Linux-Advocacy Digest #521, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Linux Show! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Linux Show! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why Hatred? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server. (Bones)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:26:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>You are for sure the dumbest asshole I've read since month.
>What kernel 2.4 was shipping with certain distris? It was released just a
>few days ago, so it could not ship. What was shipped were clearly marked
>prerelease kernels, in no single distribution it was installed by default,
>you had to compile it etc etc.
>But you are mentally just not equipped to grasp this.
>So, give us a break and go back playing with your wintendo-thingy
>
I think what Chad was reading was the RedHat 7.0 box which
clearly states, 2.4 Kernel READY. But Redhat 7.0 did NOT
ship with a 2.4 kernel.
Hope this helps!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:27:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:51:23 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:23:28 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >What did you expect from windows?
>>> >
>>> >BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
>>> >
>>> >The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
>>>
>>> You were able to view the trailers in QT4 format under Linux?
>>>
>>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about -
>
>That's because I caught you in a blatant lie. You can't view the movie
>clips because they are QT4 format and nothing under Linux supports it,
>unless they changed things in the last couple of days.
>
You mean you REALLY DON'T KNOW Flatshif!
Shamizile!
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:28:09 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:21 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> What? It's inane and stupid to say if they offer OSX for Linux I want to
>>> try it?
>>
>>> What's inane about that!
>>
>>Because! Don't you know that if you run Linux, you've secretly signed a
>>special agreement never to try `evil' graphics systems like svgalib and GGI?
>>Anything you do *absolutely* has to be layered on top of X11! The 11th
>>commandment says "Thou shalt not run graphics in any shape or form on thy
>>Linux box other than X11!"
>>
>
>Yes sir Donn Miller. God bless you sir!
...depends on how much of a bad hack it is.
The nice thing about gaming with SDL is that you don't
have to make any faustian deals to do your gaming. You
end up with some proper abstraction.
We have the cycles to spare these days.
I'd rather waste them on more academically sound architecture.
[deletia]
For those that think differently, there are other consumer grade
operating systems available. If Linux puts a wedge into the
consumer OS market, it might even make room for some of those
other alternatives.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:29:21 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:21:03 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
But yet you have failed to answer the question.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:29:23 GMT
ono wrote:
>
> I just installed 'Microsoft Visual Studio.NET 7.0' and boy does that monster
> slow down everything. I kind of like the idea that there is just one ide for
> all tools. What I don't like is that I have to relearn from scratch.
I smell more Magogsoft bloatware.
> It took
> me ages to get a grasp on com, but now I like it and I can truly say that
> I'm sad that ms wants to forget about it. One fortunate thing is that ms has
> never let me down regarding backward-compatibility*.I'm sure that I can
> develop com stuff for another few years.
That's good news!
> Who cares about that. In every new version I go out and look for new
> non-ansi features, they are always cool and it's a good way to shock your
> co-workers.
Unfortunately, I don't share your devotion to Microsoft. I'd rather
have code that compiles on more than one system.
> Who wants to reuse source anyway?
Me.
> The only kind of reuse is the kind of
> binary reuse found in ms products. Like reusing IE5 for the GUI
Unfortunately, HTML/script GUIs are pretty damned slow, and it makes
no sense to waste megabytes of RAM keeping IE5 around just to be
a GUI. Sounds like a pretty bad perversion of computing efficiency.
If we did that in our product, it would be unusable. Instead we
use sockets and proprietary code. Arcane, but fast enough for our
requirements.
> or using
> MSXML to parse XML files. Who would want to look at C++ sourcecode when
> there is oleview?
I'm avoiding COM/OLE/ActiveX as much as possible. Bloat.
Seems so kludgy.
------------------------------
From: [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 03:29:42 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:09:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9413rs$dnm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> I've not heard about a TPC or TPD benchmark yet. I'm not sure
>>>> Linux will do well there, unless it runs on heavy hardware such
>>>> as an S/390, or perhaps a big multiCPU Sparc.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>The problem with benchmarks does not lie with Linux - it lies with the
>>commercial software suppliers. There is no point in doing comparisons on
>>database servers, or web servers, or whatever, as long as the commercial
>>suppliers (understandably, I might add - they have a reputation to maintain)
>>have such tight restrictions on what benchmark results can be published. No
>>one, not even ZD or Mindcraft or TPC, can actually run independant
>>benchmarks, so everyone is left guessing at benchmarks referring to "unnamed
>>commercial database 1" and the like.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I agree but don't understand why BYTE doesn't just perform it's own
>independent test and invite some Microsoft representatives with w2k
>to come and DUKE it out with Linux 2.4 Debian folks on both the
>workstation and server arenas.
