Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>
> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> consider it?
The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
choice.
Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would work.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 13 Jan 2001 20:15:38 -0600
wow, you are really out of your depth, you don't understand what you're
reading.
SWC is not and never was and never will be a web server, as in it creates
content. It serves up cached copies of static pages. That's what it does.
Period. It is impossible for SWC to produce a dynamically generated page.
Period. The sooner you get over these facts the sooner you can rejoin
reality.... sheesh...
Then again - thinking about it... ok, so what? Say SWC is some mysterious
here-to-unknown product MS has that no one has noticed until it went
head-to-head with the linux kernel mode webserver and THEN, desperate for
answers why linux only was a scant 2.7% faster the zealots had to go digging
for some exuse. Amazing that no one else has noticed this interesting
product that can do such miraculous performance and is tucked into the
kernel yet multi-million dollar players have simply "missed" it - whoops,
just like that. But mcnash spots it by his own mind-reading interpretation
of the source code to a benchmark.
I do see that by examining the files dell submitted for the tux results that
there is a line that reads: "interact with the TUX kernel subsystem" - there
we have it, proof that tux is running in the kernel space. There is
documentation for how to access it from user space too. So, there you have
it... tux in the kernel... whatever...
silly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93q1j7$nhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Contrary to your assertion, SWC is in the kernel, it's visible from
> user-space as a Windows 2000 device. Proof is Microsoft's own submitted
> source code:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001212-TWC.zip -
unpack
> it and open the twc.c C-sourcecode file. Search for 'SWC', it gives this
> comment: "// Open Kernel SWC device": Q.E.D. Moreover, try searching for
> 'IIS' or 'ISAPI' in the whole source-code package - you will find only
one!
> You will find many references to 'SWC' (Microsoft's in-kernel webserver)
and
> 'TWC', the API to this in-kernel webserver. You will even find some
interface
> definitions in twc.h. If you ever programmed dynamic applications (ISAPIs)
> under IIS, you'll immediately recognize that in this benchmark no IIS was
> used for the dynamic requests. (maybe IIS was used for the 0.005% CGI's
> SPECweb99 generates.) Calling the test-results 'IIS 5.0 + SWC 3.0' is most
> likely a boldfaced lie, or at best an extreme exaggeration. In reality it
was
> a "99.99% SWC 3.0 + 0.005% IIS 5.0" test. Thomas
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very
likely
> > a
> > > duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC
> > version)
> > > at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this
'front-end
> > > cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into its
own
> > > separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol. The
> > > Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find
information
> > > about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
> > >
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> > > says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If this
> > > in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests, logs
web
> > > requests and provides ways to write dynamic webpages, then it's what?
A
> > > webserver. Surprisingly, the SpecWeb99 benchmark (check out the
functional
> > > specification at http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/) needs these webserver
> > > features, little more. I repeat, from the submission page it's pretty
> > clear
> > > that little if any IIS 5.0 code was running in this test - nothing
makes
> > this
> > > more apparent than the fact that no IIS 5.0 tuning was done at all on
this
> > > system! For example compare it with the IIS 5.0 tunings done in the
> > > following, much much slower 4-CPU SPECweb99 Windows 2000 / IIS 5.0
result:
> > >
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000612-00049.html
> > .
> > > This submission page is full of IIS 5.0-specific tunings, while the
SWC
> > 3.0
> > > submission has none at all! IIS 5.0 was probably just taking away some
> > space
> > > on disk and RAM, and was idling around - this was probably the best it
> > could
> > > have done to help get a better result ;-) Obviously this is not what
> > > Microsoft PR wants us to believe though :-)
> > >
> >
> > You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know what
the
> > word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously
not.
> > Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were generated?????
Do
> > you think the cache created the pages??? HELLO???!!! Doh!!! IIS5 created
the
> > pages and if a static (keyword) page was requested again and it hadn't
> > expired it was served by the cache and not by IIS, all the dynamic pages
> > were served by IIS5 time and again.
> >
> > I mean, really - you enter a technical conversation without any
> > understanding of how a web server and/or cache works and expect us to
read
> > that crap? Gee - did you think that no one at specweb would notice
something
> > clever like, gee, they didn't use a web server, they just served up
> > pregenerated and cache pages (amazingly they have time travel worked out
so
> > they could pregenerate even the dynamic content to serve up from the
cache).
> >
> > And, SWC does not run in the kernel, neither does IIS5.
