Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Ray)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for kooks) (tholenbot)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for kooks) (tholenbot)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Haakmatbot... we should have the Bergmanbot. (Marty)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Bill is a weenie (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:00:39 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:05:26 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> If SO 5.1 is really taking that long to load then something's really
>wrong.
>> It takes between 10 & 15 seconds here on an AMD k6-2-300 with 64MB ram.
>> This machine serves up SO and a few other apps. to the other machines here
>> (running remotely via X). Additional instances of SO only take around
>> 5 seconds or so to load. Heck, even my laptop (a P120 with 48MB) loads SO
>> in under 30s.
>>
>> --
>> Ray
>
>Should a 10 to 15 seconds be considered a normal loadtime?
It's reasonable. Only the first person to come in in the morning has to
wait that long, everyone else gets it in 5s and with a stable OS like Linux
you don't need to be anal about closing apps just because you want to do
something else.
>Word 97 wouldn't take that long and it is a better package than SO.
I'm not crazy about the SO "desktop" but I think the individual apps that
come with SO are at least as good as those in MS office.
>2 seconds max to load Word.
1. The machine you're talking about is a good 2 generations ahead of the
machine I referenced above so I hope it's faster. This one is still using
66Mhz bus and EDO memory and doesn't even suport UDMA66.
2. There is no way in hell Word would open in 2 seconds on the machine I
referenced.
3. By default, MS Office loads it'self on bootup so you're not really
loading word but just maximizing an already running copy.
--
Ray
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:03:30 GMT
Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >KDE isn't free.
> uh what? I don't remember paying for KDE...
If I remember the analogy correctly, it's free as in "free beer," but
not free as in "free speech." Qt is the bottleneck, I believe.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:09:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Tony the Tiger wrote (using a pseudonym again):
Having more attribution problems, Myrat?
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Myrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> That article never appeared on my news server, Tony.
Who?
> > > Lucky wrote (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > Having more attribution problems, Myrat?
>
> Obviously not.
On the contrary.
> > You can call me Al.
>
> Changing your stripes around again, Tony?
What alleged "stripes around again, Tony"?
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Myrat
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eric Templetonbot wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > >
> > > > Having more attribution problems, Myrat?
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> Still having trouble completing your sen
How ironic, coming from someone who claims to have invented the question
mark.
> > Denial is not a river, Myrat.
>
> How deliciously non sequitur, yet part of your complete breakfast.
Irrelevant, as I have not eaten breakfast in weeks. How predictable
that you fail to recognize this fact.
> > > Typical of your paranoia, however, considering how often you
> > > declare that everyone is after your "Lucky Charms".
> >
> > Illogical, as I only have Cheerios and Cranberry Almond Crunch in my
> > kitchen cabinet.
>
> Incorrect.
Evidence, please.
> > > > > > In article <3922db3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Lewis"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen
> > > > > > > > > > S.
> > > > > > > > > > Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton,
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave
> > > > > > > > > > > Tholen
> > > > > > > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of
> > > > > > > > > > > others),
> > > > > > > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
> > > > > > > > > > comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > $19.95 please (shipping and handling fees.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jumping into a discussion, again, Brian?
> > > > >
> > > > > See what he means?
> > > >
> > > > How predictable, coming from someone having attribution problems.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> > >
> > > I see you've taken the liberty
> >
> > How does one "take liberty", Myrat?
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems?
Impossible.
> Haven't you been paying
> attention?
How ironic.
> > > of removing more context.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> On the contrary, quite sequitur, given your context removal.
You erroneously presuppose that I removed context.
> > > Taking more context removal lessons from Dave "Watergate" Tholen?
> >
> > Why don't you ask Eric "Master of Forgery" Bennett what Cornell
> > University thinks of him posting under a false identity?
>
> Unnecessary.
Incorrect.
> Meanwhile I see you're posting from borg.com again.
Your sight is incorrect.
> Taking
> posting from borg.com lessons from Joe "borg.com" Malloy?
