Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
for chips.
FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
beta crap software irrelevent.
No loss.

Good Riddence Linux!

tab wrote:

> Apple is not supporting all those drivers and hardware.
> It will still be an apple.

This has been my argument from the beginning.

Apple is finally shedding it's skin to show what it is: a PC Unix 
vendor...and one that offers a slow, buggy, Unix compared to Linux and 
with no vendor or hardware support other than for its own high priced 
products.

-- 
Texeme
http://texeme.com

I don't think this will stop Linux.
All apple did was get a new processor,
to lower costs.  And I trash on linux.  You
can ask anybody.

Apple is not supporting all those drivers and hardware.
It will still be an apple.

You are thinking they will be supporting all those drivers.

Linux is free....  And most of the world is poor.
Linux try's hard to get drivers and such.
It is linux that stops linux.

Those dreaming the world wants to learn  about a console
and such, because they know about it, think I want to.

on June 06 2:34 pm Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.

And it's goodbye to viruses, malware and phising scams :)

> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,

You mean Windows XPee isn't the apex of Software evolution after all ?

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.

And why might that be, pray? 

> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.

You've had one for years. It's called Linux.

> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.

You a a fool. Linux is advanceing steadily into teh desktop arena, and it
certainly *isn'* hacked together, half done or beta crap. You should get
your facts right before you post, else you'll just look foolish.

> No loss.

Don't like Linux? Don't use it. Leave it to the rest of us who like a good
free operating system. You won't be missed.

> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

How do you think you will post when Linux isn't there, when it runs half
the internet? Idiot troll.

-- 
Kier

"Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
Linux in the Server space.

Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's 
a whole new ball game starting today!

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all 
Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further 
information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at 
developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development 
tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ 
Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel 
Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for 
Apple.

http://developer.apple.com/

On 2005-06-06, Raggs <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves
> to Intel for chips. FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality
> Unix Desktop System to run.

I know you're trolling, but....

If you want to by a Mac and run OS X rather than run Linux on
COTS hardware, you can do that now.  Nothing is going to
change.  Just because Apple puts a Pentium in a Mac, it doesn't
mean you're going to be able to run OS X on non-Apple IA32
platforms.

There are _tons_ of non-Apple PPC platforms out there now.  How
many of those run OS X?

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  The PILLSBURY
                                  at               DOUGHBOY is CRYING for
                               visi.com            an END to BURT REYNOLDS
                                                   movies!!

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:03:51 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically seals
> the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of Linux in the
> Server space.
> 
> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

You show your ignorance and bigotry.
First, the 'saving grace' of Linux is that its Free Software. Second, you
don't kow that Apple's prices will change one little bit.

> 
> Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's a
> whole new ball game starting today!

More Oxford bullshit.

(Apple Press Release snipped)

-- 
Rick

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:49:35 -0700, jabailo@texeme.com wrote:

> tab wrote:
> 
>> Apple is not supporting all those drivers and hardware. It will still be
>> an apple.
> 
> This has been my argument from the beginning.
> 
> Apple is finally shedding it's skin to show what it is: a PC Unix
> vendor...and one that offers a slow, buggy, Unix compared to Linux and
> with no vendor or hardware support other than for its own high priced
> products.

Bailo, you're as bad as Oxford.

MacOS is not any slower than Linux, and it is no more buggy.

-- 
Rick

On 6 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote
in message <<1118082881.100186.3780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>>:

> No loss.

Hi, Flatfish!

Raggs wrote:
> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.

How is desktop Linux days numbered when they have never started?

Linux on the desktop is a no show.  A better word would be HORRIBLE.

Apple's *strength* is on the desktop, and this is where OSX shines
incredibly like a SuperNova against the deep dark hell that is Linux
desktop.

(This is regardless of the hardware)

> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

In article <r61pe.32$Ru4.1610@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com> 
wrote:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> > for chips.
> > FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> > OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> > beta crap software irrelevent.
> > No loss.
> > 
> > Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> Linux in the Server space.
> 
> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

Unlikely. Apple is not going to let OS X run on generic x86 machines. 
Macs might get somewhat cheaper, but within the huge range of x86 
hardware vendors, there will be lower prices and vendors who offer 
products or options Apple doesn't have equivalents for or who target 
markets Apple doesn't target.

This is unlikely to have much effect on Linux at all, really.

[snip]

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

On 2005-06-06, Raggs <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.

I guess you're forgetting all the new hardware the Apple's FreeBSD
kernel will have to be recompiled for :) 

You know, Apple has unique hw, not 1001 memory module, 1001 IDE
controller chip, 1001 GPU, 1001 sound card...

-- 
Uspjesne regije, tvrtke, muskarci i zene znaju da je uvijek bolje biti
prvorazredna verzija sebe nego drugorazredna verzija nekog drugog.

ZnU wrote:
> In article <r61pe.32$Ru4.1610@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>for chips.
>>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>>beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>No loss.
>>>
>>>Good Riddence Linux!
>>
>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>>Linux in the Server space.
>>
>>Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
>>hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.
> 
> 
> Unlikely. Apple is not going to let OS X run on generic x86 machines. 
> Macs might get somewhat cheaper, but within the huge range of x86 
> hardware vendors, there will be lower prices and vendors who offer 
> products or options Apple doesn't have equivalents for or who target 
> markets Apple doesn't target.
> 
> This is unlikely to have much effect on Linux at all, really.
> 
> [snip]
> 

You're right, it will keep being a niche workstation operating system 
while consolidating the UNIX server market.

begin  virus.txt.scr OxRetard (a typical idiotic Mac user) wrote:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of
> Linux in the Server space.
> 

That absolutely *must* be the reason why just recently apples performance as
a server was rated as horribly bad. It was compared to linux, btw

You are, as usual, a totally dumb twit, OxRetard

> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.
> 

Before today, apples only hope was that it ran on one platform only
Now itr has to compete against windows (which is equally hobbled by running
on just one platform) and linux (which runs on about everything from better
wristwatches to supercomputers)

> Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's
> a whole new ball game starting today!
> 

You told this garbage before, at a time when you Mac-cretins crowed about
"crappy intel processors". That was until about this morning

It was bullshit then, and it is bullshit now. As has to be expected from a
Mac-user

> The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all
> Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further
> information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at
> developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development
> tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++
> Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel
> Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for
> Apple.
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/


Idiot
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
                -- Henry Spencer

Hi Fart!

Then why do the moron's of the group not get this?
Do they really think Apple is going to get into a 
driver nightmare?

Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

PLOP, PLOP, FIZZ, FIZZ,  PLONK!!!!!!

Raggs wrote:
> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
>
> Good Riddence Linux!

Holy crap!!!  I better switch Desktop OS right now!!

In article <1118082881.100186.3780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.

So what? You'll still have to run it on a mac. What difference does it 
make (to Linux users) whether your Mac has Intel inside or not?

> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.

> Good Riddence Linux!

I'd say Linux has a long future - but then this is a Strange Day...

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

Have you no idea what OSS software is?! Get a life and read stuff on
http://catb.org/~esr/ !! Cmon' Apple isn't a saint, neither is windows
or Linux!

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:03:51 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> Linux in the Server space.

Why? There's nothing to suggest that at all.

> 
> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

Are you mental? Linux is Free, low-cost, robust, flexible, stable,
adaptable, and a dozen other things, and you peddle this crap that its
only advantage was runing on cheap hardware? Christ you are so dumb it's a
wonder you can breathe in and out in the right sequence. You don't have 
shred of evidence to support this garbage, do you?

> 
> Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's 
> a whole new ball game starting today!

Bollocks. Why should they?

> 
> The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all 
> Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further 
> information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at 
> developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development 
> tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ 
> Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel 
> Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for 
> Apple.
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/

Bid deal. Why do you think established Linux developers are suddenly going
to abandon all the investment of time and effort they've put into Linux,
just to go over to a Closed operating system? Dream on, boyo. I'll be
waiting for those flying pigs.

-- 
Kier

Hi  Sr_Bueno,  For plonking Raggs...

Like the Incredible_Hulk giving you a body slam...

  P L O N K !

On 2005-06-06, Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote:
> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
>
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> Linux in the Server space.

	So? People will be able to just download a copy of Apple NextStep
off of the web and casually deploy a server into a closet somewhere?

	I doubt it.

>
> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

	So? Solaris x86 had that "advantage" already and still does. Infact,
if anytone is going to "eat Linux's lunch" it will be Sun.
	
	Like always, the Apple cheerleaders are stuck with blinders on and 
only meaningfully acknowledges the existence of the Apple solution in a
field of many.
	
>
> Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's 
> a whole new ball game starting today!

	Wise Linux developers will yawn.

[deletia]

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

In article <X-GdnWsSb6EoKjnfRVn-hw@comcast.com>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> >
> > Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
> > hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.
> 
> 	So? Solaris x86 had that "advantage" already and still does. Infact,
> if anytone is going to "eat Linux's lunch" it will be Sun.

but Sun doesn't have anywhere near the volume of Apple, plus it doesn't 
really have a Desktop OS or mainstream Applications. Sun will still be a 
player of course, but not on the scale of a company 4 times as large.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly worried
about that!

In article <1118082881.100186.3780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

I don't think so. There will still be people who think a free OS is better than 
one developed by people who got paid to do that.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.

ray wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
> 
> 
>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>for chips.
>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>beta crap software irrelevent.
>>No loss.
>>
>>Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> 
> Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly worried
> about that!
> 

On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats for 
47 websites and the stats basically go as follow

Window 96%
Mac 3%%
Others all together 1%

I'm not making a claim that the sites I see are representative of the 
whole internet but it is sobering.  I'd hope to see more Linux and Mac 
browsers hitting the sites. I know I'm one of the few people I know that 
has Solaris, Linux, Windows and Mac machines so I guess I'm really not 
surprised.  The average consumer is running a windows machine, the 
server market is different.  If you have a big competent IT department 
and write customer solutions you run UNIX with Windows for Windows only 
things.  If you are small you might be running some OSS server for cost 
reasons.  Microsoft has the middle ground really tied up, the companies 
that aren't big enough to do a lot of custom in house solutions need 
pre-built stuff and Microsoft does well there.  It is a fanboy fantasy 
that Linux is more popular than the Mac as a desktop/workstation.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:03:51 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically seals
> the end of Linux on the Desktop

But I thought you said that cheap thingie Apple came out with sealed the
end of Linux on the Desktop.  You remember, right?  That thing that was
supposed to sell gazillions of units and destroy Linux and Microsoft in a
single stroke?  I forgot what it was called.

How is that working out?

Oxford <csma@mac.com> writes:

>"Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!

>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>Linux in the Server space.

>Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
>hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

?? Do you mean apple will somehow prevent Linux from running on Intel
hardware? Wonder how they will do that?
Or did you mean that there is no other operating system running on Intel
hardware except Linux and now that Apple is, linux no longer has a monopoly
on Intel hardware. (Wait, I feel in my bones that there is something wrong
with that argument but cannot quite put my finger on it.)



>Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's 
>a whole new ball game starting today!

>The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all 
>Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further 
>information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at 
>developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development 
>tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ 
>Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel 
>Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for 
>Apple.

Hmm, somehow I thought they already supplied those for Linux. 


>http://developer.apple.com/

[snip pubesent ramblings]

Apple clearly shows how Microsoft is very weak at producing a good
windows manager, and a sub standard OS. It shows joe public that there is
another way. Apple are doing a dam fine job of showing an alternative desktop
to Microsoft and in the proccess Linux on the desktop will grow, once
people become aware, that there are systems that give them strength,
performance and freedom, without taxation. ;-)

Jem..

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> writes:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.

I will be surprised if it runs on generic IBM-compatible PC hardware.
Presumably, it will run on custom Apple boards which don't have legacy
PC junk on them (e.g. a BIOS).

