Linux-Advocacy Digest #512, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 14:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux is a lamer (Terry Porter)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Linux is a lamer (Terry Porter)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux for the Navy ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Terry Porter)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Navindra Umanee)
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? (Terry Porter)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Hexdump)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BSD & Linux ("Vanbo")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Mar 2000 01:55:35 +0800
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:27:34 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:13:29 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Before I get pegged for being with one "wrong" group or another, I'd
>>like to say up front this is not where I was headed with this. I'm a Windows
>>user, it's great for my games, I'm a Linux user, I just like it pretty much
>>all around.
>You would really be happier with a Sony Playstation II
>
>> We are all well aware that netscape's current incarnation pretty much
>>bites. KDE and Gnome are both front-ends to make things easier, which is not
>>necessarily a bad thing. Those who want to do their stuff at the CLI are
>>welcome to do so. Equally so those who like a GUI. Gnome crashes, but it's
>>pretty cool when it doesn't.
>
>But it does, and quite frequently at that. Why is it that the Linux users
>put up with second rate software?
We don't, I dont use Netscape, its not installed here.
>
>> As far as GUI's Linux is playing catch-up to Windows. Windows however
>>should not even have to compete in terms of stability since it *should* be
>>completely stable on any supported hardware.
>And it is. The Windows list of USEFUL hardware, not some 1984 printer,
>although there are some of them also.
>
> When they claim total support
>>for who knows how many devices, that should mean they have total support for
>>those devices. Windows 95/98 is unstable. For a home user, a reboot once or
>>twice a day is not an issue.
>
>I boot once a day, only because I turn off my system at night. Never have a
>problem.
Thats because your computer is marginally usefull, whilst running Windows.
>
> I haven't used NT and don't intend to, it has a
>>pretty steep license fee which leaves me unable to even try it.
>Same here as well as somewhat shakey hardware support for what I need.
> Yes, I
>>understand that Windows 95/98 OEM fees are included in the cost of the
>>computer, but the difference between something I have for zero cost beyond
>>what I've already spent and something which may or may not be marginally
>>better for my usage for the price they're asking makes it a no brainer.
>
>This is the key reason why people will not switch to Linux. There really is
>no reason to do so other than to screw Gates.
I switched to Linux, in 1997, I did it for engineering apps, the kind that
would cost me tens of thousdands of dollars. I got them for free with Linux.
Gates is irrelevant to me.
>
>> As for performance, if you want to argue that the average home user
>>won't see a difference, then why do you argue that there is a difference? If
>>they will see the difference, then why argue about the difference?
>
>GUI under Linux is perceptibly slower.
Bullshit.
> Find under Linux is a joke. Ok so I
>can use Locate, but I can also use fast find under Windows Office which
>uses the same technique or building a database.
Windows + Windows office = Standard Linux "locate". Hahahhahahahah!
>
> If it's
>>there, that's just fact. If it's not, that also is just a fact. Neither way
>>is it arguable. The only argument left is what the developers are doing to
>>bring the lower score up.
>
>They always seem to be doing something under Linux, problem is the
>something arrives long after it is already obsolete in the Windows world.
Hmm, hows that LCD readout of stats on your Windows box going "Pickle" ??
I've had mine since Dec97, I guess yours is heaps older ?
You know the one, cpu usage, uptime, swap usage, ram usage, date, time etc
..... you dont ??? you havent ???
Well gues this makes you a bullshit artist huh ?
>Not really a bad thing if you like running less than current hardware, or
>don't expect state of the art performance in the way of features that you
>paid for BTW.
State of the art huh ?
Like multiuser facilities, remote GUI, http servers, irc servers, ftp servers
???
Oh you didnt, you meant state of the art paperclips, well excuuuuuuse me!
>
>> Again, I urge that those who really would like Linux to succeed,
>>concentrate on success. MS's failings or successes are all fine and dandy as
>>far as we're concerned as long as Linux does what we need it to and Windows
>>doesn't, there isn't "that kind" of competition. The system, any system,
>>that does what you need it to do for a price you're willing to pay is the
>>hands-down winner. No need to btich about what the other guy is or isn't
>>doing, chances are he's doing it for his own reasons and your judgement
>>(never spell this one right...but I know there are those who will notice so
>>I'll just point it out now and get that all over with) doesn't matter either
>>way.
