Linux-Advocacy Digest #612, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More money saved thanks to Linux (Andy Newman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:41:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When comparing Linux, to say, a commercial UNIX
> such as Solaris or IRIX, it is very disjointed,
> and un-professionally (mainly due to the, "how
> many packages can we fit in a CD" syndrom many
> distributors have when designing a distro)
> intergrated applications that donot communicate
> the best. However, with that said, I am willing
> to put up with these little nagging things until
> I get either a SUN machine or SGI machine. However,
> in the future, (hopefully :)) the distro's will make
> more of an effort to ensure not only compatibility,
> but complete application-OS intergration is made
> when designing a distro, whats the point of having
> 1500 packages, consisting of 5 editing tools, and
> each has it's only problem, hopefully, distro's
> will combine the source code of all five and create
> on complete editor, making life simpler for the user.
You're asking for something which would essentially
kill Linux. If we waited for every package to work
with every other package, no one would be running
Linux.
Distributions are all about installing the base system
and configuring it. Any additional packages, such
as editors, office suites, etc., are the responsibility
of the companies which developed them, not the distro.
Think about it: when you get a distro, you're getting
essentially *free* software--i.e., you make no extra
effort beyond buying the OS CDs--tacked onto the base
operating system. When you don't have to make extra
effort before you get the software, chances are you
are expected to make the effort *after* you install it.
If you want integration, get StarOffice. After all,
it is currently being developed by the folks you like
so much more than Linux: SUN.
OS Integration can only lead to more problems than it
solves. Ease of use? Sure...until you have an error
in your word processor, and have no idea where the
problem is coming from. With complete OS integration,
chain reactions of problems are entirely possible.
Your word processor problem might originate with the
modem driver settings in the Registry. A bug in the
fax software might cause all websites originating from
a Class A license to report "404 Not Found" errors.
The more complex the code, the more complex the errors.
Microsoft, of course, will be only too happy to
charge you $5-$20 an hour to try and fix the bug they
included in the "complete OS integration" they sold
you. They might even blame the hardware manufacturer,
who will in turn blame Microsoft, etc.
With Linux, you can isolate the problem since you have
the source code, and since the source code is available
chances are someone else has had your exact same problem
and fixed it already. If the hardware manufacturer
blames the OS code, Microsoft Windows users don't have
any way of proving the hardware manufacturer wrong.
If the hardware manufacturer blames Linux OS code,
the end user has a chance to prove the hardware
manufacturer wrong.
So no, I don't think OS integration is the way to go.
OS integration can only lead to closed-source systems,
since colossal effort must be made to integrate everything
fairly seamlessly into the central product.
And are your "complete OS integration" customers
demanding a certain feature?
MICROSOFT PROGRAMMER: "Hmmm, if I change this line
here, will that affect a line of code hundreds of
thousands of lines away? How can I tell which lines
interact with which other lines in this colossal code
hog? Oh well, I'll just release it, and let the users
find out this stuff for me. What other OS options
can they possibly have? An OS which can be altered
without screwing up the word processor? An OS which
can be upgraded without requiring massive upgrades in
any graphics manipulation software used on that OS?"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 19:39:49 +1300, kiwiunixman
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I always feel sorry for the underdog in any
> >> industry, it's like the
> >
> > A lot of people feel sorry for Linux, especially
> > after trying it.
Some of us try Linux and feel sorry for the so-called,
whats a good word, "overdogs"?
After all, one major way in which Microsoft is
making its Windows server crash less...is by
integrating code taken from Linux.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:09:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:33:14
>"Joseph Dalton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Actually I agree that a competitive environment is good for consumers,
>> I just don't think there is a very competitive market for PC word
>> processors right now. Consider that StarOffice is free. (...bloated as
>> well, maybe, but so is Word.) Both work roughly the same (I don't much
>> like either of them), yet as far as I can tell Word is still preferred
>> by "the market". Why is that? Is Word somehow better? In what precise
>> way?
>
>StarOffice has an annoying way to load *everything* when you open it. (For
>comparison, think what would happen if when you opened Word, you would also
>be forced to open Excel, PowerPoint, Access, Outlook)
Ummmm.... You do. That's what that "fast load" main-streaming feature
that MS came up a couple years ago does. You actually end up loading
most of the Office suite when you boot, whether you're going to use it
or not.
>I never used StarOffice extensively, so I can't tell you what else Word has
>that StarOffice lack.
>Someone else would've to add this.
A bundling arrangement with the monopoly operating system.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: More money saved thanks to Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:57:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In reality though, this really is a perfect use for Linux and this is
>where Linux should focus itself instead of making a half assed attempt
>at the consumer desktop.
I actually half agree with you here. The efforts of some of the
distributions has been less than stellar. Guys, it has to be *really*
good. Not just a bunch of stuff thrown together that mostly works.
