Linux-Advocacy Digest #972, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition - (Andre G-)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Peter da Silva)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? You may pay for free software if you wish. (Andre
G-)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Clark Safford)
Re: where's the linux performance?
Re: Why should an OS cost money? You may pay for free software if you wish.
(Charlie Ebert)
Re: Chicken and egg problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 06:17:49 +0200
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhcd1$bp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Considering Windows 2000 includes DirectX support, there's very few modern
> games that they'd have to give up. Older DOS based games may or may not
> run, but you can still get Nethack for Win32...
A lot of DOS games run, actually.
I recall somone being very surpirsed about it, he delved into it, and found
that the calls they were makin were "an emulation of an emulation".
> Consider also this: a lot of things that you require scripts for on *nix
> machines, don't require scripts on Windows. I've often wondered with some
> open source stuff that requires log processing, why the application that
> generates the logs isn't modified to generate logs in a reasonable.
In a reasonable what? can you give example?
>(not sure if ActiveState have
> a Python plugin for WSH)
Yes.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 06:19:44 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But for teaching the basics of programming, when you don't want all that
> complicated UI stuff getting in the way of what you're really teaching,
> a CLI is a good thing to have.
I agree absolutely about this point.
Trying to teach GUI when first leaning to program is a bitch.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 06:21:14 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fg0bg$s2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Not if they're using bash under cygwin.
> > > >
> > > > Cygwin on 9x sucks, period. And I like CMD's filename completion
> > > > betterthan I like bash.
> > >
> > > What's different?
> >
> > I can't get Bash's to work :-D
> >
>
> How come? What environment is bash installed on?
> I usually just type in at least a few characters and then hit the tab
> key.
Cygwin & Slackware 7.1
------------------------------
From: Andre G- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition -
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:32:58 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please be rational:
rumors or assertions like MACOS is better or worse do not help anyone.
Be as specific as possible, every one win.
Clean facts ==> better competition.
As far as I am concerned, the only desktop OS manual that I have ever read
explaining security issues an holes, and also how to test it is SUSE Linux.
For Linux / Unix there is also security test suite (called Satan) than you
can use for free. Could you make a specific comparison with other OS'es?
Even if you do not appreciate Linux, and do not use use it, you benefit
largely from the Linux dynamic.
Microsoft has to enhance its Windfows OS'es to be able to compete: Windows
users get a better product... and so forth.
BTW: Apple used a free OS kernel (MACH) for the base of theur new finally
multitasking OS.
AG-
Philip Neves wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Don't forget security, of which the MacOS has none.
>>>> >
>>>> This must be the reason why there are thousands upon thousands
>>>> of virii for the Mac.
>>>
>>> There probably aren't thousands of active ones, but the Mac
>>> has virii.
>>>
>>> The reason it doesn't have as many is because it's a niche OS
>>> and virus programmers go for the largest potential user base
>>> for maximum effect. This is pretty elementary, perhaps you
>>> should pay attention more.
>>>
>> Sure, there are Mac-virii.
>> I should guess about 1 per 1000 win-virii.
>> As there are about 1 per 10000 win-virii on the linux-side.
>>
>> Yeah, you shouldn´t forget security. One of MS´s biggest plus, I guesss.
>> No one managed more. More virii, more trojan horses, more buffer
>> overflows. MS for sure knows how to do security.
>>
>> Peter
>
> The MacOS has the best security in the world. A group tested it in
> England. If the person who posted that that OS has no security then he
> doesn't know much about the MacOS. I'd put the MacOS's security up against
> Linux any day of the week. It will even stand up to Free BSD's securty. As
> for windows on the otherhand, well that company never has concerned itself
> with something so small as security.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 5 Jun 2001 03:14:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> > > mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> > > install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> > > a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car?
> > AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
> Only for the too literal-minded. What manufactered commodity item would
> make a better analogy, and why?
A modular one, of course. Removing the transmission from a car is expensive,
and they're unlikely to sell it to someone else. Software can be erased with
a moment's work, and licenses are fungible.
Bass boat and outboard motor would be about right.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: Andre G- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money? You may pay for free software if you wish.
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:48:00 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With all the due respect this is plain silly.
After all for ever people have done all kind of things for profit, or to
give it away.
This is especially true for intellectual property: books, songs, poetry,
software, art, and more..
After it is the choice of the creator to decide what (s)he wants to do with
his/her intellectuall property. Painters have been giving copyrights to
organisations like "Amnesty International", "Greenpeace" for ever.
The GPL sounds to me perfectly ok, after all nobody forces MS or Appple to
use public domain software as a bas to many of their products.
If I develop a piece of software and want to make a gift to the "free
software" communauty, or not, why not!
The GPL shifts the paradigm, by making money on distribution, support
including documentation. Not bad.
Also this should on the long run make hardware vendors less dependant of
S/W vendors, to introduce new technology. Remember that MS have been
twisting the arm to mjor H/W vendors, so hey would not introduce new
technology. With Linux, this would be hard to do!
So take you pick, and if you really want to pay for free software, just
make a donation to the free sofware fundation, like many companies already
do!
