Linux-Advocacy Digest #553, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Steve Mading)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Steve Mading)
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro (Steve Mading)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Tim Palmer)
Re: A wierd bit in linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (Steve Mading)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (Steve Mading)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Linux Sucks (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:59:24 GMT
In article <39e21211$0$5790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
> Making a modern operating system isn't
> that easy after all: Linux creator
> Linus Torvalds announced the third
> major delay in the release of the next
> Linux kernel last week, placing the release
> of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel,
> which was originally due to ship in October 1999,
This is one time when I would like to see Linux draw a Line
in the sand and say "This is 2.4, 2.6 will come out later".
> has now been in the works for almost two years
> ...Linux is a different beast altogether,
> and proponents have argued that
> the open source development model
I think part of the problem may be the entire process of managing
the expectations of corporate involvement that seems determined to
get every feature of their original system, AND every feature of
Windows 98 into Linux before the release date.
Of course, there is also a bunch of concern among the OEMs. They are
all afraid to commit to preinstalled systems if the "next version of
Linux is just around the corner".
Thus far, Linux 2.4 beta releases, along with 2.3.9x releases, have
support for USB, PCI PnP, FireWire, DVD (the legal battles over DeCSS
may be delaying availability of DVD player capability), and video
editing capability (TIVO). Other features such as clustering, HA, and
high-performance SMP have also been available in 2.3 for quite some
time.
Of course, everyone wants a "perfect release", and even though the bulk
of the kernel and library work is complete, the OEMs and Distributors
need to regression test all 13,000 Linux applications with the new
kernel.
I really hope that Linus can put his foot down and simply "turn the
page". It's the hardest part of each major OS release, whether we're
talking OS/2, BSD, SysIII or SysV, Mac Finder, MS-DOS, or Windows.
> is superior to the closed, monolithic
> models used by Apple and Microsoft.
> But the public failure of both Linux and
> Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project,
> to deliver upgrades on
> schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
The biggest problems are still in managing the entanglements between
Open Source infrastructure and proprietary "featuritis".
Netscape 6.0 is a very powerful system, but the blending of open source
framework with proprietary binaries-only plug-ins such as JavaScript,
real-player, Java 1.2, and other proprietary extensions tends to make
mischief in several ways.
One problem is that you end up with "an extra set of wheels". For
example, if Java Swing uses a different widget set (the primitive
classes used to implement the swing objects), than the Open Source
implementation, you have 2 widget sets, 2 icon sets, and 2 managers,
each contending for RAM, CPU, Hard Drive, and Network resources.
Essentially, it's like trying to put new wine in old wine skins.
The new open source code tends to grow and evolve, bursting the seams
of the infrastructure used by the proprietary technology.
> "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond
> simple Web, mail, and DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says.
This isn't a small market. Cisco is primarily a router,
and Linux is the second largest provider of "Infrastructure servers".
> Linux is "not for database
> servers or online transaction processing.
Actually, there are fully functional versions of DB2/UDB, Sybase/ASE,
and Oracle/8i. But more importantly, the infrastructure of Linux
itself reduces the need for massive storage on relational databases.
The e2fs file system has built-in functionality to index and optimize
directories and minimize the thrashing of i-nodes. This results in
very rapid access to generic files. As a result, highly volitile
information (cash-flow, inventories, order flow, customer activity)
can be managed through a combination of relational databases and
simplified queueing mechanisms while less volitile data (catalogues,
price lists, informational descriptions, jpegs, gifs, mpegs, mp3, and
other storage), can be managed using the optimized file systems. Since
real-time updates are less critical, "batch trickle" replications such
as hourly rdist and makefile replications of only the most recently
modified files is required. Since Linux can manage very small files
very efficiently, there is less need to copy unneccessary redundant
large files.
Quite simply, Linux has been very effective and providing "quick
and dirty solutions" that can be easily implemented using existing
software.
> The independent software vendor
> support [is not there]"
With the exception of a few strong brand-names, there is much less need
for independent software vendors, and much more need for consultants,
service and support staff, training, and operational support.
The classic oxymoron is "productivity tools", which take 3 months to
learn well enough to save 2 hours of time per project on the most
"cosmetic" portion of the application.
