Linux-Advocacy Digest #360, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (TTK Ciar)
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (TTK Ciar)
Re: You and Microsoft... (spicerun)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:47:25 GMT
Except most Mac users can work with Windows Explorer's interface. It's
intuitive, and therefore can be "interpreted" rather simply by the user,
because operations make SENSE.
When a user from EITHER WORLD enters KDE2 and GNOME & "e", it's like they're
heads have just been lobbed off.
Both environments are entirely projects designed to give Linux a "face",
period. more than just the bash shell, and WAY more than the orgy of
incomplete, incompatible and feature & functionless Windows managers
available for XFree86.
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Firstly, if you had bothered to read what you clipped, you'd note that
this
> > was a response to KDE not being the "desktop" answer it's cracked up to
be.
> >
> > Second, "Linux not for the desktop" is a load of shit. Tell Linux.com
to
> > openly admit that Linux isn't for desktop use, never has, and never will
be,
> > and I swear I'll stop posting to ANY Linux newsgroup.
> >
> > Finally, there seem to be more "blind men" in the Linux community than
> > seeing ones, because I've seen KDE be praised as everything from "the
end to
> > all things Microsoft" to "the worst thing to hit Linux since Windows
users".
>
> And I hear the same thing about Windows all the time.
>
> Different strokes, different folks. Bad cliche, albeit an obvious
> one for this situation.
>
> Ask your favorite Mac user how great EXPLORER.EXE is -- it's the same
> thing as KDE/GNOME for UNIX. Does that mean the Mac users are "blind"
> as well? Hmmm.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:49:31 GMT
Only because all that "wonderful" engineering software, and those 64bit
processors to run the software only have UNIX platforms...
CDE had FUNCTIONALITY in it, be it at the cost of some intuitiveness. As
long as Sun stands behind GNOME for it's central UI system, I'll have no
problem with it. (It's Linux that bothers me with GNOME, or any other
interface for that matter anyway).
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Firstly, if you had bothered to read what you clipped, you'd note that
this
> > was a response to KDE not being the "desktop" answer it's cracked up to
be.
> >
> > Second, "Linux not for the desktop" is a load of shit. Tell Linux.com
to
> > openly admit that Linux isn't for desktop use, never has, and never will
be,
> > and I swear I'll stop posting to ANY Linux newsgroup.
>
> Linux has much nicer desktops than any commercial version of Unix (in
fact,
> Sun has actually thrown out CDE in favor of Gnome)....and Unix *IS* the
> standard desktop for the automotive and aerospace industries...EVERYWHERE,
> WORLDWIDE.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:57:49 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93fhop$cut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me.
>
> We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
> thats because youre a complete idiot.
Really? Because he has a point; KDE looks a little like Windows. Even the
KDE website attests to this.
> Because people want more. So they wrote more. People like asthetic
> AND functionality.
And people like YOU will go to your grave insisting that such a paridgim
doesn't exist.
> > Why are the improvements to Linux mostly in the gui area?
>
> They arent. You have no idea what youre talking about. At this point,
> youd better go get that guy who occasionally writes your posts for you
> and ask him to copy something out of "linux for dummies" that makes
> you look intelligent.
Really? Eazel software making it's entire existance on creating a Linux UI
that's fully featured AND functional to all users... Helixcode software
making headway into stable, complete and functional GUI based installer
suites.
And comming soon; Installshield for Linux...
These all sound like GUI and desktop enhancements to me, and they sound
pretty "big" as well.
> > No. You may hope that Linux is not trying for that market but the
> > movers and shakers with the money riding on Linux sure are hoping it
> > is.
>
> Linux developed nicely without the movers and shakers, and continues to.
Please. Linux needs those movers and shakers more than ever. And most
importantly, it needs THEM to revoulitionize the platform.
> The problem with the "movers and the shakers" is that they believed that
> they could make money from something which was already being given away
> for free. They were quite mistaken; that business model does not work
> at all. And now they know it.
