Linux-Advocacy Digest #964, Volume #29 Tue, 31 Oct 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: history of software engineering (was: Re: Ms employees (Randall Hyde)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:48:23 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Douglas Siebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>I'm afraid that's a somewhat dubious value. An "ethernet" can run at
>>100% utilization, or 99%, but the question is how much of that
>>utilization is 'collisions', and even "resends" due to higher layer
>>connectivity issues. A non-switched, shared media ethernet with a
>>nominal 20 transceivers (potentially including both a router and a
>>server, to characterize the logical and software topologies) would be
>>hard pressed to maintain the "rule of thumb" 30% utilization *and do so
>>while providing sufficient throughput*. This presumes, of course, we
>>don't take the easy way out by defining that 18 of those transceivers
>>will rarely transmit anything at all.
>
>>No matter how often I say it, it never seems to get any easier for
>>anyone to swallow. But it isn't because it ain't true; that, I have
>>direct proof of, in my own experience. The utilization of the ethernet
>>doesn't have *jack squat* to do with the throughput of the network, and
>>forgetting that will instantly cause any analysis of either statistic to
>>be an empty gesture.
>
>However, you seem to believe that because you have "direct experience"
>of this, that it must be true, and those of us who have direct experience
>that conflicts with yours are either lying or stupid.
Well, your proposition being that I "seem to believe" something being
false, your ad hominem is duly ignored.
It is because my direct experience conflicts with someone else's *and my
reasoning explains the conflict without denying the validity (though
possibly the applicability) of either experience* which leads me to
believe that those with conflicting experiences are *mistaken about
something*.
>Different devices
>violate the rules in different ways, and the collection of 20 devices
>you had were different from larger shared networks I dealt with in the
>past which worked fine with much higher utilizations.
Thus, my point. You now have a choice to a) learn every set of rules
for every device, or b) recognize that 'violating the rules' is not
something a device is supposed to do.
Again, you seem to think I'm arguing that your network didn't "work
fine" with "much higher utilizations". I'm not. I'm just trying to
explain why such results are potentially even common, and it still does
not either refute or conflict with the statements I have made.
>Look up stuff
>like differing inter-frame gaps on different equipment, and consider the
>effect that having devices violating these rules on your ethernet are
>going to have.
That is the point, again. I *have* investigated differing inter-packet
gaps (you were correct in calling it an inter-frame gap, but the
prevailing nomenclature is practical enough) and considered the effect
this variance (there are rules for this, and only equipment acknowledged
as "wrong" would violate them) has on Ethernets. Much more importantly,
I've examined the effects and considered the impact these effects have
on the network as a whole.
>In my case, I had a network that was all HP workstations
>and Gateway PCs. The PCs at that time had very little traffic, what
>traffic they did have was directed at a Cisco router. The HPs had almost
>all traffic to a single server or that router. I saw sustained utilizations
>over 90%, with actual bandwidth seen at the server (in terms of data sent
>and received on that network interface) of over 50%.
And did the PCs not have problems with their terminal sessions, which
were blamed on some piece of software, with an attempt to correct the
situation by "enhancing" the Cisco router? It isn't whether there is
'very little' traffic to or from a system which matters; it is shared
media. What matters is what is in that very little traffic.
Admittedly, where it is going is pretty important in that regard, but
the critical information, obviously, is everything that is absent about
the logical and software levels of connectivity, as well as all the
other physical links outside this LAN, is missing.
Network management efforts have been promised, and have been promising,
to provide that missing information for going on seven years now.
Current efforts rate somewhere between 'we gave up' and 'crap in some
places, only non-existent in others.'
>I still moved to switching to break that up and give the server a 100mbit
>full duplex uplink as soon as possible, because obviously this was not a
>stable situation. But it did work, just fine, despite your claims about
>what you "know" about ethernet capacity. But I'm glad the days of shared
>ethernet are long gone in any network for which performance in any concern.
This merely underscores the issue, yet again. If it worked just fine,
but you're glad the days are long gone, why is it you seem to think
you're being persuasive in refuting my clear and simple statements about
what is the right way to get the most benefit from the least cost, and
how the answer can't be found in examining individual ethernet
'capacities', resulting in the basic provisioning guideline that
Ethernets are most efficient when the utilization averages 10%, either
in theory or in practice?
--
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] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:50:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:43:32 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip for brevity]
>Microsoft admin: Better order pizza...the server's down...again...
>
>UNIX admin: zzzzzzzzz...oh? time to go home? Oh Good.
