Linux-Advocacy Digest #819, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Jerry L Kreps)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (mlw)
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:46:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time for some unadulterated mutual admiration:
Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
You can see how easily they might get confused. (*snicker*)
You show a truly admirable understanding of the history of the products.
I wish I was as good at keeping track of old detail as you; I probably
couldn't have hit the origin of Win386 or DOS 2.0 (there never was any
other 2.x, but I wouldn't have known that if someone hadn't just posted
http://www.worldowindows.com/wintime.html) within three years, at best.
>>
>> > > > 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.
Damn right. Its good to hear somebody point out that expertise does not
equal superhuman perception. In my less humble moments I've considered
myself a computer expert. You are certainly more knowledgable than I
concerning DesqView and EMM386, and there relationship to Windows than
I. But I believe you said you are a system programmer? My specialty,
if I have one, is SNMP and network management. Do you consider yourself
a computer expert?
[...]
>> 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.
Quite. That was a nice point; a swingline stapler seems to be quite
appropriate.
[...]
>> 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.
Actually, now they're not even sure if they use drive letters or UNC.
You have to admit, CP/M didn't have to deal with mass storage. But you
have to admit, it isn't easy to get pretty pictures from /etc and /bin,
so to speak. "C: (C:)" or "HD1074 (C:)" or "TMAXNT7K (C:)" is so much
more... object like. ;-)
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:04:27 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Actually, Java can be its an operating system. It provides it's own thread
management memory management, and API's that are dissimilar from the host
OS's API's. In fact, you can't even access the hosts API's from a pure Java
app.
Java is an OS, and Microsoft seems to consider it as such.
------------------------------
From: Jerry L Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:53:58 -0500
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
>Andy Newman wrote:
>
>> Colin R. Day wrote:
>> >Of course, trying to run UNIX on such computers as were used for
>> >XENIX would be like trying to drive a Lamborghini in rush-hour
>> >traffic.
>>
>> I used SCO Xenix on a PDP-11. Seemed fine. As fast a V7 on
>> similar h/w.
>
>I had read that Microsoft's version of Xenix ran on a computer with a
>20-meg hard drive. The article said that the OS could barely get out
>of its own way.
>
>Colin Day
mmm... I donno. I used a XENIX dev tool called DataAce (it was Forth based)
to write an auto parts store system back in the VERY early 80s. Didn't seem
to slow or shabby then, compared to other systems existant at the time.
But, Forth has a tendency to create the fastest code available, short of
assembly, on any PC, being a threaded and extensible langage.
JLK
------------------------------
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 21:00:30 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > But it is wrong. DesqView did the exact same thing. Is DesqView an OS?
> > If not, why not. If DesqView is not an OS, why is Windows?
>
> Yes, DesqView is an OS in the same way that DOS is an OS. It provides OS
> services. Whether it forwards those services on to someone else is
> irrelevant. As an example, mkLinux runs under Mach. I know of no
> requirement in any textbook example of an OS that the services provided must
> be done so by the OS itself, only that it provides those services.
>
> All interrupts and DMA requests go through the host OS first and are only
> then handled by a client client OS if necessary. Does Linux suddenly not
> become an OS simply because it's running in VMWare under Windows 2000? No.
Actually this is correct, when running under VMWare Linux is not
operating as an operating system. When NT is running under VMWare on
Linux, NT is not functioning as the OS. They are operating systems,
just not functioning as THE operating system.
The difference is that DOS/Windows NEVER acts as, and can not act as, an
OS. DOS/Windows extends DOS to become Windows.
>
> > I have done the programming you are talking about. The concept of "on
> > top of" is misleading because DOS can not run a 32 bit environment.
>
> Thank you. This statement says precisely what I'm getting at. DOS cannot
> run in a protected mode environment, thus it must be "hosted" by a protected
> mode OS when running in protected mode.
>
> Simply put, Windows runs "on top of" DOS when it's running in real or
> standard mode (real-mode was dropped in Windows 3.1, and standard mode was
> dropped in Win95). Windows does not run "on top of" DOS when running in
> 386-enhanced mode.
