Linux-Misc Digest #218, Volume #24 Thu, 20 Apr 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Best printer for linux box? (Grant Taylor)
the smallest o\s ("ewrwerwerewr ewrwerwe")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation ("Eric Peterson")
smallest open source o\s (linux) ("Gavin")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation ("Eric Peterson")
i810 supported but X windows does not work
Re: gnome-terminal resizing ????? ("Tom Hoffmann")
Re: System Commander 2000 vs. Partition Magic (John Hong)
Re: Red Hat 6.1/6.2 32 MB Video Card Recommendations? ("Tom Hoffmann")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Roger Blake)
Re: Help Installing Star Office ("Tom Hoffmann")
Fixing kernel for large files? (Ken Williams)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Roger Blake)
Re: can't get SLAB working (Charles Blackburn)
Re: HELP! w/ I/O redirect!! (Charles Blackburn)
Re: help with tar (Robert Heller)
Driver trouble (Dave Cook)
Re: Urgent: Am I attacked, all logs are empty (Bill Unruh)
Re: ht://Dig problems ("Joshua Slive")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Matt Kennel)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Se�n � Donnchadha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Grant Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.periphs.printers
Subject: Re: Best printer for linux box?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:15:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raymond N Shwake) writes:
> If I worked for Lexmark I'd take offense at this comment. It's true
> that the consumer Lexmark printers are intended for the Windows
> market, but the same can be said for HP, Epson and Canon. On the
> other hand, the Optra series, given their on-board PCL and PS
> processors, are OS-agnostic. Their Markvision print management
> software runs on a slew of Unix and Linux platforms, not just
> Windows.
Yes, this is all true. The original poster is right to be suspicious
of Lexmark, though; while the Optra line is the most Linux-compatible
line of printers around, the Color Jetprinter line is the most
Linux-INcompatible around. It's rather unusual for a company to so
completely `suck' and `rule' at the same time ;)
If anyone's out to buy a Linux inkjet, the Lexmark Optra 40 really is
the best thing going at the moment. It prints like a last-generation
4 or 6 color inkjet (which is to say rather well on half-decent paper,
and not bad for photos on glossy stock with the photo cartridge) abeit
at the usual HP/Lexmark "integrated cartridge" prices.
Once the Optra 40s run out, I'll have to reassess the situation. I'm
thinking some of the Epsons will be good except for the fixed heads;
several of the current models print very well with the gimp-print
Ghostscript printer driver. HP and Canon, meanwhile, are busily
producing ever more undocumented printers.
--
Grant Taylor - gtaylor@picante<dot>com - http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/
Linux Printing HOWTO: http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/
------------------------------
From: "ewrwerwerewr ewrwerwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: the smallest o\s
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:30:07 +0100
hello I was wondering if anyone knew of any open source code that is very
small & can install on a floppy?
Thank you very much in advance
------------------------------
From: "Eric Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:31:01 GMT
<btolder> wrote in message news:#pwyHltq$GA.361@cpmsnbbsa04...
>
> Eric Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:N8wL4.5291
>
> > It's not that they are cloning a 20 year old operating system, it's that
> > they are
> > making it so it DOESN'T CRASH!
>
> So the previous of Unix did?
>
Sorry. crashing was referring to MS and Windows. I should have been
clearer.
[SNIP]
> > Still, Microsoft doesn't do everything wrong, as some would have us
> believe.
> > I just get
> > a bit frustrated with sudden blue screens and other frequent problems.
>
> Fair enough. I haven't anything better, however.
>
Me either. I had (and still have!) hopes for Linux - I even use it for my
internet gateway - but it isn't quite ready for prime time. I love the fact
that once I get something working it stays working. The system doesn't
crash. Installing new stuff does not affect previously installed stuff.
Everything else stays working (unlike Windows!). However, getting something
working in Linux is still a much bigger job than getting something working
in Windows. At least, that's my experience. It certainly has its place,
though. Especially for mission critical applications.
--
Eric F. Peterson
Politically Incorrect and Proud!
------------------------------
From: "Gavin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: smallest open source o\s (linux)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:33:00 +0100
hello I was wondering if anyone knew of any open source code that is very
small & can install on a floppy?
Also it needs to run on a 386..