>Glad MY SHIT **WORKS***
[.sigsnip]
If this is accurate (one wonders), this may explain the good press
NT got until recently; after all, certain management types highly
prefer hard-working employees to those that sleep on the job
(because the server's humming along so smoothly). And what can
be more appealing to these pointy-haired types than a harried NT
workstation administrator running around trying to Fend Off Yet
Another Microsoft Office/Exchange/Windows Virus? :-)
Of course, this doesn't mean Unix admins always sleep; there's
a philosophy that I might term "proactive management" which
basically just means finding (and fixing) problems before they
occur.
With Unix (and Linux) one at least has a fighting chance to be
able to practice some P.M. (which also stands for post meridian
and preventive maintenance) as he doesn't have to put out
fires every 10 minutes. :-)
All IMO, anyway.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 12:09:04 -0600
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00103015491600.26495@pc03...
> El lun, 30 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:00103015154800.16832@pc03...
> >> El lun, 30 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
> >> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:8tjuqo$fhd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <39fb58d2$0$32639$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:8tcsdl$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > // snip
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > What matters is what does it come out with today. Today, Unix
(or
> >> >> more
> >> >> > > accurately, the modern X-window toolkits) don't have the
problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Great. How many desktop apps takes advantage of it?
> >> >>
> >> >> All that print and were developed in the last 5 years or so?
> >> >
> >> >5 years, humm, let me see... zero?
> >>
> >> Do you live in some sort of alternate reality where Linux/Unix app
> >development
> >> ceased in 1995?
> >
> >I need a few examples at this point. Which desktop apps takes advantage
of
> >it?
>
> If all you need is an example: kdehelp.
wow! :)
------------------------------
From: Randall Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: history of software engineering (was: Re: Ms employees
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:10:55 +0800
in article 8thf27$g43$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan Thornburg at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/29/00 11:17 PM:
> In article <nVQK5.329$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's existed for a _lot_ over two decades. My copy of "The Mythical
> Man-Month" is at home, but I recall its copyright as around 1972. It
> was describing an already-well-established field, with many published
> results from the 1960s.
Certainly what we call "Software Engineering" has existed since the 60's.
However, I would like to know when the term was first coined. Does anyone
have a reference on that? (BTW, I don't have my copy handy, does TMMM
actually use the term "software engineering"?)
Randy Hyde
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:10:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:23:53 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> > I saw 3.5.1 on floppies. I think someone at the company i worked for
>> > actually installed it. The mind boggles.
>>
>> I had to install NetWare 3.11 from floppies once... I think it had
>> somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 floppies? I could be wrong, but
>> it was some ungodly amount. Inevitably, Disk 24 would be bad and would
>> screw the whole installation.
>>
>> -Chad
>
>Win95 on about 20 floppies or so was bad enough. And did it take a long
>time.
>
>Fortunately, the days of doing huge installs from floppies is over.
>
>So are the days of backing up your hard disk on to 20 floppies.
To do that on many modern systems would require that each "floppy"
actually be a Jaz 2GB removable cartridge, or a Syquest SyJet 1.5GB.
:-)
(And they ain't floppy, either.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random data cartridge here
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 12:15:14 -0600
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00103016224700.27606@pc03...
> El lun, 30 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8tjumu$f9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <39fb5876$0$32655$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:00102717474900.20411@pc03...
> >> >
> >> > > Nonsense. Until the introduction of truetype fonts, at least, what
> >> was
> >> > that,
> >> > > 1990?
> >> >
> >> > TrueType has little to do with drawing and blitting.
> >>
> >> What, do you consider putting text on the screen and in the printer as
> >> not drawing?
> >
> >Yes, it is, but I don't see your point. GDI was device independent before
> >TrueType.
>
> Except for fonts, where you had to use printer fonts which were different
from
> screen fonts.
>
> > Adobe Type Manager provided scaleable fonts for Windows long time
> >before TT came out
>
> I thought you were against considering add-ons.
>
> > and GDI's font rasterized was able to scale bitmap-based
> >fonts since day one.
>
> And they looked, obviously, completely different.
Actually, not so different. You could install the bitmap font you needed in
the sizes you needed (provided you had enough disk space) and it was not so
bad. PageMaker 1.0 running under Windows 1.03 in circa '86 was pretty much
WYSIWYG already and worked equally well on the original PS-based LaserWriter
and the original PCL-based LaserJet.
Beside that, I believe TT fonts were introduced in Windows 3.1 (92?)
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 12:22:06 -0600
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And shell accounts?
> Shell acounts?
There is no need for such things under Windows 2000, except for
administrative tasks performed by administrators, which can use the built in
Terminal Services for that.
