Linux-Advocacy Digest #372, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ("Glitch")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox)
Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux ("Flacco")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Greg Cox)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: where's the linux performance? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: where's the linux performance? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 20:54:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:34:05
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> >Not too simple, just untrue in the programming case. Code calling
> >> >functions
> >> >from another library is not a derivative of that library any more than
a
> >> >playlist
> >> >is a derivative of the songs mentioned. [...]
> >>
> >> Okay, I can live with that. Code calling functions from a library are
> >> not a derivative of the library. That doesn't prevent the program from
> >> being derivative of the library, according to the FSF's position. You
> >> disagree with that position, and you have made the position very
> >> comprehensible. I certainly consider it a reasonable position, when
you
> >> state it like that. I still consider it mistaken, based on a
> >> metaphysical concept of copyright which denies the reality of the
> >> conflict between software and copyright which makes it a defensible
(and
> >> thus legally correct) position. Just because no literal copying is
> >> going on does not prevent infringement from occurring.
> >
> >You are free to believe anything you like but if you want someone to
> >agree it would help to find any evidence that copyright law covers
> >any case where nothing is copied, or any other case where a program
> >using a library automatically becomes a derivative of that library
> >even though it did not include it in the distribution. Considering
> >that nearly every program requires at least the host system libraries
> >it would seem that the case would have come up a long time ago
> >if the system vendor had a chance of controlling competing application
> >vendors or getting royalties from them.
>
> It still annoys you that you cannot demonstrate anything but imaginary
> flaws in the FSF position, doesn't it?
It annoys me that with no evidence of support in law that they can
bully others into complying with their political agenda, which is
to reduce the choices for the rest of us. And it annoys me that
with no supporting evidence you continue to agree that you want
to let someone else take your choices away.
> As soon as you drag them into court and prove them wrong, Les, you'll
> have a point. Until then, you're just pissing into the wind. If they
> were a profit-seeking organization, I'd be as disturbed about it as you
> are, but they're not. It doesn't change the rules of copyright, of
> course, but it certainly changes the rules of suing for copyright
> violation. And that, of course, is the point. You want to blame
> someone, blame the RIPEM boys who rolled over so quickly; they should
> have stood up for their 'rights'.
Why should they have to pay to let other users have the rights to use
their own copies of a library? It is probably better to just keep the
matter out in the open so everyone can see the real agenda of the FSF
which is obviously not to help the cause of free software at all.
> That way, the court would be able to
> set your thinking straight, by pointing out that they have no "rights"
> to use GPL software without being bound by that agreement.
"They" aren't using GPL software by writing calls to it's API. You are
using your copy when you run it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 9 May 2001 23:00:39 +0100
On Tue, 8 May 2001 09:37:29 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>On Mon, 7 May 2001 18:29:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>>Windows has the killer applications that DOS didn't, what killer
>>>applications does XP have that you can't run on 9x?
>>>Since it's going to be a long time before stuff that is written to XP
>>>will not be able to run on 9x, I would say you are in for a long wait.
>>How about Windows Media Player 8?
>
>Don't make me laugh. Unless it went through a *thourough* overhaul, there
>isn't a *chance* of WMP8 being worth a dime.
>
I certainly didn't mean to say it was. However, it is supposed to run only
on XP.
>Start playing a CD, try changing tracks... On my system, PIII-500+448MB, the
>easiest way to do it is to teminate WMP7, and start all over again! And I
>won't start talking about how it does MP3...
>I got WinampLite, which does everything I want it to, does it fast,
>efficently, and reponsively.
>Practically *anything* is better than WMP.
>
I use it to watch movie clips on Windows (because it happens to be the
standard viewer), but for sound it's WinAmp for me too. For CD's I like
the good old CD-player that came with W95.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · There will always be survivors - Robert A. Heinlein · []
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:16:09 -0400
> In article <9daq5c$9bs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chaparral"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is
> the end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to
> date, the bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home
> computer easy enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still
> doesnt come close!
