Linux-Advocacy Digest #202, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix is dead? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux vs. BSD (Craig Kelley)
Re: Unix is dead? (david parsons)
Re: Linux vs. BSD (abraxas)
Re: Elian (DGITC)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("billwg")
Re: Linux vs. BSD (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Elian (DGITC)
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: which OS is best? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Elian (The 2-Belo)
Re: Unix is dead? (Andy Newman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:00:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chris Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep hearing "Unix is dead or will die soon."
Like hell it is. UNIX(r) vendors seem to keep reporting sales growth
figures that simply don't support this.
> What can replace it?
What reason is there for replacing it? Its available from numerous
vendors, its time-tested, it supports standards, its scaleable,
interoperable, and reliable.
> Linux?
In some cases, yes. But there is much more to a traditional heavyweight
UNIX(r) distribution than just POSIX compliance, f'rexample.
> Linux is Unix.
Not unless the Open Group says so. Simply a formality, I'll agree, and
I'll concede it could eventually happen with sponsorship from the right
vendor (plus a lotta bucks to buy-in and build a consensus).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 21 Apr 2000 02:14:53 GMT
dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >So Windows might be sort of slow but it is getting better,
: >although it may have some not so good programs it also has
: >some realy good ones and it certainly the best OS.
: >Chris Jenkins
: Silly wintroll. Macroshit Windoze doesn't get better,
: it "innovates" by adding 3rd party bloatware. From what i've
If you're stating that advancements in WindowsNT are all third-
party implementations, then you're incredibly wrong.
But, for the sake of argument, lets say that the above condition is
true... would the fact that nearly everything an OS such as FreeBSD or
OpenBSD has comes from outside their core circle of development render
them just as contemptible? I think not. Microsoft WindowsNT has had
a lack of features in the past, but whether or not those features are
implemented by Microsoft, or another party does not matter. The OS
as a whole still benefits.
: seen it requires constant reboots & reinstalls. Definantly, NOT
: the best OS. NT would make a decent desktop OS after about a
Constant reboots and reinstalls? I must say, it's been so long since I've
actually had to install WindowsNT, I wonder if I remember how...<?>
: million service packs and hotfixes. Maybe you should actually
: try using DOS or one of the OS's listed below before formulating
: a biased opinion. (note: DOS is that black screen that you
And your grand ole opinion isn't biased? Yeah _right_.
: type commands into, go to start and run and type in command).
This condescending remark was uncalled for.
: I like SCO Openserver, NetWare, and SVR4.2 because of their
: stability and virtually non-existent downtime, those things must
I rather think you like those environments because they are
non-Microsoft, and for no other reason.
SCO Openserver is not only completely cryptic in design, but it's
also incredibly lousy at VMM. As for SVR4.2, which UNIX flavor
are you referring to there?
Netware isn't even worth commenting on.
: >P.S. DOS it not the best OS, it has hardly any programs and
: >is hard to use.
You can get a look at the "scarce" amount of applications for DOS
at http://www.simtelnet.net/.
: MS-DOS was the last good thing that Microsoft ever did and
Odd that you would say that, considering your apparent dislike
for them.
: that's not saying much (DR-DOS was much better). Although it
One word... EMM386... under DR-DOS, it sucks planetary bodies
through garden hoses.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 67E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 20:17:59 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How is Linux better than (Free|Net|Open)BSD?
>
> It isnt.
Unless you have an SMP machine, that is...
--
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] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: 20 Apr 2000 18:10:37 -0700
In article <8dn80p$k3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux is Unix.
>No, it isnt. Its a Unix-Like Operating system.
You're mixing things up. If you're talking about the Open Group's
trademark, it's UNIX (all caps, please) or UNIX(tm). If you're
talking about that large family of operating systems that have
UNIX(tm)-style kernel interfaces, It's Unix. And if you're talking
about Unix, Linux is one (and if you wanted to pay the US$50k or so
to get TOG certification, it would be, at least for a year, a
UNIX(tm))
____
david parsons \bi/ ... not that anyone cares.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD
Date: 21 Apr 2000 02:36:56 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>> Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > How is Linux better than (Free|Net|Open)BSD?
>>
>> It isnt.
> Unless you have an SMP machine, that is...
