Linux-Advocacy Digest #759, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (Edward Rosten)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Bob Hauck)
Re: There is money in Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Robert Edward Wieman)
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses ("GreyCloud")
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
("GreyCloud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:08:08 +0000
> Hurd?
Hurd is part of GNU, a non Unix(tm), UNIX workalike which has no code
from the origional UNIX.
> Plan9?
Plan 9 is definitely UNIX based. It is what its developers think should
be the next step on from UNIX.
> Where does BeOS belong?
Never used it.
--Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:21:21 GMT
In article <98g3r8$oti$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> kde 2.1, Pete. There is nothing stagnant about the state of
> development of this os. While I generally disagree with most of your
> whining, I would hire you in a second if I ever had a dead horse that
> needed beating.
Now that I've switched to SuSE, I tried installing KDE 2.1 for SuSE. To
my surprise, it worked! The new version certainly looks slicker. I'll let
you know how I get on with it 8).
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:24:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Try File -> Print under a GUI application and see what happens.
>
> So do you concede that the applications can bypass the printer drivers
> if they wish?
>
> YES
>
> or
>
> NO
Why the focus on the wrong part of the conversation?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:28:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Look who's talking!
>
> I simply disagree with you. That is different from producing incorrect
> facts, which is what you are doing.
I've never posted incorrect facts. What are you talking about?
> > However, The Gimp appears to provide it's own.
>
> I assumy you mean it's own _extra_ ones?
I guess so.
> > WHY?
>
> There are several reasons. Some possibilities are:
>
> It is less efficient to go from bitmap->high level device independent
> language->bitmap than it is to go from bitmap->bitmap
Hmmm... I'd have thought an OS designer would want the most efficient
drivers in the OS, not an application.
> As it stands, you can ignore the extra drivers (I dare say there is an
> option at compile time to avoid them) and use postscript liek every
> other app under Linux. in your case, you'd have to switch off the raw
> option or get rig of CUPS.
You can ignore them _after_ you got the wrong result.
> > In my case, I got text. Postscript as text.
>
> Of course you did. Now, Pete, don't be such a creep again. You have
> quoted what I said completely out of context in order to reverse the
> point of my post. Don't do that again.
I've no idea what you're talking about.
> I asked him to try printing to a file from many apps such as NS, xv,
> etc, etc and look at what they produced. They all produce postscript
> text.
And I responded by pointing out The Gimp dumped text to the printer.
So how does that make me a "creep"?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:30:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Pete, do us all a favor and don't use Linux. It clearly is not ready for
> people with your mindset. Currently, Linux is about *choice*, and
> anything that limits choice is considered a Bad Thing(tm).
Translation: don't keep complaining, we don't want nor care what you have
to say, even if what you say may actually help (or hinder?) Linux.
> Maybe in a few years there will be a Linux distro that will remove all
> options and present you with one unified everyting, then I'll be the
> first one to recommend it to you. Currently, Linux is not a free
> Windows. I hope and I expect it never becomes that.
BeOS is not Linux but it does 'unify' the desktop. Shame something
technically good is going nowhere in the mainstream. No applications!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 22:07:57 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 9 Mar 2001 03:41:55 GMT...
...and Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux has its advantages all right, but Windows has some items that the end
> user want, like:
>
> easy install
Not necessarily.
> reliable booting
Not really.
> the apps as programmers have one GUI to work with, not several.
Not anymore (Winamp, the new Media Player, Alexa, Quicktime, countless
other "designer" GUIs).
> The file format bullshit pisses me off to no end nowadays. .PDF, incompatible
> .HTML extensions, idiots uploading Word 6 files, and who knows what else. We
> could really use standards:
>
> Postscript for word processing.
Nonsense. PostScript is just a way to store prepress data.
> Plain text for spreadsheets.
Unfeasible. You need XML or such for formats etc.
> A bitmap .pic format.
> Plain text for databases.
Performance issues!
> PGP for encryption.
Why not GPG?
> UUENCODE for binary mail attachments.
Nonsense. MIME is the standard.
> Tar for archiving.
> Gzip to zip tarballs with.
