Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 09:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? ("Martin Knoblauch")
Re: A little advocacy.. (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Criticism (david parsons)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: Open Software Reliability (mlw)
Author of _Enterprise Linux at Work_ to speak in San Jose, CA (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (2:1)
Re: Open Software Reliability (mlw)
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Donn Miller)
Re: Salary? (Pas Moi)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: ("John C.
Randolph")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ("thijs")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Disproving the lies. (2:1)
Re: Disproving the lies. (2:1)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: BSD & Linux (Tore Lund)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martin Knoblauch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:11:14 +0100
"Michael C. Watz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bwaaaaaaaaahahahhaa... 1.60USD/gallon? Nothing! Driving around Great
> Britain it cost us around 50USD to fill up that tiny little tank.... I
> think it worked out to over 4USD per gallon....
>
> Just wait until we have $2.50/gallon prices this summer.... break out
> the bikes!
>
I'd love to have your problems. Your number is about 5 DM for 4 liters
(just make is simple). About 1.25 DM per liter. The actual price in Germany
(depending on the octane number) is about 1.80-2.05 DM per liter.
Martin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: 9 Mar 2000 11:21:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:14:15 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was merely pointing out that a machine can be configured to crash, either
> on purpose or accidentally (like I said, when configuring X). The reason
> that some people have huge problems with Windows 9x is because the machine
> isn't configured correctly (I include DLL Hell in this category).
However, under W9x you always work as root. If I install a
programm as root, I know it can replace most anything, but if I
use a normal user, it cannot harm a normally administrated
system.
> Of course there are other reasons as well, such as faulty drivers.
Of course you should not actually _use_ faulty drivers. :-)
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Criticism
Date: 9 Mar 2000 02:43:04 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Canup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To those of you who are critical of Linux: Fix what is wrong - or keep
>your mouths shut.
That's nonsense, and damaging to the free Unix world. When someone
is writing a nontrivial piece of code, they will get so involved in
it that they may forget that other people don't know that code and
may not find <ctrl>-<alt>-<del>-<f4> to be particularly useful, or
find that recompiling the source is the best way to change options.
Criticism, as part of the review process, is VITAL to the success of
most any serious software project. Sure, you can hack along without
paying attention to people that might use your software, but the
extra eyes that can peer at your code and find the bits that you've
missed are worth more than you can imagine.
____
david parsons \bi/ ... provided, of course, that you pay attention to
\/ them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:58:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8 Mar 2000 23:20:14 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Are you assuming that there was some conscious effort not to port
>: things to Linux? What makes you think this?
>
>It is easy to divide a post into fragments and contest each fragment in
>isolation. Why don't you go beyond that. Either accept that Apple has a
>strategy to provide an "alternate platform",
Ummmm.... providing an alternate platform is bad? Isn't _choice_ good?
>or explain to me what their
>real strategy is.
I think it's pretty clear that Darwin exists not to sabotage Linux
but to aid Apple developers. It would not surprise me if code from
Darwin helps out PPC Linux developers.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:58:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8 Mar 2000 23:14:23 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Salvatore Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Please don't tell me what I should and should not find interesting. My
>: opinions are my own and when I say that _I_ am finding linux testimonials
>: boring please trust that _I_ really do find them boring.
>
>1. You are taking me more seriously than I do.
Ohh... you can read minds? I'm thinking of a number between one and ten,
want to guess what it is?
>2. A hundred lines typed in opposition says more than this disclaimer.
Says what? What part of my post tells you that I don't find this boring?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:04:03 -0500
Darren Winsper wrote:
>
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:06:57 -0600, Bobby D. Bryant
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's hard to see how letting a date affect
> > the process could *ever* result in better product quality, but it's quite easy to
> > see how it could result in reduced quality.
>
> Setting dates (Even if they are prone to slip) can be quite useful. If
> you don't set even a rough timeline you could end up just piling in
> features and never actually releasing something stable enough to be
> called 1.0. At least with a rough timeline you can say something like
> "We really don't have the time to impliment that feature/rewrite for
> version 1.0."