Other than increased clock speed, I'm not sure what Apple stand to
gain from this.

I'm one of the not-insignificant number of people who bought Apple
hardware specifically to run GNU/Linux (replacing a PC).  I bought a
Mac Mini for several reasons, one being that it had a Freescale 7447A
PowerPC processor, others being low power consumption and noise.  Note
that the clock speed was not a concern: 1.42 GHz is ample for most
tasks; nowadays CPUs are all very fast, or very very fast, so I chose
Apple for reasons other than raw CPU power.

Frankly, if Apple produce x86 hardware, they have lost a future
customer when I come to upgrade, because I would never have considered
Apple hardware which contained a little-endian x86 processor, and will
not in the future.  I'll simply buy a POWER-based system from a
different vendor (e.g. IBM), even if it costs more.  For me MacOS X
and its applications didn't enter the equation.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCpNFOVcFcaSW/uEgRAvm1AJwIX2NTqblkOTLfQvETz/Tl5qUKNwCfXYgx
+JL0o/UooRzdz7D8JW5rnEc=
=f7Zt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2005-06-06, Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> 
wrote:
> customer when I come to upgrade, because I would never have considered
> Apple hardware which contained a little-endian x86 processor, and will
> not in the future.  I'll simply buy a POWER-based system from a
> different vendor (e.g. IBM), even if it costs more.  

You mean, you'll buy an AmigaOne board? :)

What about Sun UltraSparc IV based computers ? SGI perhaps?

Today, 1/4 of the world blew up. I hope it will be possible to use Cell
based PS3 as a Unix driven workstation.

-- 
Uspjesne regije, tvrtke, muskarci i zene znaju da je uvijek bolje biti
prvorazredna verzija sebe nego drugorazredna verzija nekog drugog.

On 2005-06-06, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think so. There will still be people who think a free OS is better
> than one developed by people who got paid to do that.

Are you saying that Linux is _not_ developed by people who
are paid to develop Linux?  That would be news to all the
people who are employed at IBM and other corporations
specifically to do Linux development.

In case the above is not direct enough, there _ARE_ many
Linux developers who are paid by their respective employers
to do Linux development.

Robert Riches
spamtrap42@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

Robert M. Riches Jr. wrote:

> In case the above is not direct enough, there _ARE_ many
> Linux developers who are paid by their respective employers
> to do Linux development.

Including quite a few at Intel.

In article <87u0kbnm3z.fsf@hardknott.home.whinlatter.ukfsn.org>,
 Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> > for chips.
> > FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> > OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> > beta crap software irrelevent.
> > No loss.
> 
> I will be surprised if it runs on generic IBM-compatible PC hardware.
> Presumably, it will run on custom Apple boards which don't have legacy
> PC junk on them (e.g. a BIOS).
> 
> Other than increased clock speed, I'm not sure what Apple stand to
> gain from this.
> 
> I'm one of the not-insignificant number of people who bought Apple
> hardware specifically to run GNU/Linux (replacing a PC).  I bought a
> Mac Mini for several reasons, one being that it had a Freescale 7447A
> PowerPC processor, others being low power consumption and noise.  Note
> that the clock speed was not a concern: 1.42 GHz is ample for most
> tasks; nowadays CPUs are all very fast, or very very fast, so I chose
> Apple for reasons other than raw CPU power.
> 
> Frankly, if Apple produce x86 hardware, they have lost a future
> customer when I come to upgrade, because I would never have considered
> Apple hardware which contained a little-endian x86 processor, and will
> not in the future.  I'll simply buy a POWER-based system from a
> different vendor (e.g. IBM), even if it costs more.  For me MacOS X
> and its applications didn't enter the equation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you represent a tenth of a 
percent of the market. At most. The vast majority of users, even 
tech-savvy users, have no reason whatsoever to care what processor is 
under the hood, so long as it's fast, and has reasonable power and heat 
characteristics. Intel seems to be delivering that, these days.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:03:51 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> Linux in the Server space.

Is it? I see it as great news! Best case...For *years* the Mac-oids have
screamed about the inferiority of Intel processors and the superiority of
the PPC. How clock speed meant nothing. Now, Apple will be dumping their
beloved hardware for what they percieve as garbage! But there is *hope*
for these poor, lost souls....Linux. They can take their PPC platforms,
and run Linux on them instead....and even keep buying and upgrading to
*new* PPC hardware from other venders with Linux as the OS, something they
could never do with OSX! Worst case.....hey, a bunch of Maccies move to
new hardware, and the old hardware can't be "upgraded" to the new OS and
apps....so out it goes, to ebay for a song! Linux users can pick up that
high quality "junk" PPC hardware at low, low market glut prices. Really,
it's a win-win for Linux.


Oh wait, it's win-win-win....because any way you look at it, if Macs *do*
come down in price and go up in performance because of this....hey, more
cheap hardware to run Linux on.


> 
> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

Actually, we run on Intel/AMD, MIPS, PPC (and not just Apple's platform
either...), Alphas, the new Cells, and a number of other processors.
Linux's saving grace is that it's adaptable and can be tossed on pretty
much anything, plus it's Free, and tends to have and come with a large
library of software.

> 
> Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. It's
> a whole new ball game starting today!

No thanks.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:53:09 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> 	So? Solaris x86 had that "advantage" already and still does. Infact,
> if anytone is going to "eat Linux's lunch" it will be Sun.

heh


heh heh heh


Sorry, I can't hold it in...


AHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha

Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

Yeah, Win2000, win2003, XP, XP64, Solaris10, openSolaris, solarisx86, OS X
(first comes out), Apple Mini, and now OS X all of these were claimed to be
the death of Linux. It hasn't happened yet!

But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization that
they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor! Linux is
forcing ALL computer vendors to change how they do business! 

In article <pan.2005.06.06.23.58.27.447781@nospam.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> Is it? I see it as great news! Best case...For *years* the Mac-oids have
> screamed about the inferiority of Intel processors and the superiority of
> the PPC. How clock speed meant nothing. Now, Apple will be dumping their
> beloved hardware for what they percieve as garbage! But there is *hope*
> for these poor, lost souls....Linux. They can take their PPC platforms,
> and run Linux on them instead....and even keep buying and upgrading to
> *new* PPC hardware from other venders with Linux as the OS, something they
> could never do with OSX! Worst case.....hey, a bunch of Maccies move to
> new hardware, and the old hardware can't be "upgraded" to the new OS and
> apps....so out it goes, to ebay for a song! Linux users can pick up that
> high quality "junk" PPC hardware at low, low market glut prices. Really,
> it's a win-win for Linux.

Liam, you aren't making a bit of sense. Take a gander at the Keynote, 
then reply, otherwise you look foolish.

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

Jason Bowen wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>for chips.
>>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>>beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>No loss.
>>>
>>>Good Riddence Linux!
>> 
>> 
>> Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly
>> worried about that!
>> 
> 
> On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats for
> 47 websites and the stats basically go as follow
> 
> Window 96%
> Mac 3%%
> Others all together 1%

47 websites? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:11:47 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization that
> they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor!

Oh please, who here honestly thinks they won't still be an overpriced
proprietary hardware vendor?

On 2005-06-07, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the
> realization that they can not compete as an overpriced
> proprietary hardware vendor!

Why do you say that?  Nobody said they're going to stop making
Mac's and start shipping OS-X for whitebox computers.  Macs
are still going to be Macs.  They're just going to have a
different CPU.  Nothing is going to change.

> Linux is forcing ALL computer vendors to change how they do
> business! 

Crap.  This is strictly a supply-chain issue.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I guess we can live
                                  at               on his POT FARM in HADES!!
                               visi.com            

Liam Slider wrote:
> 
> I don't understand how "Keynote" is in any way a counterargument to this...
> 

Well, now you see the Apple 'Shuffle' for what it is -- a game of 3 card 
monte.

Just keep making a lot of smokey puffed up 'new directions' like iPods, 
minis, and chip changes, and hope that no one notices how much value the 
company has lost.

Oh, and pity the poor suckers who bought APPL at $45...they lost 25 
percent of their investment.    Hey, I heard there's a new SEC chairman. 
   Wonder if he'll care...ever seen the world behind bars, Mr. Job$ ???




-- 
Texeme
http://texeme.com

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.06.06.23.58.27.447781@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> Is it? I see it as great news! Best case...For *years* the Mac-oids have
>> screamed about the inferiority of Intel processors and the superiority of
>> the PPC. How clock speed meant nothing. Now, Apple will be dumping their
>> beloved hardware for what they percieve as garbage! But there is *hope*
>> for these poor, lost souls....Linux. They can take their PPC platforms,
>> and run Linux on them instead....and even keep buying and upgrading to
>> *new* PPC hardware from other venders with Linux as the OS, something they
>> could never do with OSX! Worst case.....hey, a bunch of Maccies move to
>> new hardware, and the old hardware can't be "upgraded" to the new OS and
>> apps....so out it goes, to ebay for a song! Linux users can pick up that
>> high quality "junk" PPC hardware at low, low market glut prices. Really,
>> it's a win-win for Linux.
> 
> Liam, you aren't making a bit of sense. Take a gander at the Keynote, 
> then reply, otherwise you look foolish.
> 
> http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
anything I just said?


Would people *not* upgrade to new Macs if they stay with Mac, just as they
did when the Macs moved to the PPC?

Would not Linux be able to run on the new machines just as easily as any
other?

Might not those mac users who will be upset over the move to hated Intel
wish to move to an OS to keep up to date while sticking to their prefered
architecture?


I don't understand how "Keynote" is in any way a counterargument to this...

In article <SNSdnby4OM_eeznfRVn-pg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> > Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yeah, Win2000, win2003, XP, XP64, Solaris10, openSolaris, solarisx86, OS X
> (first comes out), Apple Mini, and now OS X all of these were claimed to be
> the death of Linux. It hasn't happened yet!
> 
> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization that
> they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor! Linux is
> forcing ALL computer vendors to change how they do business! 

Ah, this has zero to do with Linux's influence, it's all about IBM's 
inability to continue to push performance and get the heat/power down 
enough to fit into laptops.

Grant Edwards wrote:

> On 2005-06-07, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the
>> realization that they can not compete as an overpriced
>> proprietary hardware vendor!
> 
> Why do you say that?  

You mean other than it's true?

> Nobody said they're going to stop making 
> Mac's and start shipping OS-X for whitebox computers.  Macs
> are still going to be Macs.  They're just going to have a
> different CPU.  Nothing is going to change.

If they start distributing OS X on intel chips that IS a change, plain and
simple only a total idiot would say otherwise! Of course they know that
there are a FEW morons that will over pay for over priced proprietary
hardware just because it has the Apple name on it. They will keep the
proprietary line to bilk them. But to grow to a mainstream supplier Apple
is changing. 



> 
>> Linux is forcing ALL computer vendors to change how they do
>> business!
> 
> Crap.  This is strictly a supply-chain issue.
> 

You are using a baffle them with BS strategy! 

Liam Slider wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:11:47 -0700, Ralph wrote:
> 
>> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization
>> that they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor!
> 
> Oh please, who here honestly thinks they won't still be an overpriced
> proprietary hardware vendor?

I'm sure they will be overpriced and probably proprietary! There seems to be
a large base of idiots that will overpay any amount of money for overpriced
hardware just because it has the Apple name on it. 

Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.06.06.23.58.27.447781@nospam.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Is it? I see it as great news! Best case...For *years* the Mac-oids have
> >> screamed about the inferiority of Intel processors and the superiority of
> >> the PPC. How clock speed meant nothing. Now, Apple will be dumping their
> >> beloved hardware for what they percieve as garbage! But there is *hope*
> >> for these poor, lost souls....Linux. They can take their PPC platforms,
> >> and run Linux on them instead....and even keep buying and upgrading to
> >> *new* PPC hardware from other venders with Linux as the OS, something they
> >> could never do with OSX! Worst case.....hey, a bunch of Maccies move to
> >> new hardware, and the old hardware can't be "upgraded" to the new OS and
> >> apps....so out it goes, to ebay for a song! Linux users can pick up that
> >> high quality "junk" PPC hardware at low, low market glut prices. Really,
> >> it's a win-win for Linux.
> > 
> > Liam, you aren't making a bit of sense. Take a gander at the Keynote, 
> > then reply, otherwise you look foolish.
> > 
> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
> 
> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
> in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
> anything I just said?

yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you in 
a couple days if not sooner.

> Would people *not* upgrade to new Macs if they stay with Mac, just as they
> did when the Macs moved to the PPC?

yes, people can buy a mac now or wait, it won't matter to customers 
either way since once the Intel hardware ships in 2006, software will 
have universal binaries so it will run either way. If it doesn't have 
the intel based binary, it will still run on intel hardware through the 
Rosetta/Transitive method. steve showed apps running that hadn't been 
complied for Intel but were running on an Intel mac. they work just fine.

> Would not Linux be able to run on the new machines just as easily as any
> other?

It should.

> Might not those mac users who will be upset over the move to hated Intel
> wish to move to an OS to keep up to date while sticking to their prefered
> architecture?

nah, the only people saying that haven't see the Keynote, once they do, 
it will make sense to them.

> I don't understand how "Keynote" is in any way a counterargument to this...

The keynote portion showing the transition starts about 21:50, once you 
see it, you'll have few questions left. It makes sense.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

Raggs wrote:
> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
Are you really on DRUGS..... if not you should start using them.
This is just pure bull shit

> Just keep making a lot of smokey puffed up 'new directions' like
> iPods, minis, and chip changes, and hope that no one notices
> how much value the company has lost.

How much value AAPL has lost?  Put down the crack-pipe junior and look
again.

     6 months = up 20%
    12 months = up 155%
    36 months = up 220%

It's obvious that you know absolutely ZERO about investing.

PS - Your POS website texeme.com doesn't work at all. Perhaps you
should find someone competent to set it up for you.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:40:42 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:11:47 -0700, Ralph wrote:
>> 
>>> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization
>>> that they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor!
>> 
>> Oh please, who here honestly thinks they won't still be an overpriced
>> proprietary hardware vendor?
> 
> I'm sure they will be overpriced and probably proprietary! There seems to be
> a large base of idiots that will overpay any amount of money for overpriced
> hardware just because it has the Apple name on it.

Well,  in my opinion, this isn't the brightest move Apple could make.
There are other architectures they could choose to run on. Choosing Intel,
which makes them little different from PCs, doesn't help them on their
claim of being...well...better. At least in the hardware department.

Of course, none of this matters to *us* as...well....a hardware vendor is
a hardware vendor. We aren't tied to any particular one or any particular
architecture like they are. We can run on almost anything. Of course, most
of us prefer an Open hardware platform to go with our Open OS... Man, am I
glad that we aren't held hostage to the whims of corporate politics like
Mac users are.

probability2003@uku.co.uk wrote:

> How much value AAPL has lost?  Put down the crack-pipe junior and look
> again.


A stock can go up a million points, but if it goes up to a million and 
one, and then drops to 999,999, then people who bought at top will have 
lost money...and usually the biggest volume is at its peak.

AAPL ran up during all the iPod hype.  Now that reality has set in, and 
people have realized they are stupid to spend $500 for an mp3 player, 
and $3000 for a bug ridden OS that's too slow to run more than 3 
programs at once, and for a chipset that the manufacturer is now 
abandoning...well, you get the idea.




-- 
Texeme
http://texeme.com

probability2003@uku.co.uk wrote:

> PS - Your POS website texeme.com doesn't work at all. Perhaps you
> should find someone competent to set it up for you.
> 

I know that when a computer is switched off the http server doesn't run.

My computer at home is switched off...I felt it needed a rest.

So it's resting.

-- 
Texeme
http://texeme.com

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:45:09 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.06.23.58.27.447781@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Is it? I see it as great news! Best case...For *years* the Mac-oids have
>> >> screamed about the inferiority of Intel processors and the superiority of
>> >> the PPC. How clock speed meant nothing. Now, Apple will be dumping their
>> >> beloved hardware for what they percieve as garbage! But there is *hope*
>> >> for these poor, lost souls....Linux. They can take their PPC platforms,
>> >> and run Linux on them instead....and even keep buying and upgrading to
>> >> *new* PPC hardware from other venders with Linux as the OS, something they
>> >> could never do with OSX! Worst case.....hey, a bunch of Maccies move to
>> >> new hardware, and the old hardware can't be "upgraded" to the new OS and
>> >> apps....so out it goes, to ebay for a song! Linux users can pick up that
>> >> high quality "junk" PPC hardware at low, low market glut prices. Really,
>> >> it's a win-win for Linux.
>> > 
>> > Liam, you aren't making a bit of sense. Take a gander at the Keynote, 
>> > then reply, otherwise you look foolish.
>> > 
>> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
>> 
>> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
>> in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
>> anything I just said?
> 
> yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you in 
> a couple days if not sooner.


That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.

> 
>> Would people *not* upgrade to new Macs if they stay with Mac, just as they
>> did when the Macs moved to the PPC?
> 
> yes, people can buy a mac now or wait, it won't matter to customers 
> either way since once the Intel hardware ships in 2006, software will 
> have universal binaries so it will run either way. If it doesn't have 
> the intel based binary, it will still run on intel hardware through the 
> Rosetta/Transitive method. steve showed apps running that hadn't been 
> complied for Intel but were running on an Intel mac. they work just fine.


Yeah, sure, but all the *new* software will be written for the *new*
Macs within a short while....leaving the *old* Macs in the cold. Forcing
an inevitable hardware upgrade within a fairly short time. Thus, the
hardware glut. Boon to Linux.


> 
>> Would not Linux be able to run on the new machines just as easily as
>> any other?
> 
> It should.

Win for Linux then, Apple's just another hardware vendor to us. Always has
been. Yellowdog (Apple's official Linux partner) is getting a bit screwed
by this move though. However, the soon to be glut of used PPC hardware
should temporarily ease that.

> 
>> Might not those mac users who will be upset over the move to hated
>> Intel wish to move to an OS to keep up to date while sticking to their
>> prefered architecture?
> 
> nah, the only people saying that haven't see the Keynote, once they do,
> it will make sense to them.


Sure sure. Maccies have, for years, pretty well hated Intel. You yourself
have waxed poetically about the superiority and elegance of the PPC
architecture. There are quite a few people who will not buy into this
move. And the idea of owning machines that are, essentially, little
different from PCs....I'm sure that will not appeal to quite a few Mac
users too.  If they want to stay with PPC, there won't be much of a
choice...stay with their unupgraded and increasingly out of date Mac with
dwindling software....or switch to something that remains cutting edge but
supports their chosen architecture....maybe even provides a choice of many
different architectures so they won't get burned again. Linux is perfect
for them

In article <FeidnZhGAKSIbznfRVn-1g@speakeasy.net>,
 "jabailo@texeme.com" <jabailo@texeme.com> wrote:

> 
> A stock can go up a million points, but if it goes up to a million and 
> one, and then drops to 999,999, then people who bought at top will have 
> lost money...and usually the biggest volume is at its peak.
> 
> AAPL ran up during all the iPod hype.  Now that reality has set in, and 
> people have realized they are stupid to spend $500 for an mp3 player, 
> and $3000 for a bug ridden OS that's too slow to run more than 3 
> programs at once, and for a chipset that the manufacturer is now 
> abandoning...well, you get the idea.

your delusional Bailo. an iPod starts at $99 first of all.

apple stock never really dropped after the run up, are you mad you 
didn't get in early enough? there is still time. this intel based mac 
looks pretty damn interesting.

look below, here's Red Hat, MicroSoft and Apple over last year. If you 
know how to read charts, it might helpexplain illustrate why you are so 
delusional.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=rhat,msft

In article <1118082881.100186.3780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
I'll still use it--and I'll probably have an x86 Mac whenever they're 
released. I don't think this will infringe upon Linux's Desktop market 
though. The people who will buy these x86 Macs are the same people who 
were going to buy PPC Macs. It's not like you'll be able to install OS X 
directly on your standard x86 machine. It'll have to be Apple-provided, 
and Apple is still going to gouge the users to support OS and software 
development.

> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
You've had one for 15 years or so--two or three for the last 5 years.

> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
How do you figure?

> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!
It's not dead, and won't be dead in the forseeable future.

WWDC <bewolf@cluster.net> writes:

>Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.06.23.58.27.447781@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Is it? I see it as great news! Best case...For *years* the Mac-oids have
>> >> screamed about the inferiority of Intel processors and the superiority of
>> >> the PPC. How clock speed meant nothing. Now, Apple will be dumping their
>> >> beloved hardware for what they percieve as garbage! But there is *hope*
>> >> for these poor, lost souls....Linux. They can take their PPC platforms,
>> >> and run Linux on them instead....and even keep buying and upgrading to
>> >> *new* PPC hardware from other venders with Linux as the OS, something they
>> >> could never do with OSX! Worst case.....hey, a bunch of Maccies move to
>> >> new hardware, and the old hardware can't be "upgraded" to the new OS and
>> >> apps....so out it goes, to ebay for a song! Linux users can pick up that
>> >> high quality "junk" PPC hardware at low, low market glut prices. Really,
>> >> it's a win-win for Linux.
>> > 
>> > Liam, you aren't making a bit of sense. Take a gander at the Keynote, 
>> > then reply, otherwise you look foolish.
>> > 
>> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
>> 
>> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
>> in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
>> anything I just said?

>yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you in 
>a couple days if not sooner.

>> Would people *not* upgrade to new Macs if they stay with Mac, just as they
>> did when the Macs moved to the PPC?

>yes, people can buy a mac now or wait, it won't matter to customers 
>either way since once the Intel hardware ships in 2006, software will 
>have universal binaries so it will run either way. If it doesn't have 
>the intel based binary, it will still run on intel hardware through the 
>Rosetta/Transitive method. steve showed apps running that hadn't been 
>complied for Intel but were running on an Intel mac. they work just fine.

The instruction set for ppc and for intel are different. This means that
binaries compiled for ppc cannot run on intel. Now one could put in an
interpreter between the program and the hardware. But since there is not a
one to one relationship between the instruction sets, it is slow. -- at
least two or three instructions for every instruction, if not a lot more. 


>> Would not Linux be able to run on the new machines just as easily as any
>> other?

>It should.

>> Might not those mac users who will be upset over the move to hated Intel
>> wish to move to an OS to keep up to date while sticking to their prefered
>> architecture?

>nah, the only people saying that haven't see the Keynote, once they do, 
>it will make sense to them.

>> I don't understand how "Keynote" is in any way a counterargument to this...

>The keynote portion showing the transition starts about 21:50, once you 
>see it, you'll have few questions left. It makes sense.

Why would someone run programs at 1/4 speed?


>http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:18:35 +0000, Unruh wrote:

> The instruction set for ppc and for intel are different. This means that
> binaries compiled for ppc cannot run on intel. Now one could put in an
> interpreter between the program and the hardware. But since there is not a
> one to one relationship between the instruction sets, it is slow. -- at
> least two or three instructions for every instruction, if not a lot more.

So it's just an emulator then? 

In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.04.05.378524@nospam.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:45:09 -0600, WWDC wrote:
> 
> > Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
> >> 
> >> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
> >> in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
> >> anything I just said?
> > 
> > yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you in 
> > a couple days if not sooner.
> 
> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.

....which is why only 400 million folks have installed it on their 
computers...

