Linux-Advocacy Digest #674, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: It would be nice if (mlw)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Adam Warner")
Re: anti-MS FUD: is there such a thing? Nope! [exhibit A] (pip)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:10:42 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>
> What's this! What's this!
>
> "OK, it's official: Linux on the desktop is dead."
>
> But it never even started! Giving up before even trying!
>
The article pushes out a bunch of platitudes that come down to: 'The
current software is immature, we might as well give up'. If anyone had
said in 1997: 'Linux isn't a complete copy of Unix yet, and NT4 is
coming, we might as well give up', we wouldn't even *have* these desktop
environments. Someone is willing to program them, who is some half-assed
idiot of a columnist to tell them they shouldn't?
My money is on this article being meant to keep the developers from
becoming complacent, by pointing out that a there still is a lot of
polishing to do. I agree with that, the basic infrastructure of a good
desktop environment is there. I know, I use it every day, but it is by no
means polished enough for the mass market. It's only little glitches, but
they must go.
If on the other hand this guy is serious, then I think he should be
fired. he doesn't point out the weaknesses, he doesn't come with cogent
arguments, so basically he would be trolling.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It would be nice if
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:13:13 -0400
Jim wrote:
> It would be nice if Red Hat 7 + KDE had an easier way to change
> monitor resolution than using Xconfigurate or manually editing an X
> configuration file ... or have I just confused my way into missing the
> easy way?
>
There seems to be some confusion about what your config file does.
X is pretty good, if you hit [ctrl][alt][+] you will cycle through various
screen resolutions.
If you only have one screen resolution, then you will need to run
Xconfigurator.
I think a better solution would be to have a "default" resolution in the
config file, rather than just choose the "best."
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:21:00 +1200
Hi Jeff,
Microsoft has not released Office 2000 for Linux!
StarOffice is still at 5.2. OpenOffice is not ready.
Evolution doesn't have groupware functionality yet:
http://www.ximian.com/apps/evolution-faq.php3
Your review is over. Frankly it sounds like you should stay with Microsoft
Office because expecting "full file compatibility" is unrealistic when
Microsoft uses closed file formats.
GUIs are ready though. KDE and GNOME have evolved rapidly.
Check back in six months to a year's time.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: anti-MS FUD: is there such a thing? Nope! [exhibit A]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:30:36 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> pip wrote:
> >Donn Miller wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The meaning of FUD?
>
> FUD is when you buy into a MS IIS server only to find out it's
> riddled with backdoors allowing illegal entry!
>
> FUD is when you read that MS is starting up .NET to answer the
> questions of software piracy as well as their vain attempt
> to stop viral and worm attacks. How absurd!
>
> FUD is when you read all the crap the WINTROLL's post about
> LINUX - an operating system proven to have higher uptime,
> greatly improved performance, and 1/10 the cost of Windows.
>
> MS is a FUD machine, whether it's on COLA or not.
[exhibit A]
Ladies & Gentleman,
I hereby present you with a case in point.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:22 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > > No. You disregard direct quotes from m$ execs. You do it repeatedly. I
> > > gave you a direct quote form an m$ VP saying when error messages form
> > > the AARD code came up, they were suppose dto plant doubt in the user's
> > > minds about DR-DOS. You decided the exec couldnt have possibly meant
wht
> > > he said.
> >
> > He didn't *say* that. You *said* he said that, but he didn't,
> > not in the quotes your proffered.
>
> Microsoft Vice-President Brad Silverberg (talking about the AARD code)
> "What the guy [using the computer] is supposed to do is feel
> uncomfortable and when he has bugs, suspect the problem is Dr-DOS and
> then go out and buy MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other
> machines he has to buy for in the office."
You say he's talking about the AARD code, but that
makes no sense; he's *suggesting* making Windows
fail when run on DR-DOS; this memo is from
before release.
But Windows ran on DR-DOS. It didn't fail. They
didn't do it. They didn't *take* his suggestion.
