Linux-Advocacy Digest #357, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Otto")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Otto")
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Mike Marion)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Otto")
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Bob B.)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: The notion that Linux is becoming a "Windows clone"... (Mike Marion)
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: HP: "Linux is a tsunami that is over-running the marketplace." (R.E.Ballard (
Rex Ballard ))
Windows stability: Alternate shells? (tom)
Re: Maximum file size question- follow up (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Christopher Browne)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:19:35 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:37:31 +0100, Robert Moir wrote:
:
: >> It is competitive. MS isn't. They squash everyone they can...
: >
: >Isn't that competition? The idea is to *beat* your opponent after all,
: >doesn't matter if its to the sale, the launch date, the football...
:
: Sure, you have to beat them. But there are rules that you have to play
: by. If you break them, the umpire will blow the
: whistle on you. Guess what ? The whistle has been blown on Microsoft.
To stay with football, the empire is watching the replay since the ruling
has been challenged. Furthermore, no team ever won anything by relying on
the empire. Good offense and defense on the other hand can win, even if the
whistle is blown frequently.
Interpret the above the way you like....
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:25:04 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Robert Moir wrote:
: >
: > > Just look at the commercials with poor lil' ol' Bill.. looking like a
: > > common man talking about how they've worked so hard to do the best
they
: > > could.. and the big bad DOJ is coming after them for no reason.
Yeah..
: > > right.
: >
: > Well ok there is a reason. The reason is that too much of the rest of
the
: > computer business is too incompetent to compete with any company that
: > organises itself decently, and these incompetents go running home to
mommy
: > crying "foul" when they get beat.
: >
: > > > If you want lin-crap to win it should be competitive. It's that
simple.
: > >
: > > It is competitive. MS isn't. They squash everyone they can...
: >
: > Isn't that competition? The idea is to *beat* your opponent after all,
: > doesn't matter if its to the sale, the launch date, the football...
:
: Forcing contracts onto the stadium owners preventing the other teams
: from even being allowed into the arena is not "beating" your opponent...
: it's running from competition, and then merely POSTURING as a winner.
That's a question of opinion. Is it "running from competition", or running
away from competition? Forcing other teams in to an arena, where they don't
belong isn't what the fans want to see either.
Otto
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:26:20 GMT
Robert Moir wrote:
> Whatever. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Have
> fun now. See you around the Campus.
Yes everyone is entitled to an opinion.. however, viewing past facts
through rosy glasses isn't exactly an opinion. The facts are that MS
has repeatedly stolen ideas from companies (enter into an NDA.. get all
info on product, then break off agreement and suddenly come out with own
"competing" product. Stac nailed them on that one, other companies
likely could've but didn't have endless supplies of money for court
costs like MS), made extremely shady contract deals, etc.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The software empire that was built on a C:\ prompt, Microsoft has done
for software what McDonald's did for the hamburger."
-- PC Magazine, June 1997
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:29:17 GMT
"Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kb7k5.5856$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Propaganda is an important factor.
: But you got what you wanted, right: DOJ, judge Jackson, etc. What's more?
: If you want lin-crap to win it should be competitive. It's that simple.
So, why continue
: spitting propaganda?
You are contradicting yourself, Boris. Your first sentence was correct,
therefore you shouldn't question the existence of the web site; however
derogatory it is to Microsoft. Consider the origin and don't go there,
that's all.
Otto
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:32:03 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So far W2K hasn't proven itself. That's not MS bashing - it's really pro
>MS to
>> be honest about W2K! If you really knew about W2K you'd argue about it's
>> benefits and tone down the nonsense.
>
>I'm relating my experiences, Window 2000 Advanced Server is extremely
>reliable, as a matter of fact I've not had a single OS related problem.
You haven't any credibility.
>What's nonsense about that, I have yet to see any proof to the contrary by
>anyone. What is nonsense is the constant reliability bashing with without a
>shred of supporting documentation.
You don't understand the word PROVEN.
A PROVEN technology is one that has proven itself. W2K is NOT proven reliable
by default -- unless one is irrational.
[..]
>> I'm sure Hotmail will be running a version of W2K now that MS is finishing
>> Window2000 Data Center and will NEED to test W2K DC on HotMail. That's
>good
>> since the OS needs to be tested before customers will deploy the OS. MS
>> isn't going to use the toy verion of W2K you said is stable but I suppose
>these
>> differences don't register with you.
>
>Depending on your definition of tested.
Tested as in Windows2000 Data Center is just released to manufacturing --
it is untested in real settings.
>The software has had years of
>testing under thousands of environments, the final product was compiled in
>December 1999.