I don't agree with this position at all. It implies that only people
wishing to set dates can have a view of the grand plan. It isn't true.
When an OSS project is being done, a shared vision is in place,
volunteers work on it, fight about it, and get it done. When it is
released, it functions as the group sees fit.
I understand "management" needing to schedule sales & marketing around
release dates, but, I have never seen release date pressure cause you to
ship anything but a lesser product, as defined by fewer than the
expected features, or more than the acceptable bugs.
The big myth about software development management is that it *can*
exist. OSS proves that actually managing software development reduces
quality and/or functionality. Where as simply "coordinating" software
development improves the product.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Author of _Enterprise Linux at Work_ to speak in San Jose, CA
Date: 9 Mar 2000 12:26:55 GMT
Incidentally, for those to whom ERP means what happens when
you eat too fast, here's an article about it:
Linux Journal: Linux in an ERP World
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue62/3178.html
********************************************************************
It's a Computer Literacy FREE Event
Using Linux for Application Integration
********************************************************************
We're hosting a free presentation by Stephen Asbury,
author of "Enterprise Linux at Work."
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Location: Computer Literacy Bookshop
2590 North First Street (at Trimble)
San Jose, CA (408) 435-1118
Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) has
become a hot topic among large companies. With the
advent of ERP systems, the Web, and other online
business systems, companies have recognized a need
to connect systems and automate business processes.
Numerous companies provide consulting and products to
meet the EAI needs of Fortune 500 companies. In this
presentation, Stephen Asbury will discuss some of the
ways smaller companies and departments can use Linux
as a platform for application integration.
Asbury will focus on basic architectures for integration,
including messaging middleware, directory services and
CORBA. The product focus will be on shareware, freeware
and do-it-yourself-ware that can be deployed on Linux to
integrate the existing systems. All code examples will
be in Java, although attendees are not expected to have
Java programming experience.
Stephen Asbury is the co-founder and Chief Technology
Officer of Paradigm Research, a Silicon Valley training
company. As the key technology resource for PRI, Asbury
has designed, developed and delivered training for
software developers at numerous Fortune 1000 companies
including Sun, HP, IBM, SGI, Ford, Chrysler and Netscape.
In the last three years, PRI, under Asbury's technical
leadership, has partnered with several key EAI product
vendors to teach their customers how to integrate
enterprises and automate business processes.
Asbury is the lead author of six books covering
Internet related topics. His most recent book is
"Enterprise Linux at Work."
To learn more about this author, visit:
http://www.fatbrain.com/events/store.html.
********************************************************************
Upcoming FREE Events
********************************************************************
Stay tuned. There are more exciting events to come!
04-04-2000
Inteligent Storage: An Oxymoron?
with Marc Farley
04-18-2000
MP3: The Definitive Guide
with Scot Hacker
04-25-2000
The Humane Interface
with Jef Raskin
********************************************************************
Receive Events Announcements
********************************************************************
If you would like to receive e-mail on upcoming store
events, simply write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
following in the body of your message:
join events-ca
If you have topic suggestions or comments, please send
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I hope you enjoy the event,
Cherrie C. Chiu
Computer Literacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(408) 232-0817 x128
**To unsubscribe from this list, send e-mail
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following as
the body of your message:
leave events-ca
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 12:28:26 +0000
James McLaren wrote:
>
> Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
> the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
> they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
> calling it a day.
>
> How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
> don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
>
> James <- Asbestos jox in situ
WHY do people keep posting `Linux will fail' gibberish? There some very
good reasons why it wont (to winvocates: this has *nothing* do do with
replacing windows, so don't bother replying along that line)
First, and foremost, it started in Linus computer, with a single user.
Its got to where it is (> 1e6 users) by being the way it is, so why is
the way it is going to make it fail?
Secondly, people like using it for fun, as well. They (we) won't stop,
because we like it. That is another reason why it won't sink without a
trace in a few years.
