Linux-Advocacy Digest #363, Volume #29 Sat, 30 Sep 00 03:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: How low can they go...? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Bob
Hauck)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:55:55 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[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...?
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>BTW, I hope you're prepared for the inevitable Devlin bullshit
> >>response: "I refuse to seek out alternatives to monopoly crapware. If
> >>there were a free market, I wouldn't have to."
> >
> >Yea, that pretty much sums it up. Congratulations on having gotten that
> >far.
> >
>
> Heh. At this point I bet I can do Devlin bullshit even better than
> Devlin himself can do Devlin bullshit...
Then it wouldn't really be "Devlin bullshit" then, would it? That would
be more like "making up crap".
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:03:38 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[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...?
James, what's the deal with the formatting of your posts?
Chris
James Stutts wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > >Speaking, I'm sure, for the majority of the US that doesn't live in
> > >California, I couldn't care
> > >less what the citizens of San Diego agree to. I used to live in a town
> with
> > >only one cable
> > >service (and a private electrical company). I never really had an issue
> > >with the electrical service,
> > >but cable service was lousy. The only option was satellite. Instead of
> > >whining about it
> > >to the world, as you seem want to do, one either accepted the poor
> service
> > >or chose the
> > >alternative.
> >
> > I have no idea what you're referring to. You brought up cable
> > companies.
>
> I was drawing an analogy between the "choice" situation for broadcast
> services and OS.
> That's not hard to follow.
>
> >
> > >> one, as there is little value in pretending to support competitive
> > >> markets in a necessary utility with huge capitalization costs.
> > >>
> > >> [...]
> > >> >> >Sounds like your complaint is really with your boss, not Microsoft.
> > >> >> >Perhaps MS is just an easier target for your venting.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Sounds to me like you're a moron.
> > >> >
> > >> >Ahh, here we go. I apparently hit the nail on the head.
> > >>
> > >> You apparently are grossly ignorant of reality.
> > >
> > >What reality?
> >
> > The one where Microsoft has been convicted of multiple felonies.
>
> The Supreme Court will answer that.
>
> >
> > >Your chief complaint seems to be that you are "forced" to use
> > >the laptop
> > >provided by your employer as your home computer.
> >
> > I've never complained in particular about my laptop; this is a troll
> > which others have raised in a vain attempt to defend a criminal
> > monopoly.
>
> What criminal monopoly? Have you ever priced Windows (actual purchase
> cost) to the competition? Have you ever bought Solaris (before the recent
> near giveway) or IRIX? The haven't raised prices. If anything, their
> prices
> have dropped.
>
> >
> > >You could actually BUY one, like most of the world.
> > >Then the OS would be your choice. Don't complain about something that's
> free.
> >
> > It sure as hell wasn't 'free'. I don't spend "the company's money"
>
> Your employer paid for it. You didn't. To you, it was free.
>
> > without reason. I demanded they buy NT because I refused to use 98 and
> > I could supposedly run the products of my trade on it, as well as
>
> You have a trade, Max? What is that?
>
> > maintain compatibility with the non-interoperable Microsoft solutions
> > which they'd implemented "because its free", or a monopoly, depending on
> > your perspective.
> >
> > >It doesn't have to cost money to "avoid the monopoly".
> >
> > Avoiding the monopoly is a cost to me; money, time, and compatibility in
> > an un-ending parade of reasons why monopolization is illegal.
>
> Making life convenient for you isn't the basis of the law.
>
> >
> > >You just choose the
> > >right platform
> > >for the work you intend to do.
> >
> > I chose the monopoly product because it is a monopoly product, which is
> > to say because I didn't have any commercially feasible alternatives
>
> Commercially feasible for what? What, besides posting drivel to newsgroups,
> do you use a computer for?
>
> > available due to the criminal behavior of the monopolist.
>
> Due to your laziness, more likely.
>
> >
> > >> --
> > >> T. Max Devlin
> > >> *** The best way to convince another is
> > >> to state your case moderately and
> > >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
> > >
> > >"Sounds to me like you're a moron" doesn't state your case moderately or
> > >accurately.
> >
> > That would depend on the circumstances and context, if one had any
> > interest in moderation or accuracy.
>
> Well, you certainly missed the circumstances and context here. You've
> convinced no one of anything.
> If you choose the "monopoly product", then you (and those like you) continue
> that monopoly. I used
> Solaris before NT. I have choices. So do you, if you'd bother to actually
> look. Of course, you'd
> have to find something else to complain about. You are one of those
> "network engineer" types, aren't you.
