Linux-Advocacy Digest #842, Volume #29 Tue, 24 Oct 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (2:1)
Re: Linux "Family Edition" ("MH")
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (2:1)
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Tim Kelley)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Why Linux is great. (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Jacques Guy)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("David Brown")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:16:40 +0100
> > It shouldn't cause runtime problems. I want to be able to upgrade my
> > system in parts whilst not breaking too much. This has prooven possible,
> > but a little awkward with rpm. Note, it was possible.
> >
>
> Well, RedHat didn't think so. A difference of opinion there.
Hm.
> > I think they could have made more effort to make upgrading easier. I've
> > been studying the /etc/rc.d directory: the new initscripts have some new
> > functions in them, that they didn't before, which is why xfs needed a
> > whole new set of initscripts just to install it.
> >
> > Esentially, they replaced
> >
> > echo -n "Starting the font server..."
> > daemon /usr/X11/bin/xfs
> >
> > with
> >
> > action "Starting the font server" /usr/X11/bin/xfs
> >
> > This small change made me install a whole new load if initsctipts, which
> > needed some fixing in a non-obvious way to make the system shut dowm
> > properly.
> > Secondly, they removed the daemon command which broke my old
> > initscripts.
> >
> > I wouldn't have minded so much if it hadn't broken the shutdown, and
> > left a (depraceted) daemon command in for legacy support.
> >
> >
>
> Oh, I still don't think so. You could have just upgraded the entire thing
> and been happy anyway.
I didn't want to upgrade the entire thing because I wanted to keep all
my settings ans scripts working -- not that my plan worked. Also, I had
the CD as an ISO image on my HDD, and I'm flat out of CDRs st the
moment.
Also, I only wanted to upgrade what I wanted.
>
> Again. If you want Slackware, run Slackware.
>
> >
> > > If you want slackware then run slackware.
> > > This is what slackware is all about.
> >
> > I started off with RH, because that was the only one I could get. I
> > don't want to reinstall the OS to get what I want.
> >
>
> I don't get these two lines. I'm sure they made sense to
> you when you typed them but I don't get this.
I have redhat, because it was ehat the local shop was selling. I have
been very happy with it and don't want to install another distro over
the top, this breaking things I have spent time doing.
> > > Yet it WON'T allow you to BREAK things either unless you run it manually
> > > and force the command.
> > rpm wouldn't generally, except I can't shut down properly, still.
>
> Don't know what to say. RPM isn't perfect.
>
It's fixed now. It used an option needing a newer version of mount, but
didn't tell me. It also didn't install imlib, so no GNOME stuff worked
until I was told to instal it.
>
> I really think you need Debian.
> Why don't you build some 2.2 Potato disks and give this a try.
> I think you will be pleasently surprised.
>
> Charlie
What't the easiest way to instal deb packages on a rpm based system Is
it possible?
--
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: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux "Family Edition"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:31:24 -0400
"Raffael Cavallaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Better than being an Athletic-Supporter I suppose. <drum roll>!
>
> You mean <rim-shot>
>
> Drummers don't play drum rolls after bad one liners, they play a rim
> shot. The ignorant error fits with the rest of your obvious troll though.
>
> --
>
> Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This institution where you received your Ph.D......
Did they, uh, have an English course?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:34:31 +0100
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Idoia Sainz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> GNU/Linux is a big opponent ... as a server.
> > > >
> > > > HA! Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > This is the thing I find STILL everybody is just clueless about!
> > > >
> > > > Catagorization! Linux can't be treated that way.
> > > >
> > > > The GNU/GPL is going to shape up as one of the
> > > > most powerful documents to affect mankind.
> > > >
> > > > It marks the end of a period and the beginning of
> > > > another.
> > > >
> > > > And yes it has been responsible for some Microsoft
> > > > Server damage but also,,, it's eating away at the
> > > > desktop's also. Especially in Europe, South America
> > > > and Asia.
> > > >
> > > > America will follow the world into this revolution.
> > > > We will be last.
> > >
> > > Quite possibly. However, SUN have basically given up on s/w.
> > > They tried to split their h/w and s/w (sunsoft) but their
> > > money comes from h/w. They now all but give Solaris away. And
> > > why buy their compiler products when gcc is free?