Fair enough...though if I have an SMP machine, its almost definately
a Sun box...:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: DGITC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:27:09 -0400
In article <8dob9v$abh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrought:
>
> >On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:02:59 GMT, Cihl wrote:
> >
> >>Communism:
> >>The idea of communism is to have a highly centralized
> >>distribution of means of production. Production is often
> >
> >Wrong. The means of production are shared but needn't be centralized
> >( though in practice usually are. )
> >
> >>Production means (the source code, if you will) are highly
> >>decentralized.
> >
> >The means of production are a shared resource in the case of Linux.
> >This would seem to be consistent with communist goals.
> >
> >The big difference is that participation in the Linux community is
> >voluntary, while communist regimes tend to forcefully disposses
> >their citizens.
>
> Thought: Linux for communists = STALINUX?
Thought: Linux for martial artists = SHAOLINUX?
>
>
> --
> mhm21x20 http://afk-mn.eist.co.jp/
> news:alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
>
> Jesus was my co-pilot, but I crashed in the Andes and I was forced to eat
> him.
>
>
--
DGITC
Delete the NOSPAM to send a reply by email.
Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
Donovan Rebbechi flames me in Message-ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:32:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> How big do you think the installed base for NT4 actually is?
According to Microsoft's own statistics, they own 73% of the server
market with cumulative sales in the tens of billions. If you don't want
to do the math, you can order any of several reports from IDC that
include the annual unit volume figures. Sales of a million units
(licenses) is diminutive even by Microsoft's own standards.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:38:22 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8dnehk$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the summer, we were actually
> looking at Linux on retail shelves. Even Microsoft has hinted at
> Microsoft Office for Linux. Once the remedy portion of the hearing
> is established, I wouldn't be suprised if OEMs and Software vendors
> started very agrressively backing Linux.
>
> If the remedies are reasonable (Giving FTC authority to regulate
> and mediate Microsoft contract practices), the Supreme Court will
> uphold the verdict and the FTC will relax controls as Linux captures
> 30-50% of the desktop market. When Linux establishes a sufficient
> share of the market that Microsoft can say it's no longer a monopoly,
> the FTC won't need to regulate Microsoft because the OEMs will be
> able to choose how much of a balance of each OS they want to sell
> and market based on the terms Microsoft gives them.
>
I think that this is an incredibly optimistic view of things. The retail
buyer is looking for games, internet, on-line banking, education, and
work-at-home compatibility, generally in that order, based on motivation
surveys that I have seen. Linux can deliver most of that, but doesn't
really have a message that differentiates it all that much from Windows.
Where the consumer is interested, Linux doesn't have much of a story beyond
"Me, too!" in terms of application availability and is often fighting an
uphill battle to prove even that much. The consumer doesn't see a Turbo Tax
or Quicken for Linux at hand and I know of no plan to create one. Education
software isn't real obvious to the consumer either. They can do games (I
guess), internet (for sure), and MS Office compatible (StarOffice), but
somebody is going to have to advertise the heck out of Linux to get the ball
rolling.
The non-technical buyer, who is part of the great majority of PC buyers, is
going to perceive the Linux box as some kind of low-cost substitute for the
"real thing" which they associate with Windows 98 and the name Microsoft and
is going to expect a discount larger than the 5% to 10% difference between
the OEM Windows price and "free" that the economics of Linux pricing can
deliver without the OEM eating some of the difference. Windows 98 and the
name Microsoft are household words and it's going to be awful difficult for
any of the Linux vendors to create any product image that can match this.
Plus they can't effectively recover their investments since a) they not only
have to differentiate between Linux and Windows but also between Caldera,
Corel, Red Hat, and possibly other distributions, and b) their profits are
zilch in the OEM environment where Microsoft collects for each copy shipped,
but the Linux copies are free. If the OEM provides the user support, which
they must in a retail scenario, there is nothing for the Linux distributor
to collect any money for. It makes no difference that people are using Red
Hat or whatever, since Red Hat gets no license fee and nobody buys their
support either.
About the only thing that can make this work is for the FTC to mandate that
Microsoft significantly raise prices to create a sufficient difference
between a Wintel box and a Lintel box to force a choice for the latter. I
don't think this is politically feasible for either potential future
administration.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:57:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 20 Apr 2000 21:31:48 GMT <8dnt04$14on$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Derek Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How is Linux better than (Free|Net|Open)BSD?
