Linux-Advocacy Digest #224, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is awesome! (Slava Pestov)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:56:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The point is, which you have missed, is that I have seen more come and
> go in my lifetime than you have.
>
> Linux will fade just like the 2821 and it's attached 1403 and 3525
> card punch.
>
Or maybe, Linux will live on like Unix on the PDP7, and Windows will
fade, like said IBM mainframes. After all, they, much like Windows,
were overpriced, hard to develop for, and klunky.
Slava
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:06:55 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:07:02 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire wrote:
>
>> I *think* you can still get licenses for these products if you try
>> really hard. You'd probably have to talk directly to someone in MS
>> though. With some license rationalization you can probably find
>> you've got extra Win9x licenses lying around anyway so you can
>> 'unupgrade' the original licenses and survive an audit.
>
>But aren't the OEM licenses bound to a particular machine? I know that
>mine is (I bought my computer in January of '98).
No idea. I'm making this up as I go. ;-)
My first question would be what legally constitutes a machine when it
is made from commodity parts? Reminds me of my brother's car which
has a new chassis, engine, transmission and wheels. The only thing
the same is the license plate.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:09:10 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:03:11 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I do not fear open source. I fear the zealots who insist that
>> something which does not match their definition of open source is
>> somehow evil or worthy of contempt. If you read my original post I
>> acknowledge that open source software has a very valid place in the
>> industry, but closed source software also has its place. To deny
>> either is unreasonable closed mindedness.
>>
>> Beware of zealots who call your mind closed. They are often too
>> binded by their own beliefs to see the truth.
>>
>> John Wiltshire
>
>
>OK, tell me exactly where I said that closed source is a bad thing. I
>was just pointing out that open source has possiblities. Although I
>realize that it is fashionable to jump all over someone that is
>pro-open-source at the moment, as I am, that does not mean that I am
>completely anti-closed-source. The two are not necissarily mutually
>exclusive. In a software only company there is definitely good reason
>to allow people a shot at closed source (for the revenue alone). At
>least there is a valid argument for it. But, when it comes to hardware,
>I say let the best hardware win. Maybe opening up the driver would push
>hardware vendors to actually come up with something new in hardware to
>trump the competitor. I think a hardware vendor should focus on the
>hardware. They usually don't hire the most brilliant software
>developers (I said usually, there are exceptions) for drivers. While in
>some aspects of the industry I understand the reason for closed source
>programs, I don't think drivers fall into this category.
>
>Let's just say we agree to disagree on this point. If that makes me a
>zealot (god damn I hate that word) then so be it. Every time I try to
>point out that open source may be a good idea some idiot comes out to
>tell me what a freak I am. Kind of reminds me of high school.
>"OOOoooh. This guy doesn't agree with the popular people, he must be a
>freak." Yeah, that's me. Whatever.
Fair comment.
I was responding to what I felt was the tone of your original post -
all the 'don't fear OSS' stuff. If I got the tone wrong, my
apologies.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:11:47 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:22:10 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The difference between open and closed source.
>Quite frankly, you wouldn't drive your car blindfolded would you?
>Then you wouldn't blindfold your face to CLOSE your eyes to what's going
>on.
>
>People who do this often get hurt, yet it's the major mode of
>transportation
>on the internet today.
>
>There are people using Microsoft on the internet everyday. It's akin
>to talking a walk thru the public park with your head rammed up your
>ass.
This has to be the worst analogy I've heard to date. I thought the
'bonnet welded shut' was bad enough.
By your analogy, anyone who doesn't understand the OS completely
obviously doesn't understand walking and therefore will fall over. It
just gets worse from there.
>You don't have to work for a commercial developer or use their product
>to obtain brilliance.
Did anyone ever say that you do? You don't have to give away your
source for it to be brilliant either.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:43:11 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:29:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:50:14 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>Have you ever installed a minimal Red Hat configuration (ie less than
>>100M install) and then figured how much junk you need to get XFree86
>>4.0 with Gnome or KDE to run? I know it's not false because I've done
>
> So? This still does not demonstrate the necessity of the
> GUI on an arbitrary Unix machine.
I wasn't saying you need a GUI on an arbitrary machine. I was just
commenting that given a few more years, and after moving the GUI to
the kernel for speed, it would make sense for good admin tools to be
developed for the GUI and hence require a GUI on the machine to use
them.
The quote was "Just as you practically need perl, python and half a
dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured Linux
installation, so you will probably end up needing the GUI."
For a full featured unix machine, one day you will probably need the
GUI. It is already heading that way - look at Mac OS X.
>>exactly that a few times and been left each time wondering how Linux
>>zealots can call Windows bloated.
>
> Actually, you can get a completely functional Redhat 6.x
> 'development workstation' install in about 300M. Also,
> KDE, GNOME and X all have components that are entirely
> optional.
>
> However, that is also irrelevant as one is not merely limited
> to Redhat or 100M disks. Even in the 386 era, harddisks were
> larger than that.
