Something compelling for Linux
Chuck Bermingham
There's an earlier thread in this newsgroup: "Good point on CNET..." that
struck me as interesting, and I started rambling on about the Mustard Seed
concept from the Bible. In the end, I thought "Live Free(BSD) or Die" to
be an interesting slant on the philosophy behind our new software
directions.
Anyway, as advocates, maybe we could come up with some compelling mottos
for Linux, some short phrases that will compel people to wonder what the
fuss is all about.
Here's one:
"Linux: The freedom that Microsoft only promised."
"Linux: for those who make their own roads."
Pretty bad ones, but hey--I ain't that clever...
--
---Chuck Bermingham------
To respond directly:
Please remove the numbers from my address.
Robert W Current
Chuck Bermingham (21bermi...@con24centric25.26net27) Said something like:
: "Linux: The freedom that Microsoft only promised."
: "Linux: for those who make their own roads."
Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
--
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
| Badl...@cgsa.chem.und.nodak.edu LINUX |
+ Operation Countersign Senior Editor Choice of |
| http://countersign.home.ml.org The GNU Generation |
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
Leif Roar Moldskred
Robert W Current <cur...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
> or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
Linux - Where _are_ you going to go today?
Leif Roar Moldskred
jedi
Linux: We're already there.
Kenyon Ralph
One I remember from someone's signature: Linux: opening doors, shattering Windows.
jedi wrote in message ...
jedi
On Sat, 30 May 1998 03:54:32 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 03:02:53 GMT, "William H. Pridgen"
><pri...@texas.net> wrote:
>
>>Bob Nixon wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>>> months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by >US
>>> & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>>> mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>>
>>That's already happening, isn't it?
>
>Yes, but it's slow and like they're pulling your collective wisdom
>teeth.
So? Linux is not an entity tied to the fortunes of one
corporation. It wont suddenly die out because the CEO
of GT Interactive doesn't think it's profitable to
support yet.
>
>>> PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
>>> at home, in their spare time.
>>
>>Supporting statistics?
>
>Common sense dictates. Skilled programs don't work for nothin' <off
>the clock>, that is
Apparently you're not a programmer, nor any sort of
real professional of any other kind for that matter.
jedi
On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:03:04 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>jedi wrote:
>
>> On 29 May 1998 19:46:43 GMT, Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> >Robert W Current <cur...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
>> >> Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
>> >
>> >> or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
>> >> Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
>> >
>> >Linux - Where _are_ you going to go today?
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Linux: We're already there.
>
>worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
>choir boys, from where I sit.
>
Yes, choice is such an evil thing. You might actually
have to excercise a brain cell or two and figure out
what you want to do with that box besides use it as
some perverse status symbol, doorstop or fishtank.
>At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
>is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
>impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
At least we dont have to worry about macro virii (despite
the extensibility of emacs) while we're doing whatever it
is we do with our editors.
>my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
>life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
>their machine.
>
>Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
Netscape is old news actually. So is KDE, or rather what
it's trying to replace: CDE. Hell, CDE even predates that
Mac mocking New Shell.
>is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
>citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
>serious under X? All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
For whatever a headless 386 will do. Despite the fact
that all the depreciation has been taken out for that
machine, there's still no reason to merely toss it out
and unecessarily waste money on overkill hardware.
>servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
>similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
Win95? That thing has to keep from eating itself first.
>
>Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
>
>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
>integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
>believe me, it can easily be done.
netscape, office software, games, mpeg video, mpg audio...
They all chug along fine together & we dont need to worry
about GDI space running out.
>
>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
>at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
>times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
Unless there's some stupid hole in your OS (like running
GDI in ring 0) crashes just shouldn't be tolerated. Computer
Science really has advanced past that point, even if Bill is
too lazy to deliver.
>
>
>Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
>& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>
>PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
>at home, in their spare time.
>And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
It works. That's all that really matters in the end.
It doesn't require $100 upgrades to deliver a new
browser, some new device drivers and some bugfixes.
Arthur Corliss
On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:03:04 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
>worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
>choir boys, from where I sit.
Where did this tripe come from?! In all honesty, a large part of the movement
isn't socialistic, but self-serving. There's many of us who don't like taking
out a second mortgage just to play with the latest toys from Microsoft.
Furthere, there's more of us who are individuals, and like the ability to
compute in our own fashion, not stuck in some warped paradigm foisted on us
by Microsoft.
You have a weak grasp on reality, friend.
>At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
>is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
>impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
>my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
>life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
>their machine.
There's no few on every platform of this ilk, don't even try to stereotype us,
you nitwit. As for fun, I'd have to say Linux does, perhaps, appeal more to
those interested in intellectual stimulation and challenge, not just mindless
blipping of some damned sprite (which I do actually do, from time to time ;-).
>Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
>citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
>serious under X? All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
>servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
>similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
Anti-harware?! Microsoft runs on what platforms? Oh, primarily x86, but also
the occasional Alpha and PPC? That's it?! And you call us anti-hardware?!
So, how is life in your alternate reality? What an ass.
Multimedia isn't well integrated into Linux or X, but no tears there. There's
a whole world out there beyond that, and it easily outperforms in functionality
and performance for doing regular work. But what do you know of that?
>Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
>
>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
>integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
>believe me, it can easily be done.
X is not Linux, so CDE & X are *still* not integrated into the OS (thank the
gods). But Linux being inadequate for complex graphics? Titanic was done on
what? That's what I thought. Ignorant.
>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
>at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
>times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
Not a chance. The architecture by design is more robust than Windows. If
you ever actually try to learn to understand technology, you'll find that
there's numerous pros & cons when it comes to architectural decisions. Linux,
by design, will always be stabler than Windows. Windows & DOS, however, have
the dubious advantage of unprotected access to the hardware, making some games
a tad quicker, but certainly more likely to take the entire system down.
>Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
>& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>mindset and into something called $commerce$.
For those of you just getting a clue, Linux is already there. This hasn't
been an idle time toy for quite some time, and has steadily make inroads in
commercial settings. I'd cut down on your intake of MS propaganda, if I were
you.
>PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
>at home, in their spare time.
>And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
It's not free? <G> I know for a damned fact it was for me. Didn't pay a
red cent for the OS itself. Are you referring to those government programmers?
If they're going to spend time doing stuff outside of their jobs, they'll be
doing it regardless of whether or not Linux exists, so at least we're getting
something out of that. Either way, it's government money wasted, so you can't
include that in the costs. Not that all government programmers are as bad as
you think.
> Bob Nixon
>http://members.home.net/bigrex/
--Arthur Corliss
"Live Free or Die--the Only Way to Live" (NH State Motto)
Piers B
How about
Linux, let the penguin fly free
(-;
Piers B.
For all those without a sence of humour, I realize penguins can't fly.
Kenyon Ralph wrote in message ...
One I remember from someone's signature: Linux: opening doors, shattering
Windows.
jedi wrote in message ...
>On 29 May 1998 19:46:43 GMT, Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@stud.ntnu.no>
wrote:
>>Robert W Current <cur...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
>>> Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
>>
>>> or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
>>> Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
>>
>>Linux - Where _are_ you going to go today?
>>
>
Bob Nixon
jedi wrote:
> On 29 May 1998 19:46:43 GMT, Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
> >Robert W Current <cur...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> >> Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
> >
> >> or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> >> Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
> >
> >Linux - Where _are_ you going to go today?
>
Precisely, It's out grown the hobby, spare time phase.
>
>
> Linux: We're already there.
Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
choir boys, from where I sit.
At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
their machine.
Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
serious under X? All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
believe me, it can easily be done.
2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
mindset and into something called $commerce$.
PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
at home, in their spare time.
And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
Bob Nixon
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
William H. Pridgen
Bob Nixon wrote:
[snip]
> Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
> months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by >US
> & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
> mindset and into something called $commerce$.
That's already happening, isn't it?
> PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
> at home, in their spare time.
Supporting statistics?
> And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
When Linux people talk about free software, they mean free as in "free
speech," not free as in "free lunch."
I'm pretty sure Linux is not a Communist plot!
--
Bill Pridgen
--
pri...@texas.net *** Linux: Platform For The Next Millennium
Bob Nixon
>Bob Nixon wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>> months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by >US
>> & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>> mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>
>That's already happening, isn't it?
Yes, but it's slow and like they're pulling your collective wisdom
teeth.
>> PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
>> at home, in their spare time.
>
>Supporting statistics?
Common sense dictates. Skilled programs don't work for nothin' <off
the clock>, that is.
>> And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
>
>When Linux people talk about free software, they mean free as in "free
>speech," not free as in "free lunch."
Free as long as you don't stray away from the pack.
>I'm pretty sure Linux is not a Communist plot!
Socialistic not Communistic. You're misquoting for the sake of
exaggeration. It's no secret that most of Europe and a good deal of
the US is, more or less socialistic.
>--
>Bill Pridgen
>--
>pri...@texas.net *** Linux: Platform For The Next Millennium
----------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How prophetic.
Bob Nixon big...@home.com
das...@aztec.asu.edu
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Kevin Huber
"Bob" == Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> writes:
Bob> I've run my 95 box for a week at a time, without a
Bob> crash.
Holy shit Bob, I gotta get me a great OS like Win 95. Win NT must be
a freaking miracle if Win 95 is that great since NT advocates say that
95 is crap. Thank you for the enlightening technical discussion of
operating systems and well-formed philosophical debate. That's a
super idea to commercialize Linux too; that sure seems to be the
sentiment of most Linux users.
-Kevin
John Passaniti
A minor point to make to this inane thread:
Arthur Corliss wrote in message ...
>X is not Linux, so CDE & X are *still* not integrated into the OS (thank
the
>gods). But Linux being inadequate for complex graphics? Titanic was done
on
>what? That's what I thought. Ignorant.
Linux (actually a network of Linux boxes) was indeed *part* of rendering
many of the more impressive digital effects in Titanic. But as that was
primarily a batch-mode operation, citing the involvement of Linux is largely
irrelevant. There is a huge difference in having a room full of Linux boxes
quietly chewing away on scene descriptions in non-real time and the kind of
highly interactive graphics people expect from desktop systems. Comparing
the two as equal is either willful deception or uninformed parroting of
propaganda.
What Linux brought to the effects in Titanic doesn't have anything to do
with Linux's suitability for graphics. Instead, the value of Linux was that
it is a stable network-capable operating system that is easy to
administrate. That's it. The actual ray-tracing and other rendering
software could have been done on *any* platform that was stable.
It is important to keep this in mind, because I know people who after
reading about the role of Linux in the digital effects of Titanic rushed out
and bought a Linux platform specifically because they thought Linux had some
inherent advantage for such applications. It doesn't.
William H. Pridgen
Bob Nixon wrote:
> >I'm pretty sure Linux is not a Communist plot!
>
> Socialistic not Communistic. You're misquoting for the sake of
> exaggeration.
I wasn't quoting. I WAS exaggerating, more for the sake of humor, such
as there was. However, I don't think Linux is a **socialist** plot
either.
> It's no secret that most of Europe and a good deal of
> the US is, more or less socialistic.
Europe and the US are socialistic to an extent, but that does not mean
that Linux is somehow socialistic. I'm running RedHat Linux 5.0, which
is a commercial distribution, and I bought my copy from a profit seeking
business, not a socialist collective.
> >pri...@texas.net *** Linux: Platform For The Next Millennium
> ----------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> How prophetic.
Yes, indeed!
hikmat farhat
Bob Nixon wrote:
> Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
> worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
> and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
those programmers you're talking about brought you networking and the
inernet ,the same technology money_bill dismissed as a fad before others
started making money.
yeah those university professors and grad students that invented the
transistor without wich your idol billy boy wouldn't be able to eat.
same people that in the near future are going to be able to look at
your DNA and figure out that your IQ<10 before you spit this crap
those same people that let you get cheap electricity due to fission and
fusion.the same ones that discovered xray and its application to your
health.
> with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
> quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
> action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
> choir boys, from where I sit.
right and dancing paper clips are innovations
>
> At least MS wants to make computing fun,
yeah that's their ultimate goal. making money is just a bonus right?
> Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
> is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
> citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
> serious under X? All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
> servers.
> similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
like you know how to benchmark
> Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
buy a nintendo
>
> 1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
> multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
> more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
> integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
> believe me, it can easily be done.
>
> 2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
> really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
> at a time, without a crash.
depends on what you do with it.by your arguments i'm guessing nothing
interesting
100
> times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
> all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
buy a nintendo
> Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
> months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
> & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
> mindset and into something called $commerce$.
believe it or not some people enjoy using their brain.can't blame you
there
Thomas Johan Meyer JNR
William H. Pridgen wrote:
> Bob Nixon wrote:
> > >I'm pretty sure Linux is not a Communist plot!
and no market)
> > Socialistic not Communistic. You're misquoting for the sake of
> > exaggeration.
> I wasn't quoting. I WAS exaggerating, more for the sake of humor, such
> as there was. However, I don't think Linux is a **socialist** plot
> either.
Why a plot?
> > It's no secret that most of Europe and a good deal of
> > the US is, more or less socialistic.
Yeah, right!!!!
What is rather socialist about linux is the fact that it is done mainly
according to socialist principles such as free contrib. etc.
I also feel I aught to say that russia was not socialist according to
the classical (and
my!) definition of socialism and is regarded with contempt by me.
David M. Cook
On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:03:04 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
>worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
>choir boys, from where I sit.
Spoken like a true crank.
>my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
>life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
>their machine.
You'll see the same kind of stuff in the general @home security newsgroup.
I'd have thought you'd have that ax sharp enough by now, Bob.
>Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
>citing how linux can run on a 386,
You really have a fervid imagination, Bob. Anti-hardware? Most Linux users
I know love to play with the latest hardware.
>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>more.
More things dredged up from the cauldron of your imagination. You should
take up short story writing.
>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months.
I kind of depends on what time of the week (or day) the machine decides to
go down, doesn't it.
>I've run my 95 box for a week
>at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
>times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
We all know Linux has plenty of crappy alpha software, still none of it has
ever brought down my box, including my own crappy alpha software.
>Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
>& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>mindset and into something called $commerce$.
Go for it, Bob.
>PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this,
>while at home, in their spare time.
>And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
I'm going to download RH5.1 later this week. Unless you're going to claim
that I should pro-rate the time it takes out of our @home bill it will be
absolutely free.
Dave Cook
Leon Brooks
Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
> Robert W Current <cur...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> > Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> > Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
> > or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> > Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
> Linux - Where _are_ you going to go today?
Linux: get where you want to go, today! (-:
Linux: a better windows than Windows, a better OS than DOS!
Linux: your computer's way of saying "reliable."
(In Oz, sung to the tune from the Comet ad):
"Aren't you glad to know it's running Linux?"
Linux: guaranteed to Finnish your job... (-:
Do it once, do it well, do it Linux.
The best things in virtual life are virtually free: choose Linux.
Power, programs, patience, people, penguins: Linux has it all.
Run wild, run free, run Linux.
Linux means "It is now safe to switch on your computer."
---
Smith & Wesson: the original point-and-click interface.
Bob Nixon
On Sat, 30 May 1998 21:03:52 GMT, dave...@home.com (David M. Cook)
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:03:04 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
>>worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>>and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>>agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>>millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>>with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>>quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>>action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
>>choir boys, from where I sit.
>
>Spoken like a true crank.
I guess this little off the wall description failed to make the point
of the hypocrisy that exists in this community. As to the slap at the
phony altruism, I admit to crossing the line of good taste in my
caricature of government programmers and educators.
>>my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
>>life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
>>their machine.
>
>You'll see the same kind of stuff in the general @home security newsgroup.
>I'd have thought you'd have that ax sharp enough by now, Bob.
I may be delusional but the group just seems paranoid. They must work
in some pretty scary environments, where very heavy security is
necessary. However, I really don't see the need to put up a moot full
of alligators, for a home account. If the @home people were that
concerned, then they would firewall the access.
