Linux-Advocacy Digest #206, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 14:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: iMac: the iTelligent Choice (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (zerr)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Oliver Baker)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jim)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Dave)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Jun 2000 10:30:53 -0600
Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <8igon7$2us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >...when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> >yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one letter
> >volume names.
>
> Except that configurable drive letters are still drive specifications,
> not volume specifications, right? If, say, I have a CD-ROM drive called
> X:, and a CD-Writer called Y:, and I have a CD called "My Photos",
> there's no way I can refer to the CD by its volume name, only by its
> drive letter, and the drive letter depends on which drive I put the CD
> into, right?
>
> Not like the Mac system, where I can refer to the CD by its volume name,
> regardless of which drive it's in.
Yes, but on the other hand, there's no easy way to say "Access the CD
in the third CD-Rom drive" under MacOS.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:33:25 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:53:58 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:43:11 +1200, Lawrence D�Oliveiro
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>> >
>> >> You've still yet to demonstrate what's really "so modern" about
>> >> the way MacOS does things...
>> >
>> >Robust filesystem object references, that don't depend on which drive
>>
>> ...which are also fail if you should be unlucky enough to
>> decide to name your volume something someone else has.
>
>Huh?
>
>Please be more specific. I can easily change my Mac's hard drive name
>and nothing breaks.
What does it do when two volumes have the same name?
This possibility has already been discussed and the
solution didn't sound elegant at all.
>
>>
>> >you put a volume into, or the precise idiosyncrasies of how your system
>> >is configured.
>>
>> That's less a feature of the filesystem and more a feature
>> of how abstracted from the filesystem the rest of the OS
>> is.
>
>Whatever. The Mac implementation is still superior.
No it isn't. It's just different. If anything it's infererior
because it is more prone to name collisions and less consistent.
Whereas both the DOS and Unix counterparts are quite capable of
addressing each disk by name. They just don't bother to keep
track of recently removed media.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Of course, if I interpreted your query more widely, I could mention
>> >other things, like the low-overhead, fast QuickDraw graphics engine,
>> >closely integrated into the kernel (something that UNIX folks are still
>> >incapable of grasping...).
>>
>> Close integration are precisely the sorts of things you want
>> to try to avoid in these situations. That's what makes the
>> various bits of X modular and interchangable and MacOS something
>> that even Apple is going to abandon.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:35:57 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:00:53 GMT, Barry Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <8in40h$2cv4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie
>Mikesell) wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Infact, such "stable references" don't
>>>> seem to provide for any sort of namespace collisions.
>>>
>>>Definitely too accustomed to the Windows/UNIX way of doing things:
>>>you're still thinking in terms of pathname strings, whereas MacOS
>>>supports "aliases", which have more information in them than just name
>>>strings. Result: robust references that aren't confused by superficial
>>>similarities of name.
>>
>>How does the user find out about these so he knows how to
>>reference the file he wants, given 2 identical disks in
>>different places?
>
>
>Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
>
>Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*??? I
They might be conceptually identical. This would likely
be UNintentional but still quite possible. Still, you
need to have a contingency for it.
>don't get it. If you want to be able to reference files uniquely via a
>path, use different volume names. If you have a situation which demands
>volumes with the same name(s), then don't use an incompatible system.
IOW, there are conditions under which the MacOS scheme breaks
and user intervention is necessary and user confusion is
likely.
>
>My point: no single platform is, will, or should be, the be all and end
>all.
>
>Platform advocacy is sooooooooooooo 1990's.
OTOH, this is an apparent hole in an otherwise relatively
sensible system.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Jun 2000 10:36:29 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>to menues, just general ease of use. No searching around to convert
> >>some file to the correct format needed.
> >
> > Then what EXACTLY, would you do with a PNG or XPM should you
> > encounter one under windows?
>
> I load PNG files with Paint Shop Pro. Wassaproblem?
>
> Now, has PNG format taken off yet to replace GIF? Hmmm? Actually, no it
> hasn't. How many web pages use PNG? Can't really can they - the two most
> common browsers don't actively support PNG format yet.
What browsers would those be?
--
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 20 Jun 2000 11:33:49 -0500
In article <VyM35.3801$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Barry Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Definitely too accustomed to the Windows/UNIX way of doing things:
>>>you're still thinking in terms of pathname strings, whereas MacOS
>>>supports "aliases", which have more information in them than just name
>>>strings. Result: robust references that aren't confused by superficial
>>>similarities of name.
