Linux-Advocacy Digest #765, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(WJP)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (J Sloan)
Re: Windows emulators ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Andrew Kuchling)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: There is money in Linux (Brent R)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: There is money in Linux (Brent R)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:43:53 GMT
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:52:28 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Golly, that sounds really familiar. In fact, it is identical to Windows
>> in real mode.
>
> Not really. Windows uses the concept of handles very differently. With
> Windows, you allocate memory and get a handle, then you "lock" the memory
> and get a pointer to it. No double dereference. If you store the point to
> the memory in the MacOS, you can find the memory disappears on you.
Uh, I think that's what happens on Windows too if you hold the pointer
after unlocking. And if you don't unlock, other bad things happen (in
real mode).
I'm not seeing any actual difference in programming effort here. The
two mechanisms differ only in that in Windows you call a special
function to get your pointer rather than doing a double dereference.
>> Then, when Win 3.1 came out and real mode was declared dead, we still
>> had a bunch of limitations related to the real mode architecture.
> You still had near/far memory because it was 16 bit, even in protected
> mode.
And I suppose Apple put limitations into Mac OS just for the hell of it,
rather than having reasons? Erik, it doesn't matter what the reasons
were, there were serious limitations in Windows just as there were in
the Mac OS. Both had valid reasons for the limitations, mostly having
to do with the cpu they started out with.
>I'm talking about before they switch CPU's. For instance, the switch to
>System 6 cause all kinds of problems where Apple officially broke many of
>their documented API's and simply said "tough, live with it".
And going from Win2 to Win3 to Win95 didn't? Anything that depended on
real mode was pretty much dead by the end of that, just to point out one
obvious example.
>Yes, which shows that Apple is simply incapable of doing any real systems
>level programming themselves.
A lot of the things MS does make me wonder about them too. They had to
buy Cutler and his team and let them work for years to get NT, their
first "real" OS out the door. As much as they like to think of
themselves as a systems house, MS really have not been very good at
systems programming over the years. They are more the "house of
inspired hacks", like their consuemr OS that started out as a debugger.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:57:56 -0600
On 10 Mar 2001 19:25:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>The Ghost In The Machine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: Dunno if "mode co80" works anymore. :-)
>
>It works on Windows 95 just fine. Don't know about 98, ME, or other newer
>flavours of Winblows. What I do know is that it works on my dual-boot box.
>
It works with 98se...
>: What's wrong with Linux? Solaris is good, admittedly, but there's
>: nothing wrong with Linux, and it's probably more readily available.
>
>Linux is certainly more readily available than Solaris. You can buy Linux at a
>Best Buy, Red Hat of course. And now you can go to a computer store and buy
>Slackware and other major distros. Nope, you don't see Solaris on the shelf.
>
Yesterday, in the new Staples store in Madison, Alabama, I saw a bunch
of Linux/BSD software - on shelves that were in the middle, towards the
bottom. Oh, and there was Solaris too.
>In terms of "look and feel", Linux _IS_ UNIX.
I totally agree.
Regards,
Bill Powell
USAF, USA Management Systems Analyst, Ret.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the "nospam" to reply via e-mail)
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:56:18 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Most of the design team from VMS worked on NT.>
>
> Apparently working under different directives.
Yes, after some thought it does seem like quite a stretch
to claim that windows nt is derived from vms. At most there
could be some similar philosophies in things like scheduler
or memory management algorithms, but they are completely
separate and different OSes.
For one thing, vms was very stable, it could run for years.
I'm also told that VMS has a number of key features and
capabilities that have no equivalent in windows nt.
So, perhaps the list should look like this:
Unix derived OSes and close relatives:
Solaris, Linux, *BSD, Irix, HP-UX, AIX, SCO,
Unix-on-Mach (NeXT, MacOS X, MkLinux)...
Microsoft OSes
msdos, win3x, win 9x, winnt/2k.
Traditional Data Center OSes
VMS, MVS, etc...
