Linux-Advocacy Digest #808, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce Schuck")
RE: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. ("ne...")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Starting a Linux program in schools (John Newsom)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ("James E. Freedle II")
RE: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. ("Vicente Sanz")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:07:17 GMT
Otto wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : > Linux does detect the memory correctly, although it uses only the first
> 64
> : > MB of it until you change some configuration files. Chad might've meant
> : > that. The only distro I've seen which detects and uses all of the memory
> was
> : > Caldera 2.4.
> : > As for the "audio CD" part.... nah, no comment.
> : >
> : > Otto
> :
> : That would be a totally incorrect answer also.
> : IN-FACT, it's totally full of shit.
> :
> : I just wanted to clear that up with you.
>
> Really? The following is a quote straight from the Linux BootPrompt-HowTo
> manual:
>
> "The original BIOS call defined in the PC specification that returns the
> amount of installed memory was only designed to be able to report up to
> 64MB. Linux uses this BIOS call at boot to determine how much memory is
> installed. If you have more than 64MB of RAM installed, you can use this
> boot argument to tell Linux how much memory you have. The usage of this
> argument mem= parameter."
>
> Any question shit head?
No it doesn't meat head!
Look.
Here is my Lilo.conf
boot=/dev/hde
map=/boot/map
install=/boot/boot.b
vga=normal
default=linux
keytable=/boot/us.klt
lba32
prompt
timeout=50
message=/boot/message
image=/boot/vmlinuz
label=linux
root=/dev/hde6
append=" ide2=0x7000,0x7402 ide3=0x7c00,0x8002"
read-only
image=/boot/vmlinuz
label=failsafe
root=/dev/hde6
append=" ide2=0x7000,0x7402 ide3=0x7c00,0x8002 failsafe"
read-only
other=/dev/fd0
label=floppy
unsafe
Now notice there is nothing in here about memory settings.
Nothing at all.
Now here is my memory in use on this system.
[H[2J[H[1m 10:03am up 1 day, 15:35, 1 user, load average: 0.09, 0.15,
0.09[K
68 processes: 67 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped[K
CPU states: 1.4% user, 0.4% system, 0.0% nice, 7.6% idle[K
Mem: 130656K av, 125636K used, 5020K free, 0K shrd, 1636K
buff[K
Swap: 255488K av, 14772K used, 240716K free 28508K
cached[K
[m[K
[7m PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME
COMMAND[K[m
15604 charlie 18 0 880 880 688 R 0 1.9 0.6 0:00 top[K
1 root 0 0 476 476 416 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 init[K
2 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:04 kflushd[K
3 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:06 kupdate[K
4 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 kpiod[K
5 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:09 kswapd[K
6 root -20 -20 0 0 0 SW< 0 0.0 0.0 0:00
mdrecoveryd[K
83 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:02
kreiserfsd[K
86 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00 khubd[K
90 root 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:00
kreiserfsd[K
91 root 1 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0.0 0.0 0:01
kreiserfsd[K
390 bin 0 0 292 284 220 S 0 0.0 0.2 0:00 portmap[K
429 root 0 0 1144 996 480 S 0 0.0 0.7 0:00
mount.smbfs[K
433 root 0 0 1144 996 480 S 0 0.0 0.7 0:00
mount.smbfs[K
436 root 0 0 1144 996 480 S 0 0.0 0.7 0:00
mount.smbfs[K
449 root 0 0 1408 1260 480 S 0 0.0 0.9 0:00
mount.smbfs[K
452 root 0 0 1408 1260 480 S 0 0.0 0.9 0:00
mount.smbfs[K
469 root 0 0 516 516 392 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 syslogd[K
477 root 0 0 672 672 312 S 0 0.0 0.5 0:00 klogd[K
490 nobody 0 0 448 428 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 identd[K
493 nobody 0 0 448 428 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 identd[K
494 nobody 0 0 448 428 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 identd[K
497 nobody 0 0 448 428 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 identd[K
499 nobody 0 0 448 428 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 identd[K
507 daemon 0 0 308 296 236 S 0 0.0 0.2 0:00 atd[K
520 root 0 0 564 564 464 S 0 0.0 0.4 0:00 crond[K
538 root 0 0 344 344 288 S 0 0.0 0.2 0:00 irmanager[K
552 root 0 0 428 428 360 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 inetd[K