> >
> > (not that I care really, I only make fun of Tux being in the kernel to
> > remind linux loosers about how much they tried to give NT advocates
grief
> > because NT runs speed critical components in the kernel - nice to note
that
> > tux/linux is merely acknowledging the NT method of doing things as the
best
> > and copying it, like they have copied everything else).
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:21:55 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >DOS boot disk with network stack. Download files, run setup.
> > > >Alternatively, install LAN-Manager redirector and run setup off the
> > server.
> > >
> > > how does it deal with licencing?
> >
> > Licensing is a paper issue, not a software one. If you have a
legitimate
> > license, you can install it from any source, including over the
internet.
>
> Cool! Where do I get DOS or Lan-Manager, and where do I get drivers
> for my 3c59x?
NT server ships with DOS copies of LAN Manager, and the DOS drivers for th
3c59x are on the drivers disk (along with OS/2, Netware, etc..)
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 13 Jan 2001 20:19:09 -0600
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> >
> > The fact is, it was spued into the public and only now are there script
> > kiddies pounding away at the databases...
>
> Yes and I for one you prefer to have an undiscovered back door in my
> companies
> publicly accessible database rather than this scary opensource stuff.
> Then only the author could break in. Your logic is perfect.
So, lesse... a backdoor that perhaps one person could use or one that every
script kiddie on the planet now knows about ... hmm... AND, the fact that
the door stayed hidden so long as the source was kept closed then it too 6
months of exposure to open source before someone found it and in the rush to
their minute of fame spued it accross the net, damn the consequences...
childish...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:23:37 GMT
> > Nope, tux ran in userspace for the specweb tests.
Approximately 70% of the requests in SPECweb99 are for static URLs. 30%
of the requests are for "dynamic" URLs. From what I understand, the
static URL's were satisfied from within the kernel, the dynamic from
user space.
Also, it is always a good idea to look at all the fine print of any
SPECweb99 disclosure. There can be some rather interesting things
present :)
rick jones
--
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not
want them anyway... :)
feel free to email, or post, but please do not do
both...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:34:49 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> >
> > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > consider it?
>
> The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
> impossible.
Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
The intelligent design of Unix makes things like choice
of GUI totally orthogonal to the rest of the system.
Something like Quartz could be substituted for the X11
based system without much trouble.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:37:47 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> I do see that by examining the files dell submitted for the tux results that
> there is a line that reads: "interact with the TUX kernel subsystem" - there
> we have it, proof that tux is running in the kernel space.
Ingo Molnar, the chief designer of Tux, made it clear that the
specweb tests were done with a user space Tux.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:49:25 -0600
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93qqpo$aqc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <pEX76.1251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93p97a$73h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Windows 3.1 used cooperative multitasking.
> > >
> > > Correct. And SunOS and Linux and FreeBSD and SCO all
> > > provided real-time multitasking AND excellent support for
> > > multiple overlapping windows, back when Windows 3.0 was
> > > still trying to get overlapping windows to work. It was
> > > marginal at best.
> >
> > Hmmm.. given that Windows 3.0 had
> > overlapping windows on the day it was
> > released, and FreeBSD didn't exist when
> > Windows 3.0 was released, that would
> > be quite a feat.
>
> Correct. I meant BSD, not FreeBSD. Windows 3.0
> had overlapping windows, but there were severe
> problems when you actually used them. At the time
> that Windows 3.0 was released, the big competitors
> were "Software Carusels" that let users switch
> from application to applications in full screen mode.
Speaking as someone who was running Windows 3.0 when it came out, I was
frequently using multiple applications and multiple windows (remember, a
single app often has overlapping windows in and of itself, such as dialogs
or evn MDI windows).
> Windows 95 has a number of design features that are deliberately designed
to
> encourage the use of full-screen windows. Windows NT 4.0 adopts most of
> these user interface features even though it is very good and fully
> functional
What, maximizing? That's to get the most screen real-estate.
> > I think you're confusing Windows 1.0 (which didn't
> > have overlapping windows) with Windows 3.0, and
> > confusing FreeBSD with BSD.
>
> Windows 1.0 didn't have overlapping windows AT ALL. Windows 3.0
> had them, but if you used them your PC crashed very regularly,
> often within an hour.
You said "back when Windows 3.0 was still trying to get overlapping windows
to work", which clearly seems to indicate that you think you couldn't get
overlapping windows at all in Windows 3.0 (even in the same application).
