Linux-Advocacy Digest #677, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("Interconnect")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Craig Kelley)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Craig Kelley)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Austin Ziegler)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (.)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Bloody Viking)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (WJP)
Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Bloody Viking)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:18:19 +1100
> > Oil production WILL max out - and soon. The car companies know it. THAT
is why
> > only now do you see petrol-electric cars on sale.
Not True.
There is more Oil than ever before, Siberia, Alaska, Canada. It is more
expensive to extract however.
The fuel of the future will be Fusion power.
The US govt. will spend billions on the space station and yet they pull out
of the international venture aimed at developing fusion power. Go figure?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 22:46:43 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:11:30 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:55:18 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:38:24 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>They have not. The GPL even stipulates that it's not concerned
>>>>>>with the price, only with the continued availability of the
>>>>>>source code, and all the derivative works of the source code,
>>>>>>if these are distributed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaningless. Since there's nothing preventing someone from buying a copy and
>>>>> turning around and giving it away for free, the market is effectively
>>>>> destroyed.
>>>>
>>>>Cheapbytes hasn't "destroyed" the expensive Linux distributions.
>>>>And yes, you won't make money on _every_ copy. That's something
>>>>Microsoft experiences as well.
>>>
>>> Linux distributions are not single pieces of software, so at best you are
>>> using an analogy, and not a counter-example.
>>>
>>Are you the one who figured out how many angles can
>>dance on a pinhead?
>
> I take it you meant "angels". But I still don't understand the comment.
Yep, typing too fast. The comment was intended to indicate
that IMVHO, you were splitting hairs.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2001 14:16:43 -0800
> > I have not seen the message Edward and others are quoting; it may have
> > been cancelled.
>
> Must have been. However, I have kept the message bodies. Message reads:
I (it's author) didn't cancel it. My ISP has lately been trying hard to
convince their customers to go elsewhere.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 06 Mar 2001 15:26:11 -0700
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> mlw wrote:
> >>
> >> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I don't see support for yours in the GPL either. Are you willing to be
> >> >> sued on your opinion?
> >> >
> >> > I don't see how. I have quoted the GPL in precisely the places where it
> >> > is supported.
> >>
> >> And everytime you quoted section 2, I have pointed out that your opinion
> >> is based on a circular reasonaing, if anything.
> >>
> >> You say that the app linked to a GPLd library is an independent work
> >> because it is dynamically linked, and you say that dynamically linked
> >> apps are not part of the larger work because they are reasonably
> >> independent.
> >>
> >> That has no foundation whatsoever, you are trying to pull yourself up
> >> from your shoelaces.
> >
> > Then why did the libstdc++ folks put an exception into their license?
>
> Actually, you should ask that to mlw, not me ;-) He's the one saying
> dynamical linking saves you from GPL contamination.
Yeah, I was just adding teeth to your argument, not implicating
you. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 06 Mar 2001 15:27:21 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is exhausting. I can't take it anymore. I will concede that there are many
> aspects of the GPL which can be interpreted in different ways depending on your
> background and point of view. As for RMS, that link you gave seems like he is
> way out there when it comes to the interpretation.
>
> OK, lets just assume we are not going to agree on meaning, because really, it
> will take a court of law to really define the difference between what people
> think it means, including RMS himself, and what it means legally.
>
> I was using a very "dry" interpretation with some help from a contract lawyer.
> I'm pretty sure I could win, but you are right in that one should not have to
> risk litigation.
>
> OK, we have bitched long enough, how do we fix it?
Use a different license, of course. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:33:04 -0500
On 6 Mar 2001, Steve Mading wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: No. They only have the right to distribute it with strings
>: attached. The software must be redistributed under their license. If
>: the software is library software, the GPL requires work that so much
>: as links dynamically to it to be released under the GPL (or so RMS
>: says. Whether such a draconian condition is enforceable remains to
>: be seen)
> You are deliberately not mentioning the existence of the LGPL, which does
> NOT have that requirement. Sure, a library released under GPL would
> have that requirement, but this doesn't matter given that libraries
> are typically released under LGPL not GPL.
Not necessarily true, Mr Mading. First, there are a number of GPLed
Java classes out there. In Java, *everything* is a library. How does
RMS's interpretation of library foolishness square with this? Second,
there is at least one significant library under the GPL and not the
LGPL. Third, RMS himself has been arguing recently that libraries
should be under the GPL and not the LGPL -- and has renamed the LGPL
from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL" in accordance with this
change of mind.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2001 14:33:17 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:38:24 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> >They have not. The GPL even stipulates that it's not concerned
> >with the price, only with the continued availability of the
> >source code, and all the derivative works of the source code,
> >if these are distributed.
>
> Which makes it pretty hard to sell licenses.
Particularly because the GPL says:
"BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, ..."