How ironic, coming from someone who takes lessons from Jeff "borg.com"
Glatt.
> > > I'll restore it for you:
> >
> > How ironic that you would defend someone who jumped into a discussion,
>
> Where have I allegedly done that?
In the material you butchered. How convenient.
> > given that you make accusations of jumpings into discussion.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I would defend someone who jumped
> into a
> discussion.
Incorrect.
> > > > > > > > Tholenbot always picks the right newsgroup for the
> > > > > > > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The right "newsgroup"? How rich!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the "newsgroup" is "rich"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Taking jumping into discussion lessons from Curtis Bass again,
> > > > > Brian?
> > >
> > > Note: no response.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> See what I mean?
Note: no logical response.
> > > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Note: no response.
>
> Balderdash.
See what I mean?
> > > > > > How predictable.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic.
> > > >
> > > > Balderdash.
> > >
> > > I see you're still too busy tending Chris Pott's Balderdash garden to
> > > form a logical argument.
> >
> > Seeing things that aren't there again?
>
> Obviously not.
Incorrect.
> > No surprise there.
>
> Your threshold for surprise is irrelevant.
>
> > > No surprise there.
> >
> > Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
> Incorrect.
See above.
> > > > > > > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own
> > > > > > > > > misinformation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why, don't you know?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see that,
> > > > >
> > > > > What you see is irrelevant, especially given your dirty glasses.
> > > >
> > > > "Your dirty glasses" are not a given.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur.
> >
> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
>
> Impossible.
How coy. Maybe if you would just listen to me instead of hopping on the
illogic bus, you would have recognized that fact.
> > > > > > in typical Brian "I Don't Answer the Question" Lewis
> > > > > > fashion, you didn't answer the question.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic, coming from someone who, in a typical Brian "I Don't
> > > > > Answer the Question" Lewis fashion, failed to answer the
> > > > > question.
> > > >
> > > > Illogical.
> > >
> > > Not at all, Lucky.
> >
> > Who?
>
> Ask your orange stars.
Why?
> > > > > > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the
> > > > > > > > > > grass"?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What alleged "head"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you hadn't jumped into the discussion,
> > > > >
> > > > > The key word is "if".
> > > >
> > > > What is "key" about that word?
> > >
> > > Ask your red balloons.
> >
> > What alleged "red balloons"?
>
> Haven't you been paying attention?
Maybe the problem is all inside your head, she said to me, has something
to do with this. The answer is easy if you take it logically. Of
course, logic has never been par for your course.
> > Meanwhile, you still fail to ask your purple horseshoe.
>
> Liar.
Hypocrite.
> > > > > > you would have recognized the correct head.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are presupposing that he has "jumped into the discussion".
> > > >
> > > > I see you fail to dispute that he jumped into the discussion.
> > >
> > > Illogical, as I have not attempted to dispute that he jumped into the
> > > discussion.
> >
> > Why is it illogical for me to make a correct factual observation?
>
> You are presupposing that you made a correct factual observation.
Incorrect.
> > > Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> Not at all, Tony.
Who?
> > > > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the
> > > > > > > > grass"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Illogical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet again you fail to answer the question.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic, coming from someone who yet again failed to answer
> > > > > the
> > > > > question.
> > > >
> > > > Impossible.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this ridiculous newgroup?
> >
> > Liar.
>
> See what I mean?
Liar.
> > > > > > Of course, that is to be expected, coming from you.
> > > > >
> > > > > As your illogic is to be expected, coming from you.
> > > >
> > > > Illogical.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > Your meaning is illogical.
>
> Impossible. More evidence of your "what I mean" recognition problems.
How ironic. Meanwhile, your attempt to slip out the back is
ineffective. Gearing up to lose another argument?
> > > > > > Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you
> > > > > > think you can.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic, coming from someone who just "slipped out the back,
> > > > > Jack".
> > > >
> > > > I see you continue to hop on the illogic bus.
> > >
> > > Seeing things that aren't there again, Lucky?
