Linux-Advocacy Digest #207, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Peter Hayes)
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Andy Walker")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Linux disgusts me - non-scientific statistic proved wrong ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Joseph
T. Adams")
Re: IE ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Ayende
Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:14:52 +0200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 14:50:03 +0200,
> Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup
> A quick overview of your headers reveals you to be a Windows user.
>
> > reveals that the
> > majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
> > official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
> Sadly we dont get time todomuch Linux advocacy, as COLA is a popular venue
> for Windows users like you to argue the benefits of Windows.
>
> Now if they would stay in the NG's for that subject, COLA could *return*
> to advocacy.
>
> > It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
> > arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
your
> > opponents weaknesses.
> Whilst tyour statement is correct, Linux has no opponents, its Free
Software.
>
> > Is that the case here?
> Its the case everywhere, not only here.
>
> > If it is, then I find it rather
> > lame.
> I couldn't care what you find 'rather lame'.
You care enough to answer.
>
> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
case
> ^^^^^^^^ Linux
> > for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
> ^^^^^ Windows
> > majority of posters here.
> Wintrolls
I totally agree. (hint: I am *not* a Wintroll, Terry, and I don't think that
you have ever seen one single argument in favour of Windows from me)
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:11:34 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 May 2001 02:02:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee) wrote:
> In article <6VsI6.22316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
<...>
> >3.x/9x based systems, NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x based
> >OS's are going away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows
> >(this is something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
>
> 3.x/9x based OS's are going away this year.
>
> In your dreams. 3.x/9x based OS's aren't going anywhere, in fact they pretty
> much are *going* to be the *LAST* Microsoft OS a huge number of people are
> going to be running on their various machines.
Unfortunately, in a year or so XP is all the consumer will be able to buy,
preinstalled on their OEM purchases. No OEM will be permitted by Microsoft
to sell 9.x/ME/Linux. That's the sad facts of reality.
The only bright side, if it can be called a "bright" side, is that the
market must be saturated, at least in the so-called "developed" world.
> For instance I'm NEVER going
> to install a version of XP on any machine I own now or in the future. I have
> an OEM cdrom containing WIN98 and I'll install windows from that if I need a
> Windows partition.
I too will never ever install any version of XP. Ever.
But 99.999% of the market will buy into M$'s latest eXPerience,
notwithstanding that XP is also an incurable defect in ultraviolet
radiation-induced DNA repair mechanisms. Sufferers have to avoid sunlight
at all costs.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 10:19:16 -0000
Stephen Edwards wrote in message ...
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3af1f28f$0$12226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
>>
>> An interesting read.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Slashdot is trying desperately to make this sound bad cause it cuts deep:
>>
>> From Slashdot:
>> "For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought
>> translated into manager-speak: 'Having multiple vendors competing to
offer
>> us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor
>who
>> can sell the product to us at monopoly prices.'"
>>
>> Now - I don't know about you but up until this moment I've heard that
>> forking code is bad. In fact, I have heard linux believers defend
STRONGLY
>> against claims that the linux kernel is forking. And now, just because MS
>> says forking is bad - suddenly forking is good?? It's this sort of
>childish
>> desperate behaviour that is why enterprises don't even consider linux.
>
>What I found particularly interesting was this bit:
>
>---
>The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free,
>in the hope that somehow they’d generate revenue from sources that never
>materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a
>prayer. As we’ve learned – or really re-learned – one can’t build a
business
>or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
>---
>
>I'm certain Microsoft knew this for quite some time.
>
>A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
>RedHat,
>and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like a life-
>preserver. SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why they
>decided
>to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses is beyond me.
Why
>didn't they simply focus on making products for what WAS and still IS
>selling?... Windows.
>
>The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be commercialized...
>it
>was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free
product,
>in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts simply
>doesn't
>work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while ago. That is
>what
>we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more
>dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in the next year or
>two.
>
>Because software such as GNU/Linux, NetBSD, Samba, Apache, etc. are free,
>they
>will always be around. They won't ever go away, because they are so
>accessible.
>
>"Free software never dies... it simply changes maintainers."
>
>However, they also close the gap for what kind of software is needed.
>They close a lot of possible avenues for commercial opportunity. This
>isn't a bad thing, as businesses which are interested in marketing other
>kinds of software/services benefit greatly. However, companies that are
>trying to market GNU/Linux, which can be obtained without any cost, defy
>logic on all levels. And eventually, commercial all GNU/Linux distributors
>will fail... miserably. And GNU/Linux will simply remain as a free
product.
>
>Has anyone wondered at all why nobody has tried to market, say, NetBSD?
>It's because anyone who knows enough about it to do so already knows
>that doing so is, to say the least, stupid. It is, to say the most,
>corporate suicide.
