Linux-Advocacy Digest #207, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 10:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Darren Winsper)
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Darren Winsper)
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Todd")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Todd")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Chad Myers")
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Mark Weaver")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Chad Myers")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Chad Myers")
Re: I will give MS credit for one thing ("Todd")
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Ethernet card for UNIX/Linux ("Martin Eden")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Interesting article ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:06:46 +0000
Todd wrote:
> Agree. What do you think about NetMeeting and MSN messenger?
MSN messanger isn't bad, but I really like Gabber and Everbuddy over it
because they have nice UIs (For me) and compatibility with the other IMs.
> Yah... there are better MP3 'organizers' out there than WMP... WinAmp is a
> good example. But I still use WMP because as you said I don't need a
> zillion programs for everything.
I use Winamp because it is lightweight enough that I can load it and
leave it running all the time. I do the same with XMMS.
> Since it is quite fully documented, some Linux guru should start porting the
> basic DX calls - would be a boon if you were a developer to target Linux as
> well as Win32/DX for games and media!
Actually, there is a company who are implimenting DirectX for WINE. It
works so well that they have 3DMark2000, the NVidiots' favourite game,
running under it.
>> M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
>> this.
>
> Yup.
I will not deny the above, but I believe MS do a lot of nasty things
which I do not like them for. Come on, don't tell me there aren't
companies you dislike or even hate.
> It would be *real* cool to get a MM API (DirectX?) port to Linux... heck...
> i'd like to do something like that...
Don't worry, it's a-coming.
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:08:46 +0000
mlw wrote:
> I keep hearing Windows people say this, but most people I know, while they
> think playing MP3s and videos on their computer is "cool" seldom do they ever
> do it. Most of the time is spent on e-mail, taxes, etc.
While some of us have 6GB of MP3s :)
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:18:20 +0800
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
>
>
> > I keep hearing Windows people say this, but most people I know, while
they
> > think playing MP3s and videos on their computer is "cool" seldom do they
ever
> > do it. Most of the time is spent on e-mail, taxes, etc.
>
> While some of us have 6GB of MP3s :)
Hehe... I've encoded almost all of my MP3s at 160 Kbps... I've got about 50%
of my IBM 40 Gig drive full of them. The Deskstar series of harddrives,
ROCKS, btw.
-Todd
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:16:07 +0800
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
>
> > Agree. What do you think about NetMeeting and MSN messenger?
>
> MSN messanger isn't bad, but I really like Gabber and Everbuddy over it
> because they have nice UIs (For me) and compatibility with the other IMs.
>
>
> > Yah... there are better MP3 'organizers' out there than WMP... WinAmp is
a
> > good example. But I still use WMP because as you said I don't need a
> > zillion programs for everything.
>
> I use Winamp because it is lightweight enough that I can load it and
> leave it running all the time. I do the same with XMMS.
>
>
> > Since it is quite fully documented, some Linux guru should start porting
the
> > basic DX calls - would be a boon if you were a developer to target Linux
as
> > well as Win32/DX for games and media!
>
> Actually, there is a company who are implimenting DirectX for WINE. It
> works so well that they have 3DMark2000, the NVidiots' favourite game,
> running under it.
Hmmm... that's fairly impressive then... but DX should be made 'native' for
Linux for maximum performance. That is one of the major design goals of
DX...
> >> M$ sometimes does good things - many Linux people do not acknowledge
> >> this.
> >
> > Yup.
>
> I will not deny the above, but I believe MS do a lot of nasty things
> which I do not like them for. Come on, don't tell me there aren't
> companies you dislike or even hate.
Well, I don't 'hate' any company really... they are in the market to make
money. As are 99.9% of the other companies out there.
Look at the Japanese automakers... they *do* make good or better cars than
the Americans, but they also *dump* their products and parts for almost less
than it costs to produce them... subsidized by their home market where there
is virtually *no* competition.
