Linux-Advocacy Digest #244, Volume #29 Thu, 21 Sep 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (dc)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (robert w hall)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("J")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:41:57 -0500
J wrote:
> MMMM... YES I CAN SEE HOW USEFULL THIS SOFTWARE IS TO THIS GROUP AND OTHER
> SPACE SHUTTLE OWNERS. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? i WOULDN'T GO INTO SPACE WITHOUT
> MEMORY PROTECTION WOULD YOU?
I still run *my* space shuttle off my Apple ][, and I've never had any
problems with it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:48:14 -0500
Timberwoof wrote:
> Do they
> have that stupid paper clip popping up during landing to ask whether
> Internet Explorer should be the default browser?
And very importantly, which way does it show the Earth rotating?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:46:20 -0500
Timberwoof wrote:
> And unlike Linux, Windows operating system software actually has
> responsible, professional quality assurance behind it.
Yeah, if it breaks down during the approach to the runway, you just call
tech support and wait on hold for a few hours.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:43:42 -0500
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:46:42 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>dc wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:37:03 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has appeared in
>> >> several Apple Computer television commercials? The one that's on the
>> >> Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays big bucks in hollywood to
>> >> get it's computers in "cool" movies like Independence Day?
>> >
>> >I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
>>
>> You're seriously stating you don't think they've ever paid for product
>> placement? C'mon!
>
>They probably donated some Macs, but I doubt they make it a practice to
>pay "big bucks" for placement.
>
>They probably don't have to.
That strikes me as incredibly naive.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:05:34 GMT
Peter Ammon wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Peter Ammon wrote:
> >
> > > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Facts don't really change anything for brainwashed Mac people. You
> > > > > had to go to APPLE's web site and find the information for them...
> > > > > and they will still go back to OSTRICH MODE. Damn capslock key (must
> > > > > be my cheap beige keyboard).
> > > > >
> > > > > --Samurai
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Peter Ammon wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has
> > > > > > > > appeared in several Apple Computer television commercials? The
> > > > > > > > one that's on the Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays
> > > > > > > > big bucks in hollywood to get it's computers in "cool" movies
> > > > > > > > like Independence Day?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure! Here you go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.info.apple.com/pr/press.releases/1996/q3/960628.pr.rel.fo
> > > > > > x.ht ml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Heh.
> > > >
> > > > But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts work.
> > > > What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement? You know,
> > > > if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be throwing a hissy
> > > > fit that Apple isn't following up this most obvious marketing technique.
> > >
> > > I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
> > > and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
> > > the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
> >
> > How does it "look as so"? I don't see any evidence of anything other than
> > good old paid product placement.
>
> Did you not read the link?
> "The brand is part of the popular culture...and production companies
> seek it out."
> "It has to be a Mac, and we can’t use anything else."
>
> etc.
So they got a quote. I'm sure it was bought and paid for.
>
> > How does it benefit the motion picture and
> > television industries to display Macintosh computers?
>
> Did you not read the link?
>
> "The Apple brand makes a statement about the character in the movie."
Heh. The link that quote comes from is
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/starringapple.html. You're getting Apple
propaganda confused with reality. Where has any director or movie exec said
anything like that without being paid to?
> Face it. Apple isn't just a computer company: it's a cultural icon.
> (So is Microsoft....but they probably wish they weren't.)
Culture is for those that choose to appreciate it as it is manufactured for them.
Reality is for the rest of us.
> > It's easy to see how it
> > benefits Apple. Considering the size of the motion picture and television
> > industry compared to the size of Apple, I think simple economics dictate that
> > Apple is purchasing services from the these industries in the form of product
> > placement.
>
> Consider Forrest Gump. Apple's role, while very small, is obviously
> more than just a computer. Replace Apple with Compaq, and that scene
> just doesn't make sense.
Polly want a cracker? http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/starringapple.html
> Now consider: who do you think came up with that idea for the script? I
> doubt very much that Apple approached the producers with suggestions
> about the script. And, by extension, the producers had to come to Apple
> to ask permission...not the other way around.
I can tell you that Winston Groom's book had no mention of Apple computer. I read
it. The Apple reference was added in the screenplay.
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:10:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timberwoof wrote:
>
> > And unlike Linux, Windows operating system software actually has
> > responsible, professional quality assurance behind it.
>
> Yeah, if it breaks down during the approach to the runway, you just call
> tech support and wait on hold for a few hours.
If either of them break down during landing (or when you want to set one
up) you're dead. So you don't use either one.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:13:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> J wrote:
>
> > MMMM... YES I CAN SEE HOW USEFULL THIS SOFTWARE IS TO THIS GROUP
> > AND OTHER SPACE SHUTTLE OWNERS. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? i WOULDN'T GO
> > INTO SPACE WITHOUT MEMORY PROTECTION WOULD YOU?