That's what I mean about your creative way
with quotes. The stuff that's critical to your
arguments is always those parathetical
comments you insert that represent, not any
sort of quote, but your own interpretion.
[snip]
> > You prefer invective like that to understanding how
> > MS did it.
>
> I know ho m$ did it. First they lucked out with IBM.
I agree with this, but I wonder if you know
anything about it, beyond the sentence you just
wrote.
> The as they grew
> they used per-processor, budling and per system licenses to lock in
> vendors and lock out competitors.
You don't say how they managed it. You don't
say why these vendors had to accept MS's
deals rather than using some other software
instead.
Other software *did* exist. IBM would sell
you genuine DOS, not to mention DR-DOS.
There was GEM instead of Windows 1-3;
There was OS/2 instead of Windows 95 or NT.
There was even Unix.
Why did these OEMs let MS push them
around?
There *is* a reason; a reason why the only
thing they cared about was getting the
cheapest copies of MS Windows they
could.
[snip]
> > You just won't consider even looking at any
> > idea that might not support your point of
> > view, will you?
>
> We are dicussing microcomputers and end user. You keep trying to push
> developers. Developers follow the money.
No. Developers follow the *tools*; that's why
Photoshop and PageMaker were Mac apps
not PC apps.
Users follow the developers and money follows
the users.
And that's why platforms only succeed if
they first win over the developers.
[snip]
> > > I repeat. When did dBase ship for the PC ?
> >
> > 1981.
>
> When did it ship originally?
1981, from what I read.
[snip]
> > > Im not sure. If they did, they werent nearly effective as the Mac.
> >
> > Not nearly as effective. 640k really sucks.
>
> But, -gasp-, I thought you said PCs could use more than 640K.
They can, just like Apple IIe's can use >48k.
But *for developers*, it still sucks. It is a serious
impediment.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:24 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5jYN6.48460$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:TbUN6.32128$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > This is
> > > not a debatable point, by the way, unless you are one of Microsoft's
> > > whores, in which case you are regularly forced to make ridiculous
> > > statements.
> >
> > I am sorry to hear that you are not open to debate on this
> > point; I have responded anyway, in case someone else
> > is reading this.
>
> Well, you certainly wrote new sentences and juxtaposed them next to some
of
> mine, so I suppose you can claim to have responded.
Well, yes. What else is "responding" if not that? :D
> As for my not being open to debate on the fact that the 68000 was far
> superior to Intel's offerings of the time...I am also not open to debate
> that the sky is blue. I just don't find it interesting to debate that
which
> is not debatable.
The 68008 *was* better than the 8088; but to say it is
not even *debatable* speaks of a closed mind to me.
The 8088 had the great advantage that was available
early and cheaply. It was also easier to port CP/M
software to it, since that stuff ran on the 8080,
a chip with a similar instruction set.
It is not like there aren't points to debate here.
> It is the fact that the Motorola chips were superior to Intel's as well as
> being easier (and more fun!) to develop for that destroys your argument in
> this thread.
Not really. Those chips were not available in quantity
in '81, so they were pretty much academic then.
Later on computers based on those CPUs did
begin to take market share, but first they had
to, well, exist.
And Intel wasn't standing still either.
> As you know, programmers hated the segmented architecture of
> Intel machines. As you also know, they loved the flat addressing of the
> Motorola 680x0 line. Yet they developed for the one they hated to develop
> for. This indisputable fact directly contradicts your arguments in this
> thread. You know this, too.
Not really. I do agree that developers did prefer the 68000,
and they did develop for it when it was available in
actualy computers.
That is, they did that when having a flat addressing
space made a substantial difference. Which it did
sometimes: Photoshop would have been highly
problematic without this, for one example.
> That you know all this, yet continue to make the same false arguments,
makes
> you one of Bill's whores. He has lots of them. :)
I see I am in the presence of yet another poster
who can't bring himself to believe that anyone
could have the termerity to disagree with
him.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:25 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <jnZN6.2473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but the 68000 had more cycles available.
