Linux-Advocacy Digest #710, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Linux: Lots Good, Some Bad (Keith Peterson)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Roberto Teixeira)
Streaming audio (Dean Bridges)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Streaming audio (Gardiner Family)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Gardiner Family)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Eric Y. Chang)
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles (Gardiner Family)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
RE: KDE starting to stress out a little? ("Marc Alsina")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Gardiner Family)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Gardiner Family)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:33:09 -0500
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:l20H5.1120$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:_cVG5.5287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > As for Atari STs, I don't really know if they existed in 1985. Maybe
not.
> > I just sort lumped them in because they, like the other two, ran on
> Motorola
> > 68000 chips and were much superior to Microsoft's offerings. STs might
> not
> > have been introduced for another year or two, but they were definitely
> > around in the mid to late 80s.
> >
> > Mike, this is all verifiable stuff. Perhaps you are only familiar with
> The
> > World According to Bill, but not even he can erase *this* much history.
>
> Uh... Weevil... Microsoft didn't make processors. Intel did.
Right. Got carried away a bit, didn't I? Let me rephrase that. Motorola
chips (and the OSes that ran on them) were much superior to Intel chips (and
the MS OS that ran on it).
> > Yes, advanced, GUI-based multi-tasking operating systems, were on the
> market
> > in 1985, while Microsoft's latest was DOS 3.3 (or was it 2.0?).
> >
> > I'm sorry you've been misled so badly.
>
> By the way, his original question was regarding your statement that DOS
3.3
> users pooh-poohed the Amiga, Mac, ST etc for having mickey-mouse
interfaces.
> He wanted you to prove it.
>
> Simon
How the heck am I supposed to prove that?
Back then, the Internet was barely used by non-government, non-educational
type people. Online conversation took place on BBSes and were "echoed"
around the world, much like newsgroups are today. They were even called
"echo areas", and were categorized by topic, just like newsgroups are today.
I didn't save any of the many conversations I had back then, nor any of the
many more that I witnessed. And even if I had, posting it would not exactly
constitute proof. I would probably be accused of forging it or something.
So...I can't prove it, but I'm not lying. They really did "pooh-pooh" those
"mickey-mouse interfaces". (Nice phrasing, btw.) They regarded it as
toy-like, not serious enough for business use.
This opinion prevailed for as long as Microsoft only had DOS. When Windows
3.0 (but especially 3.1) came out and Microsoft needed to move some product,
I guess Bill put the word out that it was time for his followers to start
liking GUIs now. :)
This scenario has been repeated over and over with Microsoft. Whatever is
their current system is praised to high heaven by their groupies. The
minute MS comes out with the next version and are ready for all that upgrade
cash, the groupies instantly start saying the old version (Win95, for
example) actually was weak in a lot of areas and that the new version
(Win98, for example), fixes everything and is absolutely top of the line,
unbeatable, worth every penny, etc. And then the next one comes out
(Win2k), and suddenly Win95 was an absolute piece of shit, Win98 wasn't much
better, but Windows 2000 is the godsend we've all been waiting for, and will
do everything you've EVER wanted in a computer and is fast, sleek, stable,
blah blah blah, so you absolutely HAVE to buy this.
Of course, when Microsoft needs some more upgrade cash, they'll add a couple
of whistles and call it Windows 3k, or 2003 or whatever marketing comes up
with. At that point, it will suddenly be found that Win2k has bugs, is
unstable at times, and you really must upgrade to cure things once and for
all. And Drestin and Mike Byrnes and all the other Winvocates will be
trumpeting the virtues of the new one and dissing Win2k. And it won't
matter if no one can actually tell you what improvements were made in the
new one.
This will go on forever, or until Microsoft has some competition. Whichever
comes first.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Linux: Lots Good, Some Bad
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:43:45 GMT
What I've accomplished with linux the last two weeks:
Installed and tested JDK2.0 standard and enterprise editions.
Installed and tested IBM VisualAge for Java for Linux.
Installed and tested Postgresql.
Installed and tested Apache, Tomcat, et al..
Installed a mini-IDE called Jipe (love this little editor).
Created several classes and beans, including data access beans.
Began a side project in development for a local company.
With a few hiccups here and there (remedied in short order), everything went
pretty darn smoothly. Linux development tools have come a long way.
Flush with the success of my endeavours, Sunday night I decided it was about
time that I attempted to get my Midiman DIO-2448 digital sound card to work.
