Linux-Advocacy Digest #96, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("JS | PL")
Re: Desktop Linux ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("JS | PL")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("JS \\ PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS \\ PL")
Re: which OS is better to learn for an entry level job? ("Eric Lauritzen")
Re: Time to bitc__ again ([BeoWulf])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:18 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:11:27
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:30:13 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
>> > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>>
>> Why? There are many things that can cause a crash, and some of them can
>> be transient. Like a bug in the GUI that makes it crash when a user app
>> gives it a bad parameter. Restarting the GUI will solve the problem
>> until the user does the same sequence of actions again.
>
>There is a confustion here.
>In Windows, there is the GUI, which is handled by Explorer, and there is the
>GDI, which does the screen drawing.
Well, forgive me my technical naivete, but that sounds like hogwash.
isn't screen drawing kind of what puts the 'G' in GUI? There is the
*shell*, that's Explorer (often confused with 'the' GUI, when at best it
is 'a' GUI) and then there is the GUI, that's what MS calls 'the GDI'.
>You can kill the GUI & restart it, but the GDI is the one that the system is
>depended on.
Meaning you cannot kill the GUI and restart it, although you can kill
the shell which often hoses or is hosed by the GUI. To restart the GUI,
you essentially have to restart Windows, because they 'bolted' the GUI
onto the OS. They were trying at the time to kill off Macintosh, so
reliability wasn't a big issue. Later, with NT, they were trying to
kill off Unix, and it bit them in the ass, hard.
But this is what happens when products aren't designed to compete,
providing productive and efficient value to consumers, but to "kill off"
competition. This is why I am always surprised to find that there are
people who are supposedly technical competent, but don't believe
Microsoft monopolizes. It seems built into their software from the very
start, and is the only design criteria ever consistently supported by
Microsoft. Any possible good design which might creep in accidentally
is frequently abandoned with the next anti-competitive change in
approach.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:19 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:55:42
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fhjt5$49d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>Here's the relevant section, hopefully there's no copyright infringement
>here :)
>
>Is Windows 2000 Less Stable with Win32 USER and GDI in Kernel Mode?
>
>Some people wondered whether moving this much code into kernel mode would
>substantially affect system stability. The reason the impact on system
>stability has been minimal is that prior to Windows NT 4 (and this is still
>true today), a bug (such as an access violation) in the user-mode Win32
>subsystem process (Csrss.exe) resulted in a system crash.
[...pages of vague babbling...]
>So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
>kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
>decrease in system stability or reliability.
I presume this is from Microsoft. According to them, W2K doesn't have
any reliability or stability problems. Shocker.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:21 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:30:11
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Stuart Fox wrote:
>> > So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
>> > kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
>> > decrease in system stability or reliability.
>>
>> What a load of crap. It's quite simple :
>>
>> People who write drivers make pointer errors => your system dies
>> People who write the subsystem that lives in the Kernel Space make
>> errors => your system dies
>>
>> That is why MY windows box keeps crashing so often (and every windows
>> box that I have seen).
>>
>> THERE IS NO PLACE FOR EXTRA RISK IN KERNEL SPACE. This is a simple trade
>> off between reliability and speed/convenience. Therefore you should
>> endeavor to place as little code in the kernel as possible.
>>
>> Much of the same arguments can be used against Linux when compared to a
>> micro kernel approach such as the famous debate between Minux's Andy T
>> and Linus.
>>
>> Whichever why your flag flies: for the book to say that "[kernel space
>> GUI] without any significant decrease in system stability or
>> reliability." is a provable bald face lie. All I need to do is look at
>> my Linux box in comparison to my win98 box to see that.
>>
>> This is just simple common sense.
>
>No, it's not.
>Don't try to compare Linux to 9x.
>If you want to do *that*, why don't we dredge up the *original* Unix, slap
>X, CORBA, TCP/IP, OpenGL, sound, and all the other equilents to what Win9x
>can do.
And you think magically the Unix will crash because X does? You seem to
be missing the point. Pip isn't comparing their functionality, but
their design. Like Unix, with X as a separate component, WinDOS (3.x
through ME) had DOS and it had "Windows". You have been bugging the
Windows advocates to try to explain why MS would design 95 through ME
(or NT through 2K) so that if the graphics subsystem crashed, the OS
failed. The answer is practically built into the question, though: they
wanted to bolt the GUI onto the OS. If they were separate components,
MS couldn't use its OS monopoly to prevent competition for the GUI
component.
>All of that in the addition that all effort to mention backward
>compatability with the applications that Unix had at the time (no re-compile
>here, you move a binary file from an original Unix to the Unix9x, and it
>*works*).