Since there is definitely not one server process per connected user, I don't
see why you couldn't connect 10,000 (or more) users to a Win2K server,
provided enough system resources (RAM and CPU). It is certainly feasible to
connect that many users to IIS, Exchange or a COM+ app in as long as no
session state has to be maintained on the server.
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 12:32:09 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tl5c5$o9u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8tcsdl$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : // snip
>
> :> What matters is what does it come out with today. Today, Unix (or more
> :> accurately, the modern X-window toolkits) don't have the problem.
>
> : Great. How many desktop apps takes advantage of it?
>
> Who cares? We were talking about how hard it is to program for it.
> If the program has already been developed by someone else and you are
> merely a user of it, then who cares if that programmer had to do the
> screen stuff and the postscript stuff seperately? This ease-of-use
> argument only matters for programmers.
..but it is a major one. If you can't get people to write apps, your
platform is dead.
> The users don't see the
> difference between the old and the new techniques.
They 'see' it indirectly. When a massive toolkit is linked into an app and
there is many instances of that app running concurently, they may feel a
performance hit. Also, since there is no guarantee that all apps will use
the same technique or toolkit, there will certainly be major differences in
output quality or wysiwyg-ness between apps. That also means that most apps
will have their own built-in color management system which must be
calibrated separately, they own fonts, etc. What a mess.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:33:19 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xWzL5.26590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > I saw 3.5.1 on floppies. I think someone at the company i worked for
> > actually installed it. The mind boggles.
>
> I had to install NetWare 3.11 from floppies once... I think it had
> somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 floppies? I could be wrong, but
> it was some ungodly amount. Inevitably, Disk 24 would be bad and would
> screw the whole installation.
>
I thought Netware 3.11 was more like 25-30 disks, I had to install the damn
thing for a class I was taking, and then find out the Network card was bad.
Nah, we had a problem with disk 2. ;)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:36:24 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >Obviously you haven't looked very hard:
> >
>
>http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-1896417-100-1757739.html?tag=st.dl.100
0
> >1_103_1.lst.td_1757739
> >(not sure, but it might be just for cd-audio)
>
>http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-14480-100-909951.html?tag=st.dl.10000_
1
> >03_1.lst.td_909951
> >This would let you write your own cd-burner for windows machines.
> >
> >Both are free, (I've tried neither) I found them by going to
downloads.com
> >and typing burning cd and choosing free licensing.
> >1 minute search.
> >You could dig up something better if you would try.
>
> So you haven't ever used either, but you're just sure they're going to
> be fine. Thanks for your intensive research. No, the request was not
> for cd-audio-only burning or for "writing your own cd-burner". If this
> is all that came up on a cnet search, it appears that the situation has
> remained unchanged from when I checked last year. Forget about any free
> cd-rom burning software for Windows; years ago there were a couple, but
> they had all been yanked two months or so before I started looking. Use
> the crap that's bundled with the unit or use Linux.
>
A> I *said* that I invested less than 1 minute in the search, didn't I?
Those are certainly not the only ones, do your own web search, you are
bound to find some. I'm not going to waste any more time on tihs.
B> The second link *should* give you the ability to quickly make your own
burner, for free. Considering linux attidue, I would say that this would be
welcomed.
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 12:42:05 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tl5r5$o9u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> :> [x86 fairly slow context switching]
>
> :> (another reason why W2K can't make a
> :> great server--poor hardware)
>
> :>, whereas (again, IIRC) SPARCS are much
> :> faster.
>
> : Apparently, people testing database speed found otherwise. Currently,
the
> : fastest 64 CPU, $48M SPARC based computer holds the 9th rank while an
Intel
> : based computer, for 1/4 of that price, goes more than three times
faster.
> : Incidentally, Intel based computers running Windows 2000 currently hold
the
> : top four positions. Even if the benchmark is crap etc etc, CPU context
> : switch doesn't seems to have such a dramatic effect on final server
> : performances.
>
> Unless they've drastically changed their model in W2K from WinNT,
> Most of the windows server type programs (like webservers) don't
> actually operate by forking processes, but instead they just fork
> threads. Threads have less context to switch (the runtime stuff
> has to switch, but the memory space doesn't change). So without
> knowing exactly what it was that you are talking about here
www.tpc.org
>, we
> can't tell whether the benchmark in question involved lots of
> context switching. Windows context switching sucked, and so MS
> tried to avoid designs that involve lots of small server processes
> like Unix has.
Or maybe the 'old' technique was just wasteful and not efficient? I've seen
an Unix-based OO database (called Texas if I recall correctly) that was
simulating asynchronous disk I/O by spawning several process, one per file.