After all - the alsa project claimed to have a driver. They are even linked to
from the Delta home page at midiman.net.
What did I find?
The alsa documentation is terrible. Really, really bad. Finally, after
experiencing a heavy PITA factor, I got the drivers loaded. Result? I can
actually use the alsa driver to play audio - but I can't hear anything. Why?
Because the alsa mixer can't detect it's own driver running. Agh. I cannot
find a solution for this, so I am back to my original configuration, where my
sblive is supported through the default install, and the DIO-2448 is
unrecognized.
As has long been the case, development tools on linux rock - and what should
be simple system maintenance and accessibility is needlessly complicated and
arcane.
It's just as well, though. I keep Windows around for a lot of things these
days - one of which is digital audio editing. The tools that exist for linux -
which certainly number more than they did last year - are all pretty immature.
I get a little miffed with a number of advocates who simply don't understand
the concept of "the right tool for the job" - like the kill-filed "Jedi".
I will continue to dual boot. I am, however, extremely happy with the java
development tools on linux though - that simply made my week, I tell you.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: 17 Oct 2000 19:46:49 -0400
>>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roberto> Yeah, I'm really needing a secretary. And a personal
Roberto> trainer.
No offense, but the second one is more urgent ;)
Roberto> Everything is possible, I guess ;-)
Hmm. Dream on...
--
Roberto Teixeira
------------------------------
Subject: Streaming audio
From: Dean Bridges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:46:46 GMT
Hey all: A friend of mine runs a mid size FM radio station and they want to
provide streaming audio on the web. They have been told that they need to
invest $5-$10k on H/W S/W, to run NT with a workable firewall. I thought
they could maybe get into Linux, save some money and solve there their
security concerns with their existing H/W, (they have a lot of PC'S laying
around). Am I running down the wrong road here, or is Linux a viable, cost
effective, secure platform for FM streaming audio?
Thanks: Dean
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:52:40 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 17 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> Your incoherence is mounting. You are the one that said that classes are not
> >> necessary in object oriented languages. Yet, you claim that all objects in
> >> languages that have classes should belong to a class.
> >
> >And let me guess: you STILL don't understand that, do you?
>
> I do understan each statement in isolation. However, I don't see them as
> compatible.
The only object-oriented alternative to classes (in fact, the *more* OO
alternative to classes) is prototypes. If a language has objects without
any class, is it possible to create more of these objects by asking them
to copy themselves? Is it possible to mutate the type of these objects
by, say, adding instance variables and methods to them? Is it possible to
override the + operator of one instance of the 'int' primitive type and
not another?
> >Can you show a contradiction?
>
> Sure. Let's take an imaginary language that has syntax for both objects thar
> are members of classes and objects that are not. The end.
You're an idiot. The end.
Do you even understand what "contradiction" means?
For someone who claims to know something of mathematics, you have an
astonishingly weak grasp of it.
> >> I just repeated things you said. Happily now you understand why I saw what you
> >> wrote as nonsensical.
> >
> >Provide quotes along with explicit transformations of my words into
> >your nonsense.
>
> I did provide the quotes. You deleted them. Too bad.
Here you go:
"1) primitive types are not objects. What the class are they supposed to be
of anyways?" and,
"I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all. New objects should
be created by copying prototypes."
Now please provide the logical transformations you used to arrive at your
nonsense starting from these two statements.
> Because you seem to be scared of doing so. Are you afraid you would be shown to
> be inadequate?
Hardly. I'm "afraid" of wasting hundreds of hours of my time for no perceivable
gain.
> >Great, now you're using two different meanings of "language" in the same
> >sentence. Assuming you're making any sense (to yourself, you certainly
> >aren't making any sense to anyone else).
>
> By language I mean a computer language, nothing more and nothing else. What two
> meanings am I using?
Then you ARE an idiot.
> >> to classes and objects that don't. It's just a matter of syntax. It will
> >> probably be a sucky language, but it will be a language.
> >
> >Huh? Are you SERIOUSLY implying that I have argued that C++ does not exist?
>
> No. Please come back from the alternate reality you inhabit.
>
> >What are you blathering on about? My position on the thread can be reduced to:
> >
> >1) C++/Java dose X, and
> >2) X *must not* be done, therefore
> >3) C++/Java can't possibly be OO
>
> You have also claimed that languages MUST be introspective, have you not?
