Linux-Advocacy Digest #629, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (David Steinberg)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Mark Weaver")
Re: Oh Yeah Baby!! (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (abraxas)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Craig Kelley)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? (Craig Kelley)
Re: which OS is best? (Charles Kooy)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Se�n �
Donnchadha)
Re: which OS is best? (Peter Bonte)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("scott hand")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:19:56 GMT
Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: What children learning software and games are there for your children
: on Linux?
Because if there's no dumb purple dinosaur beating them over the head
with "2+2=4," there's no way they could be learning anything.
Do you even know how old his children are? What their skills and talents
are? What their interests are? How could you presume to suggest whether
the software they need or want is available on Linux?
: What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
: your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
If they're young enough, they probably don't know the difference. If
they're old enough, they're probably profitting greatly from the
understanding of how a computer works that Linux is helping them to
develop.
: Are you sacrificing the well being and mental development of your
: children simply because you're too ignorant?
Call the Ministry of Children and Families (or whatever they call it in
your jurisdiction)! Put these kids into the care of the state! They're
being subjected to the worst form of abuse possible: Microsoft denial!
How will they learn patience if their computer actually works, and they
don't have to keep waiting for it to reboot? How will they learn the
language they need to survive in the real word, if not from their parents
swearing at the computer? How will they learn about the primary
colours if not being carefully observing the hue of the daily BSOD? How
will they learn that nothing is worth having or using unless "everybody
else" has it?
Remember the old FUD classic: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"?
Chad has brought us a brilliant new twist: "Nobody has ever been a bad
parent by buying Microsoft."
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:23:00 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles W. Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: GUI apps
>: --------
>:
>: MacOS provides support for running Mac software as well as things like
>: VirtualPC and the Connectix PlayStation emulator; Linux lets you run
>: X11-based GUI apps (both native and binaries from related platforms like
>: FreeBSD) as well as limited PC emulation. [...]
>
> MacOS X and Linux will both have emulators to run Windows software. I
> think the crux will be how well they can _create_ standards. To repeat
> what I see as the fast answer: a multi-source standard will outgrow a
> single-source standard every time.
In an open market, sure. But let's remember that Microsoft isn't the only
company to play hardball tactics with file formats, extending open standards
with proprietary extensions, and so forth. Some people argue that Apple is
doing something similiar with QuickTime.
> (One might wonder how soon a Linux-compatiblity layer would become a
> viable product in the MacOS X marketplace.)
It's entirely feasible if you care to add ELF support to the Mach kernel and
hoark the Linux shared libraries onto MacOS X.
But you can add Linux binary support to other systems like FreeBSD now, and I
don't see it being used very much. After all, if you can compile anything
that runs on Linux directly for the native platform, why bother?
[ ... ]
>: Kernel
>: ------
>:
>: Linux has got more extensive driver availability (particularly given the
>: status of Darwin for Intel) and more loadable kernel modules around for it.
>: It will be interesting to see how compatible Apple's new driver layer it
>: and how easy it is to port open source drivers. [...]
>
> This only matters to people who want to run Darwin on Intel for some
> reason. I think you've demonstrated above that the several levels of
> portablity between MacOS X and Linux, and the lack of a Mac-ish GUI on
> Intel, make Darwin on Intel a questionable goal. Why, beyond the
> hackerish fun in helping create it?
I would expect Darwin to have much better support and integration for
Apple-specific technologies which are of value to some people but perhaps not
terribly useful to the rest of the world.
For example, Darwin will handle HFS+, Mac-style forks, Unicode filenames, and
all of that crap which a Mac user might find essential but most Linux users
could care less about. Darwin will support Mach messaging and NetInfo and
various AppleTalk/EtherTalk/AppleShare networking protocols. Again, very
useful if you have those already on your network, and not of interest to
people who don't.
