Linux-Advocacy Digest #510, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Mig)
Re: Ed is the standard editor ("Marc L. Cohen")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!! ("Martigan")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("MH")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (.)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (mlw)
Re: The Linux Show! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: The Linux Show!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:53:44 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Work is work. You do the work in the environment that gets the job
> > done fastest. Sometimes it's the GUI, other times it's the console.
>
> No, for YOU it's the console. Because your work probably involves
> scripting, or administration. You are one person, and your work COULD be
> done under a GUI, but you, and many other Linux zealots are totally
> unwilling to make a concession.
Nah, you're reading me wrong. My work rarely involves scripting or
administration. It goes like this:
configuration:
linuxconf or edit the appropriate conf file, whichever seems
easiest at the time -- usually I find /etc/fstab and /etc/lilo.conf
easier to edit by hand, but any nfs stuff using the "gui".
compiler:
Definitely very easy to do using vi and make; no need for GUI,
especially since GTK+ makes it much easier to design a GUI
without using a GUI resource editor.
browsing:
Almost exclusively I do it with the GUI (Netscape); sometimes
with lynx.
artwork:
GUI exclusively, though I will often preview a bunch of pictures
with the command line "ee *jpg".
firewall:
Text editor all the way.
music:
GUI, except when creating CD's in which case cdrecord and sox
are so easy to use it's not worth loading a GUI
office:
GUI, except for vi with HTML editing
file maintenance:
Switch between GUI and console at will
general usage:
GUI with some console windows.
pornography:
GUI all the way.
> Because Linux is aparently striving to become a desktop competitor, a
> scenario in which Linux's current "styling" of cut-and-paste platform
> formation will just not do.
Some people want it to be a desktop platform. It already is a desktop
platform. What people really want is for it to be a desktop platform
for morons (defined as people who don't know computing concepts).
> Only people like you, who prefer the masorchistic methods of doing things
> under Linux.
Is it more masochistic to wait for a GUI to come up, and navigate some
menus, or to simply and rapidly type a command in half the time?
> Case in point: StarOffice; Linux
> Case in point: Netscape Communicator; Linux
> Case in point: Netscape 6.0;Linux
> Case in point: Mozilla; Linux
> Case in point: GNOME/Enlightenment; Linux
> Case in point: GNOME/Sawfish/Sawmill; Linux
I'll agree with StarOffice and Enlightmentment, but not with GNOME and
Netscape. No experience with the others.
> So, it's OK if Linux software runs like sludge, but Windows Explorer, that's
> evil. What a wonderful double standard you've fallen on.
You set up the scenario that makes my words into a double standard,
you propagandist.
> > How is this relevant to computer use? More like desktop dressing than
> > functionality.
>
> It goes to the UI genious. UI's are CLEARLY popular. Get with it.
Am with it. Learn ^^^^^^^ to spell.
> > Have you /used/ Linux lately?
>
> Ah, the typical defense of a Linu-nut.
This is where I flip the Bozo bit. Why waste time replying to such
text?
> "Have you used it". "It" hasn't
> changed enough for anything in this post to be less true that it already is.
> Come on, there ARE advances clearly being made in Linux on the UI front, but
> they aren't as big as they could be, and they aren't catching on very fast.
If you are satisfied with Windows UI, then you ought to be pretty close
to satisfied with Linux UI. Not much difference, except that Linux is an
order of magnitude more capable in the command-line arena.
> You've been hearing about it for years, but your ears have been quite
> closed.
You have absolutely no idea where I am in life, love, and Linux.
And you really don't seem to have much knowledge of Linux, either.
That's okay, though, some of this stuff is bound to seep in, even
as you resist the argument with all of your will.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:56:18 -0000
sfcybear wrote in message <93v1qm$e8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I don't see a lot of people in this news group putting down FreeBSD. In
>fact, I have seen more posts from Linux users in support of FreeBSD. It
>is another OS choice. Just because Linux is the current favorite from
>the open source comunity does not put down any other project. Infact, I
>think that FreeBSD has been helped a great deal because of the
>popularity of Lunux.