Why not bzip2? Compresses much better.
> As far as a .pic format, all you need is like this:
>
> 200 by 300
> fgjfuuuu656865iyktttmmmm66..............
>
> A line of text with the pixels, and the rest, the raw bitmap pixel data. Do we
You don't know anything about computer graphics, do you?
mawa
--
L'usage seulement fait la possession.
Je demande à ces gens de qui la passion
Est d'entasser toujours, mettre somme sur somme,
Quel avantage ils ont que n'ait pas un autre homme. -- La Fontaine
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:35:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I'm running both Pete and I've never been able to replicate one
> bitch you've ever posted! Even when you were stupid enought
> to give instructions, we couldn't replicate the problem.
"stupid enough to give instructions" - that's kinda telling Charlie.
> As I said, anybody who thinks W2k is superior to Gnome or KDE has
> worms for brains.
But obviously highly superior and intelligent worms. And very wiggly too.
8)
> We are still using Windows as my employer owns stock in Microsoft.
> That's the main reason.
So why are you still there Charlie? Why aren't you out looking for a job
in Linux? Why are you still schmoozing around with the great Shaitan?
Hmmmm?????
> If 1/4 of the things you say about Linux WERE TRUE, there'd be nobody
> here to do advocacy as they would have all moved off to either BSD or
> a MAC.
Oh c'mon Charlie, use your head!
For everyone who reports hassle free Windows or Linux there are about as
many people with dire problems with Windows or Linux. Just because _you_
don't experience the problems, doesn't mean they _don't_ exist!
> You have shit for brains and I wish you would see fit to drain the pond.
"shit for brains" and "drain the pond". You're not very good at this, are
you Charlie.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:43:42 GMT
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 03:36:55 GMT, LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There's a general rule: programmers tend to use constructs which are
>> faster to write in the selected language, as opposed to the ones which
>> execute faster.
>
> Right. That gets to my point. Some of us want to get things done and
> do not have the time to spend on details.
Most people who say that seem to be people who keep banging their head
against the wall over and over again and then ask "howcome my head
hurts"? Sometimes it is worth taking the time to step back and learn
something new in order to help yourself out down the road. If you are
too busy to learn about details, then it is very likely that you are
wasting a lot of your time by making the same mistakes over and over.
OTOH, I agree that app programmers shouldn't have to worry overly much
about what's happening at the machine-code level in their day to day
work. But they ought to have been exposed to the concepts at some
point, and they ought to be a little interested in how their tools work.
> And to the Linux lunatics. There is such a thing which grownups use,
> called "tools".
Yes, all Linux programmers are children. Or, you are a dumbass who
can't have a discussion without insulting.
> Some of you who oppose Microsoft seem to be stuck in a simplistic
> sandbox with your Linux bucket and scoop, not being able to do
> anything more than a million simple operations.
And here you go right off the tracks. Linux has piles of high-level
languages, from old ones like Lisp to new ones like PHP and Python.
They are quite popular, actually, and none of them are the programming
equivalent of a bucket and scoop. Most of them are available on Windows
too, BTW.
The issue of high-level vs low-level programming is independent of the
issue of opposition to Microsoft and choice of operating system.
>> If you have computing power in excess, you may disregard efficiency,
>> but if you don't, you can't ignore the resulting code.
>
> The answer depends also on the task at hand. A more complex task will
> always require more resources. Basic research is great for those who
> enjoy it, but it is not for everybody.
I think you entirely missed his point. If you have much more computing
power than you need to do the task, then even sloppy code written with
no knowledge of "the details" will work. It turns out that application
programmers are usually in this situation. But not always.
If you don't have excess computer, then you have to be careful. You
have to know the most efficient way to code things, *especially* if you
are using a high-level language. You can't know what's efficient unless
you have some understanding of how your tools work under the hood.
It is sometimes the case that minor changes to the way something is
coded will make a big difference at runtime. Sure, you can memorize a
list of rules, but that's a narrow view that leads to hair-pulling and
60-hour weeks. If you understand the reasons for the rules, which may
mean understanding some low-level details, then you can generalize to
situations that aren't necessarily covered by a rule and possibly save
yourself a lot of aggravation. Knowing what's going on leads to a
coding style that is naturally efficient, meaning you spend less time
trying to optimize after the fact.
