Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (David M. Butler)
Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products (David M. Butler)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Perry Pip)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Timo Saarinen")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("Shay Files")
Re: PRE-RELEASE/PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT: NDOS Technical Library Available ("Shay Files")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Ian Pulsford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 00:50:04 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The following are the opinions of the author, nothing more, nothing
>> less.
>
>Quite implausible opinions in most cases at that.
>
>> The two biggest components of ".net" are the use of XML to replace HTML,
>
>Sorry, but XML can't replace HTML. XML and HTML complement each other, not
>replace each other. In any event, the use of XML is not central to the
.net
>platform, though it is a major piece.
>
>> and then putting your applications on the server and using a thin client
>> to get to them. The XML langauage lets web pages have "dynamic"
>
>That's only a small piece of .net.
>
>> content - that is you can run little programs in real time to produce the
>> information to be displayed, and pull in data that is retireved from
>> remote procedure calls... which is pretty much what Java does already.
Remote procedure calls (RPCs, which by the way is an old DCE standard) is
considered NOT to scale in the middle tier. Try message oriented middleware.
Currently JavaBeans are having a difficult time scaling in the middle tier
and no EJB product has been submitted for benchmarking under the TPC-C
benchmark.
Of course, this is why competition, which everyone can see would be valuable
on the desktop, is also valuable on the server. So .NET adds to the
competition. That's the short answer to your troll.
>> And by going back to server-centric computing, your data won't be
>> stuck on your desktop PC's hard drive, so that you can retrieve it from
>> the server from anywhere, using any access device -laptop, PDA, etc.
>> - Just like you already could by using sendmail and Java apps on a Sun
>> server with an IMAP client and a JVM that could run on any device
>> (laptop, PDA) ....
>> .... Hmmmm,
>> in other words, MS has reinvented Java and Java clients.
Do you mean the JavaStation when you say Java client? I understand you can
pick one of those up at a very good price. I saw some in a garden shop being
used as high-tech planters for flowers.
Actually, .NET does not have a JVM. It has an IL (intermediate language)
that can be compiled or run on a couple of type of JITer, one of which is
for devices.
Of course, you know that Java was originally written to run devices and only
because the Mosaic browser (stolen outright by Netscape from the U. of
Ilinois) was basically a mainframe terminal, that Java was used in
connection with the browser.
Most of Java's success, until date, has come on the server.
.NET is strongly focused on the client side as well. That's reason enough
for its existence. Perhaps Java then will use XML and SOAP to effectively
compete on the client.
.NET is a product of various language creators like Bertrand Meyer with
Effiel, who think their language is much more innovative than Java,
especially being more suitable for an era on interface-based computing where
contract specs are key.
The cutting edge people with a whole host of languages that have been
involved with .NET are not as impressed as you are with Java.
Unicat, perhaps if you write those involved with various languages, and
explain to them how Sun has solved all the world's computing problems with
Java, then I'm sure they will instantly drop all .NET development.
They will say for sure:, "oh, catie cat with the cute name, thanks so much
for telling us all about computerdom, we appreciate it so much."
"And by the way, we might just have a job for you in our labs. An assessment
of your abilities has shown that you can be an engineer. Yes, a sanitary
engineer, a BIG MAN with a MOP on the night shift, you big unicat you."
>Except that .NET isn't limited to one language. In fact, the Java language
>could be implemented on .net itself. the CLR allows applications written
in
>C++, VB, C#, and probably FoxPro as well. Other languages could be adapted
>to it as well.
>
>On top of that, Microsoft is not allowed to update their Java
implementation
>anyways. So MS's only other choice is to write it's own multiplatform VM.
>Sun is only screwing itself by being the hard ass that it is.
>
>> Of course, given Microsofts history, this was probably inevitable....
>> (As seen in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley")
>> They didn't write the original DOS, but conned some poor sucker out of
>> the code for $50K, without disclosing that IBM was willing to pay
>> millions for it.
Actually the vendor transferred its residual licensing rights long after
they knew IBM as licensing it. They were more interested in immediate
returns from the sale deal.
>
>Yeah, some poor sucker which MS hired with stock options and is now a
>multi-billionaire because of it.
>
>> They obtained the source code for the Mac OS by promising to
>> port MSWORD to it, then used it to create the first commercial
>> version of Windows instead.
>
>That's a laugh. Ever seen some of the source to the original MacOS? It
was
>all written in Pascal. What good would that do MS, who write everything in
>Assembler at the time. Besides, Windows 1.0 was absolutely nothing like
>MacOS. If they had used the MacOS source, it would have been much much
>better.