>--
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
>
>.------. "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean.
>|[_] :| From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we
>| = -| have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes,
>| | or at most, wet our ankles. The water seems inviting. The
>| | ocean calls. Some part of our being knows this is from
>|_...._| where we came. We long to return." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
>
The main source of revenue in the computer industry (after flogging poor
quality operating systems) is support. With software getting more and more
complex and security becoming more and more important, this will be the cash
cow that will support the software industry of the future. Five minutes of
using a badly set-up networked PC is usually enough to convince most people
but a few un-authorised break-ins to a companies servers finally does the
trick! Let's face it, Micro$oft seems to spend half it's time patching
security related bugs, and they own the source code!
I wouldn't be surprised to see open source take over and companies like Red
Hat get very rich from providing back-up for medium sized companies that
can't afford an entire IT department to maintain their servers, not to
mention upgrading systems!
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:29:04 +0200
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9cu8nu$8dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that the
> > majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
> > official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
> >
> > It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
> > arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
> > your opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find
> > it rather lame.
> >
> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
> > case for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least
> > for the majority of posters here.
> >
> > Mikkel
> >
> >
> Tell me Mikkel,
>
> When it is Microsoft and its apologists that persist in bashing Linux
> (hint: Halloween, Jim Allchin, Craig Mundie; do we see a pattern here?),
> where in the seven Hells *are* we supposed to defend ourselves? Should we
> troll comp.os.microsoft-nt.advocacy instead? From the persistent
> appearance of Wintrolls in this forum, that would be our just revenge.
> Since most of us keep the MS bashing to cola, I'd say it is a little rich
> for you to take the high ground.
You could try alt.destroy.microsoft or alt.microsoft.sucks for starters. I
don't object to a bit of MS bashing now and then (it keeps the blood rolling
after all), but if it gets to be the primary (if not sole) purpose of this
group, then I think you could just as well hang out in the groups mentioned
above. IMO, the best "defense" against the stuff you mention is to explain
why Linux is good, and not why MS/Windows is bad. Besides, is it really
necessary to "defend" against the mentioned drivel? Don't you think that
most people realizes that whatever MS says about Open Source and Linux
should be taken with a truckload of salt?
> Now have a nice day, and don't come back until you got something relevant
> to add to the discussion, instead of inviting even more anti-ms flames
> with your inflammatory statements (hint: pot, kettle, black).
Damn, you people are thin-skinned, aren't you? Out of God-knows-how-many
knee-jerk-reflex flame postings I have received, only one (ONE) have
bothered to post something akin to a Linux advocacy (thanks to Salvador
Peralta). Get the point by now? With advocacy like this, you are not
convincing anyone new, you are only preaching to the converted.
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me - non-scientific statistic proved wrong
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:41:55 +0200
OK group - I admit that this is a dyed-in-the-wool Linux bashing troll if
there ever was one .... I apologize for coming close to claiming that this
did not appear :-)
Mikkel
""John Smith"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
>
>
>
> WTF ? Illegible non anti-aliased fonts that require a magnifying glass to
> read ? WTF ?
>
>
>
> And free software / open source developers have the temerity to criticize
> Microsoft. Get fucking real ...
>
>
>
> At least Microsoft has developers that understand the rudimentary
principles
> of user friendliness. Default fonts of readable size, anti-aliased, ...
>
>
>
> Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you
can
> learn how to do things right the first time.
>
>
>
> You bunch of losers,
>
> J
>
>
> --
> Posted from [196.2.33.11] by way of oe55.law12.hotmail.com [64.4.18.63]
> via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 5 May 2001 09:41:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> Microsoft's standards are proprietary, but they are standards
:> nonetheless. I simply don't understand why some people have
:> a "POSIX-compliance or die" attitude. I can't even count on
:> two hands anymore the amount of software that has been ported
:> back and forth between POSIX and Win32, so why does it even
:> matter much, if at all if an OS is POSIX.1-.3 compliant?
: As a note, NT is POSIZ compliant.
If you meant POSIX, please remember that you are in an audience
consisting largely of developers, many of whom are quite familiar with
NT.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:27:37 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 5 May 2001 01:17:02
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> >I asked why using WINE is so slow, since, while the registry is
faster, it
> >> >should be *that* slow.
> >>
> >> I think you answered your own question. Obviously, emulating the
> >> registry with a file system is going to be slower than directly
> >> accessing the binary hierarchical database on Windows.
> >
> >Not *that* long.
> >(See code below)
> >Time to write registry: 361
> >Time to read registry: 150
> >Time registry total: 511
> >Time to write file: 10
> >Time to read file: 10
> >Time file total: 20
> >
> >I run it a couple of time, the average seemed to be around 470 - 525 for
> >registry, around 20 - 25 for files, dpeneding on system load. Debug build
> >was about 100 slower for registry, no affect of files.