A less qualifiable argument is that it is very good (IMHO), so people
will use it, but I think that the first argument carries most weight.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:45:59 -0500
> "Frank Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wonder if someone could help me understand a claim that the development
> > paradigm for open source software in general (and for Linux in particular)
> > yields higher reliability, maintainability and stability.
> >
> > I understand that open source software is developed by a large decentralised
> > group as a labour of love. It is hard to imagine that the developers would
> > voluntairly submit themselves to the irksome quality requirements of, for
> > instance, software generated using ISO-9000 standards.
> >
> > On the other hand, I imagine (?) that when a central authority pays for an
> > operation system (or other) development, they can institute and enforce
> > demanding quality standards. So I would expect that the code generated under
> > the centrally controlled paradigm to be more easily maintainable.
> >
> > The Linux community claims that this is not so.
> >
> > Am I missing something?
Before one understands software development on must understand software
developers. There is an expression, "managing engineers is like herding
cats."
Software engineers will not put their best work in to something that
they do not wish to do. Period. In a company, a guy who is assigned to a
problem will not always want to work on it, thus you will not get his
best work.
In OSS the guy who needs something written, thus very involved with the
project, will write it. It will be better than because there is a
sympathetic need.
Anecdote: I worked in a banking software company, boring work. When I
worked on the infrastructure, i.e. error recovery, memory management,
process scheduling, and low level stuff, I had fun and did some cool
things. When I had to work on the financial math portion, I almost
always felt myself drifting off to a nap. In OSS, there would be a high
probability of some real math nut jumping in and doing that portion
really well.
Lastly, the idea that one can "institute and enforce" demanding quality
standards is a joke. It can't happen. One has to be a good software
engineer to recognize bad code, it had NOTHING to do with coding
standards or any other non-sense that passes for management, it has to
do with how you construct your algorithms, how you access data in a
loop, etc. For instance:
/* A bad function */
void testfunction(struct yy *xx)
{
int t = xx->count; /* Save count */
xx->sum = xx->value; /* Get first value */
while(xx->count--) /* Loop until done */
xx->sum += xx->sum;
xx->count = t; /* Restore count */
}
The above functions is bad code, although no coding standard or quality
suite can tell you why. I have seen code like that in the real world,
really!
int testfunction(struct yy *xx)
{
xx->sum = (1<<xx->count)*xx->value;
}
The is the equivalent functionality done "right."
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:55:06 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Wed, 08 Mar 2000 13:19:52 -0500...
> ...and Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Guys, it's OK to like Motif.
>
> You are missing an important point. Compared to GTK+ or Qt, Motif is
> medieval technology. It's a pain in the rear to program. Ever
> contemplated how many lines it takes to write a simple GUI "hello,
> world" program in Motif, as opposed to GTK+ or Qt?
Hmmm - here's my version:
#include <Xm/Label.h>
XtAppContext context;
XmStringCharSet char_set;
Widget toplevel, label;
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
Arg al[10];
int ac;
ac=0;
toplevel=XtAppInitialize(&context, "", NULL, 0, &argc, argv, NULL,
0, 0);
XtSetArg(al[ac], XmNlabelString,
XmStringCreate("Hello, World!", char_set)); ac++;
label=XmCreateLabel(toplevel, "label", al, ac);
XtManageChild(label);
XtRealizeWidget(toplevel);
XtAppMainLoop(context);
return 0;
}
$ wc -l hello.c
23 hello.c
I agree with you to an extent that it is "medieval technology". But,
it kind of has that "Athena++" sort of look. The "Classic X toolkit"
look can be kind of cool in a retro sense.
- Donn
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
From: Pas Moi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:06:29 GMT
>> "R" == Rupert schrieb am Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:35:33 -0600:
R> Also take into account that the USA is the world leader in advanced
R> medical treatment and research. The Houston Medical Center is the
R> largest medical center in the world, not to mention the rest of the
R> USA's medical centers.
