Linux-Advocacy Digest #953, Volume #30 Mon, 18 Dec 00 05:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451897 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (mitch)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (David Steinberg)
Re: swithching to linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:57:24 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Printer drivers run in user space therefore cannot crash a system,
> that and 7 years experience with the operating system an never
> getting a blue screen from the system caused by a printer driver.
So, since printer drivers cannot be the culprit, what do you suggest?
Or are those 7 years of experience you brag about not worth anything?
Perhaps you could enlighten us on how you determine whether the
printer driver or something else causes the problem?
>> Well, I must assume the "idiot" you refer to is me. So everybody who
>> suffers an NT blue screen must be liar, is that it?
> If the shoe fits.
No, I don't think it does, and I should have thought that was obvious
to anybody with seven years of experience of *anything*. But obvously
not to you.
You've been calling me an idiot and a liar in public, and I would like
you to point out why - apart from your obvious ignorance of how
Windows works, and of course your blind faith in the immaculate
perfection of any Microsoft products.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:00:54 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>>>>> If that happened to work, then you could
>>>>>>>> claim that the command was intuitive. Unfortunately, it doesn't
>>>>>>>> work. What you wanted was 10x. Not intuitive in this example.
>>> d was. d was the right guess to delete a range, yet you claimed it
>>> wasn't. The relevant text is still there. You just did not understand
>>> the pattern you claimed to be repeating. And you are the one
>>> who deleted my re-iteration of the pattern.
>> "But it was."
>> --Les Mikesell
>>>>>>>> But if you already knew that x was the command to delete a
>>>>>>>> character, then using 10x to delete 10 characters is not relying
>>>>>>>> on intuition at all. It's relying on filling out the template.
>>> That's progress. I was convinced you weren't able to learn anything,
>>> but I see you are learning technique from Aaron.
>> "But it was."
>> --Les Mikesell
>>
>> How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot, Les? I'll address
>> the rest of your nonsense when you learn to grow up.
> Your posting style has improved enormously.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
> You should post others' correct quotes more often instead of making
> up your typical drivel just to annoy everyone else.
"But it was."
--Les Mikesell
> You really do need to work on understanding the surrounding context,
> though.
How ironic.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:05:36 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some
>programs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings on computers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a
>major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in California.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical. It is quite possible that people will generally know
>what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with a power switch without needing to consult a manual, but
>will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not generally know how much power is consumed in the on and off
>states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider the AC adaptor for a modem, for example. The power switch
>is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the modem, not the AC adaptor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical. The behavior of the power switch changed from its
>traditional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role. People *think* it still works the way it did 10 years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Your Curtis Mathes is older than that. You claim it kept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the power on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it was very unusual for its time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? I had a clock-radio that when "off" kept the clock on. Very
>usual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for its time.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its behavior isn't capable of being comprehended without logical
>thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And with logical thought, the average consumer will know how much
>power
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still being consumed by a unit even when the switch is in the off
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position? That's not the issue here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (See definition of intuitive).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are still trying to make decisions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the traditional use of the power switch - power cord setup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, sounds like your example involves a mislabeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> button. There is a difference between "video blank" and "power off".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've described the former. I've been talking about the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they concern the device that serves as a power switch these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An "off" switch that leaves 10 amps of power running isn't much of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue of all these devices still drawing power is keeping a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that systems outside of California were somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to handle it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Outside CA, NY, and MA, there have been more plants built. These
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plants are now selling some of their excess off peak power to CA. In
>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past CA would sell power to Texas during the peak time in Texas and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas would sell to CA during the peak time there. Now the transfer
>is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all one way. To CA. But it is getting difficult for Texas utilities
>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify building more plants just to have power to sell to CA. They
>have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to justify the need for plants based on need in Texas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with being designed to handle the load.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is
>putting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like those Californians are going to have to do without their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 72-inch projection televisions. (Did your Curtis Mathes need 10
>amps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep its filament going?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a lot of people killed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The power consumed by a device in the off state has absolutely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the issue of whether the power switch itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The switch marked "on" and "off" on my 1903A4 Springfield is a Power
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Switch?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show me your 1903A4 Springfield.
>>>>>>>>>>> Next time you are in Arizona, give me a call.
>>>>>>>>>> What's your number? I usually get to Arizona at least once a year. It's
>>>>>>>>>> a big state, however. Don't expect me to look you up in Yuma.
>>>>>>>>> Tucson/Pheonix. E-mail me.
