Linux-Advocacy Digest #500, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Tom Wilson")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows Stability
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:10:15 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:07:00 +1100, Interconnect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to hang does
>that make the OS unstable?
>A. No.
The whole OS?
That would make the OS unstable.
[deletia]
>> > > > 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.
I've tortute tested Linux with netscape running on a
mere 32M. Short of something that acts as a fork bomb,
nothing has ever made Linux thrash the swap partition.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:14:25 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:06:34 +0100, Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[deltia]
>>
>> Why not just squander the extra money on frivolous hardware.
>>
>> You could have added a rather nice RAID array to that configuration
>> to bring the price up if that was really the problem.
>
>But what for?! They don't need that kind of machine! That's the whole point
Growth room.
Proper engineering margins.
>I wanted to make, you have to buy too much, so you don't have to put so much
>money into the state's pockets, and I find this tax system ridiculous, the
Yeah, but you don't have to necessarily waste money on software
that you can otherwise get for free. When you're done squandering
that money you might actually have something to show for it.
Hell, you might even find new and profitable uses for that hardware.
>more money you have to invest, the less taxes you pay... rich people get
>richer, and poor people have to pay (relatively) very high amounts in taxes.
>
>>
>>
>> >As you see, Luxembourg's taxing logic is pretty hard to understand, you
>have
>> >to invest tons of money into your businness, so the state can't take
>"extra"
>> >taxes at the end of the year...
>>
>> So? Just spend it in hardware.
>
>just like I said... what the heck for?
Spend more but at least be able to do more.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:05 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >It just doesn't know what to do with them and therefore fails.
> >IOW it doesn't work.
>
> No, you are just lying. It detects various Matrox cards
> just fine, including the proper amount of onboard RAM.
It isn't for HIS system. I have managed to reproduce this scenario with
Linux Mandrake, and the DrakX configuration system, but not with Matrox
hardware... I was using a Creative Labs Riva TNT card AGP (old by today's
standards...) and the memory on the unit was detected at 4096, and the
display was dumbed down to low-color (can't remember the number) and
800x600. Clearly DrakX has a BUG, and DrakX is PART OF THE OS In this
distro.
> It works just find on my copy of Mandrake 7.2.
>
> It worked just fine on my copy of Mandrake 7.1.
>
> It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 6.1.
>
> It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 6.0.
>
> It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 5.2.
RH6.2 didn't even come with an Xserver that supported AGP devices, which
means you have upgraded your distro. Which means that the testing process
you have performed is tainted.
You also just claimed that "it works for me, it works for me... You must
be lying".
An ideal you seem to have trouble desuading from; that it might not work for
someone else.
> Only an outside agitator with an agenda seems to be
> having a problem.
His problem seems to be real. Now YOU have a problem...
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:05 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MFC40.DLL, I believe, didn't have DLL-Hell problem for a *long* time,
not
> > > sure.
> > > There are several versions of this files, and the problem results (all
> > > DLL-Hell problems, acutally) from installers that doesn't check for
> > versions
> > > before they replace important files, this they remove the newer
version
> > for
> > > an older version, and break other applications (and sometimes that OS)
> > that
> > > need the newer version of the DLL.
> > I think that's why ms introduced the installer service and 'system file
> > protection' so that the office people can't replace core components with
the
> > installers anymore.
> > I counted more then 3000 dll's on my system and for that number I'm
> > surprised there is so little hell.
> >
> > ps: I counted more then 70 mfc*.dll files. I think ms does what linux
does
> > too: each program gets it's own version that it was tested with. (disks
are
> > cheap nowadays!)
>
> Linux is not a sea of shifting sand which changes chaotically
> without warning.
Sure, and I'm Elvis.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:06 GMT
Well, then get back to your hidy-hole, troll.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Under Win2k I can select either analog CD output or Digital output and
> > depending upon which one I select, the signal is transferred over one
> > of 2 little cables with berg connectors. The IDE channel is NOT used
> > for data transfer and as a result the system performance is NOT
> > impacted.
> >
> I bet, though, that under win2k your reset switch will break befire mine
> does under Linux (and mine is nearly 3 years old, AND it isn't loose).
>
> Incidentally, sorry to anyone intelligent out there. I am trolling!
>
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:06 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The digital cable still requires CPU time to decode the data stream
coming
> > from the CDROM drive, even through the labeled digital audio conduits.
> >
> > Linux Mandrake 7.2 does not always activate the "accelerated" driver for
> > your video system, and even then, the acceleration is not typically "on
par"
> > with Windows directsound and directdraw handling audio & video
> > (respectively) .
> >
> > Skippage is being caused by CPU time being reallocated from the audio
> > subsystem (kernel level) to the redraw request being made by XFree86.
> > Because Linux does not intelligently detect "important" processes, this
will
> > continue to be a problem until you upgrade either your X Server, or
> > recompile your kernel with better sound modules.
> >
> > Linux sux.
>
> If it IS just x that is causing shit, nice it to +20!