AG-
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Stuart Fox wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
>> >> one
>> >must
>> >> ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
>> >>
>> >Wrong question, the real question is why shouldn't an OS cost money?
>> >
>> >An OS should cost money, because it is derived from effort, which most
>> >humans expect to be paid for. Total up the amount of time that Linux
>> >has taken to develop, and then try and recover that cost. Linux of
>> >course is a special example, as it is allegedly developed by people on
>> >their "free" time. Of course, this doesn't include people who are paid
>> >to develop it (Linus by Transmeta, Alan Cox by Redhat). I don't see too
>> >many Linux companies actually making money - because they can't recover
>> >the costs of their effort.
>>
>> Very little of the world's software is developed for resale. Most -
> perhaps
>> 95% - of the world's software is developed in-house for it's use-value
>> and licensing is non-issue. Don't believe me? Take a look any publication
>> that advertises vacancies for developers. How many of them are software
>> houses? Maybe 1 in 20. Most of them are financial institutions.
>
> That is closer to 80%, I would say.
> And most of the revenue on software is made from resale.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Clark Safford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:24:39 -0600
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001, drsquare wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 16:17:31 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>drsquare wrote:
>
>>> >It looks relevant to me. If we look back at the quotes above, we see
>>> >that you were denying that there is a difference between convictions
>>> >and number of crimes reported.
>>>
>>> Yet again, you are completely incorrect. I was merely stating you
>>> cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted as
>>> such. You cannot consider a reported crime a crime without a
>>> conviction.
>
>
>>You can state a crime has been committed without having a perpetrator.
>>If somone has been murdered, a crime has been committed. Large numbers
>>of murders (crimes) go unsolved all the time. If you exceed the speed
>>limit, you are commiting a crime, wether you are convicted or not.. and
>>so on.
>>
>>webster's new world dictionary:
>>crime: n. an act commited or omitted in violation of a law. Notice it
>>doesnt say anything about a conviction.
>
>And if there's no conviction, how do you know it's a crime? Sorry, but
>I believe in innocent until proven guilty. If someone reports a crime,
>I don't consider it to be a crime until it's been proven.
Innocent until proven quilty is a courtroom term. It means that the Gov't has
the burden of proof. If you don't believe me, toss a rock through a police
station's window. While you're being tossed in your cell, explain to cop that
you're innocent until proven guilty. Don't be surprised when he laughs his ass
off as he locks the cell door.
>>> >Well, no matter.
>>>
>>> Stop talking out of your arse, and maybe we'll begin to take you
>>> seriously.
>
>>maybe you should take you aown advice.
>
>I don't need to.
------------------------------
From: <johnbrowne>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:02:11 -0400
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jonathan Martindell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:00:05 -0400
> <9d242m$n03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2
and
> >then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
> >disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
> >should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
> >gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
> >running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds
to
> >load. StarOffice takes a really long time too. When I'm using win2000 I
> >never have this problem. Even on comparable software.
>
May be a IDE problem recongnizing your drivers not optimizing for speed for
the higher IDE settings. Check the manuals.
Also check to make sure you have a swap file installed. If you didn't have
one created automagically for you, this will cause a huge performance drain
as will the non optimized settig for UDMA 66.
I also had problems with some Mandrake distros actually using the Ram I had
available on my machines. It saw 64 meg when I had 256 meg. This will put a
real drain in the system. The fix is in Lilo.
I have since gone to Suse, and no problems here. Suse flies on my machine,
much faster than Windows 2000 for most task (including Internet access). In
fact, I cannot wait to finish this Windows project, so I can move full time
to Linux. Fortunately all our scheduled work for the rest of this year is in
Java.
>
> You might consider upgrading to a good SCSI system, or, failing that,
> submitting a bug report on appropriate newsgroups. Please note that
> we'll most likely need more specific timing requirements; for example,
> one might try
>
> time dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmpfile/somewhere bs=1048576 count=128
>
> (this creates a 128MB test file somewhere on disk) and see how
> long it takes. Yes, this is a moronic benchmark; there are
> probably far better ones out there.
>
> For what it's worth: I have a PP200 with 64 MB of memory and
> a fairly old but very workable SCSI-I setup, with 2 8GB IBM
> drives, with ext2 partitions and a 2.2 kernel.
>
> 128+0 records in
> 128+0 records out
>
> real 0m17.413s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m3.520s
>
> I also have some old FAT IDE drives. Running the identical command
> (except for destination) produces:
>
> 128+0 records in
> 128+0 records out
>
> real 0m28.810s
> user 0m0.010s
> sys 0m16.750s
>
> Note the systime; apparently IDE takes more processor oomph.
> Or maybe FAT does. I can't say.
>
> An even older piece of equipment -- a Sparc with 50 bogomips and
> a SCSI bus (dunno whether it's a 5, a 10, or what; it's a castoff
> from my employer that they gave to me) -- and a SCSI disk
> reveals:
>
> 128+0 records in
> 128+0 records out
> 0.03user 15.23system 1:29.86elapsed 16%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (131major+23minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> Note that this particular thing is dog-slow compared to modern
> equipment, but still usable. I'd run this on even older equipment
> (I have an A3000 which has all of 2 bogomips) but it's not on at
> the moment.