In some cases, such as MQSI Version 1.1, the labor involved in
manipulating the GUI actually cost MORE than the equivalent
functionality in a language like PERL. MQSI 2 provided much stronger
support for scripted languages such as C, Cobol, Java, and XML.
The biggest barrier to Linux as a desktop machine is that people
purchasing a desktop machine want to touch it, feel it, play with it,
make mistakes, and "test drive" it before they spring for something
that will radically alter the behavior of their $1000-$3000 workstation
or laptop investment. Furthermore, they really need to see a fully
functional version.
I still use Windows NT at work, not because I need it (I can get all of
the functionality in Linux), but it takes time to configure WINE so that
I can run Lotus Notes, it take time to configure SMB, and it take time
to configure the other subsystems. The fact is that I can get most of
the functionality I need through third party sources, open source, and
through existing Linux applications, to generate useful reports,
charts, diagrams, presentations, and communications. Furthermore, I
have features that are unique to Linux such as real-time messaging,
peer-to-peer operation, and the ability to use my laptop as my server.
For anyone who wants to learn the fine art of managing and generating
content for a large-scale server such as most of the big UNIX engines,
Linux is the best and lowest cost entry-level system available.
> <yawn>
For once, Drestin, I agree with you.
IT'S BEEN TOO LONG!!!
LINUS, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE,
GET 2.4 out OCTOBER 11th.
There will be things to iron out, it won't be perfect, and
you'll probably upset the perfectionists who can't conceive of
anything less than perfectly beautified code for the first release.
It is entirely possible to meet the October 11th 2000 date (thursday),
by simply acknowledging the 2.4test9 release being circulated by the
major distributors as the "Official" release.
If this is instead a hamstringing effort by Paul Allen and/or some
other Microsoft related interests to derail Linux, it should be
pointed out that BSD is waiting in the wings for just such a slip-up.
It runs the same software, supports the same source code, and it's
growing twice as fast as Linux.
Personally, I'd like to see Linux 2.4 out as soon as possible.
If Linus wants to preannounce Linux 2.6 for some time later, say April
2002, that wouldn't be so bad. Meanwhile, there will be versions
2.4.2-18 in which we can "neaten it up".
Keep in mind that Linus Torvalds has always been a bit of a
perfectionist. He released Linux 0.90 through 0.98 because he
didn't think that Linux was ready for prime time. The joke here was
that SLS and Slackware had already begun marketing these versions and
newspaper publishers and ISPs were already using these versions for web
sites, dial-up POPs, mail, news, and ftp servers, and even for
interative access to the internet (telnet/shell).
By the time Linus said "it's ready", we'd literally ripped it from his
hands.
We had been pushing "Linux on the Desktop" as early as March of 1977,
but Linus kept saying it was "just a server". Finally, almost 16
months later, in July of 1978, he announced "Linux should take the
desktop". By that time, GNOME, KDE, and several other desktop
initiatives had already been sponsored.
A great deal of money and investment has been riding on the Atlanta
Linux Expo, which was supposed to be the release of the 2.4 kernel and
the release of a huge batch of Linux desktop machines, PDAs, "Internet
Companions", "Mail Machines", and Web Surfers. These were "upgradable
appliances". Sort of a cross between a game machine and a
supercomputer that requires only a few minor parameter changes to
switch from a hand-holding grandmother-loving cuddly computer to
a front-end for a high performance workstation/server.
More importantly, the availability of "Cuddly Linux Machines"
creates a "greased slide" to the bigger and more powerful Linux
"TuxStations" and "TuxTops" that have all the features of a big
powerful supercomputer and the user friendly interfaces as friendly
as Mac, Windows, OS/2, and Amiga.
Essentially, in much the same way that the low cost mass-produced
automobile created a country where nearly every family has at least
one car (new, used, restored, economy, luxury), Linux has created the
possibility for everybody to have the power and agility of a fully
functional information system (new, used, restored, economy,
performance).
