? If they did why did they fail?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:19:23 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:16:21 GMT, Mike Byrns <@technologist,.com> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:19:28 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I am fine and dandy with my copy of SuSE Linux 7, however, I simply stating
>> >that
>> >> unless a large number of users discontented with windows is made noticable to
>> >> microsoft, things will never change.
>> >
>> >The point is, it did change, a long time ago. Win2K is the most current
>>
>> It is also specifically NOT targeted to mere consumers. It also
>> suffers from a large amount of poorly supported drivers or just
>> plain lack of driver support.
>
>Numerically, as included with most distros of Linux, Windows 2000 beats Linux 2:1.
That is no solace to a user bitten by a alpha/beta NT5 driver or
has no N5 driver for their hardware at all.
$300 is a lot to pay to find out you can't use your webcam anymore.
>What "mere consumer" cares to compile alpha drivers to get what they can in the box
>from Windows 2000?
In many cases, "alpha drivers" is what those users get from
Windows 2000. They just didn't have to execute a make command.
>
>> >version of this high performance, highly scalable, stable and secure
>> >implementation
>> >of software.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you should pull your head from the sand every couple years and verse
>> >yourself on the current state of technology before opening your mouth like this
>> >and simply embarassing yourself.
>>
>> If the hardware compatibility comments here are to be believed,
>> at least this end user (and his hardware) is better supported
>> under Linux than NT5.
>
>You must have bought the hardware to be Linux compatible or "rolled you own"
That still doesn't change the situation. Besides, some of the
hardware in question is so bog standard (like the bt878) that
one must wonder why there just isn't an MS reference driver.
>drivers. Believe it or not but Joe NASCAR cares little about drivers other than Dale
They do when they find out that they can't use their favorite card.
[deletia]
--
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Churchill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:32:09 GMT
In article <8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
>> application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
>> two).
>
>Are you saying that you would expect a good Windows programmer to take a
>week or two to implement Notepad? Is that a reasonable estimate of the
>time it would take for a program like that?
So you're lost in the desert when suddenly you encounter a good
Windows programmer, a bad Windows programmer, and Santa ... oh,
never mind.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:20:34 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:43:21 GMT, Mike Byrns <@technologist,.com> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 20:32:19 GMT, Mike Byrns <@technologist,.com> wrote:
>> >Nigel Feltham wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Either way, Win2K Terminal Services beat them both.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> How does win2k Terminal server beat using X?
>> >>
>> >> can Win2k display it's output on most hardware platforms ( X display servers
>> >> are available for Mac, Sun, Windows, BSD, Linux, DOS, Amiga, ST, and most
>> >> other 16 bit or above computers).
>> >
>> >Most common ones and also through a web browser.
>> >
>> >> Does Win2k use as little network trafffic as an X Client/server system?
>> >
>> >The design was to use less.
>> >
>> >> Does Win2k run stable enough with a couple of hundred users connected
>> >> without crashing and in the process losing all work being done by all of
>> >> those users?
>> >
>> >Proven by Fortune 500 companies every day.
>>
>> IOW, you have no clue what you're talking about.
>
>Please. Try to prove that my assertation is incorrect.
>
The comment was pure rhetoric. It wasn't even very specific.
It wasn't even an attempt to claim personal experience in
the domain in question.
--
Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and
crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:22:23 +0100
Andrew Carpenter wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
> > you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
> >
> > I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
> >
> > Linux is a really stable beefy version of DOS, essentially?
> > heh
> >
> > Command-lines are at their most useful when they compliment
> > a good GUI. Maximum productivity is acheived, despite what
> > the Linvocates would argue to make themselves seem more
> > important.
> >
> > If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
> > use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
> > bit better hardware support?
>
> Would you run a server using DOS?
>
> Consider the range of uses Linux is good for without even having a
> monitor attached, let alone running a graphical shell, it strikes me as
> a pretty thin argument.
>
> I don't see why a [ firewall | router | web server | file server |
> etc... ] would be any more useful with a GUI running...
In fact, better without, because now I can telnet or ssh from the otherside
of the world and be confident that I can still use all the tools. (From
experience: Administered all those things in New York, Chicago, Singapore,
Tokyo, Hong Kong without leaving London)
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:22:15 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >> Show us the single Compaq that can manage 160K TPM.
> >
> >Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
> >
> >Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, once again, will you
> >agree that this "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to
> >touching IBM in any way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
> >
>
> No it hasn't.
Look, the Compaq cluster, which is a way, shape or form of computing as far
as I am concerned, thoroughly spanks the IBM uni-server solution 505302 to
163775.
> Partitioning the data, signficantly alters the problem.
Does that magically diminish the TPC-C scores of the 2K systems ?
> [deletia]
>
> My comment is on topic: the top 10 tcp-c scores.
You missed the "in any way, shape or form" part, Jedi.
> All of the non-windos scores are for single systems that are
Oooh windos ! How "creative" ! That's what you use to win arguments ?
> less constrained in the sorts of tasks you could assign to them.
> ALL of the NT systems in the top 10 are only there because of
> loosely coupled clustering.
Cluster== a way, shape or form of computing in my universe.
> They might as well be using Beowulf.
Why don't they ?
> You just choose to ignore views of the data that undermine
Not at all. The "in any way, shape or form" part allows the 2K offerings to
wipe the floor with the competitors.
> your little agenda. These are issues that REAL admins cannot
What agenda ?
> simply sweep under the carpet.
I don't wish to an admin, let alone a REAL one, whatever that capitalization
may mean.
> So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
I don't know if one exists, nor do I care.