>
> Uh, the 6502 was a 16-bit CPU, 4MHz, IIRC.
Strictly 8 bit. It had a 16-bit address space,
but that was typical of 8-bit CPUs;
you can't do much with just 256 *bytes*
of memory.
Clock speeds varied, but 1 Mhz was
not atypical. Some were, indeed, faster.
I don't know if any actually hit 4Mhz, but
I know the Apple IIc+ got close, with
something like 3.8 Mhz. If I remember
it right.
> The 68000 was a 32-bit CPU
> with a 24-bit address space, running at 8MHz.
No. The 68000 is 16 bit CPU, with a 24 bit
address space. This is also typical of 16-bit
chips; the 65816 and 80286 were the same
way.
The 68000 had 32 bit registers, though,
and that was atypical. But things like
32-bit adds were relatively expensive,
because they passed through the
ALU twice. And the addressing
modes available were limited by
the 16-bit ALU.
This meant you couldn't have
individual objects larger than 32k,
without a rather clever compiler.
This limitation again was typical of
16-bit CPUs, though for some of
them the limit was 64k.
The 32-bit registers were a minor
programing convinence; their real
importance was that they anticipated
future 32-bit CPUs; these CPUs were
able to use most of their capabilities
with no changes to existing code.
It's because of this that the
transition from 16-bit CPUs
to 32-bit CPUs was virtually
imperceptable for Macintosh
programmers, but was very,
um, perceptible to PC
programmers.
> The 68020 and later ones
> had a full 32-bit address space and raneven faster.
Yes. Of course, Intel had its 80386, but we
all know what are horrid mess it was
trying to manage backwards compatibility.
Motorola's design managed to dodge that
bullet pretty well, but unfortunately
because it came out later this didn't buy
it so much.
If what you've got is 8086 or 80286 code,
with segments and all, then migrating to the
80386 or the 68020 is pretty much the
same story.
The main thing sticking to the 8086 line
gave you was the ability to make that
transition piecemeal, at your own pace.
> Oh, but I digress.
> None of those things matter if more 6502 were made than 68000s. ::roll
> eyes::
The 6502 was a lot cheaper and was available a lot
sooner.
Also for very small memories the 6502 was
probably a better choice; 68000s stored all
addresses in 32-bit longwords, even though
they didn't use all the bits. Once upon a time,
such profligate use of memory would have
been a bad thing. :/
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:28 GMT
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Kb1O6.15716$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I don't quite get it. The C64 was slower; why prefer it?
> > > >
> > > Price and everyone one I knew had a C64.
> >
> > It held on for a while on its price, but in the long
> > run PCs came down.
> >
> Yep, all of the 80s. Prices never came down until very recently to the
> level of a C64 price, even then it was still more expensive.
Weeeell. I daresay that by 1989, if you could
find a original IBM PC 5150, it would be cheaper
than a C64. It would also be older, of course;
you could still buy a new C64 then, couldn't
you?
> It took PC 18 years to make it.
The prices of *new* PCs didn't get down
to the level of the C64 until very recently, but
bear in mind that those new PCs kept getting
better every year, while the C64 remained
pretty much the same old C64.
> I bought my first PC, it cost $2000, that was in
> 1995. I could get a C64 and disk drive in 1984 for about $450, PCs were
a
> lot higher in 1984, even an Apple II or Mac wasn't cheap. Thats why C64
> sold well to a home user in the 80s, it was cheap!
It was cheap. There were cheap PCs
too, but they were substantially inferior
to PCs that cost $2000. PCjr anyone? :D
The fall of the C64 was gradual. You can't point
to any particular year and say "at this point the
C64 is dead".
But it did still die.
[snip]
> > Yes. MS may not have had the hang of
> > segment, maybe.