> >The greate difference is, I assume, is because of windows' file chacing,
so
> >writing to the file is actualling writing to memory.
> >It seems that fflush() doesn't seem to have the required affect. Or that
> >disk access has advance greatly. OTOH, it's a very small file, and no
> >interperting of the data was done, as is done in the reg functions, so I
> >would say that WINE implementation, based on a text file, is going to be
> >slower, although not by *that* much.
>
> I think you've mistaken me for a geek. Or for someone who finds such an
> analysis compelling.
You want to talk about software, learn what you are talking about.
Otherwise, don't be surprise if you don't understand what is going on.
Anyway, the short version, writing 1000 integers to a binary file takes 10
milli seconds, to registry, 361, reading from a file takes 10 milli seconds,
from the registry, 150 seconds.
The file numbers are offset by one or three orders of magnitedue, because
the file is so small that the system chace it in memory, and write it to
disk at it leasure.
Bigger files would be slower, and take more time find the data you are
looking for.
You should also not to itoa() function, which takes proccessor cycles as
well.
Doing so with text files will be slower still, because you need to phrase
them.
But it wouldn't be *that* slow.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:29:30 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gJOI6.3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cuva7$jv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I agree, one of my *most* hated tasks is creating UI, be it GUI or CLI,
if
> I
> > program for fun, it's unlikely that I'll invest a lot of time in the UI
of
> > the application.
> > I've a friend who fell exactly the opposite, he dwells into UI with
> > overwheling joy. We do good work together.
>
> If your freind ever gets bored, send him over here! <g>
I *need* him.
*Shiver*, he coded a MC like application from *scratch*, in about one third
the time that it would take me do it, and then wondered why I was so amazed
by it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:36:09 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 05:25:22
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know
more
> >> >>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
> >> >
> >> >You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
> >>
> >> No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
> >> who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it
is
> >> so.
> >
> >Don't hire them to do any programming for you. Real programmers
> >consider the published interface to be a contract between the things
> >on either side and everything else is allowed to change - and almost
> >certainly will over time.
>
> Yet through all that, they're not stupid enough to think they are
> omniscient or omnipotent as programmers. The very fact that 'everything
> on either side is allowed to change' would be very re-assuring, if we
> didn't all know that upgrading a library occasionally breaks an app.
> Whether it was because the 'contract' was violated or what is, frankly,
> quibbling by programmers and has no impact at all on either users or
> copyright.
If upgrading the library breaks the API, then:
A> The library no longer implement the previous API correctly.
B> The updated library has new API, which is based on the old API, and in
non-backward compatible with the previous API.
Anyhow, the new library doesn't fullify the contract, it's not the fault of
the application.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:43:37 +0200
"Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 5 May 2001, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > I think about an API an interface, not a bunch of useless function
> > declaration. I can't interface with something I know nothing about, it
may
> > crash, corrupt data, etc.
>
> The books were written because people started hacking against the APIs.
> They would poke it and see what happened. Thus, the things that MS had
> not documented for public use were now being described for use by whomever
> wanted to.
Yes, I understand how they do it.
But it's not an API until you know what it does.
Until you know what it does, it's a function declaration that you can use,
but have no idea how it would affect your program.
You may use it for finding out what it does, but it's not an API.
Okay, I think that my defination of API is closer to your defination of
usable API, can we agree on this?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 12:52:46 +0200
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d0802$t4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin quoth:
>
> >>Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
> >>basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the
> >>command line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END
> >>don't work, you have to use CTRL+A and CTRL+E (IIRC) which is much
> >>less intuitive. It doesn't have a pop-up command history like
> >>cmd.exe (the F7 key), it doesn't have very good TAB completion (in
> >>cmd, subsequent hits of TAB cause cycling of files in the dir that
> >>meet the search criteria).
> >
> > <*cough*>
> >
> > Try man bash, trollboy; some of this is configurable, IIRC. As for
> > command history (use the arrow keys - Doh!)
>
> Just a typical example of someone who doesn't bother to learn the
> system and then spreads a bunch of inaccurate information about it.
> as you say, cycling through the commands using the up and down keys
> provides one kind of history. Doing something like
>
> alias foo='tail -20 .bash_history'
>
> in the user's .bashrc provides another. Of course, tab provides
> name completion or a list of choices rather than trying to guess for
> the user. In most cases, giving the user the list means a quicker
> result. Also, I don't get the point about <HOME> and <END>. Both
> work fine on my system to jump to the beginning and end of the line.
Okay, how do I get del to work correctly and not put ~ instead of deleting?
And in history, I think he meant F7 like, when you got a windows with all
your recent commands.
And how do I get tab completion to work on bash, for that matter?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
