Linux-Advocacy Digest #186, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: democracy? (Desmond Coughlan)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (DeAnn Iwan)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (abraxas)
Re: Server list for the bored (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 10:04:50 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>>
>
>[snipped]
>
>Jeez, poor guy got stuck in vi, but unlike millions
>before him he blames Linux.
Stuck? Being given a usable editor is the best thing that could happen.
>Hell this happened to me in Xenix from the fabulous world class
>software company that produces Windows.
Odd that none of the contrived errors included typing
:help
Which would have distinguished the version of vim included in
most linux distributions from its ancient counterparts.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 10:07:50 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But it doesn't force you to tipe password EVERY TIME you use Windows like UNIX does.
>UNIX makes
>you tipe a password even when your on the consoul.
What are you talking about? My windows boxes require a password
every time. Even the one that has a blank password.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Desmond Coughlan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:19:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jun 2000 14:14:18 GMT, Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The US is very democratic. If a clear majority of people
> >agreed on an issue there isn't a official or corporation that could
> >stop them from making it law. There are limits to what commercials
> >can convince people to do, and to want.
> A majority agrees on an issue and does what? Elects a representative.
> That's no democracy, that's elect-a-king! Even the most honest and
> righteous get corrupted by the lack of accountability. Elections
> every few years are a way too weak guarantee for their good behavior.
> The SIGs will have plenty of time to do their magic, serving SIGs is
> also the best way to get enough visibility to get elected.
It's slightly off-topic for this newsgroup, but I'm not entirely conv-
inced that democracy is a Good Thing. The average voter has the
intelligence of a dormouse, and if enough dormice get together, they
can inflict untold savagery on their own citizens, as well as those of
other countries. Just look at the death penalty ... :-(
[snip]
--
Desmond Coughlan Acting Assistant Technical Director Forum des Images
***************************************************************************
The views expressed in these articles are my own, and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Forum des Images.
***************************************************************************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] + 33 (0)1 44.76.62.29 http://www.forumdesimages.net/
------------------------------
From: DeAnn Iwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:17:43 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> 1. It scails down
>
> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer
>from 1991
> doessn't mean shit.
>
Unless you want to put in a router and firewall on that old 486...to
help catch some of those nasty virus that infect the win/dos machine you
play games on. I care a LOT that my software and hardware does not
automatically become obsolete JUST because some company wants me to pay
them more money for an "improved" version.
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
Hmm, not all of us work in a vault. And some of us really like the
fact that you can work as an ordinary user and be protected from messing
up your system (and protected from virus and hackers messing it
up...more protected anyway).
> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
Hmmm, don't do much scientific computing, do you? Or data base
management. Or anything else that works a lot better in scripts than
sitting around waiting for a GUI to respond.
> 4. You can logg in remotely
>
>
I use this ALL the time. It is really great to be able to parcel
jobs out to the fast machines on the network while sitting at your
desk. Not to mention using another machine's CDROM when yours is
broken, etc.
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to
>most
> users. Windows still wins.
>
Hmm. See above.
> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
>usefull to normal
> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>
Lead a computationally narrow life, do you? When you have programs
that run for days, it's sort of nice to be able to multitask....with
GUIs in some virtual consoles and scripting in others.
> 7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's "choice" is
>MS Windows
> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never give up all
>that just to
> run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps except if they were tricked into it.
>
Fortunately, you can keep windows for your games and still run
Linux for your real work.
> 8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring the
>installation, and
> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after annother goes
>wrong.
Of course, in Linux you get things fixed when you spend the time,
where in closed OSes they tend to stay broken. DLL hell comes to mind
here.
>
> 9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they can just
>run Windos
> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
Fortunately, there are lots of other people who do like fixing bugs
that find and fix most of them for me. :-)
>
> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
> to beagen with.
>
16,000? Really. I can only think of a dozen or so. Itanium comes
to mind, here. Of course, I don't have an itanium processor yet. But I
will soon. I can put it in the network with my junk 486s and
overclocked Celerons. And run the same OS on them all. The same
distribution, even. In many cases, the same software. Though, uhm, I'd
rather run Quake on the itanium than the 486s.
