Linux-Advocacy Digest #6, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Feb 01 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: "It's the desktop, stupid" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Martin Gregorie)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: TRS 80 [ was Bill Gates and Michael Dell ] (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Aaron R Kulkis (Bloody Viking)
Re: Aaron R Kulkis (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Aaron R Kulkis (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Shane Phelps)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!! (mlw)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!! ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows?
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:19:43 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> gswork wrote:
> >
> > Out of interest, having spent time time hacking Linux would coders love
> > to see the behemoth code that lies underneath Windows?
> >
> > It would be fascinating would it not? Some of it is probably pretty
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You misspelled "laughable"
>
> [Ever see Microsoft source code??? Most of it, even college sophomores
> would be ashamed to sign their name to. No wonder Gates doesn't want
> anybody to see it.]
And how exactly would you know? You've never seen it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "It's the desktop, stupid"
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:27:52 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > That being said, and as an admission of a short coming of the current
UNIX
> > > environments, it is not as serious as it seems. The Windows' desktop
is
> > not as
> > > perfect as proponents profess. Many applications routinely ignore
common
> > > messages and data types, this can be seen by the circle with a line
when
> > you
> > > try to drop a file on it. Also, there is decent in the ranks of
Windows
> > program
> > > developers. Many software OEMs are ignoring "CUI" and developing their
own
> > UI
> > > and ignoring the Windows metaphors.
> >
> > You mean dissent, not decent.
>
> Damned spell checker.
>
> > An application that can't do anything with a dropped file shouldn't
accept it.
>
> Most of the applications I see under windows, excluding MS applications of
> course, routinely ignore valid file drop messages. That functionality
isn't
> free, someone has to write it and more often then not don't.
Yes, that's true. But then just because you decide a file drop message is
valid doesn't mean the author agrees with you.
> > That's plain common sense. Also, there's
> > no such thing as a "software OEM". The E in OEM stands for "Equipment"
and
> > the M for "Manufacturer". Software companies are ISV's.
>
> Depends on how you look at it. ISV means vendor, that could be CompUSA.
> Companies do manufacture software.
It's not Equipment.
> > Further, What
> > you're talking about is the concept of "skinning", which is not as
common as
> > you make out. Mostly it's used in audio/video applications to try and
> > differentiate themselves from their virtually identical competition.
>
> That is NOT what I am talking about. Look at Lego software, it doesn't
look
> like Windows at all. Look at most games, they don't look like Windows, not
a
> drop down menu to be seen. Look at WinAMP, look at Sonique. It is very
> fashionable to make your own look.
I'm confused. You just said skinning of audio/video based apps is not what
you're talking about, now you're using WinAMP and Sonique as examples. That
*IS* what I was talking about.
Games are a different category altogether, and have never followed standards
under any platform. Deviating too strongly from the accepted guidelines is
not that common.
> > > Linux has a tremendous opportunity to develop a common desktop API,
> > leaving
> > > actual implementations irrelevant.
> >
> > Sure, but you'll be fighting over which is better ala emacs/vi for a
decade
> > before you standardize it.
>
> There is no need to "standardize" emacs or vi they are different programs.
I
> wouldn't discount the ability for the UNIX community to develop and agree
on
> good standards. The whole internet is due to that very ability.
Really? Then how come IPv6 still hasn't take over?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Gregorie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:25:42 GMT
On 6 Feb 2001 00:53:58 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> : There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
>:> : 1) Belief that the proposition is true.
>:> : 2) "I don't know"
>:> : 3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
>:>
>:> : One cannot claim that one is neither (1) nor (2), and still TOTALLY
>:> : without a belief.
>:>
>:> You are right. Too bad for your argument, though, that atheists
>:> often *do* say (2), and your implication that all atheists say
>
>: Then they aren't atheists, they are agnostics.
>
>The terms are not mutually exclusive.
Yes they are. From Webster:
Atheist:
: one who denies the existence of God
Agnostic:
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God)
is unknown and prob. unknowable;
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the
existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
You cannot deny the existence of God and simultaneously declare that
His existence or otherwise is unknown without contradicting yourself.
--
gregorie | Martin Gregorie
@logica | Logica Ltd
com | +44 020 76379111
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:34:15 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > > >
> > > > My questions:
> > > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating
system?
> > > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> > > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> > >
> > > It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> > > a future 64-bit version of windows.