Furthermore, just as the Baby Boomers graduated from the Volkswagon,
Civic, and Corolla to the BMW, Accord, Infinity, and Lexus, there is
a good chance that we will see Boom-II kids (born 1980-1989) trading
in their Linux powered "Internet Companion" or "used 80486 running
Linux" for Gigahertz clustered RISC machines running Linux variants
that outperform Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, and Digital UNIX of today.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 9 Oct 2000 23:07:23 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Using multiple completely different languages is vastly
: superior to using a single Frankenstein's monster to do
: everything. If your application requires different styles,
: paradigms, or inconsistent sets of features then it also
: requires completely different mindsets when you go to
: implement and understand your code.
[snip]
The problem is that I don't see using algebra and programming
as being different mindsets. This is where it is largely a
matter of opinion, and not the language designer's job
to tell me what does and doesn't belong in a module. The
decision of what to put in which module should not be
driven by limitations of the language. Quite the opposite:
FIRST you decide what makes sense in each module, THEN you
decide what langauge to implement each module in. But you
can't do that if one module ends up with some features that
only work well in language A and some that only work well
in language B. Deciding where it makes sense to split up
modules is purely a subjective thing. You can slice up
the tasks using a variety of different criteria. If you
take into account the limitations of each language, you
can choose to break up your modules along lines that
coincide with the strengths of each language, but then you
are letting the language force your design, which violates
what you keep talking about here - design it first without
getting into the pendantic language details until implementing
it.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Date: 9 Oct 2000 23:16:31 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : This is exactly what pure OO languages and systems strive to do;
:> : make the user's mental model of the computer never, *ever* fail.
:>
:> That goal is doomed to fail, since different users have different
:> mental models of the computer that are mutually exclusive of
:> each other.
: This is not the case. Nearly all people manage to construct roughly
: the same model of physical reality so what makes you think the same
: process doesn't occur with respect to computers?
Because that's not what I observe, that's why. Different people
have different notions of how a computer works. Usually programmers
and admins have it down correctly, but other users have weird
mythological notions of what the computer does, and these notions differ.
: If someone develops
: some totally bizarre mental model of the computer despite all of the
: cues you've given them then they're screwed, no question about it (just
: like extreme right wingers' model of reality leaves them up shit's
: creek whenever it's actually put to the test). So *some* abstractions
: are clearly priviledged over other abstractions and you can give cues
: to people so that they develop the correct abstractions (eg, Objects
: in the case of an OO model). The rest of the difference between people's
: mental models can be accounted for by the fact that most existing
: systems are horrendously complex and inconsistent and most people
: don't have the time, energy *nor* willingness to develop a completely
: accurate mental model of the computer.
:> : For example, classes are objects. And that's actually a problem since
:> : classes don't exist in the physical world and humans have no experience
:> : dealing with objects and classes of objects that simultaneously exist
:> : as objects.
:>
:> False. Classes are present in human language, and while I agree that
:> they don't exist physically, humans DO have plenty of experience
:> with them. When I look at the thingy moving across the street I
:> see an object of class "car", which is a subset of "vehicle". An
: In a perfectly OO system like Self/Merlin, classes exist in
: *exactly* the same sense that they exist in the physical world;
: as abstractions over existing objects. Classes don't exist in
: Self because objects "of the same class" are created by copying
: already existing objects. In C++, you ask thin air to "instantiate"
: an object and out it pops from the vaccum (which figures since
: C++ is held together by spit and magic). In Smalltalk, you ask
: a special "class object" to produce objects "of that class". Ihis
: leads to confusion between the usual meaning of "class" as an
: abstraction and the *object* that "instantiates" objects of that
: class. (I still remember the time when the prof teaching my OO
: design class said that 'objects are instances of a class' is
: complete nonsense. Everyone absently nodded their heads but I
: never fully understood what he meant until now.)
Chicken and egg problem: Where did the class object that does
the instantiation come from? Face it, at some point in the
chain you have to instantiate objects "out of thin air", to
avoid an infinitely recursive situation.
: So I should probably have said that humans have no experience
: dealing with both classes as classes and classes as objects
: simultaneously.
That's not true either. For example:
Reptiles are cold-blodded. (reptile as an objectless class).
"Reptile" comes before "Snake" in the dictionary" ("Reptile"
is a word, an object.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: 9 Oct 2000 23:28:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8rra47$o5t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Hi Drestin,
:>
:> > being able to provide a journaling file system but intentionally never
:> > including it in linux demonstrates a total lack of respect for my data
:> too.
