Linux-Advocacy Digest #815, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Under pressure
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 17:02:32 -0400
Mike wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We all know the text book definition of an operating system: manages
> > memory, scedules programs, etc.
> >
> > By that definition, DesqView and other DOS extenders were operating
> > systems. Is DesqView an operating system? If your answer is yes, then
> > you need to read no further.
> ...
> > So, we have products which are not operating systems, but encapsulate
> > DOS, emulate hardware, handle interrupts, and present APIs. These are
> > very OS level sorts of things to be doing. They are very difficult to
> > debug, and some of the things Schulman did at PharLap, and many others,
> > including myself, have done elsewhere.
> >
> > This is what is being use to claim that Windows is an OS, however, if
> > doing this does not let products like DesqView, PharLap, and EMM386
> > claim OS status, it should not be reasonable to let MS use it to call
> > Windows an OS.
>
> They are indeed OS level things to be doing, even though they aren't OS'en.
> But it seems to me that from a user's perspective (or even, to a large
> extent, a programmer's perspective), something similar to a Turing test
> could be applied.
>
> If I gave you an API, and it did everything an operating system should do,
> then with the exception of exceeding its capabilities in some way, is there
> any way that you could learn the implemetation of the underlying system?
> Let's assume here that the system doesn't crash, and that you're constrained
> to using the API. Then, I think the question boils down to, "Is there
> anything that the OS API can do that the encapsulating API can't?"
>
> I've written a fair amount of software for Windows, but unlike the device
> driver stuff you've done, mine is all applications software. Most of my
> software is generic batch mode stuff - the user interface is a command line
> to start it, and a configuration file if it needs one. It makes generous use
> of the 32 bit address space, and does a fair amount of file I/O, and in
> general I find that the same code compiles on both Win98 and WinNT/2000, and
> on my Unix box as well (although we recently made the switch from HP to Sun,
> I'm not expecting too many differences there). The point is that I have no
> differences in my code to handle Win98 and WinNT/2000. So, from my external
> viewpoint, it walks like an OS, and talks like an OS...
OK, is Java an operating system? Java code runs on various systems. Java
is NOT an operating system. The "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck"
argument is too simplistic for this analysis.
Just because Windows pretends to be an operating system does not mean it
is one. For that matter, Windows programs never run on NT, they run in a
Windows subsystem of NT.
>
> -- Mike --
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:08:03 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So if you have real-mode drivers, they're loaded by DOS first, but
> somehow it is a sub-system of an OS that hasn't loaded yet?
Yes. In other words, there are two separate behaviors.
> We're all well aware that Microsoft zealots can play an endless game of
> recursive logic by continually re-defining what is meant by "DOS", in
> the same way that MS themselves redefined "Windows" to include
> applications (IE and Media Player). Nevertheless, this doesn't change
> the fact that Microsoft was being untruthful in their representation of
> what Win95 was, and that Win95 runs *on top of* DOS.
Not if you're not using legacy drivers. You can check; performance is vastly
improved if it doesn't have to thunk & mode-switch all the time.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:18:58 GMT
Vann wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Microsoft has admitted to the German public with this ad that Linux is
> > superior and a super threat to Microsoft.
> >
> > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> >
> >
> > I found it interesting that they actually spent money on this one. Who
> > was their Ad man?
> >
> > Why is a guy like Bill Gates who practically owns the world even worried
> > about Linux? I mean, Windows is at least
> > 10 times the size of the Linux user base. At least.
> >
> > Would you panic and spend money on an ad against an opponent which was
> > probably 1/20th your size as a company?
> >
> > You know, Solaris has taken a beating from Linux and they never ran even
> > one ad against Linux.
> >
> >
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
> Well, Microsoft Germany is a different entiry from Microsoft here in the
> USA. They have their own CEO, IIRC. Microsoft Germany ran this ad, I'd
> guess, is because in Germany, SuSE is pretty big, as it is throughout
> Europe. Just because linux isn't big in the USA doesn't mean it isn't big
> across the Atlantic.
Very true.
Kind of makes you wonder WHY Suse got so big over there.
The average European is a very selective person.
Most of the things we treasure here in America come
from Europe.
Europe is the heart of our Western Culture.
Anything which comes forth from Europe generally
ends up spreading across the world.
Linux isn't BIG in the USA because American's
are generally complacent people who resist change.
This is why the notion that America will survive in
the 21st century as an information economy doesn't
wash.
Information economy? Information on what?
Information about how a bunch of dead bagworms
continue to hang on to Windows?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 17:16:27 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://counter.li.org/
>
> GEEZE look at this thing.
> Look at the growthrates!
>
> They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
> 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
>
> WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
>
> That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
> 100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
> Over 2000% growth!!
>
> Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of Europe, South
> America
> and Asia.
>
> The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I anticipated.
>
> I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
> be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
> Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
>
> The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
> 16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
>
> The other graphs vary but they seem to be consistantly over 500% growth
> for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
>
> That just astounds me! WOW!
>
> Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the rest
> of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
> the numbers!!!!
>
> SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
>
> And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
>
> So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
> YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
> to death overseas.
