Linux-Advocacy Digest #877, Volume #29 Fri, 27 Oct 00 20:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sorry, Claire, but this is urgent (Steve Mading)
Re: MS Hacked? (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Steve Mading)
Linux ("Brandon Van Every")
Re: MS Hacked? (Steve Mading)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Goldhammer Goldhammer)
Re: Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (JoeX1029)
Re: Linux (Steven Smolinski)
Re: Why Linux is great. (JoeX1029)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Otto")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Otto")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux ("mmnnoo")
Re: MS Hacked? ("MH")
Re: MS Hacked? ("MH")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sorry, Claire, but this is urgent
Date: 27 Oct 2000 22:23:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: You're behind the times Terry "the" Porter.
: I provided solutions to 3 out of 5 of his stupid questions. The other
: 2 need more information to answer.
: You obviously suck. Much like the "not watched" Olympic garbage you
: tried to push on TV.
: Hint: It was the least watched Olympics in the last 25 years. A shame
: seeing as the athletes did a great job.
: Too bad the production end sucked.
This had nothing to do with production. It had to do with timezones.
To see events as they happen, people in the US would have had to
watch TV in the middle of the night. By the time a re-broadcast happened
in the daytime, the event in question was long over and the results were
already available elsewhere.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:31:00 -0400
MH wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
> > >
> >
> > Very cool. All we have to do is wait. Sooner or later the code will be
> > posted, and we will get a good laugh.
> >
>
> No, but it would be interesting. Looking at NN's code would be funny.
> But then it is open now, isn't it.
> And I would guess that is why the folks at Mozilla decided on a complete
> re-write of it.
> Something tells me they didn't find it "funny."
>
> I love everyone's attitude about MS's source code somehow being "funny", or
> full of "goto's" and on and on. The truth is that none of you would more
> than likely even know what you were looking at if the source code for a MS
> office app or a MS os was in front of your face.
> Yet you make these statements because you can write a trivial C program or
> an sql statement.
> Or hell, even a device driver. Try even thinking about what is involved in
> the process of bringing a product like Word for Windows to market.
> Oh, I know. It's SSSOOOO easy to write this stuff, isn't it?
> You're all so full of yourselves.
> And living in a dream world.
> A constructed fantasy of self grandeur.
> Wake up people
> The play has started, take your seat.
> Theatre of the absurd is what it is called.
>
> Casting stones from your glass houses.
I have seen the quality of Microsoft code first hand. I worked at
Turning Point Software, when they were doing a contract for Microsoft. I
was the Windows archetect for the products that eventually became
Creative Writer and Fine Artist.
The stuff is near to impossible to read because of the virulent use of
Hungarian notation. A practice which has a place, in moderation.
>
> Let he who can post his source for his best program here and now, lay waste
> by way of comparison to the code of any MS application in use today. Let us
> see the code, hot-shots.
I can not post my best source, because it belongs to people who have
paid me. I have posted, peridically, and in various places, non-trivial
code from time to time.
> Put up or shut up.
I do not have to "put up" for you. I have paid my dues and my opinions
of Microsoft are from first hand experience. Should you disagree with my
opinions, feel free. As for sutting up, I don't think so.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:30:52 -0400
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[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,
>
> Actually, that's why lots of us use Linux. We get home, and it works.
> Period. Once it's set up, it stays set.
>
>
> > I do
> > not know half of what is installed on Linux.
>
> So much for the "not enough software" argument, eh?
>
>
> > At least I can get my homework
> > done in Windows.
>
> And I in Linux. With software that fits a normal student's budget.
>
>
> > Linux may be ready for the desktop in some years
>
> It's running on lots of desktops now. And could run on lots more, if the
FUD
> weren't scaring people away from it.
Actually it has been the lack of knowledge of a foreign system and the
obtruceness of the information about the system that is keeping anybody
away. I don't know anybody that did everything that anybody told them to do.
Linux has a long way to go to get to the desktop level of support. By this I
mean that it can be installed on 95% of the hardware that is out there, that
you can buy off the shelf at the nearest computer store, or build.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:38:04 -0400
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> > Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time, but I
> > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished.