>>Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>>is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
>>citing how linux can run on a 386,
>
>You really have a fervid imagination, Bob. Anti-hardware? Most Linux users
>I know love to play with the latest hardware.
If you looked around this ng for more than a couple of days, then
you're bound to see more than one fellow bragging, how his linux
486/33 blows away Pentuim 300's, using wintel boxes.
>>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>>multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>>more.
>
>More things dredged up from the cauldron of your imagination. You should
>take up short story writing.
Hey it 'IS' an advocacy group. I just get tired of all the bragging
about how linux is the greatest and MS sucks.
Even though I probably pissed lots of people off and got mostly
counter attacks. I learned more from this thread, than a nice polite
back slapping discussion would have engendered.
>>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months.
>
>I kind of depends on what time of the week (or day) the machine decides to
>go down, doesn't it.
I've been using 95-8 since early beta's, so other than games and corel
products, it's pretty stable for me. Granted, not like a linux shell
but I'd say it was better about crashing than the x manages that I've
played with. Like you said though, between unstable alpha software, my
impatience, ignorance, and stupidity, x just seems to be buggier than
the wintel box.
>>I've run my 95 box for a week
>>at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
>>times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
>>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
>
>We all know Linux has plenty of crappy alpha software, still none of it has
>ever brought down my box, including my own crappy alpha software.
By my own stupidity, I crashed RedHat, by running Doom without the
sound support that it thought it had. I did get the SB64 working
since, using the SB pnp tool.
>>Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>>months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
>>& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>>mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>
>Go for it, Bob.
Maybe once commercially mature, upgrading a RealPlayer under linux,
won't require editing my .bash_profile. I don't think having different
levels of user tool will take anything away from this OS. The
programmers and hacker types can still use CLI editors to modify their
settings. What's wrong with giving MS some real competition, anyway?
>>PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this,
>>while at home, in their spare time.
>>And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
>
>I'm going to download RH5.1 later this week. Unless you're going to claim
---------------------------------------------------------------------Naw....
>that I should pro-rate the time it takes out of our @home bill it will be
>absolutely free.
Is this a whole CD's worth, or an upgrade?
>Dave Cook
Alan Daniels
On Sun, 31 May 1998 00:23:06 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
[snip...]
>I may be delusional but the group just seems paranoid. They must work
>in some pretty scary environments, where very heavy security is
>necessary. However, I really don't see the need to put up a moot full
>of alligators, for a home account.
Its not that important yet, but it *will* be, and sooner than you think.
Right now, cable modems are just beginning to roll out across the US, and
now long after these take hold (two or three years, tops), companies will
sell home systems that take advantage of that 24-hour net connection:
Cheap video cameras that e-mail you a snapshot at work so you can see
who rung your doorbell at 2:00 in the afternoon, being able to set your
air conditioning through a web page, etc. When these sort of things become
commonplace, paranoid security on a home computer won't look so silly.
>If you looked around this ng for more than a couple of days, then
>you're bound to see more than one fellow bragging, how his linux
>486/33 blows away Pentuim 300's, using wintel boxes.
So what? Thats more of a proof of OS speed than a demonstration of love
for obsolete hardware. Besides, how can you say that a OS that is portable
to the Intel, Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, ARMStrong, Motorola, Amiga, 8086, *and*
supercomputers is anti-hardware? Seems like it wants to be on as much
hardware as possible. :=)
>Hey it 'IS' an advocacy group. I just get tired of all the bragging
>about how linux is the greatest and MS sucks.
You have a point in that Linux is not perfect. The learning curve is
still higher than it could be, and runaway X/SVGALib programs can hang
the system. Where we see things differently, is that I see lots of work
towards fixing these things (Gnome, COAS, GGI, etc). Judging from the
current rate of improvement, I dont see *any* major issues remaining
not too long from now: Ease of use, scalability, stability, etc. Its
still the fastest improving OS on the planet.
>What's wrong with giving MS some real competition, anyway?
If Microsoft has proven anything to the world, its that cheap
technology will *always* beat expensive technology, despite any
techical merit. Linux already has the advantange on the technical
side, and the ease-of-use is improving, literally, on a daily basis
(see www.labs.redhat.com, www.gnome.org, www.kde.org).
Microsoft hasn't yet felt any genuine loss of market due to
Linux. But its coming...
--
=======================
Alan Daniels
dan...@mindspring.com
dan...@cc.gatech.edu
William H. Pridgen
Thomas Johan Meyer JNR wrote:
> Socialism is workers owning the means of production.
>
> Why a [socialist] plot?
I don't think Linux is a plot, period. I was speaking tongue in
cheek.
> What is rather socialist about linux is the fact that it is done mainly
> according to socialist principles such as free contrib. etc.
> I also feel I aught to say that russia was not socialist according to
> the classical (and
> my!) definition of socialism and is regarded with contempt by me.
I wasn't discussing the merits of socialism (or lack thereof), and
I don't think it's relevant to this news group. I was discussing
Linux.
Toon Moene
dan...@mindspring.com (Alan Daniels) wrote:
> So what? Thats more of a proof of OS speed than a demonstration of love
> for obsolete hardware. Besides, how can you say that a OS that is portable
> to the Intel, Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, ARMStrong, Motorola, Amiga, 8086, *and*
^^^^^^^^^
Indeed, a small step for a man, but a giant leap for mankind :-)
--
Toon Moene (mailto:to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: mailto:for...@gnu.org; NWP: http://www.knmi.nl/hirlam
Bob Nixon
hikmat farhat wrote:
> The rest of Nasty response
> snipped-------------------------------------------------------->
> > similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>
> like you know how to benchmark
How's this for starters?
>
>
---------------my latest linux kernel 2.033 under Caldera
1.2-------------------------------> h hdparm -t /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 8.32 seconds = 3.85 MB/sec
[root@cx57629-a bigrex]# hdparm -T /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 2.50 seconds =25.60 MB/secdparm -t /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 8.32 seconds = 3.85 MB/sec
[root@cx57629-a bigrex]# hdparm -T /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 2.50 seconds =25.60 MB/sec
Kernel info
===========
Kernel image : linux
OS Release : Linux 2.0.33
Version : #1 Wed Jan 7 09:11:54 MST 1998
built by : ro...@buildmeister.caldera.com
built with: gcc version 2.7.2.3
Filesystems : ext2 minix umsdos msdos proc nfs iso9660
Char devices : mem=1 pty=2 ttyp=3 ttyp=4 cua=5 lp=6 vcs=7 misc=10
Block devices: ramdisk=1 fd=2 ide0=3 md=9 ide1=22
Net devices : lo eth0
Root device : /dev/hda4
Hardware info
=============
Processor : i586 with 398.95 BogoMips
Memory RAM : 128 MB (3248K kernel, 34308K cache, 22996K shared, 68368K free)
Swap area : 127 MB (0K used, 130748K free)
----------------The Windows 95 osr 2.1 bench marking for similar file reads-->
Norton utilities 3.0 system info reports 4.8MB/second raw uncached reads, over 50%
faster than the hdparms -t data.
Cached data is ~35MB/sec, agian over 50% faster than the 2.033 linux hdparms -T
logical (cached data).
What this doesn't tell is that the Windows box is optimized for most used files
under Norton Speed Disk 3.0 & Hurricane 98, so actually first loads are 2-3 times
faster under Windows. 1st load times are:
Netscape 4.05.
windows = 4-5 seconds using blank home page.
linux 2.033 = 15-18 seconds using blank home page.
Winword = 1.5 seconds
Excel = 1 second
StarOfffice (linux KDE or looking glass) 25-30 seconds.
Photo Shop 3.05 = 3-4 seconds
Gimp = 7-8 seconds
BTW, both OS's sharing the same UDMA mode 2 HD. kernel 2.033 is supposed to support
UDMA but ?
Comparing an OS optimized for desktop usage, against one the is mainly used as a
file server is admittedly a little unfair. However, If linux is to compete head to
hard with other desktop OS's, then developers should try to improve or single user
disk performance or at least make it configurable, to some extent.
>
> > Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
>
> buy a nintendo
>
Wouldn't own one.
> > times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
> > all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
>
----more nasty snippage------------------------------------------------------->
> buy a nintendo
>
> > Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
> > months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
> > & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
> > mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>
> believe it or not some people enjoy using their brain.can't blame you
> there
Come on. You fit my droid description pretty well. I really wonder if your using
much of you own brain, outside your own narrowly focused world.
Bob Nixon
jedi wrote:
> snip----------------------------------------------------------------------->
> >> Linux: We're already there.
> >
> >Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
> >worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
> >and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
> >agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
> >millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
> >with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
> >quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
> >action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
> >choir boys, from where I sit.
> >
>
> Yes, choice is such an evil thing. You might actually
> have to excercise a brain cell or two and figure out
> what you want to do with that box besides use it as
> some perverse status symbol, doorstop or fishtank.
Ummm.. Read my other responses(bench marks), in particular.
>
>
> >At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
> >is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
> >impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
>
> At least we dont have to worry about macro virii (despite
> the extensibility of emacs) while we're doing whatever it
> is we do with our editors.
Nor no I with Winword.
>
>
> >my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
> >life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
> >their machine.
> >
> >Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>
> Netscape is old news actually. So is KDE, or rather what
> it's trying to replace: CDE. Hell, CDE even predates that
> Mac mocking New Shell.
So what? These are example of what outsiders like about Linux.
>
>
>
> >is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
> >citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
> >serious under X? All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
>
> For whatever a headless 386 will do. Despite the fact
> that all the depreciation has been taken out for that
> machine, there's still no reason to merely toss it out
> and unecessarily waste money on overkill hardware.
True, I'm using an old 486/66 for a hard disk and print server for my beloved Atari
8 bit boxes, via PIO.
>
>
> >servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
> >similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
> >Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
>
> Win95? That thing has to keep from eating itself first.
I don't think most of you Linux zealots have spent enough time with your windows
boxed to really fine tune things. The same argument Ya'all use for us linux
newbee's.
>
>
> >
> >Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
> >
> >1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
> >multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
> >more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
> >integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
> >believe me, it can easily be done.
>
> netscape, office software, games, mpeg video, mpg audio...
> They all chug along fine together & we dont need to worry
>
You're absolutely right. The do just *chug* along. Improvement is needed if
competition is serious.
> about GDI space running out.
Didn't 95 care of that <G>
>
>
> >
> >2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
> >really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
> >at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
> >like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
> >times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
> >all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
>
> Unless there's some stupid hole in your OS (like running
> GDI in ring 0) crashes just shouldn't be tolerated. Computer
> Science really has advanced past that point, even if Bill is
> too lazy to deliver.
Oh get real Jedi. X crashes too, it just doesn't usually crash the whole OS.
>
>
> >
> >
> >Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
> >months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
> >& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
> >mindset and into something called $commerce$.
> >
> >PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
> >at home, in their spare time.
> >And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
>
> It works. That's all that really matters in the end.
> It doesn't require $100 upgrades to deliver a new
> browser, some new device drivers and some bugfixes.
Regards..
Bob Nixon
jedi wrote:
> >
> >>> PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
> >>> at home, in their spare time.
> >>
> >>Supporting statistics?
> >
> >Common sense dictates. Skilled programs don't work for nothin' <off
> >the clock>, that is
>
> Apparently you're not a programmer, nor any sort of
> real professional of any other kind for that matter.
Not a programmer, microwave hybrid subsystems Engineer.Wanna spar on my turf?
jedi
Let us all know how to steer FAR clear of your turf.
While tort suits can be quite satisfying in the end,
some things just cannot be replaced a hefty cash settlement.
jedi
On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:51:35 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>jedi wrote:
>
>> snip----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
>
>> >> Linux: We're already there.
>> >
>> >Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
>> >worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>> >and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>> >agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>> >millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>> >with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>> >quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>> >action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
>> >choir boys, from where I sit.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, choice is such an evil thing. You might actually
>> have to excercise a brain cell or two and figure out
>> what you want to do with that box besides use it as
>> some perverse status symbol, doorstop or fishtank.
>
>Ummm.. Read my other responses(bench marks), in particular.
I run on NT machines all day souped up to the gills.
You're benchmarks don't impress me. I've experienced
better for myself.
>
>>
>>
>> >At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
>> >is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
>> >impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
>>
>> At least we dont have to worry about macro virii (despite
>> the extensibility of emacs) while we're doing whatever it
>> is we do with our editors.
>
>Nor no I with Winword.
We're not that stupid, Winboy. Many of us know better
from personal firsthand experience. We didn't get our
dislike of Microsoft products through osmosis.
>
>>
>>
>> >my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
>> >life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
>> >their machine.
>> >
>> >Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>>
>> Netscape is old news actually. So is KDE, or rather what
>> it's trying to replace: CDE. Hell, CDE even predates that
>> Mac mocking New Shell.
>
>So what? These are example of what outsiders like about Linux.
Unix had a Win95-sh interface years before windows did.
You're ramblings about who may like what are irrelevant.
Unix supports the free-will of its users. That there might
even be emacs vs. vi flamewars is a testament to that.
[deletia]
>>
>>
>> >servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
>> >similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>> >Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
>>
>> Win95? That thing has to keep from eating itself first.
>
>I don't think most of you Linux zealots have spent enough time with your windows
>boxed to really fine tune things. The same argument Ya'all use for us linux
>newbee's.
Besides going into /etc and doing rm -r * as root, there's
really not much one can do to emulate the behaivor of Win95.
Win95 is fundementally flawed by design. You will likely
proclaim this for yourself once Redmond gets around to providing
you with proper tools to deal with their adhoc wannabe-database
in Win98. Then you'll be 'free to rag on the previous version'.
I'd rather do something I find useful with my machine than
constantly piddling around with sysadmin details.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
>> >
>> >1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>> >multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>> >more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
>> >integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
>> >believe me, it can easily be done.
>>
>> netscape, office software, games, mpeg video, mpg audio...
>> They all chug along fine together & we dont need to worry
>>
>
>You're absolutely right. The do just *chug* along. Improvement is needed if
>competition is serious.
That's what real OSes are supposed to do, actually.
>
>> about GDI space running out.
>
>Didn't 95 care of that <G>
Not at all. It just made it slightly harder for
a user process to eat it all up. Win95 only slightly
presses out Win16's still static resource limits.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>> >really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
>> >at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>> >like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
>> >times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
>> >all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
>>
>> Unless there's some stupid hole in your OS (like running
>> GDI in ring 0) crashes just shouldn't be tolerated. Computer
>> Science really has advanced past that point, even if Bill is
>> too lazy to deliver.
>
>Oh get real Jedi. X crashes too, it just doesn't usually crash the whole OS.
That's a considerable difference. X dying is a lot less
dangerous and a lot less inconvenient than the whole of
95 dying.
NT advocacy, at least makes some sense. 95 is just another
argument to get tough with wrt the UCC.
nads
Bob Nixon wrote:
> jedi wrote:
>
> > On 29 May 1998 19:46:43 GMT, Leif Roar Moldskred <le...@stud.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > >Robert W Current <cur...@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Uh... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> > >> Linux: When it absolutely positively has to get there.
> > >
> > >> or... Microsoft: where do you want to go today?
> > >> Linux: making sure you can get there, today, and tomarrow.
> > >
> > >Linux - Where _are_ you going to go today?
> >
>
> Precisely, It's out grown the hobby, spare time phase.
>
> >
> >
> > Linux: We're already there.
>
> Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
> worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
> and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
> agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
> millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
> with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
> quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
> action. Sound like innovation to you. You guys make the Redmond crowd look like
> choir boys, from where I sit.
>
> At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
> is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
> impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
> my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
> life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
> their machine.