I was the other day, trying to install a NAT system from RH 6.2 onto a
240M disk. Just wouldn't work. Turned out trying to replace Win98 +
ICS on that machine with Linux was a stupid idea.
[snip]
>>> Are you implying that I am some sort of CIS genius and that
>>> if I can't come up with the solution than somehow Microsoft
>>> is magically absolved of any responsibility for not coming
>>> up with a solution of their own?
>>
>>No, but if you don't know if a solution is possible then how can you
>>criticize Microsoft? By your very criticism you are implying that you
>
> The whole job of an Operating system is to abstract the hardware
> details away from the applications. I can't imagine why a graphical
> application would even need to be so tied to the underlying interface
> that it would break on a future revision of the same microprocessor
> family.
It doesn't, so long as you run the version of the interface it was
written to. Ever tried running an application written for X11R6 on an
X10 server? Just doesn't work.
The job of an OS is to abstract the hardware. It is *not* to abstract
other operating systems with different interfaces
Graphical applications are tied to interfaces because it is the
interface that abstracts the hardware. Change the interface and the
application necessarily has to change.
>>believe a solution is possible. If you can't detail that solution,
>>then from what does your criticism stem?
>>
>>It's like saying Henry Ford should have built a better car, but having
>>absolutely nothing to show that it was possible at the time.
>
> ...except there are examples of others in the same era being
> able to deliver the sort of genuine legacy support I am
> describing: most notably IBM.
How so? The only thing I can think of is the S/390 stuff. OS/2
certainly didn't.
>>>[deletia]
>>>>>>> No, they should design for the future more than the have
>>>>>>> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
>>>>>>> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
>>>>>>> capital investments of both companies and home users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
>>>>>>rules apply to different systems?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're trying to change the subject.
>>>>
>>>>No, I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the
>>>>gander. If you want old binaries and DOS apps (which required
>>>
>>>You are trying to support the fallacy that Application == Device Driver.
>>>
>>> This would be a good example of the "false strawman argument".
>>
>>Tell that to the Debian/HURD team, or the Mach guys.
>
> 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.
It's not a strawman because:
i) This isn't a Windows fault. Windows has faults, but this isn't one
of them.
ii) I'm bringing in other systems to show you the alleged 'fault' is
actually something present in every OS today.
If showing your argument is wrong by substituting any other OS for
Windows is "changing the subject" then your definition of the subject
is flawed.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jun 2000 04:51:43 +0500
--Multipart_Wed_Jun_21_04:51:42_2000-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To all concerned, "Steve/Amy/Keys88/Heather/Simon" etc, is a
> unbalanced, or paid Microsoft Wintroll, do yourself a favor, and
> save some valuable time.
No he is not paid by Microsoft. I have come to the conclusion that he
is actually a B1FF filter written for our amusement ;-).
Charles
--Multipart_Wed_Jun_21_04:51:42_2000-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
=====================================================
One Net to rule them all, One Net to find them,
One Net to bring them all, and with Linux bind them.
=====================================================
--Multipart_Wed_Jun_21_04:51:42_2000-1--
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:02:43 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:15:36 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Wrong. The ultimate control is in the shareholders. In case you
don't know, Microsoft is a public company of which BG owns about 20%.
Aside from that, Steve Ballmer is now CEO and not BG.
Also, by your argument then, anything Windows does right or Microsoft
does right is directly BG's praise? This is deluded nonsense. Does
Bill Clinton deserve praise or derision for everything the US
Government does? Even when the house *can* veto him?
Thirdly, have you ever talked to anyone who works for MS? In fact,
have you ever worked for a software company? The power structure
isn't anything like the pyramid you describe. I think you have been
deluded into thinking this - I'm not sure from where.
>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.
Linus, Alan Cox, Richard Stallman and others are all paid to write
GNU/Linux. Where you got the notion that they weren't is beyond me.
Each of these people would be fired if they stopped developing. You
seriously think Linus would keep his job at Transmeta if he refused to
develop Linux for Crusoe?
>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.
Garbage. How do you think Linus feeds his family? What does Richard
Stallman do for food? I don't think you've thought this one through.
Linux is developed to fill a need, the same as Windows. Because one
is closed source and the other open source is irrelevant in a
technical discussion of the two systems.
>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.
You might find that many of the core kernel developers are paid to
develop the kernel. Of course, you may choose to deny this fact but I
think you'll be the one with your head in the sand, not me.
>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.
So, if the Linux kernel team promises something and fails to deliver
we forgive them because they are nice guys. If Microsoft promises
something and fails to deliver we don't?
Sounds like someone has a prejudice.
>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.
You can still run Windows. You still have the product and you still
have the license to run it. If Linus and Alan decided not to organize
things right now, you seriously thing Linux wouldn't fragment and die
off? Personally I think BSD has a much better development model (and
license).
>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.
Actually, the argument is that people are paid to develop Linux so it
is a commercial product.
Your argument goes something like this:
i) Microsoft sells stuff so it is responsible.
ii) Microsoft people are paid to develop Windows so MS is responsible.
let me see:
i) Red Hat sells stuff so it is responsible.
ii) Red Hat people are paid to develop Linux so RH is responsible.