R> When the rich and powerful of this world get sick and are on their
R> last prayer, they head to the Houston Medical Center.
where do houston's inner city poor go for health care? all that state
o' d'art, hi-capitalisation stuff is ABSOLUTELY USELESS for the
majority of houston's residents. (and indeed, it has to be that way)
it seems americans would rather treat the rich'n'powerful than their
own.
oh, yeah, and why was pinochet in england and not in houston?
he wasn't sick? oh...
R> -- The always friendly, always lovable, and highly presentable,
give your neighbor's some of that love, partner.
love,
g.y.
--
Guy Yasko -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
someone in DAYTON, Ohio is selling USED CARPETS to a SERBO-CROATIAN
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:16:39 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
> Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
How many man-years would you put up to support sound under Linux? (Not
to mention the living hell of trying to render video in real time under
X on god-knows-how-many displays.)
QT on Windoze was just barely doable. QT on Linux is more trouble than
it's worth.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: "thijs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 14:02:23 +0100
> First, and foremost, it started in Linus computer, with a single user.
> Its got to where it is (> 1e6 users) by being the way it is, so why is
> Secondly, people like using it for fun, as well. They (we) won't stop,
> because we like it. That is another reason why it won't sink without a
> trace in a few years.
> A less qualifiable argument is that it is very good (IMHO), so people
> will use it, but I think that the first argument carries most weight.
>
well, i might ad something in a very loud voice ...
_it_ _is_ _FREE_ !!!
something what , .. at least for me, .. made a big difference ...(plus the
stability-fun-power-etc factors ofcourse; )
my company now has 5 pc's running linux and 2 on winNT . thats a lot of
money saved on licences i can tell you...
gts
thijs
--
http://www.abzurd.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 9 Mar 2000 07:26:20 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> It's not clear why the Qt developers would want to give such
> permission if they really believe in the terms of their licence,
> though I suppose money talks. :(
It's their whole business model. Just like Aladdin (distributors of
the original Ghostscript). Free for noncommercial use, as it were.
How do you *expect* Troll Tech to make money? They're not exactly
nonprofit, now.
(Don't anybody read me "The Magic Cauldron". I know. I'm just saying
that TT expects to make their money selling Qt licenses, not that there
isn't *any* other way.)
Peter
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:31:39 +0000
> UNIX compatible TCP/IP, Berkeley Sockets, RPC, NIS, NFS, DCE,
> CORBA, MQSeries, X11, datastreams of ascii text, kosher XML,
> IRC and IRC-II, PVM, and MPI. Not to mention programming
> languages like PERL, ANSII standard C++, PYTHON, interactive
> shells, cron, sed, grep, awk, lex, yacc, and cobol.
>
> Sure, you can spend a few grand and get all these goodies, but
> they aren't part of the standard package. Windows 2000 comes
> with qbasic, vbscript, and XML/ActiveX. Even the JVM is so
> dependent on ActiveX and Microsoft-only APIs that it isn't useful
> as an integration tool.
No!!! It cant!!!!
Does NT *really* come with QBasic?
If it does, then that in itself is reason enough to shun it.
I HATE qbasic. I recently used it to write a Tetris game
FYI, a friend had a broken Win instalation, but working dos. She was
*really* pissed off at having no games (tetris is soothing don't ya
know). Having no C compiler for DOS, I had to write the game in
(compiled) Quasic.)
It is foul, limited and hacked. I hate it. Its nasty. The width command
chnget the /height/ of the screen. Aaaaarrgh.
This is one of my pet hates at the moment. Qbasic is useless for most
things (although it is a big improvement on batch files for scriping :-)
I thought M$ siabanded QB anyway?