The point was the "in any way, shape or form" that you seem to regularly
miss. The cluster configuration is a way, shape or form, from where I stand.
Apparently, your mileage varies.
Let's just agree to disagree. Okay ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:24:47 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:06:00 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:32:33 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:01:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>Stop playing semantics jedi.
>> >>
>> >>Next you'll be asking "and what IS Linux anyway?"
>> >
>> > When addressing "who" is "trying" what it is rather relevant.
>> >
>> > Just who do you percieve trying to represent Linux as being
>> > able to go toe to toe with a Starfire or VAX cluster?
>>
>>
>> Stop changing the subject jedi.
>> I made no mention of Starfire or Vax cluster.
>> Desktop jedi. Desktop...
>
>You'll have to excuse Jedi, sometimes. I don't think he
>understands the concept of "desktop". Perhaps he thinks
What does linux 2.4 have to do with "desktop".
>we should all go back to giganta-mainframes with green-screen
>dumb terminals?
I was running GUI's when you were still playing with DOS 3.
--
You will engage in a profitable business activity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:26:09 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:16:33 +0100, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:47:32 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >can write the greatest OS ever starting with a clean slate, but in the
>real
>> >world, things are rarely that simple.
>>
>> Why are you excusing "the world's greatest software vendor".
>>
>> If they're so great, why didn't they do better. Why didn't they
>> do more than just what was barely necessary? Why couldn't they
>> be forward compatible as well as backward compatible planning
>> for the inevitable when Moore's law would catch up to what would
>> be their ambition if they had any.
>
>Why didn't anyone else? If they did why did they fail?
IBM did. Various emulator vendors have.
None of them failed technically.
Now will you tell us that a VAX cluster is lesser than
a quad xeon merely because Digital was able to buy out
DEC?
--
Youth is the trustee of posterity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:27:17 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:42:21 -0400, Simon Palko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:44:16 GMT...
>> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > Is of course Linux.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nope. The future is BeOS!
>> > >
>> > > Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> > > incapable of.
>> >
>> > Provide a stable, reliable GUI?
>>
>> I don't know which reality you live in, but in mine, Linux has a
>> stable, reliable GUI which I use every day.
>>
>> Mind you, it's stable and reliable even though I run the CVS version
>> of most of the components. For people who simply run Helix GNOME or
>> such, I imagine the stability is yet better.
>
>I don't think I've ever seen someone refer to XF86 as "stable" before.
Compared to what?
By Unix standards it certainly has it's problems. However, that
is not the domain of this comparison.
[deletia]
--
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on
when it's necessary to compromise.
-- Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:28:42 -0000
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:06:25 -0700, John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:50:51 GMT, "Chad Myers"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> >DOS rarely crashed *AT THE COMMAND LINE* too. So what?
>>> >
>>>
>>> So what to which part? :-)
>>
>>You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
>>you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
>>
>>I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
>>
>
>Multithreading, a complete set of development tools for free, memory
>beyond the first megabyte, long filenames, oustanding support for
>Internet development, and, oh yes, Gnibbles. :-)
MEMORY MANAGEMENT
--
If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:30:46 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:04:19 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :
>> : POSIX is too basic.
>>
>> Which is why we have UNIX98 as well. It also helps to define
>> *which* POSIX spec you are talking about (NT doesn't even try
>> to comply with a large amount of POSIX).
>>
>> : The point he's trying to make is, even though people say Unix is Unix is
>> : Unix, there are still apps that only work on HP-UX, or Solaris, or Linux.
>> : If they have a common API, why is this the case?
>>
>> 95%[1] of the API is the same. The other 5%[1] is different, mostly
>> drawn along SysV vs BSD lines (except for Linux, which is its own
>> special version of hell...).
>>
>> The incompatibilities aren't bad and are even scriptable without
>> much problem (GNU autoconfig, etc).
>>
>> : What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
>>
>> One day? When was the last time Linux *didn't* have highly
>> incompatible distributions? A.out/ELF? libc vs glibc vs misc
>> versions thereof? Kernel revs? The brain damage that is Linux
>> /proc?
>>
>> The hundreds (yes, hundreds...) of different Linux distributions are
>> at the same time both one of Linux's greatest strengths and greatest
>> weaknesses.
>>
>> Only the ignorant would try and define Unix by Linux's history.
>
>You're right, I was falling into the Linux is Unix trap again, my
>apologies.
>
>Does not Unix also have a checkered past in these regards? Wasn't
>one of Unix's biggest downfalls (e.g. it's only on servers for the
>most part, not 9x% of the desktops) it's fragmentation and
>incompatibilities?
This seems to be more relevant in Microsoft marketing
literature than in real life. One is quite capable of
easily deploying apps across multiple Unix despite of
all of this "fragmentation".
Infact, supporting 8 other Unixen is typically less
trouble than adding NT support.
[deletia]
--
Wharbat darbid yarbou sarbay?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:31:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rv41n$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because they're
>> > "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when they're
>> > "getting it right". Why the double standard?
>>
>> Because microsoft DIDNT "get it right".
> Of course they did. What basis for this claim do you have?
The dozen or so bugfixes released since ITS release.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:33:27 -0000
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:51:01 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> ...which under Unix isn't too terribly difficult actually.
>
>Your experience with the various x86 Unix-derivatives must be sparse.
You base this on what exactly?
Unix not like WinDOS where attempting to move the wrong files
will fubar your whole system. This was one of the key reasons
I DUMPED WinDOS. It's simply not set up to be flexibly
repartitioned.
--
Violence is molding.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