> > You can consider the requirement to
> >make the source code of derivative works available a kind of
> >monetary compensation, even.
>
> It's not monetary though you could argue that it's "compensation".
In agreement with this definition from US copyright law:
The term ''financial gain'' includes receipt, or expectation of
receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other
copyrighted works.
Note that "expectation" in law is unlikely to be the "average/50%"
thing which you learned in statistics.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:40:46 +1300
> Typical "not" free situation:
> I don't know anyone with the exception of myself who would download a cd
> distribution 600-1200mb of Linux. Therefore they simply pick it up off the
> shelf at a retail outlet. Pay the cashier $30-$50. Take it home and install
> it. Find out that the cheap winmodem that came with their shitty OEM system
> doesn't even exist to Linux. At this point I'd guess 95% uninstall Linux and
> go back to Microsoft Windows, 50 bucks smarter. The other 5% go back to the
> store and get a hardware driven modem. Run Linux for a day, find out it
> offers nothing more than Windows, and 4.7 of that 5% uninstall it after a
> week. Everyone I've personally known who's used Linux has been down the
> described path.
If someone isn't aware of how to get Linux for free, is it really Linux's
fault that these people shell out for a boxed set? It doesn't make Linux
any less free just because some people don't understand how the free part
works.
> Besides, what's the price of Windows $50 or $100....$200 maybe depending on
> what version you get? It's like....not much. It's worth $200 to me to NOT
> fuck with hardware finding all of a nice Saturday afternoon.
I actually don't know what you're talking about here... in all my recent
installations, I've never had to 'fuck with hardware' to get it running.
When I had an OOOOOLD version of Linux, things were definitely pretty
bad. I was new to it, and all my hardware was new, including a matrox
video card. I had so much trouble with it that, yes, I gave up and went
back to windows. But since those dark days, I've never had a major
problem I couldn't solve with five minutes checking on the net.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:40:46 +1300
> > As for IQ tests, I've yet to see one that leaves me feeling confident it
> > was somehow a test of my intelligence, as opposed to being a test of my
> > learning. A vast majority of them are in English for starters, and I've
> > seen some almost vocabulary-testing questions... this isn't an
> > indication of how smart you are in my book. How well you learn ANY
> > language is not a test of intelligence.
> > A true IQ test would have to involve pictures and patterns, and perhaps
> > have some mathematical basis, because these are the only ideas that
> > translate well all over the world.
>
> Do you mean like the Stanford Terman-Binet test?
I dunno, I'm nowhere near Stanford, and I tend not to pay attention to
the names of the tests (although I'm pretty sure they usually just say
'IQ test').
A quick google search turned up plenty of references to Terman Binet (and
stanford-binet?), but no actual samples of it... do you know of an online
location for it?
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:46:27 +1300
> >Othertimes, people'd come in wanting to buy Red-hat linux, and I'd point 'em
> >to the book-section. (Linux Bible series). They'd ask "Why not get the full
> >version?.." I'd tell em "Why? This is still a full installation, for half of
> >the retail box, and you get this thick 'manual' with it.."
> >
> >The expressions are always priceless..
>
> What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
> ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
> the shelves?
At this point they wail and gnash their teeth and fume about how they
can't waste any money on broken software.
Then someone with a clue points them to freshmeat, and everything's sweet
again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 6 Mar 2001 22:47:26 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: True. But I consider this all to be the moral equivalent of
: drug-land gang wars, with occassional users becoming ill because
: shipments were contaminated by rival factions employing moles or
: other such chicanery.
That is one way to look at it. Both warring factions harm consumers. We merely
get to choose sides in their battle to be the group more harmful to the
consumer. For us to take sides in that battle would be like a "good guy gang"
choosing sides, however, like the Gardian Angels or the polics picking to
support the Crips or the Bloods. Or even choosing sides with the CPD, corrupt
to the core, or the Black Gangster Desciples. Both of those latter gangs have
about 30,000 troops.
--
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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:47:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Hint: It's easier if you use supported hardware.
Even with supported hardware, there are problems.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:51:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brent R wrote:
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > Long live the GUI! [basically]
> >
It says a lot you respond to someone else other than me, Charlie!
> You have only slightly less intelligence than a Windows Systems Administrator.
That's interesting. Isn't that _your_ job, Charlie? You know, the one you
don't have the guts to walk away from, despite proclaiming Linux to be
the best thing since sliced bread and NT the darker shade of evil?
> Why don't you go start a rock garden somewhere and leave computers to
> the big boys.
Why are you supporting Windows NT, Charlie?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 17:12:22 -0600
On 6 Mar 2001 18:35:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:07:53 GMT, chrisv wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>
>>>Done several Linux installs, on about 25 different hardware configurations,
>>>including laptops, custom builds, Dell machines, and dreaded laptops.
