Linux-Advocacy Digest #818, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Astroturfing ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Claire Lynn (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("Robert M. Stockmann")
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:05:26 -0400
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> "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.
But you have said nothing of Windows 2000 vs. Linux
> > > not know half of what is installed on Linux.
> >
> > Why not? rpm -qs is your friend.
>
> rpm:no arguments given for query
You do have to state what package. On the other hand, one
can do rpm -qa to get a list of installed packages. Just send
it to a file for viewing.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
Is the fallacy mine or Microsoft's? And do OEM's sell home machines
with Windows 2000 preinstalled?
>
> >
> > > 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.
OK. You don't know how to use a Linux desktop, but we're
supposed to take advice from you? Hmm...
> 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.
Do these pieces of hardware all work for Windows 2000?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 19:33:43 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39f2e6f0$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What's wrong with your reading comprehension, Joseph, that you can't
notice
> >the words "Besides that" in my statements. That means, "Even if it were
> >true".
>
> You're proceeding on the hope that everyone here is too stupid to know
that
> newspapers would not run this story without verifying it. This makes you
> either an M$ paid troll or a complete jackass troll.
The story doesn't say that MS paid them. That's the point. Did you even
read it? The conclusion that MS paid for the letters was made by someone
else
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 20:18:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> I have the right (and duty) to complain, regardless of what I've bought
>> >> or from who. You will notice that Microsoft is a criminal monopoly.
>> >
>> >Is it? Not according to European laws yet, and, if any, if would be
>> >those that would be valid for me, wouldn't they.
>>
>> AFAIK, European law does not differ in any appreciable way from U.S. law
>> on this basic issue.
>
>Well, we were somewhat surprised about the outcome of the trial. We have
>different foundations and can legally intervene at other times, before
>such a drastic measurement is "needed".
Yes, I know. I've discussed the European approach to anti-trust quite a
bit with many people from EU countries. I've pointed out (and they've
generally agreed) that the European approach is incapable of dealing
with the fundamentally corrupt nature of Microsoft, just as the American
method is rather lousy at dealing with the more specific
anti-competitive actions in a more timely manner.
>> The question, of course, is not whether you are
>> complaining, but whether I am complaining, so it is what laws are valid
>> for me which are relevant.
>
>I am still not getting _why_ you are complaining.
>
>Are you not happy with Microsoft? Don't buy from Microsoft.
>
>And if you are happy with Microsoft, don't fight them.
I'm complaining because buying from anyone else is harder and more
expensive because of the illegal actions they take to make it so. I
can't quite understand why you don't agree this is worth complaining
about, whether you use their products or not. I do both; I use them
when I have to (they're crap) and avoid them when I can. I have to use
them a lot, which I complain about, both because I have to use them and
because I have to use them a lot.
>I assume you use Windows, because I don't think Forte Agent is available
>for anything but Windows. I know it runs on OS/2 though.
It also runs on WINE, but I do use Windows. NT 4.0, specifically,
because the choices I had from my employer (I use a laptop 24/7, and
have no desire to purchase a "home PC" right now) were 98 or NT4, and I
would not use 98 if I can avoid it.
>> >What's the difference between a monopoly and a criminal monopoly? For
>> >haven's sake DO NOT BUY Microsoft's products! That's the solution.
>>
>> Well, the difference is that there isn't a difference. Using the word
>> "criminal" in front of "monopoly" is for emphasis. In reality it is
>> redundant, since all monopolies are criminal monopolies in the U.S.
>> (Those things some people insist are "legal monopolies" are, in fact,
>> not monopolies; usually, they are public utilities, or regulated markets
>> because of very high natural barriers to entry.)
>
>I don't know whether the Sherman anti-trust law say that monopolies are
>illegal per se. I assume it refers only to supposed "abuses" of a
>monopoly. I still disagree with it though. I believe such measurements
>should only be applied to resource monopolies.
§ 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine
or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any
other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or
by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm.
