Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #33 Sat, 7 Apr 01 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Goldhammer)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS and ISP's ("JS PL")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 13:48:58 -0700
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > OS/2 and UNIX operating systems don't have a
> > GDI either. The GDI is a Windows implementation.
>
> Isn't Xlib (libX11) the unix equivalent of GDI32? For example,
> XCopyArea() is the Xlib equivalent of the GDI function BitBlt(),
> XCreateWindow() (Xlib) is analogous to CreateWindow() (GDI), etc. etc.
> So yes, unix has a GDI also. It's just called libX11 and not GDI. 8-/
>
All (or most modern) OS's have display engines. OS/2 has MMOS/2 at
least and maybe more. Obviously, Unix must have some display engine
equivalent to the GDI on Windows. Neither of these OS's is so dumb as
to stick the display engine in the kernel. In fact, IBM strenuously
objected when MS tried to put the GDI and the GUI into MS/IBM OS/2,
and that was one of the things that led to the breakup. IBM said it
would make the system unstable, and of course it does.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
[ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:55:55 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:54:52 -0400;
>
>"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> During the trial it was made clear that MS frequently offered nearly
>> free server software for ISP's if they promised to get at least 75% of
>> their customers to use IE.
>
>I don't remember that being brought up at the MS lynchi....err...trial. It
>sounds like bullshit.[...]
GU-fucking-christ-I-can't-believe-anyone-could-be-so-stupid-FFAW!
--
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: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:57:33 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:00:03 -0400;
[...]
>Nothing you have described is illegal.[...]
Anti-trust doesn't work like that. It is not the actions which are
illegal, it is the *class of actions*. If what he described was an
attempt to monopolize or restrain trade, it was illegal; it does not
matter what the actions were.
--
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: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:58:52 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:24:04 -0400;
[...]
>You don't think anyone is dumb enough to believe your "I meant download from
>my cd" bullshit do you?[...]
Well, you obviously think everyone is dumb enough to believe your
bullshit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:02:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> So "though shalt not assassinate" means murder is wrong but killing is
> OK? "Though shalt not slay" means the same thing? Sounds more to me
> like it isn't so much murder as killing of a human (as opposed to
> killing a calf, which obviously isn't going to fly in the Old
> Testament.) Which is to say, it says "though shalt not kill", as
> indicated, despite this linguistic quibbling that you use to try to
> justify war.
Read Exodus and Numbers. God instructed the Israelites to wage war and kill
entire populations. The quibble is using one verse from scripture to state
all killing is wrong, when in fact, use of that one verse of scripture to
support such a position is wrong.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:05:56 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:36:31 -0400;
>"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Try to shift the thread as much as you want, you still haven't
>> answered the question. Why did you throw away a perfectly good $150
>> video card (at the time) rather than do a simple amount of research to
>> find the solution to the problem for free? You spent more time
>> looking up the word "download" off of wordnet, so you are obviously
>> not as stupid as your previous posts indicate.
>
>Who threw it away? It runs inside the Windows 98 (first edition) machine
>across the room just fine. I believe I said I swapped it out with a known
>good card. But you can go back and look it up to make sure.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can. Google doesn't stretch back that
far.
But this was the point, and I agree that what you've said here may
reasonably correspond with what you said back then. The point is, you
then jumped on Usenet and used this as an example of how other people
blame 'everything' on Microsoft when actually, you claim, it is the
hardware which is at fault. You thought, at the time, until I pointed
out otherwise (and have been quibbling and back-pedaling and
*obfuscating* mightily ever since) that having swapped out the card to
'fix the problem', you had proven that the problem was not IE. Ignoring
the fact that the problem did not exist until you installed IE. Denying
the fact that the change in hardware and drivers was just you having to
make up for the failings of monopoly crapware. And refusing to
recognize the fact that IE was *entirely* to blame for your problem.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:07:36 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:57:28 -0700,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I stand corrected. You flippantly dismissed 4 of the 19th century's
>most influential thinkers
Nietzche? I would grant that he became influential
in the 20th century after he was adopted as the
philosophical mascot of the Nazis. I wouldn't
put him on a list of "the 19th century's most
influential thinkers", but hey, that's just my
opinion.