And yet they are still plodding ahead with their potential revoulition for
Linux. You do realize without "them", you would not have a Linux. THose
movers and shakers are what motivates independent programmers to waste their
free time, without pay, creating some idillic, dumb little app for Linux.
If the movers and shakers were all to disappear, Linux would go back to a
small little circle of geeks with WAY too much time on their hands.
> And at this point, for a good chunk of applications, linux is as good as
> any other useful unix-ey operating system. AND it doesnt cost anything.
THis is the mark that indicates you are a penguinist. Forseeing Linux as
the BEST UNIX variant out there. Please. FreeBSD totaly has you beat out
on the server technology arena, and Linux just can't hold a candle to
commercial UNIX's either.
Same with workstations. Commercial UNIX's have Linux beat so bad, it makes
Windows and Linux look like an even playing field.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:59:40 GMT
AND FUN TOO!
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:IPu66.56936$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:kst66.13389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Windows has a unified configuration system called the REGISTERY.
> > > >
> > > > Linux has /etc.
> > > >
> > > > Guess which one is light years ahead of the other.
> > >
> > > The one that allows you to run a test instance of a program at the
same
> > > time as the production copy but using a command line switch to
> > > point it to an alternate file. The one that allows recovery of
> > > an unbootable system by using an alternate boot (floppy, etc.)
> > > and copying in correct versions of some files.
> >
> > And your point is?
> > Both things are doable with the Registry.
>
> Eating ice cream through a straw is doable as well.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:56:54 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93g8ct$kkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:93fnt6$6lq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> Compression on top of Compression usually doesn't make the file
> :> smaller, in fact the overhead of the compression scheme makes it
> :> even bigger. This assumes the first compression was any good. If
> :> the second compression still finds enough redundancies and patterns
> :> to make more compression, then that is evidence that the first
> :> compression was pretty poor. This is why I dislike automatic
> :> compression at a low level. For example, compressing TCP/IP data
> :> over a phone modem is silly if the modem itself already uses
> :> compression.
> :>
> :> Running something like PKzip on a file the OS already compressed
> :> for you is going to make it take more space, not less.
>
> : Well, actually, the way NT compress a file isn't quite the way PKzip
does.
>
> : NT divide the file to 2 clusters units.
> : And compress each unit individually, if the last bit isn't exactly large
> : enough for two clusters, it won't be compressed.
>
> : This scheme is a compromise between access speed and compression, if
PKzip
> : wants to zip this file, it will access the raw file, not the compressed
> : data.
> : It will compress it, and then return compressed data to another file,
> : assuming that the other file is also FS-level-compressed, then NT will
do
> : the above procedure while it try to compress it.
> : I'm not sure what the result would be space-wise.
>
> Unless the NT compression is pretty bad, using PKzip wouldn't improve
> things much, but it could very easily make the file size *bigger* than
> the unzipped version, as that is common when you try to compress
> data that doesn't have any discernable patern. (This is what compression
> does - remove the redundancies and try to express patterns in a way that
> cannot be reduced any further. Once that's been done, there should be
> very few redundancies and patterns for a second compression program to
> make use of.)
>
> So, you are right that PKzip would be compressing the raw, uncompressed
> file stream, but then if this file stream, after PKzipping, got stored
> by NT's compression scheme, NT would be compressing already compressed
> data, and it would be doing so only by 1 cluster at a time from your
> description, so its chances of finding patterns that PKzip missed is
> pretty low (PKzip looks for patterns across the whole file, so it
> can find more global as well as local patterns). So NT would end up
> exploding out data that would have been better left alone as-is.
> Now, this assumes that NT doesn't have some sort of ability to detect
> when the compressed version is larger than the original. If it has
> that smarts built in, it might be able to realize it should store the
> raw version of the cluster in that case.
2 clusters at a time, actually.