The operating model that is "Windows Enhanced Mode" first showed up in
Windows 2.1/386. I still have a copy of it. It creates a virtual
extended DOS and runs in it. BTW DOS/Windows is still based on DPMI,
drum roll please.... DOS Protected Mode Interface.
>
> > Since interrupts occur in 32 bit ring 0 space, 32 bit code must be
> > present handle the code and reflect them into some 16 bit VM as an "int"
> > instruction. The interrupt code believes it is running in 16 bit real
> > mode, when it is, in fact, running in a DOS box.
>
> That code may also be handled completely within 32 bit memory. In fact,
> Windows 95 does just this for nearly all DOS mode calls.
It may, but only as an extension.
>
> > 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.
>
> And you admit yourself that these are OS level sorts of things. If it walks
> like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
"The looks like a duck" argument is too simplistic for a real
understanding of the issues.
>
> > 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 in fact OS's in the truest sense of the term. In fact, they
> provide more OS services than DOS does itself. Some key things missing from
> DesqView, PharLap, and EMM386 though are device management and file systems.
> These are things that Win95 and Windows 3.x in 386 enhanced mode provide.
The term OS is a fuzzy one. When does something cease to be an
application and become an OS? Emacs could be considered an OS in its own
right. I think the general consensus on this is when an environment
stands alone and performs the tasks of an OS, it is an OS. Windows does
not stand alone. It requires DOS.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:59:34 GMT
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...
>
> -- Mike --
But it doesn't RUN like an OS because of the emulation and the problem in
handling interrupts. They are not using the natural power of the pc.
They are pancaking.
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 21:03:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande© in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>...
>
>> >> Unlike windows which does a lot of things (poorly) on a bunch of
>> >
>> >Insert necessary Windows bash. Can't help it, can you ? :)
>>
>> What can we say? Its crap. Blame Microsoft, not us. Or whoever taught
>
>What for ? I'm just a little making fun of someone who can't talk about a
>product without getting all riled up, that's all.
That's the thing. I don't get "riled up" about the product, and the
fact that it is crap. It isn't a matter of my getting flustered which
leads me to use that term: its an objective professional opinion. I
could only conceive of one level beneath Microsoft software in terms of
operational functionality in real-world environments: "entirely
disfunctional." And in some ways, say my business sensibilities, that
would be preferable.
>> you to reason, because you've apparently blinded yourself to the truth.
>
>The truth !? And you wield it ? Max, do me a facvor, spare me the
>sanctimoniuos and smug rhetoric.
No such luck. You expect me to be *less* arrogant than lunatics like
Bill Gates and Rush Limbough, simply because I'm not yet getting paid to
provide my opinions on these matters? No, my friend; I AM a truth
detector the likes of which Rush could only dream about.
>Of course, if you absolutely need it to bolster your confidence or make you
>feel like a knowledgeable person, well carry on.
Hmmm.
>> [...]
>> >No ! No ! No ! You have it all wrong, it's all MS's fault.
>>
>> Thanks for the straw-man. It looks cute out their in the October
>> breeze.
>
>It's called sarcasm, Max.
Its called ridicule, Paul, and I don't cotton to ridicule. If this is
the best you can do in attempting to gather and present what you call
your wit, I'd just as soon you save it. Or at least the interruption of
my words to point out that it is sarcasm. Perhaps I hadn't noticed, but
is it really that important?
>If you were following the thread, you'd know that
>mlw laid the blame on computer technological state squarely at MS's feet.
Well, yes. Of course. He's quite observant, and they *have* been
preventing substantial development or innovation in the free market
through their illegal activity for well over a decade, possibly two.
Few competitive developments could possibly succeed in an market
dominated by an anti-competitive monopoly. Exceptions exist, of course.
The Internet, for instance. Even that has been stymied in spawning
competitive markets on a massive scale by Microsoft's illegal
activities.
>MS
>and Apple brought computers to the laymen, UNIX was nowhere to be found
>because of AT&T and infighting, as mlw kindly explained to me.
Uh-huh. You think these would not stand out as singular examples of a
small amount of failure to compete with an anti-competitive monopoly if
the sum total of the "advancement" in the last twenty years be
restricted to "that which Microsoft cannot prevent"?