Dell is about as much of a Microsoft toadie as they come
and even their benchmarks don't show a blow out on the
part of Monopolysoft.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:29:58 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:22:44 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
And yet again, you have failed to answer the question
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:29:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:05:55 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>Warkus) wrote:
>
>
>>Care to explain whom you mean with "we" and why this is supposed to be
>>"our" own film?
>
>We=Linonuts
^^^^^^^^
Here's a BIG CLUE.
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
Have you ever had somebody just can up about 1,500 of your
messages and post them across microsoft, Unix, apple, OS/2
and political and newspaper newsgroups?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:31:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nick Condon wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Fine, I'll reword it just for you. Linux cannot replace Windows as the
>> major OS of choice today.
>
Let me put an edge on this.
Horse shit!
You don't have a clue Fukenbush!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:31:59 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:11:50 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> Xfree 4.01 correctly detects the videoram on my 32M G400.
You're a liar.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:33:39 GMT
In article <2qR86.323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
>> well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
>> to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
>
>Why do you keep making this shit up? I never said any such thing, and your
>continuing practice of saying otherwise is beginning to get annoying.
>
>
Making it up!
Bullshit EF!
If you've said this once you've said it a thousand times!
Your worse than a GD 3 year old EF.
First you say something, people can reprint it, look it up, and
YET you DENY it EVER HAPPENED!
You are the most unbelievable asshole I've ever met on the internet
and your a total fucking liar.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[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: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:30:31 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Except my prior experience as a PC consultant had thought me to be
TOLERANT
> > of other peoples knowledge classes in regard to computing. I (unlike
you)
>
> And yet, in discussions with those of us who have SUPERIOR knowledge
> than you, you dismis us as fools.
I dismiss nothing. I strongly disagree, but I do not dismiss.
> Your problem is, you've spent so much time dealing with fools that
> you think everyone is a fool.
Fools are people unwilling to learn. While your busy dismissing Linux
naysayers as fools, they are busy proving you wrong.
> News Flash, Kyle...the majority of people in comp.os.linux.advocacy
> have a UNIVERSITY EDUCATION in computer science and/or computer
engineering,
> including masters' and PhD's.
You mean like yourself? If your the product of a PhD in Computer Science,
then it truly is time to disband the US Department of Education...
> > understand that most people don't know a hills worth of beans about
> > computing, and I tolerate it.
>
> Kyle, you yourself have demonstrated that YOU don't know beans about
computing.
Just because I'm not a masochist doesn't mean I'm dumb.
> Based on your own words, the only thing you "know" is what's written on
the
> side of card-board boxes at CompUSA.
And the only thing you seem to know is what your spoon-fed from your daily
dose of Slashdot.org, and those little communiqué's with the support
staffers at Kmart.
> > I also understand WHY these people clearly prefer Windows & MacOS over,
> > well, anything.
> >
> > I can also understand why Linux will never receive such standing, unless
>
> Must be why there are more Linux/Apache servers on the web than
Windows/IIS.
There are more UNIX servers then Windows servers on the internet, period.
IIS has received a horrid reputation (albeit well deserved) from it's days
on Windows NT Server.
I have NEVER used Win2k & IIS5. And I have no qualms about saying that.
You on the other hand, refuse to admit any possible piece of information
that Linux, not FreeBSD, not OpenBSD, not Solaris, not HPUX, nor any other
UNIX is supreme, undamagable, and perfect.
I'd have to say I think you have founded yourself a little religion...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:38:18 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:44:13
>"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Oh? I interpreted your paragraph as "I get flamed for tons of
>> malicious whining in an advocacy group, therefore newbies won't get
>> any help from the net".
>
>And how many of these people are routine posters in AOS? How many OTHER
>Linux NG's are these people posting their "your too dumb to use Linux"
>garbage in?