Other
AmigOS, classic MacOS, etc
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows emulators
Date: 12 Mar 2001 10:10:29 +0800
>>>>> "Bloody" == Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bloody> Now, for a real stretch, a definite for hacker types only:
Bloody> A graphic file maker/editor for the CLI. This gem would be
Bloody> a nightmare to use, as it would make bitmaps after a
Bloody> fashion but the user edits hex.
Aren't you aware that XFig uses a file format that is text-based? You
can draw circles, text labels and even spline curves by writing a
suitably-formatted text file. Then, you can edit it with XFig, or
convert it into other formats (Postscript, PNG, JPEG, etc.) with
'fig2dev'.
Bloody> Yuck! I suppose it could
Bloody> be like a hyper-spreadsheet with hex numbers in the
Bloody> cells. Gotta have macros like crazy. I guess this is (way
Bloody> more than) a bit impractical.
Would that be easier than writing Postscript directly? I sometimes
"draw" simple diagrams in Postscript. As long as there is a previewer
('ghostview' or 'gv'), it's not as difficult as one imagines at first
glance. The advantages of using Postscript include: more precise
positioning of the objects, higher levels of abstraction by using
procedures, reusability and customizability of carefully-designed
procedures, and more compact resulting Postscript.
Bloody> The GUI ended up giving us a maddening cornucopia of
Bloody> incompatible file formats thanks to commercial software.
IMO, GUI is childish. CLI is adult speech.
However, you're too extreme. GUI do suit some situations. For 2D
drawing, GUI certainly beats CLI, because it fits the 2D surface
naturally. For writing programs, I only need a text-based editor
which is clever enough to invoke the compiler for me (e.g. Emacs).
Icons are good if they are self-explanatory (although most don't) but
I like short-cut keeys more because they're much quicker to use.
Why can't we take the best from both worlds? Take the Gimp as an
example. Its primary interface is GUI, but it HAS got a command
console for you to issue commands and even write scripts (in Scheme).
You can switch between the two at any time. All the things you can do
with the GUI is mapped to a Scheme function that you can invoke on the
command console. And of course, you can put a bunch of such commands
into a text file to form a script or a program, which you can then run
without the GUI.
Another example is Emacs. Emacs has been GUI-fied for some time
(especially XEmacs) and it has got menus and buttons. Again,
everything you can access through the GUI, you can access through the
keyboard, and you can access through E-lisp programming. To me, this
is true "user-friendliness". Programmability (or scriptability) and
customizability are more important than the candy wrappers.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
From: Andrew Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Mar 2001 21:23:35 -0500
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did I not recently try this out, and what did I find? That POVray runs at
> about the SAME speed on Linux as it does on Windows on the SAME hardware!
It might have been true in 1994 if POVray on Windows was 16-bit code,
compared to the 32-bit Windows. Presumably current POVray ports to
Windows also use 32-bit code, meaning there's no difference today.
--amk
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:39:32 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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!
You are the one who hasn't been listening.
> 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.
The Gimp, by default, uses the unix standard meta-format which
happens to be postscript. This is exactly like windows programs
generating windows standard meta-format. The printer output
driver is responsible for converting the meta-format into the
format actually required by the printer. The unix scheme has
the advantage, of course, that if you have a postscript printer no
additional conversion is necessary. The problem is not that
the GIMP sends the standard meta-format by default, it is that
your setup is not post-processing it into the printer format. I've
seen the reason for this explained dozen times or so here already
so I guess you are just hopeless.
> 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.
Are you running the standard printing configuration as the GIMP
authors use for testing?
> However, this appears to be a common theme on
> Linux.
No, mis-configuration (and leaving it that way) is only
a common theme on your machines.
>There are no standard ways of doing things - everything does it
> their own way - so everything keeps reinventing the wheel.