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:38:02 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
>> On 2005-06-07, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization
>>> that they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor!
>> 
>> Why do you say that?
> 
> You mean other than it's true?
> 
>> Nobody said they're going to stop making Mac's and start shipping OS-X
>> for whitebox computers.  Macs are still going to be Macs.  They're just
>> going to have a different CPU.  Nothing is going to change.
> 
> If they start distributing OS X on intel chips that IS a change, plain and
> simple only a total idiot would say otherwise! Of course they know that
> there are a FEW morons that will over pay for over priced proprietary
> hardware just because it has the Apple name on it. They will keep the
> proprietary line to bilk them. But to grow to a mainstream supplier Apple
> is changing.
> 
> 
The last paragraph on page two of the following link gives the answer to
the question of OS X running on generic x86 hardware.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?tag=nl.e589

"However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac 
OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS
X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."

There you have it straight from the horses mouth OS X will still only run
on Apple hardware exclusively.


-- 
"Got the dirty lowdown Ms spyware, adware, malware, virus blues?
Try *nix there is a distro just for you."

Linux User #273161

Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> >> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
> >> in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
> >> anything I just said?
> > 
> > yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you in 
> > a couple days if not sooner.
> 
> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.

it has nothing to do with QuickTime, it's all about the strenght of your 
connection / available bandwidth coming out of the jammed servers.

> > yes, people can buy a mac now or wait, it won't matter to customers 
> > either way since once the Intel hardware ships in 2006, software will 
> > have universal binaries so it will run either way. If it doesn't have 
> > the intel based binary, it will still run on intel hardware through the 
> > Rosetta/Transitive method. steve showed apps running that hadn't been 
> > complied for Intel but were running on an Intel mac. they work just fine.
> 
> Yeah, sure, but all the *new* software will be written for the *new*
> Macs within a short while....leaving the *old* Macs in the cold. Forcing
> an inevitable hardware upgrade within a fairly short time. Thus, the
> hardware glut. Boon to Linux.

new software?  why do you need new software? haven't you watched the 
keynote?????? No, old or new mac hardware will run software for years to 
come. it's not a "all or nothing" situation. watch the keynote.

> > It should.
> 
> Win for Linux then, Apple's just another hardware vendor to us. Always has
> been. Yellowdog (Apple's official Linux partner) is getting a bit screwed
> by this move though. However, the soon to be glut of used PPC hardware
> should temporarily ease that.

oh, it won't change the value of PPC hardware, no glut will occur since 
it will run OSX, Tiger, Leopard, great apps, etc just fine.

> >> Might not those mac users who will be upset over the move to hated
> >> Intel wish to move to an OS to keep up to date while sticking to their
> >> prefered architecture?
> > 
> > nah, the only people saying that haven't see the Keynote, once they do,
> > it will make sense to them.
> 
> Sure sure. Maccies have, for years, pretty well hated Intel. You yourself
> have waxed poetically about the superiority and elegance of the PPC
> architecture. There are quite a few people who will not buy into this
> move. And the idea of owning machines that are, essentially, little
> different from PCs....I'm sure that will not appeal to quite a few Mac
> users too.  If they want to stay with PPC, there won't be much of a
> choice...stay with their unupgraded and increasingly out of date Mac with
> dwindling software....or switch to something that remains cutting edge but
> supports their chosen architecture....maybe even provides a choice of many
> different architectures so they won't get burned again. Linux is perfect
> for them

ah, but that was when IBM was moving forward with PPC, they are now 
stuck so Apple is flexible enough to move. Apple hardware will still run 
faster than what a DeLL will with the same Intel Chip, you forget Apple 
at its core is an engineering firm, they won't just slap an intel 
motherboard in a box and call it a day. It will be polished hardware 
that Apple is well known for. Linux doesn't have any focus, so you can't 
really use it for a consumer machine. and now with OSX Server on Intel, 
that is one last hurdle buyers must overlook to buy Apple's Xserve. It's 
good news all around.

begin  virus.txt.scr Chad Irby wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.04.05.378524@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:45:09 -0600, WWDC wrote:
>> 
>> > Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
>> >> 
>> >> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly
>> >> *what* in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that
>> >> invalidates anything I just said?
>> > 
>> > yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you
>> > in a couple days if not sooner.
>> 
>> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.
> 
> ...which is why only 400 million folks have installed it on their
> computers...
> 

Even if that number were true, it does not indicate that just one install
works correctly
-- 
Machine-Independent, adj.:
        Does not run on any existing machine.

In <1118101168.670381.131560@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Noah Roberts:

[Snip...]

> Including quite a few at Intel.

Interesting--COLM troll spew for weeks, and now: Intel hates Linux? I'd say
the wintards are increasingly shrill, desperate, and impotent.

Yo, tards: you're irrelevant--get over it. Obviously, somebody's completely
lost their composure, and it's definitely not Linux.

Next up: Monkey-Boy does a new interpretive dance for a developers' junket.

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> The instruction set for ppc and for intel are different. This means that
> binaries compiled for ppc cannot run on intel. Now one could put in an
> interpreter between the program and the hardware. But since there is not a
> one to one relationship between the instruction sets, it is slow. -- at
> least two or three instructions for every instruction, if not a lot more. 

yes, but has a translation called Rosetta that solves most of this 
problem. Most older PPC based binaries will work unaltered.

watch the keynote and it will make sense to you.

Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:

> > The instruction set for ppc and for intel are different. This means that
> > binaries compiled for ppc cannot run on intel. Now one could put in an
> > interpreter between the program and the hardware. But since there is not a
> > one to one relationship between the instruction sets, it is slow. -- at
> > least two or three instructions for every instruction, if not a lot more.
> 
> So it's just an emulator then? 

no, it's not an emulator.

"Rosetta is a translation process that runs a PowerPC binary on an 
Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor�it allows applications to run as 
nonnative binaries. Many, but not all, applications can run translated. 
Applications that run translated will never run as fast as they run as a 
native binary because the translation process itself incurs a processing 
cost. How compatible your application is with Rosetta depends on the 
type of application it is. Applications that have a lot of user 
interaction and low computational needs, such as a word processor, are 
quite compatible. Those that have a moderate amount of user interaction 
and some high computational needs or that use OpenGL are, in most cases, 
also quite compatible. Those that have intense computing needs aren�t 
compatible. This includes applications that need to repeatedly compute 
fast Fourier transforms (FFTs), that compute complex models for 3-D 
modelling, or compute ray tracing. 

To the user, Rosetta is transparent. Unlike Classic, when the user 
launches an application, there aren�t any  visual cues to indicate that 
the application is translated. The user may  perceive that the 
application is slow to start up or that the  performance is slower than 
it is on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor. The user can 
discover whether an application has only a PowerPC binary by looking at 
the Finder information for the application.

TheDread wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:38:02 -0700, Ralph wrote:
> 
>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2005-06-07, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization
>>>> that they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware vendor!
>>> 
>>> Why do you say that?
>> 
>> You mean other than it's true?
>> 
>>> Nobody said they're going to stop making Mac's and start shipping OS-X
>>> for whitebox computers.  Macs are still going to be Macs.  They're just
>>> going to have a different CPU.  Nothing is going to change.
>> 
>> If they start distributing OS X on intel chips that IS a change, plain
>> and simple only a total idiot would say otherwise! Of course they know
>> that there are a FEW morons that will over pay for over priced
>> proprietary hardware just because it has the Apple name on it. They will
>> keep the proprietary line to bilk them. But to grow to a mainstream
>> supplier Apple is changing.
>> 
>> 
> The last paragraph on page two of the following link gives the answer to
> the question of OS X running on generic x86 hardware.
> 
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?tag=nl.e589
> 
> "However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac
> OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS
> X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
> 
> There you have it straight from the horses mouth OS X will still only run
> on Apple hardware exclusively.
> 
> 

My statement about the change would be if Apple did what the OP said Apple
is planing to do. If Apple is planing to do what the OP suggests, that
would be a change. 

If Apple is not planing to do what the OP says, TAKE IT UP WITH THE MAC
troll and you two Apple buddies can Apple Jack each other off. It makes no
squat to me. I'm not an idiot that buys that overpriced crap. 

begin  virus.txt.scr WWDC wrote:

> Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> 
>> The instruction set for ppc and for intel are different. This means that
>> binaries compiled for ppc cannot run on intel. Now one could put in an
>> interpreter between the program and the hardware. But since there is not
>> a one to one relationship between the instruction sets, it is slow. -- at
>> least two or three instructions for every instruction, if not a lot more.
> 
> yes, but has a translation called Rosetta that solves most of this
> problem. Most older PPC based binaries will work unaltered.
> 

Yup. Running an app through an emulator. Making the sedated snail-apps of
apple running like dead sedated snails

> watch the keynote and it will make sense to you.

It is you who dows not make any sense

How anyone can play the stupid cheerleader for a company like you do is
beyond me.
Your only function seems to be to piss off as many people as possible with
your unadultered idiocy
-- 
Some people are incredibly witty AND intelligent AND sexy.
But enough about myself...

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.04.05.378524@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:45:09 -0600, WWDC wrote:
>> 
>> > Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:12:25 -0600, WWDC wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
>> >> 
>> >> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly
>> >> *what* in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that
>> >> invalidates anything I just said?
>> > 
>> > yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you
>> > in a couple days if not sooner.
>> 
>> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.
> 
> ...which is why only 400 million folks have installed it on their
> computers...
> 

Large numbers of people having something installed on their computers does
NOT mean it is good. Look at MS OS's! Using the logic that many people
installing it on their computers makes it non-troublesome MS OS's would be
the most non-troublesome OS's ever made or ever to be made! 

Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:

>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>Linux in the Server space.

But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.

-- 
 -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Smyrna, GA USA
  OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
       WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
                   The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:30:50 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> 
>> >> Yeah...that's not working too well. Perhaps you can explain exactly *what*
>> >> in the marketing bullshit that *is* Steve Jobs at Keynote that invalidates
>> >> anything I just said?
>> > 
>> > yes, it's understandably being hit hard, it should be working for you in 
>> > a couple days if not sooner.
>> 
>> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.
> 
> it has nothing to do with QuickTime, it's all about the strenght of your 
> connection / available bandwidth coming out of the jammed servers.


Sure, that explains why *every other time* I've used quicktime it's
performed like ass compared to other formats.


> 
>> > yes, people can buy a mac now or wait, it won't matter to customers
>> > either way since once the Intel hardware ships in 2006, software will
>> > have universal binaries so it will run either way. If it doesn't have
>> > the intel based binary, it will still run on intel hardware through
>> > the Rosetta/Transitive method. steve showed apps running that hadn't
>> > been complied for Intel but were running on an Intel mac. they work
>> > just fine.
>> 
>> Yeah, sure, but all the *new* software will be written for the *new*
>> Macs within a short while....leaving the *old* Macs in the cold.
>> Forcing an inevitable hardware upgrade within a fairly short time.
>> Thus, the hardware glut. Boon to Linux.
> 
> new software?  why do you need new software? haven't you watched the
> keynote?????? No, old or new mac hardware will run software for years to
> come. it's not a "all or nothing" situation. watch the keynote.

Oh gee, emulation. Wow. I'm sure everyone will clammer to run their apps
at a snail's pace.

> 
>> > It should.
>> 
>> Win for Linux then, Apple's just another hardware vendor to us. Always
>> has been. Yellowdog (Apple's official Linux partner) is getting a bit
>> screwed by this move though. However, the soon to be glut of used PPC
>> hardware should temporarily ease that.
> 
> oh, it won't change the value of PPC hardware, no glut will occur since
> it will run OSX, Tiger, Leopard, great apps, etc just fine.

Sure, such a glut will occur as people will start switching.

