Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: C++ is very alive! (Bob Hauck)
Re: C++ is very alive! (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:59:44 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> >Win2k irons out a lot of the hangups I had with NT. I installed it in
> >January and am yet to experienced a system lockup or BSOD. Do I need
> >better stability that this for my purposes?
>
> But since in many people's opinion W2K is not at all superior to OS/2,
And I can say quite the opposite. In many people's opinion Win2k is
superior to OS/2. You need to speak to some ex-OS/2 users or hang out in
OS/2 related newsgroups. While OS/2 has not really not undergone any
significant improvement since 1996, WinNT has been very significantly
enhanced in it's new version.
> let alone Linux, I submit that the real reason you are back in the MS
> fold is because your choice of OSes has little to do with the quality of
> the OS, but the application and industry support for that OS.
In my initial transition, yes this is so. I missed OS/2 as an OS while
using NT4. But yes, better application and industry support, as well as
comparable stability to OS/2 made me decide to change. It was a painful
but necessary transition at the time, yes. I was all too aware why I had
to be changing, just as I was well aware of why I changed from Win9x to
OS/2. BTW, the NT license at the time was a gift. That had a lot to do
with my even installing NT at the time and discovering it's decent
stability as a desktop OS.
> This
> would seem to indicate that, had NT never been available and led to W2K,
> the "upgrades" of Win9x would have bested OS/2 in just the same way that
> the VMS-style software did.
This is where you're very wrong. It took a valiant, strong swim upstream
to migrate from Win9x to OS/2 considering that I don't live in the US
where it's easier to obtain what you desire when it's not what's offered
in the mainstream. I paid US$220 for my OS/2 license at the time plus a
hefty shipment and duty charge. I guess since that wasn't money spent on
a MS solution, it was reasonable right? :=) Anyway, none of my peers were
using it. They hadn't even heard of it, thanks to the already very much
vibrant MS monopoly. I had to buy most of the apps I needed in OS/2.
Think about it. I'm not easily swayed by market forces. If there's a
better solution, then I'll take it ignoring what's popular. You're also
ignoring the eye-opening experience it is to actually use an OS other
than a MS one as your primary OS for close to two years. The OS/2
community is a tight nit one. What the MS monopoly has done to OS/2 and
how to make that aspect of OS/2 better, is a constant topic of
conversation.
The algorithm I use to chose my OS is:
1) First the OS must be stable and reliable. No matter how great the
applications are, if you have to be worrying when the next crash will
occur, then it doesn't make much sense running them. This pretty much
negates my using Win9x or MacOS. To have this simple requirement runs
smack in the face of what a Windows droid is. A windows droid doesn't
know what stability really is and that it exists. They're therefore happy
hitting the reset switch when Win9x falls over since they feel this is
normal. This is primary reason why Win9x/ME will not be a solution for me
again.
2) Application support is my next requirement. I don't run the OS to play
with it. I run it as a means to use applications. Splitting hairs and
having pissing contests about one OS implementing a particular piece of
functionality better than the other is pretty much irrelevant when this
critical requirement is not being met by the alternative, supposedly
superior solution.
3) If the OS's being considered satisfy my application and stability
requirements, then I'll pick the technically superior OS. Unfortunately,
because of the Windows monopoly, that situation doesn't exist for most
who wish to run an OS as a desktop user.
4) Hardware support and ease of administration. I'm most flexible with
putting up with shortcomings here.
5) Finally, cost. This is of least relevance. I'm willing to pay for the
solution I'm most comfortable with.
Going through that process and choosing Win2k is rather different from
going in the nearest computer outlet and buying a machine outfitted with
Win9x, not knowing about alternatives or what they have to offer.
If you don't consider it qualitatively any different, then fine. You're
free to think the contrary. I see it as different because I spent $150+
to be running Win2k and not merely running Win9x.
> I am having trouble parsing your question. I can't imagine any
> situation in which better stability is not needed, but is available.
I hope I have cleared that up now.
> [...]
> >> >Most will benefit from the stability that Linux offers. But that's all it
> >> >has to offer that's worth mentioning to the typical user. They can get
> >> >the same level of stability using Win2k. If they hear that another OS
> >> >which will run their apps more stably exists
> >>
> >> Well, I guess lower prices never were a very attractive marketing point.
> >
> >Their is cost and there is cost. Speaking only in terms of dollars and
> >cents is limited.
>
> Trying to ignore the huge, in fact infinite, difference in terms of
> dollars and cents is nonsensical.
That's what I said.
> >> Not to mention that I see no reason to hand-wave stability (and no, W2K
> >> merely approaches closer to such a level of stability than Win/DOS; it
> >> is not even close to commensurate.)
> >
> ><chuckle> Again, knock yourself out. :=)
>
> I'd rather destroy Microsoft, to put an end to the illegal monopoly
> which has deterred innovation and suppressed development while
> maintaining outrageous prices for more than a decade, thanks.
