Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2? (mlw)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Free ISP for Linux? ("Cymen Vig")
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (mlw)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 9 Oct 2000 13:59:04 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8roqd7$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rlb6h$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > Come on Mike, you know one answer doesn't fit every question.
> > Obviously
> >> >> > there are situations where Gig adapters will excel but not in the
> >> > scenario I
> >> >> > was discussing/discribing (unless I misunderstood the situation).
I'm
> >> > using
> >> >> > gig over copper quite happily at two installations - we find
multiple
> >> > NICs
> >> >> > perform better when there are more users doing large amounts of
> >> > relatively
> >> >> > small requests. When the transfers are long/streams the bigger
> >> > individual
> >> >> > pipes are the way to go. Depends on usage, I know you know that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Only on sucky MS operating systems that have difficult with
> >> >> context switches.
> >>
> >> > If I thought you even knew what you wrote means I would ask you to
> > explain
> >> > it but you don't and I won't.
> >>
> >> Aw. Dresden doesnt know what a context switch is.
> >>
>
> > Sigh... gee, why not say that I don't know how to write either while you
are
> > at it. Is that your childish game? Anything I say you'll simply write:
> > "Dresden doesnt know ..." and of course offer NOTHING else and suck
youself
> > off in self-masterbatory congratulations for it?
>
> > as I've used benchmarks that measure context switching latency I'm
> > comfortable enough with the term to know what it means; suspend and save
the
> > hardware state of a running process (like registers, stack pointer, page
> > table pointers and other things you've never heard of) and load another
> > process's state - but I'm certain you'll disagree and it won't matter
anyway
> > so... just go get your dick pearced again
>
> I did.
>
> > and leave technical matters to
> > grow ups
>
> Awww...you looked up "context switch" on the web you little dickens.
>
> I was gonna post a url for you and everything.
Cause you didn't know... how sweet of you...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: 9 Oct 2000 14:06:04 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
news:kp9E5.119437$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > "Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
> > news:Rd2E5.118331$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Dolly wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sam wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Is of course Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exclusively ? I think not!
> > > > >
> > > > > >The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
> > > > >
> > > > > It may also be it's weakness.
> > > > >
> > > > > >Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL
NO!
> > > > > >Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
> > > > >
> > > > > From zero it's all up from there
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > >How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
> > > > >
> > > > > If Microsoft kept growing at the rate it did for the last
5-10-15-20
> > > > > years (pick one) it would soon be, not only the total IT
industry,
> > > > > but the entire economy. Obviously not sustainable
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > From zero it's all up from there
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > >Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse
or
> > > > > >keyboard is subcontracted out.
> > > > > >They don't make anything but software.
> > > > >
> > > > > AMD don't own a fab shop, does that make them not a threat to
Intel ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
> > > > Intel when Intel couldnt keep up... what do you
> > > > think the little M AMD meant? MANUFACTURED by
> > > > AMD. I have a bunch here they made for Intel.
> > > > It's part of what gained them access to the
> > > > Intel x86 architecture - making a bunch for
> > > > Intel when they were in the bind.
> > >
> > > Christ are you going to be one of those Kulkis, Devlins and Blacks
that
> > > make these wild ass statements that stretch credibility and then post
no
> > > evidence to back it up? When the hell was this momentus event
supposed to
> > > have happened? AMD did make 386 and 486 chips but they were NOT Intel
> > > designs. BTW, I agree with you that AMD do own fabs, in Texas and
Germany
> > > but I, after having been a Intel and Microsoft systems engineer and
> > > programmer for over a decade have no recollection of AMD EVER making
chips
> > > for Intel.
> > >
> >
> > Excuse me?! I always backup my "wild ass" statements. Ask me of
something I
> > didn't support with evidence. Don't you DARE lump me in with Kulkis or
> > whoever that other dude is.
>
> Then start being a little more temperate. It pains me to see Windows
folks come
> across just as wacko as the rabid Mac and Linux fanatics. Think about
it --
> there's really no reason to do so. Windows is the best mix of all they
have to
> offer -- there's no reason to get bent when rebutting these folks. Don't
sink
> to their losing methods. You obviously know your stuff. Why not beat
them with
> facts and logic. It's not any more difficult than getting emotional and
quite a
> bit more satisfying at least for me!
>
Mike: you have to understand something. Most of my replies are the type
"more satisfying" for you. but there are a couple of pathetic morons who
essentially chase me through this forum and intentionally act stupid (they
can't really be that stupid and work a computer, I don't think) and
sometimes I find I can only fight fire with fire. I have my facts, I assure
you. I only join threads where I know I've got either 1st hand experience or
a reliable URL to back me up. It's unforunate that even when you produce
unimpeachable evidence they idiots ignore and continue to attack. Sorry if
that bothers you. I'm not some rabid MS fanatic, I just like their products
cause they work so well for me and my clients so it bothers me to see lies
and FUD spread about something I like.
db
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:08:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi, I have 2 PCs that I'd like to setup together to
> learn Apache webserver, printer server and DNS. Can
> someone help me please.