>
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
>
> http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
>
> Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
>
> Charlie
That's quite odd because the combined statistics of all web sites (566,000
of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be about
"0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
September 2000
1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
9. Unix 888184 (0%)
10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
And note that numbers of Linux users are actually DOWN 11% from July 2000
even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:27:37 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://counter.li.org/
> >
> > GEEZE look at this thing.
> > Look at the growthrates!
> >
> > They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
> > 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
> >
> > WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
> >
> > That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
> > 100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
> > Over 2000% growth!!
> >
> > Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of Europe, South
> > America
> > and Asia.
> >
> > The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I anticipated.
> >
> > I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
> > be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
> > Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
> >
> > The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
> > 16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
> >
> > The other graphs vary but they seem to be consistantly over 500% growth
> > for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
> >
> > That just astounds me! WOW!
> >
> > Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the rest
> > of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
> > the numbers!!!!
> >
> > SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
> >
> > And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
> >
> > So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
> > YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
> > to death overseas.
> >
> > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> >
> > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
> >
> > Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
> >
> > Charlie
>
> That's quite odd because the combined statistics of all web sites (566,000
> of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be about
> "0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
>
> September 2000
> 1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
> 2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
> 3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
> 4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
> 5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
> 6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
> 9. Unix 888184 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
>
> And note that numbers of Linux users are actually DOWN 11% from July 2000
> even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
>
> Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
>
> 1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
> 2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
> 3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
> 4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
> 5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
> 6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
> 9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
>
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
Hey. That's an excellent point.
Linux stat's are showing a massive Microsoft beating
and YET they have had a smaller percentage of Linux
users come in and stat for them.
This means the figures for Linux's growth are even
greater than posted. How much greater is anybody's
speculation but certainly greater than that posted.
Very good.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:33:03 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 22 Oct 2000 15:27:54 GMT...
...and ne... <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
You mean either FSSTD (obsolete) or FHS.
> 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.
Bzz, wrong. What you mean is /usr/local. /opt is for
distributor-shipped software which comes in neatly separated packages
that don't fit in the traditional Unix directory tree subdivision of
bin, lib, share and such.
Yes, this means that putting GNOME and KDE in /usr/local when you
compile them yourselves is perfectly OK. It also means that it's
perfectly OK for a distributor to put them in /usr.
However, it is still more practical from a pragmatic point of view to
have /opt/gnome and /opt/kde. I, for one, have /opt/enlightenment,
too, since that beast sets up a complete non-Unixish directory tree
under /usr/local by default, which is broken behaviour.
mawa
--
Check out the Frequently Rehashed Topics on comp.os.linux.advocacy!
<URL: http://dev.nullmodem.de/mawa/frt/>
Report dead links to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:38:02 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I found it interesting that they actually spent money
>on this one. Who was their Ad man?
It was a stupid move. It only serves to show that Linux is
legit and M$ is worried about it.
>Why is a guy like Bill Gates who practically owns the world
>even worried about Linux? I mean, Windows is at least
>10 times the size of the Linux user base. At least.
M$ doesn't just want most of the market, they want all of it. The existence
of alternatives erodes their power to dictate how things are done and to M$
that power is more important than the money.
--
http://www.spinics.net/linux
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:34:11 +0100
>
>On paper, the OS may not be as good, but the hardware is pretty solid.
>It's a very quiet computer when you turn off the hard drive (try it,
>it's eerie).
>
And if you don't like the OS you can always install Linux on it and either
dual-boot into macos or there is a way to run macos apps on MacLinux ( can't
remember name of application as I am an Intel Linux user).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Under pressure
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:41:24 -0000
In article <8st2rn$ie2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>well they claim Linux mutates .
PKB
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:44:21 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://counter.li.org/
> >
> > GEEZE look at this thing.
> > Look at the growthrates!
> >
> > They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
> > 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
> >
> > WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
> >
> > That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
> > 100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
> > Over 2000% growth!!
> >
> > Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of Europe, South
> > America
> > and Asia.
> >
> > The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I anticipated.
> >
> > I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
> > be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
> > Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
> >
> > The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
> > 16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
> >
> > The other graphs vary but they seem to be consistantly over 500% growth
> > for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
> >
> > That just astounds me! WOW!
> >
> > Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the rest
> > of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
> > the numbers!!!!
> >
> > SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
> >
> > And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
> >
> > So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
> > YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
> > to death overseas.
> >
> > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> >
> > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
> >
> > Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
> >
> > Charlie
>
> That's quite odd because the combined statistics of all web sites (566,000
> of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be about
> "0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
>
> September 2000
> 1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
> 2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
> 3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
> 4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
> 5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
> 6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
> 9. Unix 888184 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
>
> And note that numbers of Linux users are actually DOWN 11% from July 2000
> even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
>
> Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
>
> 1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
> 2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
> 3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
> 4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
> 5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
> 6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
> 9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
>
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
Let's do the research here.
http://www.internet.com/corporate/about.html
Mecklermedia Corporation
See paragraph when was internet.com corporation established.
Says' Penton Media Inc.
So that makes two Penton Media Inc sources.
