Linux-Advocacy Digest #453, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Bones)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Bones)
Re: Open Source & security holes (Bones)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Bones)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Gary Hallock)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Mike")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Karri Kalpio)
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (Chris Lopeman)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Chris Lee)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Chris Lee)
Re: Windows Stability ("Nik Simpson")
Re: KDE Hell (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:11:38 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, what is khttpd then?
> > >
> > > an experimental kernel based web server
> >
> > So it's a kernel based web server, that's exactly what I was talking about.
> >
>
> That's khttp, not Tux.
>
> >
> > > > Please post a URL of the specweb 99 results. The results I recall
> > > > reading only had WinNT/IIS, Linux/Apache, and Linux/Tux.
> > >
> > > I don't know of any specweb results for khttpd.
> >
> > <sigh>
> >
> > You just said that kttpd kicked IIS's ass in specweb99, so please admit
> > you were wrong, or show me the results.
>
> No, Tux kicked IIS's ass in specweb99. khttpd is a totally different program.
> As far as I know there are no specweb results for khttpd.
>
> >
> >
> > > > Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
> > > > benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
> > >
> > > In the first place, Red Hat never claimed tux was the best
> > > around - they let the figures speak for themselves.
> > >
> > > In the second place, it was not a "hack httpd", but a clever
> > > and innovative web server, and a showcase for the scalability
> > > of the Linux kernel.
> >
> > In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
> > else linux: FLOP.
> >
>
> You should really read up on Tux. You seem to think thay khttpd and Tux and
the
> same thing. They are totally different programs.
I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several weeks
back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation were
telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high numbers
they achieved.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:54:54 GMT
> In article <JTf86.33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Something like Quartz could be substituted for the X11
>> based system without much trouble.
> You're crazy. All existing GUI apps would not work with Quartz because the
> existing apps use sockets to connect to the GUI.
Not necessarily. It's quite easy to run apps built against one window
manager's ( or "desktop environment's") API inside another wm by just having
the correct libraries installed. For example, I have no trouble running
something like GnoRPM under FVWM2 as long as the Gnome libraries are
installed.
I also see in this thread that someone mentioned that Quartz was build on
top of X. Assuming that this is true (I know very little about Quartz), then
this whole discussion is irrelevant, since Quartz would *not* be a
replacement for X, it would be just another wm. Of course it could be a
heavily modified version of X underneath...
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:54:55 GMT
> In article <c8T76.31618$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I removed the 2GByte disk as a museum piece.
LOL. I won't even mention the sizes of the two hard disks in my system.
Perhaps they have some value on the antiques circuit; if you watch PBS, you
might see me having them appraised on that antiques show.
"And this IBM drive that was used by Teddy Roosevelt to store his memoirs..."
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:54:55 GMT
> In article <93sa88$bif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pablo wrote:
> I've found a lot of sites about Open Source Software, but I would like
> to find a site that compare Open Source and commercial software. E.g
> security holes, "Who get the patches first?" and so on. Anyone?
This would be difficult to find out at best, since it would require some
type of industrial espionage for every closed-source private company
involved. Just because CompanyX's PR department denies or skates around a
security issue does not mean they are ignoring it internally as well.
Personally, I would like to see a collection of information about how
quickly patches are applied by people who use the software. *That* would be
interesting.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:54:56 GMT
> In article <xaT76.31619$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I reinstalled because I wanted to use ReiserFS, the journaling file system.
^^^^^^^^
> That all went smoothly and everything seemed to be working.
Well, that makes all the difference in the world, considering the hot and
cold reception that ReiserFS has had, (works on some, chokes on others.)
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:15:25 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
> Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
>
> ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
> still not stable.
>
> Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
> distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
> the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
>
> Why don't you just tell the truth, J Sloan?
>
> -Chad
>
Why don't you tell the truth, chad?
ReiserFs IS included in SuSE more than a year already.
When you do a custom install, you have the choice of Reiser
or ext2fs for your system. It gives you the choice, quite similar to NT
giving you the choice between FAT or NTFS.
And by what FACTS did you come to the conclusion that it's not stable?
Do you have anything to tell us, or is this just another lie.
You and flathead are the two most unpleasant liars here in c.o.l.a, you
tell whatever lie whenever you feel like it.