>and it appears that I was overgenerous in
>my interpretation of how you did it.
Really there is no need for drama nor "interpretation."
How I "did it" was quite plain: I branded them as
overrated or inept.
>You didn't even attempt to
>contrive or misrepresent a statement before flippantly dismissing
>either Marx or Freud.
I take it then, that you misread my post when you
said that I "misrepresented" the "statements"
of Marx and Freud.
>Why not throw in Jung or Kierkegaard and go for a
>quinella?
Nah, I rather like Jung, and much more so Kierkegaard.
>Perhaps you prefer the criticism: "A mouse nipping at the heels of
>giants"? Again, it is easy to decontextualize, misrepresent, and
>contrive positions. Easier still to say "Genius? Balderdash." More
>difficult to show that you actually understand any of their works
>well enough to offer a legitimate deconstruction or otherwise defend
>your assertions with something other than the few decontextualized
>references to one of Darwin's works.
Oh please. You expect that all who voice a Usenet opinion
first provide lengthy dissertations to your satisfaction?
What planet do you post to? I don't really care if you
disagree with me or if you think my criticism is illegitimate.
But to reply with the stock response 'oh but you haven't
shown you actually *understand* so-and-so's work' is more
befitting a Randroid from humanities.philosophy.objectivism,
or any one of the myriad kooks who think dissent = doesn't
understand. It's quite possible to have read and understood
so-and-so's work *and* think it's crap.
>As for Darwin's sloppy method... every single paragraph cites
>references in the literature available to him at the time...
No doubt you are referring to
well-referenced bits of scholarship
like these:
"Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers,
or even delight in witnessing them... common experience justifies the
maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian."" [Darwin,
The Descent of Man]
"The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously,
though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never
been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised
nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.
Utter licentiousness, and unnatural crimes, prevail to an astounding
extent." [Darwin, The Descent of Man]
"Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have
hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a
semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But
some remarks on the action of natural selection on
civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has
been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously
by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are
taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak
in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised
men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process
of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our
medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life
of every one to the last moment. There is reason to
believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who
from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed
to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies
propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the
breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must
be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising
how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads
to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in
the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant
as to allow his worst animals to breed."
[Descent of Man, Ch 5]
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:11:52 GMT
Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:24:25 GMT;
>>> Jarko Vihriala wrote:
>
>>> > My question is, that why on EARTH does the GUI have
>>> > to be integrated to the OS itself?
>
>It does if you want to communicate with the rest of the world.
Obviously nonsensical.
>>> > I mean, why cannot
>>> > all the commands be executed on the command line,
>>> > just like *nix systems work?
>
>Because the vast majority of users prefer otherwise.
Obviously illogical.
>>> > The GUI would be just
>>> > extra thing for those clickety-click system users,
>>> > who don't know a dick about the OS itself,
>
>Hello troll.
In case you didn't know, Jarko, LShaping is a Macintosh fan, and is as
captive to pointy-clicky as the most naive Windows user. Which means
he's every bit as defensive about it. Mention that command lines are
more powerful, and he'll bend your ear for months about "system macros".
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:13:26 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Apr 2001
[...]
>Of course the system will fail if the display
>system fails. The GDI is an integrated part of
>WindowsNT. It cannot run if the facilities it
>needs, like a proper display driver, are not
>working properly. But this is the fault of
>either the display driver, or the display
>hardware.[...]
Guffaw.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:16:38 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 7 Apr 2001
>667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: LShaping wrote:
>: >
>: > Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: > >On Fri 06 Apr 2001 09:38, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>: >
>: > > [Snip]
>: > >> Of course the system will fail if the display
>: > >> system fails. The GDI is an integrated part of
>: >
>: > >This is a good thing? :-/
>: >
>: > It is a good thing for 99% of users, if it means the whole will run
>: > better. The question is not whether a GUI is necessary (that was
>: > decided long ago), the question is how efficient and stable can it be.
