Linux-Advocacy Digest #366, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (*)
Re: KDE Hell (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Jens)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (.)
Re: KDE Hell (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:10:18 GMT
In article <xzR66.27225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Microsoft's support site is a thousands times better than anything the LDP
>could squeeze out of it's ass in a century.
>
Ah, I can tell you've never written or worked with Windows before.
At Microsoft's web site they do have an impressive support site
which details out the 37,000 some odd bugs which have been found
in Windows 2000. Now, after spending about 6 hours going through
this dip-shit site, if you find your bug the changes for them
having a remedy for it other than "REPORTED" are ALMOST NILL.
On the other hand if you have a problem with Debian you can
just write a message to the debian users newgroup and it
will be responded to typically within an hour.
And you don't have to look anything up.
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:11:33 GMT
In article <3KR66.27388$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
>
>FreeBSD kicks Linux into it's deserved corner as a server through
>unification AND technology.
>
>Firstly, FreeBSD isn't a terrible Hodge-podge of everyone's different
>library files (dll hell for Linux). FreeBSD has unifying library revisions,
>unifying dependencies, and the ports collection to dynamically locate,
>compile and INSTALL programs, their dependencies AND anything else required
>to run "it".
>
>There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the uniformity of the
>platform, 3rd party programs that perform administrative tasks are POSSIBLE
>and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of having to deal with the massive array of
>text files, and VI... (Flashback circa 1989).
>
>FreeBSD's swap "chunk" is quite superior to Linux's swap system, providing
>efficiency in a component that is quite desperately required in a service
>situation.
>
>That's why FreeBSD is superior.
>
I agree as of the 2.2 linux kernel era.
But we have 2.4 now and there's little incentive to use
FreeBSD now that 2.4 is released.
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:13:51 GMT
In article <93h8fj$g4v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
>
>And it's going to be a tragedy ending for MS haters.
>
>-Todd
>
That is until the breakup is ordered.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:59:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >this may sound a little stupid. and i could be completely wrong.
> >but. generally speaking. if you drive a McLaren. it probably wasn't
> >your first car.
>
> But I would wager the guess that most F1 pilots do not drive Beetles
> "in normal life". The personality profiles of the respective groups
> are kinda different.
i see your wager, and i raise you that if you drive a McLaren, you probably have
experience with cars..
whereas if you drive a beetle you probably do not. because if history repeats
itself..
And the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be from knowing Beetle's suck ass.
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
> >> 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.
>
> >wow. you'd be suprised how many people couldn't even start my honda! (you have
> >to hold down the clutch natch..) and it was a '90!
>
> Yeah. So if we were to swap cars, you trying to drive my Beetle, and me
> trying to drive your Honda, just for a week, we'd probably both end up
> with the conviction that the other's car is a piece of crap that just doesn't
> behave, just doesn't work properly, and all in all is just plain awful.
and scarily enough, we'd both be 100% correct..
> Does that remind you in any way of some of the arguments in this group, by
> any chance?
except i have my doubts about alot of people in this ng ever driving my OS, err..
you know what i mean :)
> >> 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..
>
> >why are you stating the obvious and thinking that somehow it helps prove your
> >point, when you have no point?
>
> It would appear that a person who claims it doesn't take any skill to
> drive a Beetle (and drive it fast, at that)
who said anything about 'fast'? and how does 'fast' relate to OS's in the analogy.
stupid. stupid analogy.
> and in support for such a
> position points out the lack of flipped Beetles, has some trouble with
> the obviousness of the above.
what i meant - and i snicker for not spelling it out more clearly - is that what
you wrote is common sense for any vehicle. substitute a different vehicle name
into 'Beetle' and it still reads like the back of a motor vehicles form.
except if it's an SUV.
in that case it's the same but in reverse. natch.
> That person would be you, in case you don't remember.
good on you.
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:00:30 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I agree as of the 2.2 linux kernel era.
>
> But we have 2.4 now and there's little incentive to use
> FreeBSD now that 2.4 is released.
Wait till Whistler is released. Then there'd be little incentive to use
FreeBSD or Linux.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:49:01 GMT
"Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Whilst standing grand on yonder podium, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
> Myers) spaketh unto <fiQ66.17708$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> uttering the words:
>
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >>
> >> > "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:936gbr$put$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > "The 2.4 kernel is compatible with upcoming generations of
> >> > > computer microprocessors, including Intel Corp.'s (NasdaqNM:INTC -
> >> > > news) upcoming 64-bit Itanium chip, and supports symmetric
> >> > > multiprocessing, which allows machines to run up to 32 computer
> >> > > chips at once." See
> >> > > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010105/tc/linux_torvalds_dc_2.htm
> >> > > l
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU,
> >> > memory HUB, BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A
> >> > whole 32 chips! woo hoo!