Bring FACTS, not lies!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:20:28 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Chad Myers wrote:
> I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several weeks
> back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation were
> telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
> It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high numbers
> they achieved.
>
In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux. Your
confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear. khttpd is a kernel mode web
server. Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high speed. Two
very different animals.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:28:09 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>
> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> consider it?
Here's a better question: OS-X is Unix-based, and the Mac OS-X GUI provides
a blueprint for anyone wanting to copy it. There are lots of good reasons to
want to put the Mac GUI on Linux, especially if your goal is to take over
the world. So, if there was a Mac-compatible API on Unix, so that a Mac
application only had to be recompiled to run on Unix instead of OS-X, would
that provide the base for Unix to start making inroads onto the desktop?
Would Mac developers start porting applications to a platform that expects
software to be free? Would open source developers start writing Mac API
compatible applications, that could be recompiled and run on an Apple Mac?
Know what I think? I think I'm just restating your question... Am I right?
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 14 Jan 2001 19:42:38 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just because there's some brave souls out there doesn't mean
> that the Linux community is about to say: "Linux is enterprise
> ready, and we have an enterprise OS called "ReiserFS", it's
> good enough to run NASDAQ without worry of fault".
Well, true. That very much unlike the situation with Windows. The
Windows approach is that "when the next version is released Windows
will be more enterprise ready than ever". And that's how it�s been
since Windows 3.0.
> No one has said that, because Reiser isn't production, it hasn't
> been released, it hasn't been thoroughly tested in many environments
> and it's not going to be taken seriously until it is.
That's very much unlike with Windows, too. NTFS is in production,
it has been tested in many environments and (that's exactly why) it
is not being taken seriously.
--karri
--
/"\ : Karri Kalpio
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
/ \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: Chris Lopeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:52:21 GMT
==============C47E1B70C24762030BBFCBA9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thank you for the link. But I am really looking for actually experience
with these products not the manufacture's propaganda.
Tim Moore wrote:
> http://www.ami.com/products/subpage.cfm?CatID=5&SubID=14
> --
> timothymoore
> bigfoot
> com
==============C47E1B70C24762030BBFCBA9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Thank you for the link. But I am really looking for actually experience
with these products not the manufacture's propaganda.
<p>Tim Moore wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a
href="http://www.ami.com/products/subpage.cfm?CatID=5&SubID=14">http://www.ami.com/products/subpage.cfm?CatID=5&SubID=14</a>
<br>--
<br>timothymoore
<br> bigfoot
<br> com</blockquote>
</html>
==============C47E1B70C24762030BBFCBA9==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 17:54:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>
>If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>consider it?
No.
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:32:19 +0100
In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
> Bottom Line:
>
> Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> tasks.
Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
enterprise ready. Microsoft has lost the server market. Whether it can
hold onto the desktop is the big question now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:26:01 +0100
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 18:00:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>> >
>> > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>> > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>> > consider it?
>>
>> The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn
near
>> impossible.
>
>Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
>really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
>windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
>on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
>
>The intelligent design of Unix makes things like choice
>of GUI totally orthogonal to the rest of the system.
>
>Something like Quartz could be substituted for the X11
>based system without much trouble.
Spoken like a true Mac-loving idiot. Quartz would be a *great* deal of
trouble and not worth the hassle of replacing X.
You UI losers need to get over yourselves. You don't have much influence in
the Linux world and never will.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:04:45 -0500
"Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93sik6$3dj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> (But it is much more stable than Windows NT, in my experience)
> > Then you don't know how to set up Windows NT properly. Linux has
> > been far less stable in my experience and in the experience of several
> > of my colleagues (who come from Unix backgrounds and prefer to stick
> > with their Solaris and HP-UX boxes).
> Umm, are you sure it isn't the other way around?
> Maybe it's you who don't know how to set up Linux properly?
>
Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the fact that many of the stability
problems for NT and LINUX as seen by advocates on both side of the issue are
the result of inexperience with the OS they despise most!
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:06:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:27:29 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:20:12 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >
>> >> All of a sudden,
>> >> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
>> >> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
>> >> just wasn't designed for that
>> >
>> >sooo.. erm. what was linux designed for?