Increasing the neice priority of a decoding process will not improve the
audio quality during other operations. Although the user could locate and
increase the neice value of other processes, making the decoder process more
important, this would have to be done at the cost of UI responsiveness, and
would have to be done every time the decoder application was restarted.
Of course, if you had read the thread, you would have known this.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:15:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:37 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > l
> > >Depends on the player and the hardware configuration.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
> > Standard 40x CDROM player and a SBLive card.
> >
> > >If your problem is with pure digital audio, i.e. the digital stream off
> > >the back of the CDROM, than pay $2.99 for a wire to go from analog out,
> > >to analog in to the SB card, and configure this in the sound panel and
> > >or player. However, you will not get the advantages of the digital
audio
> > >stream.
> >
> > ARHGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
> >
> > How many times do I have to repeat myself to you
> > Linonuts!!!!!!????????
> >
> > I'll say it ONE MORE TIME for you slow ones........
> >
> > 1. Standard IDE CDROM (40x Acer if that matters) connected to IDE
> > controller #2.
> > 2. Little $2.00 cable with Berg Connectors conected to Digital out on
> > CDROM and Digital In on SBlive.
> > NO ANALONG CABLE CONNECTED!!!!
> >
> > Are you with me so far?
> >
>
> If I read this right HE SAID GET A $2 CABLE!
> Are you fscking illitereate?
The users problem still persists. There IS a cable present, and FUNCTIONAL.
Linux is not transfering audio through it.
Put it togather genius.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:18:49 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:36:17 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific and perhaps even
>> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>>
>> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so incompetent
>> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that he
>> was completely unaware of any of that?
>
>It's not like Bill Gates was personally writing the software.
He's still in the captain's chair.
Besides, this is design and architecture and engineering that
we're talking about here not the actual coding.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:17:32 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Linux *is* too hard to use - Linux will *never* replace Windows on the
> > desktop if Linux users have this attitude.
> >
> > -Todd
>
> My reset switch says that windows is far harder than Linux!
I'll bet you were using Windows 98, weren't you.
And your a computer science student right now, aren't you?
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:20:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>Like IBM, for instance?
> >
> >IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers.
> >They run VM legacy applications along with Windows at the call center
>
> ...they just sold Linux running on an S/390 to a scandinavian
> telecomm provider...
That poor telecom company...
> They ported db2 to linux and linux to the AS/400 and S/390,
> so someone at IBM must think well of it...
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:26:50 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:55 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>industry or even
>> >> the Macintosh.
>> >
>> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
>and perhaps even
>> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>>
>> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
>incompetent
>> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that
>he
>> was completely unaware of any of that?
>
>His company was pretty much tied to IBM/Intel from the
>get-go and for good reason because that's where the money
>was.
That's no excuse. As others here have pointed out, there were
common data formats used across 6502's,68000's & 8086's years
ago and Microsoft even had some early participation in the Mac
apps market.
Excel is a port TO the x86, not from it.
>
>>
>> That would certainly explain the pace of technological
>advancement
>> at Microsoft in those days.
>
>It mirrored IBM's conservative mindset. Being bleeding edge
>isn't a smart business move in the long term.
What I'm complaining about hardly constitutes 'bleeding edge'.
Furthermore, any of IBM's other products are/were infact
'bleeding edge' by your standard even despite IBM being
highly conservative.
The PC was anomaly.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:27:19 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ugL86.78170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> God forbid business should stop on one of my workstations for *GASP* 3
SOLID
> MINUTES.
If said system was a DB or WWW server...
>
> Or I could forgo the rebooting, and replace the OS with something that no
> only doesn't need to be rebooted, but will make it unusable for as long
as
> the computer is powered.
MS-DOS is dead...Let it go.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:24:52 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm totally convinced that Flatfish, Claire, ect,ect,ect, is being
> paid by somebody to do this. He's on practically 24 hours a day
> and he's spent his time performing nothing but anti-linux pro
> Microsoft propaganda.
Have you been calculating time zone factors into your assumption?
> He's either got to be on Microsoft's payroll doing this or
> He's one of the mentally sick people this country has every produced.
He hasn't killed anyone, he just disagrees with your opinions, strongly.
I'd reserve the term "sick" for people with real problems.
> Clearly, the 3 greatest mass murderers convicted in this country have
> not produced the kind of stamina Flatfish has against Linux.
???
> If you look at his posting notes, you notice Flatfish here sleeps
> for about 5 hours a day if that.
I don't know what "posting notes" are, but if they're anything like post
time-stamping, then I pitty you for actually wasting your time reading them.
But then you are a Linux user, and clearly have pleanty of time to blow
doing nothing but tracking down endless dependency after dependency for your
new software.
> And while what he's doing IS legal, it would be very interesting
> to see WHY he's doing it.