>
> Free clue: Windows has to be learned as well. And sometime re-learned
after a
> new release.
>
I did not have to learn Windows, I made since after looking at the
interface. I am constantly doing things that I have not learned to do in
Windows, where I have yet to find simular functionality in Linux.
>
>
> > BTW what comes with Linux
> > that Windows does not have on the CD?
>
> Tell us what comes on the Windows CD, and we'll start a list.
Well I guess that there is a difference there, in Windows functions are
built into the Operating System where as they are applications or services
in Linux.
>
> Actually, your last question sounds suspiciously like a Linux fan playing
the
> straight man, to solicit an answer to edify the lurkers.
>
I am a Linux fan, but not a complete user yet. I have decided that I would
like to learn more about the Linux system before entrusting my computer to
it fully. After all who would not like not having to keep paying every other
year or so to use their computer. I am not going to keep paying. I just need
to figure out what Linux applications can replace the Windows applications
that I have now.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 27 Oct 2000 22:35:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: But I thought OSS software was supposed to be superior in all regards.
: Shouldn't a reasonable expectation be that it ships on time?
: Also, considering that most of the functionality in the 2.4 kernel is catch-up
: to NT and other OSes that have had most of it as a basic part of the OS
: for years now, it's kind of embarassing that they're spending all this
: time just to get up to today's level of expectations. Compaq's anger
: is justified.
Bullshit. With linux kernels, the not-quite-prefect-yet development
versions are available almost realtime, as they are built. There
is no such thing as a code "freeze". The decision to slap a new
label on the work in progress and call it a new version is totally
arbitrary. The only difference between OSS and CSS in this regard
is that in OSS the public can see it happening out in the open,
and in CSS it happens behing closed doors. If you wanted a verson
of the linux kernal that was just as buggy as Win95 was when it
first was realeased, you could have had that ages ago - it was
available for download. What's taking so long in 2.4 is merely
the process of swatting "just one more bug" before calling it
complete. Since the linux kernals are always available publicly,
even before they are stable, there's no point to hurrying up for
the sake of "shipping" something on time. If you want what's
there now, you can already get it today. This means that there's
no reason to lie and claim the product is "done" like there was
in the Windows 95 initial release (which was not really fully
ready yet, note the large number of service packs that were
released afterward.)
------------------------------
From: "Brandon Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:47:03 GMT
> <and then depression set in....>
I finished assessing Linux. I don't think Linux has any magic answers
for the PC industry. Its strengths are offset by inertial forces beyond
its control, i.e. Microsoft. Commercial support goes first to Windows,
second to Linux.
I think the most interesting thing about Linux nowadays is actually the
marketing of it, which is an odd thing to say about "the hacker's OS."
As a networked server OS it seems to have growing strength against
Microsoft. This is the big market that drives its progress, it's where
all the real IHV and commercial support is coming from.
Computer enthusiasts are the smaller market, the ones who want
"something more efficient than Windows to play Quake." This is why
certain 3D cards like NVIDIA are supported. It gives me a good reason
to port a game someday, after I've finished one on Windows. The
enthusiast market may be small, but there's little competition. Rather
much like writing games for the Mac.
But both in terms of marketing and technology, I see no future for Linux
as a mass-market, consumer-friendly OS. There, I've stated the obvious.
It's been true since the inception of the system, nothing has changed in
that regard, and nothing will change. Linux culture is fundamentally
"roll your own." As such, it would be useful as an Internet game server
someday. But that's just a "kewl" idea until I'm actually ready to
pursue such a thing.
Every 2 years I poke my head up and see where Linux is at. Time to fall
asleep again. :-)
I think I'll post this to comp.os.linux.advocacy just to watch the
fireworks.
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: 27 Oct 2000 22:40:58 GMT
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Let he who can post his source for his best program here and now, lay waste
: by way of comparison to the code of any MS application in use today. Let us
: see the code, hot-shots.
: Put up or shut up.
If you consider this a prerequisite of having an opinion on the
matter, then let's see *YOUR* source code that is better than
stuff you deride in Linux. Or else you can be branded a hypocrite.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:16:40 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tcss6$cgn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bill Gates said Windows 95 would be released almost a year
> > before it actually was. Nobody said a damn thing about it.