> >> >
> >> > p.s., W2K can support 64 CPU's (and lots more computer chips too!)
> >> > at once
> >>
> >> Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
> >> systems.
> >
> >Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's
> >32-CPU and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just
> >four 8-way CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be
> >falsely advertising, right?
>
> Of course... black helicopters... you know the drill.
>
> Greets Chad. How's it goin'. LTNS.
>
> I see the unclean propagators of idiocy^W^W^W^W Linux
> advocates are still at it.
Hey Stephen. Goin' good. My 8mo-old son is just getting his
first tooth, so I don't get much sleep, but you know how it
is.
As far as Linvocates, I fear they are becoming the lost breed.
Kinda like Amiga advocates, but only more arrogant and much
more mean.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:57:56 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
> > > systems.
> >
> > Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's 32-CPU
> > and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four 8-way
> > CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely advertising,
> > right?
>
> All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
> turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
>
> If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
> sport and provide a URL, OK?
<sigh>
You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? At the Win2K launch,
they had a 16-way Unisys box pumping away at an Airline flight routing
program.
Here's a press release of the Win2k launch event I was telling you about:
http://www.unisys.com/news/releases/2000/feb/02176866.asp
Here's a press release of the release of Unisys' 32-way Intel server:
http://www.unisys.com/marketplace/giga/702248-df99.html
Here's the product information on the 32-way ES7000:
http://www.unisys.com/hw/servers/enterprise/7000/default.asp
Here's a Compaq Proliant ML770 32-way server:
http://www5.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/index.html
Here's Microsoft's shortlist of vendors who provide
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server hardware:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/hardware/default.asp
(note: not all are 32-way, some are 8, some are 16, and some are 32)
Needless to say, you are wrong, and perhaps you should keep your eyes
open in the future to the news rather than just getting all your
info from slashdot.org.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:57:05 +0200
<TTK Ciar> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >>: Yup. At least until it gets a Linuxal Basic that is better than Visual
> >>: Basic.
> >>
> >>That's already happened.
> >
> >Just out of curiosity -- where?
>
> KDEStudio's FormDeveloper is certainly as least as powerful and
> easy to use as Visual BASIC.
>
> There's also VDKBuilder:
> http://vdkbuilder.sourceforge.net/
>
> As far as actual bona-fide VB-alike-for-linux .. hmmm ..
>
> Dunno if this is what the original poster was thinking about, but a
> quick look on www.freshmeat.net yielded a few BASIC runtime environments
> for Linux, one of which looks especially promising:
>
> http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html
>
> It's even been ported to Windows, so MS-weenies can enjoy some of the
> benefits of free software.
>
> Alternatively, you can just use perl (or perl/tk, for the "visual"
> thing), which is easier to learn than BASIC, and more powerful. Or
> python/tk. Or tcl/tk. Or Java. Any of these can be used to do the
> sorts of things Windows users use Visual BASIC for.
>
> Hrm .. on a slight tangent, *how* much $$$ does it cost these days
> to buy an ORB, a C compiler, a C++ compiler, a Pascal compiler, a JVM,
> Prolog, a debugger, and an SQL database for Windows?
0$
omniORB
Dev-C++
Dev-Pascal.
IBM's Win32 JVM
Visual Prolog
For SQL databases, you can have MSDE or MySQL
> I'm looking at
> the FAQ-o-matic at http://linux.davecentral.com/ at all of the devel
> language tools (compilers, interpreters, visual development environs,
> et al) that come packaged with most Linux distributions, and it just
> occurred to me that all those Windows users out there don't *get*
> these things with their operating system. They have to *pay* if they
> want to be able to write simple scripts for their computers. It blows
> my mind.
>
> -- TTK
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:02:41 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser
or
> > > ext3 )
> >
> > Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has none
> > of these problems.
>
> So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
> Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
> and is used in production environments.
We just had a huge debate on this about 2 months ago. The linvocates were all
saying the same thing. When we pressed and asked if any major corporation would
be willing to install a beta filesystem on their corporate servers and trust it
for 24/7 operations, no one said, "Yes".
The truth is, it ships with Suse (and maybe Debian), but not by default, you
have to manualy enable it at your own risk.
Anyone using them in production environments doesn't respect their data very
much.
I also seem to remember that there are some huge caveats to using ReiserFS
and they came out in that debate, but I can't seem to remember off the top
of my head what they are. Perhaps someone could refresh my memory.
Ext3, OTOH, still has a long ways to go.
> > The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
> > NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
>
> Is that why Linux is the reigning specweb champ?
With a kernel-mode HTTP server that no one would ever use in the real world?
So what?
IIS kicks everyone else, including Apache. Who cares about a cheesy kernel-mode
server.
> It seems the windoze zealots all want to live in the
> past, and keep reassuring themselves with tales
> of the old discredited mindcraft benchmarks.