I was one of those 'kids' who got my account canceled, because someone mailed the
@home email list, saying that i telneted to thier box (which occurred by
accident, when I meant to go somewhere else, (switch one #, and look what
happens)) and tried to 'hack' them. This spawned numerous complaints from people
on the list, which i did nothing to, emailing @home in an attempt to get my
account canceled. The ignorant abuse manager, said she was receiveing numerous
complaints, even though i told her they were all spawned from one email to a list,
she didn't care and canceled my account anyway. Some Linux/Unix people really need
to get a life.
> Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
> is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
> citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
> serious under X? All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
> servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
> similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
> Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
>
> Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
>
> 1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
> multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
> more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
> integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
> believe me, it can easily be done.
>
> 2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
> really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months. I've run my 95 box for a week
> at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
> like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
> times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
> all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
>
> Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
> months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
> & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
> mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>
> PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
> at home, in their spare time.
> And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
>
> Bob Nixon
> http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Its true, some Linux users are obsessed with
As to your other remarks, Linux and other Unix varients are much more powerful
than NT/95. M$oft tried to swtich hotmail from Solaris/FreeBSD to NT and had to
switch back after NT couldn't handle the load. Linux is cheaper, quicker, easier
to modify, etc.. etc.. Personally, my Linux box has only crashed once in a year,
and that was due to faulty ram, and trust me, i push my box to the limit (X is a
different stroy).
Joel Stone
John Passaniti wrote:
> What Linux brought to the effects in Titanic doesn't have anything to do
> with Linux's suitability for graphics. Instead, the value of Linux was that
> it is a stable network-capable operating system that is easy to
> administrate. That's it. The actual ray-tracing and other rendering
> software could have been done on *any* platform that was stable.
Why, then, did they choose Linux over windows "nt"?
Why are they now so enthusiastic about Linux?
Why are they requesting that their end-user graphics apps vendors port to
Linux?
> It is important to keep this in mind, because I know people who after
> reading about the role of Linux in the digital effects of Titanic rushed out
> and bought a Linux platform specifically because they thought Linux had some
> inherent advantage for such applications. It doesn't.
It does. performance and stability mean a lot. Maybe you missed that key point.
js
Graffiti
In article <6ksa9u$3s6$1...@news.utrecht.NL.net>,
Toon Moene <to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>dan...@mindspring.com (Alan Daniels) wrote:
>
>> So what? Thats more of a proof of OS speed than a demonstration of love
>> for obsolete hardware. Besides, how can you say that a OS that is portable
>> to the Intel, Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, ARMStrong, Motorola, Amiga, 8086, *and*
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>Indeed, a small step for a man, but a giant leap for mankind :-)
Actually, he said "That's one small stop for man, one giant leap for mankind."
So technically, he screwed up. :-)
-- DN
Graffiti
In article <6kt75g$3pi$1...@zarathustra.calstatela.edu>,
Er, oops:
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
^^^^
>
>So technically, he screwed up. :-)
>
>-- DN
As did I. ;-)
(Geesh, the fu^H^H news server I use won't let me cancel my own article... figures.)
-- DN
hikmat farhat
Bob Nixon wrote:
>
> hikmat farhat wrote:
>
> > The rest of Nasty response
> > snipped-------------------------------------------------------->
> >
>
>
> How's this for starters?
making
and why i took the time to respond to you is that you claim that
professors,grad students are underworked and overpaid. i demonstrated
to you that compared to their accomplishments your billy-boy and his
clan
has a stone age brain which no one can deny even you.
> Come on. You fit my droid description pretty well.
droids? tell me which do you think is a more fundamental and innovative
achivement: quantum mechanics or ms-office?
>I really wonder if your using
> much of you own brain, outside your own narrowly focused world.
huh?
jedi
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 05:27:36 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:29:37 +1000, "Piers B" <Pbl...@comcen.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Please define Socialism Bob. Are you meaning a form of government that gives
>>a shit about the people who it's meant to represent or are you thinking of a
>>military dictatorship that tries to screw the people for it's own ends.
>>If you look at the fears presented in the Novel 1984 I think you'll find
>>that it is not the government that has achieved this beurocratic state but
>>that of corporations and left unchecked, these corporations will screw the
>>public really hard.
>
>Not really either. I guess I have a stereotype of eastern european
>socialism models, where corruption and complacency ruined things.
>
>IMAO, Socialism goes against natural laws, no polarity( carrot). Can
NO, it merely contradicts current economic realities.
IP and computer technology creates a different set
of realities. In that domain, large scale capital
expenditures aren't required for production. Subsequently,
the sort of excuses formerly used by communist regimes
to justify creating another class of burgers are all moot.
>you name a good political model? BTW, your in Australia aren't you? I
>thought you' all were capitalists like us yanks.
>
>>
>>I think I like the idea of government looking out for its' constituants and
>>not the people with money and power (re corporations, does Microsoft ring a
>>bell).
>
>Well, Democracies do that, don't they? Yes, the US government is
>trying to break the MS monopoly. Can they succeed?
Bob Nixon
jedi wrote:
> snip--------------------------------------------------------->
> >Ummm.. Read my other responses(bench marks), in particular.
>
> I run on NT machines all day souped up to the gills.
> You're benchmarks don't impress me. I've experienced
> better for myself.
So next week, run some benchmarks on the NT boxes.First off, Both Linux and NT are
optimized for network performance. As such, they need bullet proof file systems at the
cost of some performance. Overhead is greater with NT vs 95-98 for reasons of
security, stability and network complexity. So, unless I missed something, Win-95-98
is going to be faster.
I'm strictly a desktop advocate, when it comes to Linux. I strongly believe that as a
low cost OS, this is where it's future lies. That said, if Linux can outperform NT,
then It should be capable of something close to 95's performance.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >At least MS wants to make computing fun, you guys won't be happy until everyone
> >> >is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
> >> >impending hacker invasions. Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
> >>
> >> At least we dont have to worry about macro virii (despite
> >> the extensibility of emacs) while we're doing whatever it
> >> is we do with our editors.
> >
> >Nor no I with Winword.
>
> We're not that stupid, Winboy. Many of us know better
> from personal firsthand experience. We didn't get our
> dislike of Microsoft products through osmosis.
>
>
Why is it so hard to see that I'm not all that fond of MS and that I actually like
linux. Apparently you've never heard of the term, " playing devil's advocate". That's
where you point out flaws and weaknesses with the ultimate goal of improvement.
Attacking anyone who has anything negative to say about Linux, is counter productive.
Especially, if your not willing to show any data to the contrary. In light of the fact
that I've been using linux for ~ 90 days , surely you pro's are capable of squeezing
better performance from it.
Unfortunately you'all jealously guard linux and keep it away from the unwashed
masses, unless of course they're willing to go through a, trial by fire. I think many
of you have forgotten that as professional programmers, mis admins, what seems easy to
you, or what you picked up in school 5-10 years ago and learned through your career,
in a more or less linear progression, is not the same as the exponential learning
curve that someone just wanting to find an alternative to Microsoft, should have to
deal with in a month to a year.
In order to even consider dealing with this MT Everest learning curve or want to take
it on at all, we need a different set of climbing tools. CLI editors, and compilers
are just not the right tools for non programers, who need to focus, as USERS, on the
applications and the THINGS that THEY DO, not the OS. The operating system should be
as transparent as driving a well engineered car. If eyed from that prospective, linux
might be viewed more like a Russian built 18 wheeler, 12 speed transmission, no radio,
cd player or power windows. Not a trifle task to get it up an running but rugged and
unstoppable once underway.
> snip----------------------------------------------------------->
>
> >So what? These are example of what outsiders like about Linux.
>
> Unix had a Win95-sh interface years before windows did.
> You're ramblings about who may like what are irrelevant.
> Unix supports the free-will of its users. That there might
> even be emacs vs. vi flamewars is a testament to that.
This old hard liner stuff about 'free-will, emacs' is tiring. It has no bearing to me
and many other potential future commercial Linux users. Collectively we would like to
see, even friendlier future releases of RedHat 5.1 & Caldera 1.X, Debian, Suse, or
Slackware. We aren't programmers, don't wanna be programmers, just an alternative to
the only other major OS in the known world. Here's a wish list.
1) FAT 32 support, out of the box.
1.1) APG support.
2) Better PnP probing.
3) auto mounting or the choice of, 'all' mass storage devices found by probing during
setup, including.
a) local hard disks, be they IDE, UDMA or SCSI
b) local PPzip , Atapi Zips & LS-100 & FD0,1
c) Scanners PP and SCSI
d) Tv tuners & other MM fluff
e) Printers, this is done but RH 5.0 drivers are two years old, out of the box.
f) sound devices, joy stick, etc.
3. Modems
a) Port setup options & modem.int string questions during installation.
b) aggressive PPP setup.
4) DHCP =>.70 included in all future linux releases.
5) Default installations disabling anonymous FTP, Telnet and other potential security
concerns.
6) Better User level control & a gui 'SU' button.
7) IF something's basically wrong with KDE fix it, as it's the most logical migration
route for new users.
a) IF Gnone is = then fine, otherwise it's just another 'power user' windows manager.
8) Hire technical writers to supplement the programmer written 'man' tools, like KDE's
help.
9) Better documentation during setup for smarter choices. Both RH and Caldela assume
network installs. Maybe something like three columns of check, (network, desktop and
none) as choices, with 'extensive' F1 help for each choice.
10) IF this is possible? A choice of a desktop (1 user) optimized file system & disk
caching.
12) Application ports. Eudora and Agent for starters. This has the same dependencies
as #11 below.
11. Better vendor support for video cards and other stuff. This one is out of your
hands unless linux volume is increased, to the point you folk get the respect you
deserve.
>
>
> [deletia]
> >>
> >>
> >> >servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
> >> >similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
> >> >Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
> >>
> >> Win95? That thing has to keep from eating itself first.
> >
> >I don't think most of you Linux zealots have spent enough time with your windows
> >boxed to really fine tune things. The same argument Ya'all use for us linux
> >newbee's.
>
> Besides going into /etc and doing rm -r * as root, there's
> really not much one can do to emulate the behaivor of Win95.
> Win95 is fundementally flawed by design. You will likely
> proclaim this for yourself once Redmond gets around to providing
> you with proper tools to deal with their adhoc wannabe-database
> in Win98. Then you'll be 'free to rag on the previous version'.
Great.
> I'd rather do something I find useful with my machine than
> constantly piddling around with sysadmin details.
Yeah right, Like trolling this newsgroup.
The rest of the MS slamming deleted, as we all know it's a flawed model, badly in need
of healthy competition.
Piers B
Please define Socialism Bob. Are you meaning a form of government that gives
a shit about the people who it's meant to represent or are you thinking of a
military dictatorship that tries to screw the people for it's own ends.
If you look at the fears presented in the Novel 1984 I think you'll find
that it is not the government that has achieved this beurocratic state but
that of corporations and left unchecked, these corporations will screw the
public really hard.
I think I like the idea of government looking out for its' constituants and
not the people with money and power (re corporations, does Microsoft ring a
bell).
>
>Socialistic not Communistic. You're misquoting for the sake of
>exaggeration. It's no secret that most of Europe and a good deal of
>the US is, more or less socialistic.
>
>>--
>>Bill Pridgen
>>--
>>pri...@texas.net *** Linux: Platform For The Next Millennium
>----------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How prophetic.
Piers B
Bob, I'd have to agree with what you're asking from Linux here. I can see
RedHat and others are going down the path but they still have a hell of a
long way to go. It would be nice to get a program like Gimp or Star Office
and jus have a setup executable like MS crap has that does all the compyling
and installation for you with simple question routines. Better MM hardware
support and the like would give Linux the appeal that non tech computer
users would crave and it would certainly entice them to jump the Microsoft
ship and move to Linux. At the moment unless the Linux box is setup by a
technical computer user for the non, there is no way in hell you'll entice
inexperienced users over.
As for utilising technical writers to document Linux and related software,
hell, even having decent editors would help. Some of the documentation out
there is bloody criptic. The layout of installation steps are flawed as is
the language usage in them. Documentation needs to clear and consise with
easy to follow steps walking the user though the necessary routines for
compiling and installing software.
Piers B.
Bob Nixon
>Bob Nixon wrote:
>>
>> hikmat farhat wrote:
>>
>> > The rest of Nasty response
>> > snipped-------------------------------------------------------->
>> > > similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>> >
>>
>> > like you know how to benchmark
>>
>> How's this for starters?
>you responded to the benchmark part only?
I wanted to wake you up. It didn't work.
> the whole point you were
>making
>and why i took the time to respond to you is that you claim that
>professors,grad students are underworked and overpaid. i demonstrated
>to you that compared to their accomplishments your billy-boy and his
>clan
>has a stone age brain which no one can deny even you.
OK, lets go through it.
>those programmers you're talking about brought you networking and the
>inernet ,the same technology money_bill dismissed as a fad before others
>started making money.
The US government started the Internet, let interested parties like ,
Sandia, Nasa, rad labs, then later Universities in on it. Finally
they turned it over to commercial interests. Get your facts straight.
>yeah those university professors and grad students that invented the
>transistor
Wrong again. Try Bell Labs.
> without wich your idol billy boy wouldn't be able to eat.
Not my Idol, I dislike him but not fanatically, like a droid might. By
the way how old are you?
>same people that in the near future are going to be able to look at
>your DNA and figure out that your IQ<10 before you spit this crap
----------------------------------------------------me--or --you?
>those same people that let you get cheap electricity due to fission
Pure unfounded personal insults. BTW, were still at least ten years
away from any stable, self contained fusion reactors.
>and
>fusion.the same ones that discovered xray and its application to your
>health.
Irrational Drivel.
>> Come on. You fit my droid description pretty well.
>
>droids? tell me which do you think is a more fundamental and innovative
>achivement: quantum mechanics or ms-office?
Quantum mechanics predates linux. BTW, the guys who invented quantum
mechanics were dweebs. Droids, by their own choice, have no free
choice. Get the association, cultists, no choice, followers of the
pack. Have you seen 1984? I know you and your fellow linux zealots are
not really cultists but you do exhibits that, "I'm right and everyone
else is messed up", sort of mentality.
>
>>I really wonder if your using
>> much of you own brain, outside your own narrowly focused world.
>
>huh?
^^^^^
Exactly, read all the messages in this thread and see if you can get
up to date on my feeling on Linux & MS.
Bob Nixon
>Please define Socialism Bob. Are you meaning a form of government that gives
>a shit about the people who it's meant to represent or are you thinking of a
>military dictatorship that tries to screw the people for it's own ends.
>If you look at the fears presented in the Novel 1984 I think you'll find
>that it is not the government that has achieved this beurocratic state but
>that of corporations and left unchecked, these corporations will screw the
>public really hard.
Not really either. I guess I have a stereotype of eastern european
socialism models, where corruption and complacency ruined things.
IMAO, Socialism goes against natural laws, no polarity( carrot). Can
you name a good political model? BTW, your in Australia aren't you? I
thought you' all were capitalists like us yanks.
>
>I think I like the idea of government looking out for its' constituants and
>not the people with money and power (re corporations, does Microsoft ring a
>bell).
Well, Democracies do that, don't they? Yes, the US government is
trying to break the MS monopoly. Can they succeed?
Chuan-kai Lin
Chuck Bermingham (21bermi...@con24centric25.26net27) 提到:
: Here's one:
: "Linux: The freedom that Microsoft only promised."
: "Linux: for those who make their own roads."
: Pretty bad ones, but hey--I ain't that clever...
I think that I might have a good one (for Linux, and for the free software
community in general as well):
Linux: the OS of the people, by the people, for the people.