Don't you mean IBM's OS2? You're going to get those folks mad.
>> Some of us think that Internet Explorer is a rip-off of Netscape, and
>> that the new MS directory services are an imitation of Novell Directory
>> services....
>
>You're crazy if you think that. Internet Explorer was based on the
Spyglass
>NCSA Mosaic code base. Netscape also essentially sprouted from the same
>code base (though they claim they didn't use any Mosaic code, the same
>people wrote much of both applications). If anything, IE and Netscape are
>brothers, rather than one copying the other.
Netscape was reported to have paid $2 million or so to settle U. of Illinois
NCSA's claim for stealing the code, without a hint of reverse engineering,
after Jim Clark hired the U. of Illinois grad students and the U. employee
who wrote most of the Mosaic code.
This heist was worth a cool billion to Jim Clark. And if the settlement were
in web dollars, it would have been a billion dollar settlement.
2 + 2
>
>> So it makes sense that when Microsoft figured out that the PC was dying,
>
>If the PC is dying, why would they have just spent billions of dollars into
>rewriting NT into Win2k?
>
>> they would copy their next-generation architecture from their most
>> successful competitor.
>
>Sun is hardly MS's most successful competitor. In fact, they weren't even
a
>competitor (at least according to Judge Jackson). How about Novell? THAT
>was MS's most successful competitor.
>
>> But why is MS doing this? Why abandon PC-centric computing?
>
>They're not.
>
>> To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It's the money, stupid!
>> MS stock started falling when Win2K was announced, and took a 10-point
>> nosedive when Win ME came out.
>> WHY?
>
>Because a federal judge ordered them broken up.
>
>> Could be because people realized that Microsoft has run out of gas.
>
>And the legal judgement had nothing to do with it. Right.
>
>> They can't find any new bells and whistles to hang off of Windows to
>> make people buy new
>> versions. And MS makes exactly $0 from people who just continue to use
>> the old Windows OS. Remember, MS isn't in the business of helping your
>> business to prosper, they're in business to make MONEY. Think of the
>> last decade or so. It used to take a 16Mhz 386 PC with 4MB of RAM
>> and a 120MB hard drive to allow you to run WORD, Excel, and a
>> project planner, and to send and receive e-mail. Since then we've thrown
>> out our hardware and replaced our software five or six times, and for
>what?
>> The same basic office functions!
>
>And you can still run Word, Excel and a project planner on such a machine.
>It's just that our expectations of what software should do and how fast it
>should do it has risen since then. Go ahead, Crank up Windows 3.0 on a
>16Mhz 386 with 4MB or RAM and run Word, then compare it to running Word on
>computer today and tell me you don't find the old way virtually unuseable
by
>comparison.
>
>> And support staff demands have probably doubled at the same time. Some
>> people are fed up. They're tired of the MS churn-and-burn cycle that
>> pumpscash out of their wallets and delivers nothing but hype in return.
>
>I guess that's why people keep upgrading. They're so tired of it, they run
>right out and do it some more.
>
>> So now, in order to protect MS revenues, Redmond will have to switch to
>> a mode where people "rent" Windows instead of buying it. Of course, in
>> order to
>> do this, they'd have to kill off all those existing PCs that are working
>> just fine with the old windows. So.. just coincidentally, along comes
>> the MS X-box. Which they "claim" is a game console. But with the reported
>> 733Mhz pentIII, 64MB RAM and 8GBHD, and High-speed LAN CONNECTION, it
>> sounds more like the box is designed to be a client machine for a network
>> centric next generation Windows - which just by coincidence MS is also
>starting
>> to hype now.
>
>Haven't seen the competition in the game console market have you? The
>playstation 2 is roughly equivelant in processing power to a 733Mhz PIII
and
>also has Internet connectivity.
>
>> So the next gen windows may be an Xbox client, accessing applications on
>> an MSN server by subscription. With the buzz that MS has for eating its
>> own
>> children, if I worked for a PC manufacturer right now I would be hitting
>> the panic button!
>
>Good thing you don't. They'd go out of business.
>
>> Of course, If your users LIKE the PC centric model of computing, and you
>> don't want to have to rewrite all your business apps into a whole
>> new computing paradigm, and you don't want to pay, say, $50/user/month
>> in "software rent" to MS, you can always use Linux!
>
>Or you can continue to use Windows 2000 and Windows ME. People certainly
>did so after the introduction of Windows NT in 1993. People continued to
do
>so after IBM introduced OS/2 2.0, which contained Windows 3.0. The public
>clearly doesn't buy something unless they want to.
