Linux-Advocacy Digest #359, Volume #29 Fri, 29 Sep 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: How low can they go...? (chrisv)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What're Linus's computer/laptop specs? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: GPL & freedom (S.A.Belmonte)
Re: programming languages and design ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
> junior high students.
Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
It sounds like you dont have alot of experience with BeOS.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:26:18 -0000
On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>
>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>> junior high students.
>
>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
system to crash more?
It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>
>It sounds like you dont have alot of experience with BeOS.
Due to lack of hardware support primarily.
[deletia]
--
Many aligators will be slain,
but the swamp will remain.
Romeo wasn't bilked in a day.
-- Walt Kelly, "Ten Ever-Lovin' Blue-Eyed Years With Pogo"
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:25:45 +0100
>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>
I used to run Slakware 2.0 on a UMSDOS ( fat filesystem with extra file in
each directory to tell linux the real filenames and file attributes) and
only
crashed it once (running 4 copies of X-Doom on a 486 with 4mb RAM) and
even this was a big slowdown rather than a real crash. I still use this
vintage
version of linux on an old 486 laptop with 4mb ram occasionally (it only
takes
40mb of diskspace including X and 16mb swapfile).
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:49:35 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My bet is that the legal conduct of Microsoft will be found to be
>stellar and perfectly "pro-competitive", once it's heard by a panel of wiser
>judges instead of a clueless and collusive lower court judge.
Yech. Scum. Let me guess, you make a fat living with Microsoft
products somehow?
Anyways, I've had lawyers tell me that findings of fact like those
that were made in the Microsoft case are almost never overturned.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 29 Sep 2000 19:50:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>
>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>> junior high students.
>>
>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
> system to crash more?
As an excercise (and for the experience to back up your arguments),
your assignment is to go grab a copy of WinLinux2000 and install it
on a fat32 filesystem.
Then shut down the system suddenly and with no warning to anything
running on it at all...pulling the power plug is just fine for that.
Then boot it up again and watch what linux does.
> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>>
>>It sounds like you dont have alot of experience with BeOS.
> Due to lack of hardware support primarily.
Thus generating alot of the reasoning behind the arguments of some of
the most illogical and vehement anti-linux people on COLA. Try it,
you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
many others have ever seen.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:53:59 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>
>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>> junior high students.
>>
>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>
> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
> system to crash more?
>
> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
It doesn't fully shut down the system and come up in BeOS
from a 'cold' system if you use the 'Windows booting'
edition of Be. That's what makes it unstable as far as I
can tell. It doesn't really reset the hardware, it just
pulls what it can from Windows.
A fresh boot into BeOS is very stable. I've used it a lot
in the past, and have never had it crash on me. But when
attempting the Personal edition of 5.0 I was very
disappointed. Trying the Pro edition (which actually
boots the computer itself) was much more satisfactory.
Out of curiosity, would you suggest to people that using
the various 'Linux in Windows' packages is a fair
representatino of Linux on it's own? That's the basic
difference between Pro and Personal for Be.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What're Linus's computer/laptop specs?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:55:05 GMT
In article <8r17co$1jup$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"mlhickok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you talking about Linus Torvalds current project?
Actually, no, I meant the machine he was working on. Probably should've
been more clear about that. We were wondering what sort of setup he had
for his personal workstation and for his laptop (if he uses one).
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:25:26 GMT
think i started of on the wrong foot here...my standpoint is this...i 've
tested beos personal and as pretty as it was...whats all the fuzz about?
beos PERHAPS has a future as a desktop os in competition with (foremost)
windows but that remains to be seen, first of all, the number of usefull
apps must increase substansially and then we can see what happens!
/IL
it sure is as easy to use as windows anyway!
"Daniel Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8r05ul$ie6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ok, so I'm trolling a bit, but I'm not flaming any of these OS's. I
> can say that I've tried all four of these (well, not much MacOS, but
> the rest) and have found BeOS the best of all worlds (for home use).
>
> Like the command line? Beos has a Bash shell.
>
> Like the GUI? Beos has its own GUI, as well as Windows, Mac, Amiga and
> Gnome look and feel options.
>
> SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
>
> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
>
> Can you say pervasive multi-threading? I thought you could.
>
> OpenGL support? Yup, and its gonna get *much* better real soon. Early
> results already look *very* promising.
