Linux-Advocacy Digest #354, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
HP: "Linux is a tsunami that is over-running the marketplace." ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (mark)
Re: Linux as embedded OS (mark)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [Q] Too many distribution? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:03:19 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> >> I have a feeling that Mr. Kulkis does not really want that to
> >> >> happen, because large numbers of people manifesting Unix sysadmin skills
> >> >> would produce a lot of competition for him, and his much-idolized law of
> >> >> supply and demand would force down his income.
> >> >Not really. Actually, a flood of Unix admins would create an
> >> >even greater demand for people like me (guys who understand
> >> >the kernal intimately).
> >> Dream on. Think of your beloved law of supply and demand.
> >Higher availability of Unix Admins makes more Unix-based projects
> >possible, bootstrapping more demand for Unix admins...
>
> Pure hand-waving.
Wrong. It's a description of technological dynamics.
>
> >You would do well to graduated from the obsolete STATIC analysis
> >methods favored by the Democratic Party and other leftists.
>
> As opposed to jumping-onto-the-winning-side methods favored by
> right-wing yellow-dog Republicans?
Yellow-dog republican...
That wouldn't be a derogatory term for anyone who dares commit the sin
of
leaving the happy-happy joy-joy land of self-contradictory left-wing
Democrat philosophy, where a cure for AIDS must be developed, but
Animal Research is a mortal sin. [Of course, the mere mention of acting
responsibly so that one doesn't GET AIDS in the first place is anethema
to you and your buddies....
Left wing Democrats soooo compassionate
They compassionate long time
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:03:19 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> >> I have a feeling that Mr. Kulkis does not really want that to
> >> >> happen, because large numbers of people manifesting Unix sysadmin skills
> >> >> would produce a lot of competition for him, and his much-idolized law of
> >> >> supply and demand would force down his income.
> >> >Not really. Actually, a flood of Unix admins would create an
> >> >even greater demand for people like me (guys who understand
> >> >the kernal intimately).
> >> Dream on. Think of your beloved law of supply and demand.
> >Higher availability of Unix Admins makes more Unix-based projects
> >possible, bootstrapping more demand for Unix admins...
>
> Pure hand-waving.
Wrong. It's a description of technological dynamics.
>
> >You would do well to graduated from the obsolete STATIC analysis
> >methods favored by the Democratic Party and other leftists.
>
> As opposed to jumping-onto-the-winning-side methods favored by
> right-wing yellow-dog Republicans?
Yellow-dog republican...
That wouldn't be a derogatory term for anyone who dares commit the sin
of
leaving the happy-happy joy-joy land of self-contradictory left-wing
Democrat philosophy, where a cure for AIDS must be developed, but
Animal Research is a mortal sin. [Of course, the mere mention of acting
responsibly so that one doesn't GET AIDS in the first place is anethema
to you and your buddies....
Left wing Democrats soooo compassionate
They compassionate long time
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: HP: "Linux is a tsunami that is over-running the marketplace."
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:17:45 -0500
Just a short blurb re HP, found on The Register
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12536.html) :
"This was really driven by consumer need,'' Jim Bell, HP's general
manager of open source and Linux operations, said. "Linux is a tsunami
that is over-running the marketplace. It has spread like wildfire and we
anticipate this is going to accelerate."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:40:27 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2000 04:54:04 GMT,
>Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Nothing twisted about that at all. When a computer is dedicated to running
>>a single application and when that application is dead and the terminal
>>unusable people will often use language like the "terminal is crashed". To
>>assume that the OS is at fault is an awfully big assumption.
>
>How do you know the terminals were dedicated to running a single
>application?? Was the database the same application running the
>engines?? How do you know the sailors weren't playing freecell. How do
>you know freecell isn't the Navy's reason for choosing NT:-)
>
>>> ... Face it Anthony, neither of us can fully prove it either way ...
