Linux-Advocacy Digest #676, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (quux111)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: The nature of competition (Nigel Feltham)
Re: I have a soft spot now and then :) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: It would be nice if ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm! (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 21 May 2001 21:51:07 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >I worked on UNIX, OpenVMS before I came to Windows. I understand
>> >Operating Systems. I've studied them on and off. Guess what I do
>> >nowadays. I write device drivers. Let me see, what do you need to
>> >understand in order to write those? Why, the OS of course!
>>
>> Well, parts of it, anyway. Not very technologically advanced part, I
>> would expect, either.
>
> Device drivers on Linux are written in C?
>
> Device drivers on Windows are written in C++ and make use of COM. Which
> one is more technologically advanced?
>
Microsoft's Visual C++ compiler blurs the line between C and C++; WIN32 is
a completely C-based API, as is COM. ATL is simply a C++ wrapper around
COM, as MFC is a wrapper around WIN32. I'd like to see some substantiation
for your claim that devices drivers are written in C++; all the code I've
looked at in Windows NT (video drivers, IDE device drivers, and soundcard
drivers) are written in straighforward C. Most designers I know avoid
using C++ when writing drivers due to the perceived performance problems of
C++.
(I happen to think that it is not only possible but advisable to write
drivers in C++, but you need to use good coding practices and modern C++
techniques, which is hard because VC++ 6.0 is so horribly broken...)
>
>> Linux *is* a technology, and it is more advanced than Windows.
>> Windows isn't a technology, for all its acronyms; its little more than
>> a marketing scam and some monopoly crapware.
>
> Yes, how about an example, instead of a statement?
>
>> You don't seriously expect monopoly crapware to be able to compete on
>> an open market, do you? How silly!
>
> Enough of the dogma! Examples puh-lease!
>
A good example of lousy Microsoft infrastructure software is MAPI, OLE
DB/ADO, DirectX until version 7, TAPI, etc. etc. etc. MFC itself, while
useful, is a horrible Frankenstein's Monster of an API and flouts nearly
every good C++ coding convention I can think of. There are better APIs out
there -- Troll's QT, wxWindows, even Gtk+ for WIN32 -- but relatively few
people use them because Microsoft frowns upon it and makes supporting
alternate frameworks in VC++ very difficult. (If you doubt me, just try
doing a GUI-based project using the WTL sometime.)
Being a monopoly means that Microsoft can foist whatever junk they want on
developers and developers have to live with it because
>
>> >3D sound support is of interest to me since it is my job. So it's not
>> >that silly.
>>
>> It is not silly to you. That doesn't stop it from being pretty silly,
>> in its own right.
>
> OK, I'll tell Microsoft, Loki, Creative, ESS, Crystal, ADI, Voyetra et
> al that T Max Devlin thinks 3D sound is silly. After they've roared
> with laughter _at you_ they'll all carry on producing what everyone
> appears to want.
>
3-D sound is mostly of interest to hardcore gamers and audiophiles, who
form about 2% of computer users. I too find it kind of silly too that so
much effort is being put into making such a small demographic happy,
especially in light of the fact that the differences are so small and hard
to detect. (You'd need an acoustically-sealed room to tell the difference
in most games, and the roaring fans in your OC'd machines would drown out
most subtle noises anyhow.)
To each his own, I suppose....
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 23:16:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <L3_N6.2477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Indeed. The atmosphere does filter out many parts of the light spectrum on
> the way in, but when reflected off the earth back up onto the atmosphere, it
> reflects blue back down again. Which, as I said, is why the sky isn't blue
> at night, and the stars and moon do not appear blue (except during very
> interesting atmospheric events).
>
> Take one-way reflective mirroring. It allows light to come through, but
> traps much of the light from getting back out. You can only see the light
> coming through when it's darker on the mirrored side than it is on the
> non-mirrored side.