Thank you for summarizing so clearly why we all love Linux.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality
or fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:26:52 -0500
John Wiltshire wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:39:48 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Yep. MS is about the best at the moment for BINARY compatibility.
> >> Try loading a 2.0 kernel module on a 2.4 kernel. Boom.
> >
> >Lets turn that around and look at it this way: Try recompiling all the load
> >able drivers for Windows 95 to run on Windows 2000. That is not possible
> >because you don't have access to the source code. So, since Linux provides
> >the soruce code for the modules, it is not nessary for them to be binary
> >compatible.
> >
> >Once hardware manufacturers feel they are safe from the nondisclosure and
> >noncompetition clauses. Their drivers could be supplied in source code form
> >as well. Since a hardware manufacturer makes money from the hardware sales
> >and not from the drivers, it would benefit them to offer the driver in
> >source code form so that the public could not only have it optimised for
> >their particular platform, that the public could port the drivers to other
> >platforms. This would expand the market for their hardware without and
> >expense or efforts on their part. The public could also improve the drivers
> >in ways that the manufacturs either did not have to desire or foresight to
> >consider.
> >
> >A problem in purchasing hardware more so for rare or expsnsive hardware is
> >the worry about if the drivers will be available for it with the next
> >versions of the operating systems. If the source code is out there, the
> >users could update it for the next version of the operating system even if
> >the manufacturer would abandon the product. So this wouldd relieve this
> >worry on thr part of the potiential customer base. The less worries the
> >more potiential customer may become actual customers.
> >
> >By requiring the nondisclosure and noncompetition clauses, Microsoft has
> >slowed innovation rather than support it. That put the lie to so many of
> >the claims of the supporters of Microsoft.
> >
> >As long as you have source code availability, there is relativly little need
> >for binary compatibility. Linux has no binary compatibility what so ever
> >between its installations across different processor families. But that
> >makes no difference at all, a user of Linux on one platform would be right
> >at home on any other computer.
> >x86? ppc? 68000? alpha? Any differences between the hardware can be handled
> >by the kernel and each platform would behave the same way. If they don't
> >see the computer that they are using most ordinary users would not even know
> >which platform they are using.
> >
> >So you comment of binary compatibility show you lack of knowledge or
> >reasoning in this matter.
>
> Not at all. It shows you don't understand the financial reality of
> how much it costs a company to write a driver, or other software for
> that matter.
>
> It is entirely possible for a company to spend at least as much in
> driver development for an OS as they do in the hardware development -
> especially in the high performance area. What you are asking is the
> companies essentially give away the money they have spent to
> competitors so they can improve their products using your code. This
> is a really stupid idea for any company.
>
> The fastest video chips on Linux at the moment are nVidia based. The
> drivers are closed source because nVidia invests a huge amount of time
> and money in the software algorithms they use to drive their cards.
> To give these algorithms to 3dfx or other companies is madness.
>
> All I can see from your argument is that you have been so brainwashed
> with the open source mantra that you fail to see the financial reality
> behind the places it fails. There is value in algorithms. To deny it
> is futile. To demand companies give away property is ignorance.
>
> Open source has it's place. It isn't everywhere though.
>
> John Wiltshire
While I agree with some of what you are saying, I don't agree fully.
The hardware vendor gets paid by the number of people that buy the
actual hardware. There are few hardware companies that make you
purchase a driver seperate, those that come up often disappear quickly,
because people are not going to continue to pay for something they
already own. Therefore, they are not giving away something if they
allow someone to use something they already purchased. The algorithms
of the driver will not help the competition unless the competition knows
exactly how those algorithms interact with the hardware. While it would
be possible with the source code to reverse engineer any given piece of
hardware, the invested time and effort would almost garauntee that the
second company would be far behind the curve in product development.
The second company would release a clone of the product when the first
company was releasing the next generation of the product. Would this
really hurt the first company? I seriously doubt it. Also, I would
think a company would like the idea of selling more of its products as
people are able to create drivers for other operating systems (using the
source code). While other hardware companies could work on the drivers,
what good would it do them? They would be improving the driver of thier
competitor, which would actually hurt them. Open sourcing a driver is
completely different from open sourcing a commercial software package.
