Linux-Advocacy Digest #247, Volume #29 Thu, 21 Sep 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Jonathan Fosburgh)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jack Troughton)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:14:49 -0300
El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>In comp.unix.admin Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What's prerelease about KDE 1.1.2?
>
>From the KDE-1.1.2 Press Release:
>
>"Practically all Linux and *BSD distributions are
>expected to incorporate KDE 1.1.2 in future releases."
>
>They don't as yet. This means they're incorporating an earlier, less stable
>version, and from my experience of KDE & GNOME (& linux generally) it's
>less stable than NT.
A) That doesn't make KDE 1.1.2 prerelease. KDE 1.1.2 has been released
many many moons ago.
B) Last I checked, all *BSD distributions do, and all Linux distributions do
except Debian, linux-on-floppy versions, and linux-for-embedded systems
versions.
>Nothing personal - just my opinion. This isn't aimed at the KDE developers -
>it's aimed at people like R*d H*t who (as they did with RedHat6.1's KDE) package
>something up, claiming stability and robustness, and it turns out to be
>pre-beta software.
KDE 1.1.2 is not pre-beta, and that's the KDE in RH 6.1, AFAIK.
The RH packaging, I don't know because I don't use RH, but KDE 1.1.2
is quite stable. Some apps crash, but the environment is pretty robust.
>Sure the user can upgrade, but as I said earlier in the thread, the average
>windows user can't work an ftp client.
So far, there is no upgrade from KDE 1.1.2.... except Beta versions of KDE 2.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
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: 21 Sep 2000 13:13:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Ballantyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have my HP 41CV Serial Number 2525S42272 right here in front of me,
>> complete with the HP 41 Advantage Pack module. Bought it circa 1983
>> and use it all the time. The original batteries finally quit LAST YEAR
>> 1999!
>>
>> That has to be a record of some sort?
>>
>
>Lovely calculators, those HP41s. I loved mine dearly, until it wa
>stolen. Too bad they stopped making them some years ago.
>
>Wouldn't NASA be using HP48s or 49s by now?
The aerospace industry is very conservative. Once they have something
that works, they do not like to change it.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
From: Jonathan Fosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Sep 2000 08:32:31 -0500
* jmd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.unix.admin Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What's prerelease about KDE 1.1.2?
> From the KDE-1.1.2 Press Release:
> "Practically all Linux and *BSD distributions are
> expected to incorporate KDE 1.1.2 in future releases."
> They don't as yet. This means they're incorporating an earlier, less stable
> version, and from my experience of KDE & GNOME (& linux generally) it's
> less stable than NT.
Huh? AFAIK, all BSD's (the free ones, at least) offer KDE 1.1.2 in the
package system. Some Linuxen (Debian, I think) had problems due to
licensing (now "fixed"), but other than that, who doesn't offer it?
And, in my experience, 1.1.2 is rock solid. much more so than NT.
Now, when we get 2.0 released ... :)
--
Jonathan Fosburgh
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 09:11:34 -0400
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
> ca...
> > You could do what they did with OS/2 in Goldeneye; it had prominently
> > displayed OS/2 desktops on the machines in that control centre they
> > had... the desktop is quite distinctive, and easy to recognize for
> > those that know what it looks like.
>
> Presumably that means you'd be preaching to the (mostly) converted? If you
> know what the OS/2 desktop looks like, then you'remost likely using it. If
> you don't know what it looks like, they haven't gained anything...
Except, of course, for the big fat "OS/2 Warp" that appears on the
desktop's wallpaper... the main point that I was making is that for
most people the monitors are background noise; to a person using
OS/2, they stuck out big-time.
Plus of course, you're making the assumption that it was placed
there to market OS/2 to the home consumer. Considering the complete
lack of resources that IBM's put into marketing warp to the home
user since 1996, I doubt they would've been willing to put in a big
boatload of cash into product placement for a Bond flick. I suspect
it was probably more of an inside joke on the part of the
producers... the big 'hi-tech' toy in the film (ie- Goldeneye) was
controlled from a center using the clearly technically superior
solution: OS/2.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:07:55 GMT
I remember a kid in my class in high school had one of the very first
HP calculators circa 1975. His father was an engineer at HP. We used
to play lunar lander on it all the time. Between that and RPN I was
hooked on HP, especially compared to my "Sperry Remington" with a
fluorescent gas tube display and a 0 that was really the bottom half
of an 8 (real small and funky looking) and semi crappy TI.True
algebraic entry hadn't come out yet so those parentheses could be
killers. RPN made easy work of that. Most of the guys were using APF
calculators (long gone) because they could do hyperbolic Sine/Cos/Tan
and the -1 of them.
My daughter has the latest TI 89 (?) with graphing and all the bells
but it just doesn't have the charm nor the feel of quality like my HP
41CV...