>>>>>>>> Most trips are to Tucson. Somewhat fewer to Flagstaff, which usually
>>>>>>>> involves arrival at Sky Harbor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not all switches marked thus perform the same functions or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform the same functions the same way!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they do.
>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at your post you definately said your concept of a power switch
>>>>>>>>>>> has "One position is "on" and the other position is "off"."
>>>>>>>>>> Yet you illogically turned that around and tried to make it sound like
>>>>>>>>>> every switch with an "on" and an "off" must be a power switch.
>>>>>>>>>>> So if that isn't your concept of a power switch, what is?
>>>>>>>>>> Something that changes the state of the power applied to a device:
>>>>>>>>>> power on, power off. That doesn't mean every switch with an "on"
>>>>>>>>>> and an "off" is a power swtich. That's just plain illogical.
>>>>>>>>> You said the intuitive concept of a power switch was a switch with one
>>>>>>>>> position "on" and the other "off".
>>>>>>>> I said my concept of a power switch is that one position is "on" and
>>>>>>>> the other position is "off".
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> And why did you say it was your concept of a power switch?
>>>>>>>>>> Because you asked me about my concept of a power switch.
>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> why won't my computer fire 30-06 rounds from the magazine when
>>>>>>>>>>> the power switch is in the "on" position.
>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that your computer has a magazine
>>>>>>>>>> from which it might be able to fire rounds.
>>>>>>>>> No, I'm supposing my computer has a switch with one position marked "on"
>>>>>>>>> and the other marked "off".
>>>>>>>> Why did you mention a magazine from which rounds are fired?
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>> The '03A4 loads from a magazine when in the switch is in the "on"
>>>>>>>>> position.
>>>>>>>> Is it a power switch? If not, then it is irrelevant to the present
>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore it is intuitive that the computer would do the same.
>>>>>>>> Illogical, given that the discussion is about power switches, not
>>>>>>>> some other kind of switches.
>>>>>>> Your definition of a power switch :
>>>>>> On the contrary, you asked me for a concept of a power switch, not a
>>>>>> definition.
>>>> Note: no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>>>>>>> Therefore, by your define both are power switches.
>>>>>> Illogical. All pulsars are neutron stars. Does that mean all
>>>>>> neutron stars are pulsars? No. Classic illogic on your part.
>>>> Note: no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> Want to change your definition?
>>>>>> I didn't give you a definition. You asked for a concept. I gave
>>>>>> you a concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Want to change your accusation?
>>>>> What is your intuitive concept of a power switch?
>>>> I already answered that question. You erroneously declared my answer
>>>> to be a definition.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>> Care to try to duck the question again?
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I ducked it previously. From
>>>> above:
>>>>
>>>> RL] OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
>>>> ]
>>>> DT] One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>>>>
>>>> Your claim that I ducked it is rather ironic, considering all the
>>>> statements of mine that you've ducked. For evidence, see above where
>>>> I've written "Note: no response."
>>> Until you give an intuitive definition of a power switch, nothing you
>>> say or ask has any meaning whatsoever.
>> Then why did you ask for a concept first, Russ?
Note: no response.
>>> Therefore, it gets no response.
>> How convenient for you, Russ.
> ME : OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power
> switch?
>
> YOU: One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
Note how you asked for a concept, not a definition. There is a
difference.
> Care to define what "is" is?
Unnecessary.
> Or would you like to duck the question?
Care to define what "the" is?
> Are you interested in a real debate or just making yourself look like
> .... OK, I won't say it.
How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote:
"Care to define what 'is' is?"
--Russ Lyttle
> If you decide to give either your intuitive "concept" or "definition"
> of a power switch, we may continue.
I already did. See what you quoted as "YOU" above. Get back to me
when you've solved your reading comprehension problem.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:10:10 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What stage was that? Alpha? Beta? Release?
I've tried to explain this to you before, but it obviously doesn't
sink very deep in. You see, you don't have to use exactly those
labels everywhere, just because Microsoft likes to. In particular,
the Linux kernel doesn't come in Alphas, Betas and Releases, it comes
in a development tree and a stable tree. You usually pick the latest
from either one, if you wish to compile your own.
(It's a bit more complex than that, but I guess we'd better take one
step at a time, no?)
>> ...2.401 snapshot is installed on one of my pc's along with Mandrake 7.2
>> and running just fine, thanks.
> What stage was that? Alpha? Beta? Release?
Sigh. Here we go again.
> Gee only a year after it was promised.