> > > > > It meant applications had to
> > > > > yield to achieve multitasking.
> > >
> > > Yup It's called "busy/wait" multitasking.
> > > It was obsolete back in the early
> > > 1980s, but Microsoft revived it for Windows.
> >
> > Actually, Apple started it.
>
> Actually, Busy/Wait was first used in FORTH. Even today,
> many FORTH systems are used for robotics and engine control
> on automobiles, as well as thermostats, microwaves, and VCRs.
Which doesn't change the fact that the previous year, Apple introduce MacOS
with cooperative multitasking. If it was obsolete, why did Apple do this?
And better yet, why is it only MS's fault?
> > > > > Windows
> > > > > 95/98/ME/NT/2000 are all pre-emptive multitasking.
> > >
> > > True but the multitasking is still sigificantly inferior to
> > > Linux or UNIX. Windows 2000 was substantially improved, but
> > > all of the applications would have to be redisigned and
> > > reimplemented
> > > to exploit the improvements.
> >
> > What are you talking about?
> > You don't have to redesign any apps to get good
> > multitasking in Win2k (unless you're talking SMP,
> > which is not the same thing).
>
> To get the full benefits of memory protection and rapid context switching
> from Windows 2000, applications should be modified to support MTS,
Fabrics,
> and Pooling. The technology is actually quite exciting, since it's a
> significant improvement in reliability.
MTS is used only in database applications, not normal apps. There's no such
thing as "Fabrics", do you mean Fibers? If that's the case, Fibers are a
hack to make porting Posix threads apps easier. They're software scheduled
threads and do not help you to multitask better. What kind of Pooling might
you be talking about?
> The old NT 4.0 and Windows 95 applications will usually run an
> Windows 2000, as long as you aren't using VBX at the application
> levels.
Apps that use VBX work fine in 95 and Windows 2000. Where do you get this
from?
> > > 3rd party developers can invest millions
> > > trying to accomodate the limitations
> > > of the various versions of Windows,
> > > or they can leverage the core structures
> > > provided by Linux and UNIX.
>
> > > But there isn't much profit in Windows.
> >
> > Well, I guess that explains why Intuit
>
> Intuit was protected by a federal court order
> that prevented it from being
Not true. If this is the case, simply provide a link to the court order.
It doesn't exist, because Microsoft *VOLUNTARILY* dropped it's bid to buy
Intuit, since they didn't want to bother with a protracted court battle.
In any event, that doesn't counter your claim that there's no profit in
Windows.
> > and AOL are multi-billion dollar companies.
>
> Microsoft tried to kill AOL and failed. AOL purchased
> Netscape and Microsoft threatened to choke AOL out of
> the Market if they made any attempt to improve or promote
> Netscape Navigator themselves.
Which threats are those? They don't exist in any of the anti-trust
documents.
In any event, even if true, AOL hasn't listened to them and is still raking
in billions of dollars.
> There are a handful of companies who have done well under
> Microsoft, usually because Microsoft owns controlling interest.
MS doesn't own controlling interest in AOL, or Intuit.
> But for each one of those, there are dozens of companies who thrived and
were
> destroyed by Microsodft. Companies like Borland, Novell, WordPerfect,
Lotus,
> Corel, DBase, Real Networks, Lattice, Stacker, ButtonWare, Trumpet,
> Chameleon.
Nearly all of which failed because of their incompetance. Borland failed
because they abandoned C++, their core product. They later tried to get
their market back but it was too late. Novell failed to improve Netware
with memory protection and multithreading. Wordperfect was sold off half a
dozen times, and customers lost confidence, Lotus failed to see the value of
Windows until Excel had already gained dominance. Corel is still selling
the #1 draw program. DBase (Ashton Tate) put out a greatly inferior product
(even compared to their previous one) and their customers revolted. Real
Networks.. now there is a story in and of itself in incompetance. They
mostly lost out to MP3 and MP4. Lattice was bought by SAS Institue, and
they proceeded to drop their compiler products for all platforms.
ButtonWare i've never heard of. Trumpet and Chameleon were in markets that
simply were destined to die. *ALL* computer OS's should include those basic
services. They only had a market because MS was behind everyone else then.
> > > Star Office is slow but tolarable.
> > > Most of the applications that are unique
> > > to Windows run under WINE, and what's left runs under VMWare.