Windows2000 Data Center was NOT finished Dec 1999. You're mixing up a desktop
client with a server OS.
>If your definition of tested is testing in the marketplace,
>no it's barely been tested, but it has performed as promised. Can you show
>otherwise?
Did you ever prove the OS has performed as promised? Please understand where
the burden of proof lies. No customer is going to depend on W2K because it has
NOT been proven unreliable. You have it all ass-backwards.
You don't even understand the various flavors of W2K let alone recognize MS
ADMITS W2K Data Center has to be MORE reliable than the lower end W2K they
released Feb 2000. By building W2K Data Center MS openly admits W2K isn't As
stable and reliable as you have said. Now MS wisely recognizes (you don;t)
they need to prove W@K DC is reliable and they wisely know it will take time
and effort - hence Hotmail their test case.
It will take a few years as it has for ALL new OSs and then we'll see -- the
biggest harm to MS will come from exaggerations that will RUIN the Windowss2000
Brand by Over promising and lying about the product.
You guys RUINED the NT Brand by over promising and giving it a bad reputation
as it was evaluated by standards to which it could not achieve. NT was a good
PC OS but boy was it over sold and MS had to dump the NT Brand to be taken
seriously --
DO MS a favor - shut up.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 19:48:07 -0400
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Said JS/PL in
>comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > wrote:
>> >> [...quoting from the Finding of Fact...]
>> >
>> >These are hearsay claims which won't stand up to appeal. But since we're
>> >pasting documents to Usenet here's my contribution, it's showing Microsoft's
>> >court position and indicates the many reasons the whole case will be thrown
>> >out.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand. These aren't "hearsay claims". They are
>> the _findings_ of _fact_ in the case.
>That is why it is called "findings of fact".. as opposed to simply "facts" or
>"facts about reality". In reality, it is only the opinion of the judge as to
>what is, and what is not actual reality.
Are you bright enough to understand that findings of fact are developed from
the evidence presented by both sides -- or do you prefer to play pretend and
wish the judge made it all up -- because you and the other trolls here have a
psycho attachment to billy boy?
>Our current judicial system is not charged with determining reality first and
>foremost. And unfortunately, truth is not the ultimate appeal.
Do you really think that the DOJ and 19 states made it all up -- That M$ has
done nothing wrong? That the EUC and Japan made it all up? ... And you talk
about reality!
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
From: Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:38:31 -0700
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>>> So far W2K hasn't proven itself. That's not MS bashing -
it's really pro
>>MS to
>>> be honest about W2K! If you really knew about W2K you'd
argue about it's
>>> benefits and tone down the nonsense.
<snip>
>You don't understand the word PROVEN.
>
>A PROVEN technology is one that has proven itself. W2K is NOT
proven reliable
>by default -- unless one is irrational.
One might argue its irrational to define a word by using that
same word - a proven technology is one that has proven itself ??
>You guys RUINED the NT Brand by over promising and giving it a
bad reputation
>as it was evaluated by standards to which it could not
achieve. NT was a good
>PC OS but boy was it over sold and MS had to dump the NT Brand
to be taken
>seriously --
Yes, NT was a failure in the marketplace and they had to change
the name. Just like Apple OS 9 is a failure and they had to
introduce OS X.
Since you don't define how one "proves" a technology, you can
forever keep repeating that W2K is unproven. Yet hundreds of
companies, like Dell, Merrill Lynch, Sprint, etc. are using it.
Obviously it was in beta for a long time, installed at customer
sites, for this very reason - to let customers "prove" to their
satisfaction that it was something they wanted to deploy.
The same thing is happening with W2K DataCenter. Its not used
for the first time by someone outside of Microsoft when its
released to the pubic.
So who should we trust to judge the quality of W2K - the IT
department at Merrill Lynch, or some rude, name calling guy
posting on the internet ?
>
>DO MS a favor - shut up.
Apple might ask the same of you.
Bob B.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 17:35:00 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Shocktrooper wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > wrote:
>> >> [...quoting from the Finding of Fact...]
>> >
>> >These are hearsay claims which won't stand up to appeal. But since we're
>> >pasting documents to Usenet here's my contribution, it's showing Microsoft's
>> >court position and indicates the many reasons the whole case will be thrown
>> >out.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand. These aren't "hearsay claims". They are
>> the _findings_ of _fact_ in the case.
>
>That is why it is called "findings of fact".. as opposed to simply "facts" or "facts
>about reality". In reality, it is only the
>opinion of the judge as to what is, and what is not actual reality.
A finding of fact is reality - it is as real as it gets. No system is
perfect. Perfection and reality are different. Courts are imperfect -
imperfection is a cornerstone of the real world. Ironic is it not?