By whom? If somebody promised you anything, I suggest you take it up
with them. Certainly the kernel developers haven't, as far as I know,
made any promises with respect to release dates.
> Still waiting to hear why all the marbles for OSS are a year or more
> behind schedule.
What schedules? There aren't necessarily any schedules. The kernel
will be ready when it is ready - and that only means ready in the
sense that Linus finds it good enough to warrant a 2.4.0 version
number.
That said, one reason for the crappiness of much commercial software,
is the need to stick to schedules. Open source can afford to fix the
problems instead.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451897
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:10:45 GMT
Today's Kulkis digest:
24> Tholen.
24> YOu, personally, are a pollutant in the gene pool of life.
24> Remember to slit lengthwise, oxygen thief.
How ironic.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:14:58 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But there are lots of people who want to run Linux on S/390. I wonder
>> why?
> Define "lots" and list a few examples outside of academia or IBM's research
> divisions.
"lots" might mean a significan (say two digit percentage) or the
people who own the hardware?
One of the biggest ISPs hereabouts are using an S/390 with Linux to
run web hosting. A large bank are going to start using it, among
other things to ease data migration between the big iron and other
machines.
If you have a mixed mainframe and Unix environment, I think it Linux
on S/390 should be a perfect fit.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:15:35 GMT
On 15 Dec 2000 17:54:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>"MSN Messenger"
>
>Sir, you have no business using linux at all. What you must do is stay
>far, far away from operating systems geared toward people who are something
>other than entirely lame.
>
It is the best instant messenger program available on the windows
platform - which I use because of the lack of any worthwhile audio
software on linux.
Oh, and btw, linux is just an operating system. Don`t get all
emotional and hurt if somebody doesn`t use it, it isn`t a direct
insult.
Lame? No. Productive? Yes.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:21:16 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:45:54 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > I don't consider Mr. Schullman an OS expert. I consider him a DOS,
>> > > Windows, x86 expert. His opinions outside the pure realm of Windows
>are
>> > > not substancially athoritative.
>> > >
>> > > The running DOS in a virtual machine does not an OS make. QEMM,
>Pharlap,
>> > > and all the other DOS extenders did that. They all have to do that
>> > > because interrupts and DMA have to be virtualized. What makes Windows
>> > > any different than DesqView?
>> > >
>> > > DesqView, a DOS extender, provided APIs for applications, multitasking
>> > > virtual DOS sessions, and the original DOS which was booted is run in
>> > > its own VM.
>> >
>> > DesqView doesn't provide a file system, it's own driver models, GUI,
>device
>> > independant graphics subsystems, printing subsystems, memory mapped
>files,
>> > virtual memory, or any other thousands of other API's (such as
>Telephony,
>> > 3D, etc..).
>>
>> These are simply APIs that have been developed over years. Arguments
>> about magnitude do not negate the basic assumptions.
>>
>> Any and all of these APIs could have been implemented in DesqView.
>> Windows requires DOS, pure and simple, thus it is not an operating
>> system.
>
>They could have been implemented in DesqView, but weren't. Thus, DesqView
>is not an OS.
>
>Tell me, would Linux be an OS if it only provided the same services that
>DesqView did (from a general perspective, not a DOS perspective). You're
>only argument is that if the OS depends on DOS, it's not an OS. That's not
>an argument.
>
>> > If you're looking at an OS as a kernel only, then what do you consider
>> > mkLinux? Which runs linux in a subsystem?
>>
>> Yes, mklinux is not the OS in this case.
>
>Alright, the Linux running on a S/390 isn't an OS either. Neither is MacOS
>X, nor is the GNU HURD. Your definition of an OS is outdated and certainly
>not supported by many experts in the field.
>
>> > > BTW Windows is still based on DPMI, "DOS Protected Mode Interface."
>> >
>> > Windows provides DPMI to DOS apps, but then so did OS/2. Are you going
>to
>> > suggest that OS/2 is also DOS based (Strangely enough, OS/2 used a
>slight
>> > variation of the DOS driver model, which was 16 bit. It was designed to
>> > allow DOS drivers to be recompiled with minimal effort).
>>
>> I did driver development in OS/2 1.x and some app work in 2.x. The
>> reason, in 1.x, why drivers were so horrible was because of the DOS box
>> and the 286. It was very inefficient to go from protected mode to real
>> mode, so interrupts could occur in either mode. A driver writer's
>> nightmare.
>
>Indeed, but they didn't have to model the drivers after the DOS driver
>model. That was because OS/2 was originally supposed to be DOS 5.
