Linux-Advocacy Digest #856, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:46:17 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:37:58 GMT,
>> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:14:07 GMT,
>> >> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:50 -0500,
>> >> >> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
>> >> >can
>> >> >> >> crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when
>> >you
>> >> >> >install a wrong application.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"747's are reliable, so long as you don't take off the wings" and
>> >> >> >"windows is reliable so long as you don't install 'bad' applications
>> >and
>> >> >> >'know' what you are doing" are NOT equivant statements. (and if
>> >> >> >something does go wrong it is obviously YOUR FAULT) Read my ORIGIONAL
>> >> >> >post in this light and it point should be more clear.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snipage>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is typical of the Windows mentality.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The definition of an operating system includes the ability
>> >> >> to adequately recover from application failure. In short,
>> >> >> this means you shouldn't be able to write a program bad
>> >> >> enough to make an operating system go down. Thus, Windows
>> >> >> is not an operating system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It has no recovery, no protection, it's purely a large
>> >> >> application in itself.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Charlie
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I would agree with you when referring to Win9x/ME, however when you enter
>> >> >the NT/2000 family the game changes significantly. BTW, eunuchs are just
>> >as
>> >> >susceptible to bad programming as windows and a programmer running as
>> >root
>> >> >or some other privileged user can just as easily bring the system to it's
>> >> >knees with a runaway process, some idiot fills swap completely and you
>> >are
>> >> >toast.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Windows has no user accounting system. Linux and the *nix does.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Windows 9x and ME have no user accounting system.
>> >
>> >Windows NT and Windows 2000 do.
>> >
>>
>> Interesting. What do you open on NT to perform user accounting with?
>> For that matter, Windows 2000?
>>
>> Say I had a 60 GB drive and I wanted user harry to have up to 10 GB of
>> it. I also wanted harry to have a nice cap of 5 clicks below the rest
>> of the system so he wouldn't hog it all away from the rest of us.
>> Oh, and harry will be in a special group which I'm going to create
>> which only has use of 20 programs from the system.
>>
>> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
>> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
>> have this capability yet.
>
>.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
>
And spell checked.
No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
They stole Windows from apple.
They are stealing the operating system very slowly
from UNIX.
Where is THEIR VISION VERSION!
What has Microsoft brought to the human race?
This might be a good contest.
What idea has Microsoft brought to the computer
industry it never had before? What thing did
Microsoft TRUELY and UNIQUELY INVENT.
Spell check please.
Thanks
Charlie
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:51:46 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:56:13 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> To make the statement that more than say 1% of the Windows
> >> user base is developing in compilers like GCC is crazy.
> >
> >If there wasn't a demand for them, they wouldn't exist.
> >
> >I can't back it up, but i'd be willing to bet that there are more
physical
> >numbers of developers using GCC on Win32 than there are on all other
> >platforms combined. While that number may be a small percentage of the
> >total Win32 developers, it's still a big number.
>
> You are always the one who want's some sort of web site
> reference to back up claims. Yet when it comes full
> term to your side of the argument, you have nothing.
>
> Your guns are empty senior!
You know, at least I have the balls to admit i'm using my own experience,
and not claiming baseless supposition is fact.
> >> The problem with the COST of using Windows is VB, VC,
> >> or some Borland product which increases their cost.
> >
> >Explain that claim.
>
> Just one license for VB professional edition is
> $2,700. If you develop major software using VB
> you will spend this less a token discount.
Not true. VB Pro has an MSRP of $549 and sells for much less at retail.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/prodinfo/purchase/pricing.asp
Even the enterprise edition is only $1299 MSRP.
> But, why am I explaining this to you?
Because you're wrong.
> >> I'm just saying the VAST majority of Windows users
> >> are developing in VB. And this is WHY the cost
> >> of using Windows for your business is crazy.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Newspaper job ad's might be one good clue.
> You see ton's of VB openings but I've never
> actually seen one saying they want GCC skill.
The vast majority of newspaper ads are "last resorts". Typically jobs never
appear in newspapers.
The companies that can't fill their spots through other methods (word of
mouth, recruiters, etc..) are the cheapskates that won't pay going rate, or
their environment is so hostile that they have constant turnover.
> >> And if your inclined to LIKE GCC then why aren't
> >> you using Linux in the first place as your OS.
> >
> >Because Windows is a required platform?
>
> This is true but it needs to change.
> There is no functional reason to run Windows
> over Linux as it stands today.