>>
>>I'm not asking you to prove it. I'm merely asking where you learned that
>>WinNT itself crashed, and following up your offerings asking if you have
>>anything that is not guesswork based on other people's guesswork.
>
>There is nothing but heresay on either side of this story. The heresay
>that NT is responsible for the problems on the Yortown much more
>credible in my *opinion*. Your opinion may differ.
>
>
>>I'm not
>>trying to prove WinNT did or did not crash.
>
>You have dogmatically insisted on serveral occasions that this
>incedednt was only an application crash i.e. NT did not crash, and
>that if another OS was used the problems would still have
>occured. Whenever I asked you to prove it you snipped it out your
>next reply.
>
>>I don't really care if it did
>>or did not. I'm just looking for clear and accurate information.
>
>Well the Navy doesn't want to give you any.
>
>>The Linux box was unusable and unresponsive, hitting the reset button was
>>required. If someone utters the words "this computer crashed", using the
>>logic you present with respect to WinNT we must also say that Linux has
>>crashed.
>
>If the linux box is running Apache, inetd, Mysql, or any other
>service, it will keep providing those services after the GUI has
>crashed. Of course if you need an application that requires a GUI,
>it's a moot point. But they weren't using Linux on the Yorktown, and
>many UNIX X-servers are far more stable then NT4 anyways.
>
>>> Find a *credible* refernce to WinNT not crashing. Face it Anthony,
>>> neither of us can fully prove it either way.
>>
>>You claimed it did, it's your burden of proof.
>
>I said I can't prove it, but that I am inclined to believe it did.
>You have insisted it didn't, and in doing so that's your burden of
>proof.
Ah, everyone knows it did.
>
>>I just want to know if your
>>opinion is an informed one or one of the typical polticial and/or
>>religious ones.
>
>My opinion is based on my experience working directly with the
>Government, my experience with military spec fualt tolerant embedded
>systems, my experience with both Unix and Windows NT, and my
>assessment of the information avialable to me about this incident. I
>am perfectly entitled to my opinion. Even some hard core windows
>advocates have said on this NG that NT is a bad choice for the
>Yorktown.
>
>>Also, you are asking me to prove a negative, I remember
>>something from a math class about ...
>
>You mean the math class you struggled with?? Their is nothing unsound
>about proving a negative in mathemetics, and in fact it is very common
>in mathematics. For example, how would prove that the square root of 2
>is irrational?
>
>>You have offered no evidence of such political maneuvers covering up for a
>>WinNT crash being responsible for the incident.
>
>Why did it take several months for the revised stories to come
>out? They would have known right away if NT didn't crash.
>
>>You seem to conveniently
>>trust articles from a period when less was known, and agree with you, and
>>to conveniently manufacture political intrigue for articles written when
>>more was known, and disagree with you.
>
>Why did it take several months for more to be known. They would have
>known right away if NT didn't crash.
>
>>
>>>>> "Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there
>>>>> have been numerous software failures associated with NT
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> aboard the Yorktown."
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> This quote still stands.
>>
>>Stands as out of context,
>
>Out of context to the specific incedent possibly. But not out of
>context at all to the use of NT on the Yorktown of to the subject of
>this thread.
>
>>ambiguous, and unclear as to whether it refers
>>to WinNT itself or a system built on a WinNT-based platform as opposed to
>>a Unix-based platform.
>
>Seems clear to me he's refering to NT itself.
>
>>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process", Redman said. Unix is a
>>>>> better system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas
>>>>> NT is a better system for the transfer of information and data.
>>>>> NT has never been fully refined and there are times when we
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> have had shutdowns that resulted from NT.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> This quote still stands.
>>
>>Stands as out of context,
>
>Out of context to the specific incedent possibly. But not out of
>context at all to the use of NT on the Yorktown of to the subject of
>this thread.
>
>>ambiguous, and unclear
>
>Sure...anything you don't like to hear is ambiguous. It seems quite
>clear to me.