> >
> > gcc does not make very fast programs on RISC processors. Suns compiler
> > is worth buying if you want speed.
> > Likewise, (compaq's) ccc makes faster programs than gcc.
> >
> > -Ed
>
> Interesting, do you have any documentation supporting this???
Someone gave a link to a website some months back comparing the Athlon
to the Alpha with gcc and ccc on the Alpha. I've lost the link, though.
Unfortunately I couldn't find it on deja. I'll try to find it again, but
don't be too hopeful.
-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: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:07:48 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
> Idoia Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
>
> Actually, that's something I like about redhat vs the others, since
> I like to partition "root" space on a different area than /usr space.
> Adding an /opt space means I need three partitions if I want to keep
> doing that (or the ability to set a symlink *before* the installation
> begins, not as an ugly clean-up afterward).
uhhh ... what's to stop you from dropping to a shell during install (before
package installation but after partitioning) to make whatever symlinks you
want? I don't know of a linux install that doesn't let you do this ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:29:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Timothy Miller wrote:
>When the DOJ finishes with Big Software, the Word Corporation, having
>no operating system monopoly to protect, will eagerly port Word to
>Linux.
And that will be "The End Of Linux As We Know It".
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Hmmm... a CRIPPLED
at ACCOUNTANT with a FALAFEL
visi.com sandwich is HIT by a
TROLLEY-CAR...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Oct 2000 14:38:21 GMT
On 23 Oct 2000 23:53:56 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:28:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>oops...
>:>
>:>sorry..
>:>claire
>: "claire" is a he, in case anybody is wondering.
>
>Technically, we don't know that. All we know is that claire is the
>same person as several other alias names that were male. We don't
>know which names were "in drag", and which were the "correct" gender.
>It could very well be that the person is really called Claire, and
>the previous names were all aliases.
>
Thats true Steve, however "Clear_lying" seems to have many male attributes ?
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 2 days 10 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 24 Oct 2000 14:43:00 GMT
In article <39f4ee2e$0$32684$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, not if both the client and the server are running NT/2000. The
> client actually creates a metafile, some sort of device independent
> script composed of GDI commands, which is sent to the server, which
> then uses the appropriate device driver to perform the rendering,
> PCL or whatever. The metafile is usually an order of magnitude
> smaller than a device dependent 600 dpi (or whathever) full page
> bitmap.
So how, other than the large dose of NIH syndrome, does this differ
from printing using PostScript on UNIX? The K3WL "Look Ma, I'm a
graphics driver" interface, or is there real substance in there?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 24 Oct 2000 15:03:45 GMT
In article <39f4dd8d$0$32627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what dvi files are.
Conventionally TeX output, but other programs produce them as well.
> Can you use these as a general purpose rendering mechanism for any
> app, for both screen and paper? Can an app, say a word processor,
> use the very same API calls to display your document on screen and
> print it on paper? While we are at it, is there any standard way of
> doing such things (device independent screen display and printing)
> on the platform you are implicitely refering to?
The very same file renders exactly the same on paper as it does on the
screen (assuming you've got antialiasing turned on and the colours to
take advantage of it. But that goes without saying.) They don't
provide a full interactive display model though, since their focus is
on providing output that will render exactly[*] right on very high end
printing hardware.
DVI files are completely independent of platform and target hardware.
(Well, unless you put \specials in. But there's a de facto standard
there too.) They can be (reportedly) produced and handled on
virtually every platform that supports ANSI C, as well as many that
don't.
> I've heard that Display PostScript attempted to provide such true
> device independence but I don't know to what extent it was really
> implemented/deployed/used. All I know is that Next's version was
> painfully slow. Now, maybe with part of it in the kernel, it would
> have been more useable?
The slowness was probably due to the generality of the affine
transform and antialiasing rasterizer. Curiously, these are the same
components that make Java Swing incredibly sluggish. GUI system
developers should be forced to use 386s and to test on a wide range of
resolutions too...
Donal.
[* Well, to somewhere around micro-point resolution IIRC. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- OK, there is the MFC, but it only makes the chaos object orientated.
-- Thomas Nellessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:39:36 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Tim Palmer wrote:
> The Bible contanes the word of GOD!