>
> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff
> that you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't
> want to fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then
> having barely predictable responses.
oh ok, but yet it's ok for me to struggle to use Word and prevent it from
indenting any sentences that begin with a number when I dont want it to
do that. That's another example of MS thinking it knows what I want. I
was typing out questions for my final in C++ on Monday in the lab. I
wanted to type out the answers to the essay questions since i can type
faster than I write write. I of course numbered each question and if I
hit Enter at the end of the line the next line was automatically indented
and numbered but i didn't want the next line to be like that. I wanted to
start typing my answer on the next line. I had to waste time figuring out
a work around instead of actually doing MY TEST.
>
> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of
> WinBlows on the server farm... especially when you can tell a client
> that full-blown server software will only cost him $75 compared to
> $2000 plus for 2000Server!
>
> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
> server market to dry up.
>
> Im done now.
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:08:44 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dc4rh$1ev$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > I think that they didn't want to let it happen, if you can open up
> > hardware
> > > access one way, you can open it in other ways too.
> > > How does linux handle it, btw?
> >
> > It provides bios emulation for normal system functions, but also allows
> > you to specify memory and port ranges that it can access directly so
> > dos device drivers or programs that talk directly to hardware can work.
> > That gives them the same opportunity to crash the system that they would
> > have under dos or win9x. I'm not sure if it provides any locking for
> > multiple instances or not - I doubt if it does.
>
> Actually, my question was how Linux deal with the security hole this
> creates.
The usual way: root can do anything.
> Since DOSEMU can give an application a direct hardware access, so can
other
> stuff, right?
If you run it setuid root and let it do its own screening of what it should
allow.
> Off topic:
> I once tried to write directly to a floppy, and accidently initializing
it.
> (IE, threated it like an array and put 0 everywhere)
> The source code for the program was on this disk, and I never bothered to
> recreate it.
Unix/Linux uses the same simple concept of devices for everything, so
the raw disk device (an array or stream of bytes) has one name and
associated permissions, partitions within the disk have other names
and permissions, and filesystems in the partitions are handled by
writing the format to the raw partition, then mounting it at a mount
point. If you want to access files in a filesystem, you access filenames
below the mount point. If you want to access the raw device you use
the device name. The concept of hiding everything behind open(),
read(), write(), lseek(), and close() with permissions in the inodes
has held up very well over the years with a few modifications to
get a network socket open so it can be inherited by programs that
know nothing about networking. Unix programs rarely need to know
anything about the devices they might be using - it is all controlled by
the mapping of the names to device drivers in the inodes. Why does
Windows add the complexity of making every program need to know
the difference between (say) a tape drive and a file?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:13:54 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Tennent"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
>
> there is a white paper available that describes
>
> seven key benefits to OEMs that use Windows 2000 and the SAK 2.0
> over similar Linux based solutions
>
> I've been unable to download anything usable. An empty boast perhaps?
> Can anyone else get anything?
>
> Bob T.
Yeah,
I really like this one:
"Clarity of Intellectual Property Ownership"
Yep. It's clear alright, it's Microsofts IP. You just get to rent it for a
bit.
And how's this for a howler:
"Supporting Kerberos Security
Windows 2000 supports Kerberos security, a state-of-the-art user
authentication. It is widely accepted that Microsoft has the current
reference implementation of Kerberos in Windows 2000. Kerberos can be
installed on Linux, but only as an extra feature. The fact that Kerberos
is not a standard feature in Linux leads to versioning problems."
Wait, it gets better:
"Windows 2000 provides the best interoperability of any operating system
available; over the past decade, Windows has led the way in providing
integration with Netware, UNIX, Banyan Vines, and other operating systems.
Because Windows has been designed to exist in mixed environments,
customers have the assurance that server appliances that are powered by
Windows can interconnect and interoperate with any common network
environment"
And now why would this be:
"It is important to note that the vast majority of the anti-virus software
available is Windows based, and therefore ready to run on Windows 2000
server appliances. Linux-based NAS appliances simply do not have the vast
base of robust and powerful anti-virus software that would be available
with a Windows 2000 server appliance."
