Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:13:19 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I was forced to be Windows centric to get to the position I am in now.
> >I hated every minute of it. Windows just does not make sense to me. I
> >know how to make it work, and I know how to get it usuable for others
> >(apparently I knew better than my last boss, Network Admin that didn't
> >even understand how to set up an NT server), but I was never comfortable
> >with it. It was knowledge I was forced to use to better my carreer.
> >Now, I can finally use the knowledge that I actually enjoy using. I've
> >always leaned towards Unix, ever since my discovery of it. It seems
> >cleaner to me, and "feels" better. It's like the difference between
> >being in a stuffy room on a hot day (Windows) and being out on a small
> >hill in a cool evening breeze (Unix). See, I know that this is going to
> >be taken wrong by somebody. I know that it looks like I'm attacking
> >Windows, but honestly, don't we all know someone that would rather be in
> >that hot and stuffy room? I do. So, once again it is simply an
> >opinion. My opinion is Unix is better for me. I don't know what's
> >better for another person until I know that person well enough to sort
> >of map his/her habits to the computer.
>
> Interesting... I never really liked UNIX. I think the shell commands put me
> off. I never did like 'ls', 'cat' or 'grep'. I guess working for twelve
> years for Digital Equipment Corporation and learning to use DCL, LSE and
> the other tools there has that effect on you.
>
> Whilst Windows doesn't offer me everything I want (hey, I want scrollbars
> that look like stone with springs in!) it's the closest I've got so far.
>
> It's interesting how you compare Windows (hot stuffy room) with UNIX (cool
> evening breeze). I can't think how I would describe them in those terms.
> Perhaps UNIX it would be like being stuck in a muddy bog, and Windows it
> would be like a sweaty fog. Sounds like I don't like either of them!
>
> Pete
It does kind of sound that way (that you don't like either). But, as I
said, this is in my opinion. It is only applicable to me. (BTW, the
person that would enjoy the hot stuffy room would be my wife, I'm
usually holding icepacks on my head to keep from overheating when I'm at
home.)
This brings up another topic. I've often had this fantasy/dream of what
I would like to see a computer become. I'll state that idea here and
then ask your opinion. I realize that we are a long way from ever
actually seeing this, but I think it is an extremely interesting
concept. Anyway, here it is.
First off, I think we need to ditch everything that is believed about
computers at the moment. Forget about backwards compatibility, and all
the other left-overs from all the years computing has been here
already. Start from scratch and build a system that does the following:
First off, make the system something that can "learn" like humans do,
but without the glitches humans have. You know, if we didn't forget
things, could compute numbers quickly in our heads (and I'm talking huge
numbers here), and the other things that computers are already good at
(huge computational work). Make it have voice and visual recognition.
The computer *knows* who is there by the voice/looks of the person, just
like normal people. For visual represtations, there is a truly
three-dimensional hologram type display and the speakers are all around
for postional sound, the voice would come from the area near the center
of the *display*. When you wanted a new program created, you could type
it in (the old fashioned way), tell the computer how to create the
program (a mixed old/new way), or just tell the computer what you want
the program to do and allow it to write the program from the ground up
(once the computer had been *trained* to program itself properly).
Obviously artificial intelligence and artificial life would have to come
a long way to make this happen. Then it brings up the age old paranoia
that people have about how machines will take over the world if we allow
them to *think*, but I think we could find ways around that. Make the
computer more of a worker, rather than a slave. Once they become
*intelligent* in human terms they are granted the same rights as a
person (with some obvious restrictions, I wouldn't want to see a
computer in charge of the presidency or something like that). I know
this sounds like total sci-fi, and that's fine. I don't expect to see
this in my lifetime. But I truly feel that this is what we need to work
towards. I think that it is the only way to make sure that computers
are truly *intuitive* to novice users. Make it something that can be
interacted with by even someone that has never seen a computer before.
How do you do that? Make it act as a *human* acts. Talking,
conversation, sight recognition (when someone points it *sees* what is
pointed at, etc.). There would be some ethical questions involved along
the way (when does an artificial life-form qualify as a real life-form?)
but I don't think it is unreasonable to push in this direction. The
important thing would be to end the "DOES NOT COMPUTE" type of messages
and instead get a "I don't know how to do that, can you show me?" type
of response from the computer. This would make sense to anyone, whether
they understood computing or not. And if you couldn't teach the
computer, you could find someone that could (or they could teach
eachother through network interaction).