> Got to be.
>
> JCS
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:03:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> The mere fact that Microsoft could take a short early lead
> and turn it into an effective monopoly demonstrates that
> something was/is quite horribly wrong.
The fact that, in addition to this 'inside knowledge' of Windows, it
took predatory licensing and contracts and forced bundling to secure the
Windows and Office and IE and now Media Player monopoly, is even more
telling.
[...]
>>basically, MS changed the playing field on the competition, and they
>>were slow to respond.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> Some of us were actually using those products that you claim
> were non-existent in what you would likely regard as ancient
> history.
I honestly have to chuckle when the clueless Windows defendants try to
say that WordPerfect programmers couldn't have nailed a 'Win32'
implementation out of the box if not for Microsoft's undisclosed 'Word
helper' APIs.
>[deletia]
>
> By the time WinDOS was something worth bothering with, Microsoft's
> desktop competitors were there in full force with equivalent or
> better products.
Well, I have to also point out that neither WordPerfect nor Lotus were
amenable to a GUI interface. But still, hundreds of thousands of people
know how to use the products, and would have been perfectly happy with a
'Windows version' which merely worked well. But Microsoft's ability and
desire to keep vital and critical API information secret was quite
evident.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:08:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Whatever - as marketing, it worked. Whether it's better doesn't really
>matter.
You conveniently ignore the fact that being a 'superior product' is
allowable, and 'willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power' is
a crime.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:06:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >The 'improvement' that mattered was Windows 3.0 support. neither Lotus
>> >nor WordPerfect figured out fast enough that Windows was going to be
>>
>> Bullshit. You're talking about Monopolysoft taking a slight
>> early lead and no one being able to catch up. Lotus most
>> definitely supported Windows 3.0 early on. Anything else is
>> self serving historical revisionism.
>>
>> Borland was also rather on the ball too.
>
>Go back and read the PC Magazine reviews of the time.
Some of us read the PC Magazine reviews of the time, at the time, and
know what they said, what they meant, and what they indicated about
Microsoft's ability to control what worked on Windows, based on how much
it would further the monopoly.
Nobody expected any more from WordPerfect for Windows 6.0 (1.0) than
they did Word 1.0 (6.0); in the end, it was all about monopolization,
not development of technology.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:12:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> I'd say that depends on what you consider the 'real price', of which the
>> 'purchase price' is merely the beginning.
>
>Same as everything else. Just try and do an upgrade install from RedHat
>6.0 to 6.2 if you have two ethernet cards installed.
In a hearbeat. You forget, I've been using both PC and Unix systems for
almost a decade; I have no problem knowing and understanding how Linux
deals with two ethernet cards. But I won't bother mentioning the many
hours NT caused me today by not being able to handle a single ethernet
card, or a modem, for that matter, because the RAS server got screwed
and somehow trashed the PCMCIA drivers....
>> >Why is that? In the MS example, we have a company with no legally
>> >protected access - just good marketing that has driven it to the top of
>> >it's niche. With cable, we have US law protecting my provider, no
>> >matter how crappy their service.
>>
>> In point of fact, it was anti-competitive behavior, not 'good
>> marketing', which has secured the monopoly. With cable, you have laws
>> protecting you and the provider, so that even if your service is
>> idealistically perfect, there is still the potential, at least, for
>> competition. Again, though, you wish to put me in the position of
>> supporting cable companies in order to discuss Microsoft, and the two
>> have nothing to do with each other, save your inability to distinguish
>> the circumstances, and why one is illegal and the other is simply the
>> status quo.
>
>Ha. Those laws don't protect me. They force high prices and crappy
>service on me.
No they don't. You only think they do, because you're stupid.
>In the OS game, I do have choices. [...]
Let me guess; but you choose to use the product that 90% of the other PC
users just 'happen' to choose, and it 'happens' be to pre-installed on
the PC when you buy it, and just 'happens' to make it difficult to
replace it or migrate away from it....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:28:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Being an asshole, would be my guess. For being so sure of your
>> intellectual superiority that you don't realize that anyone in their
>> thirties has already thought things out more than you have. For
>> presuming that your mental capabilities or powers of observation are any
>> more keen than any random poster.
>
>In fact, the one thing people *never* do is think through all of the
>implications of something and correlate their ideas. To achieve a
>consistent belief system requires one to be a a fanatic and very few
>people are fanatics.