>
>>
>>He also does not say WinNT crashed and contributed to the incident.
>
>But he is clearly saying that NT has resulted in failures and
>shutdowns on the Yorktown. And no one has refuted his claim.
>
>>As I
>>said the statements are unclear in context reading the article as a whole.
>
>Anything *you* don't *want* to hear is unclear. That's your approach
>to debate.
>
>>>> If we used Unix, we would have a system that has less of a
>>>> tendency to go down.
>>>>
>>>>So either we have Unix crashing also or these people are speaking of an
>>>>entire system not one specific component of the system which is the OS.
>>>
>>> It would be unreasonable for him to claim that Unix never crashes. But
>>> it is certainly reasonable to claim that Unix is much more reliable
>>> than NT. Your struggling.
>>
>>Bad guess, previously you offered evidence of WinNT being able to crash in
>>a completely unrelated incident as evidence against it in this particular
>>incident.
>
>Are you suggesting the NT4 is as reliable as UNIX?? I am not even going
>to begin to discuss that. You can believe what you want.
>
>>>>> "Because of politics, some things are being forced on
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> us that without political pressure we might not do,
>>>>> like Windows NT," Redman said.
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of politics, Anthony, that's why the chief engineer and the
>>>>> software developer are lying. Exactly what time of the day yesterday
>>>>> were you born??
>>>>
>>>>Politics forced a shift from Unix to WinNT, OK, but that's a different
>>>>issue. You have offered no evidence that they are lying.
>>>
>>> Politics is the issue. It explains why the story has *changed*. If
>>> their were no politics, stories like this one wouldn't change. Nor
>>> would the real facts (specifically how a database failure cascades to
>>> an engine failure) be left out.
>>
>>Again, you are assuming that the story has changed, and that it is not
>>simply that initial speculation was off.
>
>Uh..hum...it took them four months to respeculate.
>
>>Another politically self-serving guess on your part? :-)
>
>Uh..hum...all of your guesses aren't politically self serving?? You
>transcend all that, of course.
>
>>I'm speaking of those who interpret their statements as to saying WinNT
>>crashed and contributed to the incident. However since you seem to be able
>>to manufacture intrigue on the pro-NT side and incapable of imagining
>>intrigue on the other side I'll play Devil's Advocate and manufacture
>>intrigue on the pro-Unix side. These guys know Unix and would rather stay
>>with Unix, regardless of whether WinNT can or can not do the job equally
>>well. They are covering their careers, a shift to WinNT weakens their
>>employability. Again, I AM NOT saying this is occurring. I am only
>>demonstrating that politics and intrigue could be manufactured on either
>>side. I think the political motives you have offered in all seriousness
>>and those I have offered only as a hypothetical example are both equally
>>uninformed.
>
>Sure, I considered that, but it took four months before we heard
>another side of the story.
>
>>>>> http://jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/Yorktown.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "out of service for half an hour or so while the
>>>>> NT system was restarted"
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>System, not OS, see earlier arguments.
>>>
>>> So then why not say "Pentium Pro system was restarted", or "Database
>>> system was restarted", or just "system was restarted". Why do they
>>> always include NT??
>>
>>Why not? I often refer to my NT-box doing this job, my Linux-box doing
>>that job, my Mac doing some other job.
>
>And when the job crashes you say your box crashed??
>
>>>>> "an NT system blew up"
>>>>
>>>>System, not OS, see earlier arguments, and again you greatly distort
>>>>things. This is a reader's general characterization of the incident.
>>>>This same reader starts his email with:
>>>
>>> Again, why not "Pentium Pro system blew up", or "Database
>>> system blew up", or just "system blew up". Why do they
>>> keep saying NT??
>>
>>Not "they", "he".
>
>I can see you struggled with math, but don't you even know how to
>count? There are two accounts above of people saying "NT". There were
>others that have been snipped out. That's "they", not "he". And "they"
>also includes all of the Newspaper reports and television news reports
>as well as the Internet press. They all singled out NT as the culprit.