And there's no functional reason why we drive on the right side of the road
either. A standard must be chosen though, or chaos reigns.
> >> Linux is a more stable, better OS platform than
> >> Windows could ever be. And Linux is certaintly
> >> cheaper. It's also much more capable and pliable
> >> than Windows. With Windows you have no embedded
> >> opportunities.
> >
> >That's completely untrue. Windows CE and Embedded NT are already quite
> >popular and are being used extensively.
>
> Windows CE is a nighmare/unstable product.
Not even close to true. In fact, in the 2 years i've been using PDA's with
CE, it's never crashed once.
> There is no Embedded NT product in use today.
Bullshit. One of my clients is using it in their laser CNC system.
Go here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/
> >> But YES, you can use GCC on Windows. The vast
> >> majority don't. And then there is the question,
> >> WHY on windows?
> >
> >Because it's a good, free compiler. Same reason you use it on Linux
instead
> >of, say, CodeWarrior for Linux.
>
> I will agree it's a good - free compiler.
> But there are no companies using it to develop client
> software. They are largely using VB and nothing else.
You should stop using absolutes. Someone else has already said they are
using it to develop business software, thus your statement that *NO*
companies are using it is patently false from that one example alone. I've
used GCC in commercial development as well, not to mention that Cygnus would
not bother with their products if the market did not exist.
> Now go ahead and counter my sound arguments.
Sound arguments? You're insane.
> The Sound Arguments that VB is used in 90% of the
> Windows developing community.
That is patently false. Yes, VB has more marketshare than C++, but not 90%.
More like 50%, with C++ being 30-40% and langauges like Java or Smalltalk
taking up the remaining bits.
> That most jobs in the paper are looking for VB skills
> these days.
For reasons which do not relate to this discussion.
> That the cost of buying into Windows and VB and then
> passing that off to the consumer is un-acceptable.
> Especially since your advocating developing in GCC.
The cost is insignificant in any project of any size.
> Defy us all by stating that all US newspapers are
> chocked full of ad's looking for GCC experience
> using Windows.
That's irrelevant.
> Again. If you like GCC you should use Linux
> and be done with it. Linux is stable.
> Windows is NOT stable.
You're argument is stupid. You should use the tool that works best for you.
If that's GCC, use it. If it's not, don't use it. It doesn't matter what
platform you're using.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:55:09 +0000
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big wigs. Sun,
> Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying the anarchy
> that is open source software. I just started a download of StarOffice 5.2.
> (no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year ago) and had
> to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement with Sun.
> Free software indeed. Now I have an additional, largely useless, office
> application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun. I'd rather pay
> and not have these intrusions into my life.
There will probably come a time when MS and others make you tell them
loads of stuff AND make you pay!
OSS is very much alive and well
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:06:04 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:51:46 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:56:13 -0600,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> To make the statement that more than say 1% of the Windows
>> >> user base is developing in compilers like GCC is crazy.
>> >
>> >If there wasn't a demand for them, they wouldn't exist.
>> >
>> >I can't back it up, but i'd be willing to bet that there are more
>physical
>> >numbers of developers using GCC on Win32 than there are on all other
>> >platforms combined. While that number may be a small percentage of the
>> >total Win32 developers, it's still a big number.
>>
>> You are always the one who want's some sort of web site
>> reference to back up claims. Yet when it comes full
>> term to your side of the argument, you have nothing.
>>
>> Your guns are empty senior!
>
>You know, at least I have the balls to admit i'm using my own experience,
>and not claiming baseless supposition is fact.
>
What experience nitwit!
You won't even find recuiters asking for GCC experience
for Windows!
Where is your Fuken brain man!
>> >> The problem with the COST of using Windows is VB, VC,
>> >> or some Borland product which increases their cost.
>> >
>> >Explain that claim.
>>
>> Just one license for VB professional edition is
>> $2,700. If you develop major software using VB
>> you will spend this less a token discount.
>
>Not true. VB Pro has an MSRP of $549 and sells for much less at retail.
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/prodinfo/purchase/pricing.asp
>
>Even the enterprise edition is only $1299 MSRP.
>
Catalogue anybody please!
Real quick!
>> But, why am I explaining this to you?
>
>Because you're wrong.
>
No! Because I made the mistake in thinking
you might actually pull out of this intellectual
powerdive you've been on since you showed up on
COLA.
Pull your Fuken head out of your ass!