>>>Never had hardware problems with supported hardware.
>>
>>That's funny, I've had problems with the majority of the machines I've
>>tried it on! Examples: Voodoo3 not supported. Adaptec (!) SCSI card
>>not supported.
>
>Hint: It's easier if you use supported hardware.
I totally agree with your last remark, Mr. Rebbechi, however, this is
one subject that can prove to be a problem when a person is considering
the "switch" to Linux - after having already purchased a Windows box.
For instance: I have a "home-built" PC, (in fact, two of them). I
attempted to get the most "generic" hardware that I could obain (and
afford) when building each of them. Microsoft does not have all the
drivers for either of the machines. Neither does Linux. The CD
writers, sound cards, video cards, and modems came packaged with Windows
driver files. And, btw, none of this equipment was of the "winmodem"
variety. Nowhere among the driver disks was Linux even mentioned,
except for the 3COM ethernet card, which included Windows, OS/2 AND
Linux drivers.
Subsequently, when installing SuSE or Mandrake or any of the other
distributions, I am at the mercy of whatever is available (either "built
in" or "capable of being included"). If not available, then I must
either do more searching, or leave that hardware non-functioning - with
Linux, that is.
Perhaps my question is: doesn't this situation preclude individuals
from switching to Linux? I would be insterested in knowing the number
of users who, though willing to switch to Linux, are literally
"turned-off" by lack of driver availability among the various
distributions.
Am I willing to return to the market place and shell out more money for
"supported hardware" that provides the same functionality that I already
have with Windows? Why should I have to?
Had I initially intended on switching to Linux before building these two
machines, I would have been more "hardware" aware. However, that's not
the case, and, furthermore, IMHO, many other current Windows users, both
at home and in businesses, are in the same "driver-limited" boat that
I'm in.
And, as an aside, I did a web search the other day for Linux drivers for
my ATI Rage 64 video card. And, to my amazement, I found a set of
drivers - at a cost of $89 (US) - which is not too far away from the
price I originally paid for the video card. It appears that I will be
"stuck" with the svga Linux drivers for awhile, at least.
For the record, I am not a "Winvocate". I am for whatever tool will
allow me to do what I want to do with my computer(s) - at a reasonable
cost and with reasonable effort expended.
Regards,
Bill Powell
Management Systems Analyst (retired)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the "nospam" to reply via e-mail)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:11:11 GMT
Mike ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: And, it just might keep Moore's Law running for a few more years.
I saw that thread, and realised that Moore's Law is coming close to the limit,
though there's some life left. The writing will be on the wall when Intel
starts selling CPUs that take liquid cooling resembling a micromini car engine
cooling system, complete with radiator, antifreeze, fan, and water pump and
little reservoir. Once the first overclocker makes that gadget for his CPU, we
will be nearing Game Over for Moore's Law, certainly in terms of silicon or
similar technology. (GaAs, etc.) It will be awful expensive to build a tiny
"Joule-Thompson" liquid air machine to cool the chips. And I don't see the
emergence of a liquid nitrogen delivery service like The Milk Man showing up.
The upshot is that at that time, Microsoft will lose the paradigm of the
upgrade-go-round as it will no longer be possible. People will demand FASTER
software finally, not tolerate slower software. Microsoft's whole marketing
depends on Moore's Law just as much as Detroit depends on cheap petrol to sell
cars.
It's going to be awful hard to keep a chip cool at a heat flux of 100W/sq.in.
We will never reach the 10KW chip, not by a long shot. It's already getting
hard to aircool chips now, and the next logical step is liquid cooling with
the water jacket integrated with the chip package, a water pump, the
antifreeze, and a heat exchanger like a hotrod's oil cooler with fans.
--
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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 18:19:51 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is exhausting. I can't take it anymore. I will concede that there are many
> > aspects of the GPL which can be interpreted in different ways depending on your
> > background and point of view. As for RMS, that link you gave seems like he is
> > way out there when it comes to the interpretation.
> >
> > OK, lets just assume we are not going to agree on meaning, because really, it
> > will take a court of law to really define the difference between what people
> > think it means, including RMS himself, and what it means legally.
> >
> > I was using a very "dry" interpretation with some help from a contract lawyer.
> > I'm pretty sure I could win, but you are right in that one should not have to
> > risk litigation.
> >
> > OK, we have bitched long enough, how do we fix it?
>
> Use a different license, of course. :)
Yes, but then we run into the crap that is going on already.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:17:17 GMT
JS PL wrote:
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > That's also another reason no one likes [Linux]. It's
> > > touted as being free, but it's generally not.
> >
> > Interesting assertion.
> >
> > What do you mean?
