Linux-Advocacy Digest #802, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Scot Mc Pherson")
Re: Linux PDA'S Blowing everything away! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("LShaping")
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("LShaping")
Re: Microsoft announces support for Linux! (Wayne Holland)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:47:19 GMT
Well Ayende, you have asked a very good question. Not many people realize
that linux is NOT the OS, but the kernel OF the OS...The total system is
most often and most correctly called GNU/Linux meaning that the Linux kernel
is driving the GNU operating system which includes the most commonly used
shell (bash), and most of the system commands.
An operating system isn't a complete operating system with a few minimum
applications that control how the system works, although these are
independent applications/programs, they are still considered to be part of
the operating system. The line that " I " draw is here, where the necessity
and the niceties diverge. E-mail is nice, but not necessary (relatively
speaking), a web-browser is not a necessity, nor are ANY of the items you
listed toward the end of your post. They are apps that aren't integral to
the way the System operates. Although you MAY want to configure the System
to best use those apps, they still don't have an affect on the system. They
are applications, that use the System the tool, to get YOUR job done. The OS
doesn't need e-mail for anything, YOU do. That why they are called
applications, because they are what you use to apply the System to YOUR
needs.
There might be some grey line items which "could" be considered both, but
strictly they are applications. These items would be things like GNU GCC,
BIND, INN, Sendmail, POP and other such programs. Anything above is user
space, and anything below is System space...In My Opinion
--
Scot Mc Pherson
N27° 19' 56"
W82° 30' 39"
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98ocnf$2vs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6NNr6.56410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > I wonder how much thought the prosecution gave to prohibiting the OS
maker
> > from writing applications, or if they gave up that idea as being more
> > intrusive than a more simple, temporary breakup.
>
> How do you determain what is an application and what is the OS?
> According to you, GUI is mandatory for a desktop OS.
> But is a shell (windows manager, might be more fitting here, though)
> required?
> What about command line interface? What would you include there?
> Where do you put the line between what is an OS and what is an
application?
>
> Is a browser mandatory?
> An email program?
> A calculator?
> A text editor?
> A CD Player?
> A word proccessor?
> A web server?
>
>
> Where do you draw the line, exactly?
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux PDA'S Blowing everything away!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:50:14 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > More of your stupidity Charlie.
> >
> > Handsprings are alternate versions of the Palm. They run PalmOS, not
Linux.
>
> Don't be so hard on Charlie.
>
> I have heard of Linux-visor and Linux-palm projects.
>
> However, I do think other PDAs designed specifically for
> Linux would be a better choice....
If charlie was talking about such products, he should have linked to a Linux
version, not to the general home page which promotes the PalmOS version.
------------------------------
From: "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:34:29 GMT
"Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3wOr6.244206$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yeah I don't know...I am not sure why open source applications are a bad
> idea. I mean, bind, inn, apache and most of linux native system software
is
> mostly FSF GNU or open source software anyway.
But why are open source applications good? I would guess that one reason
why source applications is bad, for capitalism loving programmers, is
because stealing the code and including it in a closed version is too easy.
Do you propose regulation that requires all code be open source? Not
likely.
> Why would the software be choked because its open source?
Something was lost in the translation.
> Once the mass populace becomes more
> comfortable with the "choices" people will start buying/using software
based
> on its merit, not on what a company like M$ markets.
Choice would make little difference in the percentage of GUI usage. You can
take that survey question to other groups if you really want to know.
C ya,
LShaping
>
> Although the masses are still pretty entrenched in proprietary software,
> there is an increase in the open source movement which is not increasing
> parallel to the growing industry, but is exceeding the curve. That means
> that a higher % of total global users are moving to the open source
> community for if not their total needs, at least for a great majority of
> their needs.
>
> You are right about the gui. A gui uses an aweful amount of resources and
> will continue to use lots of resources. Even a barebones xserver still
will
> be the single largest resource consuming process on a gnu/linux system.