But Darwin also is supposed to be a plug-n-chug replacement layer for the rest
of MacOS X-- so a Linux user who does want to add ELF support and have Linux
binary compatibility has the Mach kernel sources available and can do so.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 19:25:18 GMT
> But even the non-live embedding has problems. For example, I have to
> write specifications. I do simple drawings in Powerpoint because that is
> what the comany provides. If I embed a drawing as you describe, then I
> have to edit it inside of Word in a tiny little window that behaves very
> strangely and tends to cause Word to become unstable.
>
No you don't. You right-click on the embedded object and choose open the
object rather than edit it in place. That will bring up a separate copy of
PowerPoint to edit the object. I tend not to use the in-place editing--I
find 'out-of-place' editing more convenient.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh Yeah Baby!!
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:46:26 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
> Of course they are "Embracing Linux", they are one step from
> rigamortis and they know it.
>
> Heather+Steve
>
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:58:15 -0500, "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >See "Novell jumps into Linux pool" at
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1570677.html?dtn.head
> >
> >2 + 2
> >
Surely! Novell has been near *rigormortis* for years now according to
some folks - yet it's still here and fighting like a bulldog. They said
the same thing about Apple, yet here they are in the year 2000 getting
stronger. Here's UNIX, getting better all the time.
It's called being competitive.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:45:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8am21c$bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> When there comes a time in which one notices that the majority of
>> people around him posess a common perspective of him, the time in
>> question is that of introspection; the world is never crazy, its only
>> YOU.
> The problem with that, is that the majority DON'T think differently
> than I, just this small band of Ignorant crusaders that seem to make
> it their job to make everyone <sigh> and shake their head every time
> they post.
I think that a good chunk of them think the particularly same thing
about winvocates, eh? I think you're both full of shit myself. :)
But not so much on the subject, more on the arguing style. If you
want to make yourself understood, you have to either speak the language
of your target or teach them yours. I'm certian that in this case
it would be much less hassle for everyone if you decided to speak
theirs.
> It is merely out of good will and charity that I sit down and take
> the time to explain the obvious facts that everyone else sees to them.
>> If people generally are not understanding you, chad, it is always and
>> only because you are not making yourself clear.
> Not people, just Linvocates. They're a small band of closed minded,
> blinded and ignorant people.
You say this about them in their proverbial "home" and then you are
astounded that they dont want to listen to what you have to say?
I think youve missed something.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Mar 2000 12:49:59 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8am21c$bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > When there comes a time in which one notices that the majority of
> > people around him posess a common perspective of him, the time in
> > question is that of introspection; the world is never crazy, its only
> > YOU.
>
> The problem with that, is that the majority DON'T think differently
> than I, just this small band of Ignorant crusaders that seem to make
> it their job to make everyone <sigh> and shake their head every time
> they post.
>
> It is merely out of good will and charity that I sit down and take
> the time to explain the obvious facts that everyone else sees to them.
Then why, pray tell, do you constantly post FUD about Linux?
I use Windows all the time, I like a lot of things about it. I never
go into comna and post horror stories about installing NT, and it's
not for lack of experience in that department...
You and Drestin are not pro-anything; you are anti-Linux. At least
Drestin has the courage to admit it.
> > If people generally are not understanding you, chad, it is always and
> > only because you are not making yourself clear.
>
> Not people, just Linvocates. They're a small band of closed minded,
> blinded and ignorant people. I used to have a little respect for
> them in the way that they moved like a heard, or dare I say,
> collective and always had a mantra for every single issues that the
> inceasantly repeat. Even new Linvocates who join the fray from time
> to time tune into this collective ignorant heart-beat of FUD lies
> and deceit. But now I just take them for what they are: hapless,
> brainwashed one-offs from Mac advocates with no hope of seeing the
> truth, listening to facts, or understanding common logic.
Oh, so now Linux and Mac advocates are brainwashed.
How many other non-Microsoft advocates are brainwashed, Chad?
