Linux-Advocacy Digest #808, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! ("Jan Johanson")
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (phil hunt)
Re: Screen shots of linux software ? ("Adam Warner")
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (GreyCloud)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Jeffery Siegal what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Dave Martel)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:16:34 -0800
JD wrote:
> Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
> it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
> but you can freely redistribute it. READ CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE.
I did, and this isn't true.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:35:31 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
> > it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
> > but you can freely redistribute it. READ CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE.
>
> I did, and this isn't true.
>
With BSDLed code you can pass it to anyone, anytime. TRUE
You cannot create one instance where copying the code is restricted
with pure BSDL.
Please refer to the GPL
itself for the conditions that you need to pass code off to another. Each
person who redistributes the code must comply with a list of several items
in the license.
If you refute what I have just said, you just haven't read and understood
the licenses.
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:39:24 -0500
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:R%Tr6.270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JD wrote:
> > > Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
> > > it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
> > > but you can freely redistribute it. READ CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE.
> >
> > I did, and this isn't true.
> >
> With BSDLed code you can pass it to anyone, anytime. TRUE
> You cannot create one instance where copying the code is restricted
> with pure BSDL.
>
Remember, you can give it to your friend when he needs it... WIth GPL, you
are restricted, but often can copy it.
Also, the commercial restrictions of GPL are onerous, while the BSD only tells
you not to take credit.
John
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: 14 Mar 2001 18:36:12 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Y5Gr6.1424$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> And it's all integrated just like the Monopolyware crap your used to
> >> using and the most unforgiving part about it is it's ALL FREE!
> >>
> >> Yes meatheads! You don't have to justify a $750,000 upgrade
> >> price for this deal as nobody's pockets need to get lined in order
> >> to use this product!
> >
> >How could anyone have standardized on something that wasn't a final
product
> >until today?
> >
> >"You idiots! what are you doing riding horses when I just invented the
> >automobile today! You're all crazy, you should have been using
automobiles
> >years ago".
> >
> >Real intelligent there Charlie.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Awe..... I'm sowwwy Ewik....
>
> But Evolution has been in use by most people within the Linux community
> for 5-6 months now. Where have you been????
Like Eric said, it's not used by anyone. At least not anyone that matters to
anything more than mom, dad and their geeky IRC buddy...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[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 18:39:08 -0600
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98o0ms$5g6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> All it means is that software on the Windows platform can call apps
> (services) on another platform.
>
> It has nothing to do with .NET running on another OS.
>
> The breakup order specifies that Microsoft will DIVEST the Windows OS.
What breakup order? You mean the one about to be overturned?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:39:25 +0000
On 14 Mar 2001 09:24:34 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Many people misunderstand the license and think that it means "if you
>modify my code and distribute it, you must give me the changes". It
>doesn't mean that at all, it means "If you use my code in any sort of
>development effort, no matter how disparate, and distribute it, you
>must make *all* your code GPL-compatible licensed as well".
That's not true. For example, I could compile my program using gcc,
and release the result using any license I wanted (I realise that's
probably not what you meant).
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Screen shots of linux software ?
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:00:39 +1300
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "peter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking for screen shots of inventory tracking software, GUI, web
> based, or other, it doesn't matter,
> Thanks,
> Peter
Try freshmeat.net with keywords such as inventory. Eg you obtain a link
such as:
http://www.cccsoftware.org/
In this case you can then head over to the site and actually try out the
package instead of just looking at a screenshot!
Freshmeat sometimes has screenshots. But many of the sites themselves
will.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:11:38 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > > And each one of the distros has a way to go yet.
> >
> > That is an opinion, one which I do not share. Please explain what "Way to go"
> > means. I think, for the average office worker Linux is a perfect fit. Tell me
> > why it isn't.
>
> It's not an opinion, it's a fact. KDE has quite a few problems, even on
> KDE 2.1
So, you keep saying, like what?
>
> Mandrake is an amazing mess, witness the comments about it here in this
> group.
Mandrake has always been a substandard distribution.
>
> RedHat has had quite a few detractors here.
Detractors, perhaps, but problems?
I'm waiting for a reason it isn't ready, reasserting an opinion is not an
example.
>
> > Name a few. I have been using KDE all along, and it seems fine.