> Genissis 2:2: And on thee 7th day God ended His work whitch He had dun,
> and He rested on
> thee 7th day from all His work wich He had done." God made it in
> 7 days.
> You woant say that wen GOD comes down and jujes you and you get thsoe hot coles on
>your but.
[etc.]
If after that there are still some who do not realize that Tim Palmer
is a leprechaun with a wicked sense of humour... I throw the towel
in.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:42:27 +0200
I am afraid I don't have time for anything but brief comments, and I
certainly don't have the time to look up links from things I have read long
ago.
>I've found it rare for linux folks to compromise very much. Why start with
>unprovable and exaggerated claims in the first place? Easy -- if left
unchecked
>they end up being taken as fact and furthur the Penguinista Windows smear
>campaign.
>
I use NT at work, and Linux at home. Sometimes I use Windows at home, and
soon I will use Linux at work. I am not a blind fanatic for either camp - I
use whatever does the job best for me at the time. Thus, compromising is
very important. I may respond to wild claims with wild responses, expecting
wild counter-responses.
>That's the operating procedure of a single web host. There are plenty of
others
>that use Windows NT/2000 for everything, especially those that specialize
in SSL
You wanted examples - I gave you a first-hand example.
>Please show how that it possible when the VBScript is running on the server
ASP
>application and no VBScript code is embedded in the client HTML. I'm
beginning
VBScript used on the server is as secure as any other server scripting
language - i.e., it is as secure as the application programmers made their
programs. This will apply equally to VBScript, perl, or any other
server-side scripting.
My grid is with client-side VBScript. True, it is rarely used - except by
viruses and malicious web sites. Since very few web sites use it for honest
purposes, it is irresponsible of MS to make it so powerful and so easy
access via viruses. It is also legitimately used within companies for
Office macros. VBScript should be disabled by default, limited in its
access power, and only enabled by those that actually need it. If a company
wants to give its employees VBScript access for use in Office macros, then
their computer support staff can set up the machines in a safe manner.
>Guninsky thinks that 24 hours is time enough to analyze, engineer, test and
>deploy a patch for any percieved vulnerability he thinks he's found. In
many
I agree - 24 hours does seem a little mean.
>>
>> I suppose to be fair on MS, they have usually found a whole pile of
faults
>> that are already prepared for the next service pack before they launch
>> version 1 of a new OS or application.
>
>No. To be fair with Microsoft, they have found a pile of 3rd and 4th
severity
>issues, feature requests, opportunities for optimization, etc. that are
>scheduled for the service pack. Most developers, Microsoft included, have
Most of the "faults" corrected in service packs are minor issues, it is
true. But there are often major headaches too. I am not going to go into a
list here - if you ask, I am sure there are plenty of people in this group
who will be falling over themselves to tell you of problems with first
releases of Windows versions that could be classified as major and should
have been found in early testing.
>> Some are quick, but some are slow - it took about a year for a patch to
>> outlook that will stop it from running scripts without warning users of
the
>> danger.
>
>Really? Which specific one? I don't recall such a situation. Reference
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.asp And tell me which
one you
>are talking about. Or post a relevant link from somewhere else.
I think it might be
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS00-049.asp , but I am
not sure. The patch was to stop Outlook or Outlook Express running VBScript
files - previously, unsuspecting users had got viruses by accidently running
VBS attachements, believing them to be TXT files, or whatever (by default,
Windows "helpfully" hides the real extension). This was well known to be
the biggest source of viruses, trojans, and other security breaches for well
over a year before MS decided to fix it.
>
>> >Sure they can. You're being spied on right now since you are choosing
to
>> use
>> >X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5. If you're so
scared
>> why
>> >aren't you using Linux?
>>
>> I can't do everything with Linux, and for work I need NT. Outlook
Express 4
>> is not too bad, actually, as long as the system does not have newer
versions
>> of IE or MS Office. I don't really care if others can find out what news
>> program I use, but I do care if someone collects information about my
>> machine (such as the old registration wizard for Win95).
>
>And you think linux prevents that? Go ahead and install Netscape on linux
and
>start searching from the path box.
