Linux-Advocacy Digest #195, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What UNIX is good for. (WhyteWolf)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Kirill Kounik)
mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Oliver Baker)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Jason McNorton)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (C Sanjayan Rosenmund)
Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder ("1$worth")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Mark Ritchie)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 21:19:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2000 05:31:28 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>It doesn't matter wheare it started out. Windows runs it now, and Linnux
>>>does'nt.
>>
>>
>>yes it does matter .. sence it didn't start on windows
>>means that it has been ported before .. and most likely
>>will be ported again .. and again ... and again
>
>To the OS with the most markit shere. In other words, some version of Windows.
and then UNIX {yes there is a port to UNIX already}
theres also a ports of Illustrator ... and Acrobat
[sniped]
>>>This only seams ot be an issue on UNIX.
>>
>>um no it's a issue with all platforms
>
>It only seems to bothers Open Sores programmers.
I"ve never seen anyone in a big huff about it
>
>>besides GIF is supported by UNIX ...
>>it's just not as comman there sence it's a
>>outdated std. sence replaced by jpg
>>windows just hasn't found out yet.
>
>Windows supports .JPG's just fine.
>
sorta true ... Windows it self doesn't handle
.JPGS ... IE handles them in a alright manner
but the point is they arn't letting Gifs go there own
way ... they are a outdated standard ..
and if you check alot more pics
you will notice that they are in jpg format
more and more ...
[sniped again]
>>>Same thing. Ugly-ass VT100 crap. Try MIRC. UNIX doesn't even come close.
>>>
>>
>>I mIRCed ... nice piece of work ... altho it's
>>broken ... it doesn't reconize ANSI which was
>>interduced into the IRC/CTCP/DCC standards
>>
>>besides kvIRC has a much better scripting style
>>based on c/mIRC syntaxing
>>
>>altho BitchX is much better then either IMHO
>>mIRC still hasn't goten built in Flood protection
>>right and has been proven to have backdoors up the
>>ass {btw I"m a Ex-mIRC scripter ...
>
>BitxhX = ircII + ANSI color
sorta ...
BitchX = ircII + EPIC + Script + ANSI
all rolled into a c program ... there by making
it it's own program now... and still doesn't
make mIRC anymore fixed sence ANSI is a accpeted
standard on IRC and mIRC doesn't suport it
[sniped more garbage that Tim doesn't seem to know]
--
-=-=-=-=-
Take what you can use and let the rest go by.
-- Ken Kesey
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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 08:06:25 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8im4s5$12u4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
> >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
>
> Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
> will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
> had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
> (or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
> should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
> for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
NT has always been able to do it. Win9x should be able to with any USB
mouse, and you shouldn't be plugging PS/2 mice in with the machine powered
on.
------------------------------
From: Kirill Kounik <[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 22:04:28 GMT
Hello,
I see you are smart guys here!
So, pplease help me! I am looking for information about how to write new
WinNT subsystem. In particulat I am looking for documentation of native
NT API, by which I mean for example functions starting with Nt* (like
NyCreateFile() that is native for win32 CreateFile()) - if you know
what I mean. I knwo that there is no offisial documentation on
this.but still...
Thanks,
Kirill
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:57:15 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> This is incorrect. WindowsNT runs a modified
> >> microkernel design. Windows9x is a tad more like
> >> your description, but there is an awful lot more to
> >> it, that doesn't quite fit with your contention.
> >
> >The original design for NT was for the an NT operating system that
contained
> >no windowing components or a command shell. The user would be able
to plug
> >into the NT OS any of a number windowing system or command line
shells that
> >Microsoft was touting. There was going to be a Dos like shell and
several
> >of the standard unix shells. There was going the be a Windows 3.x
windowing
> >system, a new NT windowing system, a X windowing system, a Motif
windowing
> >system, etc. Even though the graphical user interface was first
developed
> >by Xerox and then perfected through project Athena; this was during
the big
> >legal battle between Microsoft and Apple over the control of the
graphical
> >user interfaces. When the first version of NT was offered to the
public
> >only the Windows NT windowing system was available, with the promise
of more
> >to follow. There were claims by Microsoft that one day soon, any
program
> >written for any windowing environment could compiled for run on the
NT OS
> >and the correct user interface Then the legal trouble was over and
the
> >promise of the other interfaces dissappeared.