I've lived in Japan for many years and worked for a Japanese company. They
are just as competitive (sometimes bordering on being illegal) as MS is.
The Japanese automakers have been taking advantage of the American
government and people for years. Yet, the people still buy their stuff
because it is damned good.
The funny thing is, being a monopoly, it is legal to bring down another
company using your monopoly if it *doesn't harm the consumer*.
Hmmm...
-Todd
> > It would be *real* cool to get a MM API (DirectX?) port to Linux...
heck...
> > i'd like to do something like that...
>
> Don't worry, it's a-coming.
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:06:42 GMT
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96ge68$dp3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : So does every other corporation and large organization. What's your
> : point?
>
> "Just becuse everyone else robs banks, so should I"
<sigh>
What is with you guys? Don't you have an attention span beyond
one post?
That's not at all what I said. You seem to be demonizing Microsoft
as if they are something special. I assure you, even with the
Antitrust business, Microsoft has far less lawyers than IBM.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:23:23 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Think public-key encryption. Signed stuff cannot be broken with
> technology when half the key resides outside of your control. When
> was the last time a 1024bit RSA key was legitimately cracked?
>
> Now, social engineering is another ball of wax.
>
But nobody will bother to try to crack 1024 bit RSA encryption. The point
is that if you start with encrypted audio, you can't run it through the D/A
converter on the sound card until it is decrypted. That creates the
possibility of grabbing the unencrypted audio stream. MS is trying to make
that as difficult as possible. (If this latest effort doesn't work, their
next move, probably, will be a sound-card standard where the decryption is
done by the sound-card itself).
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:23:47 +0000
>> I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a
>> little,
> but
>> the video and audio never got out of sync. But, I think we all need
>> not
> be
>> disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy
>> on open source operating systems. I know that with time, this will
>> improve.
>>
>> One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
> hacks
>> to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.
>
> Or maybe MS simply improved it. Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.
> source code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.
>> Also note that with
>> all these undocumented APIs,
>
> Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since
Don't be a fool.
> the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.
>> But, I'd like to think of unix as
>> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
> much,
>> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
>
> The reasons most people use personal computers.
But not everyone.
>> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
>
> Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things
> better, but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
practices, ripping off the consumer with substandard, over prices
bloatware and trying to force everyone to use that substandard,
overprices software.
>> But, I try to
>> call the shots as I see them. Windows Media Player may be bloated, but
> it's
>> a damn good app for mpeg video.
>
> It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'. It has
> a ton of features...
That no one uses.
>
>> I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
>> be awesome MM platforms,
>
> *real soon now*
They're pretty good already.
>> but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a small, dark corner of
>> my HD for those videos, games, and such.
>
> Videos, games, and such. Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a
> great many things.
That was 2 things.
-Ed
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
>
> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
>
> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
>
> > It's an old
> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
>
> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
> rallies there bubba -
No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
last 10 years?
We still use telnet
We still use crappy old XWindows
Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
Even though many Unix vendors have implemented DAC, many
people still insist on using permission bits.
Nothing's really changed.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:11:23 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > With 250,000 developers working on Linux world wide, it
> > > has become humankinds largest software project ever.
> > >
> > > It certaintly has to be within the top 30 projects of
> > > all mankind.
> >
> > I grow weary of having to ask over and over for a SOURCE for these fantastic
> > numbers you linux folks seem to pull from thin air.
>
> Sorry to hear of your woes!
>
> Look into it if it's bothering you, and get it cleared up.
The only information I saw in this regards was an ESTIMATE of the
TOTAL size of the OSS COMMUNITY (not just Linux). And it was around
250k. However, there are about as many projects going on, so it
averages to about 1.2 developers per projects. Which explains why
nothing is getting done.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:16:34 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> More BS from the troll I see -
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > All of what web servers? I see lots of Apache servers -- er virtual
> > hosts (only a fraction of servers)-- but when you look at OS numbers,
> > Linux is at the bottom in the >10% category. Usually, Linux falls
> > into "Other".