>
>It isnt.
Not knowing FreeBSD intimately (well, I'm not sure I know
Linux intimately, but I've poked around the kernel a time or two),
my understanding is that Linux has the edge in user-friendliness,
maybe (ports sound awfully nice), but FreeBSD has the edge on a
high-traffic network.
However, I haven't verified this, nor have I tried to install
FreeBSD on my system(s). (I wouldn't anticipate a large problem,
admittedly, but I've been very busy lately; it's all I can do to
respond to news messages. :-) )
>
>-----yttrx
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Free time? What's that?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:47:18 GMT
In article <8dnm7e$6gb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Portell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a corporate Network administrator and we are currently exploring
> different networking solutions in my company. I don't know very much
> about the OS, and I would like to know what is SOOOOO great about
Linux.
Actually, there's no one thing that is great about it. Its as much a
philosophy as it is an operating system. Its a worldwide network of
people who are exploring a different operating system solution (hope
this sounds familiar...) and doing something to promote an environment
based on standards and openness. It (Linux) in reality can be extremely
frustrating at times, but no more frustrating than being "locked into" a
vendor who doesn't have your employer's best interests at heart.
> We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore
> is not a single thing, but a habit.
If you really, REALLY, believe in what your sig says, you owe it to
yourself to give Linux a try.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:04:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 20 Apr 2000 12:55:02 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
>> >These are really abysmal sales figures if you consider the market
>> >presence of the predecessor operating system. For two whole months,
>> >you're looking at single digit growth, i.e. at this rate it will be more
>> >than ten years before the existing NT base finishes upgrading to W2K.
>> >
>> >Looks like there's a lot of cautious consumers out there. Gotta ask,
>> >how come they're being so cautious this time around?
>>
>> My guess would be that things will pick up once Service Pack 1
>> is released. Hopefully, Linux can take advantage of the lull
>> between Win2k's initial release and SP1 to catch some more market
>> share before the Mighty Microsoft Marketing Machine (Behemoth
>> Version) gets into gear. :-)
>
>If anyone else is like our organization, it's due to apathy.
>
>We currently run NT4 on all our desktops (except the Macs and Linux
>boxes, of course). I have not had a single person ask to be
>upgraded. There are no compelling reasons to go out and buy Yet
>Another Version of Windows just because it jumped from "4" to "2000"
>(is that a record?).
>
>We'll order new Windows machines with NT 2000, but we have no plans at
>all to replace our current crop of NT 4 licenses; what possible
>benefit could we use to justify the cost?
My understanding is that there might be some new functionality
related to domain controllers -- in other words, Win2K desktops
can take advantage of Win2K servers. I don't know precisely what
this new functionality would be.
There's also the Kerberos silliness. :-)
Personally, I might get Win2k if I got a new computer, but that's
only if I require NT functionality. (I might, for virtual networks
connecting into our primarily NT network at my current place of
employment. Sigh. Of course, in that case the corp pays for it... :-) )
Otherwise, BMYB (Build My Own Box) :-).
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: DGITC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:21:54 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> DGITC wrote:
> >
> > In article <8djqud$l9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > DGITC wrought:
> > >
> > > >Today I heard from a friend, who has a cousin who works for
> > > >Microsoft,
> > > >that Microsoft is going to give Elian Gonzalez a free X-Box plus
> > > >three
> > > >games of his choice, but only if Elian says that he'll stay in the
> > > >US.
> > > >
> > > >Am I the only one who sees anything wrong with Microsoft doing this
> > > >to
> > > >him? This is nothing other than bribery, and will only make Elian
> > > >into
> > > >a passive, apathetic vegetable; dependant on television. He'll also
> > > >be
> > > >taught that happiness can only be attained by material possessions
> > > >and
> > > >not from a strong bond between father and son.
> > > >
> > > >Is it truly impossible for someone to be happy under communism. Are
> > > >we
> > > >so caught up in a system of greed that we think it is ok to separate
> > > >a
> > > >boy from his father, because his father lives a simple life, and
> > > >can't
> > > >provide his son with a lot of expensive clothes and toys? Does a
> > > >child
> > > >really need anything more to be happy than food, clothes, shelter,
> > > >and
> > > >the love of his parents? Send Elian Gonzales back to Cuba today.