This document is basically all the well known FUD by MS. Printing it
would have been a waste of paper. Read it, it is a great laugh!
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:20:46 +0200
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 09:37:29 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>On Mon, 7 May 2001 18:29:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >>>Windows has the killer applications that DOS didn't, what killer
> >>>applications does XP have that you can't run on 9x?
> >>>Since it's going to be a long time before stuff that is written to XP
> >>>will not be able to run on 9x, I would say you are in for a long wait.
> >>How about Windows Media Player 8?
> >
> >Don't make me laugh. Unless it went through a *thourough* overhaul, there
> >isn't a *chance* of WMP8 being worth a dime.
> >
> I certainly didn't mean to say it was. However, it is supposed to run only
> on XP.
So?
There are plenty of other media players.
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:21:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
> >> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
> >> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
> >> >
> >>
> >> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
> >> I make improvements to it.
> >>
> >No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
> >they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
>
> Oh, really? Guffaw. Case closed. ;-)
>
>
"Guffaw your way over to www.ford-diesel.com and look at the forums.
Several people have had problems with Ford canceling their engine
warrenty because of the installation of an exhaust brake.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 23:20:10 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Tennent"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
>
> there is a white paper available that describes
>
> seven key benefits to OEMs that use Windows 2000 and the SAK 2.0
> over similar Linux based solutions
>
> I've been unable to download anything usable. An empty boast perhaps?
> Can anyone else get anything?
>
> Bob T.
I put up an RTF version (slightly messed up):
http://drebbelstraat20.dyndns.org/~mvdwege/sakcomp.rtf
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:25:39 GMT
This is astoundingly funny.
It's also disturbing that people are out there who can put fingertips to
keyboard and cheerily type such blatant lies, then post them for the world
to see.
MS has been lying to its customers for so long it becomes second-nature, I
suppose.
>> According to
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
>>
>> there is a white paper available that describes
>>
>> seven key benefits to OEMs that use Windows 2000 and the SAK 2.0
>> over similar Linux based solutions
>>
>> I've been unable to download anything usable. An empty boast perhaps?
>> Can anyone else get anything?
>>
>> Bob T.
> Yeah,
>
> I really like this one:
>
> "Clarity of Intellectual Property Ownership"
>
> Yep. It's clear alright, it's Microsofts IP. You just get to rent it for
> a bit.
> And how's this for a howler:
>
> "Supporting Kerberos Security
>
> Windows 2000 supports Kerberos security, a state-of-the-art user
> authentication. It is widely accepted that Microsoft has the current
> reference implementation of Kerberos in Windows 2000. Kerberos can be
> installed on Linux, but only as an extra feature. The fact that Kerberos
> is not a standard feature in Linux leads to versioning problems."
>
> Wait, it gets better:
>
> "Windows 2000 provides the best interoperability of any operating system
> available; over the past decade, Windows has led the way in providing
> integration with Netware, UNIX, Banyan Vines, and other operating
> systems. Because Windows has been designed to exist in mixed
> environments, customers have the assurance that server appliances that
> are powered by Windows can interconnect and interoperate with any common
> network environment"
>
> And now why would this be:
>
> "It is important to note that the vast majority of the anti-virus
> software available is Windows based, and therefore ready to run on
> Windows 2000 server appliances. Linux-based NAS appliances simply do
> not have the vast base of robust and powerful anti-virus software that
> would be available with a Windows 2000 server appliance."
>
> This document is basically all the well known FUD by MS. Printing it
> would have been a waste of paper. Read it, it is a great laugh!
>
> Mart
>
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:26:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:30 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <9d84g7$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> 3
> >> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 18:29:54 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> > >"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > >>Sure I've seen the occasional box running DOS in a closet with a unix
> >> > >>print
> >> > >>server client running on it here and there but... that hardly means
> >> MS-DOS
> >> > >>is alive and well.