They
> can get more efficient, but they will still be resource hogs. On my lite
> servers, I have the gnome desktop installed, but I only start the xserver
> when it is needed, being that I am not required to use it since I am just
as
> if not more comfortable with a terminal for sysadmin stuff. Sometimes
though
> it't nice to have concurrent multiple terminals displayed side by side. As
I
> said, on my lite server, unless I am doing something gui specific, it is
not
> running. Everyone has this option.
>
> --
> Scot Mc Pherson
> N27° 19' 56"
> W82° 30' 39"
>
>
>
> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6NNr6.56410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:eIMr6.243904$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > That is a principle which is easy to understand for a lot of things.
> > Any
> > > > more popular product is more scrutinized. Not sure how that
argument
> > > > supports Linux over Windows. I do not advocate closed-doors secret
> > > > policies, and if opening Windows can be done, it might be a better
> > > solution
> > > > than a breakup (but the devil probably is in the enforcement, the
> > > government
> > > > amicus seem to favor a breakup). Like Orrin Hatch said, if we do
not
> go
> > > for
> > > > enforecment now (such as a breakup), we will be in for heavy handed
> > > > government regulation later. I agree 100% with the open OS thing,
> since
> > > the
> > > > OS is the standard to which all applications are written. I
sincerely
> > > hope
> > > > the appeals court will understand that.
> > >
> > > Well I wasn't really even thinking about opening windows and ie5, I
was
> > > kinda of refering to the statement that Linux is a developer's sandbox
> and
> > > windows is a developer's real world. Although of course the end result
> of
> > > your development is scrutinized by the windows user community, your
code
> > is
> > > not and so you can never really get any input on how to make the code
> more
> > > efficient. Forget about feature improvement, I mean code efficiency is
> > > probably the most difficient part of windows programming.
> > > Scot Mc Pherson
> >
> > And my comment was about graphical user interfaces, not specifically
about
> > Windows. The personal computer operating system will never be without a
> GUI
> > again. In the PC context, the text based interface is history. I do
> > efficiency to a fault. But besides requiring more system recourses, a
GUI
> > (like any other code) can be done efficiently. As far as the
applications
> > go, (not that it matters, but) I would not advocate open source
> applications
> > at all. The reason the OS needs to be open, or at least separated from
> the
> > applications makers, is because otherwise outside developers will be cut
> off
> > by the choke point OS monopoly holder as has been the case with Windows.
> I
> > wonder how much thought the prosecution gave to prohibiting the OS maker
> > from writing applications, or if they gave up that idea as being more
> > intrusive than a more simple, temporary breakup.
> > LShaping
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:VsGr6.63857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:iJwr6.242893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > If a
> > > > > > > > programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of
> > modern
> > > > > > > > computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would
> > love
> > > to
> > > > > > > > have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but
> command
> > > > line
> > > > > > > > stuff is for the birds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This single sentence rules you out as an opponent worth of an
> > > answer.
> > > > > > > Thank you for your time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does that mean I get the last word?
> > > > > > Yes!
> > > > >
> > > > > I think its absolutely amazing that people who advocate windows
use
> > idea
> > > > of
> > > > > "venturing out into the real world" when they are advocating
> > > closed-doors
> > > > > secret policies where their activity is not scrutinized by anyone
> > except
> > > > the
> > > > > head con-troll-er.
> > > > > Does it every occur to these people that having your software
> > > scrutinized
> > > > by
> > > > > the "whole world" is just about as far into the real world as you
> can
> > > > > venture?
> > > > > Scot Mc Pherson
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:57:37 -0600
Windows 95 was a stop-gap measure, because NT was too resource hungry to run
on typical desktops and it was clear that developers would not develop 32
bit apps unless there was a market for it.
Windows 9x was created to bridge the Win16 and Win32 gaps, and to move
people from 16 bit windows to Win32. When there were sufficient Win32 apps
on the market, MS could kill off Win9x and move people to NT without much
pain (it wasn't just apps either, it was also hardware which NT had very few
drivers for in the early days).