>
> Nonsense, every measurement I've seen shows linux has a
> very healthy slice of the pie -
Web site? If you look at Netcraft, and then look at other sites that
provide surveys and include the OS, Linux always way at the bottom.
For Fortune500 sites, Linux is >2%.
http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
This doesn't have OS numbers, I'm trying to find the one I saw
that did.
> Chad's statement is simply unsupportable.
Um... yours is the one that's unsupportable. You're making the
wide-eyed claim, not me.
>
> >
> > 1.) Please provide link
>
> You can learn how to use google.com
To do your research for you? No thanks.
> > 2.) Name one company who IBM has invested heavily in that has gone
> > bonkers on the market?
>
> I dunno, who brought "companies IBM has invested in"
> into the discussion?
>
> How about "technologies IBM has invested in"?
Same differences in this respect. Either way, it's the kiss of death.
>
> > When IBM invests in you, it means that you're already on your
down-stroke.
>
> I think we can come up with an impressive list of technologies
> that IBM has invested in, and are now universally used.
Like the PC, right? Name something in the last 10 years that IBM has
done well. Hard drives comes to mind, but that's hardware again. What
about Software? OS/2 was a dismal failure, Lotus has yet to redeem itself,
AIX has mediocre sales, help me here.
>
> > 3.) $1 Billion? Yeah right. More like "IBM is investing $1 Billion in new
> > development, including Java, Unix and Linux" which means Linux gets a
> > small fraction of it.
>
> Sorry Chad, again you got it all wrong.
>
> Read my lips: $1 billion investment in Linux by IBM this year.
Read my lips: You're full of shit. Show me a link.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I am no MS advocate. But, I will admit one thing: Windows Media player is
: much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux. For video
: MPEG, I usually use SMPEG w/ its plaympeg app to play videos. On very large
: video mpeg files, like for example a high-quality 50 MB music video, both
: plaympeg and xmms w/ the smpeg plugin choke on the video, and the audio and
: video both get horrible out of sync.
<snip!>
Have you tried "mtv" yet? While it is shareware, I've yet to find
an MPEG file that it doesn't like. I recommend giving it a try
and post back if it works/doesn't work on your setup.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:19:59 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:28Ki6.480$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > More BS from the troll I see -
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >> All of what web servers? I see lots of Apache servers -- er virtual
> >> hosts (only a fraction of servers)-- but when you look at OS numbers,
> >> Linux is at the bottom in the >10% category. Usually, Linux falls into
> >> "Other".
> >
> > Nonsense, every measurement I've seen shows linux has a very healthy
> > slice of the pie -
>
> Falling on deaf ears...
Well, nothing has been put forth yet. I've posted several links in the
past 3-6 months showing Linux having pretty small share and usually
falling into the Other category. You have het to produce ONE SINGLE
LINK.
>
> >
> > Chad's statement is simply unsupportable.
> >
> >>
> >> 1.) Please provide link
> >
> > You can learn how to use google.com
>
> Wouldn't believe anything he read...
I've yet to read anything about these wide-eyed claims.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 2.) Name one company who IBM has invested heavily in that has gone
> >> bonkers on the market?
> >
> > I dunno, who brought "companies IBM has invested in" into the
> > discussion?
> >
> > How about "technologies IBM has invested in"?
>
> He's not about to let go of THAT straw....Not in a million years.
Because... shocker... it's true! IBM has run just about every
software it touches into the ground. Name one stellar piece of software
that IBM has invested in and brought to success. Just one. AIX is
mediocre, Lotus is still floundering, OS/2 was a failure...
>
> >
> >> When IBM invests in you, it means that you're already on your
> >> down-stroke.
> >
> > I think we can come up with an impressive list of technologies that IBM
> > has invested in, and are now universally used.
>
> He'd argue that they were unimpressive.
I can't think of anything "impressive" that IBM has done. You could argue
OS/2 I suppose, but that was written mostly by Microsoft.