It says "it is a felony to monopolize, or the attempt to monopolize."
The only out would seem to be to happen to luck in to having a monopoly,
but never defending, using, or attempting to maintain it. That doesn't
last long, in a free market. So, in truth, monopolies are illegal. As
for "resource monopolies", you'd have to be more specific, and there
are, in legal terms at least, no "legal monopolies" of any type. There
are an infinite number of ways, theoretically, to have a very large
market share. But that, again, is not what it means to "monopolize", so
it is not properly called "a monopoly". Often, "public utility",
"regulated market", or some other such term is far more accurate and
practical.
>> The solution is to ensure that customers can, in fact, NOT BUY
>> Microsoft's products, and not be harmed by that fact.
>
>I do not buy Microsoft products and I believe those who are harmed are
>those who buy Microsoft products, not me.
This is where you're mistaken. Can you honestly say that after all
these years, the best that Apple or anyone else could do is a Power PC
running Linux? Other than a moderate amount of sophistication in the
software, the availability of new non-PC-specific technologies like the
Internet and such, and Moores Law, do you honestly believe you've seen
any "innovation" in the computer industry since the ancestors of your
"bastard stepchild of the MacSE and Minix" were the cutting edge?
>MacOS is certainly easier to use and more fun than Windows.
>
>And GNU gives you much more freedom than Windows.
>
>If you are still using Windows, you make a bad choice, unless you cannot
>or don't want to afford a Mac, and prefer ease of use over freedom and
>thus don't use free software (which is, admittedly, more difficult to
>use).
You conveniently ignore the fact that you chose more expensive hardware
in order to avoid pre-load monopolization by Microsoft. Your PowerPC
with Linux would be cheaper and better supported if not for Microsoft's
criminal behavior. If you'd like to go through the reasoning behind
this fact, I'll be happy to oblige. But please do some homework first.
Check some of the postings on these topics I've made over the last year;
I've already gone through it several times, from a number of
perspectives.
>> Since Microsoft
>> has taken criminal actions to ensure that there is no commercially
>> feasible alternative which is widely available to the majority of the
>> market, this requires first preventing the criminal activity. Simply
>> blaming consumers for looking after their own self-interest, rather than
>> the abstract cause of preventing monopolization, is bass-ackwards, so to
>> speak.
>
>Are you familiar with game theory? It says that self-interest will
>ultimately NOT result in the best, but in the worst result for every
>individual.
>
>The prisoner's dillema is one such situation, monopilzation is another.
You confuse "prisoner's dilemma" with *game theory* en toto. Prisoner's
dilemma is, indeed, one place that self-interest does not produce good
results, and monopolization is another. Game theory, just like markets,
support other paradigms which do allow self-interest to produce
acceptable, and in some cases the best, results. In markets, they're
called 'free markets'.
>I certainly do blame those who because of their self-interest and egoism
>buy Microsoft products instead of competing products. But what I blame
>them for is the situation they are now in. It is your fault, as a
>Microsoft customer, that Microsoft sells any products, and it is your
>fault, as many Microsoft customers, that Microsoft sells even more
>products. And it is your fault as Microsoft customers, that potential
>non-Microsoft customers also decide for Microsoft because otherwise they
>might not be able to read the documents that you save in Microsoft file
>formats (.doc).
Fine. So buying a Mac and replacing the OS with Linux allows you to
feel morally superior. Does that increase the performance of your hard
drives, or something?
>I made the same mistake when I bought my first computer in 1994. I
>didn't think about it, I simply took what I thought was a good offer and
>bought a Compaq Presario with MS-DOS 6.2 and Windows 3.1. By 1995 I
>realized that alternatives existed and bought OS/2 Warp 3 (and after
>that a machine that came with OS/2 Warp Connect). When I then thought
>OS/2 was near its end as a customer OS, I bought a PowerPC machine. I
>was used to using Linux ever since the beginning of OS/2's downfall, so
>I installed Linux on it and am happy ever since. Now my PowerPC 604e/233
>is not so much fun any more, so I decided to buy a G4 as soon or late as
>MacOS X would be out. To me it looks like the machine I want and need.