> >> > >Windows has the killer applications that DOS didn't, what killer
> >> > >applications does XP have that you can't run on 9x?
> >> > >Since it's going to be a long time before stuff that is written to XP
> >> will
> >> > >not be able to run on 9x, I would say you are in for a long wait.
> >> > >
> >> > How about Windows Media Player 8?
> >>
> >> Don't make me laugh. Unless it went through a *thourough* overhaul, there
> >> isn't a *chance* of WMP8 being worth a dime.
> >> WMP7 is a bloody resource hog, slow, unresponsive, slow, and did I mention
> >> slow?
> >> Start playing a CD, try changing tracks... On my system, PIII-500+448MB, the
> >> easiest way to do it is to teminate WMP7, and start all over again! And I
> >> won't start talking about how it does MP3...
> >> I got WinampLite, which does everything I want it to, does it fast,
> >> efficently, and reponsively.
> >> Practically *anything* is better than WMP.
> >>
> >
> >Just for grins I fired up WMP7 running under Win2k on my PII-450 with
> >256MB memory. According to the task manager it sucks up less than 5
> >percent of the cpu and uses 3.5 MB of system memory when minimized.
> >When not minimized it uses about 20 percent of the CPU and 5.5MB of
> >memory. It changes tracks just fine for me...
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ....and what kind of stats can you give us when you downloaded and ran
> WinAmp 8 ?
>
>
Are you talking about Winamp 2.75 available from www.winamp.com or the
Microsoft Windows Media Player for WindowsXP?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:32:50 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dc5tf$kpd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
>
> This argument has gone sidewary from the origional and I'm about to try
> to argue against stuff that I agree with. To set it back on track:
>
> The GDI and PS have various advantages and disadvantages, ie there is
> nothing wrong with each per se.
>
> One problem with the GDI interface is that there is no way of extracting
> an intermediate device independent file format and then later printing
> that on an arbitraty windows machine with a printer. This is a shame
> because a suitable file format exists (WMF) and IIRC windows machines are
> capable of recieving remote GDI commands for printers because they are
> able to use printers on remote computers with remote drivers.
It's possible to do what you want programmically; I think
you really mean you want a user interface to it.
The main problem you get is that you have to settle
for whatever fonts you can get at the other end,
and this may throw your layout off.
> Another disadvantage is the excessive complexity for applications that
> want to do only very basic printing (however for complex stuff, this
> becomes much less of an issue)
It *is* harder to emit lines of plaintext in order
using GDI, but it's not really rocket science.
Considering the market Windows sells into,
it's surely a worthwhile tradeoff.
> The primary advantage with the GDI is that it is tied in to the windows
> display model which makes WYSIWYG programs easier to write.
The other advantage, already discussed, is that you can
inquire about the particular printer you will be printing
on. This is the bit that can't be made to work with
the 'intermediate file' approach you want- even if the
intermediate file is in WMF format.
> The advantage of the UNIX print system[1] is that you can extract a
> device independent file which you can print on any other UNIX system. The
> disadvantage is that there is no direct link between X and PS making
> WYSIWYG programming rather harder. However, these points are being
> addresses and there are now toolkits to address this functionality, but
> they are not yet universal.
I think that this audience of people who need this
technique is rather small, even if you don't fuss over
whether they count as "desktop users".
> Another advatage of the UNIX print system is that it allows arbitrary
> print filters to be put on the input and output of each print queue,
> which I have found gives more flexibility than is avaliable under windows.
What do you do with these print filters that you
can't do with Windows?
> Also _basic_ printing from UNIX apps is easier---all you need is a
> knowledge of printf() and about 6 different PS commands. To do basic
> printing under Windows, rather more overhead is required.
I agree. For comparison, to do elementary printing in
Windows you need:
CreateDC(), DeleteDC(),
GetDeviceCaps(), SetMapMode(),
BeginPage(), EndPage(),
BeginDoc(), EndDoc(),
CreateFont(), SelectObject(), DeleteObject()
GetTextExtent32(), TextOut()
13 commands. You can emit text anywhere on
the page and in any font with that much, but
that's it; no graphics.