Why don't you go find out. And then stay there.
>And what about the like minded Lin-nuts in the legit groups? I can't even
>begin think how many times my Linux questions were answered by "your just
>too dumb" from people who just assume that the newbie user already KNOWS how
>to:
Perhaps you should consider the hypothesis that you are being too dumb.
>1.Write a shell script
Its like a batch file, only MUCH better. There is a learning curve,
yes. The educational system in this country sucks; all high-school
students should be taught how to write shell scripts.
>2.Perform recompilation tasks in general
Ah, I think I see what's happening. You bring up moronic arm-waving
bits about what Linux "can't do", and they say "sure it can, just...,"
is that it? Anyway, see the response to '1', above.
>3.Track dependencies, period.
Yeah; at first glance, library conflicts do seem similar to "DLL Hell".
But the fact remains you *can* do something about them. We all look
forward to a day we'll have to do less of it 'the hard way', but as I'm
so fond of saying and I'm sure you're more than tired of hearing, the
free market is going to have to be restored before things like that can
be tackled. Its not a simple thing, actually living up to the promises
made by a monopolist over more than a decade of preventing competitive
development.
>This assumption is what gets these people into trouble, they are the type
>who invite new Linux users, and do nothing but insult them when they need
>support and assistance.
Well, the fact is that it isn't usually going to be the ones that
'invite new Linux users' that do most of the insulting. There are
special cases, of course, and if you act like enough of a dufus,
eventually anybody is going to call you a dufus. Trying to pick on them
for whatever their particular tolerance level happened to be makes you
more of a dufus, not less of one. So your best bet, when that happens,
is to consider that maybe you're being a dufus.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:38:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
^^^^^^^^
|
------ fa(u)lt shit?
>
> Stand on the corner of any major intersection in any major city in the
> USA and ask 1000 people about Linux and see what they say.
>
> Broadway and Wall Street in NYC will do, and I would say that would
> stack the deck in Linux's favor due to the traders who might actually
> know the symbol for Redhat, and even still you will be greeted by 995
> blank stares.
As you will, too, if you ask them what VMS is [hint: Win NT is based
on VMS].
Then again, you could ask them who is Joe Camel, and get only
5 blank stares.
So, maybe cigarettes and Magogsoft are part of the same plot to
poison us while siphoning away our money. Could be!
Makes as much sense as equating fame with goodness in an
operating system.
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:39:02 GMT
> In article <XjV86.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Wilson wrote:
[snip]
> I always considered a workstation to be a desktop tied to a server or
> otherwise participating in a network.
> Hmmm, anyone up for a silly semantics war ? :)
Sure, I've always held that 'desktop' merely describes a physical property
of the computer in question. If it fits on your desktop, then its a "desktop
computer". Other sizes would be microcomputer (essentially the same as a
desktop or laptop), minicomputer and mainframe.
If I were to segregate computers by role, I would pick stand-alone,
workstation and server as the categories. I attach nothing in terms of
expected reliability or user interface to any of these roles. They should
all by rock-solid reliable, and flexible enough to trim down unneeded junk
if extra power is needed for offering services.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:39:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Karel Jansens wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
>[snip]
>
>>>Oh, I don't know. I had a 386sx with a whopping 6 megs and a craayzy 40
>>>meg - Yes, folks, that 40 as in four-oh! - hard disk. It could have run
>>>Excel.
>>>
>>>It didn't. I preferred Quattro Pro for DOS. Call me stubborn. Back then
>>>it was 123 or Quattro anyway; if you mentioned Excel to serious number
>>>crunchers, they'd say: "What?" and susequently refuse to buy you beer
>>>anymore.
>>>
>>>Ahhh, those were the days...
>>>
>>
>>123 is still faster.
>>
>Heretic!
>Apostate!!
>Worshipper of Satan!!!
>
Yes yes yes! That is me.
>Oh... <G>, obviously.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>>As a sidenote, I believe both Excel and Word (1) entered the Windows
>>>scene at about the same time: the same magazine had a review of Word as
>>>well.
>>>
>>
>>Word was ahead of Excel by a year or more.