I don't think Linux prevents applications from sending data to websites or
as part of email and news posting headers. But I do think that if, for
example, Red Hat decided to add some code that would check if your machine
also had other Linuxes installed and send that information to their sales
department, or added code to send a copy of your root password to the NSA,
people would find out quickly and let everyone know. The official line is
that the so-called NSA key in Windows was a remenant of test code and does
not actually do anything, but it could easily have been real without anyone
knowing about it.
>Why not? It's estimated that the Windows GUI is composed of at least an
order
>of magnitude more code than the X Window System, Motif, and all the other
bits
Windows GUI and X work most of the time, each of the crash on occasion. As
long as you stick to NT, the rest of the system keeps going and the GUI
restarts (same applies to unixes), whereas under Win9x the whole system will
often crash. Each system is a huge project, each has overweight and
inconsistent APIs, each has started out okay and got way out of hand through
the usual process of adding new features while retaining backwards
compatibility.
>> I am not
>> saying that any particular open-source program is better or worse -
>
>I am saying that. For the most part.
Someone else more aquainted with Linux and/or Windows source code can argue
this far better than me.
>Weenies was a non-issue. The programmer was fired for intentionally
subverting
>source control protocols.
>http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/deleteframe.pl?story=/articles/pi/xml/00/0
4/14/000414piweenie.xml
Fine, it was a single case and the guy responsible (or the scape-goat?) was
fired. But if MS has such strict quality controls, the code would never
have left the office.
>
>Concept was a systemic difficulty. It has since been mitigated.
What is a "systemic difficulty"? Is that a technical term for a virus
template? It has in no way been mitigated - virtually every successful
virus in the last 5 years is a decendant (at least in principle) of the
concept virus. That one little "systemic difficulty" redefined the virus
world from program-oriented distribution to data-oriented distribution.
Remember, macro viruses were possible from long before concept, and on other
systems, but no one had thought to write one (or did not know how to do so)
until MS paved the way.
>> There are probably over a thousand paid, full-time linux programmers
around
>> the world (my estimate), employed by dedicated linux companies such as
Red
>> Hat, and other companies that make heavy use of linux such as IBM and
Corel.
>
>What are the sources for your estimates. The largest (perhap arguably)
open
>source move since linux was Mozilla and Zawinski, who was in charge of it,
and
>tells a different story :-)
My estimates are my own figures, as I said. They are based losely on the
number of open source projects and companies that I have come across. They
may be wildly wrong in either direction. And Mozilla may be an important
open source project, but when it started it was almost universally boicotted
by open source programmers for various reasons, and is hardly a good
example.
>
>Given what Jamie has told me in the above link, how can you claim that. I
>simply want to state that there is a possibility that there are more folks
>working with a trained quality ethic in commercial software than in open
>source. And I think that possibility is so great that it remains my
opinion.
You are changing the arguement slightly here. I will not deny that there
are more commercial programmers than open source programmers. But there may
well be more open source linux programmers (including the basic system, such
as X and other essential components) than there are MS programmers working
on Windows.
>
>> How many of MS's 37,000 employees are actually programmers? And how many
of
>Way more than linux, X, KDE and GNOME et. al. combined. Thus their
progress.
Windows continues to evolve, but linux is evolving faster. Just look at the
differences between Windows now and five years ago, and compare it to the
difference between Linux now and five years ago.
>
>> For
>> example, where is the USB support for NT 4.0 ? MS claims it can't be
done,
>
>No. They do not. They urge you to ask the hardware vendor. Many of these
>vendors decline.
>
>> but there are third-parties producing NT4 USB drivers for their own
devices.
>
>Good for them. Not OS support.
Why should lots of third parties produce potentially incompatible system
extensions when MS already has the code available for other OSes? We should
be asking hardware vendors to urge MS to make USB support in NT 4.0. But
that will never happen, because people could use USB on their NT4.0 systems
instead of "upgrading" to w2k. It makes business sense, but it is hardly
good customer service.
>
>> For more fundemental hardware, such as the processor, it is a different
>> matter. Windows now has no support for non-x86 processors (except for
>> Wince, which supports a small handful of CPUs, with the hand getting
smaller
>> with each version of Wince), whereas Linux runs on dozens of processors,
>> even widely different architectures. MS has got some way towards making
w2k
>> run on the itanium, although most of the code will run in its 32-bit
>> compatibility mode (i.e., very slowly); linux is running fine on
simulators
>> and prototypes and is all recompiled for 64-bit mode.
