Linux-Advocacy Digest #971, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: UI Importance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Borland drops Kylix Desktop to $199 'till Aug 23! ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Terry Porter)
Re: UI Importance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:12:51 -0700
In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
> development be public domain?
How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain without some
form of restrictive licensing? Publically funded research automagically
becoming public domain is a myth as far as I am concerned.
Years ago, I was a government employee and collaborated with a software
manufacturer on a government funded project. My contributions to the
program ended up eventually being copyrighted by the software company.
Your tax dollars funded my salary back then, and completely underwrote the
vendor. You already paid for it once, thru your taxes, but if you want to
use today what we created back then, you'll have to pay a license fee to
that vendor that now owns the copyright. And there's nothing illegal,
wrong, or unusual about that.
If you want a modern day corollary, just look at what Microsoft did with
Kerberos. Kerberos development was publically funded, but through the
simple addition of an extension to the standard, it became copyrighted
Microsoft intellectual property. So even though Microsoft Kerberos was
primarily developed with public funds, you will have to pay to use it.
If you can come up with a license model that can prevent this intellectual
"double dipping", i.e. where public funds are used to develop a public
domain product at cost and then the developer or a third party acquires
sole ownership to market it for profit, I'd like to see it. I have a
feeling it'd look a lot like the GPL.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 Jun 2001 03:07:13 GMT
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:16:26 -0700, Paolo Ciambotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Total elapsed time to install a printer under Windoze.... six days.
>
That quick, geesus Paolo, you must have got the "PRIORITY"
version ?
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 4 Jun 2001 22:10:02 -0500
I'm convinced that you are smarter than this dialog but that you are quite
purposely being abtuse and stupid in your representation of how the GUI
"might" work in your own little version of the anti-GUI world - but I'll
play along anyway ....
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 3 Jun 2001 22:18:04 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> example:
> >>
> >> # cp *jpg /mnt/floppy
> >>
> >> GUI:
> >>
> >> Using M$ Windows as example, there are several steps:
> >
> >You left off the fact that you can still just type "copy *.jpg a:" in the
> >Run... box or at a command prompt, if you feel like it.
> >I thought a good OS was one that offered a choice?
>
> Yeah, but we're talking about the difference between a command line
> and a GUI.
Yes and I offered a matching CLI version just to show that if you insist on
doing it at the CLI, Windows offers that too.
>
> >> 1.) Launch Windows Explorer ( Start > Programs > Windows Explorer )
> >
> >Or just double click on My Computer on your desktop or the little my
> >computer shortcut you probably have in your quick launch tray or even
better
> >(see below)
>
> Which means using your mouse, which is awkward and time consuming.
To you perhaps but not to most people. In fact, using a mouse is proven to
be much faster and much more accurate than typing.
>
> >> 2.) Nav through the file system to get to the files (one to several
> >> clicks - assuming "c:\my documents\my pictures", it will take at least
> >> twp clicks - first expand the directory "My Documents", then click on
> >> "My Pictures"
> >
> >Or just double click on the My Documents shortcut already on your desktop
or
> >any of any number of shortcuts already on your desktop cause you figured
> >you'd want them conviently nearby so you put them there.
>
> Which means minimising windows, moving your hand all the way to the
> mouse, moving it about, looking where you're going etc
you are trying to tell us that using a mouse is difficult - I assure you
that that will not succeed. And you don't have to minimize individual
windows - had you ever used windows you'd know there is a single mouse click
that will bring you right to a clear desktop IF you desire that. But even
that isn't necessary.
>
> >> 3.) Select files. This can also be anything from one click to several
> >> clicks. Selecting all JPG files involves in first arranging icons by
> >> type (View > Arrange Icons > by Type - one click), then select all the
> >> JPG files by dragging (count as one click). Total in this example is
two
> >> clicks.
> >
> >You COULD do that or you could just click on the "Type" column heading
and
> >they'll all sort up nice and neat for you.
>
> Which I suppose means using the mouse again.
Of course, cause we're talking about doing it the easiest way possible.