And yes, it is probably be better to save compressed files un-fs-compressed.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:04:20 GMT
Your programmer friends are idiots. The registry makes generalized
administration easier. It's not the job of the administrator to be bogged
down with programming laziness.
Admin software is POSSIBLE under Windows because of the registry. Under
Linux, the /etc directory makes centralized administration IMPOSSIBLE.
Editing that "line of text" is, like every administrative action, not as
simple as it sounds.
The registry solves this by unifying the format, and location for
configuration, allowing true interoperability. A feature which Lin-nuts
like yourself will probably never realize.
<TTK Ciar> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Windows has a unified configuration system called the REGISTERY.
> >
> >Linux has /etc.
> >
> >Guess which one is light years ahead of the other.
>
> /etc is clearly superior to the Windows registry.
>
> I have friends who develop on Windows systems for a living, and
> periodically they rant about how much they hate the registry, and
> how much misery it contributes to their lives.
>
> Administering my linux systems is a comparative breeze -- there
> is little that is easier than tweaking a line of text with my
> favored text editor in a particular file (and then NOT HAVING TO
> REBOOT MY SYSTEM, another difference that contributes significantly
> to stress in the lives of Windows users and developers, and not in
> mine). Or using any number of general-purpose text operation tools
> (awk, cat, egrep, head, tail, cut, join, uniq -- please, what is
> the name of the Windows app that allows you to manipulate your
> system's registry in the ways these utilities can manipulate the
> files in /etc?).
>
> What you're missing here is history. Once upon a time, it was
> very common for systems and applications to use binary-formatted
> files and databases to manage their configurations, but eventually
> developers struck on the fabu idea of using text for everything
> instead. Microsoft, as usual, ignored history and was thus doomed
> to repeat it. If they still exist ten years from now, perhaps they
> will "invent" textual network protocols and configuration files and
> herald the beginning of a new era of joyous ease-of-use for Windows
> users.
>
> -- TTK
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:09:08 GMT
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The weakness of Linux is that you have to fool with it.
> The strength of Linux is that you *can* fool with it.
Really? *Can* implies there is an alternative. You admit this in the
prvious sentance, but can implies alternative, of which THERE IS NONE. I
don't like minutia. I have enough garbage in my life not to need a
technical reference book every time I want to dial into an ISP, or
reconfigure my modem (or ADD a modem for that matter.)
> Oh, and I don't much appreciate your use of "normal" as if those of
> us who actually know how our computers work are "abnormal."
I like to come home, and enjoy the simple bliss of "it just works, NEATO!"
on my home PC. I don't want to tinker the hell out of it to get some
idillic, whatever working, I really just do want to use it.
Linux requires tinkering, 24/7. I hate that.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:10:01 GMT
CAN WE PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT CARS?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93e7bb$4rv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >then there's your ridiculous assertion that drivers of either car are
> >limited to what they do - like it takes any skill to drive a
> >beetle. like you're always hearing of beetles flipping
> >over. umm. this is simply not true. the McLaren driver could not only
> >drive their McLaren, but they could also drive your beetle. and
> >almost certainly better than you.
>
> I would seriously doubt it. There are very few areas in human life where
> experience can't make up for a heck of a lot of theoretical knowledge.
> Last time a friend of mine wanted to drive my Beetle, she couldn't even
> get it started. She did all the right moves, but nope, no start. We
swapped
> seats again, started first time. I don't know what I did different, so
> I couldn't even teach her how to do it.
>
> And ever wondered *why* you don't see Beetles flipping over all the time?
> Well, first of all, most of the people driving them have driven them for
> a while, and thus know how to handle them. And those who are new to the
> Beetle are generally clever enough to *know* that they don't know how it
> handles, and thus tend to err on the side of caution. Going through a
> corner too slow doesn't hurt you --- doing it too fast does, and you end
> up being even more late for your date....