>*Then* you can try to make the comparision. I can assure you, Unix9x
>wouldn't be a shrine of stability either.
The kernel would be just as rock solid, regardless of how bad the
components you have on top of it are, sure. But isn't this why you were
asking why, on Windows, the whole OS crashes if the GUI does? Maybe you
didn't realize: these are the same issue. IOW, Microsoft's design sucks
in comparison to Unix is one way of explaining "how or why" MS made
their system crash the way they did. It isn't any different reason why
Unix has better backwards compatibility, but is still not "plagued" with
the *problem* of backwards compatibility, as Windows is. It also
explains why both Unix and this 'Unix9x' are, in fact, shrines of
stability, and Windows is not even stable in most cases.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ayende: wake up and smell the
coffee. It is foolish to question "why" MS would make a bad technical
choice. The question is how they ever manage to do anything else,
considering they are not even trying to design the best product they
can. A company that has 95% market share of the de facto standard
platform has no reason to design their product to do anything but
maintain the monopoly, and that is the only criteria of "works" that
really needs to be satisfied for their "popularity" to continue.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JS | PL" <winxp beta@ home .com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:39:34 -0400
Reply-To: "JS | PL" <winxp beta@ home .com>
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >I don't have to toss anything, or buy anything. My cost is zero. I have
it
> >running on a computer I bought several YEARS ago. So how much did it
REALLY
> >cost? $0.00
>
> Erm, could you let us into the specifications of this computer?
You mean for the tenth time?
Read up the thread. You seem to have either the memory of a goldfish or the
reading skills of a blind bat.
Whichever it is, you need to come to the table prepared.
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop Linux
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:49:59 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The current Linux desktops do lack some features of the latest Windows
> and Apple ones. However, I think you will find that only a very few
> users are even aware of all the features that were available in Win95.
> If you watch regular users work, you quickly find that they simply don't
> use the advanced features of their desktops. Windows 3.1 had all of the
> features that users normally use. The current KDE and Gnome are more
> than "good enough".
For the users that I'm familiar with, their entire knowledge base is
encapsulated in the Post-It notes stuck to the monitor. Change anything
at all, and there's wholesale panic among the troops.
I can hardly wait for XP, where the menus get constantly re-sorted based
on the most frequently used selections. Time to get myself a Kevlar
vest and change the combinations on the doors....
------------------------------
From: "JS | PL" <winxp beta@ home .com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:57:03 -0400
Reply-To: "JS | PL" <winxp beta@ home .com>
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Weren't you the one just before saying you'd need a much bigger hard
> disk than a 1BG?
No I don't ever remember saying I needed a hard drive bigger than 1BG
I don't even know what unit of measurement that is.
>And as for the 233 processor and the 64MB of RAM,
> even if it did work at that, I suspect it would do nothing but grind
> to a halt if you did so much as move the mouse.
It seems to not have that problem. But lets test it....no I just moved the
mouse all over the place and it's still running fine.
>
> >If you can't afford a computer or can't afford the two year upgrade
> >cycle get out of the game and stop complaining. It's pretty simple.
Systems
>
> What the fuck? Anyone who can afford to upgrade their computer every
> two years may as well just buy a gold monitor and diamond studded
> keyboard and have done with it.
You sound broke.
>Absolutel NO OS should require
> upgrading your hardware every two years.
None do REQUIRE it that I've heard of.
>That's an absolute disgrace.
> Linux could run on a 100mhz on 4Mb of RAM, and still out perform
> Win98. Now what does that tell you?
It tells me you've never personally done it.
> >are growing more complex and bigger as you read this. Get used to it, or
sit
> >fat and happy in your Model T shaking your fist at all the "whipper
> >snappers". Either way makes no difference to the world.
>
> Erm, what the fuck are you on about?
Erm, what the fuck am I on about?
Can I get the english version of that question?
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:09:54 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> and AFAIK, you alone, though other
> sock puppets may, as well) use the term 'Penguinista'.
Once again your not too informed Max:
<paste>
http://penguinista.org
We the Penguinistas:
have the coolest name on the Internet;
Well, that's just the way it is.
provide easy-to-use Linux documentation;
We primarily serve documentation online which has been written and compiled
by other documentation projects, but strive to do so in a fashion which
makes a large body of knowledge as accessible and useable as possible.
report news of interest to Penguinistas everywhere;
We report stories from a plethora of other websites, as well as publish
original articles written by Penguinistas, generally in our own inimitable
fashion.
support open source philosophy;
We report on articles which explain the precepts of the open source approach
to software development.
and
advocate the use of Linux.