In spite of your efforts, in some cases you will be forced to write part
of your program in a lower level language. In this case, it will be
helpful to know one and how to interface it to your high-level language.
More details to know.
Note that I am _not_ advocating that everybody ought to program in
nothing but C and assembler, and I'm pretty sure Giuliano isn't either.
I am advocating that knowing something about the details is part of a
programmer's job.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:43:44 GMT
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:53:26 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>
>> Right, but Goodwin supposedly uses KDE so I was kind of hoping he'd give
>> it a try by clicking on the little picture of a life preserver.
>I tried the help in KDE. I tried the search feature and found an empty
>index.
Which wasn't what I asked you to try. I was responding to your
assertion that man pages don't have hyperlinks. Did you look at the
"Unix manual pages" item in the help center contents pane?
> I eventually descovered that it required me to select English (US),
> instead of English (UK) which I naturally chose.
If everything is installed right you should be able to rebuild the
indexes with the current locale by clicking on the button on the search
page.
> I also descovered KDE can lose all its fonts if you choose English (UK)
> somewhere in the KDE control panel. If you change back to English (US) it
> all works fine.
Haven't tried that. Which version of KDE? Maybe you should report it
as a bug.
>This is one reason I call KDE "buggy".
Yes, KDE has bugs. But that's not what I was responding to at all.
You're changing the subject.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:39:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I'm not going to bother quoting stock prices or revenues for corporate
> distribution makers bacause I couldn't be bothered.
The stocks on Linux, they go up, they go down. It's difficult to make
money on something that basically is given away.
> Just go in to any book shop with a computer section.
And count the number of Windows books, or Java, or HTML or... pick the
favourite fad.
> I went in to Blackwell's the other day. The Linux section is getting
> quite big.
In proportion to what?
> Well, looks like someone is making plenty of money otu of Linux.
Someone was making money out of Dot COM's until the bubble burst.
Are you investing in Linux companies?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Edward Wieman)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 11 Mar 2001 19:34:05 GMT
Hey. This discussion is painful, but the argumentative part of me just feels
compelled to comment...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 06:47:06 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <NpXp6.13807$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > Which is precisely what I've been "whining" (so-called) about all along.
>> > What escapes me is why they can't see it.
>>
>> We can't see it because windows demands a print driver setup
>> too. What's the difference? After you set it up correctly it
>> might work.
>
>You can't see it because you haven't been listening either!
>
>I said right at the very start that I installed Linux Mandrake 7.2 and
>choose the Epson printer as the default printer driver. The Gimp overrode
>this and printed postscript _as text_ not as graphics.
>
Incidentally, AFAIK, postscript is text. Not totally unlike a markup language,
it's a big text file that describes how to print formatted text and graphics.
If a printer understands postscript, and knows that postscript is coming, it
interprets the text of the postscript file correctly, and prints what you want.
If it doesn't understand postscript, or (much more likely) isn't warned that
that's what's being sent, it happily prints the text without interpreting,
which is where all those pages of numbers and percent signs come from.
>From what I can tell, GIMP output a Postscript file and then sent it on to
Mr. Goodwin's printer without going through the appropriate driver (that is,
without telling the printer what it was getting.) This is because the GIMP
assumed postscript by default, rather than using the "standard" printer
setting that was set earlier, as everyone is now aware.
>So, I have to run TWO setups, on in Linux itself, and one in The Gimp. As
>far as I'm concerned, I set it up correctly. It's The Gimp that's at
>fault for ignoring this. However, this appears to be a common theme on
>Linux. There are no standard ways of doing things - everything does it
>their own way - so everything keeps reinventing the wheel.
>
>--
>Pete
Your point that "Linux" is viewed by the public as the whole distribution,
and not just the kernel, is a good one, and so if GIMP does something that
can cause a problem easily, then that's significant. (Surely if MS Paint
or WordPad or whatever was still buggy, that would be a point for Linux.