>
>
>I would love to see Linux succeed, but it is headed down the path of
>extinction unless it wakes up and realizes that the world does not revolve
>around a group of holier than though geeks.
Well keep watching, then.
>
>> Bottom line. I'm not a Linux hater, nor a zealot. I don't think Windows
>>is all it should be after this long a development period, and I do believe
>>I'm paying too much for a system which doesn't give me all the freedom I'd
>>like to have. I don't know anyone who hasn't griped about the cost of
>>Windows at one time or another, even the most devoted aren't always pleased.
>>Don't flame me because someone took my post out of context and wants it to
>>be Pro-Windows. If anything, I'm Pro-Choice.
>
>Me too and for what I run, Linux isn't even in the same ballpark let alone
>the same game.
And whats that "Pickle", let me guess, "high" end audio ???
>
>Linux has become somewhat of a joke in my field.
You've become something of a joke in my news group.
>Joke goes like this:
>
>Running Linux yet?
>
>Nope. But I'm still trying.
>
>Why?
>
>It's free.
>
>What's your time worth?
>
>What's time. Time is free.
>
Yeah it must be, look how you spend yours ?
>
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 15 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Mar 2000 01:58:18 +0800
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:41:13 -0800,
pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert) wrote:
>>
>>It is so sad when Drestin resorts to bogus identities.
>
>This is _way_ too lame for Drestin. I'm thinking maybe 'S' got
>good behaviour time or got matrixed out and released early. But
>this'll probably violate him on his probation terms....
Hahahahahahahah
This is great stuff pac4854 :)))
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 16 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:00:39 GMT
On 04 Mar 2000 18:17:08 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:00:18 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>| >Quite a few hardware products are already windoze only, such as the nasty
>| >winmodems and GDI printers.
>| And the proof that this is due to pressure from MS is ... ?
>Are you paying attention? Has it occured to you that the very nature
>of this tatic means it leaves little or no evidence behind?
Sure, I mean it's not like we've just had a very expensive trial which
would have been a great forum to expose this kind of pressure if it
existed.
No, wait, it's * exactly * like we just had such a trial, with no
evidence of such pressure.
Couple of possibilities why:
1. No such pressure is being applied
2. Each and every recipient of such pressure continues to be so
intimidated that they will not speak on the issue (even anonymously)
to the DOJ so they could develop the evidence themselves.
I guess the last could happen -- I mean, it's not like the DOJ could
force MS to turn over the email in which such tactics were discussed.
No, wait....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Mar 2000 02:02:57 +0800
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 03:08:39 GMT, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sing it baby! Tell it like it is!!!!
He wouldn't know what "it" is Proculous.
>
>You were lucky that you could get your money back. I hope you burned a
>CD to give to your enemies so they can screw up their computers too
>just like Linux did to you!!!!!!!!!!
No, burning cd's containing proprietary software is for pirates like you Proc.
>
>Linux smokes the bone,,,,
Proc takes the bone, pass him the vasseline.
>
>
>proculous
>
Proculous, sometimes you're a real arsehole.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 16 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:03:45 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 14:52:26 -0800, someone claiming to be Bob Lyday
wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:17:47 -0500, someone claiming to be mlw wrote:
>> >Actually it is happening, but it is much more subtle. Better breaks,
>> >better internal MS QA support, incusion of drivers with distribution,
>> >etc. The term "pressure" is an appropriate term.
>> <looks>
>>
>> Still don't see any proof...
>Michael Dell and others have testified in court that this sort of thing
>happened and happens. It's a matter of legal record in a number of
>court cases now.
Then you should have no problem at all posting a reference to Dell or
whomever stating that MS applied such pressure in the realm of not
supporting non-MS OSes at the hardware level -- which was the original
claim.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:12:13 -0600
Hexdump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, but if it was just a simple program error why didn't they just restart
> their server application, assuming of course that when they stated that
> the "server crashed" they weren't referring to the machine itself.
Because, the data was in the database. Starting the app, the first thing it
would do is re-read the data from the database and crash again. Most
likely, they had to manually edit the data out of the database before they
could get it running again. They might not even know WHY it crashed to
begin with and had to do diagnostic research to find out.