Well, you shoulda seen that one coming.
</paste>
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:20:51 -0400
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Greg Cox wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:9fr2mu$gnv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:mT6U6.68368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
> > > > > > is IBM involved in WFC, really?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the question is why, rather then how.
> > > >
> > > > My question is "how"; I'll ask why once
> > > > I know how.
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > I think MS's software is frequently well
> > > > > > designed, and often better designed than the
> > > > > > competition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They rarely get the implementation right on
> > > > > > the first try; it's the good designs they use that
> > > > > > allow them to overcome this in later
> > > > > > revisions of their software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, this is a rational explanation to MS' Ver 3.0 sympthom.
> > > > > Scarry!
> > > >
> > > > I've heard it said that MS uses fresh-out-of-school
> > > > grads for a lot of implementation work, but
> > > > experienced developers for design.
> > > >
> > > > I dunno if this is true, but it explains a lot,
> > > > if it is.
> > >
> > > It's true. There was a Seattle Times article a couple of years ago
that
> > > mentioned the entry level salary of a MS programmer... $18k. But it
> > > mentioned that they also get stock options. (A carrot!)
> > >
> >
> > This is pure BS. Microsoft is known to have low salaries (with stock
> > options) but nothing anywhere this low.
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> BS yourself. Go read the Seattle Times... if they screwed up the
> article its not my fault.
> Do you work for MS??
Microsoft is ranked 37 of the top 100 companies to work for:
Microsoft Corporation
Headquarters: Redmond , WA
Number of U.S. Sites: 41
1999 Revenues (millions): $22,960
1999 Rank: 21
Website: http://www.microsoft.com
Employees
# in U.S.: 23,161
# Outside U.S.: 15,855
% Minorities (non-Caucasian): 25%
% Women: 30%
Voluntary Turnover ( 1999 ): 10%
Hiring
# New Jobs (1 year): 4,242
Job Growth (full- and part-time): 22%
Applicants: N/A
Job Titles/Salary
Most common entry-level job (professional): Sofware Design Engineer
Entry-level salary: $45,000
Most common entry-level job (production): Administrative Assistant
Entry-level salary: $30,000
Perks
Professional Training (hrs./yr.): N/A
Other: N/A
Summary
The antitrust conviction did not dampen the spirit of Softies; 87% say
"management is honest and ethical in its business practices." Employees also
praise the casual dress code. Says one: "Shorts and T-shirts help me to
relax."
------------------------------
From: "Eric Lauritzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which OS is better to learn for an entry level job?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:34:22 GMT
In article <vdAU6.44783$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steven"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which OS should you focus on learning to get an entry level tech or
> programming job? Linux or Windows?
Yes
------------------------------
From: [BeoWulf] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:06:26 GMT
I wouldn't worry about the abandoning of the character mode interface for=
a=20
GUI, if I were you. GNU/Linux is a UNIX style operating system. UNIX=20
operating systems *are* and always *will* *be* character mode systems. =20
That is what provides them with more stability than operating systems tha=
t=20
have the GUI in their kernel, such as WindowsNT or Windows2000 [1].
I also wouldn't worry about non-privileged users gaining access to system=
=20
files. That would totally abandon all of the fundaments of UNIX as an=20
architecture.
GNU/Linux will continue to evolve into supporting more hardware and newer=
=20
technologies, but it will always be faithful to its roots as being a UNIX=
=20
clone. Besides, Open Source is not about market shares. GNU/Linux and t=
he=20
various *BSD systems are not salesproducts developed after a marketing=20
analysis and the vision of creating needs where they do not yet exist...
Windows is not the actual goal for Microsoft, it is only *one* of their=20
means of making money. It's a box they sell, no matter what's in it. =20
GNU/Linux is an operating system, intended to work by the best of its=20
abilities. Two totally different angles... Or as I said in a previous=20
post recently : one is a Cessna and the other an F-14. They both fly, an=
d=20
the latter flies higher and faster. Other than that, they can not be=20
compared... ;-)
[1] Not Windows95/98/Me, as they are graphical environments and memory=20
managers for DOS.
The MacIntosh and the various Atari or Amiga computers are of a different=
=20
breed, as they have the graphics implemented in the hardware itself. THe=
y=20
will support character mode operating systems, but the hardware will then=
=20
be emulating this character mode.
The new MacOS X is FreeBSD-based, by the way... Any *honest* approach=20
towards operating system architectures, ICT security and stability will=20
inevitably lead to only _one_ _word_ : *UNIX*...! ;-))
--=20
With sincere regards,
[BeoWulf].
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
