Linux-Advocacy Digest #502, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 04:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Windows 2000
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Richard Steiner)
Re: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!! ("Graham Sumner")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:15:50 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:24 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >A platform is only as good as the programs running on it. Which is why
>BeOS
>>
>> ...which makes any attempt to postfactum prove that
>> WinDOS is somehow quality software, merely based on
>> legacy marketshare, rather absurd.
>
>The market makes no judgement upon itself, it is the consumer who decides.
...decides? decides what?
In the case of WinDOS, the consumer merely decided to either
use what they thought everyone else was using or use what
was placed in front of them.
>This is basic economics. The consumers have decided, BeOS has no software,
This is basic economic THEORY.
This is Econ 101.
Now, does an economist have to take more than just one
course in order to get a degree in economics? How about
a business major? marketing major?
>therefor no one uses it. Apple has a smaller software selection, at higher
>prices than Windows does, and Microsoft Windows is the most popular desktop
>OS on the face of the earth.
>
>The consumer has decided. Albeit, they did it in 1994.
...try 1985.
This "gotta be DOS compatible" meme was entrenched by 1988.
1994 is just a side effect of legacy marketshare.
>
>> >Linux has no quality software.
>> [deletia]
>> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
>
>Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running Linux on
Not in the slightest.
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:16:54 -0000
On 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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.
OpenStep is a publically documented specification.
GNUstep is infact openstep.
There's no reason it can't be.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:19:37 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:09 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > J Sloan wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >smaller,
>> >> > local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make
>> >major
>> >> > inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
>> >>
>> >> how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
>> >> 5%?
>> >>
>> >> probably not even that.
>> >
>> >I'm looking at performance and stability issues for the most part. Most
>>
>> ...except X isn't the part of the system that tends to bog
>> down and bloat. It's various things built on top, and it's
>> not even even all of them (of a particular type).
>
>It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of cards.
It will amusing to see you try to actually support this assertion.
>
>>
>> Also, X is a bloated pig in comparison to GEM or System 6.
>>
>> Compared to contemporary GUI's it's not bloated at all. From
>> what I've heard of MacOS 10, it makes X seem positively trim.
>>
>> >folks don't need the capabilities offered by X. Many just want a simple,
>> >single desktop ala WinDoze. With Linux's performance edge, a simpler
>> >windowing system sitting over a simple audio/video HAL would run circles
>> >around MS's GUIs. It would scream. As much as some folks would hate it,
>>
>> Take into account that Windows and NT systems are poor at multiple
>> process concurrency and X under Linux already is. WinDOS only has
>> an edge when doing fairly exclusive high bandwidth multimedia
>> access.
>
>The problems with multiple process handling was the Linux performance edge
>I was refering to. Putting a faster, simpler, direct GUI on top of the
>Linux kernal would produce an astonishing desktop that much more robust . A
Aren't you forgetting something?
On a Unix, the graphics subsystem still has to play nice with
the rest of the system like any other process. The key 'problem'
with a GUI on Unix is still going to remain even if you flatten
it.
>simpler GUI more involved with the local hardware end and less with the
>networking side would nullify Window's advantage with streaming video.
[deletia]
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:24:05 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:07 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Being paid by an industry powerhouse to build an OS for a new product line
DOS really has nothing to do with this discussion.
>is a pretty good excuse! Also, if anyone was going to win the "standards
>war", it was going to be a juggernaut like IBM.
Microsoft could merely have made their Mac apps conform to the
way PC's do things right down the endianness of the raw data.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>From a performance standpoint, they most definitely weren't bleeding edge.
Are you really that dense?
The PC is the merest fraction of what IBM produced, even in
1983. It's still the case.
[deletia]
>>
>> The PC was anomaly.
>
>It was a very shrewd, standard setting move. The fact that, just recently,
>the ISA bus was finally done away with is indicative of it.
It was a piece of shit thrown together at the last minute so
that IBM would have a microcomputer to slap it's logo onto
to keep people from starting to take Apple too seriously.
It was not too terribly shrewd.
It might have been shrewd in '77 or '78.
By the 80's, it was a tad obvious.
That's likely why it even occured to IBM.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:46:47 -0600
Here in alt.os.linux,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
spake unto us, saying:
>I suspect that VM/CMS is still running around in some form.
My employer's PROFS (er, excuse me -- "OfficeVision") setup is still
running under VM, and we use CMS for various things as well.
>Even MVS might be used. (Heck, if the FAA can run on 30+-year-old
>equipment, some others might be using such, too. :-) )
MVS is called OS/390 now, though, isn't it?
We also use OS2200 on the Unisys (formerly Sperry UNIVAC) mainframes,
which is another very stable operating system used by dozens of large
companies worldwide.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ PC/GEOS + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
I am the terror that posts in the night...
------------------------------
From: "Graham Sumner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:58:16 -0000
Martigan wrote in message ...
>
> Well after I get my modem stuff done, I guess I'll just have to through
>away my Windose (dose of sh*T) and start programming for g++!
>
All you need now is a grammar checker.
Graham Sumner
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:10:28 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:07 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
> >
> >Being paid by an industry powerhouse to build an OS for a new product
line
>
> DOS really has nothing to do with this discussion.
The data formats it and the underlying architecture forced on people are,
though.