Good luck on your crusade. :=)
> >> As for whether they hear that another OS which will run their apps more
> >> stably exist, you seem to propose that the applications predated the
> >> operating system in the users experience.
> >
> >No, what would make you think that?
>
> Your statements, obviously. You stated that adopting anything but MS is
> hampered by "their apps" running only on Windows.
That's what you understood from what I said. That's not what I meant.
Read again and see if you can extract a different meaning.
> >> YOU might already be locked
> >> into a Windows monopoly, unable or unwilling to use any other
> >> applications, but most people don't have such a limited perspective.
> >
> >After trying some of these alternatives, yes, I am unwilling.
>
> As I said, most people don't have such a limited perspective, once they
> have the information you do available to them, and a commercially
> feasible alternative to monopoly crapware.
I've been down that road before Max. Don't ignore it. I used OS/2 for
close to two years. I ran apps that most have never heard of. I'm willing
to run those other apps if I like running them and they provide the
functionality I desire.
> >> >What good is an OS without apps to run on it? What good is BeOS when
> >> >there are no apps for it. It's a fine OS, but useless without
> >> >applications. Why the hell do you think 'Wine' exists, or Odin for OS/2
> >> >or Soft Windows for the Mac?
> >> >
> >> >I find your line of argument largely pointless, isolated and impractical.
> >> >You just wish to whine don't you?
> >>
> >> Quite the opposite. You don't even have a line or argument; all you
> >> have is recognition that the application barrier can maintain an
> >> operating system monopoly almost indefinitely. Too bad Bill Gates beat
> >> you to it; had you had the idea three decades ago, you might be today
> >> the richest man in the world, but then your company would also be facing
> >> the federal judiciary.
> >
> ><Yawn> Knock yourself out. :=)
>
> I got a better idea. Why don't you just shut up, or go away, if you
> don't have anything to say, OK?
Feh! LOL!
With all due respect (which doesn't amount to much at this juncture), why
don't you just hold to your corner as you should? We have equal right to
post in this group. Please don't ask me to go away again. You've
overstepped your bounds there buster. You like throwing your 'smelly'
weight around don't you?
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:49:23 +0000
In article <8vr68p$5g8i9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vqtuv$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Actually, no, I couldn't.
>> >> >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
>> >> >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
>> >>
>> >> You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
>> >> at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
>> >> some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
>> >> some such error.
>> >
>> >A lot of users are running as root.
>>
>> Which users are these? I'm not aware of any.
>
>Those who are new to unix, mostly. Or are ignorant or don't care.
>Dito for those who run as admin in NT.
But you said it happened to *you*. Not someone new to it,
or so you claim, anyway.
I really don't know why I'm bothing here, no doubt you'll
add some new piece of information in order to justify this.
Let me try to guess it for you... ah, how about:
No, this was *another* user, I was asked to help out fix
the machine after they'd done this. But I don't really
work there, otherwise I'd have prevented them having the
root password, I was just passing by, or it was one of
the other admins that gave them the password, or or
or or or.
This thread is as much fantasy is claiming to have been asked
by an experience slackware user to install win98 on a machine
with a spare hard disk but no working floppy and a bootable
cdrom but no bootable linux cdrom and no means of starting
binaries off that cdrom to in order to download some ext2
tools to save some files from the ext2 partition for reasons
never stated onto a FAT32 partition which may or may not have
already been there, with no explanation of how this whole
scenario could have come about, since it is apparently impossible
to boot anything onto this machine except Win98 for installing,
oh, I forgot, the CD was damaged, but that wasn't Microsoft's
fault, it was the fault of the guy installing, or something.
I _really_ think you should do some research into these
topics and come back again. Maybe Max is right and I've
been a bit harsh - if so, I'm sorry about that, it really
isn't my intention. I was very riled by your stating that you
don't care about language support for anyone but yourself, whic
is a kind of selfishness which I really object to.
I'm not going to follow any of this up any further, because
I really can't see that there's any value to it, other than
perhaps helping you to learn a bit more about linux (which
is no bad thing), but this is not an ideal way of doing it.
Your speed of learning/recovery suggests that you'd get on
well with unix, perhaps you should try?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:53:37 +0000
In article <8vr521$5j30n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vqtur$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vpjv9$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In article <8vpeh6$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >He doesn't have a floppy drive.
>> >> >> >And there are tools for win98 that can read ext2 fs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not that come on a Win98 install disk, there aren't.
>> >> >
>> >> >So? Is there a point here?
>> >> >Much of my software doesn't come from the Windows CD.
>> >> >Loading tons of application on a CD is convenient, but if MS would
>start
>> >> >doing this you would hear screams about product bundling.
>> >>
>> >> You said you were installing this to fix an ext2 system,
>> >> that's the point.
>> >
>> >No, I said that he did it to *back up* ext2 system.
>> >
>> >> >He has a non-bootable cd, I think.
>> >>
>> >> If his CD is non-bootable, then HOW THE HELL IS HE INSTALLING WIN98?