> The final point is this:
>
> For a program which can generate screen graphics, print and make things
> to embed in documents, you need to know GDI stuff (display and printing)
> and OLE stuff, for embedding. Under UNIX, you need X for display and PS
> for embedding and printing. Either way, you only get 2 out of 3 unified.
I am certain that PS does *not* give you embedding, not
if you mean anything like what OLE does.
If you want to stick a WMF in another document, you
don't need to use OLE to do it.
> I think this just about sums it up.
>
> On a personal note, I prefer the UNIX way, because I do a lot of basic
> printing. I also often generate images on faster computers and embed them
> in to documents written on my computer, or print them from my computer.
Sounds like you are writing a lot of simple, one-off
software that prints simple stuff; not the kind of
thing Windows was intended for.
It's the kind of thing Unix is pretty good off.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 22:40:14 +0200
pip wrote:
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>>
>> I have a buddy that is a Java nut whom told me that some of the fastest
>> JVM's are on Linux.
>
> Erm - he can dream on!
>
No, he is right. Espacially the IBM-JVM is very fast.
>>Keep in mind he's a windows guy, mostly. Likewise,
>> I have seen lots of benchmarks that show this to be true.
>
> really?
>
>>It seems that
>> not all JVMs are created equal. I would guess that the OS has little
>> to nothing to do with the performance of a JVM, rather, the bulk of the
>> responsibility squarely falls on the JVM implementor's shoulders.
>
> ..and the OS does have a fundamental role as in all programs!
>
No, not really. After JVM and program arre loaded, it depends mainly on
processor-slice the two get. Donīt start this crap about WinNT / W2K
scaling better, they donīt, and it has about nothing to do with
Java-speed.
Iīve tried Java on linux and windows (self written apps)
Speed depends *very* heavily on the JVM utilized.
But the fastest Java Iīve seen runs on OS/2.
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 22:33:15 +0200
pip wrote:
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>>
>> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I can't speak to KMail or Forte, but StarOffice under Windows, even
>> > with competent hardware (600MHz PIII, 256Meg, W2k) takes well over 20
>> > seconds to start the first time, while Word takes 8 seconds. The
>> > second time around (with lots of stuff remaining in cache) it's less
>> > than five seconds for both programs.
>>
>> Keep in mind that Microsoft loads a lot of the DLLs used by office when
>> the
>> system starts. Additionally, that's one of the reasons why the office
>> bar is
>> preferred to be started when the system starts. It helps preload even
>> more. On top of that, the OS is hugely biased toward office
>> applications which specifically organizes the office data to load much,
>> much, much faster from
>> disk. I guess I'm trying to say that you can not compare load time of
>> office with any other application, let alone different applications on
>> different OSs.
>>
>> A more meaningful result, but still not fair, would be to load star
>> Office, unload it, making sure you have enough memory to cache it, then
>> load it
>> again, this time timing it. This type of behavior is more in sync with
>> the types of things that Windows does with office.
>
> You could try the same with any Linux app and a 2.4 series kernel.
>
>> I've heard some other rumors of office specific caching that goes on
>> once you've installed office, but I've never seen them confirmed.
>
> That's because they are not true.
But they are. Look more closely what is loaded on startup *after* you
installed Office. Also look how much RAM is used (mind you, even if you
donīt have any intention of starting any office-app)
Peter
--
Linux is like a Wig-Wam: No Gates, No Windows, Apache inside
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:40:34 +0100
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>You're in a linux advocacy group... what netiquette you'll find here is
>rare. I don't trim here to keep the context.
(I accept your point of view; mine differs; we shall co-exist ;-)
>I knew very well that the software will eventually roll. You have to
>recognize a good thing when you see it.
Sure. I'm hopeful more Linux games will be developed as demand from
Linux users (such as thyself, myself, and others) increases.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.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
******************************