Fanatics don't have consistent belief systems. It is not possible to
have a 'consistent belief system' unless your belief system is entirely
and only the laws of physics.
>Further, very few people are formalists. In
>fact, very few non-mathematicians are formalists! So that gives me
>an advantage over most academics, let alone most USENET posters.
Everyone is a 'formalist'. They just have different conceptions of what
rules to 'formalize'.
>> are incorporating such capabilities. I've no idea why you think
>> 'orthogonal persistence' makes any sense whatsoever for a general
>> purpose operating system.
>
>OP makes sense because I want it, both as a programmer and
>as a user. It ESPECIALLY makes sense so that users do not
>have to learn to navigate the filesystem.
So you're assuming there is no benefit to being able to navigate a
filesystem? That sounds pretty flakey, to me. And I'm not the type to
allow assumptions about how people use PCs, though I'll admit that
'saving files' is the paradigm I'm most familiar with. I haven't seen
any reason to believe any other paradigm is more *efficient*, in the
end.
>Can you provide an example of something that will never be
>provided in Unix that you think would make perfect sense in
>a general purpose OS?
No, not off the top of my head, because I believe that a Unix OS can
provide all the benefits of a general purpose OS, since it is a general
purpose OS, in the perfect sense, though not necessary a perfect general
OS.
>> are simply too much the 'angry young man' to realize that a lack of
>> *experience* is not equivalent to a lack of *knowledge*. I'll admit to
>
>I'm a formulaist and that means that even as I recognize the difference
>in *practice*, I'll never admit to any in *theory*.
>
>I'm hardly the only person that way. Christopher Alexander, definitely
>one of the greats in my book, is also a formalist and his work has
>been *precisely* to distill experience into knowledge.
I'm sure that Christopher Alexander has no problem distinguishing a lack
of experience from a lack of knowledge, either in theory or in practice.
>> to a lack of the latter, without apology. You seem to think that a lack
>> of the former can be equally abrogated by reason, and you are making no
>> headway because of that fact. Get the chip off your shoulder.
>
>Oh, right. There's the "advice" to "become just like me".
Yes. Entirely bereft of assumption and intellectually capable of
dealing with any concept; understanding being entirely subjunctive and
synthesized by unique recognition of cognizant relevance. Just like me.
>People who have given up on their ideals and have "learned" to be
>non-judgemental are eager for youth to follow in their diseased
>footsteps because of fundamental insecurities about their positions.
Never trust anyone over thirty, eh?
>If the next generation sells out just like they did then that
>justifies their own actions as inevitable instead of as weakness.
No, it proves, as thousands upon thousands of years of cultural
development have proven before them, that 'angry young men' may, or may
not, turn in to wise old men.
>But I know too much already and I'm more than secure enough to
>strike out on my own.[...]
The ultimate problem of your generation is, indeed, that you know too
much and understand too little.
>Or I should say *would be* more than secure
>enough to strike out on my own since I am /not/ alone. I can point
>to any number of great people who have remained or will remain
>idealists to their dying day. And why should I settle for mediocrity
>when I can aspire to greatness? So that it will make you feel good?
>I hardly think so! To achieve anything great, you have to aspire
>to it. And I mean to achieve something great! (*)
>
>This applies to abrogating inexperience by reason because Formalism
>is a type of idealism.
>
>Oh, and there are more than enough examples of experience being
>distilled to knowledge. That's what Patterns are all about! And
>no, it isn't the same as having experience but it's a hell of a
>lot better than what most people settle for.
Yes, you're right. Yet your idealism is misplaced. Unix is a 'best
guess effort', and will not be overturned by your fanciful ideas of
end-result sans user abstraction.
>*: and I hardly need this to be an OS since there are at least
>four other important projects I could work at.
Go for it. Nobody here is trying to discourage you, I will guarantee,
from pursuing these projects; merely from acting arrogant on Usenet
because you have the opportunity to learn from failing at them, or
succeeding, if luck is on your side.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:34:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Revusky wrote:
>> > In other words, you made no attempt to refute my counter-arguments. As
>> > far as I could tell, by all rules of debate, you were conceding my
>> > points. In other words, it seemed to me that by your response -- or lack
>> > thereof -- that you were in fact conceding that that anonymous libellous
>> > speech was not protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
>> >
>>
>> Your points bored me, and I had better things to do with my time.