You're the one that doesn't read the news and attempts to debate me with
months-old news, and claims that Linux supports things that it only does so
in a beta/unsupported/non-stable way. You also claim that Linux is fast
because someone decided to put a server in the kernel which isn't practical.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Jens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:32:17 +0000
Hi
If you are interested in participating in an
exciting software project then please read on.
Otherwise, please ignore this post.
This is my vision of a living object system which
I will
try to explain below. I have tried various ways to
implement my ideas but always encountered
something that hindered my progress. Maybe it's
inherent in the system, but I think it's more
inherent in the way I have tried to make it fit
current traditional system designs. I want to
break free from this 'traditional jail' and make
something completely new, something that doesn't
necessarily make sense inside the 'jail' but
outside it is the most natural thing to do. In
order to do so I preferably would like to
implement a new OS that fit's my ideas completely,
but in exploring that possibility I found that
it's a hard and time consuming task. I will
definitely do it sometime, and maybe, with the
experience I gain from completing the system I
describe below, it just might become easy.
I decided to try and put this on the net to see if
anyone is interested in tackling this problem with
me. First I want to get something going that I can
play with and then expand it into something I can
make some money from. If you stay with me, you can
too. Note that this is not easy money. You have to
work hard to earn them. Remember the third Law of
Life and Design: There's no such thing as a free
lunch
I am hoping to form a dedicated group of people
that shares my vision, contributing ideas and
code. If this develops into a working system
(which it will) I will discuss with the core group
members some commercial ideas which will make use
of the system. To make this all worthwhile for
those who contribute to the project I will
distribute to them the net revenues the commercial
system generates in proportion to each and
everyone's contribution. However, exactly how this
is done is fully up to me so I'm asking you to
have a little faith and trust in me. I and others
in the group will also have to trust you to not
take the code and run away. This mutual trust is
the foundation of this project so please let that
be your guiding light.
I know I am asking for a lot but I see this as a
better way than all the open source projects that
don't make any money for the coders; fame and
glory alone won't put food on your table. This
project has money making as one of it's goals. As
usual, there are no promises though.
Now, If I haven't scared you off by now I want to
add one thing. If you don't agree with what I have
to say below, then fine. Just don't tell me I'm
doing this and that the wrong way because
'traditionally' you have to do it this particular
way because the OS does not support this well. Or
that this is a stupid design because you don't do
it like all the other guys. I'm sick of comments
like that. I am breaking some rules, but so what!
I may perish and go up in flames because of it,
but I at least tried my ideas. I'm not either just
asking for complements, you can of course
criticize, but do it within the mindset I have
created.
Ok, now I definitely scared most of you off so you
few brave souls who are still with me lets go on
and see what I'm trying to lure you into. Don't
expect a breakthrough though, it's just something
I want to create, and do it fast.
I call my system Axon Space. 'Axon' because that's
what connects things together in our amazing brain
(and it's the name of my company ;-) and 'Space'
because it is a kind of space for objects to live
in. Axon Space is composed of thousands, millions
or billions of small tiny objects, where each
object has a small, limited, and clearly defined
task. This does not imply that each object is
assigned a different task, far from it. There can
be thousands of objects carrying out the same
task. They just may do it asynchronously with
respect to each other and with different state and
data.
Each object runs on it's own. It is completely
independent of other objects when it comes to
execution. This is where current OSs are very
limited and the traditionalists cry out. I will
not listen and carry on my stride and cry 'I will
find a way!'.
As for the programming language, I am using C++
and probably will continue to do so. I try to use
the STL to shorten development time. I mainly
develop on Linux so that is the reference
platform.
Each object manages it's own persistent storage.
This does not mean that each object stores it's
guts in an individual file. When the object is
created it will get a portion of a larger file
that it reads/writes to. Note that currently I see
no need for a dynamic object size so the file area
an object gets is fixed. This might seem like a
severe limitation, but bear in mind that each
object is small and confined and not allowed to
blow out in size so this is a reasonable
limitation. If it needs more space it should split
itself up into smaller objects. It also simplifies
the system. I will use streams here.
Objects communicate by sending messages (other
tiny objects) between each other. Each object is
network aware; it can listen on some address/port
combination (socket), send an object or even
itself (effectively moving about) to another
remote object (which is listening) or a local
object, or even use multicast if that suits it's
purpose. This is all very traditional (damn it!)
but I crave for object mobility and
interconnection and hope that this is the way. I
use BSD sockets encapsulated into objects.
Although current multithreaded OSs don't support
this fine grained architecture, light weight
threads (LWT) are a step in the right direction so
that's what I'm going to use. To make this a bit
more manageable for the OS, each object should go
to sleep (exit the thread) as soon as it has
completed it's task or a noninterruptable part of
it (like network communication). This includes
storing it's current state to some persistent
storage (most likely disk) and freeing up memory.