>
> Tried the pixie viewer yet?
Never heard of it, what's wrong. What EXACTLY does it not do correctly?
>
> I would try the network stuff, but Linux can't get two network cards and
> DHCP to work together yet.
That is an installation issue, not one having to do with usability. In a
typical office, IT would handle that.
>
> > > Probably not. Though the researchers might be a little miffed since I
> > > reboot my machines several times a day (device driver work).
> >
> > Then you would not be a candidate for clustering.
>
> Precisely my point. Clustering is good for certain things, but not
> everything.
It is great for the numerous office machines hanging around running screen
savers and an e-mail client, and that is precisely my point.
>
> > > And you want everyone to use clustering for everything is that it? What
> > > happened to... gasp... choice?
> >
> > We are talking about the office, not the home. People do not have choice now,
> > why should you think they would later? IT tells them what to run.
>
> In my office I get to decide how to run my machine.
As do I, but most office workers don't care, nor want to care.
>
> > > Nothing wrong with small islands. Nothing wrong with cooperation either,
> > > for that matter.
> >
> > There is plenty wrong with an office full of PCs each costing between $1200 -
> > $2400 pulling 250 watts of power, doing mostly nothing.
>
> Huh? And how much does one of your Linux boxes cost?
The issue is not the cost but the utilization. A linux office with clustered
office PCs can utilize the otherwise wasted CPU cycles and power, thus a more
cost effective purchase.
>
> > > How about general purpose ones?
> >
> > Name some? General purpose what?
>
> General purpose bitmap editors, viewers (in multiples), vector editors,
> word processors, spread sheets etc.
What precisely are you trying to say? There are several options on any one of
these categories of application.
>
> How about TV guides?
I.E. a television listing? These are office PCs.
>
> > > Fonts, Printers, overall Sluggishness.
>
> > Really? I use star office all the time. I have all the fonts I could ever want
> > (I can use any font, True Type or Post Script), What printer does it not
> > support? Sluggishness? No way, much better than MS-Office side by side, and I
> > have tried this at work.
>
> I added some fonts to my system and StarOffice never noticed they were
> there.
I don't understand the problem. I have lots of fonts.
>
> I tried printing with StarOffice and I never saw a package chug so much
> for so little return.
I have, it is call MS-Office.
>
> > > They're behind what we have on Windows.
> >
> > Define "behind" you say it, but without examples it means nothing.
>
> Behind in applications, in power, in usability... you name it, Windows
> has it, Linux ain't on the horizon yet.
Again, you are reasserting an opinion with no examples.
>
> > > More choice!
> >
> > No choice! run what ever app you like, as long as you save often, and reinstall
> > every six months, pay a lot of money for bad software, and get raided by the
> > BSA for a 3" x 3" piece of paper lost in a book somewhere. No thanks.
>
> Most of the software I use I wouldn't call bad. Most of what I've seen on
> Linux pales by comparison.
Any examples?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:27:15 -0800
JD wrote:
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JD wrote:
> > > Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
> > > it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
> > > but you can freely redistribute it. READ CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE.
> >
> > I did, and this isn't true.
> >
> With BSDLed code you can pass it to anyone, anytime. TRUE
You can *not* redistribute BSDLed code with NO restrictions.
My god, man, just RTFL!
The difference is that those restrictions, for whatever reason, don't
bother you, while the GPL's restrictions, at least in some contexts, do
both you.
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:28:18 -0800
JD wrote:
> while the BSD only tells you not to take credit.
Also incorrect. Again, RTFL.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:32:58 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2001 13:54:44 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
> >On 13 Mar 2001 01:23:55 GMT,
> >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >When you make a controversial statement of Usenet, you should make
> >time to defend it:) Your acknowledgement that Microsoft has a monopoly
> >is in direct contradiction with your claim that Microsoft is unable to
> >fix prices and that barriers to entry don't exist. The legal
>
> Wait a minute -- I am not claiming barriers to entry don't exist
> at all. I'm not claiming that they couldn't fix prices either.
>
> Go back further in the thread and you'll see that the discussion is
> about an article that complains that hardware is cheaper and Win9x
> isn't. My claims:
>
> (a) The fact that hardware becomes cheaper does not mean that
> software need do the same.