> >The OS does not bluescreen from a div by zero, unless that application
> >was somehow magically running in kernel land, which would be extremely
> >unlikely (do you run apps in kernel space on a un*x box?).
>
> Here is a thought though, the "Smart Ship" (?) program is supposed to
> automate things, correct? Would that involve device drivers? If so, what
> would happen under NT ( or Linux, just to be fair) if a device driver had
> a division by zero error?
The OS would crash, but there is little reason for a device driver to be
doing divide by anything. device drivers typically only move I/O from one
place to another, they don't do complex calculations of data.
> >Sounds like the app tanked, and they're blaiming it on NT, for some
> >stupid reason.
Technically, one civilian contractor was taking the opportunity to bash NT,
because he wasn't happy with the Navy's decision. The Navy stated quite the
opposite.
> >Sounds like these Navy guys had something up their butts (no pun
intended)
> >and are just looking for some reason to get rid of what the higher-ups
> >forced on them.
>
> I must say I like your choice of words here. I can't help but be amused by
> your statement that NT had to be forced on them. LOL
Who knows what the navy itself thought. The only words of criticism came
from one civilian engineer who had been working on the equipment for 23
years. Chances are, he didn't like having to relearn a new system and throw
all his old knowledge away.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Mar 2000 02:09:03 +0800
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:52:45 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Why don't you refute the guys post instead of throwing spears?
He doesnt have anything worth refuting, thts why. Hes just a troll, like you.
>
>Last time I checked RealPlayer for Linux was way
>behind although this may have changed by now.
>
>I don't run Linux cause it sux big time.
>I tried it and it looked, ran and installed like
> a piece of software from 1981 so I dumped it.
Yeah Steve we all remember the 3 days you put into it. Personaly
I think it was a supreme effort, considering your attention span.
>
>pickle_pete
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 16 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux,dod.pb.af,dod.pb.misc,dod.pb.navy
Subject: Re: Linux for the Navy
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:13:03 -0600
I wouldn't call this "News" considering it's 2 years old.
noone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Brian,
>
> Check out this news link for the NT crash of the Aegis missile cruiser USS
> Yorktown...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Mar 2000 02:11:13 +0800
On 4 Mar 2000 17:28:00 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:18:53 GMT, proculous wrote:
>
>>For the latest in deviant homosexual behavior:
>>
>>http://www.cruisingforsex.com
>
>The funny thing about some homophobes is that they're obsessed with the
>fine details of homosexual acts, as well as gay pornography. This guys
>obsession with gay pornography would appear to suggest a repressed
>homosexual tendency.
Yeah its only too obvious. He's a sad repressed little thing.
>
>Personally, it never occurs to me to even think about homosexual acts
>or gay pornography -- I'm too busy thinking about girls.
Hahahahah, way to go Donovon :))
>
>--
>Donovan
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 16 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: 5 Mar 2000 18:11:40 GMT
MJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Adieu, it's just too painful. Ironically, you, John, have provoked the
: worst of it. I simply can't stand to watch your reasoned discussion met
: with infantile insecurity and protectionism. Better to leave the
: child-men to their folly than to waste time with them.
It occurs to me that the saga of Mac and NeXT advocacy would make a fine
opera(*). I think it would capture the feeling of the thing to see heroic
solos and chorouses sung from one side of the stage to another. I think
you are right though, that sometime these chorouses are sung against
advancing good ideas, rather than in defense or even in advancement of
their own platform.
I think I have seen you advance some fine ideas, only to see them sung
down, bascially as not very Apple-ish.
This is the nature of all *.advocacy, and not unique to the Mac/NeXT
heirarchy. I think the answer (which I aspire to, even if I fail on
occasion) is to grant to each platform its successes, while naming what I
think are interesting alternatives.
When people cannot see past the Apple-ishness of an idea, I try not to
take it too hard.
John
* - you've got the great beginning, the setbacks, and the resurgence to
recent triumphs
------------------------------
From: Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:12:23 GMT
Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Linux has an Achilles heel, it has now becomne clear what it is:
> binary incompatibilities.
Bloody damned right. I don't know about your subject line though.