>
> >
> >> 3.) $1 Billion? Yeah right. More like "IBM is investing $1 Billion in
> >> new
> >> development, including Java, Unix and Linux" which means Linux gets
> >> a small fraction of it.
> >
> > Sorry Chad, again you got it all wrong.
> >
> > Read my lips: $1 billion investment in Linux by IBM this year.
>
> Nice try...
> Not gonna' work though
> NT's his story and he's gonna' stick to it.
> Facts are unwelcome and irrelevant.
What facts! You guys haven't presented a SINGLE FACT AT ALL IN THIS THREAD!
PROVIDE ONE LINK, THAT'S ALL I ASK!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:36:32 +0800
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96goq5$hl3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a
> >> little,
> > but
> >> the video and audio never got out of sync. But, I think we all need
> >> not
> > be
> >> disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy
> >> on open source operating systems. I know that with time, this will
> >> improve.
> >>
> >> One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of
> > hacks
> >> to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos.
> >
> > Or maybe MS simply improved it. Haven't you seen the Linux kernel
> Based on past experience, the first option is much more likely.
What past experience?? Give an example.
> > source code? Now THAT is a hack in itself.
>
> Show me a better one and tell me in your own words why it is better.
HP-UX.
Because it is far more stable, more robust, more scaleable, and far better
performing than Linux. No need to see the kernel to confirm it.
> >> Also note that with
> >> all these undocumented APIs,
> >
> > Name *one* undocumented API that WMP uses... I'd be very curious since
>
> Don't be a fool.
So then name one.
> > the codebase is exactly the same as that used on Windows 2000...
>
> Manu undocumante APIs have been found in the older MS OS's. It is
> reasonable to assume that they exist in the new ones too.
Of course! Undocumented APIs *always* have existed in MS OSs. Yet, what I
am asking for is to *find* one of these undocumented APIs used in an
*application*.
And these 'undocumented' APIs are *documented* by MS, but it is highly
recommended *not* to actually *use* them.
Get yourself a subscription to MSDN and find out for yourself.
*You* could use an undocumented API if you so chose too... it wouldn't be
smart if you don't plan on updating your software after every service pack.
These *undocumented* APIs are no secret... it's whether or not *you*
**choose** to use them. If MS does, it is at their own risk... but any 3rd
party has the option. It is just going to require more updating than
normal.
In almost all cases, there is no need to use undocumented calls...
> >> But, I'd like to think of unix as
> >> the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty
> > much,
> >> is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
> >
> > The reasons most people use personal computers.
>
> But not everyone.
But most.
> >> Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater.
> >
> > Why are you an MS hater? You acknowledge that they do some things
> > better, but you still hate them?? Are you a hypocrite?
>
> I can't say for sure, but prbably because of the illegal business
> practices,
Yet unproven.
> ripping off the consumer with substandard,
The consumer can choose not to buy windows...
> over prices
> bloatware and trying to force everyone
How do you force anybody? I can go out and still buy OS/2 for that
matter... or Linux or FreeBSD or SCO or BeOS or a Mac or WHATEVER I WANT.
> to use that substandard,
> overprices software.
Again, the consumer does have a choice.
I can also choose not to use any damned OS!!
-Todd
>
>
> >> But, I try to
> >> call the shots as I see them. Windows Media Player may be bloated, but
> > it's
> >> a damn good app for mpeg video.
> >
> > It's a lot more than that... probably why you call it 'bloated'. It has
> > a ton of features...
>
> That no one uses.
>
>
>
> >
> >> I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
> >> be awesome MM platforms,
> >
> > *real soon now*
>
> They're pretty good already.
>
>
> >> but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a small, dark corner of
> >> my HD for those videos, games, and such.
> >
> > Videos, games, and such. Hmmm... sounds like Windows is useful for a
> > great many things.
>
> That was 2 things.