> 
>> >> Might not those mac users who will be upset over the move to hated
>> >> Intel wish to move to an OS to keep up to date while sticking to
>> >> their prefered architecture?
>> > 
>> > nah, the only people saying that haven't see the Keynote, once they
>> > do, it will make sense to them.
>> 
>> Sure sure. Maccies have, for years, pretty well hated Intel. You
>> yourself have waxed poetically about the superiority and elegance of
>> the PPC architecture. There are quite a few people who will not buy
>> into this move. And the idea of owning machines that are, essentially,
>> little different from PCs....I'm sure that will not appeal to quite a
>> few Mac users too.  If they want to stay with PPC, there won't be much
>> of a choice...stay with their unupgraded and increasingly out of date
>> Mac with dwindling software....or switch to something that remains
>> cutting edge but supports their chosen architecture....maybe even
>> provides a choice of many different architectures so they won't get
>> burned again. Linux is perfect for them
> 
> ah, but that was when IBM was moving forward with PPC, they are now
> stuck so Apple is flexible enough to move.

Last week?

And...PPC is stuck? The Cell is the next generation of PPC isn't it....and
it's incredibly powerful, more so than any chip out there. Practically a
supercomputer on a chip. It makes me consider jumping to the PPC!


> Apple hardware will still run
> faster than what a DeLL will with the same Intel Chip, you forget Apple
> at its core is an engineering firm, they won't just slap an intel
> motherboard in a box and call it a day. 


Oh, so they will sprinkle their magic pixie dust and the processor will
somehow run faster because it's a Mac?

>It will be polished hardware
> that Apple is well known for.

You misspelled "proprietary."

> Linux doesn't have any focus

Sure it does. The Linux kernel is extremely focused in development, Linus
Torvalds heads the development team. As for the various distros....well,
just as Apple provides focus for OSX, Mandriva provides focus for
Mandriva, Redhat provides focus for Redhat and Fedora, Gentoo provides
focus for Gentoo, the Debian team provides the focus for Debian, etc...

>, so you can't
> really use it for a consumer machine.

Sure I can. I'm doing so right now. It's a well polished one too. And
usability studies place Linux up there with the Mac now.

> and now with OSX Server on Intel,
> that is one last hurdle buyers must overlook to buy Apple's Xserve. It's
> good news all around.

But not the same cheap commodity hardware that everyone is using.....just
proprietary hardware using Intel chips....sorry, same dance, different
tune.

In article <JsSdndivVbJnZjnfRVn-tQ@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> 
> > In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.04.05.378524@nospam.liamslider.com>,
> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.
> > 
> > ...which is why only 400 million folks have installed it on their
> > computers...
> 
> Large numbers of people having something installed on their computers does
> NOT mean it is good. 

It's a fair bet that getting someone to install an aftermarket piece of 
"notoriously troublesome" software is a bit harder than you'd think, 
especially with basically no marketing being done to push it.

That being said, I've heard that QT is troublesome from, well, WIndows 
folks here.  One or two issues on people's laptops (usually because they 
didn't actually have it installed, or MIS folks had locked down the 
machine with a bad install), but overall not that bad.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article <JsSdndivVbJnZjnfRVn-tQ@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.04.05.378524@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>> >  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> That, and quicktime is notoriously troublesome.
>> > 
>> > ...which is why only 400 million folks have installed it on their
>> > computers...
>> 
>> Large numbers of people having something installed on their computers
>> does NOT mean it is good.
> 
> It's a fair bet that getting someone to install an aftermarket piece of
> "notoriously troublesome" software is a bit harder than you'd think,
> especially with basically no marketing being done to push it.
> 
> That being said, I've heard that QT is troublesome from, well, WIndows
> folks here.  One or two issues on people's laptops (usually because they
> didn't actually have it installed, or MIS folks had locked down the
> machine with a bad install), but overall not that bad.
> 

You have said nothing that changes or even challenges what I said. Of course
I see you SNIPPED the POINT I was making. The fact is, having large numbers
of something installed does NOT make it good. 

Given the LOW expectations of Windows users (I mean really, they think
windows is good!), something that is installed on windows that is "not that
bad" must be VERY bad indeed. 

If I run across something that is in quicktime format, I pass. Its just not
worth it. The quality just is not there. 

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:39:45 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> no, it's not an emulator.

<snip description>

Sounds a lot like an emulator to me...

On Monday 06 June 2005 18:45, WWDC <bewolf@cluster.net>
(<p66pe.83$Ru4.2106@news.uswest.net>) wrote:

> If it doesn't have the intel based binary, it will still run on intel
> hardware through the Rosetta/Transitive method.

According to page 67 of the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines:

    Rosetta does not run the following:

        * Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
        * Code written specifically for AltiVec
        * Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
        * Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
        * Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
        * Kernel extensions
        * Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries
          that can't be translated

http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1826222&mode=thread

On 2005-06-07, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:
>
>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>>Linux in the Server space.
>
> But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
> x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.

Yup.  For most users and most purposes, this is a complete
non-event.

Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
not going to be any significant pricing difference.

OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
any more than it does now.  

I imagine Linux will just as well on the IA32 Macs as it does
on PPC Macs. There's going to be a bit of extra work for Mac
applications developers, but unless you are one, this is just a
giant tempest in a teapot.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  LOOK!!! I'm WALKING
                                  at               in my SLEEP again!!
                               visi.com            

Ralph wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> 
> 
>>ray wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>>for chips.
>>>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>>>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>>>beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>>No loss.
>>>>
>>>>Good Riddence Linux!
>>>
>>>
>>>Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly
>>>worried about that!
>>>
>>
>>On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats for
>>47 websites and the stats basically go as follow
>>
>>Window 96%
>>Mac 3%%
>>Others all together 1%
> 
> 
> 47 websites? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Go ahead and post something better.  What are you afraid of when you 
clip the part where I acknowledge that I don't call it representative of 
the internet as a whole? Outside of myself I don't see Linux in use, I 
see Mac OS X in several places.

Try responding to the whole statement now...

I'm not making a claim that the sites I see are representative of the 
whole internet but it is sobering.  I'd hope to see more Linux and Mac 
browsers hitting the sites. I know I'm one of the few people I know that 
has Solaris, Linux, Windows and Mac machines so I guess I'm really not 
surprised.  The average consumer is running a windows machine, the 
server market is different.  If you have a big competent IT department 
and write customer solutions you run UNIX with Windows for Windows only 
things.  If you are small you might be running some OSS server for cost 
reasons.  Microsoft has the middle ground really tied up, the companies 
that aren't big enough to do a lot of custom in house solutions need 
pre-built stuff and Microsoft does well there.  It is a fanboy fantasy 
that Linux is more popular than the Mac as a desktop/workstation.

On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

> Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
> a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
> not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>
> OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
> any more than it does now.  

I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
they're not planning on shipping it.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Let's all show human
                                  at               CONCERN for REVEREND MOON's
                               visi.com            legal difficulties!!

Jason Bowen wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>ray wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>>>for chips.
>>>>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>>>>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>>>>beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>>>No loss.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good Riddence Linux!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly
>>>>worried about that!
>>>>
>>>
>>>On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats for
>>>47 websites and the stats basically go as follow
>>>
>>>Window 96%
>>>Mac 3%%
>>>Others all together 1%
>> 
>> 
>> 47 websites? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> Go ahead and post something better.  What are you afraid of when you
> clip the part where I acknowledge that I don't call it representative of
> the internet as a whole? Outside of myself I don't see Linux in use, I
> see Mac OS X in several places.
> 
> Try responding to the whole statement now...
> 
> I'm not making a claim that the sites I see are representative of the
> whole internet but it is sobering.  I'd hope to see more Linux and Mac
> browsers hitting the sites. I know I'm one of the few people I know that
> has Solaris, Linux, Windows and Mac machines so I guess I'm really not
> surprised.  The average consumer is running a windows machine, the
> server market is different.  If you have a big competent IT department
> and write customer solutions you run UNIX with Windows for Windows only
> things.  If you are small you might be running some OSS server for cost
> reasons.  Microsoft has the middle ground really tied up, the companies
> that aren't big enough to do a lot of custom in house solutions need
> pre-built stuff and Microsoft does well there.  It is a fanboy fantasy
> that Linux is more popular than the Mac as a desktop/workstation.

Wow, what a lot of words to say NOTHING. 47 websites is NOTHING. It's
doubtful that Linux users would want to go to any shitty site you have
anything to do with. 

Ralph wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ralph wrote:
>>
>>>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>ray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>>>>for chips.
>>>>>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>>>>>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>>>>>beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>>>>No loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Good Riddence Linux!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly
>>>>>worried about that!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats for
>>>>47 websites and the stats basically go as follow
>>>>
>>>>Window 96%
>>>>Mac 3%%
>>>>Others all together 1%
>>>
>>>
>>>47 websites? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>
>>Go ahead and post something better.  What are you afraid of when you
>>clip the part where I acknowledge that I don't call it representative of
>>the internet as a whole? Outside of myself I don't see Linux in use, I
>>see Mac OS X in several places.
>>
>>Try responding to the whole statement now...
>>
>>I'm not making a claim that the sites I see are representative of the
>>whole internet but it is sobering.  I'd hope to see more Linux and Mac
>>browsers hitting the sites. I know I'm one of the few people I know that
>>has Solaris, Linux, Windows and Mac machines so I guess I'm really not
>>surprised.  The average consumer is running a windows machine, the
>>server market is different.  If you have a big competent IT department
>>and write customer solutions you run UNIX with Windows for Windows only
>>things.  If you are small you might be running some OSS server for cost
>>reasons.  Microsoft has the middle ground really tied up, the companies
>>that aren't big enough to do a lot of custom in house solutions need
>>pre-built stuff and Microsoft does well there.  It is a fanboy fantasy
>>that Linux is more popular than the Mac as a desktop/workstation.
> 
> 
> Wow, what a lot of words to say NOTHING. 47 websites is NOTHING. It's
> doubtful that Linux users would want to go to any shitty site you have
> anything to do with. 

Go ahead and post some more compelling evidence.  Nice ad hominen.

Jason Bowen wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Ralph wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jason Bowen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>>>>>for chips.
>>>>>>>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to
>>>>>>>run. OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half
>>>>>>>done, beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>>>>>No loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good Riddence Linux!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly
>>>>>>worried about that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats
>>>>>for 47 websites and the stats basically go as follow
>>>>>
>>>>>Window 96%
>>>>>Mac 3%%
>>>>>Others all together 1%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>47 websites? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>>
>>>Go ahead and post something better.  What are you afraid of when you
>>>clip the part where I acknowledge that I don't call it representative of
>>>the internet as a whole? Outside of myself I don't see Linux in use, I
>>>see Mac OS X in several places.
>>>
>>>Try responding to the whole statement now...
>>>
>>>I'm not making a claim that the sites I see are representative of the
>>>whole internet but it is sobering.  I'd hope to see more Linux and Mac
>>>browsers hitting the sites. I know I'm one of the few people I know that
>>>has Solaris, Linux, Windows and Mac machines so I guess I'm really not
>>>surprised.  The average consumer is running a windows machine, the
>>>server market is different.  If you have a big competent IT department
>>>and write customer solutions you run UNIX with Windows for Windows only
>>>things.  If you are small you might be running some OSS server for cost
>>>reasons.  Microsoft has the middle ground really tied up, the companies
>>>that aren't big enough to do a lot of custom in house solutions need
>>>pre-built stuff and Microsoft does well there.  It is a fanboy fantasy
>>>that Linux is more popular than the Mac as a desktop/workstation.
>> 
>> 
>> Wow, what a lot of words to say NOTHING. 47 websites is NOTHING. It's
>> doubtful that Linux users would want to go to any shitty site you have
>> anything to do with.
> 
> Go ahead and post some more compelling evidence.  Nice ad hominen.