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:24:18 +1200, Steve Ballantyne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have my HP 41CV Serial Number 2525S42272 right here in front of me,
>> complete with the HP 41 Advantage Pack module. Bought it circa 1983
>> and use it all the time. The original batteries finally quit LAST YEAR
>> 1999!
>>
>> That has to be a record of some sort?
>>
>
>Lovely calculators, those HP41s. I loved mine dearly, until it wa
>stolen. Too bad they stopped making them some years ago.
>
>Wouldn't NASA be using HP48s or 49s by now?
>
>>
>> Only program I ever wrote was a simple Amortization Program.
>>
>
>Easy programmability was a major advantage of the 41 -- I used to
>program while taking the bus to work. It's not really practical to
>program the 48 without a desktop computer and a proper keyboard.
>
>> It's too bad HP isn't what it used to be :(
>>
>
>Particularly in the calculator department.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:17:23 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>I agree completely. I don't want computers to be anything
>but tools, but I insist they be /perfect/ tools.
>
Ah, the trouble with being a perfectionist is that you
will often turn yourself inside out only to find out the
world around you doesn't fit within your hoped for perfect
view. (Not a critical comment, a realistic one.) I have
a friend that is a huge perfectionist, and a completely
absorbed idealist. He cannot understand the shades of
gray in the world. All he sees is pure evil and pure
good. There is nothing in between.
Growing up together, we were very, very into a certain
type of music. That musical form evolved and slowly
changed into 'something different' and to me it was no
longer what appealed to me. To him, it was always, 'well,
there's still this band' and when that band would
'give-in' to the common thought, he would say, "Wait,
there's still this band". What it took was calling up a
radio show and getting a lecture from the guy that the
'new' version of the music was all that mattered and the
old version never really mattered at all.
What happened that night to him, was far more than the
epiphany I had when I realized the 'new music' was
completely different from the 'old music'. He boxed up
his shirts, his CDs and tapes, his posters, and nearly
threw it all away. He called me up and all he would say
was, "It's over..." I knew exactly what he meant, but it
took me three hours to find out what had finally made him
realize it. He was depressed for months after that, and
still suffers some from aftershocks.
I'm not happy, nor was I ever happy, about what had
happened. But I moved on, I got into other things that
could keep my interest (not the least of which is
computing). His fundamental idealism and perfectionist
spirit didn't allow him to see beyond his 'great plan'
which included nothing more than working at being the best
instrumentalist in our chosen musical genre. Very one
dimensional, and admirable in an odd sort of way. But the
point I'm getting at is that you can't allow the pursuit
of perfection, and the thoughts of the idealistic sort, to
blur your vision of reality so completely that when
reality forces itself on to you, you don't know how to cope.
Jesus, I guess I've been in lecture mode the past few
days. Must be that irritated feeling I have from being
around the damned sales people (our field reps are in for
the week, god almighty help me make it through).
The pursuit of perfection and the thoughts of the idealist
can be very admirable when used in moderation. Of course,
I'm one of those people that tends to take the middle
ground in most things. I'm just on the realists' side of
the middle between realists and idealist (I'm a little
more realistic than idealistic, but I tend to suffer from
the problems of both;-), and probably just a little
towards the perfectionist side of the debate between
perfectionists, and lazy slobs (although laziness is a
favorite passtime of mine, but perfected laziness ;-).
Anyway, seeing one person throw everything into his
pursuits was admirable, but very sad when reality clashed
with his ride through fantasy land. I hope your pursuit
of the 'perfect' OS doesn't do the same to you:-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:41:27 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> In article <8q99ub$ab7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <VKtu5.43238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Jesus, for bashing Microsoft so much, you guys sure try hard to
>> >> copy everything they do!
>>
>> >I think there's actually a symbiosis going on here. Microsoft has
>> >recently adopted some concepts from KDE and GNOME for Windows ME,
>> >and Gnome and KDE have been sprucing up applications to make them more
>> >like Windows.
>> >
>> >Ironically, FVWM95, which provided a "Windows 95 look and feel", never
>> >really caught on. Most people prefered KDE which was a look-and-feel
>> >clone of CDE used in AIX, Solaris, HP_UX, and other UNIX flavors.
>> >Others preferred Afterstep which was a clone of NeXtStep.
>
>KDE is *not* a clone of CDE. CDE more closely resembles Windows 3.1,
>not Windows 95. I use it every day on AIX. KDE window frames and
>button placement are virtually identical to Windows 95. See
>http://www.kde.org/screenshots/medium/matthiase1.jpg.
>
>> Alternatively, some Linux-GUI designers may be copying Windows
>> because that's what they are most familiar with. Or they may be trying to
>> make it easier to Windows users to use Linux.
>
>Or they may be failing to innovate, preferring rather to ride on the
>coat-tails of Windows UI success.