>
> Commodore went to MS for the Basic about 78 or so for the Pets, and
> Commodore upgraded it Basic over the years, until the last version was
put
> out for the C128.
That may explain it. More effort. BASIC proved
quite inconsequential on the IBM PC, for various
reasons. This must have been quite a shock
for MS- their whole business had been
BASIC, before the PC.
[snip]
> > Yes. A good optimizing compiler was out
> > of the quesiton- it was too big for those little
> > computers, and anyway optimizing 6502
> > machine code is really hard.
> >
> Real hard? I never thought it was hard, just to alittle bit of time,
for
> a good programmer. I still remember when I took a C++ class, there was
a
> student that his average program was almost 10 pages, mine on the other
> hand was less than a page in all but one program.
Source code size isn't really the point. The difficulty
is in optimizing 6502 machine code. Doing that
algorithmically is hard; programmers tend to do it
experimentally.
The fool thing had only 3 8-bit registers and
no cache. You benefit if you can keep stuff
in registers, as on any computer, but it's
profoundly hard to do it on a 6502.
The registers have special purposes,
too. The X register was used for
one indexed addressing mode, the Y
for another.
Managing the zero page was also
challenging for a compiler; you
could just ignore it, but you paid
a performance penalty for that.
It's not impossible to deal with
this, but it is diffucult, and doing it
in a computer as small and slow
as those old 8-bit machines...
Well, nobody actually managed it.
[snip]
> > I think you'll find that today you could not
> > mass produse Commodore 64 computers
> > cheap enough to win on price.
> >
> That may be true, but I would bet you could put ALL of the C64 on ONE
chip
> today. Just compare the first C64 to the C64C, 1/2 the chips.
> BTW thats why Commodore redisigned the C64, to make it cheaper.
I'm sure. They had to do that to remain
competitive, once price was their only real
advantage.
[snip]
> > That's not a reason. They couldn't dominate because
> > they had a great deal of competation that was
> > comparable in quality and price, and they
> > didn't have time to sort it out before the PC took
> > over.
> >
> Apple 2, was over $1000, Tandy was crap, the only ones who liked it was
> Consumer Reports, the users hated it.
:D
The Color Computer wasn't all that
popular, it's true. But it was cheaper than
an Apple II, if nothing else.
> (I knew a few who had them.), Atari
> X00 wasn't bad bunch of computers, and the only real competation in the
> price range.
Yes. But the C64 was able to undercut it in
price. Which is why the C64 lasted so long.
> Europe there were alot of small 8 bit computers on the
> market, but never made it outside of Europe, MSX from Japan never made
it
> big. beyond Japan. Did I miss anyone? If you want I could compare all
of
> them, which is what I did, along time ago for a article I did...
Go ahead. Sounds interesting.
[snip]
> > Did this C65 get out of prototype?
> >
> No, but a company did sell the prototypes.
Oh, that doesn't count. :)
> > The C128 was like the Apple III; a fail attempt to
> > nurse a geriatric technology on.
> >
> I think you mean the Apple 2 GS.
No. The Apple III. The IIgs was actually
a decent machine. It was too little, too late,
but it wasn't bad per se.
In 1981, could the IIgs have been made
cheaply, it would have taken over the
industry. It had large memory spaces,
a faster 16-bit CPU, decent backwards
compatibility with old II software, and
an OS with a GUI and all the works.
The Apple III had all kinds of
compatibility problems, and
fundamentally it didn't offer
enough; a 128k memory through
bank switching on the same-old
6502 CPU. And it was unreliable.
> The C128 was a great little computer
> which sold over 2 million units. They had hardware problems when they
tried
> to release here in the USA.
So did the Apple III. :(
The C128 wasn't quite the dismal failure
the III was, but it didn't exactly make
the big time, either.
> > The Amiga was like the Macintosh; an attempt
> > to leapfrog the PC and produce something that
> > was actually better, not just cheaper.
> >
> In alot of ways, it was better than the Mac and PC.