> > >
> > > But only if Castro "embraces and extends" Linux.
> > >
> >
> > That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
> > already Communist.
> >
> > --
> > DGITC
> > Delete the NOSPAM to send a reply by email.
>
> Actually, the Linux community has *nothing* to do with
> communism!
>
> Communism:
> The idea of communism is to have a highly centralized
> distribution of means of production.
The Linux kernel is maintained by one or a small group of people.
> Production is often accomplished by asking the population (by means of
> questionnaires) what they need most.
The source is put on the net, allowing anyone to examine it, correct
bugs, and add stuff to it, then ann y changes get sent to the kernel
maintainer(s).
> Out of this come plans for the future of the country's production.
Out of the source code modifications, come new official versions of the
kernel.
> (Five-year plans in the case of the former Soviet Union.
> Correct me if i'm wrong)
> Conclusion: Doesn't work correctly.
Linux doesn't work correctly 100% of the time either.
> Difficult to plan ahead for a long time.
Like Linux.
> Also difficult to keep people from trying to gain more wealth than other.
See Redhat, Caldera, Suse, and various others.
> Almost uncontrollable without tight regime.
Like Linux. <points up to where I talked about the kernel maintainers>
<snip Linux is not communism blather>
--
DGITC
Delete the NOSPAM to send a reply by email.
Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
Donovan Rebbechi flames in me in Message-ID
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:21:21 -0500
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Two comments. First, I don't buy the idea that every major
> competitor of Microsoft's "dropped the ball". Many of these same
> companies are competing quite well in other areas (areas that
> Microsoft doesn't currently compete in), yet against MS they are
> a suddenly a bunch of idiots who couldn't compete their way out
> of a paper bag? Note I am not saying the companies involved
> didn't make mistakes - even MS has made mistakes - I just don't
> think that mistakes alone suffice to explain the situation.
Microsoft doesn't succeed in every market they compete in, yet you seem to
think they do.
To date, they have not succeeded in displacing competitors that stay on the
ball. For instance, they have yet to dislodge Intuit in the home finance
market, and they've not dislodged Palm in the handheld PC market. In
developer tools, Microsofts J++ has always been at the lower end of the
useage scale (though they have more sales because it's bundled with C++ and
Visual Basic in Visual Studio, most people don't make use of it) compared to
Borland and Symantec.
The companies you mention that are doing well in non-microsoft competing
markets also probably do not have many competitors in those markets either.
> Second comment: none of the examples you give are pertinant to
> the anti-trust trial. The trial was (partly) about the way that
> MS abused their monopoly power to kill netscape. I don't
> remember anything in the FoF about Wordperfect or Lotus.
We weren't talking specifically about Netscape. Even so, Netscape dropped
the ball by allowing their code base to become such a mess that it required
a complete rewrite (and 3 years) to achieve. They couldn't keep up
technically. They couldn't support the latest W3C standards, and they had
hit a brick wall in terms of performance and stability.
> >> Why
> >> >should the Netscape situation have been any different?
> >>
> >> Again, see my above comment. The Netscape situation was
> >> different.
> >
> >You didn't answer the question. WHY should it have been
> different?
>
> Actually, I did answer the question, but you snipped my answer
> from your reply. MS used their monopoly power to kill Netscape
> because it exposed non-Windows API's that developers could use
> to make programs that would be at least easier to port to other
> operating systems or even possibly would be independent of the
> OS.
So your argument was that Navigator was a competitor to Windows itself, and
not just the browser market, correct?
If that's the case, then the argument that the browser is a unique product
seperate from the OS cannot be supported. Since the browser is an OS in
itself if you are to be believed. That means that Integrating IE into the
OS wasn't anti-competitive, since The browser is the OS itself.
> In both cases, MS was reacting to competitors' innovations -
> innovations that threatened to lower the "applications barrier
> to entry" that protected MS's monopoly of the desktop os.
Isn't that precisely what a company is supposed to do? React to competitors
who want to take their market share? Aren't corporations required by law to
do so in order to satisfy their shareholders?