>> >
>> >and just to correct, as i see it, it isn't the windows users jumping on the
>> >bandwagon - and that's quite a strong term for linux - as it is the
>> >so-called linux advocates trying to force it down our throats.
>>
>> Force it how? with advocacy posts? pretty broad definition of "force" if you
>> ask me.
>> So would you say that MicroSof~1 forced windows down your throat?
>>
>> >
>> >then, through clenched teeth, we say -why do we want this when what we have
>> >works so much better for us?
>>
>> Use what you want. Read the EULA, it's interesting reading.
>>
>
>The Office EULA is downright scary. It basically says that when a document
>or spread sheet or whatever is created with an Office product, the ownership
>of the document (etc) is held by Microshaft, not the person sitting at the
>computer.
>
>For example, you are NOT allowed to view a Word document with anything
>other than Microsoft products....thus, doing a hex-dump of a .doc file
>with unix-land "od" command is a violation of the EULA.
>
>I expect Microsoft WILL attempt to enforce this provision of the EULA
>at some time...otherwise, why would they put it in.
Ouch!
Is this documented on a Website somewhere?
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- wonder what free speech issues this entails, too
EAC code #191 3d:04h:10m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:29:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:48:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001
>19:20:19 GMT;
>>On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:10:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Offtopic: More than half of the US population, based on a survey
>>>done some time ago, can't identify Mexico. (Hint: south.)
>>
>>Based upon the Florida fiasco it doesn't surprise me in the least :(
>>
>>>Exactly. And that means that Windows 2000 is perfect for everybody.
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>>What it means is that Linux isn't making any inroads on the desktop of
>>corporate America.
>>
>>>Spot The Flaw.
>>
>>There is no "one size fit's all" in the computer world.
>
>I guess its safe to say he didn't "spot the flaw", did he? :-D
He didn't even get close. In fact, he snipped it.
It's far from clear that he's right anyway; as I understand it,
Linux is slowly gaining acceptance as a desktop alternative, in
some companies, anyway. However, I have no specifics, and it may
be that we are in fact facing a dichotomy of users: the servers
will run Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, or other Unices, and the
desktops will continue to run Windows products, mostly because
Windows is "easy to work with" [+] and has a large number of
applications, utilities, fixit tools, and games. Also, desktops
can be rebooted ("push the button, Frank") right there, whereas
servers may have to be relocated to outermost Siberia to monitor
something over there -- or maybe just somebody's locked closet.
It's *coooooold* in Siberia. Much easier to remotely fix a problem
than to fly out there. :-) There are a number of ways around this,
of course -- there is equipment that can respond to a command on
TCP/IP to powercycle a set of equipment, for example. But that
just sounds like such a bodge; better to have equipment, software,
etc. that doesn't go foom every six weeks [*] in the first place.
Slightly cheaper, too.
He's right in that there's no "one size fits all". Linux is going
to have this problem sometime in the near future -- if it's not
having it already. (Windows 2000, as I understand it, has 9 (!)
different variants, with varying prices, to boot.) But at least
in Linux land, one can hop over to that big S/390 without too
much trouble (a recompile of various programs, mostly).
Nice feature, that! Or one can go to a multiprocessor Sparc machine,
an HP server, an IBM AIX system, with a little more work.
I do wonder how much bandwidth an S/390 can handle [$] -- but I'll
bet it's a lot more than a dinky little Pentium box. Of course,
one can buy a whole lot of dinky little boxes -- has anyone
done a benchmark between an S/390 and a farm of "dinky little
Pentium box"es? :-) I'm kinda curious now -- and there are other
issues, such as SCSI vs. IDE (in another thread), and 4 100 Mb
NICs versus 1 GB NIC (as borne out by our favorite (blech)
benchmark, Mindcraft). But Beowulf is an example of what
kind of magic can be done by these boxes -- and *that* might
just outperform an S/390, and be cheaper to boot! CPU-wise, anyway.
The catch is: those boxes are all running Linux. Oops!
[.sigsnip]
[+] This is extremely debatable.
[*] suggested by a recent year-long benchmark/study between
NT and Linux.