-- Chuan-kai Lin
Bob Nixon
On Sun, 31 May 1998 17:13:38 -0400, nads <bl...@shell6.ba.best.com>
wrote:
>I was one of those 'kids' who got my account canceled, because someone mailed the
>@home email list, saying that i telneted to thier box (which occurred by
>accident, when I meant to go somewhere else, (switch one #, and look what
>happens)) and tried to 'hack' them. This spawned numerous complaints from people
>on the list, which i did nothing to, emailing @home in an attempt to get my
>account canceled. The ignorant abuse manager, said she was receiveing numerous
>complaints, even though i told her they were all spawned from one email to a list,
>she didn't care and canceled my account anyway. Some Linux/Unix people really need
>to get a life.
My sympathies. But the situation that I recall was a kid in Australia,
from a dial up account.
snip--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> Its true, some Linux users are obsessed with
>
>As to your other remarks, Linux and other Unix varients are much more powerful
>than NT/95. M$oft tried to swtich hotmail from Solaris/FreeBSD to NT and had to
>switch back after NT couldn't handle the load. Linux is cheaper, quicker, easier
>to modify, etc.. etc.. Personally, my Linux box has only crashed once in a year,
>and that was due to faulty ram, and trust me, i push my box to the limit (X is a
>different stroy).
>
No doubt Linux is a superior networking platform. However, it needs
some work for the desktop market.
David M. Cook
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 06:21:59 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>My sympathies. But the situation that I recall was a kid in Australia,
>from a dial up account.
Complaining about 1 or 2 refused connects is pretty silly, but then there is
stuff like this:
May 31 15:27:39 cx64068-a in.telnetd[921]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 15:44:50 cx64068-a in.telnetd[922]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 16:01:17 cx64068-a in.telnetd[925]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 16:15:26 cx64068-a in.telnetd[926]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 16:26:35 cx64068-a in.telnetd[927]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 16:41:55 cx64068-a in.telnetd[928]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 16:57:55 cx64068-a in.telnetd[929]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
May 31 17:12:53 cx64068-a in.telnetd[932]: refused connect from 198.106.128.89
etc., all the way up to about 1 am PST. I suggest you check your own logs
regularly.
Dave Cook
Toon Moene
Graffiti <ram...@zarathustra.remove.this.spam.block.calstatela.edu> wrote:
> In article <6ksa9u$3s6$1...@news.utrecht.NL.net>, I wrote:
> >dan...@mindspring.com (Alan Daniels) wrote:
> >> So what? Thats more of a proof of OS speed than a demonstration of love
> >> for obsolete hardware. Besides, how can you say that a OS that is
portable
> >> to the Intel, Alpha, Sparc, MIPS, ARMStrong, Motorola, Amiga, 8086,
*and*
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Indeed, a small step for a man, but a giant leap for mankind :-)
>
> Actually, he said "That's one small stop for man, one giant leap for
mankind."
Well, I hope you don't blame me for not hearing that - in July '69 I was 12
years old, hadn't had any formal education of the English language, and it
was 3 AM local time :-)
Steve
On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:03:04 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>Right, A hobbyist OS created (actually borrowed from Unix) by a bunch of under
>worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>action.
Hmm, this doesn't jibe with my experience... My experience is closer
to the following (slightly dramatised):
Linux user: "Hmm, this doesn't work. Guess I'll have to read the
howto or look at the sources, or ask one of those freaky socialists on
usenet for some advice"
Windows user: "What? Windows has performed an illegal operation?"
(Reboot) "What? Windows has performed an illegal operation?"
(Reboot) (Call MS tech support, listen to 45 minutes of MS
advertising on hold, receive advice to re-install Windows) "What?
Windows has performed an illegal operation?"
All I can say is I know which situation makes *me* think of
Brazil/1984/Brave New World. I will concede that Linux/Unix can seem
more esoteric to an outsider, but that's part of the charm for me --
the fact that people actually get involved in understanding how their
computers and programs function, much like hot-rod enthusiasts
rebuilding and optimizing their cars. How is this less preferable to
the "Spoon Feeding For Dummies" approach taken by more mainstream
software?
>
>Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>is that it's code bloat or proprietary. Many of you are also anti hardware,
>citing how linux can run on a 386, Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
>serious under X?
I'm not anti-hardware; I just know I'm not the only one with a
486-SX25 sitting in my closest, and it's nice to know that I can use
it as a perfectly serviceable router/firewall/mail server etc. You
can't get too far installing NT on an 8-meg 486. :-)
This also means I'm likely to get better performance when I'm _not_
running on antiquated hardware. My PC at home is a P150/64MB. Under
Linux, there is almost *never* a noticable wait when loading a program
(3-5 seconds to start X, 5-10 seconds each the first time I start
Netscape or emacs; after that they pop right up). Under Windows, the
same configuration is tolerable, but not by much - I drum my fingers
impatiently whenever loading anything more complex than notepad or
solitaire.
> All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
>servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
>similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
"Falls short" how? If you're speaking of speed/performance when
performing a similar task on similar hardware (compressing a large
file, sorting a database, printing a postscript file), I'd be very
surprised to see Windows have any kind of advantage.
In my experience, Linux multimedia is not "buggy"; I agree it doesn't
have the same level of driver/format support as Windows, but what's
there works well. Unfortunately there's only so much that can be done
about this until the hardware manufacturers start releasing their
proprietary specs in larger numbers.
>Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
>
>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
>integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system but
>believe me, it can easily be done.
Yes, we all know about the occassional tendency of X to crash,
freezing up the keyboard in the process. Of course, when this happens
you can telnet into the box from outside, or connect a terminal to the
serial port, and recover things quite easily that way... Try doing
that when you get the blue screen of death in windows.
But overall, I have to admit that Linux still has a little while to go
before it becomes the ultimate desktop environment.
>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months.
Well no one really needs to keep their computer on a desk, but it's a
lot more convenient than putting the monitor on a tv tray and keeping
the keyboard in your lap. Months-long uptimes are nice because
frequently used information stays in cache and the system runs faster.
They're nice because I can edit a document and have peace of mind that
the whole thing won't suddenly take a dive. They're nice because most
of the Unix admins I know get to spend several hours a day reading
Usenet, while many of the NT/Netware admins I know regularly work
overtime on weekends just to keep their systems stable.
>I've run my 95 box for a week
>at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least 100
>times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal with
>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
I disagree. A poorly-written app in a well-designed OS shouldn't
present a lot of problems. Oh, the *program* might crash, but that
means nothing to the other people who are remotely logged into the
same machine. And I know there are exceptions (like the X server
hangups mentioned above, and SVGAlib progs having to run as setuid
root), but overall I think the infrastructure of Linux is a lot more
stable. The stability problems with a lot of Windows apps stem from
poorly documented/non-standard/conflicting .DLLs and the like...
something Unix has had a much more sensible approach to since its
inception.
-Steve
Steve
On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:51:35 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>> >servers. Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
>> >similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
>> >Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
>>
>> Win95? That thing has to keep from eating itself first.
>
>I don't think most of you Linux zealots have spent enough time with your windows
>boxed to really fine tune things. The same argument Ya'all use for us linux
>newbee's.
I have to disagree very strongly with this. I admin several *nix
boxes at work, but since our LAN is Win95/Netware, that's what I've
got on my desktop. At home I still use Win95 quite a bit for writing
music, using Photoshop, and playing games. I'm a fairly savvy user
and have spent a lot of time trying to optimize everything, but I
still end up having to re-install Windows every 6-12 months on any box
I use regularly. Between all the crap that gets written to registry,
conflicting DLLs & VXDs etc. etc. things just degrade over time, even
if I'm not installing a lot of new apps.
My Linux PC, on the other hand, I've had for a little over two years,
and while I've had to re-install twice, both times were hardware
related (first time when I migrated to a bigger drive, second time due
to disk corruption during a poorly-timed power outage; not much you
can do about that one). Both times the re-install was perfectly
smooth, and since it's so easy to back up the relevant partitions, I
had all my old data and setup info back within an hour or so (unlike
Windows, where a week after a reinstall I'm still finding nooks and
crannys I have to reset, since there's no central point to organize it
all; it's all scattered throughout menus and dialogue boxes which
alter non-human-readable entries in the registry). I should also
mention I'm a lot more heavy-handed with my Linux system; I'll
download and install pretty much anything that looks interesting, and
leave it lying around as long as I have the disk space. Windows makes
me contemplate long and hard before I try ANYTHING new, since it's so
difficult to predict the consequences of installing a new piece of
software, changing a driver, etc.
-Steve
Steve
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 05:17:41 GMT, big...@nospam.home.com (Bob Nixon)
wrote:
>Quantum mechanics predates linux. BTW, the guys who invented quantum
>mechanics were dweebs. Droids, by their own choice, have no free
>choice. Get the association, cultists, no choice, followers of the
>pack. Have you seen 1984?
No.
I read it. In a book.
:-)
hikmat farhat
Bob Nixon wrote:
> >yeah those university professors and grad students that invented the
> >transistor
>
> Wrong again. Try Bell Labs.
>
Bardeen was a physicist.he got 2 nobel prizes one for the transistor
and the other for superconductivity.both were "open" research not
money making schemes.
> > without wich your idol billy boy wouldn't be able to eat.
>
> Not my Idol, I dislike him but not fanatically, like a droid might. By
> the way how old are you?
>
30 Ph.D chemical physics. research in computational material science.
>
>
> Quantum mechanics predates linux. BTW, the guys who invented quantum
> mechanics were dweebs. Droids, by their own choice, have no free
> choice. Get the association, cultists, no choice, followers of the
> pack. Have you seen 1984? I know you and your fellow linux zealots are
> not really cultists but you do exhibits that, "I'm right and everyone
> else is messed up", sort of mentality.
you missed my whole point. i only answered your posts because you were
attacking university researchers not linux.i'm a physicist not a
computer
scientist(computational stat. mech.)our lab is mostly solaris. only the
new cheap intel hardware runs linux and we are very pleased with it.BTW
we deployed linux after we payed dearly for believing the hype over NT
David M. Cook
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 05:17:41 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>Quantum mechanics predates linux. BTW, the guys who invented quantum
>mechanics were dweebs.
Far off topic, but it doesn't really matter in this thread:
I'm not sure what a dweeb is precisely, but the guys who invented quantum
mechanics (Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Shroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac) were very
cultured men, and I suspect that doesn't qualify them as dweebs.
Dave Cook
Bob Nixon
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:48:16 GMT, dave...@home.com (David M. Cook)
wrote:
No disrespect to these great men was intended. Dweeb is an
affectionate term in my book.
>Dave Cook
Howard Smith
Chuck Bermingham wrote:
>
> There's an earlier thread in this newsgroup: "Good point on CNET..." that
> struck me as interesting, and I started rambling on about the Mustard Seed
> concept from the Bible. In the end, I thought "Live Free(BSD) or Die" to
> be an interesting slant on the philosophy behind our new software
> directions.
>
> Anyway, as advocates, maybe we could come up with some compelling mottos
> for Linux, some short phrases that will compel people to wonder what the
> fuss is all about.
>
> Here's one:
>
> "Linux: The freedom that Microsoft only promised."
>
> "Linux: for those who make their own roads."
>
> Pretty bad ones, but hey--I ain't that clever...
>
> ---Chuck Bermingham------
Windoz: Where do you want to go today ? ... To buy some more stuff and
see if I can get this damm thing to do something !
Linux: What would you like to do today ? ... Whatever you want !
--
Howard J. Smith || Building a better world thru a
|| micro$oft free environment with
footp...@bigfoot.com || Java, Netscape and Solaris
Benjamin Rodriguez
Win-D'OHs: Over 6 Billion crashes served daily
Linux: Running fine since 1864!
==========
WindozeNT: If they could see me now--BSOD--
Linux: OS to the Gods
========
Windoze3.1: So far down it'll make you frown.
Linux: The future is here,give a cheer,tell bill gates he can kiss
my....
Christopher Smith
Steve wrote in message <3574cf26...@nnrp.digex.net>...
>On Sat, 30 May 1998 02:03:04 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>This also means I'm likely to get better performance when I'm _not_
>running on antiquated hardware. My PC at home is a P150/64MB. Under
>Linux, there is almost *never* a noticable wait when loading a program
>(3-5 seconds to start X, 5-10 seconds each the first time I start
>Netscape or emacs; after that they pop right up). Under Windows, the
>same configuration is tolerable, but not by much - I drum my fingers
>impatiently whenever loading anything more complex than notepad or
>solitaire.
*That* is a _damn_ fast disk you have in that machine - I have a K6/225
running Linux with Quantum Fireball UDMA drives and a busmastering VIA disk
controller (with appropriate kernel patches) and even straight after a fresh
boot X takes a good 10-15 seconds to start, and Netscape just as long. I
have always found disk I/O to be slower under Linux that NT, but that might
be just me.
>>Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
>>
>>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics
and
>>multimedia. Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction, maybe even
>>more. However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
>>integrated environment, save CDE & KDE, it seldom brings down the system
but
>>believe me, it can easily be done.
>
>Yes, we all know about the occassional tendency of X to crash,
>freezing up the keyboard in the process. Of course, when this happens
>you can telnet into the box from outside, or connect a terminal to the
>serial port, and recover things quite easily that way... Try doing
>that when you get the blue screen of death in windows.
Unless of course your machine isn't *on* a network. Oh - there's a slight
difference between X hanging up the display and console and a BSOD too.
>
>But overall, I have to admit that Linux still has a little while to go
>before it becomes the ultimate desktop environment.
I'd say a *long* way personally. Makes a good server though.
>
>>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no
one
>>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months.
>
>Well no one really needs to keep their computer on a desk, but it's a
>lot more convenient than putting the monitor on a tv tray and keeping
>the keyboard in your lap. Months-long uptimes are nice because
>frequently used information stays in cache and the system runs faster.
>They're nice because I can edit a document and have peace of mind that
>the whole thing won't suddenly take a dive. They're nice because most
>of the Unix admins I know get to spend several hours a day reading
>Usenet, while many of the NT/Netware admins I know regularly work
>overtime on weekends just to keep their systems stable.
I reboot too often to use other OSes to ever get a really good uptime, but
my best with NT was 3 months, and was ended by a planned reboot (to play
Dark Reign).
>
>>I've run my 95 box for a week
>>at a time, without a crash. Usually, a new game or poorly debugged
software
>>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though. Lets face it, there's at least
100
>>times more software available for wintel, than linux. If Linux had to deal
with
>>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
>
>I disagree. A poorly-written app in a well-designed OS shouldn't
>present a lot of problems. Oh, the *program* might crash, but that
>means nothing to the other people who are remotely logged into the
>same machine. And I know there are exceptions (like the X server
>hangups mentioned above, and SVGAlib progs having to run as setuid
>root), but overall I think the infrastructure of Linux is a lot more
>stable. The stability problems with a lot of Windows apps stem from
>poorly documented/non-standard/conflicting .DLLs and the like...
>something Unix has had a much more sensible approach to since its
>inception.
Personally I think most of the problems in Windows ('95 and to a lesser
extent, NT) spring from the "backwards compatibility or die" motto. Sucks
really :(
>
>
> -Steve
>
Chuck Adams
Linux for me has made microsoft irrelevant. My job doesn't involve
microsoft products anymore. Stop giving Microsoft more mindshare by
always mentioning them. Linux can stand on its own merits.
Chuck Adams
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:46:12 +1000, Piers B <Pbl...@comcen.com.au> wrote:
>
>Bob, I'd have to agree with what you're asking from Linux here. I can see
>RedHat and others are going down the path but they still have a hell of a
>long way to go. It would be nice to get a program like Gimp or Star Office
>and jus have a setup executable like MS crap has that does all the compyling
rpm -ivh gimp*
gimp&
Ran flawlessly.
jim
> >
> >
> >This also means I'm likely to get better performance when I'm _not_
> >running on antiquated hardware. My PC at home is a P150/64MB. Under
> >Linux, there is almost *never* a noticable wait when loading a program
> >(3-5 seconds to start X, 5-10 seconds each the first time I start
> >Netscape or emacs; after that they pop right up). Under Windows, the
> >same configuration is tolerable, but not by much - I drum my fingers
> >impatiently whenever loading anything more complex than notepad or
> >solitaire.
