Linux-Advocacy Digest #520, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Victor Wagner)
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Victor Wagner)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Charlie Ebert)
Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (mlw)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:11:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:18:54
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>> [ a lot of crap]
>>>>
>>>> -Chad
>>>
>>>Chad Myers is inane. Why do you bother
>>>conversing with this moron?
>>>
>>>Do yourself a favor... relax... skip his posts.
>>>
>>>Chris (much happier nowadays)
>>>
>>>--
>>>Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
>>
>>
>>I totally agree. With comments about Datacenter whipping
>>a Linux clusters ass and Datacenter beating such systems
>>like the 390 series, Chad clearly has a grape fruit sized
>>braintumor.
>
>LOL! Well said.
>
I don't mean to be so hard on the boy since he's a fellow
conservative BUT, sometimes he's just got his head rammed
up his ass!
If we were fighting the civil war again, he'd be the at
the head of my charge into those cannons.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: 17 Jan 2001 00:42:19 +0300
Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> They've abandoned it becouse they have few kilobytes of memory
:> and few thousands instructions per second in their disposal.
: No, they abandoned it because they found better ways of doing things. :)
Not proven. Prove it, please. For each abandoned approach, separately.
Of course, there are approaches which are superceded by something newer,
but there are some, which was just born ahead of their time, and
deserve revisiting.
: Remember, organic brains may or may not be deterministic Turing machines.
: They may very well be nondeterministic Turing machines, or quantum Turing
: machines, or some other variety. Trying to emulate a quantum TM or a
: nondeterministic TM in a conventional TM is an exercise in futility.
Remember, no one knows how organic brains really work. Much less they've
known in '60s. So, their approaches was not always 'emulation of quantum
TM or nondetermenistic TM on conventional TM'
--
At many levels, Perl is a "diagonal" language.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: 17 Jan 2001 00:38:03 +0300
Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> But actually simple java app which does function of
:> typucall makefile,
:> or 200-line Tcl script (I mean Oracle Installer, of course)
:> can put
:> 128Mb server to its knees.
: I'd like to see this Java app. I've never seen any Java app
: bring my system
: to its knees.
I've named it. You want exact URL?
ftp://ftp.oracle.com/www/otn/linux/815std.tgz if I'm not mistaken.
:> (Of coursce, C++ is no better, it has all the drawbacks of
:> Java and
:> lacks its two only benefints - garbage collection and
:> Unicode support).
: <yawns> Try compiling to native code.
Especially nice advice when you have full CD-ROM of jars,
which are unpacked and sometimes compilied and linked by program
itself.
: Try "you don't pay for what you
: don't use". Try operator overloading. Try non-virtual
Sorry, in this case I'm paying for the Oracle server,
not for silly dialog boxes which require me to use remote workstation
to setup it, instead of just doing it from server's console.
But it seems to me, that if PostgreSQL would continue in the same
direction, it goes now, it would be reasonable to stop bother oneself
with Oracle, which gets too bloated, to dummy-oriented (they even
dropped SQL help files for SQLplus from 8.1.x) and always
have problems with glibc version incompatibility.
: inheritance. Try
: true multiple inheritance.
You mean: and drown in it, so I'll never hear you again ;-)
:Try generic programming.
: Insofar as Unicode support, I'd suggest you take a look at
: C++'s wchar data
: type. Guess what? :)
Guessing ... 100% complete:
Inability to write them into file, which would be portable
between even different OSes on same platofrm. wchar_t is 16 bit
on Windows and 32 bit on Linux.
BTW wchar_t is not a part of language standard. One can write anything
on C++, C or assembly language. At least every implementation of
languages I'm consider good (Python, Scheme, Haskell etc) is translated
into assembly eventually, and often is written on C.
: Please, if you're going to troll on language wars, try and
: find some valid
: point to troll on.
I've almost nothing against languages, including C++ and Perl (which
are worst in my opinion as languages)
I just have some points against implementation of these languages.
Really if it is way languages are used and, especially taught,
which is bad.
Note also that my original post has a conclusion:
"If this guy wants to make really cool software, he should write
really good java vm, which would take as few resources and run as
fast, as design of language promises".
--
..[Linux's] capacity to talk via any medium except smoke signals.
-- Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:14:39 GMT
In article <D3Z86.1685$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
>is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
>
>Linux is growing, but only by taking share away from other useless
>Unixes.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Once again Chad is reading the FORECAST of the 90's.
The current conditions are HAIL for Windows...
The *nixs have quit loosing to Linux lately.
And Linux is happily feeding on the Windows users
and growing like a fuckin weed!
40% per year growth rates in Europe, South America, and asia!
Still barreling along in Canada and the U.S.!
My prediction still stands that by 2005 Chad will be circumsized!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:17:39 GMT
With the exception of cost, and that is really debateable considering
the large amount of time wasted configuring Linsux, I can see
absolutely no valid reason to downgrade and run Linux.
Let's look at Mandrake 7.2 vs Win2k Pro.
Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
Full support is included.
Linux takes that one, espcially if you consider that it can be
downloaded, although this is not a complete download and can't be
compared to the purchased version, for free.
Do you really want to Download 650 meg of data?
Take a look at how many people are having trouble burning the CD's in
the Mandrake group.
Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
and not a full system like the $35.95 version
Install?
Linux about 25 minutes and one reboot.
Windows 2k, about an hour and I honestly lost track of reboots (3 or
4).
Linux wins for basic install.
So what do we have once installed?
Security?
Check out www.grc.com or better yet www.hackerwhacker.com on a newly
installed Linux system and a Windows 2k system as well.
Linux is WIDE OPEN to attack and only a seasoned pro is going to know
how to shut things down via inetd to make it reasonably safe.
I would be terrified to run a newly installed Linux system on a cable
or dsl or any "on all the time" connection because you WILL be hacked
in short order.
Win2k show ALL relevant ports closed by default on both sites.
Let's look at hardware, detection and drivers.
Linux claimed it detected my Logitech WheelMouse and Matrox card yet
in reality neither was detected properly. Linux also could not detect
my IBM/Sony monitor, printer (Lexmark) or scanner (Canon) or digital
USB camera (xirlink).
Win2k detected every single piece of hardware and they all worked, and
in fact even the scanner and and digital camera worked. The SBLive
drivers stuttered a little, but a quick trip to Creative fixed that
problem with newer drivers.
Sound?
Linux seems to think my SBLive and CDROM were designed to only provide
DAE mode of operation which is nice if you want to watch your system
crawl to a halt. Under WIn2k I could turn it off by checking a box. I
still have not figured out how to do it under Linux, and no
Penguinista has been able to tell me how.
Applications.
Let's talk applications shall we?
Take a look at Netscape. Take a GOOD LOOK. Can anyone honestly say
that it looks good?
Web pages either have huge text or microscopic text or both depending
upon what font options you are trying at the moment.
How about xmms?
Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
(V5.5 I believe).
See how slick and smooth and pleasing to the eye the Microsoft Player
looks?
See how boxy and crude xmms looks?
Did you try making it double size?
Can you even look at it without laughing?
It's a jagged mess.
How about Gaim?
Look at the directory tree that shows your buddies.
See how the tree is broken with nasty looking charactors?
Take a look at the WIndows equivilant, smooth and clean looking.
Which one looks better?
How about GVpic or whatever that program that is an ACDsee clone is
called.
Miserable thing take 3 minutes to load a directory of a couple
thousand pics
Let's look at StarOffice shall we?
This one you have to try for yourself, but the only comment I had is
you can brew a cup of coffee waiting for it to load.
And load it does. THis sucker takes over everything, which is ironic
considering how the LinoNuts complain about MS bloatware.
Try it for yourself.
If you are a WIndows user you are used to reading your news offline,
meaning you dial up to the server, download your messages, disconnect
and read and reply offline, connect again and post.
You are also used to launching attachments, reading HTML and changing
properties of different newsgroups on the fly and selectively.
Try this one under Linux and see how far you get.
Best offering is pan, but it is highly unstable at the moment.
It's ironic that the OS that runs the net can't even have a decent
news program.
BTW have you been using Internet Explorer 5.x?
Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
It's like driving your grandfathers Edsel after taking a spin in a
2001 Corvette Callway Turbo...
Good luck :(
How about ICS?
Easy enough to set up under Mandrake, assuming you didn't select
"Setup Network" when you installed Mandrake in which case you will
never get ICS working.
Unfortunately Dial On Demand is non-existant, which kind of wliminates
the need for ICS now doesn't it?