>
> >> 4.) Right click on selected files (one click)
> >> 5.) Select Send To > Floppy from menu (One click)
> >
> >or drag them with a single click to your floppy drive in the same window
> >that's already open (explorer view).
>
> Using the mouse again. Thank god for keyboard shortcuts, or it would
> take 10 years to do the simplest thing in a GUI.
Perhaps it would for you but I can do in the GUI much faster than you could
at the CLI for most things.
>
> >> Total Clicks: 7 or more clicks.
> >
> >I can do that in much less BUT you also have to consider something else:
> >
> >Lets say you have a set of JPG and BMP files in a particular directory.
This
> >directory is called:
> >
> >/usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
> >
> >And you don't want all of them, you only want, oh, this one and that one
and
> >perhaps that other one over there and then you also need this .exe file
as
> >well as a couple of quick TXT files you forgot about and none of them sta
rt
> >or end with the same letters or even contain ANY common letter groups
within
> >them. OH, and many of these files have MiXeD case file names too.
> >
> >Now, funny man, how quickly can you do that at the CLI? And with how many
> >errors?
> >
> >How long did it take you to get to that directory? Did you type it right
and
> >get the case correct too?
>
> tab complete does the job for me.
>
> >So, you got there with some directory completion key help eh? Now - start
>
> Yes, within two seconds. Less time than it takes for explorer to open
> up.
Not on a current generation computer. Explorer, given that it's running all
the time, opens in less than a blink of an eye.
>
> >selecting file names. No * is gonna help this time, even ? is going to be
of
> >limited use. Meanwhile, I'm just holding down the Ctrl key as I click and
> >choose as I need to, unclicking them if I make a mistake without any
regard
> >for case... and then just drag the entire batch to my destination icon...
>
> Meanwhile, I'm just quickly typing in a few filenames, adding a /fl to
> the end of the command and it's done. Also, you missed out the awkward
> task of getting to directory.
Oh and you are pretending that you can type:
"Special Filename withMiXedcase 82342.jpg" faster than I can just click on
it?
AHAHAHAHA
>
> Let's see:
>
> /usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
>
> Say it starts at / by default, that's 123456 clicks, with all the
> subsequent whirring and grinding of the disks as the file manager
> needlessly lists the files in each directory. Meanwhile, I get to the
> directory quickly and painlessly.
123456 eh? not even funny... I can get there is 7 clicks, faster than you
can type it cause you might have some trouble when you get to the fact that
the project folder has 104 folders that all start with x_ so you'll have to
go further to get to that 3 and then there are 9 more that start with 3 and
then 26 that start with 4. Still with us? I'm already done. See, if you can
create just any scenario, so can I.
>
> >So - which is more likely day to day? The ever so convient example of
> >copying a *.ext set of files from the directory you happen to be logged
into
> >or having to copy dissimilar files from a directory you are not in??? I
know
> >the later is much more likely to me
>
> Funny how you missed out getting to the directory in the first place,
> and it was convenient how the place you were putting the files in an
> easily accessable place. Try putting the files in /a/b/c/d/e/f/g.
but I did and I gave an even harder example and I can STILL get there
faster.
> With
> a CLI, no problem, with a GUI, you've then got to open each directory
> in turn, with all the subsequent grinding of the disk etc. Then,
> you'll end up with two giant trees of directories, and you have to
> awkwardly scroll between them, meaning more excessive use of the
> mouse. And if you're using explorer, the screen will probably scroll
> down just as you're about to move the files, and you'll end up putting
> them in the wrong directory!!
That might be your problem but not in my experience. I can actually aim and
click - you obviously cannot.
>
> >> Add to that waiting period for Windows Explorer to launch
> >
> >wating period? <1 second?
>
> About three seconds.
time to upgrade your ESDI drive...
>
> >> and you have
> >> just taken quit a bit longer to do something in a GUI. Also, in Windows
> >> the copying process must finish before you can continue work in Windows
> >> Explorer, where as in *nix you can continue work while the copying is
> >> done in the background. I personally find this the biggest irritation
> >> when I work on M$ platforms.
> >
> >Then I suggest you stop taking drugs, sniffing glue is hazardous cause I
do
> >not know of any version of Windows that made you wait for a copy to
finish
> >before continuing. what a joke.
