Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Tony Tribelli)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (David Steinberg)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (chrisv)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Andres Soolo)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Daniel Berger)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
Re: The Power of the Future! (dc)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:11:08 -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 wrote:
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > > Christ are you going to be one of those Kulkis, Devlins and Blacks that
> > > make these wild ass statements that stretch credibility and then post no
> > > evidence to back it up? When the hell was this momentus event supposed
> to
> > > have happened? AMD did make 386 and 486 chips but they were NOT Intel
> > > designs. BTW, I agree with you that AMD do own fabs, in Texas and
> Germany
> > > but I, after having been a Intel and Microsoft systems engineer and
> > > programmer for over a decade have no recollection of AMD EVER making
> chips
> > > for Intel.
> >
> > You want evidence? How about a picture of one? Or perhaps you
> > are one of those people who believes if a tree falls on your
> > house but no one is there to see it, then it didnt happen.
> >
> > I'll send you an AMD Chip with the (M) AMD imprint
> > and an Intel chip with the (M) Intel imprint.
>
> Ummm.... huh? Don't _most_ AMD chips have an AMD copyright, and _most_ Intel
> chips have an Intel copyright? Am I missing something here? Why on earth
> should seeing the Intel logo on an Intel chip convince me that AMD designed
> it?
>
> BTW, I am also unaware of AMD ever designing processors for Intel. I say
> designing, not manufacturing, because the chip designer places the logo and
> copyright. If an Intel chip was designed by Intel, you can bet they aren't
> placing AMD's logo, much less their copyright, on it.
>
> -- Mike --
Intel DESIGNED and COPYRIGHTED them. AMD (M)anufactured
them for a time... as already stated by someone
else in the group. Next... the link to the statement
by someone else confirming it and a pic...
May not have been a very large number, but it was
enough. When Intel was in a bind, that's where they
turned. Sometimes it was keyboard controllers, sometimes
it was 286 CPU's.
Dolly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:13:53 -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:
>
>
> No one has supported you that I've seen. No I don't agree. AMD never fabbed Intel
> chips with the Intel brand. Period.
http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
Uh huh. I pointed this out to you before. You responded
to it even. Yet you try to ignore it just to say
I am wrong. You try to pretend this post doesnt exist
just so you can keep up with your "ooh, you're wrong"
responses.
Guess I am right. There was another post corroborating
my statement... and soon a pic or two when I get
around to developing and scanning one.
Dolly
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
From: Tony Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:16:07 GMT
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and on
>>> linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
>>>
>>> #include <iostream.h> main() { for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++) cout << i
>>> <<endl; return 0; }
>>>
>
> Now I've seen it all!! This is a test of OS speed?? Are you some sort of
> retard? C++ 101 stdout program usually learned in the first week of a class
> being used as such a test!
>
> And you folks moan about the Mindcraft benchmarking!!!! This is F'n
> hilarious!!!!!
Actually I've seen a 'consultant' doing just such a test for 'mba/business
types' to show that a PC is faster than a Macintosh. This was in DOS days
and the PC was in text mode, the Mac in graphics of course. The above is
more advanced than the 'consultants' program, he used BASIC not C++.
Tony
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:19:32 GMT
What happens if you redirect to a printer?
claire
p.s. It's a joke ok?
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:07:46 -0400, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and
>on
>> > linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
>> >
>> > #include <iostream.h>
>> > main()
>> > {
>> > for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
>> > cout << i <<endl;
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> >
>
>Now I've seen it all!! This is a test of OS speed?? Are you some sort of
>retard? C++ 101 stdout program usually learned in the first week of a class
>being used as such a test!
>
>And you folks moan about the Mindcraft benchmarking!!!! This is F'n
>hilarious!!!!!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:28:30 GMT
Ketil Z Malde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Windows 2000 has shown itself to outperform Linux is almost every
: > benchmark. Even Linux' traditional strong points such as OpenGL
: > performance is outclassed by Windows 2000.