It is clear why you didn't take up a career as a physicist. You couldn't
be more wrong as to why the sky is blue. It isn't always blue anyway or
hadn't you noticed? Here's a simple explanation for you:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/blue_sky.html
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:06:19 +0100
> Linux certainly has software that can be considered to be part of a
> certain
> task. For instance, there is video editing software for linux, there
> simply isn't anything of the calibre of FAST Purple, or Avid Media
> Composer, or even Adobe Premier.
>
Have you tried Broadcast2000 - a broadcast quality editing suite for linux
which can handle multiple 24bit 96khz audio tracks, firewire, every mixing,
wiping and fading effect imaginable and is still free.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I have a soft spot now and then :)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:06:15 +0100
> I figured he'd love Linux.
>
> So I sold a copy of Mandrake.
Great!
> Where do I pick up my commission check?
> flatfish++++
> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Yeah! You've got your old sig back :-)
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It would be nice if
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:07:15 +0100
>> What's difficult about XConfigurator?
>>
>
> You mean besides the fact that it produces broken configuration files
> and requires hand-tweaking for things like refresh rates and default
> resolutions? I just wish someone would port XF86Setup to work with
> XFree
> 4.0.x; that was the best configuration tool!
Odd. I've neer had a problem with it.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:10:02 +0100
>> Linux is one of the most scalable OSs on the planet, along with
>> solaris.
>
> No, it isn't. Once you got to high end, Solaris kicks Linux to the
> ground without even trying.
They both go up the top of the high end very well, though solaris is
currently higher, but that might change soon.
If you drop down quite a bit from the high end to big mainframes, don't
forget that Linux runs on S/390's which are formidibale bits of kit.
Still, Linux scales from far lower to almost as high. I think linux just
tops solaris as the most scalable OS.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:11:12 +0100
>> One of Pete's favourite pastimes is snipping people to distort their
>> meaning to prove his point.
>
> Got any examples of that?
>
Yep plenty. Just do a search for
"Another Linux OOPSIE"
it's filled with prime examples.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:19:40 +0100
>>>I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
>>>
>>>radio waves travel slower than light...
>>
>>How embarrissing. Radio waves are light.
>
> How embarrassing? Light is radio waves, too; yet as waves, some
> frequencies travel slower than others.
Not in free space. In free space, epsilon and mu are independent of
frequency and so the propogation speed of a wave is unrelated to the
frequency.
> I would have thought that people on technical newsgroups, even advocacy
> groups, would be aware of the duality of physics, and not waste time
> quibbling about these things as if Usenet discussion will prove
> conclusively something that all the great physicists in the world cannot
> yet sort out.
The pyhsicists have long since sorted out that the speed of light is a
constant in free space. Not only that, but it is invariant through
relativistic transformations as well.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux takes Hollywood by storm!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:34:33 +0100
>
> Film producers, unlike most industries, have always had a history of
> innovation with regard to computer animation (I mean innovation in the
> dictionary way, not in the Micro$oft way) and generally use the right tool
> for the right job rather than throwing money at Microsoft for a makeshift
> solution. In the past they have used old Amiga's re-badged as
> Videotoasters to render images with Lightwave, (I think Babylon 5 was one
> such project, at least in the early series) and they were using render
> farms that far back. It's not uncommon for film producers to produce their
> own software for a specific task and I think I heard somewhere that
> Blender was one such application.
Actually, I think you will find that according to Blender's homepage at
www.blender.nl it was created as the in-house rendering package for a
computer games company rather than for movie or TV use (this is why they
have added a games engine in version 2.x).
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 19:23:00 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "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.
>
This is EXACTLY what the hell I am taklking about. They DID ship the
beta version with AADR code turned on. It DID generate the messages. It
DID scare people away. The code WAS present in the shipping version, but
the message generator was turned off. Which is EXACTLY what I said.
> [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.
>
I wonder if you know anything about anything. IBM--> Gates --> Kildall
--> Gates --> monoply.
> > 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.
>
Pricing. The CP/M offered by IBM has hugely overpriced, as you have been
told.
DR-DOS was sabotaged. First by messages inthe window$ beta, then by the
window$/apps budling/licensing - as you have been told.
> There was GEM instead of Windows 1-3;
> There was OS/2 instead of Windows 95 or NT.