Agreed?
i) Transmeta (Linus) sells stuff so it is responsible.
ii) Linus is paid to develop Linux so Linus is responsible.
Get the train here?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:04:14 GMT
On 20 Jun 2000 14:47:52 GMT, James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever installed a minimal Red Hat configuration (ie less than
>> 100M install) and then figured how much junk you need to get XFree86
>> 4.0 with Gnome or KDE to run? I know it's not false because I've done
>> exactly that a few times and been left each time wondering how Linux
>> zealots can call Windows bloated.
>
>You don't have to run Gnome or KDE. I run blackbox on this x86 solaris.
>Also, if you don't like XFree, try one of the strip-down commercial X
>servers. They are much smaller and also faster because it strips out
>other things it doesn't need.
Sure, but you also lose all that functionality that is present in
Windows. Ever tried embedding a spreadsheet in a document by dragging
and dropping without something like Gnome or KDE?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:12:59 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:59:22 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 20:32:51 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Not necessarily. Just as you practically need perl, python and half a
>> >> dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured Linux
>> >> installation, so you will probably end up needing the GUI.
>> >
>> >God help us all if this day ever comes. A server *needing* a GUI to run
>> >is just too revolting as a concept.
>>
>> You make your own choices. I prefer a windowing environment with
>> command line options on my servers.
>
>Choice is good. I have one more choice though: no windowing environment
>and only command line tools.
Gotta give you that one. At least you can boot a command prompt from
the CD now though. :-)
Fortunately the GUI doesn't take up a lot of memory when not used.
16k last time I looked.
>> >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
>> >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
>> >Animated menues/windows, webpages as desktop background, an annoying
>> >startup sound, dialog boxes that fade out and so on are not features of
>> >a server OS.
>>
>> No, but making your server OS work exactly the same as your
>> Workstation OS helps the learning curve, or do you prefer scaling
>> cliffs to strolling up a hill?
>
>Making the server GUI working the same as the WS one is a good idea.
>This doesn't mean they had to include DirectX 7 (this is in the server
>version too I think), any sound support at all, funky OpenGL screen
>savers. What should that be good for?
Don't have to install the OGL screensavers. Sound - because some
server motherboards actually have sound on them? DX7 - harder to
explain.
To be honest, I think most of it is because it allows them to test one
product rather than two. Saves time and money.
>It doesn't help the learning curve that much anyway, running a server
>requires so much more knowledge that it may not be that significant.
>There is a rather big cliff in any case.
Good point. Personally I think the whole GUI/No GUI argument is a
good distraction from which is actually the better server. Don't know
why I keep biting.
>> >A workstation is something else, though I still wonder why anyone would
>> >want to actively *slow down* the GUI. At least one can disable most of
>> >that crap in Windows.
>>
>> It has to do with Human-Computer Interaction. Something X completely
>> forgot about when it was designed.
>
>Hmm, I guess it has been said a million times already: X deliberately
>doesn't care about that, "no policy in X" is the phrase I think. Anyway
>X is just a protocol. The *sample implementation* happened to include
>some *sample applications* - it is not X's fault if vendors actually
>shipped those.
>
>Stuff like Motif or CDE was intended to address this issue, OpenWindows
>was not that hard to use, but...
Actually, X does limit what you can do. Transperancy (like the Window
fade in, antialiasing etc.) is really hard to do on X.
>> Look at the Aqua interface on MacOS X. Apple has always been at the
>> front of the pack in UI and they are now slowing down the GUI even
>> more to make machines easier to use.
>
>I feel that the whole ease-of-use issue, UI design, whatnot has
>degenerated into a marketing instrument a long time ago.
>
>Everyone claims they have it, noone defines it and you can't measure it
>easily.
Actually, they do. Generally you do this by taking a set of users
with similar experience and putting them in front of the system and
ask them to use it without manuals. MS, Apple and other major
companies do this a *lot*. Most Linux distros don't. It shows.
>Everyone seems to think all computer users are lusers, forever. I don't
>mind an "easy to use" GUI but it better go out of my way if I need to do
>complicated things.
>
>IMHO the whole ease-of-use thing is a lie: it is not possible to make a
>general purpose tool like a PC really easy to use without seriously
>degrading it's utility. If you really want easy-to-use you are looking
>at very restricted devices: webpads, a simple organizer, that kind of
>stuff.
Agreed.
>After seeing the Apple Quicktime player (QT 4, I think it was this
>thing) I'm not sure I believe anymore that Apple has any clue WRT UI.
>Not that they are alone, any computer program that tries to mimick a
>physical device is just plain stupid.
Actually, on this point, I couldn't agree more. I think OS X is
looking pretty nice though. Have to play with it a little before I
make a good judgement though.
>After having briefly used a Mac some time ago I know that I don't want
>to touch one again.
:-)
You'll probably like OS X with a good command shell and X11 instead of
Aqua.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