It was always intended to be a short lived product, and was actually
originally scheduled to be retired in 1997, but MS decided to go after the
enterprise market for Win2k, and pushed back the consumer version because of
it.
As for Lotus, it's more than 5 years. MS made the first betas available to
developers in early 1994, and developers could have written 32 bit versions
that targeted NT and been able to add the new features that 95 provided very
quickly. In fact, that's what MS themselves did. They introduced NT
versions of Office in 1994, giving them time to focus on making their
product work well in 95 rather than porting to 32 bit at the last minute.
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Then why did they continue to push WIndows 95? Wouldnt of it been better
to
> improve NT, and force, sorry, I meant "encourage" software companies to
port
> them code to the win32 api? The one thing I could never understand was
why it
> took Lotus to, after 5 years, finally make Lotus 123 32bit? Why after 5
years,
> we still have toss pots out there wanting to run win16 and dos code and
winge
> when the new version of Windows (Windows XP) will not fully support their
> applications , GET OVER IT, they are dead, get over it, make you software
32bit
> and make everyones life easier. I think 5 years is definately long enough
for
> software companies to make their code 32bit, if you haven't done so, wtf
have
> you been for the last 5 years?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Uhh.. no. NT Workstation was released at the same time as NT Server.
> >
> > I still have my RC1 of NT 3.1 Workstation dated July 1993.
> >
> > WIndows 95 was barely even a concept when NT was released, much less a
> > "rollout plan".
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I actually followed the roll out of Windows 95 and NT, and the concept
was
> > > going to be, have NT as the server OS, and have Windows 95 as the
desktop
> > OS,
> > > reason why they wanted to push Windows 95 onto the desktop market was
to
> > allow
> > > companies to continue to use their old, DOS/Win16 based apps whilst
have
> > the
> > > potential to use 32bit applications once they were ready and selling.
> > However,
> > > what happened, corperatins chose to install a cut down version of NT
> > server so
> > > that they had the multi-user, security capabilities to stop employees
from
> > > fucking up computer settings. Microsoft bowed to corperate pressure
and
> > > released a NT Workstation version with those capabilities, hence, the
> > split was
> > > made.
> > >
> > > Matthew Gardiner
> > >
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Don't you think 2001 and is a little late to finally be coming
out
> > with
> > > > > > Pre-emptive multitasking, Memory protection, and full virtual
> > memory?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cripes, Apple worked on their Next Generation OS (Copeland) for
> > close to
> > > > > > 10 years before finally giving up and admitting defeat that
their
> > > > > > programmers
> > > > > > just couldn't "fix" the MacOS. They needed to start over from
> > scratch.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, Apple in that case had the grace to give up. MS did not,
they
> > > > > stuffed Win9X unto the world.
> > > >
> > > > Win9X wasn't meant to "fix" windows. It was meant as a hack to move
> > people
> > > > to NT. It wasn't supposed to stick around this long, but MS decided
to
> > > > chase after the enterprise market which severely delayed the release
of
> > a
> > > > consumer version of NT.
> > > >
> > > > You act like MS *WANTED* there to be a Windows 95. They didn't.
They
> > would
> > > > have much rather had you switch to NT back in 93 than maintain two
OS's
> > for
> > > > another 8 years.
> > >
>
------------------------------
From: "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:46:51 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98ocnf$2vs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:6NNr6.56410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > I wonder how much thought the prosecution gave to prohibiting the OS
maker
> > from writing applications, or if they gave up that idea as being more
> > intrusive than a more simple, temporary breakup.
>
> How do you determain what is an application and what is the OS?
> According to you, GUI is mandatory for a desktop OS.
Yeah, IMO, it is about center (in the gray area) between an OS and
applications.
> But is a shell (windows manager, might be more fitting here, though)
required?
> What about command line interface? What would you include there?
> Where do you put the line between what is an OS and what is an
application?
That is what judges are for. You and I might disagree, but their opinion is
what matters.
>
> Is a browser mandatory?
> An email program?
> A calculator?
> A text editor?
> A CD Player?
> A word proccessor?
> A web server?