Ok, I have 47 web servers that show Linux with 12% and Macs with 0.5%. 

Ralph wrote:

> Ok, I have 47 web servers that show Linux with 12% and Macs with 0.5%. 

Mine are real, your's are fake.  Pussy.

Jason Bowen wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
> 
>> Ok, I have 47 web servers that show Linux with 12% and Macs with 0.5%.
> 
> Mine are real, your's are fake.  Pussy.

How do you know mine are not real and how do I know that your are? Your name
calling? 

The point is made. Usenet claims about stats are WORTHLESS. 

Now grow up. 

Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!
you wouldn't know a quality UNIX OS if it kicked you in ring zero on INT
13H!
Try running under SVR4 and get back to me.....

TMH
-- 
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered!
My life is my own - No. 6

In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.55.00.327710@nospam.liamslider.com>,
 Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> Oh gee, emulation. Wow. I'm sure everyone will clammer to run their apps
> at a snail's pace.

The apps Jobs ran using Rosetta during the keynote seemed to be running 
at least as fast on his 3.6 GHz P4 as they run native on my 1.8 GHz G5.
The only thing that looked like it might be noticeably slower was loading
Photoshop.  Once in Photoshop, it seemed speedy.

-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <11aa4akt3eqa31a@corp.supernews.com>,
 Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:

> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> 
> > Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
> > a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
> > not going to be any significant pricing difference.
> >
> > OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
> > any more than it does now.  
> 
> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
> they're not planning on shipping it.

Sure, I can't imagine they've been building custom Intel-based hardware 
to maintain their internal OS X ports all these years. They probably 
only support a very narrow range of hardware, though. (Probably 
basically what Darwin/x86 supports.)

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>
>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>any more than it does now.  
> 
> 
> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
> they're not planning on shipping it.
> 
Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors? If you are going to
convert the foundation of your OS to an new architecture of processors, why
pick 32-bit legacy end-of-the-line stuff? It would be a an incredibly dumb
thing to do.

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 07:10:00 up 9 days, 13:46, 3 users, load average: 5.34, 5.24, 5.20

begin  virus.txt.scr Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>>
>>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>>any more than it does now.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
>> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
>> they're not planning on shipping it.
>> 
> Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors? If you are going to
> convert the foundation of your OS to an new architecture of processors,
> why pick 32-bit legacy end-of-the-line stuff? It would be a an incredibly
> dumb thing to do.
> 

Apple uses 64-bit processors since quite some time (G5)
And 64bit support is all but non-existant since then. Developers have to
perform utterly idiotic hoopla just to create rudimentary 64bit apps

Why should that change now? Apple cheerleaders buy happily overpriced
underperforming toys since years, so why not screw them longer?
-- 
There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that divides
everybody  into two kinds of people, and everybody else

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 07:14:16 -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:

> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>>
>>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>>any more than it does now.  
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
>> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
>> they're not planning on shipping it.
>> 
> Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors? If you are going to
> convert the foundation of your OS to an new architecture of processors, why
> pick 32-bit legacy end-of-the-line stuff? It would be a an incredibly dumb
> thing to do.

Great, so it'll be the Apple Itanic...

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

If it's a death blow it's by suicide bombing. Apple better have another
iPod up their sleeves if they are going to survive the next 12 months.
They won't have their x86 boxes for another year, in the mean time the
sales of the current Macs are going to plunge. If they survive long enough
to actually ship the new kit there isn't going to be much software on it
except for open source, which is available on Linux boxes so who needs an
Apple, and Apple's own software. The commercial software vendors are going
to take this as an opportunity to drop Mac support altogether. The Mac's
market share is so tiny at this point that there is no point in continuing
to support it. When Apple went from the 68K to the PPC they had a 14%
market share so it was still worthwhile for software vendors to make the
transition. When they went for OS9 to OS10 they only had a 4% market share
and a large percentage of the vendors didn't bother to make the
transition. Steve Jobs was able to do some arm twisting and get some high
profile vendors to change their minds but now the Mac only has a 2%
share so the argument for dropping it is even better. In 12 months the
Mac's share will be 1/2% at best, no vendor is going to want to support it
no matter how loud Steve Jobs screams.
 

On 2005-06-07, Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 15:53:09 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> 	So? Solaris x86 had that "advantage" already and still does. Infact,
>> if anytone is going to "eat Linux's lunch" it will be Sun.
>
> heh
>
>
> heh heh heh
>
>
> Sorry, I can't hold it in...
>
>
> AHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha

	At least they have the support apparatus.

	This is more than can be said for the cutesy desktop vendor.

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

On 2005-06-06, Jeremy Fisher <freya@linux.site> wrote:
> [snip pubesent ramblings]
>
> Apple clearly shows how Microsoft is very weak at producing a good
> windows manager, and a sub standard OS. It shows joe public that there is
> another way. Apple are doing a dam fine job of showing an alternative desktop
> to Microsoft and in the proccess Linux on the desktop will grow, once
> people become aware, that there are systems that give them strength,
> performance and freedom, without taxation. ;-)

	Yup, just like they've been doing for the last 20 years...

	<chuckle>

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

Ralph wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ralph wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok, I have 47 web servers that show Linux with 12% and Macs with 0.5%.
>>
>>Mine are real, your's are fake.  Pussy.
> 
> 
> How do you know mine are not real and how do I know that your are? Your name
> calling? 
> 
> The point is made. Usenet claims about stats are WORTHLESS. 
> 
> Now grow up. 

I don't need to grow up.  You have a serious case of cognitive 
dissonance going on.  I've been running Linux since 1.2.13, and while 
things have improved for me as a Linux user, I only see Linux replacing 
current other UNIX installations and not taking away any ground from the 
Mac or Windows.

On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2005-06-07, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
>> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:
>>
>>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>>>Linux in the Server space.
>>
>> But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
>> x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.
>
> Yup.  For most users and most purposes, this is a complete
> non-event.
>
> Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
> a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
> not going to be any significant pricing difference.

	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
very expensive previous PC hardware investment.

	There will still be this price chasm that discourages users from
casually switching.

[deletia]

	It will be kind of like Mac vs. Atari vs. Amiga.


-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

In article <GISdndQpsvfhAjjfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> > On 2005-06-07, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> >> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:
> >>
> >>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> >>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> >>>Linux in the Server space.
> >>
> >> But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
> >> x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.
> >
> > Yup.  For most users and most purposes, this is a complete
> > non-event.
> >
> > Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
> > a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
> > not going to be any significant pricing difference.
> 
> 	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
> MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
> very expensive previous PC hardware investment.
> 
> 	There will still be this price chasm that discourages users from
> casually switching.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> 	It will be kind of like Mac vs. Atari vs. Amiga.

Yep, and we know who won that particular fray!

I think (or hope, take your pick!), that when all the dust settles out, 
this may be a very good thing.

I also think that the next year or two are going to very interesting, to 
say the least.

Jason Bowen wrote:

> Ralph wrote:
>> Jason Bowen wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Ralph wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok, I have 47 web servers that show Linux with 12% and Macs with 0.5%.
>>>
>>>Mine are real, your's are fake.  Pussy.
>> 
>> 
>> How do you know mine are not real and how do I know that your are? Your
>> name calling?

Why did you not respond to this?


>> 
>> The point is made. Usenet claims about stats are WORTHLESS.

This point is still valid. 

>> 
>> Now grow up.
> 
> I don't need to grow up.

Yes, you do. 

> You have a serious case of cognitive 
> dissonance going on.  

Baseless accusations. 

> I've been running Linux since 1.2.13, 

Another claim that can't be substantiated. But tell me, how is this supposed
to make your claims about the servers you run any more believable?

> and while  
> things have improved for me as a Linux user, I only see Linux replacing
> current other UNIX installations and not taking away any ground from the
> Mac or Windows.

So? I see Linux replacing Windows and Unix and the Mac selling to the
faithful. Who's "seeing" is valid? Like your claim about servers verses
mine, which are true and which are false? Why are YOUR claims to be
believed over MINE? Your name calling? Your bogus claims of "cognitive
dissonance"? Just claims. 

As shown buy me and others, the latest numbers show that MS is losing market
share in terms of units shipped in the server market. Countries like Brazil
are switching desktops (desktops that would NOT have been UNIX systems
rather they are replacing WINDOWS desktops). Cities like Largo and Munich
are replacing or have replaced Windows desktops. You can google a little
and find plenty of info that will back up MY CLAIMS on this issue. 

I think we now know that it is YOU that is suffering from the cognitive
disorder. 

In article 
<reply_in_group-C5A7B7.23190706062005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.06.07.01.55.00.327710@nospam.liamslider.com>,
>  Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> > Oh gee, emulation. Wow. I'm sure everyone will clammer to run their apps
> > at a snail's pace.
> 
> The apps Jobs ran using Rosetta during the keynote seemed to be running 
> at least as fast on his 3.6 GHz P4 as they run native on my 1.8 GHz G5.
> The only thing that looked like it might be noticeably slower was loading
> Photoshop.  Once in Photoshop, it seemed speedy.

It looked like PS was loading a *lot* of filters...

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

On 2005-06-07, Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> wrote:

>>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>>
>>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>>any more than it does now.  
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
>> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
>> they're not planning on shipping it.

> Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors?

Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
been around for a couple years now.

> If you are going to convert the foundation of your OS to an
> new architecture of processors, why pick 32-bit legacy
> end-of-the-line stuff?

What, you think they just started last week?  They've had OS-X
running on IA32 from the beginning.

> It would be a an incredibly dumb thing to do.

No, waiting until yesterday to try to port OS-X to IA32 (or
IA64 or whatever it's called) would be incredibly dumb).

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  It's so OBVIOUS!!
                                  at               
                               visi.com            

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:41:20 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> TheDread wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:38:02 -0700, Ralph wrote:
>> 
>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2005-06-07, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> But it is nice to see that Apple is finally coming to the realization
>>>>> that they can not compete as an overpriced proprietary hardware
>>>>> vendor!
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you say that?
>>> 
>>> You mean other than it's true?
>>> 
>>>> Nobody said they're going to stop making Mac's and start shipping OS-X
>>>> for whitebox computers.  Macs are still going to be Macs.  They're
>>>> just going to have a different CPU.  Nothing is going to change.
>>> 
>>> If they start distributing OS X on intel chips that IS a change, plain
>>> and simple only a total idiot would say otherwise! Of course they know
>>> that there are a FEW morons that will over pay for over priced
>>> proprietary hardware just because it has the Apple name on it. They
>>> will keep the proprietary line to bilk them. But to grow to a
>>> mainstream supplier Apple is changing.
>>> 
>>> 
>> The last paragraph on page two of the following link gives the answer to
>> the question of OS X running on generic x86 hardware.
>> 
>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html?tag=nl.e589
>> 
>> "However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac
>> OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac
>> OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said."
>> 
>> There you have it straight from the horses mouth OS X will still only
>> run on Apple hardware exclusively.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> My statement about the change would be if Apple did what the OP said Apple
> is planing to do. If Apple is planing to do what the OP suggests, that
> would be a change.
> 
> If Apple is not planing to do what the OP says, TAKE IT UP WITH THE MAC
> troll and you two Apple buddies can Apple Jack each other off. It makes no
> squat to me. I'm not an idiot that buys that overpriced crap.

I was not attacking your statement I was simply posting a clarification to
the theory in this thread as to OS X running on generic X86 hardware. I am
not an apple fan I am a fan of Linux on X86 AMD artichetcture.

-- 
"Got the dirty lowdown Ms spyware, adware, malware, virus blues?
Try *nix there is a distro just for you."

Linux User #273161

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:

> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.
> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> beta crap software irrelevent.
> No loss.
> 
> Good Riddence Linux!