>
> Stability? Your odds of crashing Beos are even less than crashing a
> unix box. I've even *tried* to crash it and failed. Protected
> namespace. Go figure. Don't even get me started on Windows.
>
> Think Linux is just as stable? Then try this: start linux -- turn off
> PC without init 0. Possibly repeat one or two more times. Watch linux
> crash.
>
> Shutting off the PC without an init 0 won't happen in your house? Then
> you must not have power failures or small children.
>
> Apps? Oh, all right. BeOS doesn't have a ton of Photoshop-like apps,
> but there is lots of freeware and shareware already. But then if we
> based an OS's quality based on apps available, Windows would win hands
> down. Are you *really* sure about that?
>
> Of course, BeOS does have the only audio app that I know of that can
> play .mp3 files backwards. Haven't you ever wondered what Prince says
> at the end of "Purple Rain"?
>
> Drivers? Again, this is not the fault of the OS, but the will of
> hardware manufacturers. ATI and 3dfx are now supporting Beos. Now if
> we only had some more printer and scanner drivers.
>
> Network / multi-user support? Oh, all right. I can't win here. We'll
> see what happens in BeOS 6. At least I can say that BeOS
> was "prepared" for such an enhancement.
>
> Ease of use? Totally subjective. You can always go back to DOS 6.22
> or a command-line only unix if you really want to. I still have my
> Wordstar disks, just in case.
>
> Regards,
>
> DJB
>
> --
> In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:29:24 -0000
On 29 Sep 2000 19:50:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>>
>>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>>> junior high students.
>>>
>>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>
>> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
>> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
>> system to crash more?
>
>As an excercise (and for the experience to back up your arguments),
>your assignment is to go grab a copy of WinLinux2000 and install it
>on a fat32 filesystem.
This is distinguished from a comparable version of BeOS
by being product of a third party. The quality of the
particular distributor could be in dispute. There could
also be problems with FAT32 itself under Linux being quite
likely a second tier driver in terms of support.
Whereas any BeOS edition is the product of a more structed
release process. This sort of process should ideally prevent
"bad distros" or distros based on "questionable drivers".
Either way, any "bad version of BeOS" reflects badly on the
corporation that has sole control over it. It also makes Be's
motives suspect. The whole point of something like Be is to
have a system more driven by engineering than marketing or
legacy support issues.
>
>Then shut down the system suddenly and with no warning to anything
>running on it at all...pulling the power plug is just fine for that.
Win 3.x seemed to handle that well enough.
Besides, as I've stated before: it's not the datastore that
matters so much as what's being written to during the last
transaction. Even a real RDBMS can lose the last transaction
during a sudden shutdown.
>
>Then boot it up again and watch what linux does.
Why would it do any different than ext2? Both are non-journaled
filesystems. Both will result in data loss and possibly some
fs corruption. Neither should be expected to spontaneously
implode those parts of the disk that were not in use at the
time of shutdown.
>
>> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
>> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>
>>>
>>>It sounds like you dont have alot of experience with BeOS.
>
>> Due to lack of hardware support primarily.
>
>Thus generating alot of the reasoning behind the arguments of some of
>the most illogical and vehement anti-linux people on COLA. Try it,
Hardly. If anything this is a strong anti-Be argument and a
possible pro-opensource or pro-linux one.
Linux is managing to best the only other commercial OS
competitor in the x86 space in terms of device support.
>you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>many others have ever seen.
So. That still doesn't make your Win-centric gibberish any more valid.
--
It's later than you think.
How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb?
"Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:32:08 -0000
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:53:59 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>>
>>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>>> junior high students.
>>>
>>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>>
>> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
>> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
>> system to crash more?
>>
>> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
>> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>
>It doesn't fully shut down the system and come up in BeOS
What exactly is lingering around to provide problems for
the new kernel? Should you trust an OS that doesn't
completely flush the state of the system once it takes
control?
>from a 'cold' system if you use the 'Windows booting'
>edition of Be. That's what makes it unstable as far as I
>can tell. It doesn't really reset the hardware, it just
>pulls what it can from Windows.
>
>A fresh boot into BeOS is very stable. I've used it a lot
>in the past, and have never had it crash on me. But when
>attempting the Personal edition of 5.0 I was very
>disappointed. Trying the Pro edition (which actually
>boots the computer itself) was much more satisfactory.