>
>> It has free office suites (like Star Office, and KOffice) which will let
>> you keep all your data in its CURRENT format, instead of the absurdly
>> difficult task of converting ALL your data to XML, and with the WINE
>> (www.winehq.com) windows environment it will even let you keep
>> running the office suites that you already OWN!
>
>Wake me when Office 2000 runs on Wine.
>
>> After all, Linux is supported by virtually every computer maker -
>> IBM,.HP, Sun, Compaq, Dell, SGI, etc.etc. Which WON'T likely be true of
>> MS once they enter the computer business themselves and start competing
>with
>> their former allies.
>
>Oh, would those be the computer makers which claimed there was no
>alternative to Windows?
>
>> But if you really want to convert your whole enterprise to the Sun
>> vision of "The network is the computer" network-server-centric
>> computing, why not
>> use the time-tested, standards-based, enterprise approved original from
>> Sun,
>> instead of being a guinea pig for MS as they struggle to survive into
>> the post-PC era???
>
>Standards based? Since when is Java a standard? Since when is sun's NFS a
>standard?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 01:03:16 -0400
Todd wrote:
> > apache vs personal web server, no contest
>
> I beg to differ. Personal web server is based on IIS 5.0 under Windows
> 2000, and it SMOKES apache in almost every way.
Which is obviously why Apache is used so much more widely, right?
> Check www.tpc.org for the benchmarks... Windows 2000 + IIS 5.0 takes the
> TOP spots for performance.
>
> Linux + Apache is NOWHERE to be seen -- not even the lower scores.
Yeah. I checked. I also listed the participants, and guess what? Linux +
Apache is STILL nowhere to be seen, since they weren't in the benchmarking.
Kind of makes it difficult to compete, doesn't it?
> IIS is included free with Windows 2000.
Apache was included free, and 100% pre-configured to run on my Linux distro.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 01:24:47 -0400
Todd wrote:
> > Tom's hardware was comparing NVidia drivers. They say that the
> > NVidia's linux driver beta (v. 0.95) is slower than the driver they
> > have for Windows. They even explain why: their linux driver does not
> > yet support page-flipping.
>
> Customers don't care. They care about performance regardless of the
> excuses.
And customers also don't usually expect beta software that hasn't yet
included all the standard features to be faster and more reliable than a
final version.
Try waiting until the linux drivers are COMPLETE before comparing the two.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 05:17:37 GMT
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:45:25 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around
>> >general
>> >> > purpose OS out there today.
>> >>
>> >> and the most expensive
>> >
>> >Haven't priced Solaris lately, have you?
>>
>> Bought the CD's from Sun for $10 plus shipping.
>
>Solaris < 8 is still quite expensive.
>
>Description: Solaris 7 x86 Desktop, CD, Hard Copy Documentation and
>Single-user RTU
>Part Number: SOLMI-07D-D999
>List Price: 450.00 USD
>
>Oh, and if you want it in Japanese, it's $750.
>
I bought Solaris 7 both x86 and sparc versions about a year or so ago
for $10 plus shipping.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 05:19:49 GMT
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 22:28:06 -0500,
James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around
>> >general
>> >> > purpose OS out there today.
>> >>
>> >> and the most expensive
>> >
>> >Haven't priced Solaris lately, have you?
>> >
>>
>> Bought the CD's from Sun for $10 plus shipping.
>
>Your not running Slowlaris x86, are you? BTW, it is $75 + shipping. I
>really
>miss SunOS 4.1.3_U1....
>
I bought Solaris 7 both x86 and sparc versions about a year or so ago
for $10 plus shipping. Looks like now they are only selling Solaris 8
for $75. But you can install it on as many machines as you
like. That's certainly cheaper than W2K.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Timo Saarinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:26:59 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:n0yC5.4035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Except that .NET isn't limited to one language. In fact, the Java
language
> could be implemented on .net itself. the CLR allows applications
written in
> C++, VB, C#, and probably FoxPro as well. Other languages could be
adapted
> to it as well.
Are you sure C++ will be implemented for the .NET which uses
intermediate language? I think C++ is not very suitable for
interpretation... To adapt other language to .NET platform Microsoft
have to use brute force. For example, languages using multiple
inheritance must be converted to single inheritance.
-Timo
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:34:02 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wUwC5.7607$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8r93h5$lal$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > OK... let's see.
> >
> > I spend 4 years creating something (say a piece of software).
> >
> > That software costs nothing to copy - it could be made available over
the
> > net.
> >
> > So what you're saying is that because it costs nothing to copy, I
> shouldn't
> > receive any compensation for my 4 years work?