: Could you please provide references for these claims?
No, he couldn't. They're false.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:34:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> If they're so great, why didn't they do better. Why didn't they
> do more than just what was barely necessary? Why couldn't they
> be forward compatible as well as backward compatible planning
> for the inevitable when Moore's law would catch up to what would
> be their ambition if they had any.
Because their goal was to make money, not to do what you think was the
"right thing to do."
It looks like they've done pretty well in achieving their goals, so
far.
------------------------------
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:35:13 GMT
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:16:25 -0500, Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Actually, I'm not going to spend the large amount of money just for an upgrade of an
>OS that will probably not work with my ,webcam or gaming card' (Actually I don't own
>a webcam or gaming card), or network cards, or jukebox CD or even regular CD. In
>fact, if WinME full version install was any indication, I think I'll stay away from
>future MS upgrades.
I wouldn't either.
I'm running Win98SE for that very reason. For what I do, Win2k is a
poor solution. Nowhere near as poor as Linux, but a poor solution just
the same.
>I will see Win2K soon enough at work, but I do notice with some chagrin that our IT
>department is still trying it out, and are kinda 'pissed off' that they have to
>evaluate it for a longer period of time to work out the issues because it won't work
>out of the box with our particular network. I know of at least 3 IT administrators
>at work that wish Win2K would go away.
Can't comment here, except that Win2k supported my P2P fine along with
ICS as well. So did Winme and WinSe.
Linux supported the Network as well, even easier than Windows in fact
(no screwing with adding protocols and bindings and such along with
reboots, it just worked), but I never did figure out how to set up ICS
under Linux, nor a decent firewall that has a rules assistant etc like
Norton.
Seems to be a common question in the network group.
claire
>====================
>Standard Disclaimer: My opinions are my own and do not represent the views or
>opinions of my employer.
>
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:39:37 GMT
Trimmed the newsgroups list again.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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."
Sweet. At least you can copy and paste.
Now I'm just afraid you won't be around in two years when the refutation
becomes clear. Why didn't I use December 2000 in the example? :-)
> LIE-nux has to fake allot of thing's. Like having user's. That woud be luke Micr
> osoft 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 LI
> E-nux. Accept the peopal that are wrighting it.
Huh? You're getting better at spalming--I can't parse it at all.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Women sometimes forgive a man who forces the opportunity,
but never a man who misses one.
-- Charles De Talleyrand-Perigord
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:51:47 GMT
"Jeff Glatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >"David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> >comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> >threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> >computer software, or even computers:
>
> Your post is off-topic for COOA. Read the newsgroup charter you
> worthless and clueless poor excuse for an alleged "OS/2 Advocate"
> (whose primary mission appears to be to harrass and denigrate
> remaining, active OS/2 developers. Are you working for Microsoft?)
i didnt even know there was an ng for os/2...thats the system that was put
out of its misery by ms ...right?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:12:19 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> NT is based on VMS, which was based on MVS, and so it goes.
No, VMS is not based on MVS. VMS has been around longer than MVS has and
uses an entirely different architecture.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT
> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> incapable of.
"Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
fsck reboot (or possible crash).
4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
Bing - I'm surfing.
5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
if I want to).
DJB
--
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:21:11 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EnTE5.8863$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZeFE5.5054$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rlpvj$lnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Certainly, given a high enough network load, ANY variety of
> > > webserver, be it Apache/linux or IIS/NT, or whatever, will have
> > > to split out to several servers. The point is, if IIS is set up
> > > this way more often than apache, and *isn't* handling more traffic,
> > > then IIS is handling less traffic per server. So your point
> > > originally, about multiple servers hiding behind one hostname, cannot
> > > possibly make IIS look better.
> >
> > No, my original point was that there are no hard numbers which suggest
> that
> > Apache is used in more servers. As I said, it may be, but I see no
> numbers
> > to validate this assertion.
>
> What is wrong with the numbers at:
> http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ ?