> >
> >That was when NT was promoted as a better unix than unix. It would
permit
> >the user to run their programs using whatever they were comfortable
with. A
> >dos user would not know he was not running dos. A unix user would
not know
> >he was not running unix. etc.
> >
> >So the original NT OS and the Window NT interface were totally
sepperate.
> >If Microsoft lost the control of their Windowing environment they
could sail
> >right along by offering the remaining user interfaces which were
either
> >publc domain or they had licensed from the owner(s). This ploy was a
fall
> >back position in case they lost the legal battle with Apple. What
was
> >called the NT OS is what is now called the NT microkernel. If the
> >distinction between Windows NT and NT OS has blurred then that is
more proof
> >that Microsoft takes steps to artificially bind their products
together.
>
> Not sure where you dreamed all of this up.
>
> The original NT system was going to run presentation manager (the same
> as OS/2 did). As the NT design was started *before* Windows 3.x, it
> is hard to imagine how a Win3.x shell was going to be part of it. The
> success of Win3.x and the problems MS and IBM were having meant the
> project shifted direction and the Win32 API was born to make it much
> easier to port the Win16 programs instead of the virtual rewrite
> required to port to OS/2.
>
> How do you explain the OS/2 Presentation Manager subsystem which was
> available for NT 3.51 if as you claim there were no other interfaces?
>
> As for X windowing and Motif windows being separate things, do you
> really understand X?
>
> I think your history is a bit screwy here.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Windows95 and Windows98 run DOS applications just fine, if
> >> they are run from DOS mode only
> >
> >Do you know that there is in fact no such thing as Dos mode? The
term "Dos
> >mode" implies that your are running Windows in a mode that makes it
> >compatible with the behavior of Dos. That is very misleading
Microsoft
> >Speak for running the Dos OS, in a way that is designed to trick
users into
> >not knowing that Window 95 and 98 are still as dependent on Dos as
was
> >Windows 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x. The only difference is that Microsoft has
> >bundled the sale Windows and Dos together and have reduced the
quantity of
> >utilities that they provide for Dos.
>
> You mean you haven't looked at a .pif file and seen the term 'MS-DOS
> mode'? The fact Win9x is still dependant on DOS is obvious - apps can
> be run in DOS mode, you can start with a DOS command prompt, the
> command prompt is labelled 'MS-DOS prompt' etc.
>
> Saying there is no such thing as DOS mode is denying the blatantly
> obvious text inside the dialog box which says 'MS-DOS mode'.
>
> >> (running them in a Windows
> >> DOS session can cause problems). However, WindowsNT does
> >> have problems with some DOS applications, because it does
> >> not allow any direct hardware access whatsoever. But all
> >> things considered, I think the VDM works pretty darned well
> >> for an emulated environment.
> >
> >For programs that need special hardware access through a Dos driver,
they
> >could run if the VDM provides the ability of running a VDM driver
that
> >provides the services that the Dos program needs. For Dos programs
that
> >require direct access to standard hardware the VDM could provide
hardware
> >emulation or the equivlence of the VDM driver that I mention for the
> >previous situation. For direct access to special hardware for which
a
> >program would not have a Dos driver, a VDM driver that provides
emulation of
> >the hardware or otherwise controls access the the hardware could
enable
> >those programs. For really unusual situations or for hardware for
which
> >there no possibility to provide any support by the methods covered
above;
> >VDM could permit limited direct hardware access as configured by a
system
> >administrator. There could be risks in this last procedure, but
weighing
> >the benefit against the risks would br the administrator's job.