>
> I have 2 NIC cards (NE2000), 1 hub and Rhat Linux 6.2.
>
> Can someone give me the step-by-step procedure?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Leo
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
It is fairly easy. The only thing that may get you is the IP addressing.
Decide which machine is going to be the server and which one is going to
be the client.
Give the server machine the IP address (during setup) of 192.168.1.1,
give the client machine the address 192.168.1.2
Both have the netmask 255.255.255.0
On the client, set the name server to be 192.168.1.1
(If you want to get your hands really dirty, also set the gateway to be
192.168.1.1 on the client, that way, you could use some software to
route IP packets through your server.)
I would suggest using the file: "/etc/hosts" before getting involved
with DNS right away.
in the hosts file, add two lines:
192.168.1.1 server server.mydomain.com
192.168.1.2 client client.mydomain.com
When everything is setup, on the client you should be able to type "ping
server" and get a return.
DNS is non-trivial, but the above steps should get you up and running.
Once you know you are running, O'Reilly has a book "DNS and Bind" it is
very good. Things you learn from that book will apply to everything that
is on the Internet.
Good luck.
Good luck.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:28:56 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >> Then notice how many pieces a NT toy has to be split into to
> >> compete with similar single systems from IBM.
> >
> >That still doesn't explain why IBM didn't produce a system that matches
or
> >surpasses those pesky NT toys. I'm quite sure that the IBM guys are
thrilled
> >to be trashed by in both *price* and *speed* department by a toy OS ?
>
> The IBM guys are more concerned about robustness, I am sure.
Sure, that's why they submit results at http://www.tpc.org
> ...as is anyone willing to spend that kind of money. Even the
> NT solution isn't 'cheap'. Once you get to that level of
You're right, they are not cheap.
> computing *price* is considerably less compelling. That's not
If you can have 3 times the performance for the same price, seems quite
compelling to me.
> even getting into the constraints implied by 32 machines versus
> just one.
Well, if your unique box has a problem, you're probably SOL.
At TPC the toy OS has been kicking some some serious ass and taking names,
doesn't look too good for the 'real' OSes, don't you think ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 9 Oct 2000 14:10:04 -0500
Funny how if I switched in W2K into this paragraph you wouldn't buy it for
why W2K was late. It was release as stable and bugfree as any OS you could
name but was later than the original optimistic release dates. Sure, people
will still complain that it was late but those same people won't take the
time to make note that, DAMN, this is one stable and bugfree OS!
And I don't hear MS crying foul. The only time I hear any crying is over at
/. when they whine about another delay in 2.4 or more bugs in RH distribs.
While previous releases of Windows were buggy and unstable (even NT4 started
off shitty in that respect), W2K is another thing. It started off fantastic!
And only gets better...
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The argument is that when the original time was set they were over
ambicious,
> however, I say, its ready when it is ready, Linux developers want this
version
> of the Linux Kernel to be as stable as possible, not like microsoft that
shifts
> half baked products to the market place and then crys foul when a bug is
found.
>
> Matt
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> >
> > Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux
creator
> > Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the
next
> > Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> > early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due
to
> > ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
> >
> > ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued
that
> > the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> > models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux
and
> > Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> > schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
> >
> > "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> > services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database
> > servers or online transaction processing. The independent software
vendor
> > support [is not there]"
> >
> > <yawn>
>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:56:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > >And H2O isn't the same thing as water. > > Pretty much.
> >>
> >> Not even close.
>
> Roberto> I should ask you why, but I will not.
>
> Ok, I hate to interrupt your discussion, but I just *have* to know why
> H2O is not water...
My personal guess: H2O is also steam, ice, etc.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:12:26 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> You described empathy as knowing how the other felt. Well, I have at
Nope. Even psychopaths can do that. Get that Alzeihmer's test ....
> least a TNG episode on my side, saying that there is still an empathic
> bond between the formerly molten.
Only from the human's side because humans can't get rid of the
memories they've absorbed during the meld (which isn't the same
thing as empathy *AT ALL*). What about the Vulcan's?
> > Killing someone is a perfectly logical thing to do if you feel
> > absolutely nothing for them, don't care how they feel (lack
> > empathy), they annoy you, and you don't expect to be caught.
>
> Not really. Ignoring them is less work.
And by that reasoning, doing absolutely nothing is the best thing
to do. Hey, who says the psychopath won't enjoy himself murdering
people?
Perfectly logical ....
> > Riiiiight. That they could interbreed with humans "merely" contradicts
> > everything biologists know about speciation. So of course, it's "to be
> > proven".