>
> Bernie
>
> --
> In politics it is more blessed not to take than to give
> Enoch Powell
> British Conservative politician
> Daily Telegraph, 31 January 1964
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:13:42 GMT
Ok, this certifies you have never had to work with REAL people during your
tenor as an administrator.
Says a lot about why you use Linux then.
Those of us who deal with real people, people who aren't as FORTUNATE as I
am to know what I know about computing, know why Linux is totally
unfeasible.
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93fuvi$90s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 9 Jan 2001 17:25:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>
> >>I see that guy is writing your posts again. Or at least, hes copying
> >>directly from an old spec sheet.
> >>
> >>Which is more than youre capable of doing, claire. Nice one.
>
>
> > You just have a difficult time accepting that most people have a far
> > better understanding of computer history than you have, mostly because
> > they have lived through it and you are in all likely hood some pimple
> > faced, kid wannabe who never had the opportunity to be a part of
> > history. Like the PS/2 model 80/85, which is a piece of history in and
> > of itself.
>
> Ah, whats your name, little boy? Does your mommy know youre posting for
> her again?
>
> > Would you like me to tell you about the model 70?
> > Or how about the model 25?
>
> > What made the model 25 different than the others?
>
>
> > What do you need to get into Advcanced Diagnostic mode on a PS/2 and
> > why did it upset many people?
>
> Claire, I didnt have a "home computer" until my first commodore, which
> was in 1986. The only IBM's ive ever touched start with the AS/400 and
> go up from there.
>
> Ive never been a 'computer repair person'. I started out (I dont count
> playing around with a home computer "starting out") as the administrator
> of a small network of graphics workstations in my first year of college.
> (1987). I continued in and out of the field for many years.
>
> My home computer history does not include an IBM machine of any kind.
>
> However, it does include 5 amigas, 2 c/64s, 1 c/128, 1 c/pet (freebie,
> who could blame me), 1 mac classic, 1 mac plus, 1 PM7200/75, 1 PM
7200/120,
> 1PM 7500/100, 1 amiga 2000, 1 486dx/66, 1 ppro 200 system, and my most
> current:
>
> PIII 666 w/384 megs ram, gforce2, sblive, UDMA/66, 80gigs hd space,
> nice abit mboard, 21" trinitron and some really shitty speakers that
> ill be replacing with jbl monitors and suitable pre/amplification next
> week.
>
> > Go ahead idiot...I'm waiting?
>
> > If you have all of this experience you say you do you will be able to
> > easily answer those questions without scouting the net for the
> > answers,
>
> Thats not true at all. Thats like saying that if you dont know anything
> about the way edsels were built, you couldnt possibly know anything about
> the way the space shuttle is built. Your logic is flawed, and you are an
> idiot.
>
> > but that is what you will do anyway because you don't have a
> > clue.
>
> Actually, I dont do that claire, thats something that YOU do. You're
> getting us confused. I dont cheat at challenges, and I indeed know
> almost nothing about the Ps/2 series, as I was never dumb enough to
> buy one.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:14:04 GMT
It was a joke, genius.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ono wrote:
> >
> > > Clue for the fucking clueless. Word Perfect was ported to SCO Unix
over
> > > a DECADE ago. To port the SCO version to Linux is trivial.
> > >
> > Maybe they find those sources for you so you can compile them. (and
finding
> > some bugs while looking at .c, .h and makefiles).
> > l.o.l.
>
> Wordperfect is not open source, idiot.
>
> --
> 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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:15:29 GMT
Download drivers?
Install them?
HAHAHAHHAHA!
Try "download kernel source".
Try "recompile kernel source"
Try "editing modules.conf", or "conf.modules" or whatever the hell it is
now.
Try pulling hair out, wasting time, ending up with 1/10th the functionality
provided by the card under Windows and Directsound.
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> How about no sound out of the digital port on the SBLive card?
>
> > The driver doesnt support it. Look for an update in the coming weeks.