>>
>I've never bothered to follow the (d)evolution of Word. In fact, the only
>version I have is Word 2, which came on a ROM card with my Omnibook 425. It
>also had Excel 4 and Windows 3.1. (weirdly enough, Windows 3.1 on XIP ROM does
>not seem to be any faster than on a spinning disk based machine - go figure)
>
Umm.. I speak the truth bwana.
>[snip]
>
>>>I bought my copy of Win 3.1 retail, without any bundling going on. It
>>>was bloody cheap too. And I got a T-shirt. Pity it had "Microsoft"
>>>written on it.
>>>
>>
>>I remembered that. The 80's was the time to be a Microsoft fan.
>>
>Ahem. I happened to be a DR-DOS and Geoworks fan. I would have been a DesqView
>fan if I could have afforded the hardware.
>
I've used DesqView and I like it. In fact, somewhere around here
I still have my licensed copy in a box! That was some wild working
stuff wasn't it. DesqView would be the closest thing I could grab
a hold of as a memory to what I see Linux as today, console mode.
It had the reliability. It has an easy to master ncurses like
desktop. It has the functionality. It had the uptime.
Novel had some server software which would sequence your memory
writes with the cylinders on your harddrive in sweeps! Remember
that! It had the performance.
I used that for probably 5 years at work.
Then Windows finally turned from novelty into a competitor and
Windows took our Novel performance boxes away forever.
We never had good service from that point forward.
>>
>>>I still have that copy. It was the one that refused to work with a
>>>retail version of DR-DOS. It is also the one Erik Funkenbusch insists
>>>doesn't exist.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
>>well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
>>to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
>>
>>
>This was in a debate about Microsoft deliberately sabotaging DR-DOS' ability to
>run Windows 3.1. Erik claimed they only put a warning message in Wincode, but I
>have retail copies of both DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 that prove that Windows 3.1
>refused to load on top of DR-DOS unless a - trivial - patch was applied. I even
>kept the patch disk.
>
>They don't exist, claims Erik. I volunteered to mail them to him, provided he
>paid the cost. Haven't heard anything about it since...
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>>
>>The romance is dead.
>>
>Romance? More like a S/M hardcore porn flick...
>
>>Windows is ancient history as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>True, but...
>
>>Anybody still running it is a goof.
>
>.. the Omnibook won't run Linux. (I keep it because it has a 10+ hours battery
>life and doesn't make a single sound (*)when running)
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Karel Jansens
>
>(*) I really mean nothing. This machine runs off a 40 meg flash card. You have
>to look at the screen to see if it's on. Booting into DOS and firing up
>WordPerfect 6.0 actually makes it quite snappy.
>
I'm not up on the Dr-Dos thing but I believe Caldera still owns it.
Funny thing about Caldera taking off into Linux land like they did.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:26:03 GMT
>From the country that brought you the legendary BOFH* chronicles. Would
you really expect less?
* http://bofh.ntk.net
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:31:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Flatfish is really Steve/Claire/Sponge/Aimee/etc., right? Doesn't that
throw believability right out the window?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:43:07 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:17:43 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[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.
The virtual desktop is one of the more useful non-arcane features
of X actually. Removing that would be a really dumb idea IMO.
OTOH, there are plenty of people trying to trim down X for use
in embedded systems.
Then again, handheld computers come with more RAM now than some
X terminals. The "overhead" simply isn't as big of a deal as it
used to be.
Until there's another "resin fire", the effort simply isn't worth
the payoff.
>
>>
>> >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.
What happens when things go wrong? How is a novice going to
effectively interact with the helpdesk when they call in?
That information isn't just useless gibberish.
>
>>
>> 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.
You just did actually. You want to toss out virtual desktops.
>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
It's already windows like.
The only problem is a decent clipboard. Adding one doesn't require
gutting the 'frivolous' parts of X. Infact, such a system should
be rather independent of X.
>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.
Have you seen technophobes use a GUI?
I'm not sure that a good clipboard wouldn't be wasted on them actually.
Infact, the common Lemming pattern is to merely use a single
sourced group of applications. Things like OLE and clipboards
are actually a bit of a waste in such situations.
I'm not convinced that a good clipboard will really be an issue
until we start attracting users away from Macintosh.
--
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
******************************