>
>Out of curiosity, would you suggest to people that using
>the various 'Linux in Windows' packages is a fair
>representatino of Linux on it's own? That's the basic
>difference between Pro and Personal for Be.
--
Between infinite and short there is a big difference.
-- G.H. Gonnet
I know you're in search of yourself, I just haven't seen you anywhere.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 29 Sep 2000 21:41:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>>many others have ever seen.
> So. That still doesn't make your Win-centric gibberish any more valid.
Win-centric? You apparantly have misunderstood my entire argument. I am
in actuality exceedingly anti-windows in nearly every case. I dont like linux
much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 21:59:10 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont like linux
> much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
>
>
Such as?
/IL
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 29 Sep 2000 22:30:11 GMT
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:04:52 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2000 22:09:07 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>30% or so. Further, the house and land gains value, usually at a rate
>that's comparable to the interest. So a mortage is a decent deal for
That's not really clear. It could go either way. An investment in a house,
like any other investment is certainly not risk free. If it was, everyone
would invest in real estate instead of buying mutual funds, stocks or
other things.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: S.A.Belmonte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: 29 Sep 2000 22:30:53 GMT
I've been following this thread with some interest. Here's my 2
cents. (Or dollar more like.)
I think it is important to be clear the the GPL is a licence. And
licences protect the rights of the copyright holder and no one else.
It is also *only* a licence and nothing else. Anyone who holds a
copyright can choose to let others copy their work under any terms and
conditions they like by granting a licence. The copyright is still held
by the copyright holder.
If a copyright holder for a piece of software decides to licence copying
of their work under the terms and conditions of the GPL then that is
wholly their choice. Also, in countries where the GPL (or licences in
general) is a legal document, the copyright holder is quite entitled to
sue anyone who copies their work in breach of the licence.
Licences cannot infringe the rights of third parties because, as far as
the copyrighted work is concerned, third parties have no rights over the
work other than those granted in the licence. If a third party cannot or
will not adhere to the terms of the licence then they cannot copy the
licenced work without breaking the law in most countries.
So it is quite simple. If you do not agree with the terms of the GPL
then DO NOT copy anything that is licenced under the GPL.
However, I think the main point that is surfacing under all the
discussions over the semantics and definition of the word 'free' is that
many of the opponents of the GPL believe that people in general may be
being mistaken thinking that the GPL is something that it is not.
I do believe that the GPL is explicit and defines its terms quite
precisely so anyone who reads it should have no misunderstanding as to
the meaning. But I also believe that not many people have actually read
the full licence and could quite easily assume (as is evident in this
thread) that 'free' means they can use GPL'd software in any way they
like. This is not the case, the terms of the GPL are quite strict.
I may be wrong. Who thinks that there is a general misunderstanding as
to what the GPL actually grants? I certainly came up against a few of
the problems brought up in this thread when I was asked to release some
of my code under the GPL.
I don't care about definitions of 'free' or 'freedom'. The GPL, under
some circumstances, can be quite restrictive. But to do what it does, it
has to be restrictive. I've nothing against that. It is just one licence
out of multitude that are generally an order of magnitude more
restrictive than the GPL. All licences have to be restrictive, to some
degree, if they are to protect the rights of the copyright holder.
The GPL, simply put, lets you use GPL'd code in your code. And if you
release any code that contains GPL'd code, then that code must be
release under the GPL as well. That is a condition of the licence. The
copyright holder has every right to licence his code under any terms he
likes. The copyright holder owns the code, not you. If you don't agree
with the terms, don't use the code.
Don't demonise the GPL. 1) It is just a licence; 2) it is not really
damaging software production because it is not stopping programmers
programming. If you really want to make a Readline library that
commercial vendors can make use of without impunity and cost then write
one yourself and release it under your own terms. GPL is not the be all
and end all of software licences.
[By the way, the word licence is derived from the Latin word for
freedom.]
Scott.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 29 Sep 2000 22:46:58 GMT
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Donal K Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:>> Uninformative statement; after programming C++ a root canal
:>> is pleasant.
:>
:> Why is it? C++ is a very well designed language.
: C++ is a hack to add OO to C.
In my view, *both* of those things are true.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