> >
> > It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
>
> Where?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/resources/subdwnld.asp
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TRS 80 [ was Bill Gates and Michael Dell ]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 22:27:14 +1100
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> Shane Phelps wrote:
> >
> > CP/M used to run on almost everything using the Z80 *except* for
> > the TRaSh 80. The TRS80 had TRS-DOS and another disk operating system
> > which I can't remember (and I used it for 2 years). It was great. I could
> > fit 180KB on a floppy
> >
> > Most of the serious CP/M systems were Zenith, Heathkit, etc, at the time.
> > I bought a Z80 board with CP/M for my Apple II but I wasn't terribly
> > impressed. I didn't like the Apple II much, either. I thought the TRaSh80
> > was much better.
> > Or did the Model II run CP/M? About all I can remember is it used 8"
> > floppies.
> >
> > As a completely irrelevant aside, one of Tandy's TRS80 guys has released
> > a stack of TRS80 stuff on the web, and even has a TRS80 emulator.
> > Once I work out how to read my old SS/SD 5 1/4" disks I'll have to give
> > it a spin for old times' sake :-)
> >
> >
> > Do you remember the TRS-80 Model 16? It had a 68k and ran Xenix. I
> > would've *loved* to have had the money to buy one of those ;-)
> >
> Hi Shane,
>
> I think you're meaning NewDos80, which ran really good on those little
^^^^^^^^^
Yes, you're right. I'm glad there's somebody here old enough to remember
that and with a good enough memory not to forget it :-)
> bastards. Floppy-disk access is STILL faster than the fastest PC now
> manages because of the clever layout Tandy did (directory in the middle
> of the disk, hash codes for access. Those machines NEVER needed more
> than 3 disk-accesses (at most) to get to the file because of that
> hash-coding. I disassembled that part of the DOS and made it even faster).
> Same coding was used on hard-disks, that sucker ran rings around a PC
> with hard-disk then (8 MHz Z80 is about even, perhaps a little faster than
> the 4,7 MHz 8088 of the PC's than en vogue)
>
I never did put a hard disk on my Model 1. By the time I had enough money
the poor old thing was getting a bit old. It served honorably in
retirement
with my nephews and nieces playing tape-based games and learning a little
Pascal and C programming.
You're giving it such a glowing report I think I'll have to revive it
and try to relive some more of my misspent youth :-)
> You're right with Zenith, Heathkit et al, although a Cromenco was just the
> REAL THING at that time (who remembers those old S100-machines)
>
> The TRS80 DID run CP/M, at least the Model IV was good at that.
> Model II did it also.
The Model IV was a bit modern (and expensive) for me. I loved my Model
I, though.
> The older ones needed a hacked version because of the ROM-Layout.
> And right, Model 16 was good (and way to expensive). Tandy's downfall began
> later as they tried to get on the PC-bus. Their PC-machines weren't really
> compatibel, so people stayed away from them.
>
The 80186-based model was quite interesting (couldn't afford *that* either)
What probably did for them in the end was jumping on the MCA bandwagon.
THey were still quite a force up until then, but withered away.
They had some good machines for the time, and some horrible ones.
I remember they were still quite common here in Australia in the late 1980s.
> Ah, those were the days.... (when we were young AND good-looking. Now we're
> only AND)
>
> --
> Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
> We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:34:54 -0600
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95lrh3$72i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:v6nf6.186$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95kpo4$k8s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating system?
> > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> > >
> > > How does one test this? (whether an operating system is 64 bit or 32
> > > bit?)
> >
> > Linux is 32 bit on 32 bit hardware. It's 64 bit on 64 bit hardware (ie,
> on
> > standard PC's, Linux is 32 bit. On Alpha processors, 64 bit SPARC, 64
bit
> > MIPS, or the upcoming Itanium processor, it's 64 bit)
> >
> > > 2) Does this account for the "generally understood" linux's stability
> > > and the "well known" Windows (maybe not win2k) lack of stability?
> >
> > No, it has nothing to do with either (whether true or not).
> >
> > > 3) If Linux is true 64 bit and windows 2000 is still 32 bit - then
> > > surely Win 2000 cannot be compared to Linux (case of apples vs
> > > oranges). Or have I missed the boat entirely?
> >
> > MS has a currently available beta version of 64 bit whistler. You can
get
> > it if you are an MSDN member.