If you had bothered to read any other messages in the thread, you'd know.
Netcraft does not survey the number of actual servers. It only surveys the
number of hostnames, which has no bearing whatsoever on how many actual
installations there are. A single server can have 1000 hostnames assigned
to it, and a single hostname can be load balanced across hundreds of
servers.
> And would you have argued with them in the not-so-distant past
> when you couldn't keep IIS running for a week at a time?
While i've never seen an installation of IIS that couldn't run for a week
(unless it had very poor ISAPI extensions installed), this statement has
nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:28:30 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So this shows that Windows console scrolling is much slower than Linux
> console scrolling. It's a fair enough benchmark to test console
> scrolling, so why do you lot keep bashing him?
Most likely, he's running the program in a windowed console window under
Windows, rather than a full screen and using a non-windowed (ala Xterm)
console in Linux.
Not that it's even close to any kind of objective test, but if you're going
to do it, you should at least use the same kind of console on both.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:11:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nick Condon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:15:01 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> The middleware might be different, though -- NT doesn't have 'mv', but
>> it does have 'iexplore.exe', for example. 'mv' is far more limited
>> and specific -- stupid, in other words -- but that also means
>> less testing.
>
>...and reflects a central difference in philosophy. The Unix Way is
>small tools that do one thing well. The Microsoft philosophy is to
>keep adding features. 'mv' versus 'iexplore' demonstrates that
>difference very well.
Agreed. Of course, there is the issue that iexplore consists of a
number of pieces -- iexplore.exe merely being a launcher. However,
it's still a little too big for my taste.
>
>I'm trying to be impartial here but I feel the urge to quote a
>French aeronautics engineer (whose name I forget) - "Elegance in
>design is not achieved when there is nothing more to add, but when
>there is nothing more to take away".
I'll admit, I like that philosophy :-). At least at an abstract level.
>
>This is the superiority that *nix users feel. The MS design
>philosophy clashes with theirs, and they see the MS stuff as
>being clumsy and inelegant.
Well, when it *is* clumsy and inelegant, hopefully many would *see* it
as clumsy and inelegant. :-)
I certainly do. :-)
>---
>Nick
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:33:23 -0500
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:CAUE5.165506
> > Actually, Notepad is an app that should only take any decent developer a
> few
> > hours to write.
> >
> > The vast majority of notepad's functionality is provided by the windows
> edit
> > control. The rest is just writing the text to disk, Searching in the
> text,
> > and adding a help box.
>
> Help box -- an about Dialog (CreateDialogIndirect), help file (call to the
> WinHelp API), searching text -- FindText(). Saving... well, heck, just use
> straight ANSI C calls for that (about 5 minutes, depending on how much
error
> checking you throw in).
>
> And then there's printing, which takes the other 3 days (most people [99%]
> haven't done printing support, and it'll take them that long to get it
> right).
Notepad doesn't seem to do graphical printing. I think it just dumps text
out to the printer (though I could be wrong).
In any event, we're talking about decent programmers here. Not novices.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:22:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:02:25 +0200
<8s1rc6$bqt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Can Linux run pre 386 apps ?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> I have just played a game of `Alley Cat' (remember that?) from dosemu
>> under linux. It's not perfect, but it's certainly an 8086 game IIRC.
>>
>> Also, since most Linux stuff is OSS, pre 386 apps could be recompiled.
>
>Yes, but the thing is that 8086 DOS apps run under Win9x without
>recompilation, since Jedi was criticizing the backwards bending Win9x pull
>developers through.
Dunno if it's 8086 or 80286, but I know of at least one game that
I have yet to get work on Win95 -- namely, "Delta V".
Its main claim to fame is that it requires 600K of conventional
memory.
(You heard that right folks! :-) )
I don't have Win98, Win2K, or WinMe at home to test it. (Win2K might
run it under some sort of emulation -- if it works at all.)
I haven't tried it under dosemu. It's a CD-ROM game -- an old one.