>
> I still run *my* space shuttle off my Apple ][, and I've never had
> any problems with it.
I would not go into space with an OS that required memory protection.
J, I bet you'd like an OS on your shuttle that multitasks preemptively.
I bet you'd like one that responds to i/o requests with interrupts ...
that is, until you realize that interrupts cannot be adequately proven
or even tested. Embedded computing systems for aerospace applications
use polling i/o handlers, and they use cooperative multitasking. The
alternatives may be better in a desktop environment, but where your life
depends on it, you use the system that you can mathematically *prove* is
correct even though it's slower.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:17:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I take issue with the implication that Apple has to seek out producers
> and ask them to add their machines. On the contrary, it looks as though
> the producers are falling over themselves to get Macs into their films.
Apple has a department that deals with such requests. They even have
rules about what a MAc can and cannot do. For instance, they will not
lend a Mac to a program or movie where it explodes or catches fire.
I thought it was funny how in some TV shows they turn on what are
obviously PCs and they make the Boop! noise that a Mac Plus makes...
Remember Jurassic Park? The "Unix" system was running on Macs, and the
"video" was QuickTime movies. You could even see the little sliders
moving across the player.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 04:21:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "samurai"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But for the rest of us Mac people who aren't brainwashed, facts
> > work. What's the big deal about Apple paying for product placement?
> > You know, if Apple *didn't* do that, someone somewhere would be
> > throwing a hissy fit that Apple isn't following up this most
> > obvious marketing technique.
> >
>
> I agree. It's just good marketing. I just wanted to point out the
> reality of business to the more naive posters. I wouldn't be
> surprised if MS really starts pumping dollars into a similar campaign
> - if they aren't already.
I can already hear the boos and cackles form the audience.
When a Mac appears in a movie or TV show, people recognize it. (VIP,
News Radio, that funny judge...) And it can do that just by being seen.
But when an ordinary PC appears, it's just a PC. How could Micorsoft
point out it's running Microsoft software without appearing amazingly
heavyhanded?
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:07:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Face it. Apple isn't just a computer company: it's a cultural
> > icon. (So is Microsoft....but they probably wish they weren't.)
>
> Culture is for those that choose to appreciate it as it is
> manufactured for them. Reality is for the rest of us.
You must be using the word "culture" in some new sense with which I am
not familiar.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: robert w hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:38:03 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthias Warkus
>For most early-era operating systems, there was not much of a
>difference between binary and source code. Writing operating systems
>in high-level languages is a pretty recent development. :)
Er, 1970 - BCPL - I remember it well
Bob
>
>mawa
--
robert w hall
------------------------------
From: "J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:46:44 +1000
Woofer,
I'm about ready to upgrade my shuttle now and I do want preemptive MT
Luckily my space shuttle is pretty much stuck at 200 ft above sea level with
extremly little chance of it suffering from an altitude problem due to
unexpected interupts etc.
I do agree with you on the mem protection thing but if I was going into
space with windows or Macos as wings memory protection would make me feel
alot better.
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > J wrote:
> >
> > > MMMM... YES I CAN SEE HOW USEFULL THIS SOFTWARE IS TO THIS GROUP
> > > AND OTHER SPACE SHUTTLE OWNERS. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? i WOULDN'T GO
> > > INTO SPACE WITHOUT MEMORY PROTECTION WOULD YOU?
> >
> > I still run *my* space shuttle off my Apple ][, and I've never had
> > any problems with it.
>
> I would not go into space with an OS that required memory protection.
>
> J, I bet you'd like an OS on your shuttle that multitasks preemptively.
> I bet you'd like one that responds to i/o requests with interrupts ...
> that is, until you realize that interrupts cannot be adequately proven
> or even tested. Embedded computing systems for aerospace applications
> use polling i/o handlers, and they use cooperative multitasking. The
> alternatives may be better in a desktop environment, but where your life
> depends on it, you use the system that you can mathematically *prove* is
> correct even though it's slower.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
> Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
> "The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:28:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have wasted a whole day putting on Windows ME from scratch on my
> daughter's computer (Celeron-350Mhz, 32M Ram). Her machine under
> Windows 98 just got too bogged down, and slowly but surely, all of her
> games and educational programs were getting too much for Win98 to
> handle. So this morning I completely wiped and reformatted her hard
> disk, then started the Windows ME installation. Two Hours later, it
was
> over. The Windows Install program, of course, told me it would be
30-60
> minutes, but funny how it was 10 minutes to go for installation for
> about 25 minutes while it was installing.