>
> He also announced that NT (3.5) would be out in 1992, and it wasn't
> released until 1994. Windows 95 was released in 8/95, but wasn't
> stable until the "B" release.
Now how exactly could Bill Gates have announced that 3.5 (the second release
of NT) would ship 1.5 years before the first release shipped? NT 3.1
shipped in August of 1993. I see no way in hell that Gates could have
announced a second version ship date before the first was even remotely
close to being finished.
BTW, 3.5 did in fact ship in 1994, and was ahead of schedule.
> In addition, the average Linux release is upgraded every 4-6
> MONTHS, not every 2-3 YEARS.
Well, I guess that 2 year uptime argument is rather moot then, right?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:24:01 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tct34$8g4
> Wrong. I agree that both can be done with the same high-level calls,
> but once you percolate down to the low-level code of the GDI, they
> are not the same anymore at that point. The whole point behind
> putting the GDI in the kernel is to reduce kernel/user mode swaps.
> But such swapping is ONLY needed if you are doing something protected
> like talking to the video hardware. If you are still operating at
> the level where printing and video are the same, then that means
> you are still operating in the area where everything cab be done
> just as fast in user mode - all you are doing at that point is still
> mathematical virtual stuff.
Not true. In < NT 4, GDI and USER ran as seperate applications, which
required a kernel mode swap to switch between the current application to the
scheduler to schedule the new process, then a switch back to user mode for
the GDI/USER to do it's job and return the result, then a switch back to
kernel mode then a switch back to user for the calling program to get the
results.
This has nothing to do with accessing hardware (although when accessing the
video hardware yet another kernel mode swap was required to access the
kernel mode portions of the video driver).
------------------------------
From: Goldhammer Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: [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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:17:36 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Outlook Express has the concept of Identities which would allow
> you and other members of your families to have seperate, unique
> configurations.
A useful feature if one day MS wished to not only
track web habits on your household computer, but also
those of the individual members of your family.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 27 Oct 2000 23:27:37 GMT
i tend to agree. GNU/Linux was not and is not for the desktop.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: 27 Oct 2000 23:29:44 GMT
we dont care.
************
Speaking, of course, for my self only
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Smolinski)
Subject: Re: Linux
Reply-To: Steven Smolinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:37:16 GMT
Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I finished assessing Linux. I don't think Linux has any magic answers
> for the PC industry. [...snip remainder of troll...]
Of course, Linus just said last week that he had implemented all the
'magic answers,' so I can see why you're expecting to find them.
It's too bad you don't actually state any facts as evidence of your
'assessment,' but just go on a little statement about how linux has
no future, QED. There might actually be something to rebut. Then again,
it's not a good troll if you have evidence.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: 27 Oct 2000 23:39:17 GMT
>To put it simply, arguing and shoving things down peoples throats will get
>you
>nowhere,
Untrue, it made Gates a mutil billion-aire
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:40:21 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 03:35:42 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
:
: >But I thought OSS software was supposed to be superior in all regards.
: >Shouldn't a reasonable expectation be that it ships on time?
:
: Not at all. Part of the philosophy is that it ships when it's ready
: to ship. It has always been this way. Most reputable software comapnies
: also delay releases until software is ready for release.
If that is true, then the most reputable software company is Microsoft. I
don't recall any of their software, which was not delayed..... :)
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:42:10 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:13fK5.19479$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:
: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:NlbK5.4158$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:
: <SNIP>
:
: > > In the Linux camp, nobody HAS to make money
: > > and there are NO SALARIES TO PAY.
: >
: > You seem to forget that many companies DO in fact pay developers to do
Linux
: > work. Red Hat certainly does.
:
: Heh... you wouldn't think they do judging by the junk they put out...
You mean it can't even detect the memory correctly :)?
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:43:52 GMT
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:21:19 GMT, Goldhammer Goldhammer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>> Unfortunately, until Linus officially blesses something, the execs
>> at Compaq can't ship product.
>That's compaq's problem. The linux kernel developers (in their capacity
>as such) are neither employees of compaq, nor subcontractors to compaq.