> >
> > Who?
>
> Don't you know?
No.
> > Meanwhile, you fail to address your hopping on the illogic bus.
>
> And for good reason.
What alleged "good reason"?
> > > Not surprising, considering your failure to drop off the key, Lucky.
> >
> > Still advising Lee to eat his green clovers, Myrat?
>
> Who?
It's your Lee, Myrat.
> > Illogical.
>
> So why did you say it then?
Illogical.
> > > > Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you
> > > > think
> > > > you can.
> > >
> > > Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >
> > On what basis do you make this erroneous and unsubstantiated claim?
>
> You are erroneously presupposing
Incorrect.
>(without substantiation) that
Also incorrect.
> I made an
> erroneous and unsubstantiated claim.
Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> How ironic.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> > Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think
> > you can.
>
> Why?
Because the burden of proof is yours.
> There's no need to be coy, Tony.
Irrelevant, given that there is no evidence of my being "coy". Digging
yourself a deeper hole, Myrat? Meanwhile, you still fail to be my
bodyguard or call me Al.
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:10:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Non sequitur, as no erroneous claims were made by me
Your attempt to avoid admitting your lie by use of the passive voice is
ineffective, Marty.
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Haakmatbot... we should have the Bergmanbot.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:13:38 GMT
Gerben Bennett wrote (using a Haakmat again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
Still having attribution problems?
> > Eric Haakmat wrote (using a green clover again):
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > [PS: On Netscape 4.61 w/ Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, there's no way to see a
> > > > list of choices or answer the question. I can only just keep hitting
> > > > the "PLAY/TRAIN" button to cycle through a few quotes.]
> > >
> > > Obviously you are not using the best tool for the job.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> See what I mean?
No.
> > > How predictable.
> >
> > How predictable for you to expect me to jump to a conclusion about what
> > "the job" is.
>
> Reading comprehension problems?
Obviously not.
> I have not "jump"ed.
I see that, lacking a logical argument, you resort to semantics. Gearing up
to lose another argument, Eric?
> > I'd prefer to stick to the facts.
>
> What you prefer is irrelevant.
Incorrect, as my preference to turn down your offer to jump to a conclusion is
quite sequitur to Pascal's entertainment.
> What you can prove is relevant.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. For instance, I can prove that
the product of 6 and 7 is equal to 42, but this is hardly sequitur to this
discussion.
> > > Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think
> > > you can.
> >
> > Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> How ironic.
See what I mean?
> > Or have you been too busy making a new plan, Stan?
>
> Don't you know?
Incorrect.
> Meanwhile, I see that you continue to fail to call me Al.
I see that you continue to fail to give me ten thousand dollars. Just as
there is no logical reason to do the latter, there is likewise no logical
reason to do the former.
> On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:16:05 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a Macintosh again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Non sequitur, as no erroneous claims were made by me
>
> Your attempt to avoid admitting your lie by use of the passive voice is
> ineffective, Marty.
What alleged attempt to avoid admitting my alleged lie by use of the alleged
passive voice?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:18:52 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The words "undocumented" and "API" do not appear in that statement.
> >
> > They didn't have to appear. I'm talking about SEMANTICS, not SYNTAX.
>
> In other words, it's YOUR INTERPRETATION. That's subjective opinion, not
> fact.
It is FACT. I don't have to play baby games with words.
You can read it in the NYTimes or Rueter's AP or any other major news
service.
You can also read the commentary that MS has changed their story and now
admits they have NOT offered a level playing field to developers.
> The Apps group isn't doing anything that any other developer couldn't do.
> They're using the documented API to write controls for the application.
No The APps group is making APis that the OS group LATER adds to the
OS. Again, this is really common knowledge given MS has admitted and
defends this INNOVATIVE approach.
> Just because MS also takes them and puts them in the OS is an advantage [..]
It is a disadvantage to get access AFTER MS uses the APIs.
> > Its so simple a child can understand the advantage. OLE is a good example
> > but MS says there ar emany others - they scream they cannot be split least
> > innovation be ruined.