>
Not in the beginning. GEM didnt run window$ apps.
> There was even Unix.
>
Didnt run window$ apps.
> Why did these OEMs let MS push them
> around?
>
predatory, anti-competitive behavior.
> 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.
>
You... are... wrong. Developers follow trhe money.
> Users follow the developers and money follows
> the users.
>
Wrong.
> And that's why platforms only succeed if
> they first win over the developers.
>
Wrong.
> [snip]
> > > > I repeat. When did dBase ship for the PC ?
> > >
> > > 1981.
> >
> > When did it ship originally?
>
> 1981, from what I read.
>
It seems to me, froom doing a little diggin and research (something you
dont see,m to be able to do) the dBase was out before the PC. It was
ported. im not sure from what.
> [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]
Too... BAD.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 18:29:02 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I don't have my reference guide anymore :( I was pleasantly surprised
> that I still knew a lot about 6502 programming. I read this before going
> to work, and I had snippets of old code playing through my head all the
> time. I think I am going to scour the flea markets for a real C64. (yeah
> yeah, I know I could run VICE, but a *real* C64 is a lot cooler).
> If your assertion is correct, then the majority of 6502 instructions
> would take 3 cycles: fetch instruction, fetch data, execute. This sounds
> corect to me and of course would demolish Erik's point even more.
Indeed. My 6502 knowledge is 20 years old, and I think what I learned back
then was probably using a different definition of "execute" Instruction
loading was not included in the timing, but rather the amount of time for
the instruction itself to execute.
In any event, eve at its worst, the 6502 was a vastly superior CPU in terms
of efficiency than the 68000 who's average instruction cycle was something
like 7-10 cycles (IIRC).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:25:57 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin 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."
Damn, guess I'd better delete my Linux desktop environment then and
reformat my HD. After all it can't possibly exist.....
This ignorant chappy probably does the same as most newbies who come
in here to rant against Linux; it isn't exactly like Windows, therefore it
can't possibly be a desktop environment. There's more than one way to skin a
cat, figuratively speaking.
"So this is KDE... but where's 'The In Ter Net' ?"
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Things that annoy me in Mandrake Linux
Date: 21 May 2001 23:36:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 21 May 2001 21:04:45 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> I usually see it as regexp or regex.
>> Anyway, the editor I maintain has it ;-)
>
>Is that kfte?
Yup.
>I maybe should try that one :-)
If you do, try the CVS version, since it is much better than any
released one. In addition, it will build qfte, xfte, and (I think)
sfte or vfte from the same sources for maximum fteing pleasure.
>>> I would love to have that
>>> in quanta, Kedit, kwrite.
>>
>> kwrite seems to have regular expressions. At least for searching.
>> Haven't checked on the others.
>
>Youre right. Unfortunattely i can not make substituons and the like with
>kwrite. Maybe it will come with Kate/Kant or whatever the name is now.
>
>>> Or maybe just a way to use ex commands with one
>>> of the above.
>>> Isnt there a RE lib?
>>
>> Argh. ex commands? Use ex.
>
>Well... i also like to point-and-click so the ideal would be to be able to
>use both. GtK Emacs (or whatever its called) will probably do that .
Use ex in a xterm ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 21 May 2001 23:38:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 21 May 2001 10:58:30 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 00:47:03 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:15:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> gotta love the Linux advocacy in this thread :)
>>> >
>>> >HAHA!! Maybe we need an app running under Linux that will evaluate the
>>> >strengths of condoms??
>>>
>>> Actually, you can already find one, in operation, in the CIDAL plant,
>>> in Santa Fe, Argentina, the largest condom manufacturer of South
>>> America.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Roberto Alsina
>>
>>Is it running under Linux?? :-))
>>I wonder if they use LaTex for their documentation... or is it for the
>>condoms?? :-))
>
>I'm trying to imagine the machine's operator explaining to his friends
>that he tests condoms for a living...
Well, let me tell you, if you work in CIDAL, you probably heard
all condom jokes in the world in the first three months, even
if you work in the gloves line.
--
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 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
******************************