Well, in a few ways. It had the 68000 CPU,
but so did the Mac. It had decent multitasking
and nobody else did, but then nobody cared.
Even today, nobody really cares about the
multitaksing deficiencies of Windows 9x
or MacOS. Nobody but us advocates. :D
It had marvelous graphics though, which
proved advantages in the home market
and a few others.
> One little note, the
> Amiga could run Mac, faster than a Mac at about the same speed. The
only
> problem with the Amiga was Commodore, itself.....
I tend to agree. It's not enough to have a better
widget, you have to sell it. The Amiga really should
have been able to win more of a market for
itself than it did in the early days.
> > As far as I know Commodore never found
> > an equivalent to the Apple IIgs, an succeful
> > way to nurse the geriatric technology on
> > a big longer.
> >
> That would have been the C65, if had made it out of the lab....
Was the 65 going to leap to 16-bit, then?
[snip]
> > Yeah. 1985 was the year with the big price war.
> > Blood in the streets, that one. Commodore won,
> > if you can call that sort of thing winning. It was
> > the apex for the '64, but cheap only goes so far.
> >
> The C64 dropped in price from $650 to $200, from introduction to late 84.
> Dropped another $100 in 85, and the climbed to $139 by 1986.
Yes. This slaughted the other low-end PC
vendors. They simply couldn't make their stuff
that cheap, never mind profits.
A lot of them folded or pulled out of
the business.
> > PC prices in 1985 were so high that there was
> > room for something cheaper. But as PC prices
> > came down, that market segment vanished.
> >
> The market segment vanished because Nintendo, not the PC. You could play
> better games on the Nintendo than the C64, so it slowly died over the
next
> years. It still sold over 1/2 million units a year for the rest of the
> decade.
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that. You have a point;
the C64 was being squeezed down into the 'games
machine' market, where it woudl compete with
stuff like the 2600- and win, the 2600 was junk.
Facing a half-decent games console must have
cost them dearly.
[snip]
> > The C64 wasn't just cheaper than most of its
> > 8-bit competitors; it was in many ways a better
> > home computer too. That was very hard to beat.
>
> True, it had the best sound of any computer until the Apple GS.
Did not the Amiga beat it out before the IIgs
hit the scene?
[snip]
> > > I didn't mean for the code, but for the programmer. I have tried
just
> > > about EVER compiler for the C64. I liked Buddy 64 for Assembly with
> > > Metabasic filling in the holes.
> >
> > I don't understand. A "compiler for the programmer"? You
> > compile programmers? Doesn't that hurt? :/
>
> I mean an easy to use compiler, just compare Commodore Assembly, you had
> to write the code in an editor, save the code, load the compiler,
compile
> the code, load the code, and then final run the code. With Buddy (and
some
> others) you could use the built in Basic Editor, then type RUN to compile
> the code and run your code with SYS command. It made programming alot
> easier. It made doing Assembly not much harder than writing Basic.
Oh, I see. What you are talking about is an IDE
(Integrated Development Environment) not a
compiler.
Lots of 8-bit PCs had those. It was nice, but it
didn't save you from writing assembly. It just
made it a bit more civilized.
[snip]
> > No, it was just that a good optimizer was more than
> > those little things could handle.
> >
> True, but I have seen code done on one of the those cross compilers, a
> good programmer could write the same. Just take a look at some of the
> demos that were put out, they blew away most programs and all they used
was
> a C64, and a Assembly.
Sure. You just wrote it by hand; and programmers
back then did so.
But they moved to the 16-bit computers
pretty fast, when they got a chance to use
actual compilers. :D
[snip]
> > I mean, yes, compared to a TI-44/9a the C64
> > simply rocked. It even compared favorably
> > to early Apple II models, and was cheaper
> > to boot.
> >
> It was better and Cheaper than an Apple II.
In some ways. It's disks were slow, though-
that was a perenial problem.