[$] There is the possibility that an S/390 is an extensible multiheaded
machine, which means the amount of bandwidth depends on the number
of busses, network cards, disks (spindles), and CPUs one throws
at the problem; in essence, the machine becomes a farm in itself,
under the umbrella name "S/390". I know nothing of this, mind
you; it's sheer speculation.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:04h:20m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:33:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steven Brangers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:16:02 +0100
<newscache$k2b57g$6sl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi Patricia,
>
> My general idea is:
>
> Ignore people who are telling stuff like 'Linux is inferior to
>Windows'
> Rebooting and all other consequences are their problem.
>
> Greetings,
>
>Steven Brangers -- dba/UNIX sysadmin
Linux is inferior to Windows in at least one area -- economic
performance for the manufacturing company. :-)
I expect this to change sometime in the future (exactly when is
a good question, though). But RedHat's still alive, which is
a good sign.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:05h:38m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:36:16 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:42:47 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So what? you post from Linux, but that's not a big deal. Your lack of
Could have fooled me. Around here posting from Linux is akin to
getting a personal audience with the Pope.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:41:00 -0500
Mike wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
> >
> > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> > consider it?
>
> Here's a better question: OS-X is Unix-based, and the Mac OS-X GUI provides
> a blueprint for anyone wanting to copy it. There are lots of good reasons to
> want to put the Mac GUI on Linux, especially if your goal is to take over
> the world. So, if there was a Mac-compatible API on Unix, so that a Mac
> application only had to be recompiled to run on Unix instead of OS-X, would
> that provide the base for Unix to start making inroads onto the desktop?
> Would Mac developers start porting applications to a platform that expects
> software to be free? Would open source developers start writing Mac API
> compatible applications, that could be recompiled and run on an Apple Mac?
>
> Know what I think? I think I'm just restating your question... Am I right?
Yea, sure, eliminate all my subtlety and be explicit! (yes, this is sort
of my point.)
> -- Mike --
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:42:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:47:04 +0000
<RNc86.176355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
>> if your linux has no gui then how are you running that kde desktop shown
>> in your sig?
>
>Easy. I have two machines. It's the older system I upgraded with the
>30GByte disk, ATA100 controller and CDRW.
>
>It burnt it's first CD last night. Gosh! That worked just fine.
>
>If only telnet, nfs worked.
Telnet to non-root accounts should be working fine, if your network
is functional.
As for NFS -- that requires a bit of setup. At the very least,
you'll have to edit /etc/exports -- or use linuxconf to do it
for you, perhaps (I don't know offhand; I'm a tad old-fasioned :-) ).
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:06h:48m actually running Linux.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:43:42 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:54:01 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93l9sj$j98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
>> unpredictable and frequent intervals;
>That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under
>Win9x.
In another post you say your girlfriend's system fails once a month. I
count that as "frequent". My boss uses Win9x on his laptop and he was
just yesterday asking me if having failures once a week is normal.
The majority of Win9x users _do_ have "frequent" failures, although they
don't always take the form of a BSOD. That's why MS offers NT and W2K,
isn't it?
>Unpredictable, perhaps, but then how predictable is a kernel panic?
For most Linux users they are so infrequent as to not be something to
plan for or care much about. Windows 9x users, on the other hand, do
seem to be in a fairly constant state of worry about the stability of
their system. They do seem to act as if having failures is a normal
part of using their computers.
IOW, I don't save every few minutes to guard against kernel panics that
may happen once every three years when some bit of hardware fails.
Win9x users do feel that they must save every few minutes to guard
against the unpredictable weekly or monthly failure.
There is a difference.
>And you *NEVER* run into problems on Linux where an app requires specific
>versions of glibc built with specific options, while other programs need it
>build with different ones?
No, that has never happened to me. I did not use Red Hat's "early
experience" glibc. That's a specific case that does not happen nearly
as often as you'd like the reader to think it does.
And you know what? It _is_ possible to install two different versions
of glibc and have different programs use different versions. That's
what LD_LIBRARY_PATH is for. I don't know how to get Windows to use two
different versions of CTL3D.DLL, at least not if you want to run both
programs at once.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:43:44 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:58:24 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>> So, SuSE ships with lots of beta software. Just because it's beta
>> in SuSE, doesn't mean that it's not beta anymore.
> I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.
Chad puts a lot of stock in version numbers and officially-blessed
development models because he's incapable of making his own decisions
and taking responsibility for them.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