I have half a dozen boxes running Linux with the original glibc 6
(along with others running libc5 or libc6.version.fsck.you). Some of
these run proprietary software such as Oracle or custom compiled
software/packages. I shudder at the prospect of having to upgrade
these boxes.
The need for upgrading isn't so far-fetched either; I recently hit the
Linux 2.2 16-bit user limit on one of the boxes.
And for the user:
[sandbox@asimov] [/tmp] wget ftp://micq.chatzone.org/pub/micq/V0.4.3/micq-i386-linux
--12:48:26--
ftp://micq.chatzone.org:21/pub/micq/V0.4.3/micq-i386-linux
=> `micq-i386-linux'
Connecting to micq.chatzone.org:21... connected!
Logging in as anonymous ... Logged in!
==> TYPE I ... done. ==> CWD pub/micq/V0.4.3 ... done.
==> PORT ... done. ==> RETR micq-i386-linux ... done.
Length: 100,623 (unauthoritative)
0K -> .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... [50%]
50K -> .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ [100%]
12:48:59 (3.47 KB/s) - `micq-i386-linux' saved [100623]
[sandbox@asimov] [/tmp] ldd micq-i386-linux
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40017000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
[sandbox@asimov] [/tmp] ./micq-i386-linux
Segmentation fault
Exit 139
(substitute 'micq' for 'shoutcast' if you want a more useful example)
All of this makes the TCO(MT) of Linux boxes significantly higher.
-N
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 6 Mar 2000 02:15:13 +0800
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:55:40 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've run both TurboTax and Tax-Cut under Windows with no problems and I
>don't have Netscape on my machine. Why does he have to jump through all
>kinds of hoops to run a program?
>
>I slapped the CD in and away it went.
>
>
>Typical Linux. It takes 10 operations to do what is sooooooo very simple
>under Windows.
Always will for the clue impaired like you Steve.
>
>Running programs for instance.
What would you know about programs Steve ?
>
>What a shame...
>
For those that came in late "Pickle" is a multiple personality, windows troll
who really has little clue, about much at all, let alone Linux.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 16 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hexdump)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 5 Mar 2000 18:20:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:12:13 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Hexdump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No, but if it was just a simple program error why didn't they just restart
>> their server application, assuming of course that when they stated that
>> the "server crashed" they weren't referring to the machine itself.
>
>Because, the data was in the database. Starting the app, the first thing it
>would do is re-read the data from the database and crash again. Most
>likely, they had to manually edit the data out of the database before they
>could get it running again. They might not even know WHY it crashed to
>begin with and had to do diagnostic research to find out.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
>> >The OS does not bluescreen from a div by zero, unless that application
>> >was somehow magically running in kernel land, which would be extremely
>> >unlikely (do you run apps in kernel space on a un*x box?).
>>
>> Here is a thought though, the "Smart Ship" (?) program is supposed to
>> automate things, correct? Would that involve device drivers? If so, what
>> would happen under NT ( or Linux, just to be fair) if a device driver had
>> a division by zero error?
>
>The OS would crash, but there is little reason for a device driver to be
>doing divide by anything. device drivers typically only move I/O from one
>place to another, they don't do complex calculations of data.
That's what I figured would happen but I was curious. I don't have any
experience with device drivers myself so I thought I'd ask.
>> >Sounds like the app tanked, and they're blaiming it on NT, for some
>> >stupid reason.
>
>Technically, one civilian contractor was taking the opportunity to bash NT,
>because he wasn't happy with the Navy's decision. The Navy stated quite the
>opposite.
>
>> >Sounds like these Navy guys had something up their butts (no pun
>intended)
>> >and are just looking for some reason to get rid of what the higher-ups
>> >forced on them.
>>
>> I must say I like your choice of words here. I can't help but be amused by
>> your statement that NT had to be forced on them. LOL
>
>Who knows what the navy itself thought. The only words of criticism came
>from one civilian engineer who had been working on the equipment for 23
>years. Chances are, he didn't like having to relearn a new system and throw
>all his old knowledge away.
--
JC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:24:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stanislav Kogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:35:46 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'll believe it when I see it. But it would be a
>> major coup for Win2K if a stock installation of Win2K on a
>> Hotmail x86 cluster can do as well as the old Solaris stuff,
>> and the user migration goes so seamlessly nobody notices until
>> someone either pokes around, or Microsoft issues a press release.