>
I agree - don't forget that most (maybe all) linux programs can be easily
ported to
FreeBSD so the increased popularity for linux will only serve to increase
the amount
of software available for both operating systems and help them compete with
a certain
other illegally monopolised os.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:10:00 +0000
Mark wrote:
> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:09:50 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Chad Myers is a used hand puppet turned condomn!
>
> Charlie
I've wanted to make him my personal hand puppet, but
since I've upped the Prozac and turned observer,
all is bliss, all is bliss. Chad, this orchid
I give to you.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:05:26 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a646c23.341957648@news...
> > I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> > company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> > with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> > connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> > it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> > setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> > connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
>
> 45 minutes? What did he do? You already had the PC on your local
> network,
> right? All that should have been necessary was to plug the cable modem in
> (assuming it's an ethernet one) and turn on DHCP and reboot. If it wasn't
> on the network, then you'd have to install the network card and configure
> it, which of course could take some time but nowhere near 45 minutes.
Get real Erik... there are loads of possible problems here. Some hardware
related...Card<->signal-carrier.. Networking settings can be a mess.
Chipeset problems can arise.... think VIA chipset etc. 45mins is
reasonable when one thinks with at least two reboots and with upgrading the
chipset at least another one.
> > As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
> > plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
> > et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
>
> About the same thing.
What are you talking about?
> Was that 30 minutes of your 45 minutes?
This was obviously on the Linux box
> > With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
> > to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
> > 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
> > expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
>
> Wait till their network goes down. You'll call into their technical
> support department, and they'll force you to reconnect to the Windows PC
> so their front line script readers can walk you through figuring out that
> it's their problem.
Well.. there are rarely problems after the install - even with NT. If the
users dont poke around and dont touch the hardware things keep working. But
since this it is so easy with Linux - tryed this putting boxes on the
network... with linuxconf it takes sekonds - he will certainly be back
online in a few minuttes.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Marc L. Cohen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:47:32 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, i was just looking at the ed man page on my linux system....
> a lot more than what I remember...but...like all line editors, still
> a pain compared to vi/ex.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
And considering that when I first used ed, the standard interface was a
Teletype terminal, not only powerful, but efficient.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:18:25 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Chad and Pete are two peas in a pod.
Wow man!
93 lines just for one line of response.
What a S/N ration!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:20:34 +0000
Tom Wilson wrote:
> Oh for the love of God (not Bill Gates), don't do that!!!
Instead of "Om... om... om..." do you think "Bill Gatessss... Bill
Gatessss..." will work?
Hey, if I pray to ol' Bill, do you think I'll be a millionaire overnight?
> If you insist on MS, at least install NT or 2K...
> WinME is a TOY!
NT or 2K on 32MBytes of RAM. Be serious, please!
> Come to think of it, maybe the yellow funnel would be a more dignified way
> of dealing with the problem. <g>
<disgusting sound of a large bathtub draining>
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:21:53 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I don't really consider Mindcraft or ZDNet major industry benchmarks,
> > necessarily. While relevant, TPC and similar industry benchmarks
> > are more reliable and standards based.
> >
> > c't is just FUD all around no matter what they're comparing.
>
> Spoken like a loyal wintroll -
>
> c't is one of the few magazines that don't worship ms.
>
> c't is excellent and technically accurate - they do tend to tell
> it like it is, and let the chips fall where they may.
>
> Perhaps chad didn't realize the magazine is in German,
> and that's why none of it makes sense to him?
>
> jjs
Any reason to think that if it were written in english he would notice
it?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:24:39 +0000
Aaron Stewart wrote:
> That makes a whole heck of a lot of sense for those guys (and yes, I'm
> one of them) who have several boxes running Mandrake and have this
> problem.. Reinstall the OS to fix a front-end utility.. What a
> concept! <LOL>
We Windows guys regularly reinstall the system to fix a crash... so I'm
told... 8)
> It's fairly obvious that it _is_ possible.. My experience has been
> thus far that SMB works fine, can see the network using smbclient or
> smbmount, and the rest of the network can see and authenticate with
> the NT Domain perfectly well on a mixed subnet network. For those of
> you who are interested, I'd be more than happy to share an example
> smb.conf with you instead of simply saying "Works fine here!" and
> leaving it at that.