>
> Probably the version most people use.
Not.
>
> >> LASTLY, I think the M$ GUI problems is not bound to M$ allone - Linux,
> >> MAC and other GUI systems (or systems that can use GUI's) will have
> >> similar problems. I think it's time we rethink this whole thing. Yes,
> >> there are instances where I like a GUI, for example Graphic Design. But
> >> for many applications, the command line will remain KING.
> >
> >yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
>
> script kiddies can only function in a nice GUI like windows.
They prefer using Unix so they can spoof their IP
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Borland drops Kylix Desktop to $199 'till Aug 23!
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:17:47 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Martel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alternatively I could have chosen not to buy any upgrade. Tell me, how
> do you feel about paying over $500 for a program and never getting any
> upgrades for it?
Ummm... I would feel the same as if I had bought Microsoft Office.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 Jun 2001 03:11:15 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:45:21 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Your point?
>
> An end user put in front of an already set up Linux system will not
> have too much difficulty in performing ordinary tasks (WP, web
> browsing, playing CD's etc).
>
> It is when that person decides he wants to add new programs, features,
> upgrades, hardware etc that the entire thing falls apart.
>
>
Only when that person is you Flattfish, as most people do not have the
'learning disability'(tm) that you seem to have.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 Jun 2001 03:15:06 GMT
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:17:53 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:10:43 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > But it isn't really that good as an FTP client.
>> Will it even upload ?
>
> Yes.
> I recommend againt backuping up all of C: this way.
> For one thing, the upload will most certianly fail on Win386.swp (windows'
> virtual memory).
> If you need infrequent FTP, explorer can certainly do the job.
>
> Although, I'm using it almost exlusively for... 4 years now, I suppose. And
> I *still* don't know if it can resume downloads (HTTP, or FTP)
>
> The way to do it is to go to C:, click on windows folder, Edit, Invert
> Select, Ctrl+C
> Enter the FTP path on the explorer adress bar.
> ftp://user:pass@adress/directory/sub-directory/
> In the above format.
>
> And it will log on and let you paste in the FTP, just like normal file
> management stuff.
>
> I wouldn't recomend doing it this way unless you've LAN.
Which I do, on our home network, and its just a bunch of $5 second hand
NE2000 compatibles, on a multi drop coax.
Thanks again Ayende, I'll try explorer as a uploading ftp client soon.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 4 Jun 2001 22:20:03 -0500
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > Are you suggesting that, no matter if it sucks or not, once a UI is
created
> > it should forever be locked that way so that idiot users can't get
confused
> > when something changes or moves slightly?
> >
>
> No, not like you put it. I hope that there is more consistancy. Some
> changes (like the example I mentioned) are just plain stupid. If it does
> change, perhaps a "user friendly" environment will take the time to
> explain the new changes to a user. Strange how Linux apps always comes
> with a change log that is very visual (usually you would read it before
> downloading/upgrading/installing) and to the point, whereas M$ just
> always fire away with marketing hype concerning "productivity" and
> "lowering TCO" etc, but when you read the fine print you see you have to
> get a Super Computer to run the damn thing.
Sure - ok... whatever.
>
>
> >
> > You left off the fact that you can still just type "copy *.jpg a:" in
the
> > Run... box or at a command prompt, if you feel like it.
> > I thought a good OS was one that offered a choice?
>
> That is using a form of CLI... You basically just confirmed that using a
> CLI is in fact better in some cases than a GUI ;)
Of course I can confirm that. i can think of _some_ scenarios where it might
be faster to use the CLI. If you are fortunately enough to have such a
simple command as the above then perhaps the CLI works fine and quick. But,
the MAJORITY of the time I find the GUI file manager MUCH faster and more
accurate and definately more functional.
>
>
> >
> > Or just double click on My Computer on your desktop or the little my
> > computer shortcut you probably have in your quick launch tray or even
better
> > (see below)
>
> I hate icons on a desktop. I delete them all as soon as they pop up. If
> you let all the apps create their little Desktop Shortcuts, you end up
> waisting more time searching for icons. Anyway, the NT4 WS Taskbar (mine
> at least) does not have a launch tray - and no, I'm not interested in
> installing it.