>
Hmmm? I wouldn't say _damn_ fast ... my home PC is an IBM/Cyrix
6x86-200, 64MB with an ordinary 12ms EIDE drive, and I get comparable
start-up times. (XFree86-3.3.1 with fvwm).
jim
--
j...@madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk | http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/~jim/
I'M THE BILL YOU OWE. IF YOU DON'T PAY ME, YOU DON'T LEAVE.
-- Bill Gates^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HStephen Donaldson
Steve
>>This also means I'm likely to get better performance when I'm _not_
>>running on antiquated hardware. My PC at home is a P150/64MB. Under
>>Linux, there is almost *never* a noticable wait when loading a program
>>(3-5 seconds to start X, 5-10 seconds each the first time I start
>>Netscape or emacs; after that they pop right up). Under Windows, the
>>same configuration is tolerable, but not by much - I drum my fingers
>>impatiently whenever loading anything more complex than notepad or
>>solitaire.
>
>*That* is a _damn_ fast disk you have in that machine - I have a K6/225
>running Linux with Quantum Fireball UDMA drives and a busmastering VIA disk
>controller (with appropriate kernel patches) and even straight after a fresh
>boot X takes a good 10-15 seconds to start, and Netscape just as long. I
>have always found disk I/O to be slower under Linux that NT, but that might
>be just me.
No, my Linux system at home is just running a plain old Quantum IDE
drive (1.2 gig, 5400RPM). The numbers you quote for Netscape sound
comparable to mine, but X starts pretty quickly for me even after a
fresh boot (definitely under 10 seconds, closer to 5). One difference
might be use of window manager and soforth - I run olvwm (the classic
mean & lean OpenWindows which I first encountered on a Sun + has been
my preference ever since) without any apps auto-starting. So if
you're running something like KDE with a bunch of widgets, it might
take a little longer.
I haven't run any tests of Linux vs. NT to see which has faster disk
access, though Linux is definitely faster than 95 in most respects
(which I am reminded of every time I want to copy or delete a large
directory under 95 and spend a minute and a half watching animated
folders fly across the screen...)
>Unless of course your machine isn't *on* a network. Oh - there's a slight
>difference between X hanging up the display and console and a BSOD too.
I think there is also a utility out there which allows you to kill a
frozen X server from the joystick port; has anyone seen this or know
what it's called? (Heard about it a while ago but never located a
copy).
>>But overall, I have to admit that Linux still has a little while to go
>>before it becomes the ultimate desktop environment.
>
>I'd say a *long* way personally. Makes a good server though.
It also depends on what you do with it. For me, 80% of the time I'm
in X, the only programs I use are xterm, emacs, and the occassional
xv. *For those tasks*, nothing from Microsoft can come close to good
old OpenLook. I can drag a window from anywhere on it's edge, not
just the top. I can re-size a terminal window and the system on the
other end will flawlessly adapt to the new geometry. Admittedly,
there aren't as many widgets as MS-Windows, and they don't look as
polished, but *for the way I work*, X is a more efficient environment
most of the time.
>I reboot too often to use other OSes to ever get a really good uptime, but
>my best with NT was 3 months, and was ended by a planned reboot (to play
>Dark Reign).
I do too, on my home machine. But it's a nice feeling that I don't
have to pay a lot of attention to the Linux machines I administer at
work, and they'll keep right on doing their thing. It's good to know
that if I ever wanted to render several hundred megs of raytraces or
something, I could just start the job, leave for the weekend, and be
reasonably sure it'd follow through to completion. I'm impressed by
car owners who boast of driving 20000 miles without any breakdowns,
even though I know I'm not personally going to drive that far in a
single trip. :-)
>Personally I think most of the problems in Windows ('95 and to a lesser
>extent, NT) spring from the "backwards compatibility or die" motto. Sucks
>really :(
Yes, that's part of it, and a bitterly ironic part, since most apps
older than two years or so usually have some fairly serious
compatibility issues *somewhere*, yet I can run countless decade-old
legacy apps under emulation, written for entirely different
OSs/machine architectures (CPM, iBCS-supported Unices, Apple II,
Sinclair ZX-81, Nintendo) and they usually work great.
I think that a greater problem with Microsoft's OSs is lack of
consistency in design, and inability to document and enforce that
consistency when it does occassionally arise. All ethical and social
issues aside, the stability of Linux has taught me a great lesson
about the value of open-source software, as opposed to the
proprietary, secretive world of most commercial OSs.
It sort of reminds me of the story of the blind men who were examining
an elephant. One man felt the trunk, and thought "It is long and
twisty, like a snake," another felt the ears and felt "It is light
and floppy, like a palm frond," etc. I can imagine that developing
for closed systems must be a similar situation - you pay dearly, sign
a non-disclosure agreement, and then they show you... the trunk. If
your code doesn't integrate with that of somebody who bought the "leg"
developer's license, I'm not too surprised... :-)
-Steve
Steve
You make an interesting point, yet *your own message* mentions that
other company's name more times than it mentions Linux.
I too get a little tired of not seeing more about Linux here in the
Linux advocacy group (espesically the threads about the DOJ
investigation which don't even mention Linux).
But, in a time when all of us are so media-saturated by mention of
Microsoft, does it really do any good to simply avoid talking about
them? If we know we're going to hear about them on a daily basis
anyway, could we perhaps make that work in our favor?
One tactic is to influence people's opinions through denial. For
example, I'm not a great fan of Bill Gates, but some of the stories
I've heard about him just can't be true. As far as I know, there is
no truth to the rumor that Bill Gates is a racist pedophile who beats
his wife. Those rumored photos where Bill Gates is naked, covered in
blood, with a strangled, mutilated dead baby lying dead on the ground,
as he smiles that famous touchy-feely smile - those supposed photos
are nothing more than some nasty PR circulated by one of Bill Gates'
detractors. I've heard similar rumors about how Bill Gates makes
snuff films in his basement, filming the brutal torture and killings
of animals and kidnapped homeless persons, blue-screening the result
over stock footage of Auschwitz to increase his sick enjoyment. Those
rumors are just too outrageous to be anything but that-- just rumors.
Likewise, I'm sure there is no truth to any stories that Microsoft is
secretly diverting some of its profits to support research of chemical
& biological weapons being carried out by some espescially nasty
third-world terrorist organizations. Equally absurd are the
allegations that Microsoft has been "in bed" with the US government
all along, playing along with the recent DOJ investigations just to
divert attention from the fact that the "Microsoft monopoly" is
completely in the interests of the government's anti-encryption,
pro-surveillance interests. I don't know where people come up with
this nonsense.
-Steve
VHA PC Development
Christopher Smith <drsm...@usa.net> wrote in article
<6kv0cv$mj$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
> >
> >
> >This also means I'm likely to get better performance when I'm _not_
> >running on antiquated hardware. My PC at home is a P150/64MB. Under
> >Linux, there is almost *never* a noticable wait when loading a program
> >(3-5 seconds to start X, 5-10 seconds each the first time I start
> >Netscape or emacs; after that they pop right up). Under Windows, the
> >same configuration is tolerable, but not by much - I drum my fingers
> >impatiently whenever loading anything more complex than notepad or
> >solitaire.
>
> running Linux with Quantum Fireball UDMA drives and a busmastering VIA
disk
> controller (with appropriate kernel patches) and even straight after a
fresh
> boot X takes a good 10-15 seconds to start, and Netscape just as long. I
> have always found disk I/O to be slower under Linux that NT, but that
might
> be just me.
>
I have a Cyrix 686-166 48MB RAM 2.5GB WD Caviar drive running Slackware 3.3
LINUX. From the time I type "startx" to a working X desktop (fvwm95) is
about 2.5 seconds. I has alot to do with how well you have your video card
modes set and the quality of your video card - mine is a Matrox Mystique
220 2MB PCI.
--
=======================================
cod...@airmail.NOSPAM.net
bgra...@vha.NOSPAM.com
=======================================
My opinions are mine alone - though others may borrow...
Fergus
Chuck Adams wrote:
Not for me it didn't!
I got a
Failed dependencies:
libpng.so.1 is needed.
libpng is a lnk is the /usr/lib directory....
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I am new to Linux myself. I consider myself a convert, X is great and windows
Nt/95 do seem like trainer OSes when compared, but I do get frustrated when I am
expected to learn all the switches to every command I wish to use.
Which explains why I scour newsgroups looking for words like Ran flawlessly!!
Fergus.
John W. M. Stevens
>worked, overpaid US & European Government programmers, University 'professors
>and grad students'. Pushing some sort of tail wags the dog, bullshit socialism
>agenda, called open source/GNU, to be the the programming model of the next
>millennium. In short, the prelude to those horror movies like Brazil and 1984,
>with droids sitting in front of some totally network controlled 'bland looking,
>quasi dumb x-terminal', camera, keyboard & mouse monitoring every humanoid
>choir boys, from where I sit.
Can you say "Straw Man Argument"!?
I thought not. A little remedial training is necesary, it seems. . .
So, just how does *ANY* Linux Advocate force any of the above? And how
does the user, if s/he wishes, *AVOID* the above if s/he is using Windows?
Have you forgotten some of MS's nasty little "look at your HDD and report
back to HQ" tricks?
Have you forgotten the most basic tenet of Linux. . . it's free.
>At least MS wants to make computing fun,
True. More than 30 billion dollars in my pocket sounds like fun to me!
>you guys won't be happy until everyone
>is using 'emacs or vi' to create scripts to monitor your boxes, to thwart
>impending hacker invasions.
Yer joking, right?
>Don't laugh, there a news group and mailing list on
>my ISP, @home, comprised of a bunch of Unix/Linux old heads. There thrill in
>life, is getting some kid's account canceled, for trying to telnet or ftp into
>their machine.
Ah. I get it. You are a spider, and you got caught and crushed. Now
your pissed off because somebody caught you. . . probably somebody running
Linux.
>Netscape and KDE are a breath of fresh air but all I hear from you hard liners,
>is that it's code bloat or proprietary.
KDE is proprietary. What's wrong with the truth?
Bloated is a matter of opinion.
>Many of you are also anti hardware,
You need a big time reality check. Count the number of different platforms
Linux runs on. . . now, count the number of different platforms that
Windows runs on . . . now, JUST WHO IS ANTI-HARDWARE?!
>citing how linux can run on a 386,
It can.
>Bah..! and do what, certainly nothing
>serious under X?
You show a remarkable lack of imagination. A great deal of useful work
can be done without a GUI. . . in fact, a great deal of useful work can
be done with no video card or monitor stuck in the machine, at all.
>All the BS about Linux outperforming or on par with NT
>servers.
'Tis true.
>Maybe, but as a desktop (much larger market), linux falls short of a
>similarly configured Win-95 machine, based on my own and other's bench marking.
Out right lies. If not, then post your tests, and your comparison hardware.
Yah. That's what I thought. Lies.
>Multimedia is buggy and nowhere near the level of Wintel.
This is partially true: Linux does not have the latest multi-media
players.
As for buggy. . . wrong. The stuff I've used is just as stable as any
Windows 95 MM player.
>Lets talk about Linux's stability for a minute.
Let us, indeed.
>1) Linux machines are not asked to do as much in terms of complex graphics and
>multimedia.
This is a lie. They are, indeed, asked to do a great deal of "complex
graphics". And if you Windows-loving types would complain even just a
little bit about all the manacles your vendors put on you. . . we'd
be more up to date.
>Linux crashes too if pushed hard in this direction,
>maybe even more.
More lies. If not, then prove it. State your hardware, distribution,
kernel version, the relevant application and the environment in which
it was run. . .
Yup. That's what I thought. More lies.
>However, since X is just a shell on top of the CLI & not a totally
>integrated environment, save CDE & KDE,
You're massively ignorant. As well as being self contradictory.
CDE and KDE both run X. If X is just a shell on top of the CLI, then
obviously, CDE and KDE are also "not integrated".
However, X isn't "just a shell on top of the CLI, either". Why don't you
go figure out what X is, then come back and try again. When attempting
to lie, a lot of practice helps. . . keep posting until at least one
person is dumb enough to believe you.
>it seldom brings down the system but
>believe me, it can easily be done.
And staring at any Windows box cross eyed for more than 3 seconds will
force the OS to crash, the HARDWARE TO BURST INTO FLAMES AND. . . OH,
THE HUMANITY!
You're obviously lying again.
>2) Unless you're running a network or www server(really a unix job), no one
>really needs to have uptimes in weeks or months.
Wrong. But even if you turn off your machine every night, believe me,
*EVERY* user needs uptimes in the range of hours. And some Windows
users don't even get that. I do development work on a Windows box.
It averages six crashes a day.
My Linux box? None.
>I've run my 95 box for a week
>at a time, without a crash.
You're lying. Out of six Windows 95 boxes installed on site, not *ONE*
of them will stay up that long. *ALL* of them will spontaneously crash
(no activity, nobody sitting in front of them) within 32 to 45 hours.
Fortunately, the Windows users turn off these poor little toys every night
so that their resources can be re-aquired in the only guaranteed and
bug free way that MS supports. . . a cold restart.
>Usually, a new game or poorly debugged software
>like 'corel' will do do the trick, though.
Something that won't happen, under Linux.
>Lets face it, there's at least 100
>times more software available for wintel, than linux.
Facts? Figures? References?
I thought not. You don't even know that most Unix software can be compiled
for Linux. . .
>If Linux had to deal with
>all the "shoved of the door, games", you'd see lots of crashes too.
No, we wouldn't. That statement just illustrates, with bells on, your
level of ignorance.
*ALL* of our games are just "shoved under the door"! And so long as you
don't give 'em suid root capability, none of them will crash your machine.
>Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by US
>& European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>mindset and into something called $commerce$.
Fortunately, we have the legal right to fine, and possibly imprison you
if you try it.
>PS. I don't even want to here about the <5% that actually worked on this, while
>at home, in their spare time.
Yah. The truth would wreak havoc with your fantasy world. . .
>And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
It's free. Go out and buy a dictionary. Look up "free". We'll wait,
I know that this will take you quite a while. . .
Got it? Finally! And just how many different definitions are there,
for the word, free?
Ooops. I forgot. I apologize for asking you to count that high. . .
In the interests of avoiding any *FURTHER* embarassment on your
part, let's just say. . . more than one, Ok?
Silly boy. . .
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sat, 30 May 1998 03:02:53 GMT, William H. Pridgen <pri...@texas.net> wrote:
>Bob Nixon wrote:
>> Having spoke my piece, I like linux, from what I've seen in the last three
>> months. Now IMHO, it's high time to take this little bought and paid for by >US
>> & European governments, idle time toy, out of the hands of the programmers
>> mindset and into something called $commerce$.
>
Nope. Commercial entities cannot take Linux "out of the hands of
the programmers mindset and into something called $commerce$" due to the
GPL.
All the commercial entities can do, is add value, then sell the result.
>> And stop saying it's Free, it's 'cheap' but not free.
>
>When Linux people talk about free software, they mean free as in "free
>speech," not free as in "free lunch."
It says something about Bob that the only definition for the word "free"
that he knows. . . is based on money.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Fri, 29 May 1998 22:00:19 -0700, jedi <je...@penguin.lvcablemodem.com> wrote:
> It works. That's all that really matters in the end.
> It doesn't require $100 upgrades to deliver a new
> browser, some new device drivers and some bugfixes.
The old MS three step:
1) Along with the new browser, device drivers and some bug fixes,
you get a bonuse feature: the next round of bugs!
2) For which you will need a $100 upgrade.
3) Return to step 1.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sat, 30 May 1998 03:54:32 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>>Supporting statistics?