Until we actually hit that point though, we are not going to have a
*truly* intuitive system. Until computers interact with us in the same
way we interact with eachother, it won't be intuitive in the classical
sense.
So, what would your ideal computing platform be like? If you didn't
have to worry about backwards compatibility and didn't have to worry
about the baggage of all the previous work in computing, what would you
want to see?
BTW, a few years ago I actually ran across a good series of sci-fi books
that dealt with a concept like I described. Of course, like in most
sci-fi books the author assumed that if computers had a "life" of their
own they would start working against humanity, he took the unique
approach of the computers using their political power to do so.
Allowing computers into politics is one of those questions we would have
to answer along the way, but it is an interesting concept. If you are
into sci-fi at all, and enjoy a good book, it was the Hyperion series by
Dan Simmons. The guy knows how to write good fiction. As far as I know
there are now four titles in the series. I've read Hyperion and Fall of
Hyperion in the past and have just recently started in on the two new
books (I think they are called Endymion? and Rise of Endymion? or
something to that basic effect). Definitely a kick ass read, especially
if you are into computing/networking/human-computer interaction and any
other good computer jargon. His concept of the WorldWeb people
"visiting" the WorldWeb through virtual reality (although much more
*real*) was simply awe inspiring. I hope some of the brighter spots of
the books actually come to be, but I hope it doesn't take 700 years to
happen (when the series starts is 700 years in the future).
OK, enough for my totally off topic post.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:14:42 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 6 Jul 2000 15:37:09 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On 4 Jul 2000 13:03:22 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You mean you don't like:
> >>
> >> char *foo="abcd"; foo[2];
> >>and
> >> "abcd"[2];
> >>and
> >> 2["abcd"];
> >>
> >>to all mean the same thing?
> >
> >They don't all mean the same thing. Two of them mean 'c', while
> >the other means "Crash, burn, and dump core, *right* *now*".
>
> The syntax, if I remember *my* K&R correctly, is that a[b]
> translates to *(a+b). This is probably not a straight
close *(a + b*(sizeof(*a))
however, in this case, the (sizeof(*a)) = 1, so it degenerates
to *(a+b)
> macro translation for various reasons, but it does mean
> that
>
> char * foo="abcd"; int x = foo[2];
> int y = "abcd"[2];
> int z = 2["abcd"];
> int w = *("abcd" + 2);
>
> all return the same thing, namely, the integer value 0x63 or 99,
> also known as 'c'.
>
> This works in both gcc and g++; a small test program confirms this.
>
> (Note that Java handles this differently.)
>
> >
> >--
> >Microsoft Windows. Garbage at your fingertips.
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux programs core dump, and can be analyzed after
> death. Windows programs take the whole OS with
> them; good luck figuring out what went wrong.
> This is what makes Windows "easy to use", right?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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, 10 Jul 2000 21:16:26 GMT
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:02:42 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:19:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:44:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:26:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>>>when said peripheral is newish and uses a common, well-supported interface?
>>>>
>>>> That is not at all established here actually.
>>>>
>>>> An SBLive uses a common, well-supported interface but you don't
>>>> expect it to work in a G4 do you?
>>>
>>>Well, not THIS month, but I hold out hope for one of the next few
>>>months.
>>>
>>
>> You would always try it under Yellow Dog... <snicker>
>
>Why? So I can run Linux on overpriced Mac hardware, rather than
>running the same thing (with much better support) on faster, cheaper
>Intel hardware?
Actually, PPC is relatively well supported as a Linux platform.
--
Free Software: While some whine that it is not really 'free',
others are freely exploiting it's potential to make them money
with or without releasing the source to their own software.
Naysayers are more their own enemy than potentially viral licences.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:27:22 -0500
Jeff Silverman wrote:
> I am running about 120 computers in an electrical engineering department at a major
>university.
> Some of the professors want Windows/2000 and others want Linux and still others want
>SunOS. I am
> trying to compare the operating systems I currently use and see if I can develop
>selection
> criteria.
One issue that you need to deal with is: what software is going to have to run on
these systems? If
the professors need something that will only run on one platform, you're going to have
to go with that
platform regardless of what you think about the relative qualities or values of the
different
platforms.