If you intentionally destroy the devices given you to help you - then how
can we have any pity on you when you complain how inadequate your system is?
That's like taking a toolbox, throwing away all the screwdrivers and then
bitching cause it take much longer using a drill to drill out screws then
just unscrewing them.
>
>
> >
> > Or just double click on the My Documents shortcut already on your
desktop or
> > any of any number of shortcuts already on your desktop cause you figured
> > you'd want them conviently nearby so you put them there.
> >
>
> You must have a very cluttered desktop...
Nope, I can even see the picture I put there now and again. If you have a
lot of documents on your computer - does it automatically follow that your
computer is cluttered? Obviously not - so your conclusion is poorly drawn
and inaccurate.
>
>
> >
> > You COULD do that or you could just click on the "Type" column heading
and
> > they'll all sort up nice and neat for you.
> >
>
> BUT, you must first be in DETAILS view (one more click if you aren't).
My system defaults to being in details view for all windows and in explorer
mode because I set it up that way (a few clicks in folder options and it's
done).
>
>
> >
> > or drag them with a single click to your floppy drive in the same window
> > that's already open (explorer view).
> >
>
> Which sometimes does the wrong thing, like moving instead of copying OR
> creating shortcuts instead of copying. Happened again to me just last
> week - dragged a couple of files to the floppy icon (HTML files). Came
> to the other PC, and what do I find? SHORTCUTS !
If you drag files from your hard drive to the flopppy (just using the left
button) then they will ALWAYS be copied. The ONLY way to make them show up
as shortcuts is to hold the Alt key while copying with the left or using the
right and then selecting create shortcut. It can't happy by a simple drag
and drop.
Then again, how can you fault the OS when the user makes a mistake? I mean,
if I use the CLI and mistype something and accidently delete these files
instead of those files cause I put a * where a ? should have been - is that
the OS's fault or the users? I think we know the answer.
>
> >
> > I can do that in much less BUT you also have to consider something else:
> >
> > Lets say you have a set of JPG and BMP files in a particular directory.
This
> > directory is called:
> >
> > /usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
> >
> > And you don't want all of them, you only want, oh, this one and that one
and
> > perhaps that other one over there and then you also need this .exe file
as
> > well as a couple of quick TXT files you forgot about and none of them
start
> > or end with the same letters or even contain ANY common letter groups
within
> > them. OH, and many of these files have MiXeD case file names too.
> >
> > Now, funny man, how quickly can you do that at the CLI? And with how
many
> > errors?
> >
> > How long did it take you to get to that directory? Did you type it right
and
> > get the case correct too?
> >
> > So, you got there with some directory completion key help eh? Now -
start
> > selecting file names. No * is gonna help this time, even ? is going to
be of
> > limited use. Meanwhile, I'm just holding down the Ctrl key as I click
and
> > choose as I need to, unclicking them if I make a mistake without any
regard
> > for case... and then just drag the entire batch to my destination
icon...
> >
> > So - which is more likely day to day? The ever so convient example of
> > copying a *.ext set of files from the directory you happen to be logged
into
> > or having to copy dissimilar files from a directory you are not in??? I
know
> > the later is much more likely to me
>
> When working in a CUI environment, you tend to orginise your work
> better. In fact, you know where stuff is, and you keep directory and
> file names short, yet descriptive. I also try to limit the levels a bit.
Just like we do in the GUI.
>
> In Linux we luckily have environment vars, like $HOME. So if I need to
> get to somewhere deep, it ussualy starts like: cp $HOME/a/b/c/files
> /mnt/floppy [ as an example ]. Of course the a/b/c part is a bit more
> descriptive, but I RARELY have that many levels in a directory tree.
Just like in the GUI. AND our GUI learns. If you visit a certain network
share twice it appears at the top level automatically for you so you can
pick it again quickly, this survives reboots too. You can set environment
variables in Windows and use them too. Shortcuts in the GUI are like
environment variables (in your example) in a CLI. Same thing. If I want to
get to the OS root directly I just use %windir% - but I rarely need that.