Why would a court bother to preface any finding of fact with the word "reality"
-- courts by definition work in reality.
Sometimes it is easy to forget that Judges and Courts
were established to find the truth. Courts are established to reconcile
disagreements and find facts. We put our faith in the law and the courts.
Dismissing that process as just another opinion is dillusional.
>Our current judicial system is not charged with determining reality first and
>foremost. And unfortunately, truth is not the ultimate
>appeal.
The judicial system is charged with determining reality which is why they have
such a formal process for fact finding and finding of law. You could NOT
further from the truth.
There can be many realities as there are people but we have agreed to
live by the rule of law -- hence the courts establish the reality that governs
us and we all live by that reality.
And anyone calling the finding of fact hearsay is making a silly
contradiction in logic.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The notion that Linux is becoming a "Windows clone"...
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 00:57:23 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Well, let's be fair here. MacOS and Windows have spent
> the better part of the last 8 years making the standards
> for interfaces that people are familiar with. After all,
> it's difficult to deviate from that which is regarded as
> "tried and true".
I think the main problem with that is the assumption that there is one
"right way" for everyone. There just isn't.. people are different and
they like to work (and hence work more efficiently) in different ways.
> I don't know about you, but I for one find the shattering of
> long time paradigms to be a most difficult task. :-)
True, but the end result is often more rewarding.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Jo-anna: "Bing? That's a great name."
Chandler: "Thanks, it's Gaelic for 'Thy turkey's done.'"
--Friends
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 12 Aug 2000 01:05:19 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:29:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Look at who VHS took over the video market.
Proof by example ? Now you're really hand waving.
>The 'Snowball' and 'network' effects are already VERY well documented
Yes, they are. I didn't say that network effects are irrelevant, I am
arguing that they might not necessarily take precedence over everything
else. Moreover, "network effects" are complex beasts. They are not
entirely determined by the availability of qualified experts in the
product's use.
Also, your discussion completely ignores the possibility of market saturation
as well as the fact that non-UNIX sysadmins would likely retrain to enter the
new (UNIX) market.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 12 Aug 2000 01:05:19 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:29:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Look at who VHS took over the video market.
Proof by example ? Now you're really hand waving.
>The 'Snowball' and 'network' effects are already VERY well documented
Yes, they are. I didn't say that network effects are irrelevant, I am
arguing that they might not necessarily take precedence over everything
else. Moreover, "network effects" are complex beasts. They are not
entirely determined by the availability of qualified experts in the
product's use.
Also, your discussion completely ignores the possibility of market saturation
as well as the fact that non-UNIX sysadmins would likely retrain to enter the
new (UNIX) market.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HP: "Linux is a tsunami that is over-running the marketplace."
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:23:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a short blurb re HP, found on The Register
> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12536.html) :
Expect LOTS of announncements and activities this week and next.
The Linux Expo in San Jose kicks off, and this is often where
fresh information such as current market data (which IBM, HP, Dell,
Compaq, and Sun have been studying for months) comes out.
> "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."
Currently the growth rate still averages around 200-240% per annum.
Essentially the Linux population triples every 10-12 months. Actual
shipments are approaching 20 million "official" licenses per year,
with a "replication rate" of about 3 installations per license shipped
(which are reflected in the following year's sales).
At this time, this would put Linux at about 5% of the desktop
market, with the possibility of growing to 15% of the desktop
market by the end of 2001. It's likely that additional competition
from other UNIX providers would kick in if market share hit 30%
or more by the end of 2002. If Linux were to triple in 2002,
they would have about 40% of the user base. By that time, growth
would slow due to competition from UNIX and the equivalent of Windows
2000 professional available for $30 and Office 2002 available for
$150, while Linux would be $60 and Applix would be $200. At that
point the market would reach equilibrium.
Microsoft will also find OEMs less willing to sign exclusive
agreements, and OEMs will be offering a choice, or both. It
isn't too difficult to imagine people all around the world owning
personal computing devices, many of which ran Linux, and many of
which ran both Linux AND Windows. Microsoft would rather continue
to have it's systems installed on "dual-boot" machines and retain
raw market share and unit volumes than force OEMs into an either-or
scenario that results in Microsoft losing both market share and unit
volumes as well as revenue.
Most of the larger OEMs have made contributions to Linux officially
now. IBM has contributed a Lotus Notes quality replacement for
sendmail (security, auditability, encryption, nonrepudiation, and
secure attachments). They have also included a journaling
file-system for use in HA systems. HP has contributed clustering,
and Sun has been more aggressively supporting Java and source code
compatibility with Solaris (support for EGC and GLIBC).