Thank you very much in advance
------------------------------
From: "Eric Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:38:30 GMT
"Roger Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 07:59:39 -0700, btolder <btolder> wrote:
> >So the previous of Unix did?
>
> Yes. I've worked with Unix and various Unix-like OSes for 20+ years now,
> and Linux is definitely less prone to crashes. (Pretty remarkable
considering
> the abysmal quality of most "PC" hardware.) Unix was infamous for
crashing
> for no apparent reason with little more than an obtuse "panic" message
> on the console, if you were lucky! (Much like the "Blue Screen of Death"
> that plagues so many Windows users today.)
>
Really? I didn't know that! I never played with Unix before the 1990s
> Linux is much improved. Although it retains many Unix-isms, it is
considerably
> more reliable, less arcane, and better documented than Unix of old. Not
easy
> for the novice to be sure, but certainly better than early versions of
Unix.
>
> >You'll be pleasantly surprised with Win2k's reliability.
>
> There's really no excuse for *any* version of Windows to be unreliable.
> By the time Windows was designed, stable multi-user, multi-tasking
> operating systems had been around for decades. If they finally got
> that part of it right after all this time, all I can say is: "Mazel Tov,
> and what took you so damned long?"
Agreed! Very strongly agreed!
>
> However, I don't expect to be trying Win2K myself any time soon since I am
> unwilling to purchase the hardware which that resource-hungry OS needs in
> order to run. (Not to mention having to worry what the OS may be doing
> behind my back when I'm not looking.)
>
Yes, another reason to avoid Win2K which I had neglected to mention. I ran
Linux for 2 years + on a 486 with 20Megs RAM without problems or unbearable
slowdowns or pauses. Windows 9x was never able to do that, although Win
3.1x could. Win9x wanted a P100 or better. Win 3.1x and Win9x, however,
both had problems with reliability. That 486 ran Linux for 2 years plus
24/7 without an undesired reboot. (I would reboot after kernel upgrades . .
.) As I said in another post, though, Linux still has its own problems.
--
Eric F. Peterson
Politically Incorrect and Proud!
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: i810 supported but X windows does not work
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:30:08 GMT
I've redhat 6.1, Xfree86 ver 4. I've installed the drivers for the graphics
card intel i810.
Now the module agpgart.o is installed (I've checked with modprobe)
the /dev/agpgart exists and the file /etc/conf.modules contains the entry
"alias char-major-10-175 agpgart".
I've modified the XF86Config to reflect the existance of the i810. The
problem is that I didn't find on the file XF86Config a section for the
svga, only a section of "vga" which I commented and put the section for the
"i810". Now each time I type startx I get:
" AGPIOC_ACQUIRE failed" and the xwindows doesn't start. No clues in the
intel site. Can any one help me in this, as I begin to give up :((
thanks
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Hoffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gnome-terminal resizing ?????
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:45:12 GMT
Either drag the right edge (for horizontal resizing only) or the bottom right
corner (for horizontal and vertical resizing) of the terminal window.
Works for me.
In article <8dn3au$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward
L. Hepler) wrote:
>
> Is there a way to horizontally resize a gnome-terminal window?
>
> I can resize it vertically by moving the mouse to the bottom edge and
> dragging it to the vertical size I want, but have not found a way to
> resize it horizontally...
>
> Of course I can start a wider gnome-terminal using the --geometry
> command line option...
>
> Thanks...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hong)
Subject: Re: System Commander 2000 vs. Partition Magic
Date: 20 Apr 2000 22:47:31 GMT
"jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Partition Magic is a partition management tool, not a multi boot loader. To
That is incorrect. Partition Magic is not only a partition
management tool, but also a multiboot OS loader. All one has to do is
install the Boot Manager feature of it.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Hoffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.1/6.2 32 MB Video Card Recommendations?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:47:46 GMT
The Matrox G400 works great under RedHat and is automatically X-configured
during intstallation.
In article <8dn0k5$d0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am buying a computer and would like to run LINUX on it. Any
> recommendations out there for Red Hat compatible video cards that can
> have 32 MB ram on board?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:52:34 GMT
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:31:31 -0400, Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How about the fact that Windows runs on commodity hardware and uses
>...
So do Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, OS/2, etc.
On the other hand, Microsoft design blatantly ignores design issues that
were present and solved decades ago, when Gates and company were watching
Sesame Street. No excuse for it.