It will be instantiated on a later time by the
system and can continue sending or answering
messages. To require that the object can pick up
where it left off is not a high priority to begin
with (and maybe never). To make all this even
easier for the OS a thread pool can come in handy.
I have used QpThreads for this.
So, in summary an object has the following
properties:
It is small
It has a clear and limited task
It runs on it's own
It is persistent
It communicates by messages
It is network aware
In addition, all communication is secure
(encrypted). That's by design, not an
afterthought. I will use crypto++ for this task.
Now the User Interface (UI). I dislike calling it
a Graphical UI (GUI) as it is a limiting term and
sometimes not appropriate. I like GUIs though and
I intend to break the current GUI concepts by
going boldly to the 4th dimension (space and
time). This is a task for later times so I will
start with what I have available.
Having such a high number of objects makes it a
bit hard to try and cram each and everyone into a
window. I might try it some time, but for the time
being most objects will have a command UI alone,
meaning that they interact with the outer world
purely by messages. I truly want to give each and
every object a graphical look and be able to view
all (or a large portion of) the objects at the
same time, but that requires at least the third
dimension. So, what I am going to do is to assign
a few objects the task of visualizing the other
objects for me. These objects are handed an area
of a window which they can draw into as they
please. GTK-- (GTK+) is well suited for this,
using it's boxes to pack things into.
That's it for now. I'm sure I have forgotten
something or made something more confusing than it
ought to be, but what the heck. The main thing is
to get this out and get some discussion going.
I also hope that some of you would like to join me
in making this system a reality. As I said, one of
my main goals is to make money from all this and
you can too if you become an active contributor
and this becomes something we can use in a
commercial project.
Send me an e-mail if you have any ideas or just
want to discuss this further.
Thanks for reading.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
Jens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 14:36:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
>> > > systems.
>> >
>> > Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's 32-CPU
>> > and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four 8-way
>> > CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely advertising,
>> > right?
>>
>> All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
>> turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
>>
>> If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
>> sport and provide a URL, OK?
> <sigh>
> You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? At the Win2K launch,
> they had a 16-way Unisys box pumping away at an Airline flight routing
> program.
> Here's a press release of the Win2k launch event I was telling you about:
> http://www.unisys.com/news/releases/2000/feb/02176866.asp
> Here's a press release of the release of Unisys' 32-way Intel server:
> http://www.unisys.com/marketplace/giga/702248-df99.html
> Here's the product information on the 32-way ES7000:
> http://www.unisys.com/hw/servers/enterprise/7000/default.asp
> Here's a Compaq Proliant ML770 32-way server:
> http://www5.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/index.html
> Here's Microsoft's shortlist of vendors who provide
> Windows 2000 Datacenter Server hardware:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/hardware/default.asp
> (note: not all are 32-way, some are 8, some are 16, and some are 32)
> Needless to say, you are wrong, and perhaps you should keep your eyes
> open in the future to the news rather than just getting all your
> info from slashdot.org.
Chad doesnt know too much about how x86 processors work.
32 processors in one box is not the same thing as an entirely parallel
32 processor system.
This isnt surprising. Chad doesnt know much about a whole host of
subjects, computers being only one.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:25:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > You're confusing kwm with KDE. They are not the same.
>
> But still, are you able to use other window mangers with KDE, other
> than kwm?
Yes.
> Theoretically, it's possible to use Window Maker, but in reality,
> it didn't work so well with KDE 2.0 the last time I tried it. So,
> KDE may be an application framework, but from my experience, you're
> stuck with kwm, even if you don't like it. And yes, I did configure
> Window Maker for KDE hints.
You are confused.
a) kwm is not part of KDE2, it's part of KDE1. So, in KDE2, you are
actually replacing kwin with WM.
b) kwm was replaceable just fine with WM. However, that was in the old
times of KDE hints and GNOME hints. Now, we are in the modern age
of the NET-WM hints standard. WM doesn't implement it (yet). So, WM
is not a replacement for kwin.
In short: you can replace kwm and kwin, but with different things.
However, there is no really good replacement for kwin yet. Although
Blackbox is getting there.
--
Roberto Alsina
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:43:05 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:44:07
>"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93arkl$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Again, though, "No fucker ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
>> : Bleh.
>>
>>
>> That's because Mafia$oft markets to clueless managers, not IT
>> professionals.
>
>No, it's because everyone knows that if you go MS, it'll work.
BHAW-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! Oh, my.
BWAH-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.... hahahahaha. Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
>If you go anything else, you're betting your company's success
>on some 2nd rate software.
Oh, god, STOP, PLEASE! I can't breath! .....ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, hahaha...
BWah-h-ah-ahaha-haha.... Uh. Uh. No more...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