Postscript is standard. If you want to follow standards, get a
postscript printer. If you want to do things your own way, then
you should be responsible to make the conversions work. I've
never had any particular trouble with this with any printer
supported by ghostscript.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:46:57 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> I'll give you MY experience, I went into my local book store, "London
> Books" (kinda ironic being in New Zealand), well, anyway, the number
> of Linux books are around the same number as Windows books, however,
> there are more Windows books, as they cater for the complete moron all
> the way to [insert highest level], compared to Linux which tends to have
> fewer books, but, most of them cover from the complete moron all the way
> up to the Linux Guru in one book, instead of having the information
> spread over several books. The most dominant section of computers
> books, is the programming area, which has alot of books ranging from C++
> all the way to Fortran and COBOL. Hence, the number of books doesn't
> really show the full picture of what is happening on the Linux vs.
> Windows front.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > 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
Last week marked a milestone. At every Border's and Barnes and Noble
I've ever been too (including the one in downtown Boston), I had never
seen someone browsing the computer section. A few times I've seen some
people walk over there and start looking at the books, but they quickly
realize their mistake and walk over to the business and finance section
(which is ALWAYS located in the immediate vicinity of the computer
section).
Last week I witnessed a middle-aged man walk over to the computer
section and pick out a book on VB (I think). I was amazed.
Personally, I'm like a kid at a candy store in that section, but I've
always wondered how O'Reilly-and-Que-type businesses stay in business.
I did go to a Compucenter (I think that's what it's called) in Newton
Mass though, and the tech-book section was quite busy. But that's a
specialized store.
Anyone else eXPerience this phenomenon?
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:47:07 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <97urm0$3pr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > Shouldn't the OS decide that?
> >
> > Why shouldn't apps have their own drivers if they wish?
>
> Because it's a waste of resources! If every app had its own graphics or
> disk drivers or printer drivers we'd been knee deep in drivers and full
> disks with no room for anything else!
Don't forget that this was the model Microsoft sold us a few years
back, and the problem was generally solved by using standard postscript.
But, ummm, just how big was WordPerfect 5.0 with it's 800 printer
drivers vs. Word 2000 with none? Which one really wastes more
resources by doing unecessary format conversions between the
app and printer?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:49:10 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <dsXp6.13808$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > And you didn't answer why you think something other than postscript
> > should be the default output from an application under unix/linux.
>
> Because wether it's postscript or raw pixels or whatever is not relevant.
>
What? I though your complaint was specifically that you got the wrong
thing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:55:50 +1300
> > By all means, make me aware of these consequences I have missed.
> >
> > Basically all I have said is that anyone who believes blindly in IQ tests
> > is a moron, and needs their head examined.
>
> Oh, I see. Hmmm. A major back-pedal by adding the word "blindly."
> OK, you can be granted your new statement. It's certainly true that
> believing "blindly" in anything is stupid. For instance, believing
> "blindly" that IQ tests are not measuring cognitive ability.
"My goal is not to prove that IQ tests do or don't work. Basically I
believe that sort of thing can't be proven currently... it's entirely
possible that in the next ten years someone will step forward with some
observation that completely disproves everything we have ever thought
was fact about intelligence."
So, I've never said that I believe IQ tests do or do not accurately
indicate intelligence, only that noone really knows for sure, so anyone
taking the position that IQ tests are infallible indicators of
intelligence is not using their brain.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:57:58 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <98aicl$47r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > So you want me to let everyone who doesn't know better to believe the
> > crap you spout? No way. If you make a mistake that I can correct, I'll
> > correct it. You made a mistake. A correction was relavent. You were
> > blaming Linux for a GIMP problem.
>
> You still don't get it do you?
>
> "Linux" will not be seen by many as just a kernel and little else. It
> will be seen as Mandrake, or SuSE etc. The reason why? Well, The Gimp et
> al came with Linux, therefore it's one amorphous mass.