>> >> I'm just saying the VAST majority of Windows users
>> >> are developing in VB. And this is WHY the cost
>> >> of using Windows for your business is crazy.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Newspaper job ad's might be one good clue.
>> You see ton's of VB openings but I've never
>> actually seen one saying they want GCC skill.
>
>The vast majority of newspaper ads are "last resorts". Typically jobs never
>appear in newspapers.
>
>The companies that can't fill their spots through other methods (word of
>mouth, recruiters, etc..) are the cheapskates that won't pay going rate, or
>their environment is so hostile that they have constant turnover.
>
I'm sure some people could share your opinion.
Find me ONE recruiter asking for GCC expience then!
You know they run ad's also!
>> >> And if your inclined to LIKE GCC then why aren't
>> >> you using Linux in the first place as your OS.
>> >
>> >Because Windows is a required platform?
>>
>> This is true but it needs to change.
>> There is no functional reason to run Windows
>> over Linux as it stands today.
>
>And there's no functional reason why we drive on the right side of the road
>either. A standard must be chosen though, or chaos reigns.
>
The government hasn't exactly RULED we MUST use Windows.
So this point is another one right out of
BLOOM COUNTY.
>> >> Linux is a more stable, better OS platform than
>> >> Windows could ever be. And Linux is certaintly
>> >> cheaper. It's also much more capable and pliable
>> >> than Windows. With Windows you have no embedded
>> >> opportunities.
>> >
>> >That's completely untrue. Windows CE and Embedded NT are already quite
>> >popular and are being used extensively.
>>
>> Windows CE is a nighmare/unstable product.
>
>Not even close to true. In fact, in the 2 years i've been using PDA's with
>CE, it's never crashed once.
>
You've also made statements to the effect that W2k never
crashes that NT never crashes that 98 is as stable as
a Fuken head.
>> There is no Embedded NT product in use today.
>
>Bullshit. One of my clients is using it in their laser CNC system.
>
>Go here:
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/embedded/
>
They never released it. Go look at the web site yourself.
They are still working on it. And they will probably
NEVER finish it. Just like all the rest of the
crap they NEVER finish.
>> >> But YES, you can use GCC on Windows. The vast
>> >> majority don't. And then there is the question,
>> >> WHY on windows?
>> >
>> >Because it's a good, free compiler. Same reason you use it on Linux
>instead
>> >of, say, CodeWarrior for Linux.
>>
>> I will agree it's a good - free compiler.
>> But there are no companies using it to develop client
>> software. They are largely using VB and nothing else.
>
>You should stop using absolutes. Someone else has already said they are
>using it to develop business software, thus your statement that *NO*
>companies are using it is patently false from that one example alone. I've
>used GCC in commercial development as well, not to mention that Cygnus would
>not bother with their products if the market did not exist.
>
You are a total ASSHOLE.
There. Now is that better.
>> Now go ahead and counter my sound arguments.
>
>Sound arguments? You're insane.
>
>> The Sound Arguments that VB is used in 90% of the
>> Windows developing community.
>
>That is patently false. Yes, VB has more marketshare than C++, but not 90%.
>More like 50%, with C++ being 30-40% and langauges like Java or Smalltalk
>taking up the remaining bits.
>
Notice the clever author doesn't mention even his
version of the percentable of GCC written Windows
applications just flying around on embedded devices.
>> That most jobs in the paper are looking for VB skills
>> these days.
>
>For reasons which do not relate to this discussion.
>
They relate directly to the discussion.
Don't AL GORE me here.
>> That the cost of buying into Windows and VB and then
>> passing that off to the consumer is un-acceptable.
>> Especially since your advocating developing in GCC.
>
>The cost is insignificant in any project of any size.
>
Even if you could buy VB Pro for $1,299 a copy, which
you can't, that's significant. It can only be in-significant
if your on welfare.
>> Defy us all by stating that all US newspapers are
>> chocked full of ad's looking for GCC experience
>> using Windows.
>
>That's irrelevant.
>
Reality is never irrelevant.
>> Again. If you like GCC you should use Linux
>> and be done with it. Linux is stable.
>> Windows is NOT stable.
>
>You're argument is stupid. You should use the tool that works best for you.
>If that's GCC, use it. If it's not, don't use it. It doesn't matter what
>platform you're using.
>
Well I can't win there Fukenbush.
Damn! I thought I had a decent chance before he
declared me stupid in his mind!
Now all is lost!
Woooow with me! Woooow with me!
Oh Darn!
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