>
>>The big money and politics against Microsoft would probably have uncovered
>>an actual coverup regarding WinNT itself.
>
>Nonsense. The U.S. government is extermely large and
>decentralized. There are plenty of government officials kissing Bill's
>ass and getting away with it.
>
>>> Face it Anthony, neither of us can fully prove it either way. But one
>>> thing we do know is that NT crashes, ...
>>
>>As does Unix,
>
>Sure...and how often does UNIX crash compared to NT4???
>
>>>>The press is interested getting readers not providing accurate
>>>>information.
>>>
>>> And GCN is interested in protecting their readership: Government
>>> officials.
>>
>>Then it doesn't make sense to protect WinNT. Government officials seem to
>>be against Microsoft. Politics is not as one sided as you suggest. :-)
>
>You don't seem to know very much about the U.S. government. Are you
>even from the U.S.?? The U.S. government is extermely large and
>decentralized. There are plenty of government officials that are
>pro-microsoft. And the Navy certainly provides GCN alot more
>readership than the DOJ.
>
>>OK, but there was no suggestion that manual controls or commanding was
>>missing at all. The missing backup systems referred to were electronic in
>>nature, and reported to be missing only because it was a test platform.
>
>Reported where??
>
>>> And so the crew doesn't need to know at all how to use the manual
>>> controls (or manual commanding)?? On any automated system with a
>>> manual back up, one of the biggest concerns is that operators will not
>>> know how to take advantage of the manual backup. What happens if enemy
>>> fire takes out the machines that this "smart ship" database
>>> on. Training the crew to recognize failures of the automated systems
>>> and how to manually intervene to me would seem critical.
>>
>>I think your imagination is overworked again.
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
>
>>I think
>
>See above...you imagine.
>
>>the room was emptied
>>as part of a fully automated test, not any sort of standard procedure or
>>practice.
>
>And this is cheaper than towing the Yorktown to port?? And where's the
>report that says the room was emptied.
>
>Perry
>
>
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:47:14 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Magnussen wrote:
>"David M. Cook" wrote:
>
>> Could you explain why would this put you out of business? Since you seem to
>> be a hardware company, why would releasing software that only works on your
>> device put you out of business? That your code must be proprietary seems to
>> be begging the question.
>
>Well - because a lot of research and development has been put into the software.
>Software that could - if it was open sourced be readily used by our competitors
>who would gain an advantage from not having to do the developing themself.
>Although we deliver a hardware product it is often partly based on a series of
>standard components and could be copied. A lot of the domain knowledge is tied
>to the software.
>
>Anyway such a drastic step as to open source the total package of software is
>sure to scare of the management and if this was the only option, using Linux
>would be unthinkable.
>
Don't really see why you can't separate your device drivers as modules
and keep your applications closed if you're so convinced that opening
them would put you out of business. This has been going on for a long
time and is quite legit within the licensing terms afaik.
Odd question to put to an advocacy group, this - why not put it to the
developer groups where they probably know about this more, or were you
trying to make a different point altogether?
Good luck with your linux based devices - they'll be more reliable
than winCe based ones.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 11 Aug 2000 18:08:50 GMT
On 11 Aug 2000 17:57:33 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
Could you people please take this to an appropriate newsgroup?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:11:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n0sup$8dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Life would be easier if the number of virtual threads was constant.
> An earlier version of the system that only supported a very small
> subset of the current functionality was lean and mean, and could
> operate with very little overhead indeed. The code's much more
> general now; it can tackle much harder problems, but it is also much
> harder to maintain. So much so that the development version isn't in
> C any more but Java (OO, GC, bounds checking, and javadoc were the key
> features. We've not really got the staff time for me to spend ages
> tracking down strange memory corruption problems, and the relative
> difference in code speed isn't too serious for our purposes...)