>
> You act as if anyone has ever had any neanderthal specimen in a lab, or
> even a DNA sample to check. I have seen bilogists suggest that
> chimpanzees are quite close to interbreeding with humans, and
> neanderthals are quite closer.
And you think that what? That this means they *could* interbreed with
humans ???
If we hadn't killed neanderthals, they would only have deviated from
us, *NOT* interbred!
> Of course, that is the same right you have asked for yourself. Notice
> how I just say that perhaps, in the future, some new thing currently
> unknown could make the current definition of human less than ideal.
> Claiming the opposite would be stupid.
No, moron, you claim that in the future things currently KNOWN *will*
make your current definition worthless.
> I have seen cooperatives get loans. Cooperatives can get loans. Is it
> hard? MAybe. Is it harder? I don't know. Can they get loans? Sure!
I see. And how exactly would you interpret "blacks can't get loans"?
> If each individual loans enough money to buy his piece, they can
> associate into a cooperative later.
Forgetting the fact that they'd be investigated for fraud unless
they all got loans for "undisclosed reasons". And hey, it would
probably still be illegal (never mind that corporations do it all
the time (capitalize a business on credit cards) ... selective
prosecution and all that.)
> > And who is it that brought up the question of property? Have you never
> > heard of *possessions*?
>
> Sure. However, you must know that stocks are property.
Only in corporations, imbecile. And that's *EXACTLY* what makes
corporations psychopaths: the shareholders are absentee landlords
and act with the total disregard of any absentee landlord.
Stocks owned by employees are possessions. Stocks owned by people
whose only goal is to exploit others (ie, people who operate in
that instance exactly like psychopaths) are property.
> I am probably not an extremist. Except to a left-wing extremist.
You mean you don't even *know* ??
> > Not until the employee liquidates the stock, which can only happen
> > when the employee quits, is fired or retires.
>
> That makes no sense.
Are you unable to do arithmetic? Is 2 + 2 a mystery to you?
> > > >Owning stock in a cooperative isn't an option, it's an obligation.
^^^^^^^^^^
> > > And it makes no difference to the argument.
> >
> > Of course it does. If you have to buy the stock for 10$ and it
> > *would* sell for only 9$ as non-transferrable, this doesn't mean
> > that you can't still charge the employees 10$ for it.
>
> Of course it means the employee would be stupid to buy it instead of a
> transferrable one for $10.
The employee has no fucking choice you fucking moron!
The goal is to eliminate all transferrable stock in the first fucking place!
Owning stock in a cooperative is part of the terms of employment!
> > The company
> > has until the employees retire to make up the difference in value
> > instead of having to absorb the difference at cooperative formation.
> > And as long as you hire replacements for the employyes that retire,
> > you never have to make up the difference.
>
> You only need a whole lot of stupid employees.
Man, you are an extreme right-winger. Figures. After all, the right-
wing is correlated with lack of intelligence.
[I am not investing more than the bare minimum time possible to
followups to your articles. Which means that anything serious,
like Godel's theorem, is dropped.]
------------------------------
From: "Cymen Vig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: chi.internet
Subject: Re: Free ISP for Linux?
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:28:48 -0500
> > > Do any of the free ISP's work with Linux? How about with "Wine"? (the
> > > Windows emulator that comes with some Linux installations).
> > >
> > I used freewwweb.com for a while. The connection method was not platform
> > specific. Of course, it may have been a bug. ;D
>
> That is to say, they may have "fixed" that by now.
They went bankrupt.
http://www.freewwweb.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:13 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You seem to have a fixation on Notepad?
> MSDOS is dead...
I think you should rethink this statement in that Windows ME still boots
DOS first.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:30:01 GMT
Roberto Teixeira wrote:
> >>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > >And H2O isn't the same thing as water. > > Pretty much.
> >>
> >> Not even close.
>
> Roberto> I should ask you why, but I will not.
>
> Ok, I hate to interrupt your discussion, but I just *have* to know why
> H2O is not water...
Because ponds are not lakes. H2O is a water molecule while 'water' even
if completely pure, is the most complex substance known to humankind.
H2O doesn't have a freezing point or boiling point, water does. H2O does
not expand when frozen (as it does not freeze) while water does. H2O does
not crystallize into a dozen different forms of ice, water does.
H2O is thought of as "individuals" in a random collection. That's not
what water is. The fact that 'individuals in a random collection' does
not exist as far as any left-winger is concerned, is not very relevant.
I'm just following a simple law of language evolution: if two different
words exist then they have two different meanings. I don't care that one
of those meanings is a figment of people's imagination; so is 'unicorn',
'individualism', 'free-market' and even 'free will'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:36:40 GMT
But there is no more DOS to boot into afaik.
