Linux-Advocacy Digest #474, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Craig Kelley)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (sfcybear)
Re: More Linux woes (David Steinberg)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: More Linux woes (David Steinberg)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why Hatred? (Steve Mading)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Interconnect")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Interconnect")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:14:26 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley wrote:
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Absolutely,
> >> >
> >> > OS-X on Linux.
> >> >
> >> > I'll try that.
> >>
> >> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
> >
> >BSDI.
> >
> >--
>
> BSD meaning the NET, OPEN, and Free versions of BSD.
>
> BSDI is what became of FreeBSD.
Yeah, but considering that FreeBSD has a Linux/x86 elf loader, and
Linux has a BSDI loader -- it wouldn't be terribly difficult to run
binaries from any of the above on another.
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:17:09 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman) writes:
> pip wrote:
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Absolutely,
> >> >
> >> > OS-X on Linux.
> >> >
> >> > I'll try that.
> >>
> >> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
> >
> >..oh for posix compatibility... it all started so well
> >:-)
>
> Well the *interesting bits* of OS X (and NeXTSTEP for that matter) typically
> use the Mach primitives for IPC, threading, synchronization, etc...
> There's very little BSD/Posix/Unix in there at all and never really has
> been (other than the initial work - NeXTSTEP was started on Sun 3's
> running the BSD derived SunOS, about the time MS were doing Windows 2).
... other than BSD handles pretty much all the devices, which is a
major part of the operating system. OSX is so BSD that most
everything compiles without modification that otherwise works with the
BSD family. The entire BSD userland is also available for OSX, but
doesn't get entirely installed by default.
--
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: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:08:22 GMT
WOW, what a sales point! Pay a ton of money for a web server that is
slightly slower than a FREE OS! Then figure in the fact that 3 seperate
sources using 3 different methods of gathering data show W2K as LESS
stable than the FREE OS. So, the choice is:
Pay nothing for a faster more stable web server OS & Software
-or-
Pay a ton of money for something that's slower and less stable.
Never mind that the Linux that was tested was the now outdated 2.2
kernel.
In article <3a6267fe$0$21319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (we're talking about the specweb results, of course)
>
> Big deal, in the kernel or not - people - focus and remember this
little
> (and it is little) number: 2.7
>
> That's how many percent faster Tux was over IIS5.
>
> That's it - and that's what linvocates are so excited about?
>
> Portions of Tux 2 appear to have run in kernel space and some in user
space.
> OK, whatever.
>
> IIS 5 is known to run in userspace, this is undeniable. There is rumor
that
> IIS6 may have a kernel mode option too. Hey, why not? Of course, until
Linux
> had to run something in kernel space to win a benchmark, it was evil
and
> silly that NT should have anything in the Kernel. Oh, the jabs
linvocates
> took at nt advocates over "GUI in the kernel" - but of course, this is
not a
> problem when linux does it themselves...
>
> I think people are missing the point - While Linux was running the
tightest
> possible benchmark busting configuration using a specialized, uncommon
(rare
> even) feature-poor web server and that's it - W2K was, by default,
running a
> host of other background services and carried with it the "baggage" of
any
> normal windows server - and yet still came to within 2.7% of that
> unencombered linux box. Tell you what, fire up a GUI on that Linux
box,
> start up some more services - things unrelated to serving up pages.
I'll bet
> that tiny skinny margin disappears.
>
> Oh, and remember mincraft? "4 NICs - who'd ever build a machine like
that?
> That's an unreal configuration!" the linvocates cried - and here we
have a
> cute 8 processor 8 NIC machine and due to a victory thinner than the
skin on
> a hen's front tooth, suddenly not a peep. Guess 8 NIC machines are
just fine
> when you're a nose ahead eh?
>
> The hypocracy is thick...
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 15 Jan 2001 05:30:03 GMT
mlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: When will you understand that it is an APPLICATION issue, not an OS
: issue?
My guess would be, as soon as he actually starts trying to use Linux,
instead of just spreading anti-Linux propaganda.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:23:24 GMT
> Or were you just trolling?
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
>
No, I'm actually writing a report about how Linux is a superior OS, in
part because of the way it has evolved compared to Microsoft. I also
wanted some information to counter tbe BS that supports MS as the best
OS in the whole wide world.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:30:12 -0700
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Win32 is not the WinNT kernel. Win32 is Windows 95, 98, and to a lesser
> extent, Windows Me.
>
> 3dfx (what's left of em) supports the Voodoo Rush as reference drivers for
> Windows 95 & 98.