Perhaps the problem is with *you* and not everyone else.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Mar 2000 12:55:32 -0700
"Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.sys.next.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > (One might wonder how soon a Linux-compatiblity layer would become a
> > viable product in the MacOS X marketplace.)
>
> It's entirely feasible if you care to add ELF support to the Mach kernel and
> hoark the Linux shared libraries onto MacOS X.
>
> But you can add Linux binary support to other systems like FreeBSD now, and I
> don't see it being used very much. After all, if you can compile anything
> that runs on Linux directly for the native platform, why bother?
In a perfect world, nobody would. Unfortunately, we have hundreds of
proprietary UNIX (for lack of a better term) apps for Linux/x86 which
would be nice to run under other POSIX-like systems.
[snip]
> But Darwin also is supposed to be a plug-n-chug replacement layer
> for the rest of MacOS X-- so a Linux user who does want to add ELF
> support and have Linux binary compatibility has the Mach kernel
> sources available and can do so.
It's gonna be very interesting. I can't wait to get my hands on it. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:22:37 +0000
ATG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My list is even shorter;
>
> 2nd Best OS - WinXX
> 1st Best OS - ANY OTHER OS!
<Snip>
LOL!
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:19:44 -0500
On 14 Mar 2000 18:56:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> heh.. <sigh> Why do I have to continually explain the obvious and
>> inherrant to you guys?
>
>When there comes a time in which one notices that the majority of
>people around him posess a common perspective of him, the time in
>question is that of introspection; the world is never crazy, its only
>YOU.
>
Fortunately, an advocacy newsgroup's majority is hardly a reflection
of society's majority. I would guess that most average people, be they
fans of Microsoft or someone else, would take one look at this
newsgroup, roll their eyes, and go back to work.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
From: Peter Bonte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:24:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] zegende ons op 14-03-2000 17:28 met volgende wijsheid:
> Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Charles Kooy wrote:
>>
>>> But its getting better. Still made by dodgy geezers, though.
>>
>> I am getting sick and tired of this line. Every single Losedoze
>> from the first to the latest has been "getting better." So
>> what? It's still one of the worst OS's ever made.
>
> I had a bunch of people over for a party last weekend and we decided
> to play some Halflife, for which there is no Linux client. We had to
> re-install Windows98se on one of the machines because it kept on
> crashing -- another machine froze a few times. I just sat back and
> laughed.
>
> [snip]
Yeah, Halflife is much better on a Mac :( not.
Peter
Brugge
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:23:09 -0600
mlw wrote:
>
> I am, in fact a Windows refugee. However, I respect UNIX for what it is,
> so I do not blindly want to add things that Windows had, simply to have
> them. The one thing that UNIX really really needs, is the notion of a
> DLL. A shared library is not a dll.
>
Could you please elaborate the differences of a DLL and a shared library? This
is an honest question.
Thanks,
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:46:18 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:23:02 -0500, Rich Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8algc7$qhg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <38cdfa06@news>, Rich Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> > As far as standards go, [DnD] needs to be done at the LOWEST COMMON
>> > DENOMINATOR ie, XFree86, so that every graphical program can conform
>> > to the standards, whether it be KDE, Gnome, or Fred's Desktop
>> > Environment.
>>
>> No, it goes in at the toolkit level so that no matter what display
>> hosts your Linux session, you can use DnD! Furthermore, supporting a
>> DnD protocol, especially one as rich as Xdnd (which is used by both
>> KDE and Gnome,) takes quite a lot of work to do even after you handle
>> the basics of actually talking the protocol, since you need to deal
>> with all the user activity during the drag, etc. Hence it is doubly a
>> natural for the toolkit level, e.g. Qt and GTK[-+]*.
>>
>> Donal.
>
>Then you've got to make sure that EVERY toolkit is DnD compatible. To me, as
No you don't. DnD is somewhat orthogonal to the core function
of a gui widgetset. It's perfectly feasable to exploit DnD
functionality quite independent of what widget library you
are using.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:48:44 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:26:19 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What children learning software and games are there for your children
>on Linux?