>
>> Why not explore new possibilities? Or less-well-known GUI's like
>> the Amiga one or the Acorn Archimedes RISCOS one or ...
>
>Why stick with these two dimensional desktop metaphors anyway?
>PARC-style desktops are not the be all and end all of human-computer
>interaction. I'd like to navigate into folders like I walk into a room
>in Unreal Tournament. I'm not saying that it should look like that but
>the concept of being able to "look around" with the mouse while going
>forward and backward with the arrow keys (of the mouse wheel maybe :-)
>is so natural. Imagine navigating "up" over a landscape or some such
>construct and getting a "higher view". You see something that by rough
>shape, color or other attribute discernible from a distance, interests
>you. You move the mouse to "look" at it and move towards it. As you
>get closer more information is displayed progressively until you can
>either dive inside it (if it's a container) or it opens if it's not.
Your description is almost perfectly matched to something
that is in the works currently
http://threedsia.sourceforge.net It is probably the
closest we will get to a 'new interface' anytime in the
near future. I've played with it a bit and it is very
cool to play with. At the moment though it hasn't reached
full usability. The hope is to create a full 3D user
shell, with graphical and command line interfaces both
available through the 'shell'. Anyway, thought you might
enjoy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:44:33 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > The reason I hate it. Get it? Its called a monopoly.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question, Max. Why don't you use Linux at home?
> > If you are worried about having to relearn everything then why not try
> > Mandrake 7.1 with KDE2.0? It's sufficiently Windows-like. I've used
> > krn and it's not that big a jump from Agent. You could probably make
> > yourself alot happier if you'd just switch.
>
> Yikes. Now there's a reason to make KRN not free ;-)
Just have to say: great work Roberto! You know I'm a Windows advocate
but I really respect the work you folks have done with the Ulysses beta
I installed last night. It won't be too much longer until you do a
version where you trim *all* the UNIXy stuff out and make your package
accessible to Mom and Pop. Then we'll have so little to argue about --
look forward to next year when Mandrake is more usable, consumer Windows
is more stable and MacOS is NeXT :-) For the first time each of the OSs
has almost all the strengths of the others. The funniest thing about
that is we are essentially left with pretty GUI running on UNIX and
VMS. That thought would have amused me a decade ago but so did the
Internet :-)
------------------------------
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 10:50:51 -0500
Timberwoof wrote:
>
> 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?
I see non-descript as a reality booster. When I see Macs everywhere in
movies I know it's not representative of reality. The reason that
people tend to recognize them couldn't have anything to do with being
the largest chunk of brightly colored plastic in the scene could it?
:-) I think it's amazingly heavy handed of Apple to so blatantly place
90% of the computers in movies when they only represent 10% (I'm being
generous :-).
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[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 11:05:05 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 23:30:19 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
>
>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:21:56 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>> >-Peter
>>
>> Then please explain the purpose of the Apple Product Placement Team
>> refered to in the article. If everyone is falling all over themselves
>> why does Apple need a team dedicated to getting their products placed?
>
>At the very least, they need a team to interact with producers who want
>to place their products.
If you think that's all they're doing then you need to think again.
>
>People were falling all over themselves to order Beta.
Beta what? Betamax? Betacam?
> By your logic, Apple should therefore have made no provisions to let people order
>Beta.
> :-)
I know of no Apple product called Beta for people to order.
No doubt you think the sales force does nothing but sit on their asses
all day and answer the phones since orders are pouring in at such a
huge rate there's no need to actively sell.
>> Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
>> realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
>
>Yes, frankly, I do.
Peter Ammon- Cornell student and RDF sufferer. Please give generously
so that we may rid this poor boy of his affliction. Mail your checks
to:
The Peter Ammon Help Fund
PO Box 104
Middletown, IN 47356
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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 16:05:57 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> samurai wrote:
>> >
>
><Snip>
>
>>
>> > I see paid advertisements in movies all the
>> > time for APPLE.
>>
>> Name one advertisement that you know is paid, and how you know.
>>
>> Until then, I'll consider you a liar.
>>
>> -Peter
>>
>
>No need to consider him / her a liar. S/he may just be wrong. It is
>widely believed that companies make arrangements with hollywood studios
>to get their products placed in movies. Last I heard, there were
>rumours that this was the case with the cars, watches, and alcohol in
>recent Bond movies. I don't know if those companies actually paid for
>screen time for their products or not, but it is possible.
>
Just a point:
While I was still working for Gateway, there was much
published internally when Ted and the execs paid for movie
time. Most notably, one of the Bond movies had many, many
cow spotted boxes and Gateway computers in it, and Gateway
paid a hefty sum to get them placed (can't remember the
number, but I do remember it was upwards of six figures).
--
[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
******************************