Beg your pardon? The Gimp system requirements mention:
A Unix-like operating system with X11
at least a 8-bit display
some free storage space (at least 20megs for a minimal install,
potentially much
much more for full installs)
a mouse or similar pointing device
GIMP also needs to have GTK+ installed and functioning.
at least 4 megs free mem
Do you see anything about Linux in there?
> With Windows you buy in the extras. With any distro they are all there.
> You may not like the way "Linux" is perceived but that's the way it will
> be seen.
Yes, the Linux distributions are much nicer.
> > > That's precisely my point. I couldn't care less if it uses Postscript,
> > > Forth, Java or your-favourite-language-of-the-week. The Gimp does
> > > something different. How can this be on a decent, up to date OS?
> >
> > Yes, the gimp makes a mistake. You finally admit that. About time.
Note: only the version on Mandrake makes a mistake that is only
a problem if you install CUPS.
> > Anyway, name me an OS where you can't do it.
> >
> > Before you even think of naming windows, try this command:
> >
> > print /D:lpt1 c:\command.com
>
> Try File -> Print under a GUI application and see what happens.
Mine keeps telling me I need to install a printer driver which doesn't
seem all that useful. What is supposed to happen?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 02:59:52 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
Because there is no other part. The only thing going wrong on your
system is that your printer driver is not doing the expected conversion,
because it is being told not to.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:03:25 GMT
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin quoth:
>
> > Are you investing in Linux companies?
>
> At $6 per share for redhat? You bet. It'll hit $20 or $30 or more on
> speculation at some point this year.
>
> --
>
> Salvador Peralta -o)
> Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My prediction is that RH will be the only surviving commercial distro in
one year, so I'd have to agree. I'm sorry, I like Linux too but these
companies just don't have good business sense (RH has somewhat good
business sense). I believe there's potential, but as it stands, it'll
still take a few years before Linux becomes a force to be reckoned with.
A successful Linux-distro needs to adopt MS-like tactics. Say what you
will about MS and their products but they have good business sense.
Their record speaks for itself, except for the indictable stuff they
did.
Of course, hopefully that particular distro will be a quality product.
They're going to need to make $$$ to contend with the Golden Gates and
in the highly competitive world (not a pun on MS' monopoly) of PC
software (as opposed to server, db, or mainframe software), nice guys
finished last 20 years ago. Linux was developed by a community of
like-minded and conscientious people. But in the business world that
stuff doesn't cut it, what it needs are ruthlessness and aggression.
Reality sucks.
I realize that this is no doubt flamebait, but please realize people
that this is just my uninformed opinion.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:48 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:43:00
[...]
>> I would be very surprised if it "works well", quite frankly.
>
>It pop up a floating message saying "cable is unplugged" (which also happens
>if the computer/hub on the other side was disconnected or turned off).
>There is no way you can mistake that for hardware or driver failure.
I couldn't, maybe; you couldn't. The computer, it isn't so smart as you
or I.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:50 GMT
Said Scott Gardner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:46:19
>On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> If someone designed the perfect car that never broke down,
>>>looked beautiful, and got 200 miles to the gallon, but had to run on
>>>blue-painted asphalt, I wouldn't be able to make very good use of it.
>>
>>What a stupid analogy. I get your point, and you're trying to say that
>>it is the application barrier which maintains the monopoly, but the
>>pre-load lock-in that it is founded on. Still, its a stupid analogy.
>>;-)
>
>Not my best work, and it was late...All I can do is apologize. You
>and the rest of the readers deserve better. The worst part is that I
>realized it wasn't the best analogy when I wrote it. You said it
>best- "The application barrier maintains the monopoly." I would add
>"hardware barrier" as well, if you consider the numbers of systems out
>there that weren't built with Linux in mind, but whose owners would
>like to run Linux.
Well, in light of that response, I feel like an ogre, and your analogy,
stripped of context, anyway, isn't so bad. And I agree that there is a
growing hardware barrier; one could even consider a winmodem without
windows to be about as valuable as a car that only ran on blue-painted
asphalt.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