562 root 0 0 640 600 468 S 0 0.0 0.4 0:00 nlservd[K
574 root 0 0 488 488 400 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 lpd[K
606 root 0 0 520 520 428 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 automount[K
680 root 0 0 332 324 272 S 0 0.0 0.2 0:00 gpm[K
720 root 0 0 712 712 520 S 0 0.0 0.5 0:00 fontfs[K
734 xfs 0 0 4044 4040 752 S 0 0.0 3.0 0:03 xfs[K
761 root 0 0 5048 4808 4776 S 0 0.0 3.6 0:01 httpd[K
807 root 0 0 1716 1692 1552 S 0 0.0 1.2 0:00 smbd[K
815 root 0 0 864 856 700 S 0 0.0 0.6 0:00 nmbd[K
819 root 0 0 236 164 124 S 0 0.0 0.1 0:00 nmbd[K
826 root 0 0 404 404 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 mingetty[K
827 root 0 0 404 404 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 mingetty[K
828 root 0 0 404 404 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 mingetty[K
829 root 0 0 404 404 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 mingetty[K
830 root 0 0 404 404 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 mingetty[K
831 root 0 0 404 404 344 S 0 0.0 0.3 0:00 mingetty[K
832 root 0 0 2724 2724 2524 S 0 0.0 2.0 0:00 kdm[K
838 root 0 0 2800 1468 864 S 0 0.0 1.1 0:00
miniserv.pl[K[J[6;1H[53;1H
Notice on the line above, we are using 128 mb of memory.
Okay!
Case closed.
So you can pull your head out of your asshole now.
The Kernel nor Lilo use bios for anything. They haven't for
a very long, long time.
I think I've had sex since then. It's been that long.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:07:46 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8spa52$snk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
> > > simple
> > > > fact, check it.
> > >
> > > Maybe on your planet, Chad. But here on earth, Linux has always
> > > detected my RAM just right. And my partitions have also been detected
> > > right, not like Windows 95, which once detected my Linux partition as
> > > being an "audio CD"...
> >
> > It has never detected my RAM just right. 66mb is all it shows. Why?
> > I take that back - I don't care why.
>
> Linux doesn't 'detect' RAM, it uses the value supplied by the motherboard
> bios.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No it doesn't
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:15:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Are you blind? How could you *POSSIBLY* get the idea that I don't think
>> >Win95 includes DOS? Look up in the quoted area up there where I
>> >specifically said "Neither Win95, nor the DOS that ships with Win95...".
>> >
>> >I made no such argument. You're twisting of the context of things is
>> >getting tiring, as usual.
>>
>> So you do accept the fact that Win95 was a violation of the consent
>> decree, and anti-trust law, as well?
>
>As usual max, you simply illustrate my point with your pathetic attempts to
>weasel out of your head-up-your-ass statements.
>
>Microsoft specifically signed it's consent decree to allow Win95, this was
>upheld by the court of appeals on the IE issue.
THAT is the extent of your rebuttal, and you say that *I* have my head
up my ass? Puh-leeze. Yes, Microsoft "signed it's consent decree to
allow Win95", based on the *false testimony* that Win95 was a completely
new OS from the ground up. Later, it was shown, in the MS II case and
Caldera suit:
a) It was not. Win95 was a "technical tying" of Windows 4 and DOS 7,
designed only to kill the DOS market so that DR-DOS could not maintain
its foothold derived from its substantial competitive superiority.
b) Microsoft was aware of the dishonest nature of their claims.
"In a sense, you lock cloners out of the WIN4 market, but we only
benefit from this if you increase the price of WIN4 to
be that of WIN3 + DOS. Otherwise, we've destroyed the DOS market under
WIN4, revenue-wise, so this is a phyrric
victory."
Gordon Letwin, March 8, 1991
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:17:56 -0700
"Andy Newman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >I wish he had kept file versioning. I like that on VMS.
>
> Oh, you need a real OS then...Emacs. But I was actually refering
> to the stuff that really became NT. Don't know if the file system in
> the R&D version had versioning. You can always write a new file
> system for NT, MS were running courses in Seattle on it. The newer
> NTFS with its multiple data forks could be useful.
Streams is a kind of versioning. Just not fully implimented.