>hardware, uses device drivers that were written by caring hackers
>without the pressures of cutthroat commercial competition.
Competition? Microsoft has a de facto monopoly (even IBM could not
compete with them for the desktop with OS/2) and resources beyond
those of many nations. If they can't hire competent programmers to
design quality software, shame on them.
BTW, more and more hardware manufacturers *are* providing Linux drivers.
Most also provide Mac drivers. Why don't Macs suffer from serious
reliability problems due to faulty drivers? Do the hardware vendors
reserve their "caring hackers" for Mac development?
The trouble with most Microsoft lovers is that they have never been exposed
to anything but Microsoft's style of computing, with horrors like the
registry and BSOD accepted like the sky being blue. In fact, there is
a whole generation of computer users who believe that Microsoft INVENTED
features like multitasking. (Look at MS now, taking credit for "inventing"
symbolic links to files, a feature that has been in Unix for decades!)
--
Roger Blake
(remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Hoffmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help Installing Star Office
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:56:52 GMT
To give you a real life example from your post, your tar command would
look like this:
tar xvf communicator-47-export.x86-unknown-linux2.0.tar
assuming you previously did a cd into the /Internet directory. The file
will be extracted into your current directory.
In article <jcrL4.13479$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Robert Kendall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having some difficulty and would appreciate some advice with
> installation of Star Office. Here is some info and what I've tried so
> far:
>
> System:
>
> PII 450
> 128mb ram
>
> Dual-boot using Partition Magic:
>
> Windows 98 Linux 6.0
>
> StarOffice for Linux is on a CD that came with the Star Office for Linux
> Bible by IDG books. The CD contains several utilities as .tar files. I
> have viewed the files using windows on my e:/ drive and among others
> they include:
>
> e:/Internet/communicator-47-export.x86-unknown-linux2.0.tar
>
> I boot to Linux and open xterm and then from root I mount the CD Rom.
>
> The install instructions in the book says to:
>
> Open another terminal window and unpack the files with the command: tar
> xvf access_path_and_name_of_the_archive
>
> I tried this from the root prompt but perhaps I'm not getting the string
> correct after "xvf"
>
> Somehow, I'm just not getting to the files on the cdrom. Any and all
> suggesstions will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams)
Subject: Fixing kernel for large files?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:51:18 GMT
What do I have to do exactly to make tar files larger then 2 gigs under
2.2.14?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:11:32 GMT
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 22:38:30 GMT, Eric Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? I didn't know that! I never played with Unix before the 1990s
Yep. My first exposure to Unix was 6th Edition running on PDP-11 systems.
It was quite a challenge keeping Unix running at that time, virtually
no documentation (except source code!), error-free disk packs needed,
very prone to mysterious crashes.
>Yes, another reason to avoid Win2K which I had neglected to mention. I ran
>Linux for 2 years + on a 486 with 20Megs RAM without problems or unbearable
I keep finding more and more uses for old 486 systems that can't effectively
run current releases of Windows but run Linux just fine.
>.) As I said in another post, though, Linux still has its own problems.
Well, it is a clone of Unix, after all. :-) (See the book "The Unix
Haters' Handbook" for an insight into some of Unix's problems.)
Linux does seem to have great promise. However, It is not really ready
for the casual end-user yet. I have friends for whom I've set up dual-boot
Windows/Linux systems and they seem to really like using Linux due to the
noticably better stability. However, they can't handle even mundane
tasks such as installing software by themselves (I help them out). Windows'
main strength is that little knowledge is needed to use it. At least until
it breaks down.
--
Roger Blake
(remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blackburn)
Subject: Re: can't get SLAB working
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:54:40 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:20:06 -0700, mugu wrote:
>well, anytime i start it, it terminates with an error. the
>program just doesn't start !!
>
but what error? what does the syslog say (if anything) etc.
--
Charles Blackburn -=- Remove NOSPAM to email a reply.
Summerfield Technology Limited - SuSE Linux Reseller & Birmingham L.U.G sponsor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11:38pm up 11 days, 4:49, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blackburn)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: HELP! w/ I/O redirect!!
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:36:06 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:33:37 -0400, Lee Baxter wrote:
>Hey there, I need some help.