> >
> > Most? Hardly any. the Wine status page
> > lists only a 30-50% CRT compatibility,
> > that means that any apps that use the
> > MSVCRT are 50% or more likely to die.
>
> Lotus Notes 4.5 and 5.0 run quite nicely under WINE.
> So does Corel Draw. Project 95 also seems to work O.K.
>
> Linux doesn't have to support every Windows application,
> just certain strategic ones.
You said most apps run. Not "Most strategic ones".
> > > Windows 2000 isn't bad, but I'm waiting for either SP2 or SE.
> > > Windows 2000 just isn't worth $300.
> >
> > The upgrade from Win9x is much cheaper.
>
> True. Today, Windows 2000 upgrade is about $189. That is for
> the workstation version, at Staples or Comp USA.
Whistler Personal will be the same price as 9x.
> > > > > If you're talking about Linux and the CLI,
> > > > > I would agree
> > >
> > > CLI, Scripts, the ability to quickly script
> > > applications and put GUI
> > > front-ends on them to launch them.
> > > In fact numerous front ends.
> >
> > You do realize that Tcl/Tk exists for windows, right?
>
> Absolutely. Which is exactly my point. Why code software
> in "Windows Exclusive" languages like Visual Basic or C# when
> you can just as easily use PERL, TCL, PYTHON, and JAVA? All
> of which let you kill two birds with one stone.
Mostly because those scripting languages suck for real apps. I was involved
in the creation of a front-end to a CLI based configuration management
toolset written in Tcl/Tk and there were constant problems.
> Why use ASP on IIS when you can run PHP on Apache and run on either
Windows
> 2000 or UNIX/Linux?
Because ASP has more support, which is why there are ASP plug-ins for
apache.
> Why use Active Directory when you can use Kosher LDAP and Kerboros
> (available in source form as SLAPD) or something that really is
> LDAP compatible.
ActiveDirectory provides a boat load more than just directory services.
> I'm suprised that the FTC hasn't fined Microsoft for
> false advertizing infractions. Active Directory is
> as much like LDAP as IPX is like IP. There are
> similarities, and Microsoft clearly borrowed the
> specifications, but Microsoft has added fields which
> are neither documented, nor do they conform to any
> accepted or proposed IETF standard. Because the system
> fails to function with other LDAP and Kerberos systems,
> advertizing Active Directory as LDAP or Kerberos is
> both misleading and fraudulent.
Sorry, ActiveDirectory conforms *EXACTLY* to the Kerberos specification. In
fact, Kerberos specifically *ALLOWS* for extension mechanisms.
> > > Windows 2000 has lots of Eye Candy and
> > > really snappy displays (assuming you
> > > have enough RAM and Video RAM to support it.
> >
> > how fast your displays are have nothing
> > to do with how much video RAM you
> > have (except for 3D).
>
> I've used a couple of different video cards, and it seems like
> the cards with more VRAM seem to refresh more rapidly. This
> could just be my own perception.
That's because the larger VRAM cards are usually more recent technology with
faster coprocessors.
> > > > > > Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of getting
> > > > > > into a state where the only
> > > > > > way to fix it is to reinstall the software.
> > > > > > In some cases, it won't
> > > > > > even reboot. Fortunately, this only happens
> > > > > > every 8-10 weeks, but it's
> > > > > > still very annoying.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've not seen this.
> > >
> > > I've had it happen about 4 times since the first production releas
> > > (which I bought 2 weeks after the announcement.
> >
> > You just said you were waiting for SP2 to buy 2000.
>
> I'm waiting for SP2 before I try yet another installation. I've
> already paid the money. I upgraded one of my NT 4 machines, and
> have used Windows 2000 enough to see that it's better than anything
> else Microsoft has to offer. Actually, I'm surprised that Microsoft
> didn't just push the OEMs into a consumer version of Windows 2000.
That's what Whistler is.
> Windows 2000 has a number of technological "anti-linux" measures. It took
a
> bit of time for the Linux community to figure out work-arounds. I
personally
> love that Windows 2000 supports both FAT 32 and NTFS.
How is that "anti-linux"?
> I think many people, but not all, will also like Linux better when
> they are able to make the choice.
Many is a subjective term.
> It would actually be in microsoft's best interest to just cooperate
> with Linux rather than trying to force an "all or nothing" solution.
> If Microsoft pushes too hard, they may even find that the market
> for Windows 95 (pirate or legal) will kill BOTH Windows 2000 and
> ME.
I doubt it.