Of course Windows runs on top of DOS, I assumed I didn't have to
mention that.
claire
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:13 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> You seem to have a fixation on Notepad?
>> MSDOS is dead...
>
>I think you should rethink this statement in that Windows ME still boots
>DOS first.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:38:49 -0000
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:28:56 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >> Then notice how many pieces a NT toy has to be split into to
>> >> compete with similar single systems from IBM.
>> >
>> >That still doesn't explain why IBM didn't produce a system that matches
>or
>> >surpasses those pesky NT toys. I'm quite sure that the IBM guys are
>thrilled
>> >to be trashed by in both *price* and *speed* department by a toy OS ?
>>
>> The IBM guys are more concerned about robustness, I am sure.
>
>Sure, that's why they submit results at http://www.tpc.org
>
>> ...as is anyone willing to spend that kind of money. Even the
>> NT solution isn't 'cheap'. Once you get to that level of
>
>You're right, they are not cheap.
>
>> computing *price* is considerably less compelling. That's not
>
>If you can have 3 times the performance for the same price, seems quite
>compelling to me.
...certainly. It's not your data on the line.
[deletia]
--
Hand me a pair of leather pants and a CASIO keyboard -- I'm living for today!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:42:58 GMT
Here is the part of the article I like best:
********************************************************************************
Meanwhile, Linux backer Compaq Computer is taking the open source
software to task for not moving beyond its niche status. The
UNIX/Linux product marketing manager for Compaq says that Linux needs
to show that its being used in more enterprises before it can be taken
seriously. "We're definitely at the stage where we need reference
[enterprise] sites [using Linux]," Compaq's Judy Chavis says.
"Otherwise we'll be in danger of losing all this momentum and it
becomes one of those 'just for geeks' things." Chavis says that the
delays in the Linux 2.4 kernel will delay her company's plans to
release a Linux-based e-commerce site, though she adds that the
decision to use Linux "was based on cost and the internal skills base,
and it was felt that Linux was ultimately more reliable than Windows."
But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database servers or online transaction processing. The independent
software vendor support [is not there]: Oracle has to do the next
version of its database [for Linux] because the current one is
horrible."
***************************************************************************
Seems to back up my points in the "You Linux guys don't get it" thread
quite nicely.
Linux ports not as good as Windows... Oracle
Directed toward geeks and Programmers.
and so forth.
Hmmm, Compaq seems to say the same things I say...
claire
On 9 Oct 2000 13:47:04 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
>Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
>Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
>Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
>early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
>ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
>
>...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
>the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
>models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
>Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
>schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
>
>"...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
>services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
>servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
>support [is not there]"
>
><yawn>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:45:01 GMT
Tell it to Compaq as they back up at least some of my points:
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
Meanwhile, Linux backer Compaq Computer is taking the open source
software to task for not moving beyond its niche status. The
UNIX/Linux product marketing manager for Compaq says that Linux needs
to show that its being used in more enterprises before it can be taken
seriously. "We're definitely at the stage where we need reference
[enterprise] sites [using Linux]," Compaq's Judy Chavis says.
"Otherwise we'll be in danger of losing all this momentum and it
becomes one of those 'just for geeks' things." Chavis says that the
delays in the Linux 2.4 kernel will delay her company's plans to
release a Linux-based e-commerce site, though she adds that the
decision to use Linux "was based on cost and the internal skills base,
and it was felt that Linux was ultimately more reliable than Windows."
But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database servers or online transaction processing. The independent
software vendor support [is not there]: Oracle has to do the next
version of its database [for Linux] because the current one is
horrible."
Looks like Compaq is right on the mark about Linux.
claire
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:53:06 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
Warkus) wrote:
>It was the Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:09:04 GMT...
>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We don't want compilers.
>
>Who's "we"? Your majesty?
>
>Bullshit. Next posting you write from that perspective, better do a
>survey first. As it is, you're just plain talking out of your rear
>end.
>
>mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:45:01 -0000
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 18:34:35 GMT, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's
>> >easily clonable.
>>
>> Blah blah blah.
>>
>> >In fact it has typically been seen as contrary to
>> >their interests. The various Unix vendors, for instance, have <yet> to
>> >create a common Unix standard set of system API's.
>>
>> I guess POSIX doesn't count.
>
>POSIX is too basic. The point he's trying to make is, even though
>people say Unix is Unix is Unix, there are still apps that only work
>on HP-UX, or Solaris, or Linux. If they have a common API, why is this the
>case?
...it seems to do well enough for the serious production
applcations.
>
>What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
None of the components can be "owned". Anyone that tries to
change this gets skewered to the point where they finally
"liberate" their would be pieces of vendorlock.
[deletia]
--
Meader's Law:
Whatever happens to you, it will previously
have happened to everyone you know, only more so.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