>
>Common sense dictates.
Then you lack common sense.
>Skilled programs don't work for nothin' <off
>the clock>, that is.
Wrong. You don't know of other definitions for the word "free", so
I suppose it is unfair to expect you to even know what the word
"love" means.
>>When Linux people talk about free software, they mean free as in "free
>>speech," not free as in "free lunch."
>
>Free as long as you don't stray away from the pack.
Your response is totally lacking in information. There is no pack.
There are no restrictions on your freedom other than that which is
imposed by the GPL.
>Socialistic not Communistic.
No, Linux is indeed a communistic activity.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"
(forgive me if I munged this slightly).
Sums up the Linux community pretty well, actually.
>You're misquoting for the sake of
>exaggeration. It's no secret that most of Europe and a good deal of
>the US is, more or less socialistic.
Not only totally ignorant about Linux, but a conspiracy nut, too!
A man of many facets.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 05:27:36 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>IMAO, Socialism goes against natural laws, no polarity( carrot).
In that case, refering to Linux as socialistic, is incorrect.
Linux programmers do indeed respond to very big carrots.
Love and Honor.
Love for well done, finely crafted works.
The Honor bestowed upon them by a grateful and appreciative audience.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:51:35 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, choice is such an evil thing. You might actually
>> have to excercise a brain cell or two and figure out
>> what you want to do with that box besides use it as
>> some perverse status symbol, doorstop or fishtank.
>
>Ummm.. Read my other responses(bench marks), in particular.
Why? There was no information in that repsonse.
No hardware descriptions.
No test condition descriptions.
No OS version number.
No distribution information.
Face it, Bob, you're out of your league here. You may be an Engineer,
but you are no Software Engineer. I wouldn't trust any computer based
work *YOU* did any further than you'd trust my ability to design a safe,
working microwave system.
>> At least we dont have to worry about macro virii (despite
>> the extensibility of emacs) while we're doing whatever it
>> is we do with our editors.
>
>Nor no I with Winword.
Tell that to all the people who got bit by such nasties. . .
Of course, you could be correct: assuming that you never exchange
documents with anybody, you cannot get a macro virus.
>> Win95? That thing has to keep from eating itself first.
>
>I don't think most of you Linux zealots have spent enough time with your windows
>boxed to really fine tune things.
Thereby shooting your whole argument in the foot. Windows is supposed
to be the OS for the rest of us, yes? If it needs that much baby sitting,
just to be stable, then this stance is obviously BS.
>The same argument Ya'all use for us linux
>newbee's.
More straw man argumentation. We don't tell Linux newbies that they need
to spend a whole lot of time tuning their machines to be fast, or stable.
We tell 'em they need to spend a whole lot of time *LEARNING* about Linux,
if they want to experience the true power of Linux.
>> Unless there's some stupid hole in your OS (like running
>> GDI in ring 0) crashes just shouldn't be tolerated. Computer
>> Science really has advanced past that point, even if Bill is
>> too lazy to deliver.
>
>Oh get real Jedi. X crashes too, it just doesn't usually crash the whole OS.
Bingo! The light dawns a little bit. . . yes indeed, X can crash. I haven't,
personally, seen it do so in a very long time, but it could indeed crash.
But when it does, it doesn't take down the OS. Unlike Windows, where it
most certainly does.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 00:27:08 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>jedi wrote:
>
>> >Ummm.. Read my other responses(bench marks), in particular.
>>
>> You're benchmarks don't impress me. I've experienced
>> better for myself.
>
>So next week, run some benchmarks on the NT boxes.
Been there, done that.
Windows 95 vs. Linux:
Windows 95 is aprox. 481% slower at running a network stress test
than Linux.
Win 95 Machine: Dell Pentium 266 MHz MMX, 32 MBytes worth of memory, 10BaseT,
10MBs ether net card. No other tasks running.
Linux Machine: Myma 486DX66, 32 MBytes of memory, 10BaseT 10MBs ethernet
card (exact same card as is in the Windows box). RedHat 5.0 installed.
Standard set of tasks running for a Unix box.
Notes: The Windows 95 machine was visibly slower, and it had a disturbing
tendency to crash after an average of 57 minutes.
The Linux box ran the stress test for more than 48 hours (long weekeend),
performing more than 20 MILLION distributed message sends. Test was killed
due to lack of interest at that point.
>First off, Both Linux and NT are optimized for network performance.
Note that at this point, Bob has not-so-subtly shifted to comparing
NT to Linux. . . what happended to Windows 95, Bob?
>As such, they need bullet proof file systems at the
>cost of some performance. Overhead is greater with NT vs 95-98 for reasons of
>security, stability and network complexity. So, unless I missed something,
>Win-95-98
>is going to be faster.
A crashed 500 MHz machine is infinitley slower than a running 486DX66.
>That said, if Linux can outperform NT,
>then It should be capable of something close to 95's performance.
I'd have to run a pretty hefty set of extra tasks on my 486 to slow it
down to the snails pace of Windows 95. . .
>> We're not that stupid, Winboy. Many of us know better
>> from personal firsthand experience. We didn't get our
>> dislike of Microsoft products through osmosis.
>
>Why is it so hard to see that I'm not all that fond of MS and that I
>actually like linux.
Because. . . you do like MS. You've sung its praises many times.
Because. . . you don't know *ANYTHINg* about Linux, yet you bash it
heavily.
>Apparently you've never heard of the term, " playing devil's advocate".
Is that the story you're going with today?
>That's where you point out flaws and weaknesses with the ultimate
>goal of improvement.
Fine. Note, however, that a true Devil's advocate would stick to the
truth, pointing at factually provable flaws, s/he would not spew a bunch
of FUD.
>Attacking anyone who has anything negative to say about Linux, is
>counter productive.
>Especially, if your not willing to show any data to the contrary.
>In light of the fact that I've been using linux for ~ 90 days,
>surely you pro's are capable of squeezing
>better performance from it.
Hey! My hobby has been electronics (both digital and analog) and radio
for more than 20 years. That gives me the right to tell you what's
wrong with your designs, right?
>I think many of you have forgotten that as professional programmers,
>mis admins, what seems easy to you, or what you picked up in school
>5-10 years ago and learned through your career,
>in a more or less linear progression, is not the same as the exponential
>learning curve that someone just wanting to find an alternative to
>Microsoft, should have to
>deal with in a month to a year.
The number of fallacious assumptions in that statement goes right off
the top of the meter.
Heck, you bent the pin-round-the-peg.
The alternative to MS, Bob-ol-boy, is Apple MacIntosh. I strongly recommend
that you stop posting FUD and nonsense in this news group, sell your
Intel box, and get a nice powerful G3 with Mac OS 8.1.
>In order to even consider dealing with this MT Everest learning
>curve
More lies, more FUD. The learning curve for Windows is much higher than
that for Linux.
>or want to take it on at all, we need a different set of climbing
>tools. CLI editors, and compilers are just not the right tools for
>non programers, who need to focus, as USERS, on the applications
>and the THINGS that THEY DO, not the OS.
Surprise! Linux doesn't force you to use a CLI, a compiler, or to
focus on the OS.
You obviously haven't been using Linux for 90 days, either.
>[meaningless and totally incorrect automobile analogy snipped]
>> >So what? These are example of what outsiders like about Linux.
>>
>> Unix had a Win95-sh interface years before windows did.
>> You're ramblings about who may like what are irrelevant.
>> Unix supports the free-will of its users. That there might
>> even be emacs vs. vi flamewars is a testament to that.
>
>This old hard liner stuff about 'free-will, emacs' is tiring.
'Tis the truth. Stop resisting the truth, and you won't get so tired.
>It has no bearing to me and many other potential future commercial
>Linux users.
You are totally in contradiction with yourself again. . . if freedom
has no bearing with you or your hypothetical future commercial users. . .
then stick with MS or Apple.
>Collectively we would like to see,
No, you wouldn't. There is no "we". If you really want what you say
you want, you'd stop spewing FUD and go buy a Mac.
>even friendlier future releases of RedHat 5.1 & Caldera 1.X, Debian,
>Suse, or >Slackware. We aren't programmers, don't wanna be programmers,
>just an alternative to the only other major OS in the known world.
More FUD. You have a large number of alternatives to MS:
Just three of which are:
1) Apple (MacIntosh, MacOS 8.1, or Mac OS X).
2) BeOS
3) Solaris or any other Unix you may wish to buy, including OPENSTEP.
>Here's a wish list.
>[snippage]
You want Windows, buy Windows. You want Mac, buy Mac.
Most of your "wish list" is poor technology, or very poorly designed
technology. If some Linux'er implements something like PNP, it is only as
a crutch to assist people who bought hardware before they decided to
try Linux.
>7) IF something's basically wrong with KDE fix it, as it's the most
>logical migration route for new users.
KDE is fundamentally flawed (and, yes, the designers were warned
repeatedly before they started). It probably cannot be legally fixed.
>8) Hire technical writers to supplement the programmer written 'man'
>tools, like KDE's help.
Now, just who is supposed to hire these people? If somebody wants to
write documentation, they are certainly welcome. See the Linux Documentation
Project for details.
The simple fact that you used the word "hire" indicates that your wish list
is invalid. You don't understand the most fundamental facts about Linux,
yet.
>10) IF this is possible? A choice of a desktop (1 user) optimized file
>system & disk caching.
Explain what the phrase "desktop (1 user) optimized file system means".
The power of Unix is based, partially, on it's multi-user model. You
do not realize just how big an impact a "single user file system model"
would have on Linux.
>12) Application ports.
>Eudora and Agent for starters. This has the same dependencies as #11 below.
GAG! We have better stuff than that already!
>> I'd rather do something I find useful with my machine than
>> constantly piddling around with sysadmin details.
>
>Yeah right, Like trolling this newsgroup.
Like. . . you, for instance?
I have hours every day to waste on this stuff, lately, 'cause the bosses
want a Windows client. . . giving me aprox. 2 hours a day to spend on the
news groups while the Windows box is being rebooted after the latest
crash.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Mon, 1 Jun 1998 11:46:12 +1000, Piers B <Pbl...@comcen.com.au> wrote:
>
>Bob, I'd have to agree with what you're asking from Linux here. I can see
>RedHat and others are going down the path but they still have a hell of a
>long way to go. It would be nice to get a program like Gimp or Star Office
>and jus have a setup executable like MS crap has that does all the compyling
RPM.
RPM is much more powerful that the MS installer toys are.
>Better MM hardware
>support and the like would give Linux the appeal that non tech computer
>users would crave and it would certainly entice them to jump the Microsoft
>ship and move to Linux.
No, it wouldn't. Non-tech computer users will not leave MicroSoft until
MS Office runs on Linux, and probably not even then. Users don't want
to leave MicroSoft.
>At the moment unless the Linux box is setup by a
>technical computer user for the non, there is no way in hell you'll entice
>inexperienced users over.
So what's wrong with that scenario? Almost evey Windows box is setup
by a tech for the user, why not Linux? (HINT: You can buy complete
systems that have Linux pre-installed. . .).
>As for utilising technical writers to document Linux and related software,
>hell, even having decent editors would help. Some of the documentation out
>there is bloody criptic. The layout of installation steps are flawed as is
>the language usage in them. Documentation needs to clear and consise with
>easy to follow steps walking the user though the necessary routines for
>compiling and installing software.
So stop complaining and start working! YeesH! If you get through a process
in spite of the documentation, write new, improved docs and put 'em out
there for the rest of the community.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sun, 31 May 1998 22:47:48 GMT, Joel Stone <bo...@c-me.com> wrote:
>John Passaniti wrote:
>
>> What Linux brought to the effects in Titanic doesn't have anything to do
>> with Linux's suitability for graphics. Instead, the value of Linux was that
>> it is a stable network-capable operating system that is easy to
>> administrate. That's it. The actual ray-tracing and other rendering
>> software could have been done on *any* platform that was stable.
>
>Why, then, did they choose Linux over windows "nt"?
They didn't, actually. They used both Linux *AND* NT.
>Why are they now so enthusiastic about Linux?
'Cause the problems they encountered were much easier to solve, much
quicker to solve with Linux than a commercial Unix.
>Why are they requesting that their end-user graphics apps vendors port to
>Linux?
See above.
>It does. performance and stability mean a lot. Maybe you missed that key point.
IMO, the key point is that "real-time, high speed interactive graphics"
are limited, for the most part, by the hardware.
You can spend the $250, and put a Monster 3DII into a Windows 95 box,
or a Linux box.
The difference is in which OS will crash. . . and which one won't.
In either case, you get "real-time, high speed interactive graphics".
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 20:05:15 +0000, Fergus <fer...@interesource.co.uk> wrote:
>Chuck Adams wrote:
>
>> rpm -ivh gimp*
>> gimp&
>>
>> Ran flawlessly.
>
>Not for me it didn't!
>
>I got a
>Failed dependencies:
>libpng.so.1 is needed.
>
>libpng is a lnk is the /usr/lib directory....
>
>Any help would be greatly appreciated!
More info is required to assist you. Please provide.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sat, 30 May 1998 03:36:24 -0400, John Passaniti <jp...@servtech.com> wrote:
>A minor point to make to this inane thread:
>
>Linux (actually a network of Linux boxes) was indeed *part* of rendering
>many of the more impressive digital effects in Titanic. But as that was
>primarily a batch-mode operation, citing the involvement of Linux is largely
>irrelevant. There is a huge difference in having a room full of Linux boxes
>quietly chewing away on scene descriptions in non-real time and the kind of
>highly interactive graphics people expect from desktop systems. Comparing
>the two as equal is either willful deception or uninformed parroting of
>propaganda.
Real time Graphics? You mean, like GL?
Been there, done that. Linux can indeed do high speed, highly
interactive graphics.
3dFX. VooDOO!
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:35:46 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>> like you know how to benchmark
>
>How's this for starters?
Well. . . bad. Your posting does, in fact, indicate that you do not
know how to benchmark.
Computers are complex systems. Pop quiz. . . do you have any idea
at all as to what you are measuring, or how it is being measured?
If not, then any data you post is meaningless.
>---------------my latest linux kernel 2.033 under Caldera
^^^^^
There is no kernel version 2.033.
>===========
>Kernel image : linux
>OS Release : Linux 2.0.33
^^^^^^
At least here you got it right. . .
>faster under Windows. 1st load times are:
>
>Netscape 4.05.
>windows = 4-5 seconds using blank home page.
>linux 2.033 = 15-18 seconds using blank home page.
Like the man said, you know diddly about benchmarking. . .
You are comparing Apples to Oranges. Try comparing similiar operations
under similiar constraints, if you want to do real benchmarking.
>Comparing an OS optimized for desktop usage, against one the is mainly
>used as a file server is admittedly a little unfair. However, If linux
>is to compete head to hard with other desktop OS's, then developers
>should try to improve or single user disk performance or at least make
>it configurable, to some extent.
You really don't know why your figures came out the way they did, do you?
Until you can show an understanding of the structure of the benchmarking
programs, and some knowledge about what you are comparing, your data is
meaningless.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sun, 31 May 1998 00:23:06 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@nospam.home.com> wrote:
>What's wrong with giving MS some real competition, anyway?
Why step down to their level?
John W. M. Stevens
On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 17:07:14 GMT,
Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>I think there is also a utility out there which allows you to kill a
>frozen X server from the joystick port;
Yup. I had a copy, for a while, while I was doing X server hacking.
Lost it long ago, though. Haven't had X freeze on me in years (literally!).
John S.
FoulDragon
>I'm pretty sure Linux is not a Communist plot!
>
>
ROFL... now there's a slogan for you!
Linux: taking over the world one machine at a time.
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii [~73% dragon pure!] (Clan Nightwings)
members.xoom.com/marada
'In life, as in writing, the best you can aim for is that your character acts
realistically considering the given circumstances.'