>
> The 64 bit version is only for Advanced Server and Data Center edition.
MS
> is obviously targeting 64 bitness for the server side of things.
>
> MS has stated that it will be ready by the time the Itanium is being sold
en
> mass.
>
> -Todd
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:35:26 -0600
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95lrh3$72i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MS has a currently available beta version of 64 bit whistler. You can
get
> > it if you are an MSDN member.
>
> The 64 bit version is only for Advanced Server and Data Center edition.
MS
> is obviously targeting 64 bitness for the server side of things.
Nope, 64 bit Professional is available for download.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:40:16 -0600
"CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > > >
> > > > My questions:
> > > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating
system?
> > > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> > > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> > >
> > > It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> > > a future 64-bit version of windows.
> >
> > It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
> Why would you need a new version (rather than build) for 64-bits? By the
> time MS Windows came out, it was well known not to make any assumptions
> about sizeof(int).
A) It's a new architecture. It's not x86 compatible. It needs a new HAL
at a minimum. Itanium uses 8k pages instead of 4k pages on x86. There are
lots of functions (especially low-level file mapping functions) which depend
on the size of the page to operate correctly.
B) It needs 32 bit emulation support for existing binaries.
C) It needs wider parameters for kernel functions which require memory.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: 6 Feb 2001 11:33:09 GMT
--== ==-- (\(Jeepster\)[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Still, I suppose it has to be so when Linux attracts mostly long hair
: weirdos.
And short-haired techies mostly. And, what is your problem with long hair
anyways? Jealous?
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: 6 Feb 2001 11:37:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > Still, I suppose it has to be so when Linux attracts mostly long hair
: > weirdos.
: There's nothing wrong with long haired weirdos. I'm a long haired
: weirdo, but I bet I'm better with computers than you are.
Watch for longhairs who use heavy-duty calculators as a Palm Pilot...
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:45:14 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows 9x has no memory protection in the system space. It was done
like
>
> And at the same time, Microshaft was claiming that Lose98 didn't
> have a stability problem.
Back up that statement. Please provide 1, just 1 link to MS stating that
Windows 98 was crash-proof. Why do you insist on making up these supposed
"statements" by Microsoft?
> Conclusion: Microsoft is either incompetant at OS design, or the
> company policy is that lying to the public is tolerated.
First, back up your claim that MS said it was crash-proof. All they've ever
claimed was that it was more stable than previous versions. Second, Windows
9x was designed with very specific tradeoffs in order to accomplish a very
specific goal; move users from DOS and Win16 to Win32. This required
maximum performance from legacy apps and compatiblity with legacy drivers.
This goal is at direct odds with creating a completely stable OS. Windows
worked exactly as it was designed to.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: 6 Feb 2001 11:39:22 GMT
Ralph Miguel Hansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I was a sailor for ten years. Therefore I think he sounds a bit like a
: clergyman.
I was a sailor for 5 years and 4 months. I now have hair and beard like a
castaway.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:48:26 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > > I am also convinced that IBM was the worst possible company to promote
> > > and market this operating system...
> >
> > Weren't they the ones that gave us the 640k nightmare?
>
> No...that was Gates's call
No, it was IBM's. They designed the IBM PC with a 384K I/O area.
> "I don't see why anybody would need more than 640k"
> -- William Gates III (trust-fund brat)
Apart from the fact that you can't even get the supposed quote correct, read
this:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/bill.gates/gates_memory.html
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 22:43:15 +1100
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Most of the serious CP/M systems were Zenith, Heathkit, etc, at the
> > time. I bought a Z80 board with CP/M for my Apple II but I wasn't
> > terribly impressed. I didn't like the Apple II much, either. I thought
> > the TRaSh80 was much better. Or did the Model II run CP/M? About all I
> > can remember is it used 8" floppies.
> >
> > As a completely irrelevant aside, one of Tandy's TRS80 guys has released
> > a stack of TRS80 stuff on the web, and even has a TRS80 emulator. Once I
> > work out how to read my old SS/SD 5 1/4" disks I'll have to give it a
> > spin for old times' sake :-)
>
>
> If you ever find out, could you email me (I haev a 5.25" disk drive, but
> can't read my old BBC floppies)?