> > > This may partly be because Windows deals with
> > > the entire result set as a single object. UNIX deals
> > > with the result as a stream of results. As a result,
> > > you can begin displaying what might be a result set
> > > of several thousand files (remember back in the days
> > > with FAT 16 would only let you have 256 files per
> > > directory). When you have to treat the entire response
> > > as a single object, you must allocate memory for the entire
> > > object, and allocate process space and kernel space for
> > > the entire object. When the objects are huge, the situation
> > > can get pretty ugly.
> >
> > You seem to have a knack for claiming
> > the same thing three times and making
> > it look like 3x the problem.
>
> > Allocating memory is the same thing
> > as allcoating process space. kernel
> > space is not allocated for anything but drivers.
>
> I'm focusing on three different aspects of memory management under
Windows.
> Windows has memory management problems. This includes Windows 2000.
> Fortunately, Microsoft resolved 2 serious problems in Windows 2000.
First,
> the libraries were restructured to reduce the amount of code thrashing
> (something I suggested in this forum back in 1998). They also organized
the
> buffer space more efficiently to make "copy on write" more efficient.
> Microsoft offered me a job as their way of showing their thanks, but
withdrew
> the offer when they realised "I didn't have the Microsoft religeon". It's
> really not that bad. I would have had to take an 15% cut and the Options
> were at $120 a share and have dropped to $41 a share since then. At $41 a
> share, even I found Microsoft stock to be attractive.
The first beta of Windows 2000 (then NT5) shipped in 1998. Your claim that
MS borrowed your idea is specious, since the thing you mentioned had already
been implemented.
> > They make VB because it's what their customers want.
>
> I would challenge that. Microsoft created incentives for using VB,
> and penalties for not using it. In some cases, they even witheld
> APIs from other languages made them much more complicated do
> discourage the use of portable languages.
Uhh.. what? VB is the langauge that lacks API's, not C++. VB is severely
limited in what you can and can't do.
> > MS makes several languages, including Visual Foxpro (which
> > also can't go anywhere else, yet they don't push that).
> > Besides, things are changing with .NET.
>
> FoxPro was pretty much rendered obsolete by Microsoft Access and
> SQL Server. If you need a multiuser server, SQL Server is better
> than FoxPro. If you just need a "quick and dirty" database, Access
> is bundled with Office.
>
> FoxPro isn't a Microsoft strategic project. It's more like a legacy
> product which Microsoft keeps alive to support customers who would
> switch to other products if Microsoft was to drop FoxPro.
My point is that if they were only concerned about having you develop for
something that's MS only, they would be pushing FoxPro as well.
> > In a years time, we'll see MS applications runing
> > unchanged on MacOS X, Palm, Win CE, Itanium, and x86.
> > Perhaps even Solaris or HP/UX.
>
> But not Linux?
If someone writes a CLR for Linux, sure. It's an ECMA standard.
> This is why the Linux and UNIX community doesn't trust any of Microsoft's
> tools and protocols. The fact is that Microsoft has made a number of
> contributions to the Linux and UNIX community, but primarily to protect
their
> markets. For example, when the Open Systems community threatened to
enhance
> RARP to provide automatic address configuration, Microsoft published DHCP
> assured that Microsoft clients would be compatible with UNIX servers
(which
> were replacing outgrown Windows NT 3.51 servers).
I don't think MS created DHCP. I could be wrong though.
> SMB and WNS were published when GPL file systems such as NFS and AFS
> were about to be offered for Windows.
NFS has been on Windows since 1990. I was using a sun NFS client way back
then.
> Microsoft tried to lock Linux out of the internet using MS-CHAP,
> but leaked the information when Linux servers threatened to lock
> out Microsoft MSN customers.
MS-CHAP is merely an authorization protocol for dialups. Clients don't NEED
to use CHAP.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:51:32 -0600
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matt Soltysiak
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
> <2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> >enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
> >Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
> >
> >
> >Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
> >operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
It's
> >amazing.
> >Here are some of the common failures:
>
> [failures snipped -- most of them lockups]
>
> Have you checked your power supply? :-)
That's an interesting point. Many times, the Windows drivers will enable
accelerated or other functionality that the basic Linux drivers don't,
causing them to use more power than they would otherwise and stressing the
power supply more.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:53:49 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> >
> > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > consider it?
>
> The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
> impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
> they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
> choice.
>
> Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would work.
The Mac OS/X GUI runs on top of X.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