You don't seem to realize that a) just because you could find an
acceptable alternative does not mean everyone can, and b) monopolization
does more harm than simply not providing value to their customers.
>> >> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>> >
>> >Would, if you did not support Microsoft.
>>
>> Hmmm.
>
>Still not getting it? What we need in order to beat Microsoft is people
>who DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS, regardless of whether these people like
>or hate Microsoft.
So if the consumer is not willing to sacrifice their time and money to
battling the monopoly, then monopolization should be allowed? Isn't
that a Hobson's Choice? How about if we just outlaw monopolizing, as we
did over a hundred years ago? This way, people don't have to buy a
product they hate to appease your sense of the moral responsibility of
the consumer. Markets are about fiscal responsibility, not being a
sacrificial lamb for somebody else's principles.
>We don't need people who buy their products and hate
>them, and we do not need people who buy their products and like them
>(altaugh liking Microsoft and their products is certainly a logical
>setup, and I don't critizise people for their decision if what they
>bought is what they wanted to have).
Better yet, we don't need them. Your unwillingness to second-guess what
the consumers buy is commendable, and quite ethical. Your unwillingness
to double-check that they are not being taken advantage of is not an
acceptable legal position. The government does have the responsibility
to ensure all producers are acting fairly. Don't they?
[...]
>> Nothing is *wrong* with it. Its simply not at all relevant to the
>> question of Microsoft's monopoly.
>
>I believe the _fact_ that competition exists is completely relevant to
>the question of whether Microsoft is a monopoly. That's what "monopoly"
>means.
No, it isn't. Monopoly means the ability to control prices and exclude
competition, nothing more and nothing less. Whether that comes from
having 100 percent market share or simply a large market share ("market
power") and acting anti-competitively ("monopolizing" or "restraining
trade") is completely irrelevant.
>> >Apparently "seperate hardware platform" is a good defence against
>> >Microsoft, given that Microsoft didn't make it on the PowerPC platform.
>>
>> Thus, the reason why a separate hardware platform is no defense from
>> Microsoft at all, but merely avoidance of the criminal monopoly. It is
>> not the consumer's responsibility to ensure that producers are acting
>> legally; it is the government's.
>
>And it is our responsibility as the people to ensure that government
>enforces fair justice. And I don't regard breaking up Microsoft because
>their monopoly or quasi-monopoly or mightbe-monopoly is a result of
>people buying the products of their own free will.
That's the point. It isn't a result of people buying their products of
their own free will. It is because Microsoft made it economically
unfeasible for OEMs to do anything but pre-load DOS, then Windows, then
Office, then IE, then Media Player, and now W2K and soon .NET.
>You can hurt Microsoft most if you don't buy and use their products.
>That would be moral.
Yay. Go be a martyr on your own dime. I'd like to see more
competition, thank you, and seeing as Microsoft has been proven to be
preventing competition, purposefully, I'd just as soon they be prevented
from doing so. That would be ethical.
>Support free software and the freedom that comes with it instead.
>That would be good.
Yes, it would. As soon as you can convince Sprint, AOL, and WorldCom
(three of the biggest customers in my market) to stop using Microsoft
products and start using Linux, or you can get IBM, Gateway, Dell, and
Compaq to preload Linux, or any other non-MS OS, on every one of their
product lines, then that will be good.
You might personally be convinced that this will happen by itself, due
to customer choice, but in reality it only seems as feasible as it might
because Microsoft has, in fact, already been convicted in federal court.
The appeal is dragging out, but I assure you the grounds for appeal are
little more than empty posturing. The Supreme Court might be considered
to agree, since they passed on the Expedited Appeal. But then, you
could also think the opposite, I imagine.
Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll realize, eventually, that splitting
Microsoft will unleash the most amazing and profitable AND
consumer-benefitting mass of innovation since the PC itself. The
Internet would have done as much, had Microsoft not suppressed
innovation to the point where its little more than a billion senseless
web pages and a banner advertising industry.
>Or use another system like MacOS and enjoy the ease of use.
>That would be practical.
>
>But buying Microsoft and then breaking them up is incosistent, and thus
>immoral, bad, and not even practical.
>
>It is just a waste of time.
>
>After you broke it up, you will just continue to buy their products and
>NOTHING would change for the rest of us.
You don't seem to even have a casual awareness of the facts of the
matter. It concerns APIs, not being immoral or "bad".
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:21:38 -0000
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:10:40 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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.
...and what exactly would the problem with such an assumption be?
--
The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer.
The haves get more, the have-nots die.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:34:47 GMT
"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
As I recal, and it's been some time, YES THAT IS XENIX.
Ha.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 19:56:58 -0500
"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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
------------------------------
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?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:36:29 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish he had kept file versioning. I like that on VMS.
What I find odd is that sometimes I get the impression that many
people think that Cutler designed VMS, but he only designed a small
part, and wasn't on the design team from the start. Thus NT is not a
stripped-down VMS. It's like if Bill Joy had designed NT people would
start claiming that NT was an offspring of UNIX.
But Cutler undoubtedly took inspiration from VMS, that's only natural.
There are some similarities, but there's also new and better stuff,
and stuff that was left behind that shouldn't have been, and stuff
that was transformed into something different. But most of all that
is irrelevant, because the NT kernel that he helped design is barely
visible to the user or programmer. It's a life support system for
Win32.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:39:01 GMT
ostracus wrote:
>
> Assuming I was the CEO of a company. Why would the above be seen as a
> minus?
>
That this would make you a master of OS judgement?
Somebody turn on a fan and open a window.
It smells.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Robert M. Stockmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 02:40:29 +0200
Haoyu Meng wrote:
>
> Windows 2000 is rock solid.
We run a win2000 pilot network setup, with Active Directory Server
and some win2000 professional clients. So can you explain to me, why
we have to push the reset button of the win2000 Advanced Server
every monday morning after the weekend?
The AD win2000 Advanced Server runs MSSQL7 and a ERP middleware
package on top of that.
>I have used it for almost half a year. Only
> had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
> hardware devices.
>
> Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
> as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
Stable? I'm not sure of that. Even SP1 for win2k didn't resolve our
problems. And the real knightmare was when we had to change the
ip-number
of the Active Directory Server. After that DHCP stopped working and
we had to change to static ip-numbers for the win2000 workstations.
All this stupid nightmare shit certainly wouldn't have happened if
we would have used Linux as our server.
>
> Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with Slackware
> floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used Linux as
> my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role. But
> Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
> at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers tucked
> away on a network link to do only number crunching and code comping.
>
> Any similar stories?
Sorry, i would like to have told you one, but win2000 server just
ain't ready for that.
Robert
--
++---------------------++---------------------------------++
|| R.M. Stockmann || InfoMagic Nederland VOF ||
|| [EMAIL PROTECTED] || Unix administration & support ||
++---------------------++---------------------------------++
Linux: A copylefted Unix-like operating system for several platforms :
http://perso.wanadoo.es/xose/linux/linux_ports.html
------------------------------
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 20:01:37 -0500
"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.
>
> What makes DesqView NOT an OS is that a previous OS is not removed, but
> extended.
Gee, I guess that makes mkLinux not an OS then. Sice mkLinux doesn't remove
Mach, and in fact depends on Mach for many functions.
That is what you mean, right?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:44:36 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch 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.
> >
> > What makes DesqView NOT an OS is that a previous OS is not removed, but
> > extended.
>
> Gee, I guess that makes mkLinux not an OS then. Sice mkLinux doesn't remove
> Mach, and in fact depends on Mach for many functions.
>
> That is what you mean, right?
I don't know enough about mkLinux, but in that context, perhaps.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