When I upgraded Linux Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1, it took two hours.
> Linux has never taken me over 30 minutes to install on a machine.
Linux Mandrake 7.1 takes a bit over half an hour for me.
> Here where the fun began. Once Windows ME fully started up, it
couldn't
> find a driver for my jukebox-CD unit....in fact it couldn't find the
> drive, and I couldn't get WinME to understand that there is a CD Drive
> there. The insane thing is that the floppy disk used to boot and then
> install WinME from the CD Drive not only recognized my jukebox CD
> drive....it recognized ALL of the CDs in the drive. What type of
morons
> have an install program with a driver much more advanced then the
> system? I sat there wondering why that driver on the floppy wasn't
> integrated at all in the Windows ME System. I spent a lot of time
> opening up the case of the machine and wondering what the h*LL is
wrong
> with this ME garbage, then it hit me. The jukebox CD was on a
separate
> IDE card creating the 3rd IDE port on the machine. Wondering if the
> problem was that WinME couldn't see the 3rd IDE port, I switched the
CD
> to the second IDE port and took out the external IDE card. Finally, I
> had a CD. So, the Install floppy, and Windows 98 could recognize my
> external IDE, but WinME proper can't. What's wrong with this picture.
No 3rd IDE support in Windows ME I guess.
With Linux I found it does not recognise my SB16 card or my AHA1520
card. It does it I enter parameters manually but not automatically as it
claims in the documentation.
> Usually one something works under linux, I have no trouble keeping it
> working from upgrade to upgrade...the worst I have to do is to
recompile
> the 'driver' again under the kernel version I'm using, and it works
just
> fine. Also, If the Linux install can recognize the device, the fully
> installed linux distro can understand it too. And the
kernel-2.4.0-test
> series understand additional IDE ports just fine.
My sound card is still not recognised by Linux. My USB ZIP drive is not
recognised. Need I go on?
> Of course, my 16-bit sound card which worked under Win95 & Win98
didn't
> work under WinME....why aren't I surprised? So I got to buy a new
> Soundblaster Card just so WinME would understand it.
I can get drivers for my sound card for Windows 98/ME. I can't get them
for Linux. Someone did point me at ALSA, but they don't have drivers
either.
> Somehow, I was under the impression WinME was supposed to be an
updated
> Win98...and the box says it maintains compatibility with Win95 and
> Win98. Well, guess what? I found out that anything that installed
its
> driver in the Config.sys section of DOS and expected its driver to be
> there before WinME comes up is now broken. WinME won't allow any DOS
> 'legacy' drivers in the system.
The first thing I spotted about Windows ME was the dropping of DOS
support and that AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS no longer work. I knew this
about six months ago. I'm pretty sure this has been talked about around
this long as well.
What happened, did you miss it?
> Well, 12 hours later, I finally have a system working as good as it
was
> before I wiped off the Win98 system, except now it goes to the disk a
> lot......Well, I have 32M Ram, the Windows recommended, but what's
this
> note that says performance will improve with more memory? Has it ever
> occurred to Microshaft to tell anybody what the optimum amount of
memory
> is for their system? Why must I try to flush that info out from all
of
> the MS Blurbmeisters? So later this week, I'll be buying more memory.
Each Windows OS does seem to need more and more memory. Memory is dirt
cheap, so this is a problem?
> After this little episode, I really appreciate my linux machine which
> never gives me trouble, works with existing hardware where I only
> upgrade when I want to, and, while it make take a while to get all the
> drivers for the devices I need, at least I can rest easier knowing
that
> once the driver is out, it will work for as long as I keep it compiled
> to my system. And, I've never seen a Linux distro regress on
> capabilities from update to update (No, I've never used Corel Linux).
After the marathon two hours upgrading Linux Mandarke 7.0 to 7.1 my
system had loads of problems. I wiped it and started again.
> So, as long as you Windows advocates keep coming into the
> comp.os.linux.advocacy groups telling us how much easier Windows is to
> install, I'm just going to laugh at you because I know you're either a
> moron, ignorant, or just plain lying.
So long as Linux Advocates keep trying to tell me how much Linux is
better than Windows, I shall continue to laugh because I know your
either a moron, ignorant or just plain lying?
> Oh, and to the trolls, this is a first-hand account true story, unlike
> your works of fiction that you keep spewing.
So is mine.
The point here is that I've had fun installing Linux, and you've had fun
installing Windows ME. Does that mean that everyone is going to get the
same problems? Of course not! Some people here who bothered to try to
communicate with me persuaded me my experience with Linux was not
typical, and that I couldn't stretch what I found to everyone else's
experience - precisely what you are doing!
--
---
Pete
Coming soon: Kylix!
(I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