How about Trojan protection?
Does Linux have any program that allows you to monitor Trojans that
might be trying to dial out from your system?
Windows does and it is free and it is called ZoneAlarm.
I could go on for hours, but I ask you to only try Linux and see for
yourself.
Don't try a hardcore distribution like Slackware or Debian, but
instead try Mandrake or SuSE or Redhat and see for yourself.
See how a simple update from Mandrake in the form of a CD can trash
your entire system. See how SP1 from Microsoft installs perfectly and
everything works.
See how even simple updates to kde require many meg of files.
See how you always seem to be missing some dependency or another.
With Linsux it just goes on and on...What is simple under WIndows
turns out to be a mission of mercy under Linsux..
So all I ask is that you try Linux and decide for yourself.
My guess is that you will decide that Linux sux....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:17:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 16 Jan 2001 03:17:41 -0600, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Such a GUI would also allow a consumer-oriented desktop OS to hit it big
in
> >the consumer market, and further take a bite out of Windows sales. For
> >optimum performance, it'd probably be better to make the entire
Windowing+GUI
> >system a monolith. This would enable you to build a Windows or
MacOS -like
> >system, but with Linux running underneath. Plus, you could do other neat
>
> There's nothing keeping you from building such a system on top
> of X. WinDOS itself is only a shell running on top of a lower
> level core CLI system.
Its' entirely possible. The simpler window managers certainly have enough
speed, even on dated hardware, to support that. I'm just wondering if
there's a simple way to selectively disable some of the more arcane, power
user features of X and optimize it for a single, non-virtual desktop without
hobbling it.
>
> >things, like have the windowing system boot up before the kernel probes
> >occur. You'd see all the devices being probed in a special information
> >dialog, for example. Obviously, traditional Linux types would not like
this.
>
> What would the point be?
>
> So you would intimidate end users in a really pretty fashion...
There's really no need for a newbie-oriented GUI system to display such
things.
>
> You would still be scaring the novices and achieving no other
> useful objectives other than what a curses based system would.
> Besides, distro vendors have already managed to do this without
> gutting X or re-engineering it.
No-one has said a single word about gutting X. I've cetainly not, anyway.
That'd be the last thing I'd want to do. I like X.
The subject was about a simple and direct layer to provide a fast, stable,
Windows-like GUI with a Windows-like data sharing mechanism between apps
that newbies and non-techs would be happy with. I hate to see a superior OS
taking a back seat to Windows all because of ergonomics.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:21:00 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:49:39 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder if they have figured out how to disable DAE on that beast?
> >
> >Quite frankly, no one believes you. No one can reproduce what you claim
> >to see, and you haven't yet posted a dump of dmesg for us to see.
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that if I actually go to the truble
> of firing up KDE and running xmms that it will infact NOT use
> DAE to play CDs...
I did, in fact, test his claims. I used kscd, xmms, and cdplay. Not one
of these exhibited the behavior described.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> [snip]
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
> >> >> >how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
> >> >> >a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
> >> >>
> >> >> Considering that Alphas still stop all over IA32 based machines
> >> >> in terms of floating point (and digital media tends to be
> >> >> chock full of floating point calcs), actually getting an Alpha
> >> >> for the job wouldn't be such a stupid thing to do.
> >> >
> >> >Like I said, I was looking for a relatively inexpensive solution,
> >> >which is why Linux was in the running.
> >>
> >> Compared to a PC suitable for video production, an Alpha
> >> based system really isn't that much more expensive.
> >> Furthermore, Alpha and Sparc based systems have been
> >> available in the PC price range for longer than you've
> >> been trolling this newsgroup.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >If I was going to buy a bunch of big, expensive hardware, I
> >> >wouldn't have bothered with Linux in the first place.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Thus, restricting the hardware to '32 bit' is entirely arbitrary
> >> >> on your part and specifically designed to yield the failure that
> >> >> you really wanted.
> >> >>
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> >> FILM QUALITY PRODUCTION VIDEO has been done under Linux, so
> >> >> a few TV clips shouldn't be a problem.
> >> >
> >> >They either had to clip everything to approx 15-minute segments
> >>
> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
> >
> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
> >we're talking about.
> >
> >We don't have all the time in the world.
>
> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
> the details of the 'problem'.
Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
not be high on the list of things the Video department
would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
to meet their deadlines, spending hundreds of extra hours
to split each video for seemingly no reason wasn't appealing
to them.
Instead, I was able to say "Here's hundreds of gigs of storage,
use it to produce videos as fast as possible".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:08:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Classy Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
Maybe not for you it doesn't. But my "fresh out of the box" IBM 30GB
7200RPM UDMA-100 boots RHAT with no trouble. Of course I bought it
pre-installed, y'know, just like a consumer Windows box. But without the
MSFT tax.
Deleting MSFT sure buys a lot of extra hardware.... <grin>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:06:09 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
Ha ha, I hope all you immature assholes have had your fun.
When you're done with your adolescent ad homonim attacks, please
post a URL for a c't article praising MS for something.
Thank you,
Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:13 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9429n6$11rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here, it's
> : entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
>
> Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
> For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
> suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
> "entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
Um, you are incorrect. Windows NT and 2000 have a far larger share
in the server market than Linux.
Perhaps you should check your facts.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:24:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>> thread and misquoting me.
>>
>> He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
>
This man is clearly on drugs.
Reiser is shipping with Mandrake and Suse right now
and has been for several releases.
>"Shipping with SuSE" sure sounds like "shipping" to me.
>
>"Used in production environments" is also a telling fact.
>
>It's not clear what you're on about, at any rate...
>
>> In either case, it's still nothing like NTFS5, so this whole
>> argument is irrelevant.
>
NO and we are GD glad it's nothing like that.
>Your are probably correct, and I would venture to say
>that is a very good thing for Linux -
>
>I hear that with their latest file system, microsoft has finally
>taken some baby steps towards some of the features Linux
>users have enjoyed for years, can you confirm? I mean, per
>filesystem quotas for individual users and/or groups, hard and
>soft links, etc - by the way is this making any sense to you?
>
>jjs
>
>
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:25:06 GMT
In article <v_Y86.1681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>> > thread and misquoting me.
>> >
>> > He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
>>
>> "Shipping with SuSE" sure sounds like "shipping" to me.
>
>The 2.4 kernel was "shipping" with certain distributions for
>trial a few months ago, did that mean that the 2.4 kernel was
>released/shipping?
>
>Give me a break.
>
>-Chad
>
>
By certain distribution you are refering to the Caldera one.
Nobody else shipped the beta of the 2.4 kernel.
And the Caldera box was marked "Technology Preview Release".
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:25:24 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:02:49 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:28:04 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[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..."
>>
>> Moron. That's how ALL engineering is supposed to be done,
>> including computer science.
>
>Moron...Cute.
>
>Do you find it at all unusual that a free OS with such an advantage in raw
>performance, versitility, and stability lags so far behind Windows on the
>desktop?
I never found that to be the case actually.
The real problems are device drivers, proprietary media
codecs and general third party applications support. The
'bloated nature of X' is the least of the worries for
Linux on the desktop.
>
>Is this the result of good engineering?
Lesse... you can replace Xfree with 3 competitors.
You can replace Motif with 4+ competitors.
You can replace the KDE or GNOME desktop with 20+ competitors.
You can replace Mesa with 3 competitors.
>
>Instead of creative editing and childish insults, you might try to actually
>discuss something.
I did.
I definitively demonstrated the value of open layering.
What do you do when the GUI in your WinDOS machine gets
you down? Say you want to toss that kernel level video
driver from your NT server?
Too bad, you're out of luck. You can't.
OTOH, I can tune my Linux to the level of frills and featuritus
that I want. This is either awkward or impossible to do with Windows.
Thus, in 5 years of running Linux on the desktop I have had no
great urge to run back to Windows. This is even despite the
fact that I usually have been running my Linux desktops on
hardware vastly inferior to the Windows machines I am forced to
put up with during working hours.
I only bothered to get a pentium class machine to get PCI slots.
>
>
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Someone should slap you with a harcopy version of the OSI
>> network layering model & and CS 100 textbook.
>
>Been there done that.
Then go there and do that again. You weren't paying attention
the first time.
Compared to the current Microsoft or Apple desktops, X is not
at all bloated. Furthermore, media and gaming performance isn't
even all that far behind on linux.
The classic cries of bloatedness regarding X date back to the
period 8 years before Microsoft had any viable GUI system.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