I have a smb.conf file that worked just fine. Only, when I tried it again,
suddenly it doesn't work. Hmm...
> It is also fairly obvious that KDE's file manager (I could name it as
> konqueror, but that appears to be a more common name for the web
> browser, not the file manager, e'en tho they're one and the same)
> doesn't like looking at SMB networks.. I bring up smb:/domainname or
> smb:/server name and am greeted with a blank list.
Do you a DNS server running?
I noticed that smb: starts working if I'm logged into my ISP (which has a
DNS server).
> Thus I pose a question: has _ANYBODY_ gotten this to work, and, if so,
> can they provide a working set of instructions to do so (conf file for
> konqueror, or perhaps a set of steps to take).
See above?
> It's not the easiest thing to do; it's been 2 weeks and I'm still
> banging my head over it.. (_I_ believe you Pete :)..
Oh dear! The mob will turn up carrying stakes and start howling for your
blood!
"You can't believe him, he's a Windows advocate! It's just not done!".
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:26:00 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> The courts have ruled...REPEATEDLY, that Microsoft is an ABUSIVE monopoly.
> Hope that helps.
I thought it was only once so far, and Microsoft have appealed. Now we're
waiting for the appeal... and the appeal to the appeal... and the... you
get the picture.
Microsoft will drag this out as much as they can.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:27:32 +0000
Kev Ford wrote:
> Windows 98 will crash every 2/3 days if it is doing any sort of
> networking. Witness
> my so called web proxy that became utterly unresponsive after about 50
> hours uptime.
That explains why our Windows 98 SE system at work stays up for months on
end serving files to our group of a dozen developers with no problem at all.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:43:25 GMT
I have an External (via Serial) TRUST modem, it's European for you state
side people.
"Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Martigan wrote:
>
> > I can't stop it!!!! I picked up the disks and inserted them in my
> > computer. After ranting and raving, cuz of hardware problems, I finally
> > installed MD 7.2!!!! And it happened, I thought Windows was great, a
little
> > bloated, but great. I could live with a few blue screens here and
there.
> > But I thought my system was getting too old. I got a PIII 450 and 256
Meg
> > Ram, GeForce, snd blstr. But something seemed wrong in Windows....
> >
> > Well after completing the install I decide to fiddle around, Open
Office
> > (just like Office 2k but better), Gimp (who needs Adobe!), xmms (so much
for
> > winamp), emacs(text editor from hell!). But the truth came out when I
> > played an mpeg file! So much clearer, the sound was much better. I
could
> > not believe it, this had to be unreal, so I wanted to see how much this
> > computer could take!
> >
> > I loaded three mpegs in one terminal; Gimp, open office, poker, and
> > emacs on the other. AND everything was fine! A little jumpy on the
mouse
> > (duh! look at the stuff I was doing!) but I could hear the audio from
all
> > three mpegs!
> >
> > The only reason why I use windows now is to use the net, I have an
> > unsupported ISDN and am waiting for ADSL. So...I don't mind the wait.
Hell
> > I even compiled my first Kernel (with help from Linux Mag and
www.linux.com)
> > and it worked, hell I even compiled 2.4 and it's running great!
> >
> > 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++!
> >
> > I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE!!!!! And it is Awesome!
>
> Happy to hear that. I wish you good luck with the net connection... how
> come that you have an unsupported card? Which one is it? For example my
> Teles PCI uses the NetJet driver.. so you could maybe work around that?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
>
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:47:23 -0500
> pornography:
> GUI all the way.
> This is where I flip the Bozo bit.
I knew the 'pup tent' thing wasn't a stretch. Ever thought about changing
your on-line name to UberWanker?