Actually, no I haven't. It's a huge benefit if they are however and the
fact that C++ is not introspective is another indictment against it.
> > I *did* accuse you of being too stupid to ferret out
> >any inconsistencies in my position and to me this *seems* to exclude
> >the possibility of your being right in your accusation that I was
> >inconsistent between those two articles.
>
> The two articles seem inconsistent.
And yet, you can't seem to prove they are. Do you seriously expect me to
believe anything on your say-so?
> >Isn't it? Now, if the wizard just gave you a brain, maybe you'd have
> >what's required to come up with an intelligible one.
>
> Perhaps if you were less opinionated you would be a better human being.
And perhaps being arrogant, aggressive and belligerent on a newsgroup
(especially one such as this) says absolutely nothing about being a
good human being.
> >Hey, if you missed the article where I explain to Donovan exactly why
> >Java and C++ are not OO ....
>
> No, I read it. Yet you seem to have used "a OO language" and "a language"
> interchangeably all through our latest argument. Tsk, tsk.
Actually, no I haven't. The only times that I've used "a language" where
I meant "an OO language" is where it would be ludicrous to assume I meant
anything else. Humans have this ability to parse from context, maybe you
should look to acquiring this trait.
------------------------------
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: 17 Oct 2000 22:01:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > and you can
>> > run most OS/2 2.x applications with the OS/2 subsystem (which is what it was
>> > designed for).
>>
>> No, you cant. You can however hack and slash OS/2 programs until theyll talk
>> to the OS/2 layer a little, but god help you if they want direct access to
>> hardware. (as most useful OS/2 software does; see call managers, video channel
>> managers, etc.)
> I agree with a lot of what you have to say, er, dot (?) however isn't
> the whole *point* of NT's hardware abstraction layer to *stop* the
> direct manipulation of hardware?
I dont believe that that is the *entire* point of NT's abstraction layer, but
it certianly is one of them.
The problem with it is that many useful OS/2 apps (not to mention *all* graphical
ones) simply do not and CAN not work inside this environment. Whether or not
the reason for this is ultimately the greater security and stability of NT is
somewhat beside the point; they advertize an OS/2 compliancy when in actuality
what little is there is absolutely useless.
Much like their POSIX layer.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:56:26 +0100
>Yea, but at least it doesn't have that funny smell about it, and infect
>itself into every nook and cranny it can.
>
It does replace whatever desktop you decide to use with something similar to
the one a lot of us came to linux to avoid using - as soon as it is taken
apart and rebuilt into separate applications which don't need as many
resources and leave the desktop alone the better - this will be an example
of the difference in quality between closed source (staroffice as it
currently stands) and open source (staroffice 6.0 when it is rewritten). Of
course there will be plenty of competition from K office by then so they
will have to be good to compete.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:10:04 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Ny3H5.1171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So...I can't prove it, but I'm not lying. They really did "pooh-pooh"
those
> "mickey-mouse interfaces". (Nice phrasing, btw.) They regarded it as
> toy-like, not serious enough for business use.
I'd actually agree with that opinion -- but for different reasons. The
Amigas and STs that most people saw didn't have enough oomph for business
use. No networking. No real expandability. No hard drive (well, you could
get some as add-ons, but they were prohibitively expensive).
They were really good for home use though. And if you were doing music work,
nothing else came close to the ST (and for some people, nothing else still
comes close)..
> This scenario has been repeated over and over with Microsoft. Whatever is
> their current system is praised to high heaven by their groupies. The
> minute MS comes out with the next version and are ready for all that
upgrade
> cash, the groupies instantly start saying the old version (Win95, for
> example) actually was weak in a lot of areas and that the new version
> (Win98, for example), fixes everything and is absolutely top of the line,
> unbeatable, worth every penny, etc.
Win98SE is the best Win9X platform you can get, without question. Win2K is
the best workstation platform that Microsoft produce. Personally, I like it
a lot. There's still some issues (I can get Win2k to crash by
inserting/removing USB devices during boot), but that's about it.
> And then the next one comes out
> (Win2k), and suddenly Win95 was an absolute piece of shit, Win98 wasn't
much
> better, but Windows 2000 is the godsend we've all been waiting for, and
will
> do everything you've EVER wanted in a computer and is fast, sleek, stable,
> blah blah blah, so you absolutely HAVE to buy this.
Nah... people who know what they're talking about knew for a long time that
WinNT was much better than Win9x.