>
> OLE is 8 years old.
And MS has been cheating since 8 years ago as my example has
demonstrated.
> > > It's not an API when they design it, it's simply a function of their
> app.
> >
> > And the Scarecrow didn't have a brain until he got his diploma.
>
> Is that what happened to you?
Swing harder.
A MS a API is an MS API regardless of which group invented it. Not
sharing APIs both externally and internally is unfair and soon to be
inpossible. Thumbs down.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:22:26 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You cannot prove it doesn't use hidden APIs and MS insists they have a
> > right to build and use them exclusively.
>
> And you haven't proven that it does. This is a no-brainer.
MS says they do use hidden APIs and MS refuses to specifically disclose
what they are so proving you're a nut is easy - you don't even make
sense with what MS is saying in public NOW let alone agreeing with
anyone else.
No more proof is needed, just your reindocrination at the MS
brain-cleansing camp.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:20:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:35 GMT
<8fuo4s$hsk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
>>>
>>> will usually do the trick quickly and easyly.
>
>>Which is why I run SCSI! :)
>
>OK, so here is the slightly more generic version:
>
> grep "[:space:]/[:space:]" /etc/fstab | (read a b; cat /dev/zero >$a)
Pedant point:
grep "[[:space:]]/[[:space:]]" /etc/fstab
The documentation in grep could admittedly be a tad clearer.
Presumably, the usage is along the lines of
grep "[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]_$]*"
for e.g. matching stuff like "pgm_$invoke" (for anyone else out
there who remembers Apollo DOMAIN Aegis :-) ).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and Aegis had all sorts of undocumented APIs, but
it was also easy to patch :-)
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:24:53 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:05 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ian Bell wrote:
> >> > Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs more
> >> > thatn the scanner itself.
> >>
> >> There is more software out there, quite complicated, having all sorts
of
> >> fancy filters etc, costing no more than �9.99, which is $20?
> >
> >Name some for our benefit.
> >
> >>
> >> > No, it never will.... I have to give you that one, no-one will ever
> >> > develop any applications for the fastest growing OS platform in the
> >> > world...
> >>
> >> lol
> >
> >That is as a server.
> >
> >And why would a server OS need scanner support?
> >That's clearly a desktop application.
> >
> >Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not easy
> >enough,
> >and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
>
> If that's all that you think is missing then you are going
> to be quite dissapointed.
No.
And I didn't suggest so.
But I won't consider Linux a decent desktop until it's available.
Linux doesn't have to be as good a desktop as NT is (I think NT is
adequate), but it needs to close the gap.
It's not that people don't know or don't care about Linux, it's that it's
not ready on the desktop.
And the desktop is the roll of over 90% of the computers out there.
I know it's not the best fit or primary focus of Linux.
I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't being
used much on the desktop.
I don't know anyone using it on the desktop. I personally can't stand using
it in that roll for over 20 minutes at a time myself.
Jim Ross
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
|||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / |
\
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: 18 May 2000 00:20:26 -0500
In article <LHGU4.2043$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's the first lie.
>The Linux people don't expect you to want a GUI too.
>So no Linux is slow also on an old machine like Win9X was since you are
>talking about a desktop system,
>and Linux people seem very focused only on server systems.
The server side just came first because unix server software
has been around forever and samba is very good. Free window
managers haven't been around that long, but are catching
up quickly along with the desktop apps. Obviously the
hardware for good video performance is a bit different
than what you need for a network server.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:45:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 17 May 2000 03:49:26 GMT <8ft4s0$t8m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As if drive NUMBERS are all that different...
>>
>> CAT,d1
>>
>> Gak, I hated that. Of course the Commodore64 was even worse; It
>> started labeling at 8 (because of the biggest kludge in the universe:
>> the 1541).
>
>Drive numbers were a DOS 3.3 thing. ProDOS and GS/OS used volume names,
>which were not drive letters/numbers/labels, or mount points, but
>something entirely different. They were actually pretty useful,
>especially for installations without a hard drive.