>
>: No it is not L. The GDI are the video drivers and there is really no
>
>Bob, you really need to understand what
>you're talking about, before you can say
>anything about it here.
That's a stupid statement. JSYK
>The GDI is not a video driver. It is part of
>the display engine. Video drivers are a separate
>entity altogether, and in many cases, they are
>created by third parties.
You're quibbling about abstractions needlessly. It doesn't matter what
acronym or label you give it; the reason Windows is crap is because it
is badly designed. Whether that design causes the failures to manifest
in one place or another is meaningless. To deny it is bad design, AND
to deny that it falls over, is just apologizing for the monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 17:18:29 -0400
"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:54:52 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
> > >"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > But suppose microsoft actually did give away their OS and server
software,
> > > SO WHAT!! Who's business is it?
> >
> > There are laws on the books against "dumping" in order to drive your
> > competition out of business. Which was exactly what MS was trying to do
> > to Netscape.
> >
> Yes not only that but it is totally illegal to offer SW for free or at
> steep discount if you promise to, say, convert 75% of your users to
> IE, if you promise to only support IE, if you promise to put
> IE-specific stuff on your web page, etc. That is an exclusive
> agreement, and they are all illegal.
Exclusive agreements are illegal! You better call the feds then!
http://www.google.com/search?q=exclusive+agreement&btnG=Google+Search
These people are blatantly shirking the law! Some of them are even
ANNOUNCING their exclusive agreements in the press!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was
Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure)
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:15:50 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 5 Apr 2001 15:14:31 GMT
> <9ai24n$4nd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> >: > Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >: >
> >: > : Charles Lyttle wrote:
> >: >
> >: > : > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> >: > : >> How else do you explain a quick, nimble fighter jet colliding with
> >: > : >> a slow, lumbering patrol plane in clear weather.
> >
> >: > : > The patrol plane cheated. It had 4 engines with propellers.
> >: > : > Mao proved that such a thing couldn't fly.
>
> (Side note: I could see Mao proving that he couldn't fly
> such a thing... :-) )
>
> >
> >: > : No, not really.
> >: > : The Chinese plane used Aaron´s self written
> >: > : multiuser/multitasking system
> >: >
> >: > You mean, Aaron's operating system that uses his
> >: > PatentedHighlyTechnicalThingies(tm) in it? Yeah,
> >: > that's one sweet operating system. My favorite
> >: > feature is the high-end stuff that it has in it.
> >: >
> >: > Of course, in the spirit of Kulkan logic, I'm
> >: > using words like "thingies" and "stuff", because
> >: > they are things that I know that I know about, and
> >: > I don't care to discuss them, because that would
> >: > be childish. Oh, and I fought the Japanese Empire
> >: > in WWII as well. Piloted a P-51 Mustang, I did.
> >: >
> >: > </SARCASM>
> >: >
> >: > Anyone who knows about Kulkan logic should find
> >: > this at least mildly amusing.
> >
> >: Awwwwwww, poow widdle windows wuser.....
> >
> >Explain this entry from your header:
> >
> >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
> > ^^^^^
>
> Anyone with lots of patience can do the following:
>
> telnet your.favorite.news.server.here nntp
>
> (or 119 if /etc/services is munged, unavailable, or one is using
> a non-Unix operating system)
(this works on Windows)
> and then issue commands in accordance with RFC977. Note in
> particular that X-*: headers are NOT in the spec, just a convention
> adopted by a number of emailers. (At least, that's my recollection.)
> One of those commands is in fact 'POST'. As long as the
> message is in accordance with RFC822, the newsspool will most
> likely accept it, permissions, newsgroups, etc. permitting.
> It's not hard, just remember the dot. :-) (At the end, that is.)
>
> I could very probably post with something like
>
> X-Mailer: FUBAR SNAFU 1.0-2x/3
>
> using that method.
But one would have to be masochistic.