You need to go back to Windows advocacy school. Win32 is an
application API that is available under Windows 3.11, Windows 95, 98,
98se, Me, NT3x, NT4x, and W2Kx.
> Although this device functions on the Windows 2000 Directdraw layer, it MAY
> be possible to use Win32 drivers under the Win2k system.
May?
Try running *any* of the GUI tools, including EXPLORER.EXE and Office
2000, without it.
> If you know how to read a post, I wouldn't be going through this repetitive
> crap.
Come back after you've actually had to support Windows in a real
environment.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 15 Jan 2001 05:35:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On 15 Jan 2001 03:11:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
: Steinberg) wrote:
: >I'm currently playing a CD, and I just disconnected the audio connector,
: >and...silence.
: >
: >Hmmm...maybe I'm not running Linux?...
: Exactly David!!!!!!!
: That is my point!!!
:
: When I disconnect the the digital audio connector the audio keeps on
: playing with nothing more than the IDE cable connected.
You snipped the part where I clearly demonstrate that I AM running
Linux. And I don't have such troubles. Thus, your "problem" has nothing
to do with Linux and everything to do with your choice and configuration
of application.
: I have not found a way to turn this off under Linux, and as you can
: imagine this puts a tremendous load on the system.
Right. So which of the cd players that I suggested did you try?
Put up or shut up.
Do you want to solve a problem, or do you want to spread anti-Linux
progaganda?
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 14 Jan 2001 22:40:20 -0700
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (we're talking about the specweb results, of course)
>
> Big deal, in the kernel or not - people - focus and remember this little
> (and it is little) number: 2.7
>
> That's how many percent faster Tux was over IIS5.
>
> That's it - and that's what linvocates are so excited about?
You have it backwards: Tux beat IIS5 by more than doubling
performacne, and the *best* Microsoft could do was to come out with a
web cache that *almost* did as well (months later).
Makes you want to pay for commercial software, eh?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 05:44:06 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:93krth$rps$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>
:> You *did* say it can't be used to replace windows. You even repeat it
:> in this reply.
: No, I said it can't replace Windows, not that it can't be USED to replace
: windows.
I see no relevant difference between those two statements.
:> And that's what's false. Let me teach you some basic logic:
:> If someone says, "X *cannot* do Y", all it takes is a single
:> counter-example to prove it wrong.
: Sure, show me a single counter-example of Linux displacing every copy of
: Windows on every desktop of the world.
At least you could *pretend* to know basic logic. Replacing all
of them is not necessary to make your claim false. Do you know what
the word "can" actually means? It doesn't have to imply "likely".
Linux *CAN* replace Windows, but it isn't *LIKELY*. Can you see
the difference?
:> That's why it's a pretty
:> stupid idea to make such a sweeping generalization in an
:> argument. All it takes is a single example of someone replacing
:> Windows with Linux, and the statement "Linux cannot replace Windows"
:> becomes false. Go read the press releases for the last few years.
:> While there aren't a *large* number of these examples, there are some,
:> and all it takes is one single example to make your claim false.
: No, I used the words Linux and Windows as a collective, not as an
: individual. If I had said what you claim, I would have said "A linux
: install can't replace a windows install" or something similar.
Okay, so what you said was a totally pointless statement because it
would have been true for any two things you pick, thanks for
clearing that up. Using words the way tou did, "The automobile
cannot replace the horse and buggy" - Why? well there still exist
some horse & buggies out there used by the Amish, and apparently
by your logic unless each and every horse and buggy is going to be
replaced by an automobile, it's okay to say it "cannot" happen.
By the twists of logic you are using, "X cannot replace Y" would
be true for just about any X and Y you care to pick. I doubt that
was your intended meaning when you said Linux cannot replace
Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:21:41 +1100
Ouch! Say what you mean Kyle, don't hold back.
BTW no I'm not kidding.
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rlv86.73983$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Are you F***Ing kidding???
>
> Netscape 6 & Mozilla crash WAY more often then Netscape 4.7*.
>
> And that's AFTER opening the source.
>
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93tp7q$ljm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Unless you're running a beta kernel Linux is stable. Linux the OS that
is
> :)
> >
> > Yes Netscape is buggy, but it has improved. Since going open source mind
> you
> > ;)
> >
> >
> > Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Flt86.73463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Only if you exclaim that your crappy app can't exist because the OS is
> "so
> > > perfect".
> > >
> > > Like many people on COLA have been saying.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:93tk7a$f4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to
> hang
> > > does
> > > > that make the OS unstable?