You may even need to run multiple platforms. At our CS department here, we have a lab
full of Macs and
W'98 systems for the freshmen and sophomores. Once they've finished the bottom half
of the core
curriculum, they get a "permanent" account in our Unix environment, which provides a
common file system
to a number of labs variously tricked out with Linux, Sun, SGI, and a few other
oddments (but mostly,
and increasingly, Linux). Some graduate reasearch labs have an even broader selection
of platforms.
Another question is donors. In the CS department here, we have a mix of systems, with
most of the
"minority representation" systems apparently being the result of donations from their
makers. I would
be *very* surprised if EE programs didn't draw even more donors than CS programs do.
For better advice than you can get in these newsgroups, you should probably arrange to
have a chat with
the support staff at other universities with programs similar to yours.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. #1 -- Does SunOS really run Beowulf? I thought Beowulf was a specifically Linux
hack (though it
would not surprise me if Sun offered something similar).
p.s. #2 -- Is the falling share of IIS relevant? Surely an EE department isn't going
to run the 120
machines as Web servers!
Similarly, if I were making the decision I would give zero credence to most of the
bottom part of your
page. What does market share have to do with it? Why does it matter whether the
scripting languages
are "bundled", so long as they actually *run* on that system? Are the engineers
really going to use
these machines for office automation? Are vendor publications unbiased enough to base
your decison on?
If I were you I would make the professors deliver a list of requirements, then
evaluate the systems on
those requirements. You may find that the best solution is to set up 110 machines
with one OS, along
with 5 each of the other two. (To see what the largish ECE lab has here at UT, visit
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/ece/resources/.)
-BB
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:29:22 -0500
James wrote:
> Steve / DP,
>
> Very good, but you lost points when you posed as the Wong couple. Even I
> could spot your "signature" in that post.
> But don't worry, you are still a strong contender.
I liked it the time he posted as "Amy" but then *literally* signed it as
"Steve".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:24:59 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > abraxas wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> >> >> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> >> > <snip>
> >> >> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
> >> >> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
> >> >> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
> >> >
> >> > Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
> >> > and I don't understand "highly specialized". What exactly is it
> >> > highly specialized for? Runs nicely as a desktop, database
> >> > server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
> >> > computational node, file server, names serveretc.
> >>
> >> So does VMS. Most OSes do.
> >
> > Actually not.
>
> Oh really? Hmmm...OpenVMS runs as a desktop, database server, webserver,
> applicaiton server, X terminal server, computational node, name server,
> etc. It just isnt very popular. :)
>
I wasn't diputing wheter VMS can do it...I was disputing
the number of non-Unix OS's (beyond VMS) that can fulfill
all of those roles.
> > VM/CMS doesn't.
> > Whatever and AS/400 runs is... well, it's good for "glass room"
> > computers, and nothing more... requires a whole bevy of priests
> > and accolytes to just keep the thing running. No graphic displays
> > (at least not that I've ever seen)...
>
> You need to look harder. Though I will admit that very often AIX is
> used as a control node for these kinds of systems.
I don't believe AIX has been ported to the AS/400, has it?
[I might be uninformed...who knows]
>
> > general print server?
> > Not at the price you pay for an AS/400--waste of clock cycles
> > and everything.)
>
> You dont have to run VMS on something that expensive, you know.
I was talking about AS/400's OS, not VMS.
>
> >
> > NONE of the micro-computer OSes from the 70's and 80's do.
> > Atari GEM? AmigaOS or Commodore anything as a database server?
> >
>
> You realize that Mainframes are still being made right now, dont
> you?
Of course i'm aware of that. I *am a computer systems engineer. :-)
I've yet to see a mainframe that is as flexible as what you
describe "most OSes" as being able to do...
Most of them are great for bulk processing and databases
and other "huge" jobs...but pretty lousy at things like
printer serving, etc. (relatively high overhead... a lot of
mainframes actually OFFLOAD their printing to print servers
because most mainframes don't deal well with interrupt-driven
I/O. [interrupt handling is expensive]...
>
> -----yttrx
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:22:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
>>> GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
>>> the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
>>> software.
>> Are you a free man? Do you have any constraints placed upon you? Are
>> there any rules and regulations that you must obey?
>
>Is software now a legal person?
>
>It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between a tool and a
>person.
Please explain what the above has to do with it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:21:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Stump escribi�:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >A simple counter example is the new BSDL (not necessarily the old
>> >one.) There are also other, freer than GPL licenses.
>>
>> Please explain how the BSDL is freer in the sense that it doesn't
>> allow slavery than the GPL. In this sense, the GPL is freer.