>
>
> >
> > wating period? <1 second?
> >
>
> If you re-open it directly after you closed it perhaps. On my system,
> after a fresh boot, it takes about 4 to 5 seconds.
My system takes uniformly under a second unless the first hard drive is
working hard.
>
>
> >
> > Then I suggest you stop taking drugs, sniffing glue is hazardous cause I
do
> > not know of any version of Windows that made you wait for a copy to
finish
> > before continuing. what a joke.
> >
>
> You have very limited experience using various brands of the M$ Windows
> OS.
Untrue. I've used (and still have a copy of) Windows 1.01 and have used it
since the 80s
>
> >
> > yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
>
> Don't they prefer GUI's ? ? ?
I'm sure they would but they are stuck with using unix to spoof their IPs
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: 4 Jun 2001 22:24:03 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
> > > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
> > > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard because
> > > they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux to run on
> > > their mainframes. :-)
> >
> > Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying it
to
> > run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
> >
> > So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being greater
than
> > the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps confirm that
Windows>Linux -
> > is that what you meant?
>
> Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a few
> of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an MRI made
> by Microsoft!
I know both IBM employees (ex-father-in-law) and Microsofties - IBM is much
much MUCH less effieicent by several orders of magnitude. I sure wouldn't
want to get under anything running Linux. A buncha hippies programming in
their spare time "cause it's cool" and just abandoning software projects
whenever there is a sale on sandals and pipes at the head shop?
I'll stick with HP for my hospital equipment...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 03:30:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
>> development be public domain?
>
>How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain without some
>form of restrictive licensing? Publically funded research automagically
>becoming public domain is a myth as far as I am concerned.
>
>Years ago, I was a government employee and collaborated with a software
>manufacturer on a government funded project. My contributions to the
>program ended up eventually being copyrighted by the software company.
>Your tax dollars funded my salary back then, and completely underwrote the
>vendor. You already paid for it once, thru your taxes, but if you want to
>use today what we created back then, you'll have to pay a license fee to
>that vendor that now owns the copyright. And there's nothing illegal,
>wrong, or unusual about that.
>
>If you want a modern day corollary, just look at what Microsoft did with
>Kerberos. Kerberos development was publically funded, but through the
>simple addition of an extension to the standard, it became copyrighted
>Microsoft intellectual property. So even though Microsoft Kerberos was
>primarily developed with public funds, you will have to pay to use it.
>
>If you can come up with a license model that can prevent this intellectual
>"double dipping", i.e. where public funds are used to develop a public
>domain product at cost and then the developer or a third party acquires
>sole ownership to market it for profit, I'd like to see it. I have a
>feeling it'd look a lot like the GPL.
AMEN! I'm sick and tired of making monopolies rich with my tax dollars!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 03:32:28 GMT
In article <3b1c5039$0$2604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >
>> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>> > > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
>> > > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
>> > > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard because
>> > > they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux to run on
>> > > their mainframes. :-)
>> >
>> > Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying it
>to
>> > run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
>> >
>> > So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being greater
>than
>> > the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps confirm that
>Windows>Linux -
>> > is that what you meant?
>>
>> Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a few
>> of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an MRI made
>> by Microsoft!
>
>I know both IBM employees (ex-father-in-law) and Microsofties - IBM is much
>much MUCH less effieicent by several orders of magnitude. I sure wouldn't
>want to get under anything running Linux. A buncha hippies programming in
>their spare time "cause it's cool" and just abandoning software projects
>whenever there is a sale on sandals and pipes at the head shop?
>
>I'll stick with HP for my hospital equipment...
>
>
Excellent idea since HP will be using Debian as it's LINUX development
model for ALL products they sell.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 06:15:17 +0200
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhcis$bqn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > daniel wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The core of the OS has not, and should not have anything to do with it's
> > interface utilities in terms of robustness. Here you may insert the
> > problems of GDI being in kernel space.
> >
>
> If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that
it's
> bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy with
> um... SoftICE)
I don't have this book, and orderring it will take a month.
Can you give a list of the reasons?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