:>
:> Good one ;-) Microsoft's Linux Myths is really getting out of date now. As
:> you're probably aware Journaling file systems in Linux are pretty cutting
:> edge (and still need a bit of testing). There's now a couple to choose
: from
:> though.
:>
:> Of course, no one's stopping you compiling the support it.
: True, but they are not "included" - ya know what I mean? Same with
You misspelled "enabled" above as "included". Hope this helps.
: workstation versions of NT, you can add the support in but it's not
: included - however, server versions include it natively.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: 9 Oct 2000 19:30:08 -0500
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>No primate remnants belonging to others than homo sapiens are found in
>>>America. I mean the whole continent here.
>> Dead wrong. Go to any zoo on the continent and you'll find monkeys in America.
>Oops. Didn't think of that :-)
>> The one with USENET access is Tim Palmer (and no, he isn't using Windows,
>> he is actually posting from a VAX, but the zookeeper pasted a Windows logo
>> to the terminal to make him THINK it was Windows).
>Good one.
BTW - Windows is a next-gennaration vertion of VSM.
>
>>>Apparently, humans colonized America long after the `monkey's were
>>>gone. IIRC, it happened some 15000 or so years ago, when the first
>>>people made it to Northwesteern America from Northeastern Asia.
>> I heard it was 30,000 years ago.
>Was the NE-Asia inhabitated by then?
>I'm not sure, so you might pretty well be right.
The eatrh didn't evan existe back tehn, moran.
>
>>>When? Can you give an exact date? Can you say, for example,
>>>"By December 2002, all the companies that don't pay Microsoft tax,
>>>go bankrupt."?
>> Of course he can say it, just like he can say "L1NUX M4YKS YU EDD1T KUNF1G
>> F1AL ALL D4M DAI TEE-H33!"
>> That doesn't mean he's right, though.
>No, but that would make he perfectly refutable.
>I was just optimistic that day. Hoping to apply the scientific method
>on Timmay, hehe :-)
>
>And I also, personally, would doubt he could spell a sentence that long
>without errors. Which would mean that he can not say, for example
>(quote): "By December 2002, all the companies that don't pay Microsoft
>tax, go bankrupt." (unquote).
By December 2002, all the companies that don't pay Microsoft
tax, go bankrupt."
>Which is irrelevant, of course.
>
>> Yes. Microsoft is THE solution for crashes. If you wanna see crashes,
>> in the morning, at 3am, at lunchtime, just before you save your
>> work, then buy from Microsoft. If a screen saver that merely FAKES
>> crashes is good enough for you, then get Linux.
>LOL.
LIE-nux has to fake allot of thing's. Like having user's. That woud be luke Microsoft
hiering its employs to bye Windwos to fake having custommers but no,
Microsoft realy has them. Peopal by in droavs from Micrsoft, noboddy bys from LIE-nux.
Accept the peopal that are wrighting it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A wierd bit in linux
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:41:38 +0100
2:1 wrote:
>
> here's a wired one for you all:
>
> My linux box is configured to put up a splash screen on startup, using a
> SVGALib program. Usually, it runs OK, but occasionally, it says its not
> the owner of the current console and can't find a free one. Needless to
> say, it always runs as root.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> -Ed
>
What kernel are you using? That seems v odd to me
-Tom
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:40:09 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Dolly wrote:
>
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >
> > > Dolly wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Only problem is, according to IDC, Windows numbers
> > > > are slipping backward... ie: -3%, -15%, -10% (9X/ME,
> > > > IIShit, NT/2K) or perhaps the second one was -13%
> > > > on iDC and -15% on some web server monitoring
> > > > and stats page... and declining.
> > >
> > > You're going to post a link to back that claim up right? I'd be interested to
>see
> > > their sources and methodologies and the sites sampled. I think it's funny that
> > > with that kind of news to report, none of the media outlets have picked it up.
> > > Sounds like bullshit to me but I'll retract that when that link is posted.
> >
> > www.IDC.com - you can buy your own membership.
