[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I won't be answering all points you made, as other people here made them first. ;-) >"Open source is no cure-all". Hmmm.... Orly would violently >disagree with that. My stance is that it is remarkably close >to being a cure-all, but not absolutely. Money still makes >the world go round :-). Nothing is a cure-all. In the current age, money still makes the world go round. Those subjects, however, aren't apt for discussion here in PLUG, but on a class in philosophy. Believe me, we wouldn't be happy to get that off-topic. PLUG has its philosophy, its language game. >I was hoping for a technical explanation of how hibernate >functionality might work under Linux, not start a pissing >contest. Prof. Feria discusses in a parallel post why this isn't yet a core functionality of the Linux kernel. Linux was mainly designed as a clone of Unix, which is typically deployed in servers. These machines aren't intermittently powered unlike laptops. That's why I also posted that it'd take time for volunteers to do the required coding - it's not simply a programmer's will that would do everything. Weigh in other factors. >And don't redefine STABILITY as it is commonly understood to >be. OS stability refers to how resistant it is to crashes. >Security, bootup speed, and hibernation abilities have nothing >to do with the definition. If you took the time to read my >post carefully, you'd see that I am not attempting to mix up >the two, rather it is your post that does. No. I'm not redefining. I'm reiterating what it really means in computer science. That was why I told you that since you are in the Philippine Linux Users' Group mailing list, you'll need to conform to the language game (it's a philo term), or how do we define stability. I invite you to read the "Fuzz" study series by Prof. Barton of the University of Wisconson, or read some operating system books, as they give a good definition. That's why I can't subscribe to your redefinition of the rules and instead called for you to subscribe to our definition. >Like I keep saying on and on and on and on: XP/2K is >STABLE (i.e. crash-resistant) but horribly INSECURE! Reason already posted. Security is found on stability. I even gave a logical proof for that. Unless you can disprove the rules of logic and write a book that would kill Cohen's Introduction to Logic. And I'm using the broader definition of stability which you must conform to since you are in this mailing list. Don't try to limit how stability is defined, nor isolate its implication on security. A true premise cannot lead to a false conclusion: such an argument is invalid! >Application-wise, Linux still has nowhere near the application >base that Win 9x had. But I believe that since Linux has become >friendly enough for non-techie users to adopt, it bodes well for >the Linux application market (although distro fragmentation is >an important concern). I still maintain that the gap between apps >available for Linux and Windows has widened. Apps previously >found only on high end Unix systems - top-of-the-line CG software >like Maya, SoftImage, Renderman, etc... - have now been ported over >to NT/2K/XP. While it hasn't happened yet, it's not hard to imagine >seeing them on Linux soon (but I'll be doggoned if they come >for free!!). And while I haven't used it yet, it seems that >Borland's Kylix (now at version 2) is something that Linux fans >should applaud about (GNOME fan-atics might purse their lips a >little though). Ah... ummm.... I think why Linux was a good contender in high-end apps was because of its use of the UNIX API. Most UNIX software can be recompiled in Linux with minimal change of code. The high-end CG applications you mentioned are ported to Linux already and are working fine there because Linux can tolerate the extreme pressures of streaming file operations and terrabyte-size files better than Windows. Final Fantasy the Movie was designed on Linux boxes. Titanic, Dante's Peak and Lord of the Rings. Linux performs almost as well as their commercial UNIX counterparts. Why Windows has a long way to go to even make a decent dent in this sector is primarily because of design and original purpose. It is primarily a desktop OS, and it is only recently that Microsoft deployed a network-capable version of Windows starting with NT. Compare that with the long history of UNIX and its robustness under pressure. Windows has a long way to go, given the limitations it has. On the issue of desktop applications, it is safe to say that Microsoft has a near-monopoly of the desktop with their Windows franchise, given their cut-throat economic policies and practices which made them rich and powerful, but at the expense of crushing competition in an uncompetitive way. This culminated in the filing of the Anti-Trust cases, which until now sees no fast resolution - the 9 states left are really going for a big fight. Anyway, I won't discuss MS practices here, as it would make this piece another off-topic one. So we have it - it would depend on the nature of the applications. On technical applications, Linux has a distinct edge. On desktop applications, Microsoft still has a distinct edge. Don't generalize the applications to the desktop, for practically, the statement you just made is really a fallacy. >If MS had taken its time to come out with 2K/XP(*) , their >market share would be in *really* deep trouble. As it is, the >proliferation of (relatively) mature, user-friendly Linux >distros is cause enough for them to worry about (their hidden >friend is distro fragmentation). Andy, the above line is another topic we should reserve better in an economics class. As you clearly point out, the issues concerning Linux are multi-faceted in nature and so I mainly gave my post within the parameters of logic and OS theory. >Of course, I'm more for cheering improvements (just because >you don't hear me doing it now doesn't mean I haven't done >so) on the Linux side because it's free software. But that >doesn't mean that I have to blind myself to the advantages of >using Windows. Also, the attitude of Linux bigots can really >turn off or scare non-techies who are considering the switch >(it's as if Linux users were a cult). Computers are tools to do your job better. Operating systems and software are also tools to make your job better. The freedom to choose your tools is your right. In PLUG, most of us here believe that free and open source software present us more choice, and by experience, most these tools are superior compared to software tools running under the Microsoft platform, as well as Linux is technically superior to Windows for all the features we care to utilize. This is not to say that Windows has no fine points, as this OS also has some. Paolo Falcone __________________________________ www.edsamail.com _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