>
>This is a transparent lie, James. It is patently obvious that you did
>not respond to my points because you were not capable of doing so.
So far, I'd say your statement was false. Nothing is 'patently obvious'
until it is evidenced, and while you seem to be a troll, James seems to
be an man of some intent and integrity. Asking a person the equivalent
of 'do you still beat your wife' is hardly an incitements of *their*
character.
[...]
>If you had really been so bored of the topic, as you are representing,
>you would have simply withdrawn from the debate. Instead, you
>cherry-picked which posts you responded to.
As in, those that bored him with repetitive obstinate picayune points
where ignored, and those that provided useful and interesting points of
discussion were not?
I'm not familiar with the debate you reference, but so far you've hardly
made a case. Why would whether 'any libelous speech' be protected by
the Constitution be relevant to an argument, even one (we should
suppose) that some libelous speech is not protected?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 02:39:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Peter Thorsteinson made this argument earlier and I pointed out to him
>that if I feel wronged by someone's actions, I can respond in any way I
>see fit, as long as it is lawful. To lodge a complaint with the ISP or
>company from which the abusive material emanates is certainly lawful
>and, as far as I can see, quite appropriate.
I realize I'm butting in to a flame-war which I have no knowledge of,
but I think it is worth pointing out that, if you feel wronged by
someone's actions, you only have the right to respond in a way that a
*reasonable person* would see fit, as it alone would be lawful.
>BTW, Peter Thorsteinson seems to have gone to the James Robertson school
>of debate, which is simply to walk away when he cannot respond to the
>other's points.
Or perhaps he got bored responding to the endless and cyclical trolls of
certain annoying personalities....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [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: 30 Sep 2000 06:38:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
>> >> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
>> >> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
>> >> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
>> >> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
>> >> anyone else's?
>>
>> > In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
>> > programs.
>>
>> > Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
>> > didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
>>
>> What you meant to say, im quite certian, was this:
>>
>> "it's competitors sat on their laurels and didnt release a new version
>> every 3 months whether there were improvements or not, and create a
>> little clickety button for *everything* and instead kept things in
>> menus where windows users (but not mac or unix) couldnt find
>> them".
>>
> Whatever - as marketing, it worked. Whether it's better doesn't really
> matter.
Ahhh...the song of the windows user.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 30 Sep 2000 06:39:02 GMT
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> > Again, I belive NT does that. Every process is a thread, and every process
>> > can be multithreaded.
>>
>> Every application isnt multithreaded...
>>
>> > I don't see how an OS could force every process to multithread.. you have to
>> > program threads into your code.
>>
>> Exactly; BeOS demands it.
> So if I write a simple app that wouldn't benefit from being multithreaded.. I
> still have to code for it? If so, that's freaking lame. Noone should ever
> have to put in code that's not useful.
BeOS is unlike any operating system youve ever seen, apparantly...:)
=====.
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
> http://www.miguelito.org
> If Microsoft made cars instead of software, you could only have one person
> at a time in your car unless you bought Car95 or CarNT. But then you have
> to buy more seats.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 30 Sep 2000 06:40:12 GMT
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> 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.
> Have you even tried any other journalling FS? Reiserfs, xfs, even journalled
> ufs on solaris come to mind.
Ive used (and use currently) reiserfs and ufs, and neither one of them can
touch bfs in terms of filesize and speed...
=====.
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
> http://www.miguelito.org
> Ralph: "Oh yes, Larry Benson... the x1000. Worked out better then you
> dreamed, didn't they?"
> Larry: "Actually there was a little bit of a problem."
> Ralph: "Then it's with your software!" -- Small Soldiers.. sounds like most
> Chip and OS companies though. :)
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 30 Sep 2000 06:42:04 GMT
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[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?
For unix and unix-like systems, solaris, AIX and freebsd/openbsd...
For multimedia, beos, for game console, windows.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:43:43 GMT
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 02:54:41 GMT, Blacknight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Lock ups are caused by poorly programed applications, not by Windows98.
It is quite unacceptable these days for a general purpose desktop OS to
not protect itself from "poorly programmed apps".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 06:43:45 GMT
On 29 Sep 2000 09:29:52 -0300, Roberto Selbach Teixeira
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Java is a very powerful language. What do you feel it lacks?
Native compilers and libraries, and real standardization. I really
like Java, but I'm not too thrilled with byte-code or Sun.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