>
> I've been running SB Live digital out for a few months now. I've no
> idea what driver Mandrake uses, but if it's a module, you should be
> able to download a new driver from Creative's web pages, and install
> it instead.
>
> -kzm
> --
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: 10 Jan 2001 03:27:17 GMT
>
>> BTW the debate between Linus and Dr Tannenbaum, the author
>> of Minix, was famous - let's just say that the design philosophies
>> of Linux and Minix had deep and irreconcilable differences.
>>
>> At the risk of pointing out the obvious, time has proved Linus
>> correct -
>
> Which probably frosts Tannenbaum to no end...
If I may put on my Devil's Advocate hat for a sec, I'll point out
that some of AST's arguments still stand in his favor -- Minix did
run on more-accessible hardware than Linux did (though of course
today you can run Linux on a $50 piece of junk), and today Minix can
be more easily understood in total by OS students than can Linux
(since Minix was intended to be a teaching tool and was kept very
small, while Linux has grown into a bona fide, fully-featured OS).
Heh .. re-reading that account of the Linus-vs-AST discussion made
me remember the first time I saw Linux running. I was very envious
of my friend's 386DX-25, and wondered when I'd ever be able to afford
a system that posh. Linux was one of the main reasons I resolved to
save up my pennies and get a 386SX-16, dedicating the 286-12 DOS box
to running the BBS and retiring the XT to the role of "backup
machine". By then, v0.98pl14 was out, so I opted not to use the
v0.95 floppies my friend had given me after all.
-- TTK
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: 10 Jan 2001 03:43:05 GMT
>> At the risk of pointing out the obvious, time has proved Linus
>> correct -
>
> Theoritical a microkernel is not a bad idea.
It depends on what's important to you. Microkernels were a much
better idea ten years ago than they are today. They are still a
good idea if your primary concern is bulletproof stability, but less
so if you are concerned with performance. As the "memory wall" and
other obstacles to performance have grown increasingly significant,
microkernels have fallen out of favor because they exacerbate these
bottlenecks.
Dynamically loadable modules, such as Linux and many other OS's
have implemented, provide many (albeit not all) of the advantages
of microkernels, but do so with little or no performance hit.
> And the kernel 2.4.0 uncompressed takes about 150 MB, this is not a
> good idea. Linux allows to fit all the drivers in the kernel.
> Theorical this is bad but in practice is very effective.
Yeah, I hear you. :-/ Linux is getting a bit unwieldly. But to
its credit, it's mostly useful stuff, and you don't actually need to
compile in a lot of drivers (and shouldn't; kernel modules are
actually better in a lot of ways).
> Well as someone said: "There's more than a way things can be done".
Here we're in agreement -- it's a good motto to live by.
Also: "Use the right tool for the job." There is no single tool
which is best for all jobs.
-- TTK
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:22:42 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:15:12 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows on a new
>> computer without having to go thru 3 reboots.
>
>
> Install? What install? All new computers will have
> Microsoft Windows Whistler (Personal Edition) installed
> on them and everything will be beautifully automatic -- until
> you actually want to *do* something, like install a new
> sound card or a freeware operating system... :-)
And, we hope you love your computer since you will now have to buy
another copy of
Whistler if you ever change computers:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010108/tc/new_whistler_build_adds_anti-piracy_lock_1.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:01 GMT
In article <WjR66.26962$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Ok, this certifies you have never had to work with REAL people during your
>tenor as an administrator.
>
>Says a lot about why you use Linux then.
>
>Those of us who deal with real people, people who aren't as FORTUNATE as I
>am to know what I know about computing, know why Linux is totally
>unfeasible.
>
>
Linux is unfeasible at work?
Either you lived with your head up your ass your entire life or you
need to put your cheeks on a diet.
HA~! Windows being more usable than Linux in a business environment.
You are really some kind of crazy dreamer Kyle.
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
******************************