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:27:54 GMT
On Oct 22, 2000 at 14:06, Idoia Sainz eloquently wrote:
>
> Although some of you would consider me a Wintroll, I am
>not typing here as one (just as GNU/Linux user), just to say
>that another thing I don't really like about Redhat is putting
>all of the packages at /usr (instead of using /opt for things
>like GNOME, KDE or Netscape).
Seems you are a prime candidate for reading the FSB.
GNOME and KDE are built by RH and therefore go in
/usr. Netscape might be built by RH but I'm not sure
about that. When _you_ build KDE and GNOME, _you_
can install them in /opt.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
But they went to MARS around 1953!!
11:25am up 18:16, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:36:11 -0400
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> > That is fine if you have all the time in the world to work with your
> > computer. I have a little time every night, and I want to get things
done,
> > rather than spend months trying to figure out how to work with linux.
>
> And I don't want to spend months figuring out how Win2k works.
> Ijust want to get work done.
Windows 2000 is easier than the Macintosh. I was a hassle to use the
Macintosh PowerBook that I had, therefore I sold it to make my Dual CPU
system, and get a Handheld PC. I have used the new Windows interface since
day one, and I have found that mostly it is completely intuitive. Of course
I believe that you mean the more advanced functions that basic UI, because
all of them are the same really, except the Macintosh.
>
>
> >
> > Besides the fact that it will not work with my hardware, and I am not
going
> > to spend extra money on getting hardware that will work with Linux.
>
>
>
> > Windows
> > 2000 is rock solid, of course Linux is rock solid (it just sits there).
I do
> > not know half of what is installed on Linux.
>
> Why not? rpm -qs is your friend.
rpm:no arguments given for query
>
>
> > At least I can get my homework
> > done in Windows. And Windows 2000 is perfect for home use.
>
> Interesting that Microsoft hasn't been marketing it as such.
>
That a fallacy that do not agree with Microsoft on, I have a dual cpu
computer and Windows 98 or ME just does not take advantage of the dual
processor configuration.
>
> > I switched from
> > Windows 98SE because of the limited resource heaps.
> > Linux may be ready for the desktop in some years,
>
> It's ready now.
Not in my opinion. The only thing that I care about a computer is that it
allows me to get the things done that I want to get done. Linux will be
ready for the desktop when you can go into any computer store, get any piece
of hardware/software that is for the PC, and have it work out of the box.
>
> Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: John Newsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Starting a Linux program in schools
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:37:31 GMT
Thank you all for your feedback. I am going to try the generic *nix
approach. It was helpful to have a list of the key administrative
tasks upon which to build the curriculum for the course.
John Newsom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:23:08 GMT, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >There's enough differences in some Linux distributions that being
> > >proficient in one won't neccesarily mean you'd be proficient in
> > >other OS'es, or even other variants of Linux. If you learn the
> > >concepts of hierarchy, everything's a file, etc., you will be ok,
> >
> > Well that's kind of my point. When I say "proficient with Linux", I
> > don't mean that you know how to set up networking using Linuxconf
> > or something like that.
> >
> > My point is that POSIX, TCP/IP configuration, printcap, server
> > software such as sendmail, apache, squid, etc are not substantially
> > different on different forms of UNIX. Someone who is truly proficient
> > in Linux will be able to use Solaris with very little difficulty
> > ( though they'll probably find themselves constantly cursing under their
> > breath if the GNU tools aren't installed on Solaris ... )
>
> I bounce back and forth between HP and Solaris and Linux with ease.
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:40:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> That doesn't mean every statement is correct in every context.
>
>Yet you love to pull snips of emails taken out of context and present them
>as evidence to support your claims.
These "snips of emails" *are* the context. Personally, I would love to
have the entire emails. Microsoft does not allow them to be published,
even in court documents, however. They say that it is because these
emails contain some "proprietary information", but it is actually
because they show, I expect, that the quotes are merely the most cogent
highlights in communications which generally and entirely show
anti-competitive intent.
Still, we are not discussing whether somebody refers to Win95 as an OS.
We are discussing whether Win95 is DOS 7, with Win 4 bolted on top so as
to *appear* to be a single package.
>> >Are you saying Andrew Schulman, a noted expert in operating systems and a
>> >technical witness for Caldera is wrong?