>
> I'd be curious as to your results from this command.
>
> >Forte for Java and
> >StarOffice both load many, many times faster in windows vs linux. Do you
> >think that my linux isn't configured for maximum performance? I've spent
> >some time looking through websites and have noticed an increase when I
use
> >the hdparm tool but nothing extrodinary. If this is the extent of the
linux
> >performance than I don't think I'll be sticking with it. However, if it
> >just requires more work than setting up windows and you ultimately get
> >greater performance than I will definitely stick with it. I enjoy
tinkering
> >with computers in that way. What do all of you think of this? Do you
know
> >of any websites that show the results of linux benchmarks? Any help
would
> >be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Well, this is probably the best I can do, absent doing much more
> research than I have time for at the moment.
>
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Jonathan
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 35d:03h:52m actually running Linux.
> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money? You may pay for free software if you wish.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 04:05:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andre G- wrote:
>With all the due respect this is plain silly.
>After all for ever people have done all kind of things for profit, or to
>give it away.
>This is especially true for intellectual property: books, songs, poetry,
>software, art, and more..
>After it is the choice of the creator to decide what (s)he wants to do with
>his/her intellectuall property. Painters have been giving copyrights to
>organisations like "Amnesty International", "Greenpeace" for ever.
>
Um humm.
>The GPL sounds to me perfectly ok, after all nobody forces MS or Appple to
>use public domain software as a bas to many of their products.
>If I develop a piece of software and want to make a gift to the "free
>software" communauty, or not, why not!
>The GPL shifts the paradigm, by making money on distribution, support
>including documentation. Not bad.
>
Um humm. So far so good.
>Also this should on the long run make hardware vendors less dependant of
>S/W vendors, to introduce new technology. Remember that MS have been
>twisting the arm to mjor H/W vendors, so hey would not introduce new
>technology. With Linux, this would be hard to do!
>
Yes, very good!
> So take you pick, and if you really want to pay for free software, just
>make a donation to the free sofware fundation, like many companies already
>do!
>
>AG-
>
Or you can buy just about any distribution and do the same thing.
But since I use Debian I think your idea is just fine.
Actually these people are making the lions share of the cash
on support agreements and specially funded projects by the
large computer firms like IBM or HP or whatever.
None by Microsoft however.
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>>
>> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Stuart Fox wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
>>> >> one
>>> >must
>>> >> ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
>>> >>
>>> >Wrong question, the real question is why shouldn't an OS cost money?
>>> >
>>> >An OS should cost money, because it is derived from effort, which most
>>> >humans expect to be paid for. Total up the amount of time that Linux
>>> >has taken to develop, and then try and recover that cost. Linux of
>>> >course is a special example, as it is allegedly developed by people on
>>> >their "free" time. Of course, this doesn't include people who are paid
>>> >to develop it (Linus by Transmeta, Alan Cox by Redhat). I don't see too
>>> >many Linux companies actually making money - because they can't recover
>>> >the costs of their effort.
>>>
>>> Very little of the world's software is developed for resale. Most -
>> perhaps
>>> 95% - of the world's software is developed in-house for it's use-value
>>> and licensing is non-issue. Don't believe me? Take a look any publication
>>> that advertises vacancies for developers. How many of them are software
>>> houses? Maybe 1 in 20. Most of them are financial institutions.
>>
>> That is closer to 80%, I would say.
>> And most of the revenue on software is made from resale.
>>
>>
>>
>
When I worked for the worlds largest medical software vendor,
Charlie Mc Call told me that my contribution to the company was
only 5%. He said 80% of the profit came from maintenance
contracts as they gave my software away to get the maintenance.
Well, since he started Compuserve and was now running my
company, he knew what he was talking about.
The ONLY people who will feel a negative impact from ideas
like the GPL will be companies like Microsoft. And that's
only if they don't change.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: <johnbrowne>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:06:46 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jRS6.6542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<9ffak1$64t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$117
> > >
> Not really. OS/2 had many problems that Microsoft successfully solved.
The
> biggest one was the developer issue. MS successfully got developers on
> board to Win32 fairly shortly after the release of Win95, IBM was still
> pulling teeth to get people to develop native 32 bit apps.
>
> IBM saw no need to court developers, and in fact treated it as some kind
of
> priviledge to develop for OS/2. The OS/2 SDK was prohibitively expensive
> and You had to buy IBM's monstrous documentation set which, when stacked
up
> was about 5 feet high in boxes with 5-10 books each. IBM eventually got
> stuff put on CD-ROM, but it took forever.
>
You hit the nail right on the head!! OS/2 was a very good OS, much better
thn anything MS has put out. But the development tools Stunk! Big time!! And
IBM's attitude was as bad as the tools.
IBM has learned alot now. Maybe the Nabisco exec taught them how to be
cookie sweet <G>...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