The same reason your on this group, constantly touting Linux as the
operating system that God would use, if he had a computer.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:29:49 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93urcr$nv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93ukgr$42t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad, I think both sides may have a point here. A comment in this
thread
> > suggested to read this URL:
> > http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/07/20/1440204.shtml , it's a
technical
> > description of Tux. What appears to have happened is this: Tux serves
> dynamic
> > web pages (read: complex code) from userspace. It serves static web
pages
> > (read: simple stuff) directly from kernel-space. Tux also has the
ability
> to
> > generate dynamic web pages in kernelspace, but this was not used in the
> > SpecWeb99 test. From a security point of view this is a valid
> architecture:
> > the overwhelming majority of security problems originate from dynamic
> code,
> > serving static web pages is a well defined and simple thing.
>
> I wouldn't say that SPECWeb99 is the place to look for sensible web
> arcitecture.
> Those machines are tuned for speed, and speed only.
> This is fine in a benchmark, in RL, any sane sysadmin would tune those
> machines very differently.
> (Who put RAID-0 on a production machine, frex?)
Good point...
RAID-5 would have been a bit more realistic.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:30:09 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:10:21 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bones wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
>>
>> > BBTW, I recommend anyone to re-read some of those prehistoric
>> > publications; it really does put things into perspective.
>>
>> I concur. I always like to go back and leaf through this old hardware manual
>> where they theorized that it would be completely and utterly impossible to
>> move past 28.8kbps on analog modems, (28000bps was just fantasy when this
>> thing was published.) I should gather all those old quotes up and post them
>> on a website sometime.
>
>All of which merely proves is that the opinions of "journalists"
>should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
On some line's 28.8K isn't attainable. Also, 28.8K is pretty
near the theoretical upperbound allowed for common copper
wiring and US FCC regulations.
>
>If you want to know what's possible...talk to an engineer with a
>good theoretical-science background.
Journalists are always a good 10 years or more behind the
state of the art.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:29:03 GMT
Antitrust.
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> >> You haven't a clue of the subject as a whole. Then again, neither does
> >> Roberto; he trumpets KDE because he's a big fan who stands to profit
> >> from the deal.
> >
> >Excuse me, but are you saying I don't have a clue about the subject of
> >linux desktops?
>
> No, I'm saying you don't have a clue about why KDE is a worthless piece
> of shit unless there are other [interoperable and compatible]
> replacements for it.
>
> >That would be such a funny thing to say!
>
> Ha ha.
>
> >And are we going to go back to that old argument about who pays me to
> >do what? Give it up, noone pays me any money because of KDE, except in
> >an indirect way (my KDE work is in my curriculum vitae, after all!)
>
> That's what I said; you stand to profit on the deal (the widespread
> adoption of KDE.) And I know you'd be the first to point out that
> nobody can possibly be unbiased and objective, so you won't even try.
> Therefore, your opinion on KDE versus anything else is pretty much
> worthless.
>
> Nothing personal.
>
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:34:40 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:20:21 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Then how come some of us have come to Linux with years of
>> WinDOS or NT experience and little to NO Unix admin experience
>> yet can quickly and trivially get our Linux boxes to be
>> remarkably more robust than anything Microsoft.
>
>With my working workstation that's what I noticed. With my server... what
>am I doing wrong? 8)
>
>> If NT needs an "ultimate guru" to run properly then what's
>> the point? If that's the case, then it's pretty much a big
>> fat waste of time as you could just spend that time wasted
>> on NT learning VMS instead.
>
>Why would anyone want to learn OpenVMS these days?
...more robustness than the NT devteam can even dream of.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:41:11 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:28:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:55:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>
>>>And a collection of applications which if all of the version numbers
>>>were added together collectively, you wouldn't get 1.0 in total.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> More empty rhetoric.
>>
>> It really doesn't matter what version numbers are on the product.
>> Microsoft demonstrated this to be the case rather long ago. If you
>> have specific grievances against specific Linux applications and
>> can articulate how specific WinDOS applications do any better,
>> please feel free to proceed.
>
>When I run Windows 2k I don't have applications trapping and dying all
>over the place like I do when running Gnome.
Neither do I, actually.
>
>I have Gnome "timebomb icons" all over the place. What kind of garbage
>is that?
>How about help systems that aren't there?
What exactly about a few menus and some icons did you need
help with? Unless it's Calamus or Maya, a help system for
a GUI application should be quite moot.
>Come on already, kde and Gnome have been out worked on for years.
>Can't they come up with a decent help system?
Both have browsers that tie into all of the legacy
help systems as well as whatever *hlp files may be
present for the applications.
>
>No, the Penguinista's hide behind V1.0 minus X versions so that they
>have something to blame when the application sucks, and most of them
>do.
The best you can do is whine about missing *hlp files.
Bear in mind that this only reflects badly on individual
developers, not the desktop or OS. It is just as easy to
neglect the *hlp files under WinDOS as it is under Linux.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>>>>
>>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>>> awhile now.
>>>>
>>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>>running on linux at all.
>>
>>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>>
>>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>>
>>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
> GNUstep is OpenStep.
Not in anyones wildest, wildest dreams.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