>
> Typical "not" free situation:
> I don't know anyone with the exception of myself who would download a cd
> distribution 600-1200mb of Linux. Therefore they simply pick it up off the
> shelf at a retail outlet. Pay the cashier $30-$50. Take it home and install
> it. Find out that the cheap winmodem that came with their shitty OEM system
> doesn't even exist to Linux. At this point I'd guess 95% uninstall Linux and
> go back to Microsoft Windows, 50 bucks smarter. The other 5% go back to the
> store and get a hardware driven modem. Run Linux for a day, find out it
> offers nothing more than Windows, and 4.7 of that 5% uninstall it after a
> week. Everyone I've personally known who's used Linux has been down the
> described path.
If you didn't select your acquaintances among morons, you'd have a
different experience.
I don't know of anybody which, after having enjoyed a normal OS has
reverted back to the piece of shit which Windows is.
>
> Besides, what's the price of Windows $50 or $100....$200 maybe depending on
> what version you get? It's like....not much. It's worth $200 to me to NOT
> fuck with hardware finding all of a nice Saturday afternoon.
Even for free Windows is too expensive. And unless you get the proper
drivers from the PC manufacturer, hardware problems in Windows are
simply a nightmare. You don't spend a Saturday afternoon, but a full
week.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:18:46 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or
> "click
> > > > the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at all,
> what
> > > > bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
> > >
> > > I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red Hat
> 7.0
> > > that you couldn't do in 6.2? What can you do in MacOS 9 that you
> couldn't
> > > do in 8?
> >
> > Other operating systems aren't relevant. It's Windows that went from 6
> > floppies to 150Mb with no apparent improvement in the environment.
>
> Not apparent because you refuse to look.
>
> > > Well, there are many new applets. ME does include a Windows Movie
> Maker,
> > > Wordpad, HyperTerminal, disk defragmenter, Windows Media Player,
> Personal
> > > Web Server, Plug N Play, Thousands of devices that WIndows 3.x can't
> use,
> > > such as Winmodems and the like, DirectX, etc...
> >
> > Hardware support is also not that big an issue. Drivers are small, and
> > easily written (easily written badly?).
>
> Not seen the LiveWare! drivers for the SB Live, have you? Each individual
> driver may be fairly small (usually less than a meg), but when you have
> thousands of them, they add up.
>
> > Win 3.1 had wordpad
>
> No, it had Write, a much inferior word processor (not that Wordpad is all
> that, but it has a lot more than Write)
>
> > a terminal proggy,
>
> Nowhere near HyperTerm.
>
> > a defragger
>
> Nope, no defragger in Win 3.1.
>
> > media player.
>
> A wav and MIDI player/recorder. Hardly the full featured audio/video applet
> that WMP is.
>
> > No web server or plug and play, but I
> > doubt 'plug and play' support accounts for any significant amount of
> > space.
>
> It's certainly takes code, and code takes space.
>
> > So, (apart from architectural improvements... you wont catch me claiming
> > 3.1 is a more stable work environment than 9x) they've added a web server
> > and a browser, and some new hardware drivers.
>
> I didn't even mention programs like NetMeeting, MSN Messenger, FrontPage
> Express, and many more...
>
> > So what accounts for the increase in size by a factor of 15 or more?
>
> The architectural changes alone take up a lot. There's an entirely new API
> with thousands of functions.
None of them working properly.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:21:05 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 13:06:52 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or "click
> >> > the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at all, what
> >> > bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
> >>
> >> I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red Hat 7.0
> >> that you couldn't do in 6.2? What can you do in MacOS 9 that you couldn't
> >> do in 8?
> >
> >Other operating systems aren't relevant. It's Windows that went from 6
> >floppies to 150Mb with no apparent improvement in the environment.
>
> One could make the same argument about KDE vs twm. One is orders of
> magnitude larger than the other, though you could argue that they
> both "do the same thing". However, I know which one I'd rather use!
>
> >proggy, a defragger, media player. No web server or plug and play, but I
> >doubt 'plug and play' support accounts for any significant amount of
> >space.
>
> The web server and web browser are quite big.
>
> >So, (apart from architectural improvements... you wont catch me claiming
> >3.1 is a more stable work environment than 9x) they've added a web server
> >and a browser, and some new hardware drivers.
> >
> >So what accounts for the increase in size by a factor of 15 or more?
>
> I suspect that they've added APIs -- I bet that Win ME has a richer set
> of APIs than 3.1 (or to put it another way, that Win 3.1 programming is
> like brain surgery.) The APIs can be expensive in terms of disk space. For
> example, Qt + KDE + glibc are >40 MB. Mozilla is ... du -s ... 79 MB
> of diskspace (include the java plugin). kdebase is ... 19MB. XFree86 is
> 21 MB including the libs.
>
> 50 + 79 + 19 + 21 = 169
>
> Those numbers add up pretty quickly, huh ? THe bottom line is that
> modern software requires space.
You're right in principle. But what's modern in Windows?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