-Ed
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:34:24 +0000
> I'll repeat - no scheduled reboots. Ever. Period. YOu can write as many
> words as you'd like but if they do not occur then they are meaningless. Full
> disk? What does a reboot do for a full disk? DLL conflict? Reboot does
> nothing and W2K has done away with DLL hell. Leaks? If you have one, do you
> just go: "oh wow, a leak" and then schedule reboots? Then you are
> pathetically stupid. Me, I say, fucking A a leak, and I fix it (even if it
> means removing the offending application until the vendor fixes it). I don't
> run broken applications - doh!
High time to deinstall windows, then :)
-Ed
--
Did you know that the highest point in the world is only eight foot?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:37:17 GMT
"nohow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:01:26 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> ><sigh> Do you even have any clue?
> >
>
> More of a clue than you.
Apparently not. You're debating a well known fact.
> >NT 4.0 was C2 Red book for quite some time. Since 1996 or 7.
>
> No it wasn't. See below.
> Here's a news story from last spring which talks a bit about it:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014704,00.html
This is talking about the lead up to _FULL_ C2 compliance, both
red book and orange book.
NT _WAS_ redbook shortly after it was released. Why do you even
try to debate it, it was, there's no arguing about it!
NT did not obtain full C2 compliance until 1999. However, it's
had Redbook all along.
>
> >
> >NT 3.5 had Red and Orange.
>
> No it didn't - only Red.
<sigh> It had both. It's on their frickin' web site!
>
> Here's a Microsoft website dated May12 1999 that shows the C2 levels
> at that time: NT 4.0 - not C2 certified, 3.5 - only red book.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/security/exec/feature/c2_security.asp
It (4.0) wasn't fully C2 certified, which means means it hadn't passed
both tests (Red and Orange) but it's been Red all along. Of course,
water is wet, but you probably don't believe that, either.
Where are you getting this nonsense about 3.5 only being red book?
FROM THE SAME LINK YOU POSTED, it says "NT 3.5 has been successfully
evaluated....at C2 level" It's fully Red and Orange book.
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-95-003.html
Right there, that's from the lions mouth.
What is your problem? Why can't you accept the obvious?
NT 3.5 - fully C2
NT 3.51 - E3/FC2
NT 4.0 Was Red book, now (1999) is fully C2 Orange and Red
NT 4.0 - E3/FC2
Win2K in testing
> Over three years after its relase - not shortly as you stated.
It had Redbook shortly after it's release.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 13:41:30 GMT
John C. Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen wrote:
: > Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
: How many man-years would you put up to support sound under Linux? (Not
: to mention the living hell of trying to render video in real time under
: X on god-knows-how-many displays.)
: QT on Windoze was just barely doable. QT on Linux is more trouble than
: it's worth.
If the required investment really was huge, that is adequate explanation.
I remember something about an open source developer trying to get some
information released so he could try it. IIRC, he was one of the
developers of an X11 MPEG player. Perhaps someone else remembers more.
John
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 14:43:10 +0100
dbt wrote:
>
> Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> >
> >If I could get a Linux kernel with FreeBSD userland I'd probably be happy
> >with that.
>
> Which is funny, because Debian is working on the opposite, because they
> like the performance advantages of the FreeBSD kernel.
I thought Debian was about to adopt HURD, correct me if I am wrong.
But the idea is interesting nevertheless. Some of us want to see a
serious competitor to Windows, and Debian just might fill that role
(with or without a FreeBSD kernel).
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 13:47:55 GMT
Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On 8 Mar 2000 23:20:14 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >: Are you assuming that there was some conscious effort not to port
: >: things to Linux? What makes you think this?
: >
: >It is easy to divide a post into fragments and contest each fragment in
: >isolation. Why don't you go beyond that. Either accept that Apple has a
: >strategy to provide an "alternate platform",
: Ummmm.... providing an alternate platform is bad? Isn't _choice_ good?
I think I've already said that several times.
: >or explain to me what their
: >real strategy is.
: I think it's pretty clear that Darwin exists not to sabotage Linux
: but to aid Apple developers. It would not surprise me if code from
: Darwin helps out PPC Linux developers.
So basically, you violently agree with me.
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