The main program communicated with the child process using a shared memory
window and some two-way signaling scheme. In short, that database was
context-switching between itself just to do its basic duty. I see that as an
evidence of the shortcomings of a 30-years old OS. I believe that Oracle is
still using separate processes to perform disk I/O, no wonder it gets beaten
to death by SQL Server on Intel hardware, then? (and on any hardware, for
that matter, see the link above)
------------------------------
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: 31 Oct 2000 12:44:05 -0600
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : If you have 10,000 users on at once context switch speed becomes one
of
> > : the most importent things.
> >
> > Do you seriously believe those 10,000 users are actually running
> > seperate processes on the Windows machine? Having a server process
> > do things *for* them by proxy doesn't count as having 10,000 users
> > on the machine at once.
>
> You still need to switc between threads. If they are hardware threads,
> then it matters.
Hey, a new concept. What is a hardware thread?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:43:48 +0200
"Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip a really long talk about options that the OSS gives you which CSS
doesn't>
Agreed.
Now all we've to do is convince MS that they could still make profit giving
their code away. (I've heard that the licensing that they force on you if
you want to see the code is pretty draconian.)
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: 31 Oct 2000 18:48:34 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's see...
> Windows OpenVMS Linux
> Type a file type type cat
type of command. ? ? type
file type ? ? file
> Get a directory dir dir ls
> Print a file print print lpr
> Edit a file edit edit/edt vi or emacs or...
or ed
> Delete a file del del rm
or erase
> Conditional expr. if if if
Create a dir. md ? mkdir
delete a dir. rd ? rmdir
delete a dir and files deltree ? rm
copy a dir xcopy ? cp
Commandnames may be cryptical based upon you knowledge, so some think
dos/windows is cryptical some think unix is. But who cares. Use what you
like best.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:54:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roger Lindsj|
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 30 Oct 2000 14:40:53 GMT
<8tk19l$42h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>What applications do you need?
>
>Roger Lindsjö
Simple ASCII text editing (vi, emacs, kedit, jed, joe)
Word processing (WordPerfect, LyX, kwrite, and others)
C/C++ Program development (g++/make, unless one wants a GUI,
in which case kdevelop, maybe)
C/C++ Program debugging (gdb, ddd, kdevelop maybe)
Java Program development (various)
Java Program debugging (various)
MIME-compliant mail program, possibly with inter-format
drag and drop functionality (Netscape?, kmail?)
Spreadsheet (Gnumeric)
Graphical presentation editing sotware (xfig maybe)
Graphical bitmap editing (GIMP)
Printing (various)
Secure remote login (ssh)
Secure remote display (X/ssh)
Web browser (Netscape, w3m, konqueror, 'kfm -w', lynx, Opera?)
Secure browser (Netscape, lynx with ssh forwarder)
Video and audio streaming (RealPlayer)
JVM for browser (?)
SQL database (Postgres, msql, mysql)
Web development (ASCII editor & Web browser, Apache+php+Jakarta, Tux)
Simple music playing (playmidi, timidity, others)
Music editing (jazz maybe; haven't used it)
USENET news readers (lots; some are MIME-aware)
Interactive languages (bash/sh, tcl, perl, python, LISP (in emacs), ...)
Lessee, have I missed anything? :-) Oh yes:
Licensing fee (not applicable)
Virus scanners (unclear how applicable this is)
:-)
Note that I'm not including such things as NT Explorer or "find",
as those are more for system management than real applications,
although Norton did make some money selling Norton Commander way
back when, and may still have a niche in the Windows marketplace.
Not sure where to categorize Internet Connectivity; a lot of ISPs,
as I understand it, provide their own connection tools. One issue
with Linux is that Linux can function rather well as an endpoint
connection using DHCP, as a LAN router/forwarder to a dynamic
endpoint connection (IP Masquerading), a bridge router, a file
server (NFS), a NIS/NIS+ server (otherwise known as "yellow pages",
except that that is not an official name) which includes user
accounts and user groups, and even an NT-compatible file server
using Samba. It's not clear how close Win95 can come to any
of that (although it might do simple file service and WinGate does
attempt some form of IP masquerading, but not horribly securely).
WinNT fares better (in fact, NT and Linux are IMO about equal in
functionality, although not in price).
Games are a bit of a sore spot, although some big names are
available (Quake), and ID has released the source for DOOM.
Hopefully this will tide us over for awhile.... :-)
There are also some interesting offerings on such places as
http://www.linuxgames.org ; these IMO tend to be more sophisticated
than the usual Windows shrinkwrap variety (Unreal and Unreal
Tournament being notable exceptions, perhaps; hopefully there
will be a port soon).
Efforts such as Vmware, Win4Lin, and WinE are wildcardish.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