> (b) IMO the argument that Win 9x is "too expensive" is not very
> convincing. Maybe they could charge 3 times as much for the
> OEM license, but that's not the point I was debating.
>
> >>I suppose more than anything else I am disconetent with what I see as
> >>a herd mentality emerging in the Linux community.
> >
> >Now here in lies the problem, you are *stereotyping* me. And you seem
> >to do so to anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> No, this complaint is not specifically about you at all. (in fact it
> doesn't even apply to you.)
>
> >>I think there are some perfectly sensible arguments one can Mmake against
> >>MS, but I lalso think a lot of people will stoop to all sorts of
> >>dishonesty to say bad things about them.
> >
> >You can say that about almost any controversial topic. But where have
> >I stooped too dishonesty??
>
> Again, the complaint isn't really directed at you. But there are a lot of
> people who mindlessly bash Microsoft products and Microsoft out of prejudice.
> These people aren't much better than those who mindlessly tdeclare MS to
> be the be-all-end-all of computing. For example, wsee the Aamazon.com
> reiews for "writing solid code". A lot of idiots posted negative reviews
> without having even read the book.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
Yes, I have to agree on the bashing part. I've seen the same thing
years ago with
Amiga user groups. They tend to get fanatical and I think this form is
a defensive
posture of their purchases. It happens in religion as well. I stay out
of those
forms of arguments as I find it pointless to convince someone that has
their minds
made up about what they believe in or want. I let market forces do all
the work.
I vote with my wallet. If I believe it to be a good product I'll buy
it. If I get burned from that purchase I'll note it and just move on.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:37:08 -0800
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > Why the focus on the wrong part of the conversation?
> >
> > I'm not. You claimed that linux was bad because applications could
> > bypass the printer drivers. Other people have stated windows progs that
> > allow this, but you ignored them. I've pointed out an example that you
> > have esay access to you.
>
> It seems strange to me that any OS allows applications their own drivers.
> It would appear to be duplication of effort. Can you not see that?
There are always precedents. Epson wrote their own print queue manager
and
bypassed the windows print manager. Epson has a very solid product.
Wife has an HP printer and uses windows print manager. When she makes a
mistake and wants to cancel a print job it takes windows about 5 minutes
or more to finally kill the print job. Epson takes a couple of
seconds. HP had to put a "Stop Print" button on the printer itself
because of the slow response from windows.
> As for being to bypass Windows printer drivers, yes I'm aware you can do
> that, but _none_ of the applications I use do.
>
> > I assume that you do concede my point since you are squirming.
>
> I concede nothing because you point is not germane to the topic at hand,
> which has been down a rathole.
>
> > Now, building on this point, why is Linux bad for letting other apps
> > bypass the printer drivers?
>
> How about, how is Linux good by allowing each application its own driver
> for whatever hardware there is?
>
> > And one final point: try file->print (or equivalent) under most Linux
> > apps. Guess what happens. Hint: it prints.
>
> And look what happened when I tried the same with The Gimp! It printed
> alright, but it didn't print what I expected.
>
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:45:03 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JD wrote:
> > > > Note that it is TRUE that if you have a copy of BSDL'ed software, you can pass
> > > > it on with NO restrictions. There might be some limitations as to other use,
> > > > but you can freely redistribute it. READ CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE ABOVE.
> > >
> > > I did, and this isn't true.
> > >
> > With BSDLed code you can pass it to anyone, anytime. TRUE
>
> You can *not* redistribute BSDLed code with NO restrictions.
>
> My god, man, just RTFL!
>
They are trivial, and don't stop anyone conditioned on other access.
>
> The difference is that those restrictions, for whatever reason, don't
> bother you, while the GPL's restrictions, at least in some contexts, do
> both you.
>
The GPL restrictions make it unfree. You admit to the restrictions, ergo, it
isn't free.
Thank you :-).
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:46:17 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > while the BSD only tells you not to take credit.
>
> Also incorrect. Again, RTFL.
>
Read it carefully.
Any schmuck can give BSDLed code away. It isn't so simple with GPL.
A person can act to remove their own freedom with BSDL. With GPL, there
are special behaviors needed to redistribute it.