>>
>>How does the user find out about these so he knows how to
>>reference the file he wants, given 2 identical disks in
>>different places?
>
>
>Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
It is only meaningless until you run into the problem.
>
>Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*??? I
>don't get it. If you want to be able to reference files uniquely via a
>path, use different volume names. If you have a situation which demands
>volumes with the same name(s), then don't use an incompatible system.
If you have removable volumes, different people may have named
them, or one may start out as an image copy of the other.
>My point: no single platform is, will, or should be, the be all and end
>all.
Hence we have advocacy newsgroups...
>Platform advocacy is sooooooooooooo 1990's.
If you aren't interested, why are you reading advocacy newsgroups?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMac: the iTelligent Choice
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:54:27 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:25:39 GMT, Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>>>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:19 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>>>> I would and do describe NT's hardware requirements
>>>>> as extreme.
>
>>>>You can name some other system offering as much with
>>>>significantly lower requirements ?
>
>>> Unix/X.
>
>>X is definitely extreme--if you thought games ran slowly under NT, you
>>should try them under X. It's too complex, too unwieldy and too
>>resource-hungry to make for a good game platform.
>
>>Trouble is, the UNIX folks think this is a virtue. Try to suggest to
>>them that the graphics engine should be integrated into the kernel for
>>efficiency, and you can see their brains just switching off.
....well, until I actually want to run a game faster that badly,
integrating video into the kernel doesn't really actually buy
me. Meanwhile, it's another subsystem and another collection of
dodgey device drivers that I have to worry about in terms of
crashes.
Crashing in the middle of Quake III is no more unpleasant than
crashing in the middle of a long batch job. Neither is really
tolerable.
X runs games well enough.
>
>Well I surely don't need X in a kernel on many of my machines. I
>even have systems where on boot the BIOS output goes out the serial
>port so I can change the BIOS setting on boot without even having a
>video monitor or video card. Why do I need a monitor in
>rack-mounted lights-out web-servers in a remote colocation facility?
OTOH, kernel level "assistance" for video accleration does infact
exist in Linux for 2.4. However, you can remove or ignore it if
you don't feel a burning need to get a few more FPS in that new
game.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:56:20 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:10:50 GMT, Shaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:23:27 -0400, Secretly Cruel
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:58 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>This is how people get pissed off about Linux. The modem thing is easy
>>>to solve, but what about the 'win-printer', 'win-scanner', 'win-camera',
>>>et al?
>>
>>People need to be pissed at the cheap bastards that manufacture the
>>Windows-only stuff, not pissed at Linux.
>
>I must admit that what really puzzle me is that if the
>win-modems/scanners/cameras/whatever worked on linux it would increase
>the sales. In most cases the company does not even have to spend time
>on writing the drivers, if the protocols were known someone would
>probably write the drivers herself.
>Yet for some strange reason those protocols remain secret .... I just
>can't get it.
...the pathetic part is that this information that printer vendors
are so closely guarding now is the sort of stuff that used to be
in the end user documentation...
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:56:55 GMT
In article <8in6mi$2h0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <0KE35.19314$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>
>>>>in the same packaging as is contained in the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
>>>>Resource Kit. Fact is you can't. You can buy, usually for less the same type
>
>>>>of information in a bound copy for Linux as Microsoft Press is selling for
>>>>$209($29.86/volume U.SofA prices). It may not be a whole lot less if it has
> to
>>>
>>>>span the same 7 volumes.
>>>
>>>Note, though, that the real details and the ability to change them
>>>come only with access to the source code.
>>
>>Yes... but that doesn't help you set up a DHCP server or whatever. FAQS help,
>>sometimes. Web sites also, but a book can often be the best tool.
>
>Actually the README, TODO, BUGS, and release notes included with the
>sources are the best places to find details about quirks and
>problems.
Often, sometimes, maybe. It depends on the author's ability to coherently
express themselves, which can range from excellent to no existent.
Paul
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 20 Jun 2000 17:03:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Hauck wrote:
> [snip very impressive rant]
Thanks Bob. I gave up arguing with Daniel some time last week. I just
couldn't muster the effort, even though I have a half-written reply waiting
for me to finish it.
But I won't, now. You said basically everything I wanted to say, including a
lot of things I never even thought of. What's more, you stated those things
more convincingly than I ever could.