Every time Apple has made a major change, they have lost about 50% market
share:

Motorola 68K to PPC  --> market share dropped from 10% to 5%
adoption of OS/X     --> market share slid from 5% to 3%

If things hold true to form, this should just about do them in.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:07:59 -0600, ray wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Every time Apple has made a major change, they have lost about 50% market
> share:
> 
> Motorola 68K to PPC  --> market share dropped from 10% to 5% adoption of
> OS/X     --> market share slid from 5% to 3%
> 
> If things hold true to form, this should just about do them in.

.... except that Mac unit sales have been going up....

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

Rick wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:07:59 -0600, ray wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>> 
>>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>> for chips.
>>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>>> No loss.
>>> 
>>> Good Riddence Linux!
>> 
>> Every time Apple has made a major change, they have lost about 50% market
>> share:
>> 
>> Motorola 68K to PPC  --> market share dropped from 10% to 5% adoption of
>> OS/X     --> market share slid from 5% to 3%
>> 
>> If things hold true to form, this should just about do them in.
> 
> ... except that Mac unit sales have been going up....
> 

Um, you do know the concept of market share, right? Sales can be going up
but still lose market share! If the market triples but sales by one company
only doubles, they have LOST market share. 

Losing market share is NOT a good thing. 

On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2005-06-07, Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>>>
>>>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>>>any more than it does now.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
>>> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
>>> they're not planning on shipping it.
>
>> Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors?
>
> Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
> been around for a couple years now.

	So have 64bit cpus.

[deletia]

	Linux and Windows were running on 64bit architectures before
OSX ever existed.

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

In article <386dnU521JuLWTjfRVn-rg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> Um, you do know the concept of market share, right? Sales can be going up
> but still lose market share! If the market triples but sales by one company
> only doubles, they have LOST market share. 
> 
> Losing market share is NOT a good thing. 

....but it's also not the "end of the world" thing some folks have 
mentioned here.

Of course, they harp on Mac market share when it's going down, but 
always blow it off when it's going up...

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article <386dnU521JuLWTjfRVn-rg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> Um, you do know the concept of market share, right? Sales can be going up
>> but still lose market share! If the market triples but sales by one
>> company only doubles, they have LOST market share.
>> 
>> Losing market share is NOT a good thing.
> 
> ...but it's also not the "end of the world" thing some folks have
> mentioned here.
> 
> Of course, they harp on Mac market share when it's going down, but
> always blow it off when it's going up...
> 

It certainly is not the "mac is taking over everywhere" claim that has been
going on here for a long time. 

However, if market share continues to drop, Apple will become IRRELEVANT and
the Mac "world" will, for all practical purposes" end. 

The end result is the same. Apple is an irrelevant niche player. Big suprise
there, isn't that what they have always been? 

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:31:21 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> Linux and Windows were running on 64bit architectures before
> OSX ever existed.

Mind you, Windows wasn't running *well* on it...


And Linux has run on a good variety of 64-bit architectures.

Raggs wrote:

> 
> 
> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> for chips.

Apple's ringing the death-knell for Linux, eh?  I suppose this means that
Apple's gone fully open-source and is porting to, oh, say, even a quarter
of the supported platforms Linux runs on, right?

Whoops, guess not.  Ho, hum, nice try.

Macs are nice and all, but a Linux-killer?  Let's not get too carried away.

In article <1-mdnasMOchHUzjfRVn-rg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> 
> It certainly is not the "mac is taking over everywhere" claim that has been
> going on here for a long time. 
> 
> However, if market share continues to drop, Apple will become IRRELEVANT and
> the Mac "world" will, for all practical purposes" end. 
> 
> The end result is the same. Apple is an irrelevant niche player. Big suprise
> there, isn't that what they have always been? 

yes, but the mac MARKET is growing every year (it was up 40% last year 
alone) and quite healthy. only the "share" is lower IF you include dumb 
factory terminals, cash registers, non-pc equipment. so yes, if apple 
was loosing "personal computer share" that would be one thing, but 
that's not the case.

watch the keynote and you won't make those mistakes.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

On 2005-06-07, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>> On 2005-06-07, Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>>>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>>>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>>>>any more than it does now.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
>>>> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
>>>> they're not planning on shipping it.
>>
>>> Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors?
>>
>> Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
>> been around for a couple years now.
>
> 	So have 64bit cpus.

Of course there have been other 64-bit processors around for
quite a while, but OS-X predates _Intel_ 64-bit processors by
several years.

People seem to be missing the point: this is more a
supply-chain/vendor issue than an architecture issue. IBM
couldn't ship the parts Apple needed.  The goal is more to
switch from IBM to Intel than to switch from PPC to IA32.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Yow! I like my new
                                  at               DENTIST...
                               visi.com            

In article <GISdndQpsvfhAjjfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> > On 2005-06-07, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> >> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:
> >>
> >>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> >>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> >>>Linux in the Server space.
> >>
> >> But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
> >> x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.
> >
> > Yup.  For most users and most purposes, this is a complete
> > non-event.
> >
> > Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
> > a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
> > not going to be any significant pricing difference.
> 
> 	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
> MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
> very expensive previous PC hardware investment.

Sure, but people dump hardware investments every 3-5 years anyway.

> 	There will still be this price chasm that discourages users from
> casually switching.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> 	It will be kind of like Mac vs. Atari vs. Amiga.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

In article <pan.2005.06.07.15.07.58.677854@zianet.com>,
 ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
> 
> > Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> > for chips.
> > FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> > OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> > beta crap software irrelevent.
> > No loss.
> > 
> > Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Every time Apple has made a major change, they have lost about 50% market
> share:
> 
> Motorola 68K to PPC  --> market share dropped from 10% to 5%
> adoption of OS/X     --> market share slid from 5% to 3%
> 
> If things hold true to form, this should just about do them in.

Correlation does not imply causality.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>>> Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
>>> been around for a couple years now.
>>
>>       So have 64bit cpus.
> 
> Of course there have been other 64-bit processors around for
> quite a while, but OS-X predates _Intel_ 64-bit processors by
> several years.

What is your source?

        release date
MacOSX  2001-03-21 [1]
Itanium 2001-05-29 [2]

1: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/mar/21osxstore.html
2: ftp://download.intel.com/museum/research/arc_collect/timeline/TimelineChron.pdf

Daniel Tryba wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> >>> Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
> >>> been around for a couple years now.
> >>
> >>       So have 64bit cpus.
> >
> > Of course there have been other 64-bit processors around for
> > quite a while, but OS-X predates _Intel_ 64-bit processors by
> > several years.
>
> What is your source?
>
>         release date
> MacOSX  2001-03-21 [1]

What about Rhapsody?  It was around for quite some time on x86 before
the final release of MacOSX only on the PPC or whatever.

On 2005-06-07, Daniel Tryba <partmapsswen@invalid.tryba.nl> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>>>> Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
>>>> been around for a couple years now.
>>>
>>>       So have 64bit cpus.
>> 
>> Of course there have been other 64-bit processors around for
>> quite a while, but OS-X predates _Intel_ 64-bit processors by
>> several years.
>
> What is your source?
>
>         release date
> MacOSX  2001-03-21 [1]
> Itanium 2001-05-29 [2]

I stand corrected.  OS-X predates Intel's 64-bit architecture,
but not by as much as I had thought -- unless you count the
several years during which OS-X was under development [it's
pretty hard to develop an OS for an architecture that's not
available].  OS-X has been running on IA32 for five years.
We're not talking about a decision to port to IA32 that was
just made recently.

Interestingly, here's an article from the June 22nd PCWord
headlined "Intel Readies First 64-Bit Chip":

  http://pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116631,00.asp

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I think I'll make
                                  at               SCRAMBLED EGGS!! They're
                               visi.com            each in LITTLE SHELLS...

WWDC wrote:

> In article <1-mdnasMOchHUzjfRVn-rg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It certainly is not the "mac is taking over everywhere" claim that has
>> been going on here for a long time.
>> 
>> However, if market share continues to drop, Apple will become IRRELEVANT
>> and the Mac "world" will, for all practical purposes" end.
>> 
>> The end result is the same. Apple is an irrelevant niche player. Big
>> suprise there, isn't that what they have always been?
> 
> yes, but the mac MARKET is growing every year (it was up 40% last year
> alone) and quite healthy. only the "share" is lower IF you include dumb
> factory terminals, cash registers, non-pc equipment. so yes, if apple
> was loosing "personal computer share" that would be one thing, but
> that's not the case.
> 
> watch the keynote and you won't make those mistakes.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

As long as it is losing market share, it will be a niche player as always. 

In article <u7idnXQSzcOJbzjfRVn-qg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:

> > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
> 
> As long as it is losing market share, it will be a niche player as always. 

ah, but it's actually gaining share in the PC market, so it's a 
spectacle to watch.

in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained 40% 
this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if you 
want the best for the future.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 13:37:19 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> In article <u7idnXQSzcOJbzjfRVn-qg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
>> 
>> As long as it is losing market share, it will be a niche player as always. 
> 
> ah, but it's actually gaining share in the PC market, so it's a 
> spectacle to watch.

Why should I want to?

> 
> in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained 40% 
> this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if you 
> want the best for the future.

So you keep saying. We don't believe you.

-- 
Kier

WWDC wrote:

> In article <u7idnXQSzcOJbzjfRVn-qg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
>> > http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
>> 
>> As long as it is losing market share, it will be a niche player as
>> always.
> 
> ah, but it's actually gaining share in the PC market, so it's a
> spectacle to watch.
> 
> in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained 40%
> this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if you
> want the best for the future.

It's only people replacing the old crap they bought from Apple desperately
hoping that this time the promises come true. Just like the Ipod, once the
Apple, we'll buy anything from apple, faithful have rushed to buy the
latest Apple lie, apple sales will drop. 

Apple is a niche player, always has been always will be. This is why they
are floundering around switching OS's and now switching hardware platforms,
desperately trying to find SOMETHING with some staying power!

WWDC wrote:
> In article <u7idnXQSzcOJbzjfRVn-qg@rcn.net>, Ralph <no@way.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
>>
>>As long as it is losing market share, it will be a niche player as always. 
> 
> 
> ah, but it's actually gaining share in the PC market, so it's a 
> spectacle to watch.
> 
> in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained 40% 
> this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if you 
> want the best for the future.

What are the installed bases?  What are the actual units shipped?  I 
like the Mac but don't friggin try to pretend like the Mac is anywhere 
close to usurping the PC.

Jason Bowen <ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> What are the installed bases?  What are the actual units shipped?  I 
> like the Mac but don't friggin try to pretend like the Mac is anywhere 
> close to usurping the PC.

oh about 4.5 million this year, to about 20 million in the same general 
class of PCs. so the numbers are that far off, and you have to keep in 
mind Macs are at the top end of the market, so that counts for something,

will macs surpass PC's in shipments, not anytime soon, but we could very 
well see a Mac has the top selling single platform, it's already the top 
selling Unix system, by far.

Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> > in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained 40% 
> > this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if you 
> > want the best for the future.
> 
> So you keep saying. We don't believe you.

It was in the Keynote, with the data clearly being from IDC.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:

> On 2005-06-06, Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> 
> wrote:
>> customer when I come to upgrade, because I would never have considered
>> Apple hardware which contained a little-endian x86 processor, and will
>> not in the future.  I'll simply buy a POWER-based system from a
>> different vendor (e.g. IBM), even if it costs more.  
>
> You mean, you'll buy an AmigaOne board? :)
>
> What about Sun UltraSparc IV based computers ? SGI perhaps?

Possibly, but they don't really meet my low power and noise
requirements, not to mention the fantastical prices they charge.

> Today, 1/4 of the world blew up. I hope it will be possible to use Cell
> based PS3 as a Unix driven workstation.