>
> No one can force you to work for nothing, but suppose someone else
> works just a bit harder and decides to sell his better version just a bit
> cheaper and no one will buy yours.
Yep - that's perfectly fair.
> Do you think your work, no
> matter how hard, deserves protection against that?
Nope.
> Now suppose
> a dozen people share the work, easily create something even better
> and decide to give it away. How are you going to compete with
> that?
I can't. But that doens't mean that *my* work shouldn't have all the
protection under law against people copying it when *I* want to charge them
for that work, not give it away.
It's my choice to give it away or not -- and I choose not to.
JAM's proposed system would remove that choice.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:46:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> The reason explanatory power is important is because only through
> >> empirical predictions can the truth of a hypothesis be tested. Science
> >> is empirical discovery, not a narrative.
> Anything can be predicted, and be right through chance. It is the
> ability to explain why you predicted it which is the only reason science
> makes predictions. Science isn't the ability to make predictions [that
> is theorizing, a component of science], but the ability to explain how
> you predicted it.
In this paragraph you're saying the exact same thing that I'm saying.
Is it that in your previous response, it only looked like we disagreed
because you'd muddled things?
------------------------------
From: "Shay Files" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:47:27 -0500
Hehe, very funny sig
> ---
> There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire
> become a great writer.
>
> When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that the
> whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly
> emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and
> anger!"
>
> He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: "Shay Files" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PRE-RELEASE/PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT: NDOS Technical Library Available
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:50:14 -0500
Wow, when did this become a commercial forum? Well, in that case,
GARAGE SALE, 555 B.S. Place, Dallas, TX 75056
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:50:50 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >provide. And *even* if I provided it, it just wouldn't be Unix and
> >people are comfortable with Unix.
>
> Some do. Most couldn't care less, as long as it works and it doesn't
> cost a lot.
By that argument, Smalltalk should be extremely popular and Java
should be dead, buried and rotted ... nay should never have existed!
> So you're designing your own OS, and once its programmed, you're the
> only one who's going to use it? Wow, you must really be brilliant.
Anyone who wants to will be able to use it. So far, that means me.
Like I've said before, if I get a thousand installations in 2010
then I will be content.
> When's it going to be done?
In 5 to 10 years.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 07:59:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> No, he was there when he wrote a program that sold stock when shares are
> going down; there was no 'decision' involved in the case of ABC shares
> at the time of the transaction. That's an abstraction; a metaphor, if
Metaphor != abstraction. And since EVERYTHING is an abstraction
(except for raw sensory perceptions) calling it an abstraction
is uninformative. "car" is an abstraction. So is "Max".
At the time the automated stock trading software decides to sell
ABC stock, there is a distinct concept in its database of "ABC stock"
as distinct from any other stock.
All the programmer is doing is writing a rule book for the machine
to follow. The machine is the entity that applies these rules, not
the programmer.
> you will. The programmer 'decided' that the stock would be sold when he
He decided no such thing! If the software runs on an unconnected machine
then it makes empty decisions on meaningless data (it's *fantasizing*).
It's the corporation that connects the machine to a stock exchange so
as to make those decisions meaningful, that turns fantasy into reality.
> programmed the computer that later executed the instructions. The
> program itself merely caused the computer to send out electrical
> signals.
So does your brain!
> I didn't say what decisions I was performing; I merely meant to
> indicate, in a humorous way, that I don't think you are capable of
> making decisions. The decision I am now making is to stop pretending
> you aren't an annoying clod. You're boring me.
<shrug> And you're an irritating solipsist idiot.
All things considered, I'd rather be me.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:07:01 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The following are the opinions of the author, nothing more, nothing
> > less.
>
> Quite implausible opinions in most cases at that.
>
> > The two biggest components of ".net" are the use of XML to replace HTML,
>
> Sorry, but XML can't replace HTML. XML and HTML complement each other, not
> replace each other. In any event, the use of XML is not central to the .net
> platform, though it is a major piece.
>
HTML will become an implementation of XML in the very near future. It will be
called XHTML. HTML rules are being tightened to eradicate sloppy HTML and bring
it into line with XML.
>
> > and then putting your applications on the server and using a thin client
> > to get to them. The XML langauage lets web pages have "dynamic"
>
> That's only a small piece of .net.
>
> > content - that is you can run little programs in real time to produce the
> > information to be displayed, and pull in data that is retireved from
> > remote procedure calls... which is pretty much what Java does already.
XML is really just a specification for data files. Some sort of language, like
Java, is needed to make apps to manipulate it.
<cut>
IanP
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