Besides, does anyone think Aaron is capable of this?
> Now who would care?
<rest snipped>
-c
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:30:40 +0200
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 5 Apr 2001 18:33:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:12:41 -0700, tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please re read the agreement it does not say anything about owning
the
> > >content of everything you do over any of its services only "comments or
> > >suggestions" about the service are! Simply put any of my email or
data
> > >which uses there equipment is mine and only mine unless I submit it as
a
> > >comment or suggestion to microsoft directly!
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Some of you people are real idiots. This thread was about the Microsoft
> > license as it stood until early this morning. Under pressure from
privacy
> > rights advocates, users, and the press, Microsoft has changed
> > the license and the Microsoft URL referenced in these threads has been
> > altered to contain the new revised license. Look at the bottom of the
> > Microsoft webpage for the revision date. The license that has been the
topic
> > of this thread contained everything that we have been discussing. You
think
> > Microsoft would have changed it without pressure from users and the
press?
> > Don't think so.
>
> Or maybe they set up the licence as it was so they could snaffle stuff
they
> knew would be passing through their servers at that time. Now they've got
> what they wanted, they re-write the licence, excluding the contentious
> clauses "under pressure from privacy rights advocates, users, and the
> press", as if they've ever cared what privacy rights advocates, users, and
> the press ever thought of them.
>
> And don't forget the bit that goes
>
> quote//....
>
> MODIFICATION OF THESE TERMS OF USE
>
> Microsoft reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices
> under which the Passport Web Site and Passport Services are offered. You
> are responsible for regularly reviewing these terms and conditions.
> Continued use of the Passport Site or Passport Services after any
> such changes shall constitute your consent to such changes.
>
> ...//quote
>
> (From www.passport.com)
>
> So any changes can be revoked as and when Microsoft see fit, even on a
> minute by minute basis.
Can you name many licenses that don't include this clause?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:44:55 -0500
"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Donn Miller wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > > OS/2 and UNIX operating systems don't have a
> > > GDI either. The GDI is a Windows implementation.
> >
> > Isn't Xlib (libX11) the unix equivalent of GDI32? For example,
> > XCopyArea() is the Xlib equivalent of the GDI function BitBlt(),
> > XCreateWindow() (Xlib) is analogous to CreateWindow() (GDI), etc. etc.
> > So yes, unix has a GDI also. It's just called libX11 and not GDI. 8-/
> >
> All (or most modern) OS's have display engines. OS/2 has MMOS/2 at
> least and maybe more.
OS/2's display engine is called GPI (Graphics Programming Interface), and is
roughly the same as Windows GDI (Windows 16 bit GDI was designed to be
mostly source compatible with OS/2's 16 bit GPI).
MMOS/2 is multimedia functions, like playing wav's or animations or similar.
> Neither of these OS's is so dumb as to stick the display engine in the
kernel.
OS/2 has it's own problems, for instance, all applications map GPI into the
same address space and a great deal of it is world writeable, which means
one app can corrupt another app through GPI.
OS/2 runs its devices in ring 2 rather than ring 0, and the GPI has ring 2
priviledges (user apps run at ring 3). OS/2 can do this because its an x86
based OS. NT was designed to be portable across many platforms, and not all
processors support > 2 processor priviledge modes, so in order to be
compatible they restriced NT to use only two modes, user and kernel (on x86,
ring 3 and ring 0), which meant device drivers had to run in ring 0 instead
of ring 2. If NT had the luxury of being able to use ring 2, it would have
run the GUI in ring 2 instead of ring 0.
> In fact, IBM strenuously
> objected when MS tried to put the GDI and the GUI into MS/IBM OS/2,
I've never heard this anywhere. It doesn't appear in "The design of OS/2"
or any rumor i've ever heard.
> and that was one of the things that led to the breakup. IBM said it
> would make the system unstable, and of course it does.
> --
> Bob
> Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> today!
> Why do you think you are being flamed?
> [ ] You crossposted
> [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> [ ] Your stupidity is astounding
> [ ] You suck
> [ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