>>
>> No, I'm saying your interpretation of Andrew Schulman's statement, in
>> the context of our discussion, is wrong.
>
>What is there to misinterpret about the statement "Because of V86 mode,
>then, Windows -- Including Windows 95 -- doesn't run "on top of" DOS; it
>essentially uses DOS as a driver."?
What there is to misinterpret is whether "using DOS as a driver"
constitutes running "on top of DOS" in the way which I, and everyone
else who recognizes Win95 as DOS 7 plus Win 4 (including Microsoft) mean
when we say "on top of DOS".
>It's clear, concise, and completely contradicts your claim that Windows runs
>on top of DOS, by an expert for the company you love to use as evidence to
>support your claims.
>
>The context of this discussion is that you said:
>
>> Make no mistake; when running, Win95 runs on top of the DOS operating
>> system. Confusing this with the "DOS box" shell program which Windows
>> supports is a mistake made by rank amateurs exclusively.
>
>I said you were wrong, and provided detailed descriptions from a credible
>expert to contradict you. Admit it max. You don't have a clue and are just
>parroting what other people tell you.
No, its the other way around. I am very well aware of the fact that
Win95 runs "on top of DOS". The fact that DOS is such a minimal OS, and
that Win95 has such extended functionality (since MS needs to include a
massive amount of functionality in it in order to ensure that apps
written for Windows cannot be easily ported), and the "DOS box", and the
"boot loader", and all this other technical mumbo-jumbo is quite a bit
more intricate and detailed and academic than I have any desire to
bother with. That I don't know how to clearly refute your misuse of
Schulman's characterization is truly beside the point. I can tell that
Win95 is running on top of DOS simply by recognizing how quickly and
easily one "drops down to" DOS when you tell the computer to "reboot in
DOS mode" (and notice that there's no reboot at all), and typing WIN
gets one back into Windows, just like it did with 3.1. I don't have
enough technical grit to fend off wrong-headed MS apologists who spew
mumbo-jumbo to try to convince me that my understanding is false. That
does not, however, make that understanding false. The fact that only
the most extreme MS apologists bother to dispute the fact, and the
extent to which they do try to dispute it, is, I must admit, an
indication of the fact that my understanding is quite valid, though I
will admit that it something of a prejudicial presumption.
[...]
>You're an idiot Max, if you can't even accept the published facts of a
>non-biased expert which contradict your position.
Once again, it is not the published opinion of the expert, but your use,
understanding, and interpretation of the published opinion of the
expert, which I dispute.
[...]
>Try reading any number of technical sources. Including Windows 95 System
>Programming Secrets by Matt Pietrek, who also says the same thing. Oh, you
>might try doing some system level programming yourself.
Yes, that, ultimately, is my point, and why I so casually ignore these
experts proclaiming that Win95 is a "true OS". The fact of the matter
does not require system-level programming to resolve. It is more an
issue of common-sense than technical detail. The obfuscation provided
by that technical detail is just the kind of thing that MS uses to claim
that IE is "part of Win98".
>My claims are based on published peer reviews and personal experience.
>Yours are based only on what you've read on the net.
No, they are based on eight years of experience with Windows, and
fourteen years of experience with Microsoft. I didn't ask either Mr.
Schulman's or Mr. Pietrek's opinion on the matter, and frankly don't
give a damn what they say. They are being overly precise for the
context, as are you. The very arbitrary/imprecise nature of what is
meant by "operating system" is quite important here. For instance, I
recall reading several "experts" insisting that DOS wasn't an OS to
begin with. Thus, claims that Win95 is an OS might well be meant to
convey the idea that DOS7+Win4 manages to pass the test of "real OS" in
a way which DOS alone could not. The naked sentences of either author
do not provide any indication of what context they are referring to, and
whether they are considering Windows alone without the underlying DOS in
proclaiming Win95 to be an OS. Perhaps they feel that being a "boot
loader" and a "driver" and "partially active" while Windows is running
is not enough to consider Windows to be "on top of" DOS. These
minuscule intricacies are quite beyond my level of concern. The clear
and undisputed fact, however, is that Win95 has essentially the same
relationship with DOS, despite any functionality which may have migrated
around in order to qualify Win95 as "an OS", as Win3.1 did.