> Of course, when Microsoft needs some more upgrade cash, they'll add a
couple
> of whistles and call it Windows 3k, or 2003 or whatever marketing comes up
> with. At that point, it will suddenly be found that Win2k has bugs, is
> unstable at times, and you really must upgrade to cure things once and for
> all. And Drestin and Mike Byrnes and all the other Winvocates will be
> trumpeting the virtues of the new one and dissing Win2k. And it won't
> matter if no one can actually tell you what improvements were made in the
> new one.
Well, I thought that NT was great, and Win2k was better -- mainly for the UI
support, and the much better network handling (hey, anything that lets me
VPN in from the login prompt is great by me)... and its support for laptops
is better than anything else out there. There's also some really cool
under-the-hood architecture changes -- driver model, NTFS file system,
guarding for error conditions -- that put it light years ahead of NT.
But the best thing ever? Not by a long chalk.
BTW: The NT team started work on NT 2001 before they finished 2000; it's
under continous development. It's not just a matter of "hey, we need to sell
more stuff" -- they're actually working on improving it.
> This will go on forever, or until Microsoft has some competition.
Whichever
> comes first.
Linux is doing a fine job of providing competition :
Si
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Streaming audio
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:20:03 +1300
You can either use the Quicktime server for Linux from Apple or Real Streaming
Server from Real Networks, however Real Server does cost money, however support
is included. On the question about viability, depending on what you level of
computer knowledge, if you know a bit and are willing to read, go for Linux,
however, if you know diddly squat about computers it would be best to go for
NT.
Matt
Dean Bridges wrote:
> Hey all: A friend of mine runs a mid size FM radio station and they want to
> provide streaming audio on the web. They have been told that they need to
> invest $5-$10k on H/W S/W, to run NT with a workable firewall. I thought
> they could maybe get into Linux, save some money and solve there their
> security concerns with their existing H/W, (they have a lot of PC'S laying
> around). Am I running down the wrong road here, or is Linux a viable, cost
> effective, secure platform for FM streaming audio?
> Thanks: Dean
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:18:05 +1000
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sii7v$2t12$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> > and you can
> >> > run most OS/2 2.x applications with the OS/2 subsystem (which is what
it was
> >> > designed for).
> >>
> >> No, you cant. You can however hack and slash OS/2 programs until
theyll talk
> >> to the OS/2 layer a little, but god help you if they want direct access
to
> >> hardware. (as most useful OS/2 software does; see call managers, video
channel
> >> managers, etc.)
>
> > I agree with a lot of what you have to say, er, dot (?) however isn't
> > the whole *point* of NT's hardware abstraction layer to *stop* the
> > direct manipulation of hardware?
>
> I dont believe that that is the *entire* point of NT's abstraction layer,
but
> it certianly is one of them.
The other primary one being to enhance portability.
> The problem with it is that many useful OS/2 apps (not to mention *all*
graphical
> ones) simply do not and CAN not work inside this environment. Whether or
not
> the reason for this is ultimately the greater security and stability of NT
is
> somewhat beside the point; they advertize an OS/2 compliancy when in
actuality
> what little is there is absolutely useless.
They advertise OS/2 1.3 "compliancy", with the same caveats as Win16 and DOS
compatibility - amongst them no direct hardware access. What "useful" OS/2
1.3 programs require hardware access, and why the hell do they require it ?
> Much like their POSIX layer.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:35:39 +1300
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Shortly after Microsoft falls.
>
> #1. Remove all easy administration.
>
If you cannot use Linux Admins tools or Solaris's admin tools you better
ask yourself whether calling yourself a system admin a false title.
>
> #2. Force everybody to install from gziped tar files.
There are now two standard installation package formats, PKG from debian
and RPM from redhat.
>
>
> #3. Remove all doc files.
Why, all OS's include documentation, Solaris includes a huge guide on a
CD-ROM, Linux has numerous HOW-TO's. The support a Microsoft is no
better that its competition, especially in application inter-operability
especially considering I wanted to import a Access 2000 Data Base into
VB6, it failed to import, later found out that they have competely
changed the structure of the Access Database.
>
>
> #4. Make it impossible for anybody to run games.
Why? where is the valid explaination for this statement?
>
>
> #5 Create embedded Linux which can't reach newsgroups for
> cheap - cheap $50 internet device.
>
are you being silly or do you really believe the statement you just
posted?