>
>Was a waste of time for both. Look to Foster.
Exactly my point - when Foster comes out, Linux will have had long-term
experiance on IA-64, and much longer experiance at 64-bit. Windows will be
prototyping.
>>
>> Tell that to the people who have tried to install HP CD writers in a w2k
>> machine, and found that the drivers conflict with other parts of the
system,
>> sometimes resulting in total destruction of the filing system.
>
>The code you refer to is owened by Adaptec. Ask (or sue) them. As for the
>filesystem, post proof. I cannot see how NTFS can be corrupted by this.
And
>also please post your definition of "corruption". I'm sure it's just a
fake as
>you seem to be little more than a well read Penguinista.
This was from an article in a non-linux magazine. They did find out that
the problem was with Adaptec's stuff, but in the process of trying to get
things working, they managed to reduce their w2k system to being completly
unbootable. As to whether the NTFS was corrupted, or just the files on it,
I don't know. It was a specific problem, and w2k is undoubtable more
reliable and stable than any previous windows, but they have a long way to
go yet.
>
>> Remember, you are talking about an OS that lets application programs (in
>> particular, MS Office) totally re-arrange fundamental parts of the
system.
>
>Post proof IRT Windows 2000? Or Windows Millenium? Microsoft tried to be
>nice. See where it got them? DLL HELL.
I don't know about w2k or windmill, but on NT4.0 and win9x, office mashes
the system. Mostly it works, but if there is a problem, there is no way to
un-install office.
>Now it's better than UNIX -- system
>files are protected no matter if you are admin or root or user. COOL!
You can access anything as root. System files are protected even from root
as default, but you can get access if you really want. Normally, files are
protected because you should not need to access them and the protection
helps prevent accidents. Sure, the new Windows repair mechanisms help fix
up after disasters, but unix prevents many such problems occuring in the
first place.
>> Remember how long it took MS to properly support 32-bit 80386 processors?
I
>> think it was around ten years between the chip's introduction and the its
>> support on MS's mainstream OS.
>
>FUD. 386ENH was supported by Win3.1. A little over a year from it's first
>first impementation in the Compaq.
386ENH was minimal support for the 80386. The real power of the '386 is
only shown by a 32-bit multitasking OS, making use of features such as
protected memory spaces. While NT3.51 was available earlier, the mainstream
OS which took advantage of this was Win95.
>
>> And what about SledgeHammer? And when the next generation of IA-64,
which
>> will be faster than Merced, is available, Linux will have been running on
>> IA-64 for years while MS is still messing around with prototypes. And
what
>> about other architectures? The StrongArm, running at 1 GHz, gives 1200
MIPs
>> at something like 200 mW. It does not have the floating point or 3D
engines
>> of an x86 chip, but you don't need that for a server. If someone
produced
>> SMP chipssets for these chips, they would be ideal for servers, at about
5%
>> of the cost and power of equivilent x86 chips. Linux would run on it,
but
>> the only MS product to run on Arms is Wince.
>
>Or Windows NT embedded AKA Windows 2000 embedded. BTW all that shit up
there is
>speculation. I'm not interested in rebutting it since you have not
produced a
>single link yet.
WinNT embedded only runs on x86 chips. I haven't tried it myself, but I
find MS's lack of marketing drive on NT embedded a good indication of its
worth.
Have a quick look at http://www.x86-64.org/ for some information. I don't
think there is much there, but it would be a start if you are interested.
If not, forget all I said about SledgeHammer. As I said earlier, I don't
have time to dig up links, so you can either accept what I have written, or
(more likely) ignore it.
This branch of the thread has got far too long, so I have cut out the rest.
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 24 Oct 2000 10:56:07 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8t475k$63c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39f4ee2e$0$32684$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So how, other than the large dose of NIH syndrome, does this differ
> from printing using PostScript on UNIX?
It's not really different. Just that from an app point of view, rendering on
screen or on paper is exactly the same thing. I don't know what it takes to
generate a PostScript file similar to what you draw on the screen on Unix.
Using Windows, you talk to GDI in pretty much the same way for all kind of
rendering devices.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