So here, at your posting, dies my argument with Daniel Johnson.
I'll leave him in your capable hands :)
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 259 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
From: zerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:00:50 -0500
Oliver Baker wrote:
>
> O.K., I know this is probably an impossible question to answer, but what
> the hay.
>
> Would anyone care to compare--either quantitatively or
> qualitatively--the number of mind hours that have gone into developing
> Linux as an OS verus what has gone into developing Windows as an OS?
>
> I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know much
> about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
> Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because a) Linux is
> better designed b)it attempts to do less, c) more people have invested
> time in making it work and/or c)smarter people (and, hey, let's say
> better looking while we're at it) have invested time in making it work
> (I guess there's some overlap with "a)" here).
>
> I thought I'd make a meager attempt to evaluate the possibility of
> "c"--although if anybody wants to cast a vote or express a thought as to
> the other options (or to propose alternatives), I'd be interested to
> read. Thanks for any thoughts.
>
> Oliver Baker
>
> .
You sound and even said that you know about nothing about linux. How do
you suspect to write a good article if you know nothing about the
subject matter. If I were you I would read a thick book on linux install
it, play around with it for 3 months then you might be able to write a
well informed article about it. But until you know your subject matter
the article will basically suck.
------------------------------
From: Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:20:22 GMT
zerr wrote:
>
> You sound and even said that you know about nothing about linux. How
do
> you suspect to write a good article if you know nothing about the
> subject matter. If I were you I would read a thick book on linux install
> it, play around with it for 3 months then you might be able to write a
> well informed article about it. But until you know your subject matter
> the article will basically suck.
Maybe I should have said what this article is about. Anyway it's not
going to be very technical. It's more to do with an instance of
corporate culture being "infiltrated" by Linux culture. I just happen to
be curious and technically minded and don't mind asking stupid
questions.
Oliver Baker
.
.
.
.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 20 Jun 2000 13:23:42 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
[snip a great response]
> ... MS lost the case because
> they did not put up a credible defense. The reason for that
> isn't some amazing strategy they have up their sleeve, or a
> conspiracy against them, or a lazy judge, or any of the other
> things you cite. The reason is that they are guilty and don't
> have a credible defense.
I don't think it could be put any better than that. Thanks Bob.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "gooeydad[spammerssuck]"@excite.com
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:30:16 GMT
> I have to interject here. I am a fairly new computer user (2 years) I
> started on windoze,and heard about linux's superior qualities. So I bought a
> book with a distro in it. (caldera 2.2)I played with it and did not get very
> far. The one thing I liked was kde .
> I put it down for a while, then downloaded redhat 6.2 two months ago. I now
> spend 85% of my computer time on linux. It is much faster on the web, Has
> wonderful built in programs, and I love the control. As far as windows9x vs
> kde and x, ok so the fonts do suck. So what. At least I do not have to
> reboot the machine every time I make some minor adjustment.
And if I get a program that misbehaves, I simply {kill -pid} it Can you do
that in windows without the whole o.s. coming down with it? I am not a
guru....I just read one book. It does not take a rocket scientist to use
linux. If I did not play games, I could lose windoze altogether.
And with wine, I can use about half the games I do play.
> Under windows, if I wanted a program I had to buy it or worse, steal
> it.(cracks etc.) with Linux, Almost everything I need is available for free.
> I recently set up a web server using apache. It did not cost me a dime. and
> it works like a champ. If I am away, I can telnet into my machine. With
> windows, I would have to buy something for that functionality.
In closing. I think it is a question of money and control. With windows, you
spend lots of money
and still do not get all the control. With linux, you spend nothing and for
the cost of a little time reading, get all the control you want.
for that, I can live with ugly fonts.
P.s. On my machine (amd500 with 128mb ram) x is much faster than windoze.
If I am off thread I apologize.
Gooeydad........Penguin powered. And damn proud of it.
> {snippage}
>
> > That's ugly and slow. They reason why everyone blames X
> > is because none of the window managers are nearly as fast as the
> > Windows UI.
>
> Everyone blames X? I don't blame X.
>
> > The only common link is X. I don't care what the exact
> > reason is. Either it needs to be fixed or people need to stop
> > promoting Linux as the second coming of Jebus for the consumers.