You cannot "open source" a piece of hardware. It would still cost money
to purchase the hardware. But by having open source drivers, the
company would give themselves an almost limitless market. The drivers
could be ported to any operating system that had an interest in the
hardware, and both parties would be better off.
Don't fear open source just because it is different. I don't think open
sourcing drivers is a bad idea for a hardware company. They would
create a huge new market for themselves if they did so. Why not do it?
The worst that would happen is that many other people would end up
helping out with the development of the driver. Again, giving the
company something for nothing is not something that should be feared (by
the company or the individuals that are working on said driver). This
would actually be a win-win situation. Where is the problem with that?
You assume that just by seeing the driver, another company would create
a clone of that hardware. So what? They would create the clone by the
time the market had moved on and would therefore be at the bottom of the
consumer chain. This is not the most profitable area to be in.
Open source could help out hardware companies looking to make better and
more portable drivers for thier products. If only people would stop
trying to convince the world that open source is a disease. But it's
scary to see the changes that are happening. I know, every day I get a
lecture from my wife that things are changing too fast, we shouldn't be
discovering anything more, we should just be happy with where we are. I
don't agree, humanity will move forward, software will move forward,
hardware will move forward, science will move forward, __________ will
move forward, because that is human nature. Not every advance is
considered good when it first comes along, and sometimes that is
warranted. But this fear of open source is just silly for a hardware
company. The profits they make are from the hardware. They are not
making profits from the software (i.e. drivers) that they produce, and
if they try to "sell" the driver, they will quickly lose favor with the
consumer market. Since the driver is already free, why not make it open
source? This would continue driver development outside of the company,
and give the company a very solid basis for thier "official" drivers.
Sorry, I got a little long winded. But I hate to see people saying
"CHANGE IS BAD, STAY AWAY FROM THE SCARY OPEN SOURCE." without actually
having a valid reason. I don't think this is a bad situtation for a
hardware company to investigate. Why close your mind to something new?
You never know, it could create a huge new market for them.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 19 Jun 2000 10:24:39 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of its functionality.
>>
>>Nice try.
>
>Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
You mean easy to overwrite system dlls without regard to other
programs that still need the existing version? Yes installshield
does make that easier than RPM.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:44:48 GMT
I agree with everything you have said void.
simon
On 19 Jun 2000 07:17:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
wrote:
Snip to keep it short.
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:46:44 GMT
David Cancio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone. First of all to avoid void flames, I work as GNU/Linux
> and Solaris administration, and do not find difficult any of them. I can
> manage to do whatever I want be it from GNU/Linux, Solaris, Windows
> NT, Windows 98, and the so ... (I've been playing around with computers
> since CP/M 2.2, and I like them and I think I understand them ...). This
> said, I find that as home OS, Windows 98 is the TODAY option for almost
> everyone. Sure it freezes, sure registry is awful, sure it is expensive,
> sure it
> is a shitty code, but sure that if something can be done with a computer
> (again,
> home users in mind), then Windows 98 can do it (okay, try do it well at
> least,
> to be honest). I mean, why have only GNU/Linux at my home when a magazine
> gives an English course (for Windows) ? Why can't I test all those new games
> ?
> Why can't I use my hardware (Windows 98 targeted most of it) at full power ?
> Yeah, I know GNU/Linux does support most of the hardware, but a lot of
> vendors add nice features that are only available with Windows 98 drivers.
> Even
> Windows 2000 fails at this (and at games and multimedia too). Sure that if
> I only do programming and internet, GNU/Linux is the best real option, but
> having only GNU/Linux at home, does close unnecessarily some doors that
> some day you may cross, doesn't it ?
As has been beaten to death in the past, windows98 is clearly the best
gaming platform that exists at the moment. Its also really good for people
who use their computers only rarely, and then only for looking at
highly proprietary document formats.
Its awful for everything else.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Server list for the bored
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:46:15 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:24:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ebay ... Solaris
>
>Blatantly false. The main web server runs on Windows. Check netcraft
>for crying out loud. The back end database, which crashes every ten
>minutes and cost eBay $2,000,000,000.00 in market capitalization
That's more than a little bit of a stretch there. Going from one crash
that cost them some of their inflated market cap to "crashes every ten
minutes" is, um, a but of an exaggeration I think. You should work for
one of those supermarket tabloid papers.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.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
******************************