>I have an interactive console application (actually, java console).
>I'd like to automate it's use, and feed content to it.
>Does anybody know how to do this? I tried piping stuff to the tty that it's
>running on, but that just feeds to the output. Is there any way to feed
>this app some input that it thinks is coming from the keyboard?
>pls reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as I don't check usenet that often.
the only other way i can think of is to use redirection ie:
yourapp < infile 2>&1 >outfile
but piping is a better way IMHO
cat infile | yourapp
--
Charles Blackburn -=- Remove NOSPAM to email a reply.
Summerfield Technology Limited - SuSE Linux Reseller & Birmingham L.U.G sponsor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11:29pm up 11 days, 4:40, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.02, 0.00
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help with tar
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:27:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Otavio Exel),
In a message on 20 Apr 2000 21:21:15 GMT, wrote :
OE> hello all,
OE>
OE> warning: I'm afraid (not sure) this is a Debian specific problem.
OE>
OE> I'm doing a tar.gz of my root partition for backup purposes;
OE> the exact command I'm using is:
OE>
OE> tar -clz / -f /whatever/root.tar.gz
OE>
OE> a subsequent
OE>
OE> tar -tzvf /whatever/root.tar.gz
OE>
OE> outputs
OE>
OE> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2000-04-12 12:15
OE> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-08-16 19:50 lost+found/
OE> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-08-18 22:31 usr/
OE> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1999-09-30 13:35 var/
OE> drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2000-03-03 11:41 boot/
OE> [snip rest of output]
OE>
OE> as you can see the first line shows an empty entry!
OE>
OE> in the case of a total HD crash I'll have to restore using 'zcat' and
OE> 'star' from the Debian boot disks; I guess 'tar' can handle this empty
OE> entry nicely but I remember 'star' choked on it the last time I needed
OE> it (I don't remember the exact error message);
OE>
OE> how do I exclude this empty entry for the tar file?
By not backing up '/'. Do this instead:
tar -clzf /whatever/root.tar.gz -C / .
This will back up the directory named '.' , located at '/'. You will
get a relative backup of the current directory, where the current
directory is the root of the file system.
OE>
OE> TIA!
OE>
OE> --
OE> Otavio Exel /<\oo/>\ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OE>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
------------------------------
From: Dave Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Driver trouble
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:40:08 +0100
I want to dump windows but am having trouble getting a linux driver for the
SIS6326 graphics card, can anyone please point me in the right direction/
Thanks
--
Daveth.
"Go placidly amid the noise and haste and
remember what peace there may be in silence..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Urgent: Am I attacked, all logs are empty
Date: 20 Apr 2000 23:46:39 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blackburn) writes:
]On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:05:04 GMT, Juergen Heinzl wrote:
]>>I also find there are two mysterious files in /root, which are named
]>>as 1, la.pid. If I remove these two files, they will be recreated by
]>>some process 3 minutes later.
]>You tried a cat la.pid to start with ?
]the other thing he could try is lsof and also looking in ps -aux too.
First he has to make sure that his programs, like ps, ls, etc are
actually valid. Otherwise he will see nothing out of the order.
------------------------------
From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ht://Dig problems
Date: 20 Apr 2000 23:47:21 GMT
In comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am trying to add a search facility to my website (www.comuno.com), so
> that users can search the site.
> I am using ht://Dig to do this, or rather I would be if I could get it
> to work.
> The problem seems to be that there are multiple websites hosted on the
> box that I am using for my webserver. When I try to run htsearch, it
> brings back search results for another website which is also being
> hosted on that box. Here is my cgi script:
> #!/bin/sh
> # ph_search_h.cgi = wrapper for htsearch.cgi
> CONFIG_DIR=/home/phil/comuno/dev/search; export CONFIG_DIR
> COMMON_DIR=/home/phil/comuno/dev/search; export COMMON_DIR
> /home/phil/comuno/dev/www/cgi-bin/htsearch
I don't have the ht://dig docs handy, but I believe that the coreect
way to do this is to pass some hidden variables from within the
html file that you are using to call htsearch. These variables
can specify configuration details. The best place to get more
detail about this would be the ht://dig mailing list.
--
Joshua Slive
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://finance.commerce.ubc.ca/~slive/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:56:41 -0500
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-tjQ4FOmN8blb@localhost...