> >
> > KDE exists to apeal to a desktop user. Since it clones the Windows UI
> > we'll assume it is meant to apeal to a Windows desktop user.
>
> So Windows comes with 8 desktops out of the box? I would hope
> that the KDE team is more ambitious than just trying to clone Windows.
>
> > For
> > whatever reason, it's slow and ugly.
>
> Ugly?
>
> > It has been slow and ugly for
> > years now.
>
> KDE hasn't even had release versions for two years.
>
> > If Linux was only going after the server market it wouldn't
> > be a big deal... they're not. KDE is a consumer level product and it's
> > just not very good. (for whatever reason)
> >
>
> KDE is good.
>
> >
> > Is X better than MS TS? Maybe. I don't know/care. TS works great for
> > doing remote administratoin of my servers.
>
> Colin Day
--
------------------------------
From: <[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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:15:36 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:50:14 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:06:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:13:55 GMT, John Wiltshire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:36:23 GMT, John Wiltshire
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They're not a part of the argument. That's why it's a false
> strawman. You're merely bringing it up to distract the
> discussion from the Windows fault in question.
What is more: There are two fundamental differences here that make
situation for Linux and Windows total incompatible for comparisons on this
situation.
First off; development of Microsoft products are controled by one power
structure which stems from one authority (Bill Gates), that authority had
ultimate control into which way any Microsoft product develops and ultimate
responisbility for the failures to deliver. Since all Microsoft Windows
versions and variations were the result of Microsoft's developments any of
the lack of compatibiltiy is, Microsoft's fault for which there can not be
any valid defense.
With Linux the situation is quite different, there are many different
devlopment teams working on their own areas of expertise there is no single
central authority. No one can be fired for violating a directive of the
ultimate authority. Ultimatly only the Linux kernel is Linux, and
everything else can be viewed as third party addons. Even software that is
Linux specific is a thrid party addon. All of X and the basic system
utilities, everything are thrid party addons. This would be like Microsoft
delivering "Windows" with only the basic operating system (Dos or the NT
microkernel) and and letting other software developers, provide everything
else.
Secondly, as mentioned above Microsoft has products, that is because it
produces commercial software for sale. The only purpose of developing
Windows was and is to generate sales and thereby profits for the company.
While Linux which is not a commercial product was and is developed for the
enjoyment and to fill the needs of the developers.
Someone could say that the Linux kernel devlopers have some responsibility
to the Linux users community; however, since they ask nothing from us, their
responsibility is minimal at the most, any responsibility they may feel
would be the result of thier moral character. The same is true for the
remainder of the developers who have brought us the Linux operating system
and the various "free" software that runs on it. Anyone of them could move
on and leave their projects behind, if they so chose to do, even Linus
could, and as long as the public finds value in the continued development of
the projects; someone would take up the work and it would all live on.
Microsoft software is different in that Microsoft has required us to pay and
sometimes to pay dearly for use of their products. Microsoft has made many
pay for those products inspite of the fact that they have no desire to ever
use them. So the responsibility of Microsoft is not a result of their moral
character, instead their responsibility to their users is unquestionable.
So any failing of Microsoft to deliver everything they promise is
unpardonable, especially when they lead the user base and third party
devlopers down dead ends and abandon them there. It cost the user money and
possibility other costs to get back out of the dead end. It costs devlopers
money, reputation, their user's loyality to get back out of the dead end.
If Microsoft were to cancel the production of the Windows product line or
any of their software product liness, that software would die off. No
chance of them continuing unless someone were to develop a freeware clone of
the software like FreeDos is for the "canceled" line of MSDos.
One thing someone may counter me with is that "Linux is a commercial
product! I bought it in the store, so it is commercial!" That argument
would be foolish, since when you purchase a copy of Linux in the store you
are paying for access to the software and the convienience of not having to
download it. Each distribution is assembled by their own
maintainers/distribution teams they are independent from the devlopers.
There may be some crossovers but that is not the rule. There is some
commercial software now being developed and released for Linux, but that
does not afftect Linux's non-commercial status. That is just evidence of
Linux's building importance in the world of computing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: 20 Jun 2000 17:31:44 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:42:21 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, I was never a fan of UNIX, and I'm not much of a fan on Linux. I
> worked on MOTIF before Windows walked all over it and history left it high
> and dry.
Thank God neither the primary GUI toolkits on Linux aren't Motif then.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