>
If the Java solution works for you and you are the user of the software then
so be it. But I for one would not inflict the performance hit of such a
system on other end users. Nothing that you describe goes against an even
more efficient C or C++ implementation of your software. If you need OO
coding, then C++ or Objective C can provide that. bounds checking, and the
rest can also be provided on a structure/class by structure/class basis.
That way It won't affect the performance where it is not needed.
Imagine the performance hit on a multiuser host that has the bulk of its
software written in a language like C# or Java.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Honest question about NT vs. Unix as Internet platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:43:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Under NT it is not that easy. In all truthfulness, with the exception of
> catastrophic failure i.e. when the server machine no longer responds to
> IP packets, you never need to see it.
Depending on the installation, not even then. If you have multiple host in
proximity to each other that have spare serial ports, connect them to each
other with null modems. If server A is not responding to IP packets, telnet
to server B and run a terminal emulator on it to log into server A through
the null modem and effect repairs that way. I have also used spare parallel
ports this way for plip link for a slow but effective backup IP links. Only
if thing were to get bad enough those alternate access methods unworkable,
hardware faults, or hardware upgrades are about the only reasons tech
reasons to have to go to the location of the box.
> It need not have a floppy, CDROM,
> keyboard, monitor, or mouse. UNIX is made to work like this. NT is not.
I save malfunctioning video cards that are working just enough to make the
BIOS POST happy for use on these headless systems.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:47:31 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, what you said about the BSDs is true. They are cleaner
> > implementations of Unix, because they are *real* Unix derivatives, not
> > re-writes from the ground up.
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
> >
>
> I would have thought re-writes should be cleaner than the Unix
> implementation. Any guesses why it is not so?
I'm thinking it's the idea of modifying and *cleaning* that goes on on
the *original* code in the BSDs.
With Linux you got something that was clean when it started, but it is
just barely close to the *cleaning* stage in and of itself. It has
grown, and grown and is kind of at the adolescent stage of itself where
people start asking, "Is the spagetti to gross to continue?" It's not
terrible, but it is getting to the point where some of the things need
to be looked at a little closer and cleaned up. The BSDs (for the most
part) have gone through countless clean-up stages already, and are still
in their 'clean-up' stages for the most part.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:50:29 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
> The GUI isn't "integrated" into the kernel. It just runs in ring 0 with the
> kernel. *Big* difference.
>
> It was done for performance reasons - much like the kernel mode NFS and http
> daemons for Linux. In a workstation, it's a valid tradeoff, since graphics
> speed is important. In a server it's not necessary, but as long as you just
> stick with the standard VGA driver (which you should always do) the chances
> of it causing problems hover slightly above zero.
I wish more *certified* MS people knew that you shouldn't load up that
fancy shmancy AGP 4x 32MB monster vid card and driver in their servers.
That's one of the things that seems to be the real downfall of NT on
systems. There are always far more drivers than what are *needed* on
the system for it to perform its real job. How many servers have you
seen where there was a driver loaded for a sound card, a modem (when
it's not needed at all), a fancy graphics card, and any other useless
junk on the server?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:00:06 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If some people want a freeware Windows clone, why don't they develop their
> own system, a REAL Windows clone and not try to force their view on to the
> Linux community and hijack a perfectly good unix OS from those who
> appriciate it the way it is. We already have free unix OS's, there is a
> FreeDos. Why not a FreeWindows?
>
There is a FreeWindows project underway, although I think it has
stagnated (the last I heard). It kind of ran into a brick wall at some
particular spot and last I heard was kind of slowly dwindling (as
developers gave up on the idea).
BTW, I think a lot of the developers that had been working on that
project are now attemptin to help out WINE and put it on top of a BSD
base to create a 'commercial' Windows clone. It sounded interesting if
that is really what someone wants. (Hint, it's a Windows clone for the
purpose of having a Windows clone. Not a Windows clone that is
attempting to steal another operating system.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