Not only that, it is a problem that they could solve overnight. Since
it is strictly in their heads.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:43:50 GMT
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:42:31 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Compaq does have a legitimate beef.
No, they don't. For some reason they have made up their minds that
they must have 2.4 right now. I have no idea why they think that, but
the stuff you're talking about is *already being done* by other
companies using 2.2 kernels. What Compaq executives have in their
heads is not Linus' responsibility.
>They were planning to release the Ipaq and their Internet Appliance
>with the 2.4 kernel.
What do these need from 2.4 that isn't in 2.2? USB is the only thing I
can think of, and everybody else is shipping backports on 2.2 kernels.
For that matter, just ship 2.4-pre-something and call it good. I don't
think appliance users are gonna get all bent about what version they
have.
Yup, it sounds like the 'problem' lies mostly in the heads of some
executives.
>Very true. One of the problems right now is that OEMs are
>assuming that once 2.4.1 comes out, that will be "it" for
>the next two years.
Then they haven't been paying attention for the last two years. Not
Linus' fault.
>There are two many people betting too much for you to wait
>another 3 months for "perfection".
So Linus should declare it official because some suits have a warped
idea of reality? Rex, if I wanted a Microsoft product, I'd buy one.
If Compaq believes that this sort of "thinking" is going to result in
anything but crap, they are dreamers. How long does it take to make an
omelette? Can you do it twice as fast if you turn up the heat?
AFAICT, the problem as you have described it boils down to the fact
that the users and the people who are doing the work don't give a
flying fuck about what corporate America thinks it needs. I count that
as a good thing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:03:17 GMT
"Brandon Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HBnK5.1773
<snip>
> But both in terms of marketing and technology, I see no future for Linux
> as a mass-market, consumer-friendly OS. There, I've stated the obvious.
<snip>
> I think I'll post this to comp.os.linux.advocacy just to watch the
> fireworks.
>
>
> Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
> Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
>
Well, I don't feel like shooting off any fireworks over what you've stated.
I don't much care too much whether people who don't even like computers like
Linux. I would rather it maintain its appeal to enthusiasts such as myself,
of
which there are quite a few. I do hope that Linux gets a good web browser,
newsreader, and office package, and I think it will.
I also hope, eventually, people will shun the exchange of data in
proprietary
formats (such as .doc). Wide adoption of Linux would probably ensure that,
but it's mostly a separate issue. The Internet is already pulling things
hard in that
direction (for example all the hype over xml).
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:06:11 -0400
I don't put myself in the company of the extremely talented and dedicated
programmers that work for companies such as MS, or even an open source
provider such as KDE.
I may state from time to time that a piece of software that I use -IMHO- is
worse than a competitors product. Example - I say all the time that NN for
the linux platform is terrible compared to NN for windows, or I.E. But I
don't say that the work done by the coders is a joke. I would never be so
presumptuous. I've written enough "trivial" applications that I have an idea
of what is involved in commercial quality software. I'm in awe of the
individuals that work to make that happen. This isn't the same thing as
claiming that if I was to "see" the code for MS's products that it would "be
a good laugh."
That's a joke, and if you're going to make that sort of statement, then
you'd better be able to back it up.
When you don't throw stones you don't have anything to prove, now do you
Wilbur?
> Hey Barney! Not so fast. Aren't you forgetting something? Errr, where's
> YOUR source, clown boooya?
>
> -wt
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:10:09 -0400
I deride nothing in linux. Only the absurdity of Linux advocacy.
I wasn't the one who said that seeing MS's source code would be "funny."
I'm not living in a fantasy land, and therefore have no delusions about my
abilities, or, by the same token, the abilities of those who write
commercial software. I respect those with more knowledge than myself. The
same can't be said for the majority in here.
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8td09q$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Let he who can post his source for his best program here and now, lay
waste
> : by way of comparison to the code of any MS application in use today. Let
us
> : see the code, hot-shots.
> : Put up or shut up.
>
> If you consider this a prerequisite of having an opinion on the
> matter, then let's see *YOUR* source code that is better than
> stuff you deride in Linux. Or else you can be branded a hypocrite.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