The fact that the GIMP et al. are much more full-featured than the applets that
come with Windows is a different point for Linux.)
However, the idea that 'there's something wrong with the whole model' because
the GIMP has its own route to printing separate from the standard and 'all the
applications' you've used under Windows don't is more debatable.
Windows applications used to use their own printer drivers instead of the
generic Windows interface a lot more than they do now: WordPerfect 5.1 for
example. This is because the developers wanted to be current and use all the
capabilities of the latest hardware.
But driver support is a pain and usually
not a fun job for developers: when the generic Windows drivers became "good
enough" and covered enough printers, it was a lot easier to just use those
and put the developers to work making the product flashier. This has the
added benefit of passing the tech support buck: when people call you because
they can't print, you can blame it on the Windows drivers, that you don't have
any control over. (And when they call Microsoft, they can blame it on you,
saying your app must not be using the drivers correctly. Everybody wins!)
In the current context, the GIMP might use its own set of drivers for a variety
of reasons: the developers might not have faith in the "default" drivers, or
they might not know if drivers are going to be available for every
distribution, platform, and OS that the GIMP runs on. An alternative solution
is that, just as Mandrake asks for which printer driver to use when you first
start it, the GIMP should probably have asked the same question when it first
ran and configured, so they wouldn't have to rely on a default that works for
many people, but not all.
Another possible solution is for the Mandrake (or any other) distribution to
configure all the apps in it, and not just the "default" interface, with the
right printer drivers. That's a lot of work for distributions, that live on
the margin, but that's the sort of thing that establishes an installation as
"easy" and a distribution as "solid" and "trouble-free", and therefore would
grab a lot of market share.
I hope that I've been able to provide a little useful information. I also
hope that this either turns into a more constructive conversation about
advocacy, or the tempest in a teapot dies.
-- Bob
______________________________________________________________________
Bob Wieman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office: Harrelson 381
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:49:33 -0800
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They're so adorable at that age, aren't they?
>
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an office,
> > about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation to profess the
> > advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
> >
> > Windows boxes are so easy to install. I tried to install Linux and it
> > was SOO DIFFICULT! Every PC crashes, so why pick the OS which is
> > hardest to install! Oh my!
> >
> > They are so concerned about install and setup they forgot the REASON
> > this BECAME IMPORTANT! It BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE,,,, MIDDDLE AGGGED
> > FATTTASS MAN ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME HERE,,,, IT BECAME IMPORTANT
> > BECAUSE WINDOWS IS AN UNRELIABLE PEICE OF SHIT OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH
> > ISN'T CAPABLE OF UPTIMES EXCEEDING A WEEK! IT'S THE FUCKING OPERATING
> > SYSTEM WHICH HAS MADE THIS RE-INSTALLATION ISSUE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO
> > YOU!
> >
> > The next concern MIDDLE AGED FAT ASS MAN has is that Linux doesn't have
> > Microsoft Office. MAFAM can't use a computer unless it has his
> > favorite! MAFAM, use Star Office or Gnome or KDE office. Use Evolution!
> > Do not rely on MAFAM products from Micro-crash anymore.
> >
> > There must be a device which uses centrifical force or some other means
> > which will transfer MAFAM's brain from this lower extremeties back up to
> > his cranium where it belongs.
> >
> > MAFAM also has this terrible difficulty in understanding why it's
> > important to know LINUX is ready for business when you refer to the
> > largest super computer clusters being built from Linux. MAFAM thinks
> > that's GEEK BRAINS STUFF and that doesn't APPLY TO MAFAM WORLD!
> >
> > Nothing in MAFAM's world needs to have GEEK BRAINS stuff as long as you
> > have a GOOD PLAN!
> >
> > MAFAM lives by the GOOD PLAN philosophy.
> >
> > See you all on the wide track MAFAM'S!
> >
> > Charlie
> >
Well, it doesn't take much of a hammer to drive a tack! (Couldn't resist!)
But I'm not fond of windows either. I used to manage some big iron and then
my pointy haired boss
said we're moving to windows.... I retired.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:48:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> This is a real possibility, right now!!