>
> You don't make the information public you are assumed a liar. I'm sure that the
>media
> hacks have their own access to IDC and so far I've not seen a whisper of this "most
> important story of the decade". I still claim it's bullshit since you refuse to
>prove
> me wrong.
Claim anything you want, I already posted one link and I
dont have the IDC link. I really have no interest in getting
it either. You can do a websearch, there are enough related
articles noting NT's decline. There are enough vendors
upset with MS's projected sales figures for 98SE and ME
that didnt come anywhere near the all time low those
vendors experienced. There has been no growth in the
last year, and the one thing they were expecting to
be a big help was their new MS SQL which finally has
the features Oracle and DB2 haD (YEARS ago). Linux, OTOH
is gaining ground quite nicely. OS/2 sales have been
on the rebound for a year and a half - so much so that
IBM has committed to yearly product updates - for 7+
more years. Even MS wont commit to anything that
long term for NT/2K platform, (and probably might
as well for the 9X/ME platform since it'll probably
still be around due to their continued failure to
make a true 32bit comsumer version of NT/2K).
Believe what you will. Then talk to the big vendors
or read non-Ziff Davis pubs, or look at ServerWatch
or NetCraft or a dozen other data companies' sites
and publications.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: 9 Oct 2000 23:35:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: We don't want compilers.
: We don't need 200 different text editors.
: We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
: that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
: programmers..
: We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
: We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
: We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
: Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
: free memory.
: This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
: resurrect playing around with text files.
If you think those things are "gone", then I invite you to stop
using any software that still uses them. You can start by leaving
usenet. (Ranting about old "outdated" software in usenet is rather
ironic.)
: We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
I don't want *any* implementations of Windows software, be they
half-assed or full-assed.
[rest of idioct snipped]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: 9 Oct 2000 23:39:40 GMT
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: mlw wrote:
:>
:> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: (You know, I miss the days, not so long ago,
: when her typical post would be one-word long,
: like "ARSEHOLE" -- a pity those posts were not
: archived)
It's not really a she. It's a trolling pseudonym.
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:43:18 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > [repetitive comments snipped]
> > >
> > > Sorry David, you lose.
> >
> > Well, I have certainly lost in the name-calling category.
>
> Not even close. I lost too many points in that category for supporting my
> claims with examples and facts.
Typical nonsensical, illogical gibberish. 'Not even close' has no
meaning in the context used. No indication of what 'losing points'
refers to and why 'losing points' is relevant to the discussion. No
indication of why your alleged supporting of claims with examples and
facts is relevant to the name-calling you have repeatedly indulged in.
>
> > Congratulations.
>
> To you.
Illogical as the congratulations were for you for winning the
name-calling competition. You have called me a "hypocrite," "liar,"
"mime," "troll," "club president," and "Net Cop" while also also
accusing me of "mudslinging" and claiming that I had a "hard-on" for
Wenham. In contrast, I have only called you a 'liar' and a
'hypocrite.' Clearly, you win and are deserving of the
congratulations.
>
> > > Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
> > >
> > > "[repetitive comments snipped]"
>
> Note: no response, and the hypocrisy continues.
Interesting that you expect to see a response to your imperative.
Apparently, even you realize the absurdity of the comment that your
statement makes. No surprise there.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:41:56 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What isn't easy under Linux is:
>
> Internet connection sharing.
This is trivial to do with Linux
>
> Firewall. Needed more than ever with cable/dsl modems.
Again, trivial
>
> Installing applications when dependencies are not met, especially when
> you have a later version of something that is needed. It is confusing.
Once again, the is trivial with Linux.
>
>
> And finally, the applications base itself.
I have all the apps I need.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:39:38 -0700
"Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
> > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
> > two).
>
> Are you saying that you would expect a good Windows programmer to take a
> week or two to implement Notepad? Is that a reasonable estimate of the
> time it would take for a program like that?
I'd have said 4 days -- the Printing part is the hard bit.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:49:24 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
> Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
> Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
> Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
> ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
>
> ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
> the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
> Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
>
> "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
> servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
> support [is not there]"
>
> <yawn>
Given that some people on this group (!) have run 2.4 so you still think
yourself justified.
It may not be considered stable, but then win98, by the same standards
isn't
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