>> >> You said he has no floppy and you were installing from a slackware
>> >> system which wouldn't boot. For G*d's sake, this is getting more
>> >> and more ridiculous.
>> >
>> >I said *CD*, not *CD-ROM*
>> >The CD & Bios support booting from CD, the Slackware CD itself didn't.
>>
>> Then how did he get slackware onto the machine? This still does
>> not stack up! He's no bootable CDROM, he's no floppy, what did
>> he do which left him in a position with a machine with slackware
>> on it, a FAT32 partition but no Win98?
>
>I don't know.
>
>> This is just not possible.
>
>Of course it is.
>A> Boot from win98 cdrom. Insert slackware cdrom, start install from dos.
If you can do this, you don't bother installing another OS to fix
an ext2 system.
You certainly don't bother trying to save things onto FAT32 because
you lose all your permissions information and your filename cases.
If, as you say, you have another HD not doing anything, then you
don't need to do any of this - you boot up as far as you already
can, and create a new ext2 filesystem on the second HD (or by the
method I've just mentioned), and save your goodies there.
This scenario is just too contrived to ring true at all.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:59:32 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>> >No, the user is an idiot.
>> >An installer is an "it", no a "he"
>>
>> Er, the user is an idiot because microsoft's CD was broken?
>>
>> Wow I love windows people.
>
>You're doing the same crap with Ayende I see.
Que? I'm still waiting to see this list of apps
which run on all those different things which
you claimed.
If the user didn't know what to do when faced with a broken
Microsoft install CD (which apparently had _only one_ file
broken - something very rare indeed), then they need help
and support not calling an idiot by you or by Ayende.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:09:56 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:18:33 -0500;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote...
> [...]
>>> >What the hell does that have to do with their supporting language X or
>>> >not?
>>>
>>> I've just explained that. Sorry if you missed it.
>>
>>Actually I didn't. You brought it up.
>
>Now I'm confused. You asked what one thing had to do with another, and
>I just explained it. So what are you saying?
This is one of Ayende's techniques.
It's quite annoying, and hard to determine whether it's because of
a geniune lack of capability to understand the issues, or a
debating technique designed to avoid this issues. At first, I
thought it might be the former, but after a while, I realised that
it's very much the latter. The thread seems to go:
1. outrageous & unproveable statement
2. add data
3. add data and clip some thread
3. deny original statement and ask why asked
4. add further data to try to make statement proveable.
5. make out you're some kind of idiot for not reading properly!
Must be something Windows does to your head.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:30:21 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vqs63$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Win98 will fly on 32MB (I used to work on 16 win 98)
> And I'm running a server on a 64MB which is also used as a desktop
machine.
You have a strange idea of flying. My 32MB machine crawls if you
open more than a couple of windows.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:43:42 GMT
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:57:28 GMT, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:37:43 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I agree that anyone calling themselves a "software engineer" ought to
>>score pretty high on your little quiz. However, I don't agree at all
>>with the implication that "real engineers use C++".
>I kind of got the impression he was saying the software engineer title
>belonged to Kernel developers and the such. You'd play hell writing
>a kernel in java I think.
Kernel developers, at least Linux and BSD kernel developers, use C not
C++. Anyway, I hope he wasn't limiting "software engineer" to kernel
developers, since they are but a tiny minority of the people developing
software and not everybody doing databases or web sites is a dumbass.
No, I don't want to write a kernel in Java, but then I also don't want
to write web applets in C++. This just outlines my point about using
the right tool for the job.
>>I don't think a "software engineer" is defined by his tools, rather he
>>knows how to use several tools and applies the one best suited for the
>>job. That tool may be C++, or it may be something else.
>See, now this is yet another definition of "software engineer".
I have a problem with defining "software engineer" as "one who uses
certain tools". Equally skilled people working in different areas will
naturally use different tools, even while working from the same base of
theory. There is a reason so many computer languages exist, and it
isn't only because some people are too inept to use C++.
>There are also about 5 different types of "dumbshit" out there.
At least that many <g>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:47:44 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >Cobol??? Cobol seems very much in decline in the mainframe world. Most
> >of the enterprise jobs I see are for java programmers. Almost all of
> >the java jobs I see listed require, or request a background in C++ for
> >rather obvious reasons.
> >
>
> Yes,
> If you have 30+ years built up into insurance packages for the insurance
> industry, 10's of thousands of cobol programs, billions of lines of code,
> your not going to re-write it in C or java or anything else.
>
> Yes, Cobol is alive and predominate here.
> Believe it or not.
I believe that what you are saying is true for your industry. I heard
one of the vp's at intel lament that it takes mainframe companies 20-30
years to get into a technology and 20-30 years to get out of them. What
I disagree with, to some degree, is the statement "in today's
world...". We use rpg on our mainframes, but the development cycle is
so much faster with some of the newer languages, so is the maintenance.
4gl's aren't usually a good option b/c they aren't terribly flexible, so
that leaves things like java and perl where shops are moving away from
the green screen or even from mainframe back end with winClients.
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://salvador.venice.ca.us
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