Bob Nixon
On 3 Jun 1998 00:14:16 GMT, jste...@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John
W. M. Stevens) wrote:
>On Sun, 31 May 1998 19:35:46 GMT, Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> wrote:
>>> like you know how to benchmark
>>
>>How's this for starters?
Snip----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>Well. . . bad. Your posting does, in fact, indicate that you do not
>know how to benchmark.
>
>Computers are complex systems. Pop quiz. . . do you have any idea
>at all as to what you are measuring, or how it is being measured?
Large file (contiguous block HD read), then (large contiguous logical
cached/memory read). While I'll agree, it certainly doesn't cover Hard
Disk or memory latency/data base (small file) and/or write performance
& different memory block sized RW issue's, it's all I had to work
with considering my limited linux experience. I do have lots of the
above type data for Wintel but without anything similar to compare it
with under Linux, it would be meaningless.
However, the clocked load times with similarly configured in both the
number of applications running and fat X manager(KDE) vs fat Win-95,
as real world A vs B observations, that any impatient type who has
had to twiddle their thumbs for 20-30 seconds while waiting for
StarOffice to load, will tell you. Is pretty conclusive on a practical
level. If this were not the case, or there wasn't much difference in
performance between the two, then no one would consider the disk
performance an issue. So look around. I'm not the only one, with
others reporting similar experiences when running dual boot (same
system) boxes.
The truth is , as great a NETWORKING OS as Linux is, it cannot
compete (in terms of disk performance) with an OS, that is highly
optimized for "SINGLE USER DESKTOP PERFORMANCE".
You left this stuff out of your repost and some of the sysinfo data
that you said I didn't post. Look again.
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 8.32 seconds = 3.85 MB/sec
[root@cx57629-a bigrex]# hdparm -T /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 2.50 seconds =25.60 MB/sec
Hardware info
=============
Processor : i586 with 398.95 BogoMips
Memory RAM : 128 MB (3248K kernel, 34308K cache, 22996K shared,
68368K free)
Swap area : 127 MB (0K used, 130748K free)
>
>If not, then any data you post is meaningless.
>>===========
>>Kernel image : linux
>>OS Release : Linux 2.0.33
> ^^^^^^
>At least here you got it right. . .
>
>>faster under Windows. 1st load times are:
>>
>>Netscape 4.05.
>>windows = 4-5 seconds using blank home page.
>>linux 2.033 = 15-18 seconds using blank home page.
>
>Like the man said, you know diddly about benchmarking. . .
>
>You are comparing Apples to Oranges. Try comparing similiar operations
>under similiar constraints, if you want to do real benchmarking.
-please explain^^^^^^^^^^yourself--- no more rhetoric.
Are you nuts? Same Computer, same HD & same user software, other than
OS's. That is what I'm doing. Loading two functionally identical
pieces of software, on two different operating systems, then clocking
first load times, to a blank HTML page. If anything, Netscape for
windows is more bloated and should be slower, but it's faster by >50%,
all other things being equal.
Put up or shut up. If you don't like my bench marking techniques, then
do some of your own and put this issue to bed, once and for all.
>>Comparing an OS optimized for desktop usage, against one the is mainly
>>used as a file server is admittedly a little unfair. However, If linux
>>is to compete head to hard with other desktop OS's, then developers
>>should try to improve or single user disk performance or at least make
>>it configurable, to some extent.
>
>You really don't know why your figures came out the way they did, do you?
>
>Until you can show an understanding of the structure of the benchmarking
>programs, and some knowledge about what you are comparing, your data is
>meaningless.
Put up or shut up! Show us all, how it's done. Dual boot or identical
hardware only. You can even pull the nic cards and modems. I could
care less about any networking stuff. Remember, Focus on Desktop local
Hard Disk performance.
>John S.
PS. John, this is the only one of your replies in which I feel any
compulsion to respond. The rest are blatant attempts at intimidating a
linux outsider, who has legitimate concerns about intransigent
attitudes and openness to present & future, commercial proliferation
of the linux OS.
Bob Nixon big...@home.com
das...@aztec.asu.edu
http://members.home.net/bigrex/
Christopher Smith
VHA PC Development wrote in message
<01bd8e51$3d8eb620$8383...@bgravitt.CORP.VHA.COM>...
Actually I imagine it's got more to do with my WM (KDE) than anything else,
since I have very fast (albeit IDE) hard disks, and a good video card
(Diamond Stealth 64).
root
> Not for me it didn't!
>
> I got a
> Failed dependencies:
> libpng.so.1 is needed.
>
> libpng is a lnk is the /usr/lib directory....
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>
I'm running Red hat 5.1 full install upgraded from 4.2 on a P200.
on using the rpm command on the gimp-0.99.15-2.i386.rpm file the only result is
libpng.so.1 is needed by gimp-0.99.15-2.
I have a file /usr/lib/libpng.so.2.1.0 that has a number of symbolic links
pointing to it. I made a new link and called it libpng.so.1 on a whim, but with no
joy. Glint crashes when I request available packages after reconfiguring the
directory to point at the Gimp RPM.
Again, any help gleegully received.
Steve
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:28:44 GMT, big...@nospam.home.com (Bob Nixon)
wrote:
>However, the clocked load times with similarly configured in both the
>number of applications running and fat X manager(KDE) vs fat Win-95,
>as real world A vs B observations, that any impatient type who has
>had to twiddle their thumbs for 20-30 seconds while waiting for
>StarOffice to load, will tell you. Is pretty conclusive on a practical
>level. If this were not the case, or there wasn't much difference in
>performance between the two, then no one would consider the disk
>performance an issue. So look around. I'm not the only one, with
>others reporting similar experiences when running dual boot (same
>system) boxes.
This came up the other day, and I posted some rough figures of my load
times for various apps under Linux... I actually timed a couple of
things last night and here's what I found (the system is a P150, 64MB,
1.2 GB EIDE disk, running a pretty standard 2.0.33 kernel).
Starting X: first time 3-5 seconds. Subsequent loads, under 3
seconds.
Netscape: first time 12-13 seconds (compared to 9-10 seconds on my
Windows P166 here at work), subsequent loads, 1-2 seconds (compared to
9-10 seconds under Windows).
GNU Emacs (running under X): 5-6 seconds first load, 1-2 seconds
subsequently. (GNU Emacs for Win32 is about 6-7 seconds load time).
I would also venture that those numbers wouldn't change much if I had
two or three other people logged onto the system at the same time,
doing comparable things (editing files, browsing the web).
I notice a much more dramatic difference when performing basic file
operations such as moving/copying/deleting files, which Linux usually
does almost instantaneously, unlike Windows where I get to watch a
cartoon of a flying folder for several seconds
>The truth is , as great a NETWORKING OS as Linux is, it cannot
>compete (in terms of disk performance) with an OS, that is highly
>optimized for "SINGLE USER DESKTOP PERFORMANCE".
I disagree; even if disk performance is faster under some
circumstances under Windows, Linux *definitely* has the edge when it
comes to memory management, hashing frequently used commands, etc.
As with anything in computers, "your mileage may vary", but from my
experience, Linux is a much more responsive, less disk-intensive,
smoother desktop environment than Windows
-Steve
Steve
On 3 Jun 1998 00:25:00 GMT, jste...@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John
W. M. Stevens) wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 17:07:14 GMT,
>Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>>I think there is also a utility out there which allows you to kill a
>>frozen X server from the joystick port;
>
>Yup. I had a copy, for a while, while I was doing X server hacking.
>
>Lost it long ago, though. Haven't had X freeze on me in years (literally!).
>
>John S.
It's usually pretty stable for me too, but I usually get an X hangup
every 2-3 months. The last couple of times it's happened, it's been
when trying to click around too fast in xv - I think there's something
there that floods the program's input buffer or something.
Out of curiousity, what X server are you using?
-Steve
ral...@unl.edu.ar
In article <slrn6n9044....@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
jste...@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John W. M. Stevens) wrote:
> KDE is proprietary. What's wrong with the truth?
With the truth? Nothing. With calling KDE proprietary, quite a bit.
Since KDE is GPL'd how is it more proprietary than, say, emacs?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, slightly tired)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Charles E Taylor IV
In article <3571B112...@home.com>,
Bob Nixon <big...@home.com> writes:
| /dev/hda:
| Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 8.32 seconds = 3.85 MB/sec
| [root@cx57629-a bigrex]# hdparm -T /dev/hda
| /dev/hda:
| Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 2.50 seconds =25.60 MB/sec
Pretty slow for a UDMA drive. You should probably be seeing numbers
more like this:
romulus:~# hdparm -t /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 3.81 seconds = 8.40 MB/sec
romulus:~# hdparm -T /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 1.59 seconds =40.25 MB/sec
This is with kernel 2.0.33 patched for UDMA support, on a Cyrix 6x86MXPR200
with 64 megs RAM. Fujitsu 3.3 gig drive.
| kernel 2.033 is supposed to support
| UDMA but ?
You probably need the kernel patch for 2.0.33. I think 2.0.34
supports UDMA without the patch.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E. "Rick" Taylor, IV | Replace "nouce" with "net" to mail
cha...@innova.nouce | me, but not if it's UCE!
-----------------------------|-----------------------------------
*** We got the MRxL, and spammers got none! ***
Steve
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:08:53 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar wrote:
>In article <slrn6n9044....@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> jste...@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John W. M. Stevens) wrote:
>
>> KDE is proprietary. What's wrong with the truth?
>
>With the truth? Nothing. With calling KDE proprietary, quite a bit.
>
>Since KDE is GPL'd how is it more proprietary than, say, emacs?
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, slightly tired)
The KDE code itself is GPL'd, but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
*aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
would instantly be dead in the water.
Charlie Stross
In the name of Kibo the Compassionate, the Merciful,
on Thu, 04 Jun 1998 15:39:42 GMT,Steve
the supplicant <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> implored:
>The KDE code itself is GPL'd, but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
>*aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
>and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
>software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
>could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
>would instantly be dead in the water.
Wrong.
Go look at the free Qt foundation. Basically, ownership of the free Qt
stuff is effectively escrowed; if Troll Tech goes bust, or declines to
upgrade free Qt regularly, or tries to kill it, or is taken over or hit
by an asteroid or something, the last version of free Qt automatically
reverts to a BSD-style license.
The only restriction on KDE therefore is the fact that if you write and
sell a _commercial_ KDE application you owe Troll Tech a one-time-only
fee for using their Qt libraries to develop a commercial program.
About the only consequence of this license arrangement is to deter
authors of shareware products: large commercial software developers
won't even blink at the fee, and freeware developers don't owe a bent
penny.
-- Charlie
"Computers depreciate faster than you expect, even when you take
Charlie's Depreciation Hypothesis into account"
-- Charlie's Depreciation Hypothesis
ral...@unl.edu.ar
In article <3576beeb...@nnrp.digex.net>,
ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu (Steve) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:08:53 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar wrote:
>
> >In article <slrn6n9044....@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
> > jste...@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John W. M. Stevens) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Since KDE is GPL'd how is it more proprietary than, say, emacs?
> >
> >--
> >Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, slightly tired)
>
So you agree that KDE is not proprietary?
> but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
> *aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
A small correction: Qt is free for non-proprietary development.
You can release your app under the GPL and sell it. All GNU advocates
say that's the best thing you can do anyway.
> and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
> software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
> could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
> would instantly be dead in the water.
Sorry, but no, that's impossible.
There is something called the KDE-Free Qt Foundation.
Basically, there is a contract, so that Troll Tech can't do that.
If TT stops improving Qt free edition => Qt goes BSD license
If TT is bought => Qt goes BSD license
If TT goes under => Qt goes BSD license
For more details, go to www.kde.org.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer)
VHA PC Development
You are probably right but then again, KDE is worth the few extra seconds
no? I'm going to give it a try myself. I know I can change my window
manager in X about as fast as I can change my clothes!
Chris Mikkelson
ral...@unl.edu.ar writes:
>
> > but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
> > *aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
>
> A small correction: Qt is free for non-proprietary development.
No it is not "Free" -- you don't pay for it, but it's still
proprietary software.
> You can release your app under the GPL and sell it. All GNU advocates
> say that's the best thing you can do anyway.
Right, and Troll Tech does not release Qt under the GPL, so they are
not doing the best thing.
> > and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
> > software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
> > could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
> > would instantly be dead in the water.
>
> Sorry, but no, that's impossible.
>
> There is something called the KDE-Free Qt Foundation.
> Basically, there is a contract, so that Troll Tech can't do that.
>
> If TT stops improving Qt free edition => Qt goes BSD license
> If TT is bought => Qt goes BSD license
> If TT goes under => Qt goes BSD license
This is a good thing. It means the Qt may, at some point in the
future, become Free Software. It does not mean that Qt is free now.
So, KDE *is* free software. However, KDE + Qt is not free software,
because Qt is not free (you cannot modify it, distribute modified
versions, or even distribute programs which require modified
versions).
-Chris
PS: There are quite a few GPLed apps which link with Motif. Before
Lesstif became marginally useful, these apps were in the same
situation as KDE/Qt is currently. The only difference is that people
had to pay for Motif, in binary-only form.
Chris Mikkelson
fould...@aol.com (FoulDragon) writes:
> >So, KDE *is* free software. However, KDE + Qt is not free software,
> >because Qt is not free (you cannot modify it, distribute modified
> >versions, or even distribute programs which require modified
> >versions).
>
> energy exerted discussing it was put into it, we would have one by
now }:--)
Exactly.
Why don't *I* do it? Because *I* don't want it. I hate C++ -- it's
really a horrid abomination of the beautiful language that is C ;-),
and I mostly use CLI apps + emacs + Netscape anyway. I don't need an
"Integrated Drag-n-Drop Desktop Environment" when a window manager
with a bunch of xterms is the perfect way for *me* to operate my
computer.
Of course, I'm not everybody, YMMV.
It seems to me that the founders of the GNOME project actually did
briefly consider replacing Qt. They decided it would be easier (and
maybe better) to implement a new desktop environment, except do it on
top of a free toolkit, rather than Qt.
-Chris
Koen Deforche
Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:08:53 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar wrote:
> The KDE code itself is GPL'd, but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
> *aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
They are free for *any* person to use. Get informed, then talk.
(only free for free development though)
> and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
> software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
> could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
No, they can't: they have worked out a document in which they commit themselves
to either continue to release Qt in the same way and at approximately the
same ate they now do, or if they don't, current Qt releases become Free
Software (I think GPL'ed). Look it up, it's called the Qt Free Software
Commitment are something like that, i'm sure you can get yourself informed
about it at www.troll.no or www.kde.org. Then come back with whatever
sensible argument against KDE.
> would instantly be dead in the water.
koen.
FoulDragon
>
>So, KDE *is* free software. However, KDE + Qt is not free software,
>because Qt is not free (you cannot modify it, distribute modified
>versions, or even distribute programs which require modified
>versions).
>
>
If this is such a hideous thing, make a Qt knock-off like Lesstif. If all the
energy exerted discussing it was put into it, we would have one by now }:--)
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii [~73% dragon pure!] (Clan Nightwings)
Draconic Rights Activist / Dark Lord of the Clock-Doubled 486 / Linux Supporter
/ Author / Artist / Programmer / Being of Dubious Sanity
members.xoom.com/marada
IBMackey
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 14:42:50 GMT,
Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>On 3 Jun 1998 00:25:00 GMT, jste...@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov (John
>W. M. Stevens) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Jun 1998 17:07:14 GMT,
>>Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>>>I think there is also a utility out there which allows you to kill a
>>>frozen X server from the joystick port;
>>
>>Yup. I had a copy, for a while, while I was doing X server hacking.
>>
>>Lost it long ago, though. Haven't had X freeze on me in years (literally!).
>>
>>John S.