John
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Jeffery Siegal what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:47:52 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > while the BSD only tells you not to take credit.
>
> Also incorrect. Again, RTFL.
>
I guess that you cannot prove it either :-). That is okay, because the GPL hasn't
been tested either.
At least the GPL tells you what you have to do to redistribute the code, but by default
you can redistribute BSDLed code.
John
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:45:47 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> But it's still not a Cygnus product, and Redhat saying it's a
> "real" release does not make it so. It is a CVS snapshot
> which is deceptively marketed as a production release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
A partial quote:
"It has come to our attention that some GNU/Linux
distributions are currently shipping with ``GCC 2.96''.
"We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a
formal GCC release nor will there ever be
such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96 has been
the code- name for our development branch
that will eventually become GCC 3.0."
And it warns about incompatible name mangling.
Still, it doesn't seem to be too disastrous.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:38:38 -0700
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:32:58 -0800, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, I have to agree on the bashing part. I've seen the same thing
>years ago with
>Amiga user groups. They tend to get fanatical and I think this form is
>a defensive
>posture of their purchases. It happens in religion as well. I stay out
>of those
>forms of arguments as I find it pointless to convince someone that has
>their minds
>made up about what they believe in or want.
It's not really about convincing anyone. Think of it as a cyber
mosh-pit! :-P
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:51:15 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> Remember, in Redmond "portability" means portable to all variants of
> Windows.
Like the former Microsoft C++ team leader, Jim McCarthy, so
pithily put it in his book "Dynamics of Software Development":
"Portability is for canoes."
Right there, that explained a lot to me about the bugs that
cropped up in Visual C++ 6.
Unfortunately, Microsoft managed to break down the culture of
portability. Fortunately, it is making a comeback under
the aegis of Linux.
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:51:24 -0800
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Email me if there is a player included, if so, I'll upgrade :)
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Problem is that it doesn't include a DVD player to allow you to play DVD
> > > movies, besides that, the SUN Blade 100 is a nice machine, although it
> > won't
> > > set the world on fire, it will allow most users to do what they want to
> > do.
> > >
> > > Matthew Gardiner
> > >
> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > The even if Windows was ready and Itanium was ready:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. The Itanium is bloody expensive when compared to other 64bit CPU's
> > > > > 2. Windows XP 64bit Server is unproven, hence, the uptake will be
> > flat, if
> > > > > not, totally non-existant.
> > > > > 3. There is bugger-all software for Windows XP 64bit, and even if
> > there
> > > > was,
> > > > > it would be considered "first generation 64 solutions", yet another
> > reason
> > > > > why there will be a slow uptake.
> > > > > 4. Very soon (I am pretty optimistic), SUN has included a DVD drive
> > in as
> > > > > an option in their SUN Blade 100 workstation, all that will be needed
> > is a
> > > > > DVD player, and you will find many geeks/nerds/techno-enthusiasts will
> > go
> > > > > out and buy a SUN Blade 100.
> > > > > 5. The apps are already there for Solaris, either in 64 bit or 32bit,
> > > > > either one has no performace loss, unlike 32 bit code on Intels
> > Itanium
> > > > > processors that will run really shitty (from what I have heard).
> > > > > 6. From what I see, SUN is first trying to win over developer support
> > > > > (through their "big admin" site and other dinky little things), and
> > once a
> > > > > significant number of people have jumped on board the Sparc bandwagon,
> > the
> > > > > finally assult will be on the desktop (which may happen after the next
> > > > > revision of Solaris that will most likely include GNOME 2.0 (which
> > will
> > > > have
> > > > > Natilus)), that will allow the average user to have the power and
> > > > stability
> > > > > of UNIX, whilst maintaing the ease of use of Windows/MacOS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew Gardiner
> > > >
> > > > That pretty much sums it up! BTW, I looked at Suns' buy site and DVD is
> > an
> > > > option.
> > >
> > Well then, I guess I'll have to call up Sun and find out exactly what their
> > macine can do.
Sun said that the cd-rom comes out and you put the dvd-rom drive in.
$1320.
Software for playing the dvd's is already incorporated into Solaris 8,
along
with Gnome as a selectable option at login time. (OpenLook, CDE, Gnome)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