I'm a old-school Unix person and run FreeBSD - it reminds me of home :) -
but used various Linux distributions for a number of years at my
last job. I was constantly amazed at some of the advocates claims
that it was equal to some of the consumer orientated OS's as a
deskttop platform. It wasn't. It certainly is capable of it and
it's getting better, sometimes a lot better - HelixCode have got
the idea. But just shouting "Linux, GPL, Gnome. MS begone." isn't
enough.
Now that's where I stop agreeing with ``Claire''.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:11:21 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:55:06
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:45:55
>
>> >The rule is to put machine settings in HKLM, and user setting, in HKCU.
>>
>> In a desktop PC environment, such a distinction is an arbitrary one. MS
>> should have a better method of doing things, so that these kinds of
>> problems don't come up. As Giuliano pointed out, an OS is supposed to
>> be *designed*, not merely *piled up*.
>
>No, it isn't.
>In a desktop PC using single user OS, this distinction is an arbitrary one,
>and indeed, in win9x, it doesn't matter.
>Which is what I'm complaining about.
>Because when you move an application writen mainly for win9x, as my dailer
>is, you encounter many troubles with it. Because now, in a multi-user OS,
>this is no longer an arbitry distnction.
The question you have to ask yourself is, would the same problem arise
if it were ported from single-user WinDOS to multi-user Unix, rather
than "multi-user" WinNT.
>As a rule, you should put your user spesifics settings in HKCU, and machine
>settings in HKLM.
>I'm sure you can understand why.
>That the application put user spesific settings in HKLM means that it was
>badly designed, not that the OS is badly designed.
Perhaps in your opinion. I blame the whole platform, which would
include both badly designed OS and brain-dead applications. Both are a
reflection of monopoly crapware, more than anything else. I know you
think this makes me a fanatic, but I'm not the one who thinks W2K is the
creme de la creme of operating systems.
>I tried to give some examples for this, but have failed to give a good
>example.
>Now I've found it.
>Do you consider unix/linux to be a good OS?
Yes.
>Do you consider Netscape 6 to be a good browser?
No.
>Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
That would be Netscapes fault, then, since this isn't a problem endemic
to Unix, as it is in Windows. Since Netscape was originally designed on
Windows, this isn't very surprising.
>Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all* users.
>Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of storing them
>in /home/<user>/netsacpe
You'll notice none of this is hidden inside of a binary hierarchical
database with no public specification. Just files (text files, maybe,
but this is Netscape, so I can't be sure) in a regular old directory.
If any of this is even true, as you say.
>By your own statements, then:
>
>> You keep missing the point, I think. So I'll make it plain. Yes, it is
>> the applications fault when this kind of bug happens. It is Microsoft's
>> fault for letting it happen; OSes are supposed to support apps, not trip
>> them up because they didn't follow "conventions".
>
>It's linux/unix fault for letting it happens.
No, it isn't. Neither /usr nor /home nor how applications store their
configurations has anything to do with "linux/unix". This is a Netscape
problem. If it isn't an Ayende Rahien problem, and you just don't have
it set up correctly.
Doesn't that just piss you off? I insist that an application being
brain-dead is the OSes fault on Windows, but the app's fault on Linux,
*just* because Microsoft monopolizes. How unfair, huh?
>> >On the 9x line it would work, (you lost the ability to support multi users
>> >unless you build it up yourself, though) , but on NT it breaks the programs.
>> >Is this the OS fault?
>
>Just as a note, if you want to get Designed for Windows logo, you must store
>user spesifics settings in HKCU, never mind if you application is targeted
>to 9x or NT.
The "Designed for Windows" logo is a trademark thing; doesn't have jack
to do with anything, as far as I'm concerned. If there are hoops that
haven't been jumped through by an app, its a market issue whether its
the apps fault, or the hoops fault. Extreme cases aside, when there's
free market competition for the OS, its generally appropriate to say its
the apps fault. When there's a monopoly in the OS, then there really
isn't much point in expecting anything better than crapware, nor any
reason to go second-guessing programmers until the free market is
restored.
>9x applications that does this are violating rules of writing software to
>windows.
Which is why I say its Windows fault; why are there rules if they're so
readily violated?
>> Yes, of course it is. Why do you ask?
>
>So it's linux fault that Netscape doesn't work well unless you run as root?
No.
>How interesting.
Not really.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:52:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:19:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Do you remember the Amiga 500 with Workbech 1.3, now that is efficient
>programming, and surprisingly fast considering it ran off a FDD
Pedant point: that was the *680x0* model microprocessor, not the 68xx model.
But I agree, the Amiga series was a wonderful set of machines,
especially with their custom coprocessor. The OS code was
also very tight and OO -- before OO became such a buzzword.
To whoever proposed the teaching of floating point:
I would advocate a Harris 1802. It has many, erm, advantages
over the 6502:
- no JSR or RET instruction.