>
>It's usually pretty stable for me too, but I usually get an X hangup
>every 2-3 months. The last couple of times it's happened, it's been
>when trying to click around too fast in xv - I think there's something
>there that floods the program's input buffer or something.
>
>Out of curiousity, what X server are you using?
>
>
> -Steve
>
with netscape. But I read the SIG11 howto and went into my 486-66 bios
and cutout the cache. Netscape's slower, but I haven't had an X hangup
or crash in over 6 months. I figure I'll either search the flea
markets for new SRAM chips or just upgrade the computer when I get
some more cash.
-i.b.
>
Steve
On 5 Jun 1998 00:55:55 GMT, Koen Deforche <jo...@minerf.gv.kotnet.org>
wrote:
>Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:08:53 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar wrote:
>
>> The KDE code itself is GPL'd, but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
>> *aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
>
>They are free for *any* person to use. Get informed, then talk.
>(only free for free development though)
Correct; I should have been more specific and said 'development' in my
earlier post.
>
>> and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
>> software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
>> could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
>
>No, they can't: they have worked out a document in which they commit themselves
>to either continue to release Qt in the same way and at approximately the
>same ate they now do, or if they don't, current Qt releases become Free
>Software (I think GPL'ed). Look it up, it's called the Qt Free Software
>Commitment are something like that, i'm sure you can get yourself informed
>about it at www.troll.no or www.kde.org. Then come back with whatever
>sensible argument against KDE.
I had a good look around Troll Tech's site, and don't see anything in
the license agreement that would prevent them from charging money to
non-commerical developers in the future, if so they chose.
I *did* find the following at http://www.troll.no/qtfree.html:
"Qt Free Edition is released under the Qt Free Software License. This
basically says that you are allowed to use it free of charge
provided that you release any code and programs you make with it as
free software. "
That means that technically, I'm not allowed to write a qt program and
keep it for myself, or use it only on my own company's/school's LAN.
The license dictates it MUST be publically released under GPL or
equivilant. (Mozilla sources are distributed under similar terms,
which I don't espescially like; "enforced sharing" doesn't seem very
free to me).
A little further down, the same page then states:
"Please note that the Qt Free Edition itself is not free software, in
the usual meaning of the term. You are not allowed to make
modifications to the Qt Free Edition itself."
They state that this is done "in the best interests of our users", and
I somewhat see their point.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to attack Troll Tech, or qt, or
the license agreement. They seem like good people, and I'm glad they
have a fairly generous attitude about their software. I just have
concerns over a popular, high-visibility piece of software like KDE
being dependent upon the policies of a single company. The
restrictions on qt aren't *that* restrictive, but they still stifle a
certain amount of innovation and freedom, and I don't think that's in
the best interests of the Linux community. If I wanted to optimize qt
by rewriting parts of it in assembler, I would not be allowed to do
so. If I wanted to port qt and KDE to <insert obscure operating
system>, I would not be allowed to do so. If I wanted to develop an
application only for in-house use (perhaps dealing with sensitive
data), I would not be allowed to do so.
I guess the bottom line is that I don't like the idea of an important,
central part of "the Linux experience" (a popular window
manager/desktop) being dependent upon a single body (company or
individual). Troll Tech wants to support development of free
software, but they also want to make money; I simply don't think those
two goals can co-exist without a conflict of interests, however small,
*somewhere*.
-Steve
ral...@unl.edu.ar
In article <3579f3f6...@nnrp.digex.net>,
ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu (Steve) wrote:
> I had a good look around Troll Tech's site, and don't see anything in
> the license agreement that would prevent them from charging money to
> non-commerical developers in the future, if so they chose.
Check http://www.kde.org/kdeqtfoundation.html
> I *did* find the following at http://www.troll.no/qtfree.html:
>
> "Qt Free Edition is released under the Qt Free Software License. This
> basically says that you are allowed to use it free of charge
> provided that you release any code and programs you make with it as
> free software. "
>
> That means that technically, I'm not allowed to write a qt program and
> keep it for myself, or use it only on my own company's/school's LAN.
> The license dictates it MUST be publically released under GPL or
> equivilant. (Mozilla sources are distributed under similar terms,
> which I don't espescially like; "enforced sharing" doesn't seem very
> free to me).
Well, it's not a very big restriction. Since you are not forced to provide
support or anything like that, "release" could mean "upload a copy to
ftp.troll.no every once in a while. I see how that can be a trouble for some,
but It's not a really big one.
> A little further down, the same page then states:
>
> "Please note that the Qt Free Edition itself is not free software, in
> the usual meaning of the term. You are not allowed to make
> modifications to the Qt Free Edition itself."
>
> They state that this is done "in the best interests of our users", and
> I somewhat see their point.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to attack Troll Tech, or qt, or
> the license agreement. They seem like good people, and I'm glad they
> have a fairly generous attitude about their software. I just have
> concerns over a popular, high-visibility piece of software like KDE
> being dependent upon the policies of a single company. The
> restrictions on qt aren't *that* restrictive, but they still stifle a
> certain amount of innovation and freedom, and I don't think that's in
> the best interests of the Linux community. If I wanted to optimize qt
> by rewriting parts of it in assembler, I would not be allowed to do
> so.
<asm is evil>
Well, you shouldn't be allowed to ;-)
</asm is evil>
> If I wanted to port qt and KDE to <insert obscure operating
> system>, I would not be allowed to do so.
If you want Qt to work in a given system, I'm quite certain Troll Tech would
accept patches to do so, or even help you, or at least in part do it
themselves if they can get an account in such a system. I gave a TT developer
a account in a AIX 4.1 system once for that reason.
> If I wanted to develop an
> application only for in-house use (perhaps dealing with sensitive
> data), I would not be allowed to do so.
Well, you can. If it is an in house application, and it's not of general
utility, it *is* commercial and proprietary development, you just have a
single customer. In those cases, you can always pay Troll Tech.
What you are doing there is what the FSF so nicely calls "hoarding" :-P
Otherwise, why would releasing the apps source damage your sensitive data?
Remember you don't even need to *explain* what the app does :-)
> I guess the bottom line is that I don't like the idea of an important,
> central part of "the Linux experience" (a popular window
> manager/desktop) being dependent upon a single body (company or
> individual). Troll Tech wants to support development of free
> software, but they also want to make money; I simply don't think those
> two goals can co-exist without a conflict of interests, however small,
> *somewhere*.
Well, conflicts certainly exist, and not only in the case of Troll Tech and
KDE.
Best regards,
Holger Franz
big...@nospam.home.com (Bob Nixon) writes:
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffered disk reads: 32 MB in 8.32 seconds = 3.85 MB/sec
> [root@cx57629-a bigrex]# hdparm -T /dev/hda
>
> /dev/hda:
> Timing buffer-cache reads: 64 MB in 2.50 seconds =25.60 MB/sec
>
> Hardware info
> =============
> Processor : i586 with 398.95 BogoMips
> Memory RAM : 128 MB (3248K kernel, 34308K cache, 22996K shared,
> 68368K free)
> Swap area : 127 MB (0K used, 130748K free)
Aside from the rest of the argument, 25.6 MB/s is abysmally slow for a
200 Mhz (inferred from the Bogomips number) System. Normal Socket 7
systems with a recent Chipset reach at least around 40 MB/s. Is it
possible that the cachable area of you mainboard is only 64 MB? This
would make your system run considerable slower under Linux, because
IIRC the Linux kernel resides at the top of physical memory.
--
Holger Franz <hfr...@cuci.nl>
<hfr...@physik.rwth-aachen.de>
Christopher B. Browne
On 04 Jun 1998 20:55:22 -0500, Chris Mikkelson <mikk...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> posted:
>fould...@aol.com (FoulDragon) writes:
>> >So, KDE *is* free software. However, KDE + Qt is not free software,
>> >because Qt is not free (you cannot modify it, distribute modified
>> >versions, or even distribute programs which require modified
>> >versions).
>>
>> If this is such a hideous thing, make a Qt knock-off like Lesstif. If all the
>> energy exerted discussing it was put into it, we would have one by
>now }:--)
>
>
>Why don't *I* do it? Because *I* don't want it. I hate C++ -- it's
>really a horrid abomination of the beautiful language that is C ;-),
>and I mostly use CLI apps + emacs + Netscape anyway. I don't need an
>"Integrated Drag-n-Drop Desktop Environment" when a window manager
>with a bunch of xterms is the perfect way for *me* to operate my
>computer.
>
>Of course, I'm not everybody, YMMV.
>
>It seems to me that the founders of the GNOME project actually did
>briefly consider replacing Qt. They decided it would be easier (and
>maybe better) to implement a new desktop environment, except do it on
>top of a free toolkit, rather than Qt.
There *is* a project started to create a "free QT." See: <url
url="http://web.jet.es/jg_yiyus/harmony/" name="Harmony Project">
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
ral...@unl.edu.ar
In article <8767iga...@x115-105.reshalls.umn.edu>,
Chris Mikkelson <mikk...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> ral...@unl.edu.ar writes:
> >
> > > but KDE requires the qt libraries, which
> > > *aren't*; I believe they are currently free for non-commerical use,
> >
>
> No it is not "Free" -- you don't pay for it, but it's still
> proprietary software.
Free has many meanings. I am not going to use some ugly contraption as
"no-cost" just to keep those who think they own the word happy ;-)
> > You can release your app under the GPL and sell it. All GNU advocates
> > say that's the best thing you can do anyway.
>
> Right, and Troll Tech does not release Qt under the GPL, so they are
> not doing the best thing.
So? Freedom includes freedom to do things you don't agree with.
Since Troll Tech's choice of license doesn't restrict *your* freedom as long
as you are up to your own standards, why do you care?
It's like a puritan complaining about people who write erotic poems.
Since as long as he doesn't read erotic poetry it doesn't affect him, why does
he care?
> > > and moderately expensive if you are using them to develop commercial
> > > software. In theory, this could change at any time; the qt folks
> > > could decide to make the libraries proprietary and expensive, and KDE
> > > would instantly be dead in the water.
> >
> > Sorry, but no, that's impossible.
> >
> > There is something called the KDE-Free Qt Foundation.
> > Basically, there is a contract, so that Troll Tech can't do that.
> >
> > If TT stops improving Qt free edition => Qt goes BSD license
> > If TT is bought => Qt goes BSD license
> > If TT goes under => Qt goes BSD license
>
> This is a good thing. It means the Qt may, at some point in the
> future, become Free Software. It does not mean that Qt is free now.
Who said that?
Qt is proprietary, Qt is commercial, and Qt is not free in that sense.
Big deal :-)
The above also means that as long as you develop free software, the
availability of Qt at no cost is a fact, for ever. That's a very non-trivial
meaning.
> So, KDE *is* free software. However, KDE + Qt is not free software,
> because Qt is not free (you cannot modify it, distribute modified
> versions, or even distribute programs which require modified
> versions).
Sure you can. You have to pay to do it, tough.
>
> -Chris
>
> PS: There are quite a few GPLed apps which link with Motif. Before
> Lesstif became marginally useful, these apps were in the same
> situation as KDE/Qt is currently. The only difference is that people
> had to pay for Motif, in binary-only form.
Well, Harmony was, last I heard, already "marginally useful" (a slider that
slided, at least) . That means your objections to KDE have been lifted?
Bobby D. Bryant
Bob Nixon wrote:
> jedi wrote:
> > Apparently you're not a programmer, nor any sort of
> > real professional of any other kind for that matter.
>
> Not a programmer, microwave hybrid subsystems Engineer.Wanna spar on my turf?
If he did, he would probably be posting to alt.microwave.hybrid.subsystems rather than
to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Steve
On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:20:42 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar wrote:
>Well, it's not a very big restriction. Since you are not forced to provide
>support or anything like that, "release" could mean "upload a copy to
>ftp.troll.no every once in a while. I see how that can be a trouble for some,
>but It's not a really big one.
Oh I know; I just don't think 'mandatory sharing' sounds very free.
>> the best interests of the Linux community. If I wanted to optimize qt
>> by rewriting parts of it in assembler, I would not be allowed to do
>> so.
>
><asm is evil>
>Well, you shouldn't be allowed to ;-)
></asm is evil>
Yeah, well I think C++ and KDE are big fat hogs and don't use them,
but I wholly support the rights of others to do so... ;-)
>
>> If I wanted to port qt and KDE to <insert obscure operating
>> system>, I would not be allowed to do so.
>
>If you want Qt to work in a given system, I'm quite certain Troll Tech would
>accept patches to do so, or even help you, or at least in part do it
>themselves if they can get an account in such a system. I gave a TT developer
>a account in a AIX 4.1 system once for that reason.
But when you start saying things like "Just ask the developer and
they'd be happy to do it", then we've strayed a bit from what I
consider free software.
>
>> If I wanted to develop an
>> application only for in-house use (perhaps dealing with sensitive
>> data), I would not be allowed to do so.
>
>Well, you can. If it is an in house application, and it's not of general
>utility, it *is* commercial and proprietary development, you just have a
>single customer. In those cases, you can always pay Troll Tech.
>
>What you are doing there is what the FSF so nicely calls "hoarding" :-P
>
>Otherwise, why would releasing the apps source damage your sensitive data?
>Remember you don't even need to *explain* what the app does :-)
You can glean a lot from data structures and program logic. (Though I
guess there's nothing in there that prohibits you from piping your
sources through a C obfuscator before sharing them... :-D)
But in a real world situtation, I can't think of a lot of situations
where I wouldn't want to share my sources - I just feel that that
decision has to be voluntary for it to be meaningful.
On the one hand, what Troll Tech is doing with qt seems to be a nice
synergy - they get a little money, a lot of free exposure, and the
hobbyist programmers get a nice set of tools to play with.
On the other hand, companies like Microsoft have shown that the
absence of a price tag does not mean software is "free"; it can be
used as leverage against one's competitors, as an advertising
platform, and as a ploy to gain control of the marketplace ("Did you
know our free software works best with these OTHER products from XYZ
corporation?")
I guess working in the computer industry has made me very wary of
anything which claims to be free. :-)
Regards,
Steve
o r c e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s
In article <357cf5da...@nnrp.digex.net>,
Steve <ej...@SPAMPROOF.cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:20:42 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar wrote:
>
>>Well, it's not a very big restriction. Since you are not forced to provide
>>support or anything like that, "release" could mean "upload a copy to
>>ftp.troll.no every once in a while. I see how that can be a trouble for some,
>>but It's not a really big one.
>
>Oh I know; I just don't think 'mandatory sharing' sounds very free.
Then you must really dislike the GPL.
____
david parsons \bi/ Though there's always freebsd.
\/
John W. M. Stevens
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 19:08:53 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar <ral...@unl.edu.ar> wrote:
>In article <slrn6n9044....@samoyed.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov>,
>
>With the truth? Nothing. With calling KDE proprietary, quite a bit.
>
>Since KDE is GPL'd how is it more proprietary than, say, emacs?
And just how useful is KDE without the QT libraries? . . . which are indeed
proprietary.
John S.
John W. M. Stevens
On Sun, 07 Jun 1998 02:43:32 GMT, ral...@unl.edu.ar <ral...@unl.edu.ar> wrote:
>
>Who said that?
>Qt is proprietary, Qt is commercial, and Qt is not free in that sense.
>Big deal :-)
Indeed. It is a *VERY* big deal.
The existence of Linux is entirely, *ENTIRELY*, due to a very strong, very
long standing commitment to the philosophical foundations of the GPL.
>The above also means that as long as you develop free software, the
>availability of Qt at no cost is a fact, for ever. That's a very non-trivial
>meaning.
But the most important fact is that the Qt libs are not free. Oh, they
are low cost, but they are not *FREE*!
Freedom is what created Linux. To spit in the face of this philosophy,
at this point in time, is arguably the most suicidal act any Linux
advocate could perform.
>Sure you can. You have to pay to do it, tough.
Bingo.
John S.