> > > > A. No.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Mark Addinall wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve Mading wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At this point, I'd say there isn't a damn thing I can do
with
> > it,
> > > > even
> > > > > > > > though clearly *something* is still running, since the mouse
> > > pointer
> > > > does
> > > > > > > > move on the screen.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's a powerswitch-reboot situation. There's nothing else
> to
> > > do.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In that case it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is
crashed
> > > > > > > > or not, I can't talk to it in any way shape or form.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This happens to me about once a month on Linux. (It happens
> > more
> > > > often
> > > > > > > > on Windows, but it *does* happen on Linux too). I'd say
that
> > > counts
> > > > > > > > as being "frozen".)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It always happens when running Netscape, and always when its
> > stuck
> > > > > > > > while bringing up a menubar pull-down menu. I think X is
> > grabbing
> > > > > > > > more input types than it needs to and then not releasing it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Better check your memory chips.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dunno. Looks like software. I've had this happen to me once.
> > > > > > Although since using Linux since 1.1.13 I'm not complaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I do find is netscape chews into swap over an extended
> > > > > > period of time, and thrashes the disk. Moreso when so
> > > > > > is loaded. Fighting for resource?
> > > > >
> > > > > Add memory. This will stop the thrashing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark Addinall
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,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: 15 Jan 2001 00:54:56 -0500
In article <3a61da09$3$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <93nglg$8dk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/12/2001
> at 12:59 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>>I keep on quoting you, and you keep on deleting the quotes.
>Because the quote was not relevant. I'll include it this one time just
>to make you happy.
>>What
>>you said was:
>> The fact that you don't use an XEDIT feature doesn't mean
>> that it's not part of XEDIT. If it doesn't run XEDIT macros
>> then it's not an XEDIT clone, regardless of whatever else
>> it does.
>As I pointed out, "XEDIT macros" is not the same as "any XEDIT
>macros".
>>But still, taken literally, it is
>>much more reasonable to read this as "doesn't run any XEDIT macros"
>No, adding words that change the meaning is not "taken literally".
I didn't change the meaning by adding "any", I clarified a slightly
ambiguous statement. What you said was "If it doesn't run XEDIT
macros...". There are two (and only two) possible ways to interpret
this: "If it doesn't run some XEDIT macros..." and "If it doesn't
run any XEDIT macros...". You are insisting on the "some"
interpretation, which is certainly possible, but the second
interpretation, "any", is the way most people would read your
statement if they saw it out of context. (For example: "My
housekeeper doesn't do windows". Is that *some* windows or *any*
windows?). Of course reading your statement *in* context I knew
perfectly well what you meant; I was just ribbing you. Again, you
should simply admit you were a bit imprecise, and move on.
Actually this whole thread has gotten pretty silly, At this point
I'm mainly just interested in seeing if it's possible to win a
syntax war when I'm clearly right. :-)
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:39:21 +1100
It seems to me you would like Linux to be like Windows? That is extremely
user friendly and since Win98B I have found this and subsequent releases to
be VERY stable.
However ( my point of view ) the down side being limited ability to expand
your knowledge regards all facets of computing and being tied to proprieary
systems.
My experience with Linux is that it's getting much better at becoming user
friendly, it's by no means perfect but at least it's moving in the right
direction, without inhibiting users ability to hack anything and everything.
The funny thing is Linux is like math, the more your tinker around with it
and solve problems the easier it becomes to configure trouble shoot and
deploy applications on.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:33:36 +1100, "Interconnect"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Considering there is a good chance you are receiving your news via Open
> >Source software you are being very disrespectful making such a sweeping
> >generalization regards proven track records.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> I buy a Mandrake CD and I expect whatever that is on that CD to work,
> and if it does great, if it doesn't Linux is to fault.
> No other consumer is going to see it any other way.
>
>
> >Sure some open source projects have their problems. However in relation
to
> >LINUX you have to keep a clear dilenation between the OS and applications
> >built to run on it.
>
> The OS is useless without applications to run on it so it is really a
> moot point.
>
> While the folks who designed the OS might have done a great job and
> the applications designers may have not, it doesn't matter because it
> is the end result, meaning the combination of OS an applications that
> counts and in this case Linux fails miserably IMHO.
>
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:39:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Wow. Be careful you don't cut yourself with that razor-sharp wit,
> >> >claire.
> >>
> >> But it is true. If Gates released an OS with the basic "gotchas'" that
> >> you Penguinista's put up with on a regular basis, he would have been
> >> out of business years ago.
> >>
> >> Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
> >> collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
> >> out of their minds.
> >>
> >>
> >> Flatfish
> >> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> >> Remove the ++++ to reply.
> >
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