This is from the same team which produced Claire-Lynn I think.
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:49:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I guess when you run LOADLIN, Linux is actually DOS 7 with Linux bolted on
top so as to *appear* to be a separate OS.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:45:45 +0100
> Build under gcc on linux gave me the expected results. VC++ under
>windows 95 gave me the *runtime* failure message of "Program
>C:\...\testaloc.exe Invalid allocation size: 4294967295 bytes." So I
>guess Windows can't recover from memory allocation errors (suprise!).
What is the result under NT and Win2K or even win98 and winme - maybe it's
been fixed since 1995 (unlikely but you never know) - also what does it do
on a 1995 vintage linux (pre 2.0 kernel probably in those days)?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[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 18:02:01 -0400
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > >
> > > > The very fact that the majrity of people are running a 10 year old, 32
> > >
> > > Win 9x is so old ?
> >
> > No, but the DOS/Windows core, as it works in 9x and ME had its beginning
> > in Windows 2.1/386. It is older than 10 years old, but I was being
> > generous.
>
> Wasn't it a 32 10 year old *shell* we were talking about ? Or maybe the
> shell is the core ? Now I'm confused. :)
DOS 1.0 was a virtual port of Z80/8080 CP/M to the 8088.
Windows is the shell that sits on top of the DOS component.
In all reality, DOS is older that 20 years, and Windows is older than 10
years. However, I am using the Windows/386 enhanced model, where it is a
DOS extender, as the benchmark for age, and I am using DOS 2.x for the
benchmark for age of DOS, and rounding down to even numbers.
>
> > > > bit shell, on top of a 20 year old 16 bit floppy based OS, in the 21st
> > >
> > > Some computer "experts" do think that Win9x is an OS in its own right.
> >
> > I have made this point endlessly, Windows 9x is as much, and in the same
> > way, and OS as DesqView and DOS's EMM386 was. If these two programs were
> > not operating systems, neither is Windows.
> >
> > BTW What computer "experts?"
>
> Pietrek and Schulman.
These people are adimitedly experts in DOS and Windows, and quite
knowledgable at that, but calling them "computer experts," where
"computer" implies general computer expertise a bit much. They may, in
fact, be quite knowledgable in general, but their published work is all
DOS and Windows.
>
> > > > century on what 20 years ago would have been called a super computer,
> > > > with less reliability than a video game, tells me that MS has harmed
> the
> > >
> > > A video game does only one thing on a particularly limited set of
> hardware.
> >
> > Unlike windows which does a lot of things (poorly) on a bunch of
>
> Insert necessary Windows bash. Can't help it, can you ? :)
>
> > hardware. So?
>
> It helps reliability to only one thing on a an extremely set of hardware, by
> reducing compexity. I don't even believe that you have to ask asked this
> question.
This is a pedantic argument. The "video game" comparison should have
been something like "swingline stapler" or something.
>
> > > > computer industry.
> > > >
> > > > UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
> > >
> > > Of course, UNIX people had a crystal ball and knew in the 70s how the
> > > computer would evolve in 30 years, gimme a little break.
> >
> > Actually, they didn't need a crystal ball. Speaking as someone writing
> > software and designing hardware IN THE 70's all it took was common
> > sense.
>
> Nevertheless, a great many of current capabilities were tacked on along the
> way, with more or less seamless integration.
Yes, because the UNIX guys were engineers that did a good job. Unlike
the DOS/Windows guys who still use drive letters. Geez, even CP/M used
volume numbers.
>
> > > > what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
> > >
> > > Sure, why didn't they bring that formidable and visionary computing
> marvel
> > > into the hands of the layman when it mattered ?
>
> <SNIP> Some computer history stuff not involving MS </SNIP>
>
> No ! No ! No ! You have it all wrong, it's all MS's fault.
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:01:07 GMT
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> If you consider *SLASHDOT* or The Register to be conventional news outlets,
> then there's no hope for you.
>
SLASHDOT always references third party web sites such as
CNET, MSNBC, things like that.
The Register does also.
Penton Media would be a good example of a wintrol haven which
has no references outside of it's relm.
>
> Microsoft's modificiations consist of exactly ONE extra field that is
> utterly ignored by systems not supporting it, just as it should be. It's
> used for one thing, and one thing only. Transferring MS-system-specific
> data over kerberos authenticated links. Things like group ownerships and
> permissions, which are REQUIRED for a MS network to achieve full
> functionality, and which are UTTERLY MEANINGLESS to other systems. It still
> works with other systems just fine. How the hell is Win2k supposed to tell
> HP-UX what the group permissions are on its files? HP-UX doesn't even know
> what that means, in the Win2k sense.
>
I think what your trying to say here is that HP-UX is a mere baby
to Win2k.
Are you for real buddy? I mean HA. Are you for real here...
>
{SNIP}
>
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
I bet! HA...
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:06:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Because he was responding to your comment. I generally like to keep
> such context in quoted replies.
So you made it look like he wrote it?
So let's see... that'd be 5 misattributions that I can recall, and 4 in the
past three days.
Not bad at all.
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