There's just too many ways that your perspective is inherently flawed or
unsupported, and too much clear evidence that Win95 is not really the
"Chicago" that Microsoft once envisioned, unless they were lying about
what Chicago was.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:41:35 -0400
That was not my intention
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A troll is a person who posts with the intention of getting flames from
> people who frequent the group.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> 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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:44:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Are you saying Andrew Schulman, a noted expert in operating systems and a
>> technical witness for Caldera is wrong?
>
>I would argue that Schulman is a noted expert on DOS and maybe Windows
>and has some good knowledge of the PC hardware, but it would be a
>stretch to call him an expert on operating systems. Thus his conclusion
>on Win95 being an OS is a bit out of his area.
You're definitely one of my favorite people this week, Mark. :-)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>>
>> > "In a sense, you lock cloners out of the WIN4 market, but we only
>> > benefit from this if you increase the price of WIN4 to
>> > be that of WIN3 + DOS. Otherwise, we've destroyed the DOS market under
>> > WIN4, revenue-wise, so this is a phyrric
>> > victory."
>> >
>> > Gordon Letwin, March 8, 1991
>>
>> And what does this have to do with the fact that Windows is it's own OS, and
>> that it does not run "on top of" DOS, but rather DOS runs as a client of
>> Windows?
>
>Windows is no more an OS than is DesqView. The trick of wrapping DOS in
>a i386 VM and calling it is an old trick, but a necessary one.
>
>DesqView is not an OS, I think everyone would agree that it is not. If
>you call Windows 95 an OS, explain how it is OS and DesqView is not.
>
>>
>> What does this have to do with the fact that you claimed the statement below
>> and were wrong?
>>
>> > >> Make no mistake; when running, Win95 runs on top of the DOS operating
>> > >> system. Confusing this with the "DOS box" shell program which Windows
>> > >> supports is a mistake made by rank amateurs exclusively.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:46:03 -0400
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:50:51 -0400, James E. Freedle II
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8ssg7q$b33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> : I have been wondering, why use Linux?
> >>
> >> Because it's robust, standard-compliant, powerful, supports almost all
> >> useful applications ever written, allows me to learn a great deal,
> >> helps me to get my work done, behaves in a reliable and predictable
> >> fashion, and causes me no problems at all.
> >
> >I can say the same thing about Windows. It works, and it is easy to work
> >with.
> A bit vague this "works" word dont you think?
Works = Does what I need it to.
> I know Windows virii work, I know Exchange executes programs in emails, I
know
> that Windows works when it comes to generating $$$ for Microsoft. Is this
what
> you mean ?
>
> >
> >>
> >> Now why would I want to use Windows????
> >
> >That is what I was asking about Linux.
> >>
> >> What would Windows give me, besides problems, that I don't already
> >> have?
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe
> >Right now the only use for Linux for me, is to learn a little UNIX. I
have
> >to to UNIX at work to run one application, that I could easily rewrite
for
> >Windows. I have had problems with Windows at work, but I can attribute
that
> >to the IR department, and they probably know nothing about Operating
System
> >theory or design, and yet the muck up the system and expect it to work
> >properly.
> >I don't adovcate Windows or Linux, just the user. I want to be able to
use
> >my computer and get what I need done. I keep hearing that Linux will be
the
> >Windows replacement,
>
> Where on earth did you hear that, not here I'll wager, as Linux will NEVER
> be a Windows "replacement", how can you claim to write software, *and*
believe
> that nonsense ?
I am not sure where I heard it, but you are right, not here. That is why I
came to get the correct answers about Linux.
>
> Linux is NOT Windows, thank God.
>
> > but I see nothing that would backup that claim.
> Thats because its a false claim, and one I've never heard before,
personally
> I think you fabricated it.
I don't have time to make anything up, and besides I think that the user
should have the right to use whatever can get things done for them. Linux,
Windows, Macintosh, it is all the same to me.
>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 1 week 2 hours 22 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Vicente Sanz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:45:38 GMT
> Seems you are a prime candidate for reading the FSB.
> GNOME and KDE are built by RH and therefore go in
> /usr. Netscape might be built by RH but I'm not sure
> about that. When _you_ build KDE and GNOME, _you_
> can install them in /opt.
When I build whatever I obviously locate it where I do
want, I thought we were talking about installation
defaults. I think splitting the whole KDE or GNOME
inside /usr is bad and do not like it, what't up with it ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