(-:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:53:07 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
>> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
>> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
>> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
>> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
>> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
>> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
> I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
> kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
Idiot, if youd ever worked in a company that employed techies like this
and understood that they let them loose on the field after a maximum
of a couple of hours of training (with no other computer experience at
all), you would understand that this scenerio is quite plausable.
=====.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:57:34 -0500
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it is.
>
> I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in front of
> it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to everything.
> Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
Oh yea, right, sure, I'll run terminal services on a web server box.
Cold day in hell, are you insane? The whole terminal services
infrastructure is a disaster, it requires at least 32M for the service,
and 4M-8M per connection. That's 40M ram (minimum requirements and you
know what that really means!) just for for the server!!!! Under UNIX
remote access / configuration requires 0 additional resources, just
what it takes to connect.
Terminal Services required an extensive rewrite of low level components
of NT 4.0 just to shoe horn it in. It is a "service" not a tool. It is
not designed to be an administration portal, it is designed to be an
application service. It is very heavy and a very poor choice when all
you want to do is administer a system.
Lets talk about bandwidth, shall we? try using terminal services over a
28K modem, or even 128~384 DSL!! There is no way you can claim that this
is a workable setup. It isn't even worth discussing.
>
> >
> > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
>
> Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done through
> the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you have any
> decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN email
updates regularly.
Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system and
administer it easily using terminal services. Tell me you can add
terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting it
performance.
Why run a bloated remote GUI service on NT over the internet which
requires 40M (minimum) ram (32M always resident, minimum), not including
the programs you need to run, when on UNIX remote access is secure (ssh)
and requires very little memory (1M only when connected)?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:59:51 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
>and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
I wouldn't say we are having mounds of fun, but it is quite amusing.
What "IS" more amusing is catching one of the more virulent Linux
supporters in a lie when he claimed to have viewed the clips running
Xmms or Netscape under Linux.
I'm going to see the movie later this week because it looks like a
good movie to me.
MGM's website is another matter :(
They need some serious help with that one.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:04:55 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:44:54 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Yes, however the user chose to configure this system caused this
> >problem. My system does not do this, nor do others on this group. It is
> >not a Linux problem, it is an application issue.
>
> I didn't configure anything.
> If I unplug the digital and analog cables from the CD and Soundcard,
> meaning the ONLY CABLE PLUGGED IN IS THE IDE CABLE, I STILL GET SOUND,
> meaning the transfer is going over the IDE BUS.
>
> Also, as far as the mixer app is concerned, the only slider (except
> for the master) that has any effect is the ANALOG one, NOT the DIGITAL
> ONE.
>
> If I mute the ANALOG Slider the sound mutes.
>
> >If you run "cdplay" to start the cdplayer playing, then adjust the sound
> >using the very nice graphical mixer program it will work fine.
>
> Same thing happens.
This whole problem is being dropped into my "I don't believe it" bucket.
At a console or xterm window type:
dmesg | gzip > dmesg.gz
and post it here as an attachment. I have never seen this behavior, I
don't even know how it could happen. If "cdplay" plays over the IDE bus,
then you either have a funky IDE and/or sound driver. Suffice to say, I
am skeptical.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:05:53 -0000
On 16 Jan 2001 19:46:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2001 13:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Actually, OpenStep started out as an operating system, and then became sort of a
>>>GUI+apps overlay for Solaris. It never made it to any other platform.
>>>
>>>While GNUStep may have alot in common with OpenStep, it is not the same thing
>>>at all.
>
>
>> http://www.gnustep.org/GNUOpenStep/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html
>
>> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bvito/index.html
>
>Have you ever *used* openstep?
That's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is infact
a sufficiently and publically defined specification. As long
as it is, there's no good reason that alternate implementations
can't be equivalent.
[deletia]
That includes the front end interface as well as the backend API.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:09:19 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:59:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>
>>Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
>>and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
>
>I wouldn't say we are having mounds of fun, but it is quite amusing.
...or perhaps someone converted it into divx for him.
[deletia]
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