>
> >is a pretty good excuse! Also, if anyone was going to win the "standards
> >war", it was going to be a juggernaut like IBM.
>
> Microsoft could merely have made their Mac apps conform to the
> way PC's do things right down the endianness of the raw data.
Would IBM have liked that?
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >From a performance standpoint, they most definitely weren't bleeding
edge.
>
> Are you really that dense?
>
> The PC is the merest fraction of what IBM produced, even in
> 1983. It's still the case.
It's the most successful and influential line they ever produced. Their
high-end mainframe products didn't have 1/10th the impact. The success of
the market they created with the PC is what's relgating the mainframe to
history. The fact that PC clusters are the big number crunchers, now,
illustrate that.
>
> [deletia]
> >>
> >> The PC was anomaly.
> >
> >It was a very shrewd, standard setting move. The fact that, just
recently,
> >the ISA bus was finally done away with is indicative of it.
>
> It was a piece of shit thrown together at the last minute so
> that IBM would have a microcomputer to slap it's logo onto
> to keep people from starting to take Apple too seriously.
No one would argue the piece of shit part. The shrewdness came from the
timing and the opening of the internals for third party manufacturers.
Apple took the closed system, proprietary approach and were destined to
fail because of that. It made no difference how good their hardware was.
I've already stated that there were far better platforms out there,
hardware-wise. The competing PC companies lost to IBM's business plan, not
to their technology.
>
> It was not too terribly shrewd.
If you are posting this from a non-Apple PC, you're using a product of its'
legacy.
>
> It might have been shrewd in '77 or '78.
It defined the PC model for better or worse up to the present day. The
entire Intel-based PC industry owes its' existance to IBM. They also pretty
much relegated Apple to hobbyists, schools, and print shops.
>
> By the 80's, it was a tad obvious.
>
> That's likely why it even occured to IBM.
And their response was to go Apple's route and build the PS/2 line.
Technologically superior bus design hampered by exorbitant 3rd party
liscensing and other proprietary, closed-system practices. THAT was "not
too terribly shrewd".
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:28:04 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:09 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > J Sloan wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >smaller,
> >> >> > local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to
make
> >> >major
> >> >> > inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
> >> >>
> >> >> how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
> >> >> 5%?
> >> >>
> >> >> probably not even that.
> >> >
> >> >I'm looking at performance and stability issues for the most part.
Most
> >>
> >> ...except X isn't the part of the system that tends to bog
> >> down and bloat. It's various things built on top, and it's
> >> not even even all of them (of a particular type).
> >
> >It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
cards.
>
> It will amusing to see you try to actually support this assertion.
You already did. "Its' various things built on top..."
I'm not anti-X as I like the system, particularly its' extensibility.
Its' just that stacking all of this stuff on top of the graphics subsystem
tends to lead to a less cohesive system. Sharing data between apps is a
bear for newbies because of it. (Its one of the only bitches I hear outside
of the nonsense henpicking on COLA) One of the big newbie gripes is the
non-standard "read non-Windows" GUI. Power users aren't going to make Linux
successful outside of the server and embedded markets - Newbies and
non-tech types are. To win 'em over, you have to have a small, simple and
fast GUI choice.
> >
> >>
> >> Also, X is a bloated pig in comparison to GEM or System 6.
> >>
> >> Compared to contemporary GUI's it's not bloated at all. From
> >> what I've heard of MacOS 10, it makes X seem positively trim.
> >>
> >> >folks don't need the capabilities offered by X. Many just want a
simple,
> >> >single desktop ala WinDoze. With Linux's performance edge, a simpler
> >> >windowing system sitting over a simple audio/video HAL would run
circles
> >> >around MS's GUIs. It would scream. As much as some folks would hate
it,
> >>
> >> Take into account that Windows and NT systems are poor at multiple
> >> process concurrency and X under Linux already is. WinDOS only has
> >> an edge when doing fairly exclusive high bandwidth multimedia
> >> access.
> >
> >The problems with multiple process handling was the Linux performance
edge
> >I was refering to. Putting a faster, simpler, direct GUI on top of the
> >Linux kernal would produce an astonishing desktop that much more robust
. A
>
> Aren't you forgetting something?
>
> On a Unix, the graphics subsystem still has to play nice with
> the rest of the system like any other process. The key 'problem'
> with a GUI on Unix is still going to remain even if you flatten
> it.
Removing layers related to remote displays would go a long way towards
speeding things up. I'm not advocating the destruction of X as I sometimes
need that capability, myself. There should ALWAYS be the choice. I'm
advocating a smaller, faster, Micky-Mouse Windowish GUI to placate those
folks out there who bitch about such things. You'll notice that the desktop
area is the only area that Linux isn't soundly trouncing Windows.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:47:51 +0200
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Mozilla is SO bloated, and sluggish. And looks almost as bad as the new
> > Netscape. If not, worse.
> >
> > If this is the "benefit" of open source, I think it's time to give it up
> > now.
>
> Use this theme:
>
> http://x.themes.org/php/download.phtml?object=resources.chrome.966881489
>
> It doesn't have all the fancy XPI stuff that other themes include.
> It's extremely fast on my PII/400 desktop.
It's quite hard to be slow on that kind of a machine, you know.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