> Where do you draw the line, exactly?
Somewhere. As you probably know, a computer operating system is analogous
to a basic physical device such as a wheel or a road (or maybe a computer OS
is comparable to physics, but that is another subject), which means that the
monopoly holder, if left unrestrained, can capture everything else.
C ya later,
LShaping
------------------------------
From: Wayne Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft announces support for Linux!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:00:38 -0800
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Those boneheads finally did it!
>
> They are announcing support for Linux.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/13/010313hnnonms.xml
>
> Charlie
Yes, they have indeed. But I would be very wary of MS. For some reason
I see the spider inviting us into its parlor.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: 14 Mar 2001 12:11:32 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MS wants all the new application to be build against .NET
> If Linux can run .NET applications, then MS has broken the application
> barrier. (Bye, Bye, wine, I'm no longer an alcoholist :-) )
> You could run Office XP (or its viewers) on Linux, now, isn't that nice?
What are the odds that they avoid win32 DLLs with it?
I'd say pretty much zero.
> .NET has its advantages, why deprive Linux from them?
It won't have them.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:25:31 +0000
> > Yes you have. You claimed that GIMP sending PS to your printer was the
> > wrong thing to do. I can't be bothered to dig up any more.
>
> No I haven't. I said The Gimp was wrong in that it printed Postscript as
Well, yes you did.
> text on my printer.
> The way that it was wrong was that it ignored a
> system wide configuration setting and did its own thing.
It did send iot to the right queue, though, which is what the system
copnfiuration tells it to do. The system config doesn't say anything
about rawness, but I'll freely admit it's dumb to mark data as raw by
default.
> As I said
> before, you're not listening.
I'm listening to what you say, but I'm disagreeing.
> > > Hmmm... I'd have thought an OS designer would want the most efficient
> > > drivers in the OS, not an application.
> >
> > You have no understanding of these things.
>
> Really.
Yes.
> I write Device Drivers for a living.
You calimed you wrote sound card drivers for windows. This has little to
do with the printing subsystem under Linux. Remember the printing
subsystem has no direct interaction with the hardware (probably not what
your dirvers do) since all the hardware interaction is done by the
kernel parallel port driver. The printing sybsystem organises it in a
sensible way. The printer drivers have even less interaction since they
reside entirely in ghostscript which runs as a non root userland app.
> Still think I have no understanding for these things?
Yes.
> > It is not possible to get a tool that is 100% efficient at everything.
> > PS makes a pretty good attempt and is reaasonable efficient at most
> > things whilst being device independent.
>
> It's not used on low end printers, which is perhaps the majority of
> printers out that. What does that tell you?
What I know is that a fully fledged PS interpreter takes a long time to
develop and is probably quite expensive (I suppose they could use GS),
and requires a bit of grunt. To save money, low end printers move the
processing from the printer to the computer since the computer usually
has an excess.
Oh, and it PS is always used on the best printers, what does that tell
you?
> > So in conclusion, PS does a very good most of the time in most
> > situations. If postscript is so bad, then point me to a much better
> > solution.
>
> It's not bad, but it is a fairly complex solution on a printer which
> requires more intelligence etc. on the printer.
Or, it you OS has a sensible filtering system, then the processing can
be done on the host insted. That way, I can use my dumb Star Micronics
LC-100 (colour) Dot Matrix as a postscript printer if I wish.
It makes a good solution, since any app can generate a file on a
computer which has no printer drivers, and have the file reluiably
printed on any printer (assuming a woprking GS).
> > > You can ignore them _after_ you got the wrong result.
> >
> > I have trouble following what you are saying at times.
>
> You have trouble listening.
You have trouble understanding the difference between lintening and
disagreeing.
> > Yopu were trying to make the point about GIMP printing PS when it
> > shouldn't. By snipping all the bits about the other apps printing PS,
> > you reversed the point opf my argument simply by snipping bits you
> > didn't like. That is generally considered poor behaviour.
>
> I'm not quite clear how I did that. It certainly wasn't intentional.
OK.
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