Some other perspectives:
The AmigaDOS had some interesting ideas, including volume names
(the 'name:' construct), and logical assignments, which behaved
a bit like "soft" mountpoints; one can associate any 'name:' with
any directory, even a directory on an unmounted volume (although
IIRC Amiga will ask you to mount the volume during the assignment).
These were system-wide assignments.
The Amiga would also "pause", if an unmounted volume or unassigned
logical name was referenced; this allowed the user to do the
assignment or insert the disk and continue on. Of course,
certain games would get slightly screwed up...
Later versions of AmigaDOS attempted to create hard and soft links.
I don't know if these were very successful.
I don't know what the Mac had, other than volume names. It
also prompts the user for volumes, if they're not mounted;
this much I know.
VMS had (has?) per-process logical name assignments. It might also
have (have had?) system-level logical name assignments; I don't
remember now; last I used it was V3.7.
(It might have implemented them as initial per-process assignments
during process spawning.)
Unix has of course mount points, soft links, and hard links.
Coupled with the automounter (which creates and mounts a file system
all of its own, usually '/tmp_mnt' or '/net' or '/nfs'), one could
get some pretty powerful stuff -- albeit nothing process-specific
(apart from /proc/self, perhaps -- but then, /proc is a weird
filesystem anyway :-) ).
Compared to all this, NT's drive letters are pretty pathetic.
One letter, followed by a colon? Come on! This is the 00's;
the 'N:' construct went out with the 80's. This either tells
us that nobody at NT can reimplement their internal tools using
the \\node\share notation (which is much more flexible), or,
more likely, that we like our old software out there, and
are unwilling to give it up just because NT has a "better way"
of accessing files. :-)
NT's .LNK (shortcut) files are fairly peculiar beasts, and appear
to be specific to Internet Explorer (which manages the desktop and
directory -- excuse me, "folder" -- browsing. There might be
some support in the OS, though, for opening through them, but
I'd have to look, and I don't have NT, here.)
Apollo DOMAIN Aegis had a unique kind of symbolic link, one I've
yet to see anywhere else; it could refer to an environment variable.
I think the syntax was "($ENVIRONMENT_VAR)" (note that Makefiles routinely
use "$(ENVIRONMENT_VAR)" -- slightly different!), and of course it wasn't
limited to that; it could specify "($ENVIRONMENT_VAR)/foo/bar", or
something. It was primarily intended to support the three operating
systems running more or less simultaneously on the DOMAIN box at
one point (BSD, SysV, and Aegis). A little weird, but convenient;
sadly, it more or less died with the DOMAIN platform. (Of course, there
are always workarounds; one simple one is to parse the filename
with the reference yourself; another one is to have the shell
parse it -- which it probably will do anyway, in many cases.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:32 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bill is a weenie
<bg>
Whew! I feel much better, don't you? Also, what's up with Boris and
"stinking"? Is he still trying to project his personal hygiene faults
onto others? I'm starting to wonder -- I'll bet Boris is the one who
stinks.
Come to think of it, can you name ONE way in which Microsoft has made the
world of computing better? I would say that he made the personal computer
more accessible to the average dummy with his "easy to use" Windows 9X
interface. That's one way. I really can't think of any other ways in
which Microsoft has benefitted us.
Which MS contributions are popular now on the web? For example, Sun is
responsible for Java, which MS didn't create. Netscape, which, ironically
lost the browser war to MS, is responsible for JavaScript, and JavaScript
is one of the most popular scripting languages for web designers. What
scripting language has MS made popular for building web sites?
My personal opinion is that:
1.) Boris needs to take a bath and put on some deo. Also, some cologne
wouldn't hurt. And dammit Boris, please stop projecting your personal
hygiene onto everyone else!
2.) Microsoft hasn't done shit for the computer world, except lock out
other competitors who produce OS and other software.
3.) Bill is a geek. Yes, Bill is one of us (Geek), but he is one of those
asshole geeks.
- Donn
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