>
>Just listen to yourself: "...can do as well as the old Solaris stuff."
>
>If Solaris stuff is good, why do they need a new OS?
I did say IF. :-)
Bear in mind who own Hotmail. Microsoft.
>
>>
>> (Of course, there's also the possibility that they'll move it,
>> and then everyone will start complaining when emails get lost,
>> connection times increase, and hackers infiltrate and
>> ruin data -- I rather doubt MS wants that!)
>
>No, they don't. I don't think they will be doing it. There are bugs
>discovered in W2K already. (SP1 is out). So switching to it now will be
>suicide. At least 3-4 years.
SP1 is out already? I was under the impression that that would
be June...wow.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and here goes my faith in Microsoft. Oh, wait,
I didn't have that much to begin with. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Vanbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:35:31 GMT
I think he means that BSD is derived from (the origional) Unix with 20+
years of development and not just written a releative short time ago by
someone who needed a OS that was similar to what he used at school.
--
VANBO
"Timothy Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89tqvk$2h9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >While the BSDs are based on code that's been around for many years
(and
> >pretty closely descendended fromt the original UNIX) Linux was
written
> >to supply a UNIX-like OS during lawsuits in the early 90s. During
this
> >time, BSD code was tied up in a lawsuit where AT&T claimed that they
> >owned it and it must no longer be given away. Thus Linus wrote Linux
to
> >fill the gap.
>
> I don't think that is an accurate account of the birth of Linux.
> Linux actually grew out of Minix.
> It was the refusal of Andy Tanenbaum, the author of Minix,
> to provide an official 386 version
> which caused Linus Torvalds to write Linux.
> As I recall, he announced his project on the Minix newsgroups.
>
> >Linux is good, but IMHO it's still a UNIX-like system, whereas the
*BSDs
> >ARE UNIX.
>
> What does this mean?
> When AT&T owned Unix this might have made some sense;
> today it is totally worthless;
> it just means some company of no consequence
> has stamped your card with the word Unix.
>
>
>
> --
> Timothy Murphy
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> tel: +353-1-2842366
> s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 5 Mar 2000 19:04:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> better feedback than I can, since most of the 'Doze programming I do,
:> I do, per my employer's mandate, in that most vile of nonscalable,
:> non-object-oriented languages, *shudder* Visual Basic. (Which is
:> actually not bad for creating small database front-ends and other apps
:> of limited size and complexity, but nonetheless remains, as it always
:> has been, a total pain in the ass for building anything of nontrivial
:> size.)
: Which is hardly surprising given it was never *meant* for building anything
: of non trivial size.
A lot of companies do try to use VB to do large projects. :(
And a lot of small projects end up becoming large before anyone knew
what happened.
VB has gotten somewhat better over the years, and in fact all VB would
need in order to scale considerably better than it does are (a)
features such as inheritance, to support genuine object-oriented
programming; and (b) support for deploying on platforms other than
Microsoft's. Supposedly, item (a) is coming in the next version.
Item (b) we may never see. Although VB is based on a VM architecture,
the VM is highly dependent upon COM and the Win32 API.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:06:06 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No, they don't. I don't think they will be doing it. There are bugs
> >discovered in W2K already. (SP1 is out). So switching to it now will be
> >suicide. At least 3-4 years.
>
> SP1 is out already? I was under the impression that that would
> be June...wow.
No, it's not out. They have a few "hotfixes" out.
There are a few minor bugs. For example, if you're using a non-Gregorian
calendar,
sometimes dates aren't reported correctly to an application.
While a pretty big bug to those not using Gregorian calendars, it's not a big
deal over the scope of all the Win2K users.
This is an example of those 20 some-odd thousand bugs.
And of those bugs that Microsoft knows exists, this calendar business was
one of the immediate bugs they had to fix.
Does that tell you anything? (It should tell you that those 20+K bugs are
so minor and irrelevant that the general popualtion, and even special
users will probably never see them).
SP1 should be out in June, some time. So far, I haven't heard of any
glaring bugs that it's going to fix. All the "hotfixes" or critical
updates are pretty minor and don't effect hardly anyone.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