Where is it? Where? Where?
> Imagine most, if not all, office workers in a company using Linux with KDE or
> Gnome.
Imagine all the bug reports... 8)
> Most corporate infrastructures are 100 BaseT networks on a switched backbone.
Ah, there you've got me. Ours is still 10 BaseT. 100 BaseT coming soon!
> Imagine 25, 100, or 1000s of office workers connected to a central backbone.
Can you imagine the network traffic?
> The research department can use the cumulative processing power of these
> machines to process information.
I'm not sure I'd like a myseterious research group to hijack my machine
and use it for their purposes!
> The IT department can use the various clustering and remote access technologies
> to manage all the machines as a whole or individually.
Ah yes... here we go. Centralised management. That has been tried before.
I saw it at Digital. They had clusters, they had shared disks... it
worked, after a fashion.
Here's a "rule of thumb" for you.
For every system you introduce to fix problems, the new system brings
with it it's own set of problems.
That's not to say try something new, but... we've swung from individual
machines, through centralised ones, now individual again, and... where's
the fashion going now?
> The possibilities are amazing. We need to break this whole, stupid, DOS
> mentality that wastes billions of dollars of computing power. Sun has it right,
> the network "IS' the computer, but more to the point, the corporate
> infrastructure can be the computer.
If you're talking about making computers be a network device you need one
thing first. A fast reliable network. That can happen in the office.
Where it won't happen is in the home. There are _still_ a lot of people
dialling up with 56k modems. Can you imagine having a diskless machine as
it tries to download an app across a 56k link? Or maybe you'll try
running X across such a link? Sluggish, did you say?
> Windows computers, for all the bluster from Microsoft, are still no more
> innovative than the CP/M on which they were based. So what? They play sounds
> and put up pretty pictures. UNIX can do that and more.
Please! There's a big difference between Windows and CP/M.
As for UNIX being able to do, why aren't they doing it, why aren't they
the leading force on the desktop?
> Sure there are more "applications" for Windows, but there are few applications
> available for Windows which do not have an equivalent in the UNIX world, i.e.
> there are very few innovative applications for Windows.
What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw? Of Microsoft Word? (Star Office
is close but not quite there). I'm sorry but the number of desktop
applications on Windows easily outstrips those on UNIX.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:02:02 -0800
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rfMq6.33486$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <98e50i$l3f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly because of those features. Most (all?) unixes ship with
> those.
> > > >
> > > > Still waiting for these Solaris features that Linux doesn't have.
> > >
> > > Most of them are in the server arena, btw.
> >
> > Question: Who holds the top specweb marks for
> > 1-way, 2-way, 4-way and 8-way systems?
> >
> > Hint: it's not solaris, it's Linux.
> > Did you know about the 512 Processor Linux supercomputer
> > that IBM is building? Sounds pretty scalable to me...
> >
> > >
> > > Scalability is one, Linux, even 2.4, just can't compete with it.
> >
> > On what basis do you make that bizzare claim?
> >
>
> On the same basis he made all of his claims. Solaris is not a threat to
> Microsoft. Linux is. Therefore, Microsoft would consider it safe to
claim
> that Solaris is superior and preferable to Linux.
>
I wouldn't be too sure about that. After looking into Suns' latest
offerings and if
Sun plays their cards right they could be a big threat to M$. But, I think
Sun
needs a better marketing dept. and a revamped support dept. Sol 8 offers
real time processing if one needs it. They're slowly realizing that Linux
has
taken a big chunk out of their hide and made them wake up to reality. They
were
sitting on their 64-bit sparc chip too long and the price was out of this
world.
Now its down to celeron prices. I'm still hoping someone will also look at
Suns site and report back what they think.... maybe I've missed something.
> Notice that Ayende did not respond in any meaningful manner to the request
> for that list of features he claimed were shipped with all "true" Unixen
but
> not with Linux.
>
> The guy sounds like a Microsoft shill to me.
>
> --
> - Weevil
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
> would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
> -- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (pg 265), 1995
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