>
>> Under Windows, DPMI is the methodology on which the shell is based. On
>> OS/2 DPMI is an API provided by the OS for DOS applications. Do you
>> understand the difference?
>
>It's the same with Windows. Only DOS apps can make use of DPMI. Windows
>implements it's memory management in a way that is compatible with DPMI, but
>to suggest that windows uses DPMI itself is silly, and stupid.
>
Enough sillyness! Calling Windows an Operating system
is crazy, whether it rides on dos or not.
In order for it to be classified as an operating system,
it would have to have some acceptible means of recovery
from catastophic program failure and it doesn't.
And we can call Deskview an OS even though under Deskview
we never saw an application fail so we don't really know
what the underlying OS would have done with it IF IT HAPPENED!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: 18 Dec 2000 09:28:56 GMT
Chad C. Mulligan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:91je7d$al6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > Chad C. Mulligan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > : Still waiting to hear why all the marbles for OSS are a year or more
: > : behind schedule. Can't run a business that way, maybe that's why RH
: > : is failing.
: >
: > How many years late was Windows 2000?
: Two, but then it went through some major redesign.
Redesign? As opposed to Mozilla? Linux 2.4? Open Office?
So, to summarize your position: it is okay to be up to 2 years late, but
only if that includes some major redesign, and only if it is a
closed-source project. Correct?
: > Maybe that's why Microsoft is failing. :)
: >
: One division alone just reported profits in excess of $1,000,000,000 that
: hardly seems like a failing company to me.
But I'm confused. You just said that if a project is more than a year
late, the company inolved will fail. You then said that Windows 2000 was
two years late. Doesn't that mean that Microsoft should now be failing?
Or does Mulligan's Law of Software Failure only apply to open source
projects?
Your FUD is so transparent. It's really not worth the hours you must
spend on it each day.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:30:17 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:11:29 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, migs
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:58:43 +0800
><918h3b$o2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>umm i dont like to sound like this but. . . what is GPL??? and waht do you
>>mean by samll system??? like a 586 maybe with 16 megs ram??? please clarify
>>im quite the newbie in these realms, , ,
>>
>>
>
>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>(GNU General Public License)
>
>As for small systems -- I've worked on systems as small as
>an 1802 with about 4K of ram -- admittedly, that was a long time ago --
>and now work on a 550 Mhz/12 Gig/256 meg system running
>NT 4 at my employer's, and have access to a multi-CPU Sparc box
>(which we use as an Oracle database server).
>
>Small is in the eye of the beholder. I actually have a Pentium-90
>at home with 16 megs as well (it's my firewall machine).
>Serviceable, but a bit behind the times, and firing up X on it
>would be a bit slow. (Firing up Win2k or WinMe on it, assuming
>I ever get a copy thereof, would be even slower.) It works
>pretty nicely as a pure text machine, though.
>
>I've had Linux running on a 386 with 4M of ram and 80M of disk space.
>Admittedly, it didn't do much -- but it worked. I'm not sure if
>I'd want to bother to do it again (I installed the disk image
>using another machine, then moved the disk), considering I could
>get a dual-processor Pentium 133 for a few hundred bucks.
>(I have a PPro200 now, so I'm not sure there's much point of doing
>that, either.)
>
I'm running Debian 2.2 {Potato} on a 486 Toshiba with 5 meg of ram
and a 500 MB hard drive. I'm currently installing it and went
over to another console to telnet into my other machine and read
the mail. I've got apt-get installing 214 packages right now
and in the other console I have 2.4 test 11 compiling me a new
kernel for this box. Console #3 is where I'm telneting.
You could never do this using windows anything.
Just go into your closet and grab that old 486 laptop you thought
was so worthless and install Debian Potato on the thing.
I'm getting very good performance on this system even though it
has almost no resources to use. Linux makes things work!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:33:10 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:33:50 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:50:11 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
>>
>>Name the THING you can do with Windows you
>>CAN NOT do with Linux.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>
>Advanced Data Objects. Sure, it's crap, but I don't think
>Linux can implement that precise protocol quite yet.
>(I'm not sure if we'd want to, either.)
>
>--
Well, okay.
This would be the closest thing I've seen yet to a reasonable
answer. Are we shure we are not mixing C++ OOP in here somewhere?
Are we revering to VB capabilities?
Perhaps you could explain yourself more so I can understand
exactly what we are calling inovation here.
Thanks
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
******************************