> I'm sorry, but all this brings to mind the image of grapes and a
> general feeling of sourness.
>
> It was first argued - with examples! - that Microsoft had invented so
> many new stuff that the American government would better leave them
> alone to do their stuff.
>
> So far, _each_and_every_one_ of the examples - given by a Winvocate! -
> has been debunked, so the argument must now be that Microsoft does not
> invent as such (because that kind of stuff cannot be done anymore), as
> well innovate.
Nobody as yet has "debunked" on-the-fly grammar checking as-you-type.
> So suddenly the optical pad-less mouse, the squiggly, on-line spelling
> checker and whatever else was put forward are no longer great
> inventions? Merely because it was not Microsoft who invented them?
Nobody (or at least me) said spell checking. I said grammar checking.
I also gave several other examples. For instance, the wheel button of the
wheel mouse. And while it isn't an actual product yet, Microsoft has a
mouse that it is touch sensitive, so it knows when your touching the mouse
so that it can show toolbars. The idea is that if you are not using the
mouse, the toolbars are extraneous and should only be shown when you
actually have your hand on the mouse and are using it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: 20 Apr 2000 23:50:36 GMT
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On 19 Apr 2000 20:10:11 GMT, Jon A. Maxwell (JAM) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:That is definitely not a standard 'cross hatch pattern'. Microsoft
:did not invent a new type of mouse. They apparently used a grid of
:sensors instead of perpendicular lines of sensors -- this is the
:biggest invention Microsoft has produced so far?
Yes.
But Microsoft's hardware has always been better than its software.
(unfortunately not a joke)
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:50:55 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Blake) wrote:
>>
>>How about the fact that Windows runs on commodity hardware and uses
>>...
>
>So do Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, OS/2, etc.
>
Like I said, those OSs don't have nearly as many hardware
manufacturers writing drivers for them. And those that do can afford
to take their sweet time and get it right, because there's next to
zero competition.
>
>On the other hand, Microsoft design blatantly ignores design issues that
>were present and solved decades ago, when Gates and company were watching
>Sesame Street.
>
What design issues?
>>
>>hardware, uses device drivers that were written by caring hackers
>>without the pressures of cutthroat commercial competition.
>
>Competition? Microsoft has a de facto monopoly (even IBM could not
>compete with them for the desktop with OS/2) and resources beyond
>those of many nations. If they can't hire competent programmers to
>design quality software, shame on them.
>
For God's sake, why don't you read what was said before replying to
it? It's not Microsoft that creates the device drivers; it's the
hardware manufacturers themselves. Those folks do *NOT* have any kind
of monopoly, and they can*NOT* afford extensive software development
and QA. With the margins in the peripherals market and the intensity
of the comptition, they can barely afford to build the hardware
itself.
>
>BTW, more and more hardware manufacturers *are* providing Linux drivers.
>
Give me a break. Linux drivers don't come out nearly at the same pace
as Windows drivers, and usually don't take nearly as much advantage of
the devices' special features. There's simply no comparison.
>
>Most also provide Mac drivers. Why don't Macs suffer from serious
>reliability problems due to faulty drivers? Do the hardware vendors
>reserve their "caring hackers" for Mac development?
>
Come on. Mac reliability is a joke, and the reason it may not be as
big a joke as Win9x reliability is, again, because Macs don't have
nearly as much support.
>
>The trouble with most Microsoft lovers is that they have never been exposed
>to anything but Microsoft's style of computing, with horrors like the
>registry and BSOD accepted like the sky being blue.
>
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. The arrogance in that statement -
that I must be inexperienced if I disagree with you - just makes you
sound like a total shithead. I personally spent nearly 10 years
developing exclusively for Unix platforms, and after switching to
Windows development I'd never go back to that prehistoric crap. I'll
take the registry over a thousand incomprehensible text files any day,
and a BSOD over "panic: y3r t0t477y h0z3d, d00d".
>
>In fact, there is
>a whole generation of computer users who believe that Microsoft INVENTED
>features like multitasking.
>
Hogwash. Prove it.
>
>(Look at MS now, taking credit for "inventing"
>symbolic links to files, a feature that has been in Unix for decades!)
>
Nice try, but SIS (ugh, what a name) has nothing to do with symlinks
and you know it.
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