> Wordperfect never threatened MS's OS monopoly. Neither did
> Stacker, Lotus 1-2-3, RealPlayer, or AOL instant messaging.
> Netscape and java did threaten that monopoly and MS reacted to
> crush them. Unfortunately for MS, the court has found that MS's
> actions were an illegal abuse of their monopoly.
The fat lady has yet to sing on this issue.
> It is all right there in the FoF.
The Findings of Fact are proveably wrong in many areas. But in any case,
the Findings of Law superced this, and the FoL are not anywhere near as hard
lined as the FoF is.
> >They didn't do anything that Netscape wasn't already doing.
> Netscape
> >pioneered every "monopolistic practice" that Microsoft used
> against them.
> >When Netscape had 90% of the market, nobody else could get in.
> Even when
> >Microsoft included IE for free with the OS, Netscape continued
> to be a
> >monopoly. It wasn't until IE actually became a peer with
> Netscape (around
> >IE3) that IE began to take market share away from Netscape, and
> it wasn't
> >until IE became better than Netscape that they actually gained
> more market
> >share than Netscape.
> >
> >IE won mostly on it's technical benefits. The market proved
> with IE1, 2 and
> >3 that even if the product is integrated and ISP's promote the
> product, that
> >customers won't drink the proverbial water they've been lead to.
> >
> >
>
> Personally, I doubt that either Netscape or Microsoft pioneered
> any monopolistic practice. Be that as it may, surely you realize
> that there is more to being a monopoly than just market share.
> If just having 90% of the market were enough to earn a company a
> monopoly, then the DOJ wouldn't have had to work so hard to
> prove that MS has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. What
> power did netscape have to punish OEM's or consumers who didn't
> choose Navigator? The very fact that IE 1, 2, and 3 were able
> enter the market and compete shows what a hollow "monopoly"
> Navigator had. If, as you claim, IE won on technical merit, that
> also shows that there was real competition in the browser market
> and thus Navigator did not have a monopoly.
Well, let's use the same logic, except let's apply it to Microsoft.
The very fact that Linux is able to enter the market and compete shows what
a hollow "monopoly" Microsoft has.
See the fault in your logic?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 20 Apr 2000 23:31:35 -0400
On 21 Apr 2000 02:14:53 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>But, for the sake of argument, lets say that the above condition is
>true... would the fact that nearly everything an OS such as FreeBSD or
>OpenBSD has comes from outside their core circle of development render
>them just as contemptible?
Actually, most of the advances in OpenBSD come from the OpenBSD guys. Still,
you kind of have a point, since these OSs don't even have their own
compiler, while Microsoft on the other hand not only wrote a compiler
but also aggresively supported their OS with sh*tload of development tools.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The 2-Belo)
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 03:37:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DGITC wrought:
>In article <8dob9v$abh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrought:
>>
>> >On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 21:02:59 GMT, Cihl wrote:
>> >
>> >>Communism:
>> >>The idea of communism is to have a highly centralized
>> >>distribution of means of production. Production is often
>> >
>> >Wrong. The means of production are shared but needn't be centralized
>> >( though in practice usually are. )
>> >
>> >>Production means (the source code, if you will) are highly
>> >>decentralized.
>> >
>> >The means of production are a shared resource in the case of Linux.
>> >This would seem to be consistent with communist goals.
>> >
>> >The big difference is that participation in the Linux community is
>> >voluntary, while communist regimes tend to forcefully disposses
>> >their citizens.
>>
>> Thought: Linux for communists = STALINUX?
>Thought: Linux for martial artists = SHAOLINUX?
Thought: Character sets for President Clinton = LEWINSCII?
--
mhm21x20 http://afk-mn.eist.co.jp/ news:alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Jesus was my co-pilot, but I crashed in the Andes and I was forced to eat him.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:21:03 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
>> What can replace it?
>
>If it existed it probably would have by now.
The Bell Labs guys were trying to get Plan 9 to be the next hit.
Didn't get the support, it wasn't free enough (in all senses of
the word) and the frugality of its graphical i/f doesn't appeal
to large numbers of people. The structure is a lovely follow on
from Unix though. Maybe the upcoming release (see comp.os.plan9)
will help. BTW Rob Pike used to say "Not only is Unix dead it's
starting to smell bad." (or something very close to that).
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