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Y. Chang)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 17 Oct 2000 22:41:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Tell that to your boss when you hand in your report and it looks like
: crap, all because you used Linux and he, along with the rest of the
: world, is using Word.
My boss is peer review, and if my report (paper) looks like crap, it is
because my secretary swapped two plots. Yes, she uses MS Word, and I
don't know how to use it. Maybe if I learned it I could do a better
job. How pretty the report is does not matter if it does not get the
message across. A stale plot or swapped one makes it look bad, even
if you are using the latest and greatest version of MS Word. Even
gradient fill won't fix it.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:43:25 +1300
I agree, Corel Linux is a nightmare, crappy installation and configuration
tools, shocking interface as I prefer to use GNOME, yet I had no choice but to
install the "improved corel version of KDE".
I originally started using Redhat 5.2 then I went to SuSE 6.0, I then tried out
a freebie version of mandrake 7.1 (which was OK, I emphasise OK, its not great,
but it was free so who is complaining? not me) however, since buying a copy of
SuSE 7.0 Professional, I am now firmly sticking to SuSE Linux because of the
superior admin tools and software included with it.
matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I speak from experience, as always.
>
> claire
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:59:43 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Corel Linux was brain damaged long before MS bought into the program and
> >> you know that full well.
> >
> ><snip>
> >For once, Claire is right.
------------------------------
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: 17 Oct 2000 22:44:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sii7v$2t12$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >> > and you can
>> >> > run most OS/2 2.x applications with the OS/2 subsystem (which is what
> it was
>> >> > designed for).
>> >>
>> >> No, you cant. You can however hack and slash OS/2 programs until
> theyll talk
>> >> to the OS/2 layer a little, but god help you if they want direct access
> to
>> >> hardware. (as most useful OS/2 software does; see call managers, video
> channel
>> >> managers, etc.)
>>
>> > I agree with a lot of what you have to say, er, dot (?) however isn't
>> > the whole *point* of NT's hardware abstraction layer to *stop* the
>> > direct manipulation of hardware?
>>
>> I dont believe that that is the *entire* point of NT's abstraction layer,
> but
>> it certianly is one of them.
> The other primary one being to enhance portability.
>> The problem with it is that many useful OS/2 apps (not to mention *all*
> graphical
>> ones) simply do not and CAN not work inside this environment. Whether or
> not
>> the reason for this is ultimately the greater security and stability of NT
> is
>> somewhat beside the point; they advertize an OS/2 compliancy when in
> actuality
>> what little is there is absolutely useless.
> They advertise OS/2 1.3 "compliancy", with the same caveats as Win16 and DOS
> compatibility - amongst them no direct hardware access. What "useful" OS/2
> 1.3 programs require hardware access, and why the hell do they require it ?
Ive already given a couple of examples.
The compliancy is no lie; it is indeed 'compliant' in a very basic and technical
sense of the word, but again, its utterly useless in the real world. Utterly.
Just like their POSIX layer--which no one ever uses. Because they CANT use it,
because it DOESNT WORK.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Marc Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:42:57 GMT
> Meanwhile, still waiting for GNUstep to take over the world after these
> two giants destroy each other...
The world has already been silently taken by ... iceWM ;-)
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:02:32 +1300
In theory, say if Microsoft made the DOS component of Windows totally 32bit and
then slapped Windows (made totally 32bit) on top, would this result in a more
stable OS, if so, why didn't MS do it? Just a question :)
Matt
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:05:08 +1300
plus, the definition of an OS constantly changes as each company adds new features as
standard to their OS, then after a few years these enhancements are accepted by other
OS
venders and incorperate those features into their OS.
Matt
2:1 wrote:
> Larry Ebbitt wrote:
> >
> > Dustin Puryear wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > DOS is an operating system. It provides file and memory services, and in general
> > > acts as an interface between the system and applications. That's what an OS
> > > does. The analogy between LILO and DOS doesn't really hold water.
> >
> > DOS doesn't really qualify as an OS. It is a set of executive programs.
> > There are ACM definitions of Operating Systems that are fairly well
> > accepted and DOS falls very short on resource management and scheduling.
>
> The early OSs were a lot less than DOS was. Dos is an old OS. 20 years
> ago, that wasw about all the OS you could fit o to one of those
> computers, but it was still an OS. Just because it was used long past
> it's use-by data, doesn't make it any less of an OS.
>
> -Ed
>
> > --
> > Larry Ebbitt - Linux + OS/2 - Atlanta
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