With everybody putting in their own ingrediants for this "stone soup",
everybody benifits (especially the consumer), and the OEMs avoid the
spectre of another monopoly attempting to control the entire market.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:27:49 GMT
One of the reasons you folks seem to prefer Linux is its "stability",
as opposed to Windows apparent lack thereof, whatever this may mean
specifically.
I've seen a number of websites where people claim that various
alternative shells (e.g. LiteStep & GeoShell) are more stable than
Windows' Explorer. No doubt there's more to the issue of stability
than the shell which, as I understand it, is simply a way to issue
commands and run programs. How much can Windows be improved along
these lines -- anyone have any experiences?
And on a slightly different topic, if I go to Best Buy this weekend to
pick up a version of Linux to try, any suggestions as to which one for
a Linux newbie? I'll never give up my Free Agent, but I'm kind of
nostalgic for the Stone Age when I had my first internet account, a
Unix shell on Primenet running tin, pine, and pico; thought I might try
to get something like that going on my computer. (Actually my first
internet experience involved AO-hell, but let's not get into that. :)
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question- follow up
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:43:47 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:23:11 -0400, Jeff Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>> Users (or groups) are only allowed to have so much disk space, no matter
>> how much the computer has.
>
>And where is this set?
As a user, you can check your quota with the "quota" command. Root can
use "edquota" to set quotas. Not all distributions install these tools
by default.
If quotas are enabled, /etc/fstab will list the quota data files for
each partition that has them.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:58:32 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nathaniel Jay Lee would say:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> There was an interesting email on the kernel mailing list the other
>> day concerning an extra filesystem "accidentally" slipping in during
>> the 2.4 freeze that could lead one to believe that there's a fair
>> bit of politicking... (The language was _quite_ profane, and one
>> of the more dramatic harangues that I've ever read...)
>
>Then do you understand my concern? I know at times I come across like a
>radical on this subject, but I'm really saying, "Don't let this happen
>in the base system!" I personally don't give a rat's ass about Corel,
>but if they somehow give enough other distributions, which somehow give
>the base developers, the idea that they are 'kewl' and picking up steam
>because of their 3l33tn35s, then I would assume a feature that would
>overall be detrimental to the group effort could just 'slip in' and
>eventually become *important*.
Yes, I understand the concern.
>Not to sound alarmist, but we should at least pay attention to the
>*possibility* that it could be a problem. Always keep your eyes open
>for what *may* happen. Cause if you ain't watchin', they'll 'slip'
>something thru on you.
In my "heart of hearts," I _think_ that the situation in question
probably _was_ an accident. It just so happens that it is easy to
come up with Evil Conspiracy Theories that would implicate that it was
_not_ an accident.
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@" "freenet.carleton.ca")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Including a destination in the CC list that will cause the recipients'
mailer to blow out is a good way to stifle dissent.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 01:58:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nathaniel Jay Lee would say:
>Jacques Guy wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those free
>> > computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag was in favour
>> > of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all the Linux software
>> > "run like Windows software".
>>
>> That is advocating reverting to "spaghetti code". I had never
>> realized
>> until now that MS-Windows was like that. I thought -- it seemed the
>> only sensible way of going about it -- that the graphics interface was
>> functionally separate from the underlying operating system, i.e. I
>> thought
>> it was on built on DOS, and the rest, the GUI, was "tinsel on the
>> Christmas
>> tree", to borrow a German expression. I still find it difficult to
>> believe that the Windows GUI is not completely independent. It does
>> not
>> make sense. No wonder the thing is full of bugs, then. No, it really
>> does
>> not make sense. It is like going back to global variables only, GOSUBs
>> and
>> GOTOs -- and I don't think I am overstating the analogy at all.
>
>
>There was a time when NT was criticized heavily for 'integrating' the
>GUI into the kernel itself because of the possibility that it would
>de-stabilize the system. Unfortunately, the same people that criticized
>it then are now clamouring for Linux to do the same thing because of
>'how well it works on Windows'. Frankly, if that's their idea of
>something working *well*, I'd just as soon they used what they consider
>to work well and leave Linux alone.
Are the names of the people doing that clamouring truly the same names
as those that did the NT criticizing?
If you can't name five people _by name_ that have thus changed their
position, I have to conclude that you're projecting an opinion about
the "yahoos" as opposed to stating a useful fact.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
<http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
"KDE isn't a window manager. It *includes* one, but kwm is only one
of *many* components of KDE. And kwm is an *optional* component.
GNOME is the same, except that it doesn't include a wm..."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