> >
> >Full support for all Dos applications by NT is possible, limited only
by the
> >unwillingness of Microsoft to provide this support for it's user
base.
> >There are many reasons that could be cited against this position but
there
> >is no valid excuse when one considers the resources that could have
been
> >placed on the project, if Microsoft cared in the least for the needs
of
> >their customers.
>
> Do you actually understand anything about the VDM on NT?
>
> i) You need to write a special user mode driver (a VDD) for the VDM to
> intercept interrupts, DMA or other things. How do you expect MS to
> write VDD for every piece of hardware that a DOS program may decide to
> access?
>
> ii) There *are* VDDs for standard hardware. There are not VDDs for
> sound cards or other less standard hardware.
>
> iii) You do realise that hardware vendors can write VDDs to support
> their hardware if they want to?
>
> iv) Direct access to hardware from a VDM is impossible - you have no
> idea when you are going to be interrupted, context switched, killed or
> anything else. Read a book on NT Device Drivers if you really want to
> understand how it works. Aside from that, I'm interested in your
> views on how a VDM could safely access hardware without the
> possibility of crashing the machine even under normal operation.
>
> v) The main reason DOS programs don't work is they run their own
> memory manager which attempts to switch the processor into protected
> mode. This is blatantly impossible whichever way you try to twist
> things unless you write something like VMWare.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
> >> oil lamps on them.
> >
> >Your analogy and the point that you are trying to make are both
invalid and
> >incorrect. The type of automobiles that you are citing are to old to
> >represent the programs written for Windows 1.x, if you were to
consider the
> >length of the time line of computer history. I would say that an
Edsel
> >would be a better match.
> >
> >Now restating your analogy, "By your logic, we should all be driving
> >Edsels." Even when restated your anaology is still incorrent. I
would
> >never say, "we should all be driving Edsels". However, I would say
"that we
> >should be permitted to drive Edsels, if we own them and we choose to
do so."
> >Now expanding on your analogy, if WIndows is the roadway, it should
not be
> >purposely designed to prohibit the use of an Edsel on it.
>
> Except of course, the analogy is just broken. As are most
> computer/car analogies. They are useful for proving a point when you
> have no facts to back up your case.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Such as? If you're referring to how well each of them handles
> >> legacy software, yes, that is true to a point. If you're
> >> referring to this "lack of a standard API" thing you keep stating,
> >> then you are very misinformed.
> >
> >If you believe that, then I suggest that try to run any software that
is
> >written to the unique features of any of the varations of Windows
that are
> >in regular use and run the program flawlessly on all of the other
varations.
>
> If developers can't read the *documented* difference between versions
> of Windows then it's Microsoft's fault? ROFL.
>
> I've just spend ages trying to compile apps written against an older
> version of qt. Perhaps one should remove the log from their own eye
> before complaining of the speck in someone elses.
>
> >> True Win32 applications run just fine on both platforms. As
> >> far as this topic is concerned, I really have no idea what
> >> you're complaining about. I've never had an application
> >> that would only work under WindowsNT but not Windows9x, or
> >> vice versa.
> >
> >What about the other varaitions of Windows? And why are you limiting
the
> >discussion to Win32 applications only?
>
> Now you are just being stupid. Claiming that a Win16 program should
> run on Win32 is like claiming a program written for minix should run
> in binary form on Linux.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> If it doesn't work on both platforms (assuming DirectX
> >> isn't an issue), then it's not a true Win32 application.
> >
> >So, you are saying that if a given program proves you wrong, it
should be
> >eliminated from the discussion? It would be like you saying that all
the
> >dishes in your house are clean, and when someone finds a dirty dish
in your
> >kitchen sink, you say that it doen't count because it is not really
clean.
>
> ...or of course that pthreads don't work on Linux because it doesn't
> support a few of the calls that Linus doesn't like. ;-)
>
> >> They have had to make some sacrifices, but leaving old
> >> and cumbersome technologies behind is not a "bad" thing.