- no offset indexing of any kind. If one wanted indirect load,
one had to use LDN (Rn), LDA (Rn), or LDAX, after setting
a register. (The 6502 has the infamous LDX, LDY, and LDA (n,X)
and LDA (n),Y instructions. Bizarre? You bet your sweet bippy.)
- no fixed PC register; the P register is 4 bits and is used to
determine which of the general registers is used for instruction fetch.
This can lead to all kinds of hacks, including a (very slow) emulation
of a more traditional JSR and RET, using SEP.
- the stack can be anywhere in memory; the 6502's stack was restricted
to one "page" (0x01xx).
- 1.7 megahertz clock cycle, 8 clocks per memfetch, 2 memfetches
per instruction cycle except for long jumps or long skips,
which took 3. In other words, it was blazingly fast. Not.
- *two* subtraction instructions: SDI and SMI, with and without borrow.
- no PC-relative code at all. Short jumps set the low 8 bits of
the register currently used for the PC. Long jumps set all 16 bits.
- The SEX instruction! (No, it's not what you think; there's a
4-bit X register, useable in LDAX and STXD, and a few other places.)
- no dynamic memory refresh capability.
- 7 I/O ports.
- multiplexed address bus.
Note that both are 64K addressable, 8 bit data bus. The nice thing
about the 1802 is that it had a DMA mode that could be used for
manual program loading.
(I'm not familiar with such microprocessors as the Intel 4004 and 8008,
which are even dumber.)
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>Tom Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
[snip]
>>>>> The 65xx line is only appropriate for industrial microcontrollers
>>>>> and toys.
>>>>>
>>>> And therefore an excellent tool to teach floating point theory!
>>>> I'm a sadist, Aaron, not a realist.<g>
>>>
>>> Yes, you are.
>>
>>
>> But, I'm a sadist with a plan. Performing IEEE floating point operations on
>> a processor that doesn't even posess an MUL operand - A wonderful exercise
>> in logic. Performing complex operations with a minimal instruction set and
>> with limited resources builds a great deal of discipline. Hell, it used to
>> be par for the course. Those worthless arcade games written for VIC-20s and
>> C64s were classic examples of efficient software design.
>>
>> I agree about the 68xx line. It was, IMHO, excellent. A lot more appealing
>> than anything Intel had to offer at the time.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Wilson
>> Go home Al....
>> Game over, man!
>>
>>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- see, I can be sadistic, too :-)
up 77 days, 17:17, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 22:01:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:bzWV5.5500$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > IMO, that should be abolished. You shouldn't have to refer to the manual
> in
>> > order to administer your computer.
>>
>> Oh? How do you admin a windows box? Many of the items on those cute
>> gui screens certainly aren't intuitive. Maybe you use the help files?
>> What's the difference between help files and man pages? (Other than
>> the man pages actually contain information, not dumbed down like
>> windows help).
> Help files are easier to read & understand than man files, and provide just
> as much information.
What nonsense, most MS help files are very bereft of any useful info.
> Reason is that MS can:
> A> Keep them up to date.
> B> Pay somebody to write them in mostly non-technical jargon that the user
> can understand quite easily.
You mean dumb them down?
> C> Right click>What is?
> D> GUI is much easier to use than text files, as it doesn't require so much
> knowlege. See LinuxConf as proof of this. You can recall images better than
> text, most of the time. (That is how you recognize stuff around you, which
> is builtin into Homo Sapiens before it was Homo, text is a new invention.)
Bullshit. I can easily document & save settings in text files. Try
that with your stupid gui. Why is this item set this way, 6 months
later? Can you gui tell you? You have the same misconceptions as most
gui lovers, that just because they're easier for you, they must be
easier for everyone. I can _read_, I don't need stupid little
indeciperable icons to accomplish everything.
I can also make a backup copy of a text config file before I change
it, or leave the old config lines in as comments so that if I don't
like the change, I can easily remove it.
> Take this as example.
> A woman seating in a chair, her hands folded on her laps, wide forhead, no
> eyebrows, long black hair, dark green dress, which show just a bit of
> cleavege.
> What am I talking about? (no eyebrows is a *thick* hint)
> http://www.monalisa-artmat.com/images/themonalisa.jpg
> What would be more easily recognizable?
>> Then let's discuss the registry, another stinking pile of dung from
>> MS. The same information repeated multiple times under indecipherable
>> keys with little or no documentation. I'll take text format files any
>> day.
> The registry is hard to deciphere.
> You aren't suppose to work with it directly, not unless you've a good level
> of understanding about it.
Oh yeah, little things like software that puts run some crud at
startup in the registry that you want to get rid of.
> As for it to be undocumented, this is *false*.
> There are *plenty* of resources to find out what each key or node or value
> does.
> Take a trip to *any* good NT/2K focused site, and you'll find plenty of
> tips on what the registry does, how it does it, and how to change it.
But I shouldn't have to read anything or know anything to admin my
computer, recognize the quote? At least the old *.ini files made some
sense, the registry is just crap.
Jerry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