>So his original point of laying the blame squarely at MS's feet was wrong,
>hence the sarcasm. The UNIX world has its share too.
No, the Unix "world" is not a single market, nor a single product, nor
even a single vendor. Microsoft has controlled prices and excluded
competition, by its very existence as a monopoly, as well as its
continuing anti-competitive activities to maintain that monopoly. Even
outside its direct and even alternative markets, it has prevented the
free market from making production and innovation equal profit. The
"Unix world" is merely a reflection of this in other markets. OS/2, as
well. Hell, Plan 9 and BeOS.
>> Yes, FUD is all Microsoft's fault. They're the ones doing the FUDding.
>
>I don't recall mentioning FUDing, and you talk about strawmen ?
You said 'its' all Microsoft's fault. I took the liberty of using some
poetic license to respond in a way which I felt was most appropriate.
Perhaps you missed the intent to provide a transition in language
(what's that french word that means 'provide a transition in language'?)
between your "its all Microsoft's fault" as a straw-man representation
of someone's argument to the seasonal reference to the Halloween
documents, which show just how "free" the market is to try to compete
against a company with 90% market share and no concern for the fact that
their actions are criminal.
>> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
>
>Link doesn't work.
I noticed that. Sorry. Don't worry; it'll come back. It has happened
before. I presume there are plenty of people trying to hack
opensource.org, and occasionally one of them succeeds, temporarily, to
prevent access.
--
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: 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 21:04:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"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?
I didn't make it look like he wrote it. Can't you read quoting
convention?
>So let's see... that'd be 5 misattributions that I can recall, and 4 in the
>past three days.
>
>Not bad at all.
So you're going to be another Roger, eh? Check Deja News, and see if
you can track him down. He said he had a list.
--
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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:04:56 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Actually, Java can be its an operating system. It provides it's own thread
> management memory management, and API's that are dissimilar from the host
> OS's API's. In fact, you can't even access the hosts API's from a pure Java
> app.
>
> Java is an OS, and Microsoft seems to consider it as such.
So, our backgrounds are quite different. I do not consider Java an OS.
There is a JavaOS which is a different beast, but Java is not an OS, and
just because it presents an environment which seems OS-like, does not
mean it is one.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: 23 Oct 2000 01:06:25 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Where is your evidence that this study was paid for by Microsoft?
: Or is your thinking that anything pro-MS must have been paid for by them?
Given Microsoft's proven track record of unlawful and unethical
behavior, the shoddiness of most of its products, its well-known past
attempts to purchase "impartial" reviews, and the universal contempt in
which it and its products are held by all knowledgeable people, I
don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Indeed, I don't
see how any honest person could take any other.
Joe
------------------------------
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 21:11:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Correct. And yet all of these things are relatively easily dealt with,
>> because Unix was not designed with any preconceived notion of what
>> particular purpose a particular computer might have.
>
>Well, no. It assumed that the computer could do everything -- and that the
>user would be on the other side of a dumb terminal.
That depends on what you mean by "the other side". Unix developed
internetworking as well as remote terminal networking. Client/server
and TCP/IP are "bolted on" much more on Microsoft platforms than in
Unix, to say the least. The "other side" might be a client or a server
or both or a router or gateway or firewall or proxy, also. Generally,
you want to not make assumptions about what precisely the "other side"
is, but I understand your specifically pointing out the "dumb terminal"
concept.
Yes, now every user has a computer, and a single dumb terminal. I
understand your point. There is much I'd like to jettison concerning
the legacy which Unix has in supporting the 'remote terminal' paradigm.
But then I remember that innovation doesn't end, unless a monopoly
prevents competition, but it doesn't occur purposefully, either. It is
much like evolution, in biology, in fact. The reason why something is
beneficial is often merely perception, and the reason it was developed
is often not the purpose it ultimately serves. NetPCs, voice
recognition, on-line home/appliance control, and integration with
cellular/PDA technology might all benefit from this "the other end of
the link may be brain-dead, or may be another host" development concept
which Unix embodies and Windows can be forced into if the monopoly
requires enough effort from its consumers to make it work.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