> >
> >Microsoft did not have to make sacrifices, they choose to abandon the
> >support. It is not a bad thing, unless you are the one that is hurt
by
> >their choice.
>
> Ever tried getting paid support for Linux 0.x? That's the timeframe
> we are talking here.
>
> >> You can't run Windows9x, or WindowsNT, expecting
> >> to be able to run all of your DOS 3.3, or Windows v2.x apps
> >> seamlessly.
> >
> >And why not?
> >
> >>Such a request is simply absurd.
> >
> >The only thing that is absud here is that you could possibily believe
that.
> >Unless you have a vested interest that your statement supports.
>
> Face it, you are being stupid. Expecting software to work on today's
> OSes that was written more than ten years ago is daft. The fact you
> can still run the old OSes to run the programs is more than enough.
>
> How many Minix programs do you expect to run in binary form on Linux
> 2.4?
>
> John Wiltshire
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:16:54 GMT
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
.
.
.
.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 08:21:21 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:ABJ25.3969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with
the
> > old,
> > > > > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying
> > volumes by
> > > > > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the
> > longer
> > > > it's
> > > > > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely
more
> > > > modern
> > > > > system.
> > > >
> > > > Because 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.
> > >
> > > I dare you to change the drive that your system root resides on to a
> > > different letter.
> >
> > What do I win if it works ? :D
>
> Don't worry. It won't. I've tried it. :)
Under Win2k ? I know under NT4 it would provide a spectacular meltdown
(although it could actually be done via a great deal of registry editing to
set the new drives etc). However, whilst I was wasting an afternoon
trawling through the registry not long back there seemed to be a lot more
things referred to by environment variables (eg %SYSTEMROOT%) rather than
hardcoded drive letters. There's still an enormous amount of C:\Program
Files\... type references though. *sigh*
------------------------------
From: Jason McNorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:19:43 -0500
In article <knowbodies-A33A39.15452619062000@news>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used junk
> >off ebay.
>
> Are you sure that's where Joe bought his copy of Win2K?
I meant, (huge surprise) the hardware.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 08:22:54 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So you can partition a floppy disk under MacOS ?
>
> You can under Linux:
>
> Command (m for help): p
>
> Disk /dev/fd0: 2 heads, 18 sectors, 80 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 36 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/fd0p1 1 40 711 b Win95 FAT32
> /dev/fd0p2 41 80 720 83 Linux
>
> Not that you'd ever want to. :)
I actually tried this on my Linux box before I posted, and while it would
create the partitions I couldn't get it to format any of them.
Also, despite writing the new "partition table" to the floppy (with a
half-dozen partitions on it), Windows still seemed to be able to read what
*used* to be on it.
Ideas ?
------------------------------
From: C Sanjayan Rosenmund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:22:27 -0700
Tim Palmer wrote:
<snippage>
>
> "Healp me my text-baste UNIX mailreder cant rede HTML!"
Mine can, but it is ugly. . . .
--
Sanjay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Windows has detected that a gnat has farted near your computer.
Press any key to reboot.
------------------------------
From: "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:32:37 +0100
Martijn Bruns wrote:
> I know. I'm working with it right now. In Windows 98, that is,
> and it's really, really slow.
You will find that NT will be better.
> Somehow JBuilder runs much slower on Microsoft OS's than it does
> on any other OS it runs on. There's no way anybody can tell me
> that bad quality in Microsoft software can truly be the only
> cause for this, although the lack of true multitasking support
> would be some part of it.
Win32 has "true" multitasking (whatever "false is?).
> I still get the idea that Microsoft is somehow sabotaging Java in
> general.
Bad performance? This is just not true. In fact the opposite. Under
Linux JBuilder is slower because the official jvm port lacks the more
mature optimisations of the win32 version. These optimisations will come
in time.