>
>I thought that was a job for the constitution or somesuch, not for
>a software license.
Please explain why a license cannot be used as a tool for controlling
the submission to the dominating influence of proprietary software
that a proprietary license would have upon otherwise freer software.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:27:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>-- inanimates -- cannot.)
Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
Main Entry: slavery
Function: noun
Date: 1551
2 : submission to a dominating influence
Pretty clear to me. Cite a reference, other than yourself, or someone
particitating in this thread that says the term cannot be used in
this context.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:28:47 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > spin, spin troll
>
> This from the guy who believes an application programmer needs to
> understand how the OS scheduler works in order to write an application?
>
> If all you can do is spew forth insults, you might just as well give and
> go home. You're not making any real difference here.
Does the term "race condition" mean anything to you?
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 10 Jul 2000 21:30:42 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > abraxas wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> > In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> >> >> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >> >> > <snip>
>> >> >> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
>> >> >> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
>> >> >> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
>> >> > and I don't understand "highly specialized". What exactly is it
>> >> > highly specialized for? Runs nicely as a desktop, database
>> >> > server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
>> >> > computational node, file server, names serveretc.
>> >>
>> >> So does VMS. Most OSes do.
>> >
>> > Actually not.
>>
>> Oh really? Hmmm...OpenVMS runs as a desktop, database server, webserver,
>> applicaiton server, X terminal server, computational node, name server,
>> etc. It just isnt very popular. :)
>>
>
> I wasn't diputing wheter VMS can do it...I was disputing
> the number of non-Unix OS's (beyond VMS) that can fulfill
> all of those roles.
>
>> > VM/CMS doesn't.
>> > Whatever and AS/400 runs is... well, it's good for "glass room"
>> > computers, and nothing more... requires a whole bevy of priests
>> > and accolytes to just keep the thing running. No graphic displays
>> > (at least not that I've ever seen)...
>>
>> You need to look harder. Though I will admit that very often AIX is
>> used as a control node for these kinds of systems.
>
> I don't believe AIX has been ported to the AS/400, has it?
> [I might be uninformed...who knows]
>
That im not sure of, but a controlling node can be just about
anything...
>
>>
>> > general print server?
>> > Not at the price you pay for an AS/400--waste of clock cycles
>> > and everything.)
>>
>> You dont have to run VMS on something that expensive, you know.
>
> I was talking about AS/400's OS, not VMS.
>
Which one?
>>
>> >
>> > NONE of the micro-computer OSes from the 70's and 80's do.
>> > Atari GEM? AmigaOS or Commodore anything as a database server?
>> >
>>
>> You realize that Mainframes are still being made right now, dont
>> you?
>
> Of course i'm aware of that. I *am a computer systems engineer. :-)
> I've yet to see a mainframe that is as flexible as what you
> describe "most OSes" as being able to do...
>
The baby sized (dual proc) IBM S/390. Itll run any one of four
OSes (at the same time even) and serve whatever you like.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:30:24 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:06:40 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:38:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote on Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:12:54 -0400
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>simple [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You'd love Linsux.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Try it sometime....
> >> >>
> >> >>What`s Linsux???? a ms ripoff from Linux? Only ms could break something
> >> >>like Linux.
> >> >
> >> >"Linsux" is a term used to deride Linux, much like "Windoze",
> >> >"Losedoze", "Winsucks", "WinDOS", and "LoseDOS" are used to
> >>
> >> Actually WinDOS is not just a term of derision. It is also
> >> meant to point out the fact that underneath the Windows that
> >> run on most Microsoft users's desktops is a nasty old CLI.
> >> It's also meant make sure that current shills don't conveniently
> >> neglect the fact that for most of Microsoft's history as an OS vendor
> >> (even most of it's history competing with the Macintosh) that it was
> >> providing only a simple program loader, incapable of sensibly
> >> exploiting modern hardware, possesing a really nasty end user
> >> interface.
> >>
> >
> >LoseDOS is further clarification, not only of the DOS component as
> >outlined above, that the syllable "win" is NOT appropriate when
> >referring to Microsoft products.
> [deletia]
>
> ...it's a bit further over the edge between somewhat descriptive
> and pure derision...
>
> Plus it's beginning to look insufficiently like the original.
There's always LoseDoze (in honor of what it does to your files)
>
> --
>
> It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
> of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
> |||
> / | \
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