>
>What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
>Browsing the web?
>
>What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
>your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
Mebbe one in which they're capable of using and thinking of
tools abstractly as a means towards a particular end rather
than just as a standardized control panel with a particular
configuration of buttons.
>
>Are you sacrificing the well being and mental development of your
>children simply because you're too ignorant?
>
>-Chad
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > I am getting sick and tired of this line. Every single Losedoze
>> > from the first to the latest has been "getting better." So
>> > what? It's still one of the worst OS's ever made.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > users. Personally, I think that Linux will never be as easy to
>> > use as Losedoze or the Mac. Why? Because, being Unix, you are
>> > always going to have to go to the command-line. Am I wrong?
>>
>> And I am sick and tired of this line. My kids use Linux on their
>> PC (no M$ in this house) and they never use the command-line. They
>> login via kdm, wm is xfce and everything they need is setup on
>> the xfce control panel. They use it daily and never complain.
>
>
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "scott hand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]!.net>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: 14 Mar 2000 15:39:51 -0500
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 2:23 PM, Charles W. Swiger
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But Darwin also is supposed to be a plug-n-chug replacement layer for the
rest
>of MacOS X-- so a Linux user who does want to add ELF support and have
Linux
>binary compatibility has the Mach kernel sources available and can do so.
>
I imagine you're simplifying things a bit, but it makes me wonder about the
possibility of Apple creating and selling a distribution and license for
just the higher level bits (non-Darwin) of OS X to people who want to
modify the low level parts (Darwin). It has only been presented as a
situation where Apple would be responsible for the integration of Darwin
with OS X, but it would be interesting if the user could do this on their
own. Could it really work that way?
scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:52:35 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:45:49 -0600, Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >so.. why should they bother ? :-) their customers buy the software
>> >anyway, sloppy or not, and that about justifies anything for them, I
>> >imagine.
>>
>> They could ride the 'hype wave' by releasing qtlib with
>> minimal effort and cover all their bases at the same time.
>
>You know, MS doesn't need 'hype waves' to market their products. Others
>ride the hype waves created by MS, or the 'anti-MS waves' created.
We weren't talking about MS. Although, they have a hype wave
of their own that they've been riding since IBM graced us
with their first microcomputer. MS has been surfing it since.
>
>[btw, what is qtlib? is that Qt or Quicktime? how is it relevant to MS?]
>
>
>> >> >so, yeah, you can create your own digital media architecture and movie
>> >> >player, but in the mean time if you want to view the cool trailers, you
>> >> >need to get Quicktime, and for that you need Apple.
>> >>
>> >> This is a completely artificial constraint.
>> >
>> >'Artificial' seems to be a subjective matter here, but the effect is real
>> >- its making lots of people want some form of Quicktime. Before free
>>
>> Free alternatives are available. They just don't have nice
>> marketing and sales departments to back them up. The success
>> of Quicktime very likely parallels the success of NT within
>> the ranks of non-tech management.
>
>what free alternatives are there with the same level of functionality,
>playback quality, and developer (content provider) support as Quicktime ?
>
>on the issue of 'non-tech' management liking NT (since you seem to be
>using it as a sort of negative comment), I think you have to realize that
>the larger your user base is, the more non-tech they will be. It also
>means that to reach a large user base, you need to address the non-tech
>needs (like common perception of quality and reliability, 'coolness', ease
Except that doesn't really happen. The ignorant just get swindled
and lied to because marketing is good at telling lies and the
ingorant aren't as good at spotting the lies.
This is just a slightly more scaled up version of the slimey
car salesman or the lying computer salesman.
>of setup and use). It also means that if the product continues to be 'for
>the technies', it will remain in that techie niche. I don't think there's
>anything sad or disappointing or wrong or right about it, its just the way
>it is, kinda like CSNA getting more newbie posts (like this one) as
>NeXTStep gains a larger user base.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