This is not an OS issue.
------------------------------
From: Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:33:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <knowbodies-A33A39.15452619062000@news>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used
>> >junk
>> >off ebay.
>>
>> Are you sure that's where Joe bought his copy of Win2K?
>
>I meant, (huge surprise) the hardware
Windows hardware is crap? Okay, I'll take your word for it.
--
Mark A Ritchie
http://members.home.net/knowbodies/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:52:32 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:05:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I disagree. Centralized processing is a waste. You need to get a
>monstrously powerful central server if you're going to be splitting up
>the CPU horsepower between many people. It's easier and cheaper to just
>let people have computers on the desktop. This is why mainframes failed
>for the mostpart. They were big, hard to administer, ridiculously
>expensive, and still too underpowered to do what was being asked. Now
>we've got PC's that are steadily creeping toward 4-digit Mhz ratings,
>there's no need for centralized processing anymore.
I disagree. The cost problem isn't the PCs themselves - the problem
is the support cost. Having central servers solves that problem. And
let's face it - at the average office, how many people really push
their PC? A modern P3/800 can easily host a dozen, two dozen, maybe
even more people and most people would barely notice. Bear in mind
I'm talking about the average office - obviously that wouldn't work
too well with a group of engineers doing CAD or such work all day
long.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 19 Jun 2000 15:55:56 PST
In comp.os.linux.misc Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 can say for sure that it is not b. You could make an argument for c
but it is hard to say who is smarter and who has put in more hours. The
most proximate explanation is a. Linux started out with a better design
and has built upon that ever since; Windows started with something mediocre
and has built upon that ever since.
---
Neil
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
--
Neil
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:59:08 GMT
Oliver Baker wrote:
Allow me.
>
> O.K., I know this is probably an impossible question to answer, but what
> the hay.
The word "impossible" should be banished.
>
> 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?
>
Yes, Linux wins as it's a world wide effort.
They have in-excess of 100,000 people working on Linux world wide.
Microsoft has 17,500 people of which a fraction actually code.
> 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
Yes this is true. Linux is better designed.
>b)it attempts to do less,
No! Amazingly it actually does more.
>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
Discounting the sillyness, let's say that the intellects are equal.
Linux is better for the following reasons.
#1. Everybody who hacks code for Linux put's their name with that
code for all the world to read. Microsoft employee's don't do
that.
If you put your stamp on something for the world to read, you
better do your best. Your image is at stake.
#2. Linux is open source and Microsoft is not. If there's a bug
in the code, people will find it and submit a patch or a coding
suggestion to the author. Patches are written and the corrected
code is available world wide in typically one day's time.
Microsoft accepts bug reports and then mixes them all together in
one large service pack. Certain patches have a tendency to defeat
others so the process is much larger, more time consuming, and
more
expensive to accomplish. Thus the chance for error is greater
thus
leaving the client with unfinished or unworking product.
A Linux implementation is more segregated where the Microsoft
implementation
is more integrated. If a Linux patch fails it won't take the
entire
operating system down. If a code patch fails in a .dll in a
Microsoft
OS, the operating systems integrity is at stake. This can
sometimes
lead to the imfamous blue screen at worst and at best will lead
to multiple services becomming inoperable.
> (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
>
It is my belief that anyone who has attempted to study Linux development
and the GNU free software license will see the immediate advantages in
Linux.
They will experience these advantages and advancements.
They will come to realize that Linux is overtaking Microsoft in
technology.
That this leadership will be seen this year and for every year
thereafter.
That coders working together in cooperation worldwide are developing
software at a faster rate than Microsoft can manange to do.
That innovation is becomming a world wide thing rather than a corporate
model.
I make example of the new 2.4 kernel, KDE2, Linuxconf, Lothar, Webadmin,
so on and so forth and more comming every month.
Microsoft has topped out on the ideas market.
And they are also out of manpower to fight the world wide system too.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