I could try to boot into DOS mode, but I doubt it would work any better
there.
(I have something even older -- a Stargate clone that runs on CGA,
off a floppy that has to be booted into, Last time I tried to run *that*,
it ran, but so ridiculously fast one can't see anything. :-) )
>
>> -Ed
>
>Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:27:06 GMT
>>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> No one has supported you that I've seen. No I don't agree. AMD never fabbed
Intel
>> chips with the Intel brand. Period.
> http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
> Guess I am right. There was another post corroborating
> my statement... and soon a pic or two when I get
> around to developing and scanning one.
It's a corroborative statement, but it also does not include any
proof, references or reasons to consider Rex as an authority. Rex
could also be mistaken.
It would be best to produce that picture, but even then it's value
would only be equal to how this newsgroup sees your integrity. You
_could_ doctor the picture.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
P.S. I would not be surprised if AMD did manufacture chips with the
Intel brand in the past, I've even spent several hours searching for
evidence ever since you claimed it. But I haven't found any such
evidence, even from non-authorative sources.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:25:53 -0500
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> incapable of.
>
>"Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
>someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
>in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
>
>1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
>rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
An annoying issue with Linux, no doubt.
>2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
No experience with this.
>3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
>fsck reboot (or possible crash).
How stable is the BeFS? What happens when you crash during a write to
that write operation and the few before it? What happens to the files
committed for writing?
>4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
>sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
>networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
>Bing - I'm surfing.
Linux can do this too.
>5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
>if I want to).
Huh? Linux has nice searching features; what's the problem?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:30:02 GMT
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> incapable of.
> 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
> rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
on the fly on all platforms.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:29:57 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9TWE5.65867$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
If not for that fortunate fact, that code would never have been
> discovered, and you would have been saying that Microsoft would NEVER have
> done something like that. And no one could have proved you wrong. As it
> is, you're probably going to say "so what? Ancient history."
>
> So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
Hey, I have a knife in my kitchen drawer at home. At any time, just by
bringing it out, I could have used it against somebody.
The important thing, however, is that I did not.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:34:35 -0700
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00101113570904.10021@pc03...
> El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Simon Cooke escribi�:
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "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).
>
> [snip about how two weeks is way overkill]
>
> >And then there's printing, which takes the other 3 days (most people
[99%]
> >haven't done printing support, and it'll take them that long to get it
> >right).
>
> Well, if you were using linux, how long would it take to write a system()
that
> calls a2ps with custom arguments? ;-)
Not very long at all.
Now, if you're using Linux, how long does it take you to convert your
X-Windows graphics display code to a postscript rendered so that you can do
complex work?
In Windows, you can use the same code that you used to display it onscreen.
It's only the really bog-standard simple case that doesn't have an easy way
to do it. Which means you've got to spend 2 days working on it.
Simon
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:40:10 GMT
>>>>> "dc" == dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> 5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
>> if I want to).
> Huh? Linux has nice searching features; what's the problem?
The BeOS filesystem is a queryable database. The BeOS site has a few
exmaples of what you can do at the programming level. I don't know
enough about the Linux FS to compare, but perhaps you or someone else
can.
On Static Queries:
http://www-classic.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/volume_II/Issue28.html#Workshop
Live Queries:
http://www-classic.be.com/aboutbe/benewsletter/volume_II/Issue29.html#Workshop
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:50:13 -0300
El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Daniel Berger escribi�:
>> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> incapable of.
>
>"Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
>someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
>in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
>
>1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
>rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
Ctrl-alt-+?
>2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
So can I. I have to fil it to 105% for it to be fucked. At least from a user's
POV.
>3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
>fsck reboot (or possible crash).
Same here. ReiserFS.
>4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
>sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
>networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
>Bing - I'm surfing.
Click on Linuxconf->Network Configuration->Basic system information->dhcp.
The exiting linuxconf.
About 6 clicks. No need to explicitly restart anything.
>5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
>if I want to).
I don't get this one.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