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> 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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:36:42 +0000
>> Protection schemes of any sort only lasted a few weeks in the eighties.
>> Now, nearly everybody has a computer. It'll be only days before its'
>> broken.
>
> Think public-key encryption. Signed stuff cannot be broken with
> technology when half the key resides outside of your control. When was
> the last time a 1024bit RSA key was legitimately cracked?
That does not matter. There are no loudspeakers out there which play
encrypted sound. At some point the sound file has to be decrypted.
If the computer has the ability somewhere to decrypt the sound file, then
someone will find a way of extracting the sound as enencryprted digital
audio. If the computer doesn't have that ability, then it couldn't play
the sound file ayway, making it a useless format.
-Ed
> Now, social engineering is another ball of wax.
>
--
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: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Ethernet card for UNIX/Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:42:15 GMT
"John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:33:14 GMT, "Martin Eden"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Thanks everybody!
I went down to CompUSA and grabbed a 3Com model 905 yesterday. There wasn't
a big selection and that was the only one that was on the FreeBSD hardware
list.
Hope it's worth the price, lol.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:48:00 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brent R wrote:
>
>> Let's not forget re-direction, a very useful UNIX attribute!
>
> Re-direction is a property of the unix shell, not the kernel. For
> example, stderr & stdout redirection behave identically under the WinDOS
> version of bash as well as the unix version. In fact, I was able to
> redirect output to /dev/null under the Cygwin port of bash, although
> there was no /dev/null physically present! Damn, there must be a hack
> under Windows such that any output directed to /dev/null is
> automatically sent to NULL:, or whatever Windows uses for the "null
> device". Well, not in general, but just the bash port, I meant.
The whole stdin/out and pipes are implemented by Cygwin's POSIX layer.
They are more than just features if the shell: they are kernel features
accedded by the shell.
-Ed
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:49:48 +0000
> He's talking non-interactive. With an interactive editor like Notepad
> or vi, one must manually open the file into the text buffer and do
Vi can do noninteractive stuff. Wirte a script for the ex abck end and
execute that, just like ed scripts, but better.
-Ed
> operations on it. With utilities like sed you can specify the commands
> and it will just find the file, perform operations on each line of the
> file, and return the command prompt. The main use of sed is in
> scripting, where one wants things done automatically, or the same thing
> across a series of files.
>
--
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: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:49:31 +0100
Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>
>No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
>last 10 years?
>
>We still use telnet
>We still use crappy old XWindows
>Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
>Even though many Unix vendors have implemented DAC, many
>people still insist on using permission bits.
>
>Nothing's really changed.
>
>-Chad
>
You have not actually tried using Linux, have you? Linux has gone from
being a system that was hard to install, and hard to work with, to being
simple to install and use, in the space of two or three years. The kernel,
and the apps that form the guts of the system, have improved substantially
in this time - things are faster, bigger, better. But perhaps the most
noticably changes have been in the "user experiance" - installation, ease of
use, flexibility of the interface, new features of the gui and desktops, and
so on. There are some things that Linux does better than Windows, and some
things that Windows does better than Linux. But Linux has come from being a
system that looked about as friendly as DOS to a system comparable to W2K
for the desktop user, in the space of around 4 years max. Windows took 20
years to make the same changes.
There are many differences between the systems, and there will always be
opinions about which is best for various purposes. But while Windows is
ahead in some areas, Linux is ahead in many others - it started later, and
has raced past Windows. Even in the user interface, MS is turning to Linux
for inspiration (such as skinning).
I thought is was very amusing to see the difference in hardware support
between the two systems. When installing Mandrake 7.2, I got the option to
choose an MS Intellimouse mouse (which came with the machine).
Re-installing Win98SE from the recovery CDs, Windows discovered I had a PS/2
mouse. To activate the wheel, I had to dig out a driver diskette from a
non-OEM version of the mouse I had for another PC. WinTrolls deride Linux
for lack of hardware support - MS can't even support its own hardware
directly.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