[snip]
> > The C64 had no way to grow. It got futher
> > and further behind.
> >
> Because Commodore never made it better, with chips like the 65816 and
> others. The Amiga was their focus....
Yes. In many ways thet was the fate of the Apple II,
though Apple showed *far* more support for
the old warhorse. Remember "Apple II Forever"?
You have to wonder what would have had there
been a Commodore 64e, with faster disks,
a better keyboard, and 80 column text support.
Had to still been cheap, it might have been
very succesful.
[snip]
> > Yeah, the C64 always had a problem with disk
> > speed.
>
> If you want speed, try JiffyDos, 10X-15X speed increase with most
> programs.
I wonder how it works. as I recall, the C64 had intelligent
controllers in its disk drives, and these guys controlled
the speed. Thus you had to upgrade the disks to speed
them up.
> The funny thing, the C64 wasn't designed with a slow disk
> speed, but because of compatibly with Vic20 hardware, they kept the
Vic20
> screw up.
The Vic 20 had *disks*? Whoa. I did not know that
such things were available for it.
> The C128 finally fixed the disk speed. The disk speed should have
> been about the same a Pet with its IEEE interface. They couldn't use
IEEE
> in the C64, because the price when though the roof for cables and other
> parts.
Surely they could have found something else that was
fast.
[snip]
> > Lots of programmers could do it by *hand*;
> > if you could have written a program to do it
> > that would run on an 8-bit PC, you would
> > have revolutionized the industry.
> >
> And if you could do in 64K, it would have been a mircle. The problem
was
> speed of the CPU and memory. Opimizing code takes time, even on my P75,
> compile a simple C program could take a minute or two.
Yes, also it uses a lot of disk and RAM, and
those computers didn't have much of either.
[snip]
> Not really, when your limited by the hardware, you can make it do
> remarkable things. The computer after 8-bit computers, all you did was
> throw more hardware at the problem instead of solving the problem with the
> resources.
> GEOS was a complete replacement and nearly a complete OS for the C64/128,
> you were limited to Basic or Assembly though....
This is an example of what I find so remarkable. It was
very difficult to do a GUI for the 640k IBM PC 5150;
Microsoft never managed to keep acceptable
performance out of Windows on such machines, and
they did try.
[snip]
> > I'm sure you do. I was more of an Apple II fellow myself.
> >
> The Apple II was expansive, and I had to buy the computer myself.
<looks down nose at C64 pesant>
Yes, I know.
</looks down nose at C64 pesant>
:D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 22:32:29 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > But structurally they are very similar at the low
> > levels. They have the same notion of system
> > services, the same mechanism for interrupt
> > handling, the same mechanism for process
> > scheduling.
> >
> > It's quite striking.
> >
> > Stability isn't the only attribute an OS can have
> > (or lack).
>
> The asynchronous tty boards were a part of some system service calls.
> Actually, if one didn't keep up with the ECOs (hardware upgrades) and
> the VMS O/S upgrades one could get into trouble. The hardware and the
> O/S were very much dependent on each other. That was one reason I
> stayed away from third party hardware board vendors.
VMS was eventually rewritten for portability and
redubbed "OpenVMS". But at one time what you
say was true.
> The VMS O/S is
> quite different that NT in these areas from what I had been told by an
> NT developer.
NT has hardly any tty support, so I'm not sure
what can be said about this point.
> Mainly it handled the VT-220 on up series of terminals.
> But I suspect a lot of Dave Cutlers' VMS design experience went into NT
> as well. I suspect that Dave added more features oriented to the
> desktop PC and left out older pieces of code that supported the TTYs.
> The VAX had no video memory per se to deal with... that was left to
> expensive monitors having to deal with the TTY line, hence the use of
> Regis Graphics codes.
Sure. They two OSes are not identical. But then,
I was really talking about the low-level OS structures;
there's no equivalent to GDI on VMS, but some
other things do have strong parallels.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