>
> Cheers
>
> -Ed
>
Hi Ed,
I'll probably have forgotten by the time I get anything working :-(
Meanwhile, check out Tim Mann's TRS-80 page. He seems to have had a
really cool job way back then, and still has a soft spot for the old beasts.
http://www.research.compaq.com/SRC/personal/mann/trs80.html
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:54:24 -0600
"Arthur Gravity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FMrf6.156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And MS also runs Hotmail on FreeBSD because NT can't handle that much
> traffic.
Apart from the fact that this clearly isn't true (www.microsoft.com is the
third most popular website on the planet and runs NT) This hasn't been true
for more than 6 months.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.hotmail.com
> MS Windows is a poorly implemented rip off of MacOS and Unix anyway. And
> everybody knows that Steve Jobs and the Apple designers stole the GUI from
> Xerox's PARC.
"Stole" is a bit harsh, more like "Hijacked".
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:50:24 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MiQf6.3424$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:63Pf6.560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the line
> for
> > me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one of
my
> > machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We will
> > neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to be
> > viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely short-sighted
> > would actually welcome such a system.
>
> Spoken just like someone without a clue about what .NET is.
>
> (HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it, and
> something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this is
> the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite
surprised).
The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to conjure up past
memories of subscription based software from the early eighties. It is a
blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually, i'm surprised
its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is now, for someone
to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer sector said no,
resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial sector takes the
same tact with this profit mongering.
I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET and, as a
developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I just ranted on.
We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't. If it takes
off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative OS's will just
have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 06:54:16 -0500
bigbinc wrote:
>
> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?
In your rant, you offer no explanation for feelings. Without any more
information, it is impossible discuss rationally. However, I disagree with you
point of view, and I'll tell you why I like X very much.
(1) A well tuned X server can be very fast.
(2)I can run an X program on any machine and display its windows on any other
machine. (MS can't even come close.)
(3) X is analogous to a display driver under Windows, the actual window manger
and tool box can be changed easily.
(4) X is a well proven technology, it works well, why change it?
Aside from your ranting, name one thing that is wrong with X that can't be
addressed ?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:03:02 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't believe me?
>
> I suggest you try Linux for yourself and make your own mind up.
While I only partially agree with some of what you've written, I think this
is something everyone (including Linux advocates) can agree on.
Sadly, my own experience is that 2 out of every 3 people I have talked to
that tried Linux, gave up on it without getting it to work successfully.
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:55:47 GMT
> http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/usenix2000/render.html
Thanks for the link - I found it informative.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:59:26 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to conjure up past
> memories of subscription based software from the early eighties. It is a
> blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually, i'm surprised
> its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is now, for someone
> to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer sector said no,
> resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial sector takes the
> same tact with this profit mongering.
>
> I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET and, as a
> developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I just ranted on.
> We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't. If it takes
> off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative OS's will just
> have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
As I understand it, .NET will be accessible to any OS, it's just that
Windows tools will be the first down the pike. Of course, that
common-language substrate will be lowest-common-denominator, and
Microsoft will change it whenever they see fit, giving developers fits.
It'll be as stable as OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM.....
Chris
--
This Windows OS is ghak! I need dual Pentium
processors to do battle with this code!!!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:15:11 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4yRf6.575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > (HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it, and
> > something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this
is
> > the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite
> surprised).
>
> The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to conjure up past
> memories of subscription based software from the early eighties. It is a
> blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually, i'm surprised
> its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is now, for someone
> to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer sector said no,
> resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial sector takes the
> same tact with this profit mongering.
The subscription based thing is there, much like Windows Terminal Services
is there. You can use it, it works, but it's really only for a very small
subset of the population.
The subscription services are for companies that regularly upgrade. The TCO
is reduced because everyone is automatically updated at the same time,
without the need (or very little need) of maintenance and license
management.
This is really only for large companies. Small companies will continue to
buy discrete versions of the products (non-subscription). MS simply can't
get away with removing the non-subscription option. People simply won't
upgrade if they're not interested in doing so.
> I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET and, as a
> developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I just ranted on.
> We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't. If it takes
> off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative OS's will just
> have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
The real benefit of .NET will be the Java-like cross platform capability
(think CE, 32 bit windows, 64 bit windows, MacOS X all from the same EXE,
each optimized for their own platforms by the .NET runtime compiler (which
is much more like SmallTalk than Java))
And, if people write .NET for Linux, as they'll be able to do from the
standards, you can run on Linux as well.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