That would be quite fun, but I want something a bit chunkier.  I hear
there are going to be Cell-based workstations, which will be worth
considering.

Nowadays, it seems rather difficult to find a *good quality* computer
system.  IBM-compatible PCs are made as cheaply as possible; you get a
lot of power for your money, but not quality or long-term reliability.
Apple is a step up, but still not at the high end, which for myself is
just not affordable.

As an example, I very much liked the circa 1992 HP Apollo
workstations, which were built like tanks, and had fantastic
keyboards.  Of course, they are slow and overly large nowadays, but
superb in their day.  Sun hardware is generally good, but the last
Ultra systems I saw had flimsy plastic keyboards that felt like £2
el-cheapo PC stuff.  Not what you want with a workstation that costs
several grand.

I'm quite happy with the Apple USB keyboard (apart from the placement
of '#' -- unmarked Right-Alt-3, nice and user-friendly!), but it's
still not up to the HP stuff.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCpgHjVcFcaSW/uEgRAi5/AJ4m/Y8hqTmkQfa7WkzlaS46a/0q1wCeP3qB
EMvoPe+VmYKi6+ay09eiwMM=
=ikqp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Robert M. Riches Jr." <spamtrap42@verizon.net> writes:

> On 2005-06-06, Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think so. There will still be people who think a free OS is better
>> than one developed by people who got paid to do that.
>
> Are you saying that Linux is _not_ developed by people who
> are paid to develop Linux?  That would be news to all the
> people who are employed at IBM and other corporations
> specifically to do Linux development.

There are many people employed to work on Linux.  However, there are
still more who don't get paid.  I've spent over 120 hours over the
last three weeks working on GNU/Linux, and haven't been paid a penny
for it.  Admittedly the last three weeks were exceptionally busy, but
I have never in the six years I've been working on Free software
earned any money for my efforts.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCpgNHVcFcaSW/uEgRAj7wAKCiNs9jt9C0INOu4cMwD+U2oKla9ACgr8/X
U9viq5jsWgxtB8forNpF0Jc=
=Ckuh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In comp.os.linux.misc Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> wrote:
: As an example, I very much liked the circa 1992 HP Apollo
: workstations, which were built like tanks, and had fantastic
: keyboards.  Of course, they are slow and overly large nowadays, but

Indeed- we still have many of those era machines still running- and those
that have been retired over the years were almost always in perfect
operational condition.

Of course one must also note that those machines cost 10's of thousands
of dollars. You can buy really solid machines still today- but they
won't be cheap. 

Stan
-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

WWDC <bewolf@cluster.net> writes:

> Liam Slider <liam@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > yes, people can buy a mac now or wait, it won't matter to customers 
>> > either way since once the Intel hardware ships in 2006, software will 
>> > have universal binaries so it will run either way. If it doesn't have 
>> > the intel based binary, it will still run on intel hardware through the 
>> > Rosetta/Transitive method. steve showed apps running that hadn't been 
>> > complied for Intel but were running on an Intel mac. they work just fine.
>> 
>> Yeah, sure, but all the *new* software will be written for the *new*
>> Macs within a short while....leaving the *old* Macs in the cold. Forcing
>> an inevitable hardware upgrade within a fairly short time. Thus, the
>> hardware glut. Boon to Linux.
>
> new software?  why do you need new software? haven't you watched the 
> keynote?????? No, old or new mac hardware will run software for years to 
> come. it's not a "all or nothing" situation. watch the keynote.

But eventually it will reach the end of line, and support will cease.
Developers will produce x86-only binaries, and ppc-based Macs will be
left in the cold.  This is the fate of all proprietary software, but
anyone buying a new ppc-based Mac will be doing so in the full
knowledge that the product is already no longer part of Apple's future
plans.

Free software operating systems, such as GNU/Linux and FreeBSD will
not suffer from such a fate: their destiny is not subject to the whims
of a single company, and so I can be certain that I will be able to
run an up-to-date Debian system on my Mac well after Apple have ceased
all PPC development.


Regards,
Roger

- -- 
Roger Leigh
                Printing on GNU/Linux?  http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
                Debian GNU/Linux        http://www.debian.org/
                GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848.  Please sign and encrypt your mail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCpgTyVcFcaSW/uEgRAl+MAJ9uaSS0stiz+2Sa+2NMKGAPgTMA0gCffi/L
1FQPlNisWAalQ3vVV/idLpo=
=S+pM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In comp.os.linux.misc Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> wrote:

: Free software operating systems, such as GNU/Linux and FreeBSD will
: not suffer from such a fate: their destiny is not subject to the whims
: of a single company, and so I can be certain that I will be able to
: run an up-to-date Debian system on my Mac well after Apple have ceased
: all PPC development.

I'd agree with you up til the last statement.

The prolonged existence of any particular distribution is most
definitely NOT certain. If the debian project folds for whatever
reason, how will you continue to get updates?

_Linux_ will be around for a very long time, but who knows what flavor.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:09:36 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> > in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained 40% 
>> > this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if you 
>> > want the best for the future.
>> 
>> So you keep saying. We don't believe you.
> 
> It was in the Keynote, with the data clearly being from IDC.

I meant the bit that went: "that's why macs are the way to go if you 
want the best for the future." It may be your future, but you cannot
assume it's going to be everyones.

-- 
Kier

begin  virus.txt.scr WWDC (OxRetard) nymshifted:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> > in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained
>> > 40% this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go if
>> > you want the best for the future.
>> 
>> So you keep saying. We don't believe you.
> 
> It was in the Keynote, with the data clearly being from IDC.

So you haven't yet learned the *one* important things about statistics: You
can only trust those you have falsified / misinterpreted yourself

Instead you blare about "keynotes" and other irrelevant marketing drivel
Fitting, as you are about the dumbest poster ever. A Mac user
-- 
Ogden's Law:
 The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:58:13 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:07:59 -0600, ray wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>>> for chips.
>>>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>>>> No loss.
>>>> 
>>>> Good Riddence Linux!
>>> 
>>> Every time Apple has made a major change, they have lost about 50%
>>> market share:
>>> 
>>> Motorola 68K to PPC  --> market share dropped from 10% to 5% adoption
>>> of OS/X     --> market share slid from 5% to 3%
>>> 
>>> If things hold true to form, this should just about do them in.
>> 
>> ... except that Mac unit sales have been going up....
>> 
>> 
> Um, you do know the concept of market share, right? Sales can be going up
> but still lose market share! If the market triples but sales by one
> company only doubles, they have LOST market share.
> 
> Losing market share is NOT a good thing.

Uh, you do know the difference between marketshare and installed base,
don't you? It possible to have marketshare on the rise and installed base
(numbers and percentage) going down.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:09:36 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> > in the keynote there is an entire screen that shows macs have gained
>> > 40% this year, to PC's. 12% or so. that's why macs are the way to go
>> > if you want the best for the future.
>> 
>> So you keep saying. We don't believe you.
> 
> It was in the Keynote, with the data clearly being from IDC.

It was in the keynote... it was in the keynote. Holy crap, Jobs said it
in the keynote... it must be true...

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> I meant the bit that went: "that's why macs are the way to go if you 
> want the best for the future." It may be your future, but you cannot
> assume it's going to be everyones.

yes, but "over time", what mac users do today, will trickle down, 
there's no stopping it. yeah, it takes better hardware and software and 
along with that comes "expense" but for the last 25ish years, apple has 
paved the way for basically everything you do on your machine today.

so a mac's future, is "your future", it's just a factor of "time".

essteeaenn@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> : Free software operating systems, such as GNU/Linux and FreeBSD will
> : not suffer from such a fate: their destiny is not subject to the whims
> : of a single company, and so I can be certain that I will be able to
> : run an up-to-date Debian system on my Mac well after Apple have ceased
> : all PPC development.
>
> I'd agree with you up til the last statement.
>
> The prolonged existence of any particular distribution is most
> definitely NOT certain. If the debian project folds for whatever
> reason, how will you continue to get updates?

I think you could almost guarantee it being taken up by third parties
and you would still get updates.

Not very likely

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.06.07.15.07.58.677854@zianet.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
>
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>>
>> Good Riddence Linux!
>
> Every time Apple has made a major change, they have lost about 50% market
> share:
>
> Motorola 68K to PPC  --> market share dropped from 10% to 5%
> adoption of OS/X     --> market share slid from 5% to 3%
>
> If things hold true to form, this should just about do them in.
> 

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:09:43 -0600, WWDC wrote:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I meant the bit that went: "that's why macs are the way to go if you 
>> want the best for the future." It may be your future, but you cannot
>> assume it's going to be everyones.
> 
> yes, but "over time", what mac users do today, will trickle down, 
> there's no stopping it. yeah, it takes better hardware and software and 
> along with that comes "expense" but for the last 25ish years, apple has 
> paved the way for basically everything you do on your machine today.
> 
> so a mac's future, is "your future", it's just a factor of "time".

You haven't offered the least bit of evidence to suggest that's actually
the case. But then, you never do.

-- 
Kier

On 2005-06-07, Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> writes:
>
>> On 2005-06-06, Roger Leigh <${rleigh}@invalid.whinlatter.ukfsn.org.invalid> 
>> wrote:
>>> customer when I come to upgrade, because I would never have considered
>>> Apple hardware which contained a little-endian x86 processor, and will
>>> not in the future.  I'll simply buy a POWER-based system from a
>>> different vendor (e.g. IBM), even if it costs more.  
>>
>> You mean, you'll buy an AmigaOne board? :)
>>
>> What about Sun UltraSparc IV based computers ? SGI perhaps?
>
> Possibly, but they don't really meet my low power and noise
> requirements, not to mention the fantastical prices they charge.

Hmmm, perhaps you'd be pleased with dual-core ARM chips @ ~ 300-400MHz?
I'd like to see such a machine.

> Nowadays, it seems rather difficult to find a *good quality* computer
> system.  IBM-compatible PCs are made as cheaply as possible; you get a
> lot of power for your money, but not quality or long-term reliability.
> Apple is a step up, but still not at the high end, which for myself is
> just not affordable.

Speaking of great machines, I've finally got to install something
(debian) on my recently bought Sun Ultra1. I was amazed! Even at 167MHz
it's still an impressively fast machine! I couldn't see almost any
difference between it and my main PC (Duron 1300) when doing the usuals;
reading news, surfing, playing some games I usually play, listening to
music ...

Amazing.
-- 
Uspjesne regije, tvrtke, muskarci i zene znaju da je uvijek bolje biti
prvorazredna verzija sebe nego drugorazredna verzija nekog drugog.

Jason Bowen <ha@nospam.net> wrote:

> ray wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:34:41 -0700, Raggs wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
> >>for chips.
> >>FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
> >>OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
> >>beta crap software irrelevent.
> >>No loss.
> >>
> >>Good Riddence Linux!
> > 
> > 
> > Given that Linux installations now outnumber MAC, I'm not terribly worried
> > about that!
> > 
> 
> On the desktop?  Not bloody likely.  I have access to tracking stats for
> 47 websites and the stats basically go as follow
> 
> Window 96%
> Mac 3%%
> Others all together 1%

What percentage of browsers are lying that they're IE when in fact
they're Konqueror, or Firefox, or Opera or any one of half a dozen
non-Windows apps?
 
<...>

> It is a fanboy fantasy  that Linux is more popular than the Mac as a 
> desktop/workstation.

It's also a fantasy that website stats are worth the electrons used to
create them.

-- 

Peter

On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2005-06-07, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>>> On 2005-06-07, Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>>>>>>a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>>>>>>not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OS-X isn't going to run on Dells or Compaqs or Whatever Else
>>>>>>any more than it does now.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm sure they've got OS-X running on Dells or Compaqs or some
>>>>> other IA32 COTS platform at Apple [they'd be nuts not to], but
>>>>> they're not planning on shipping it.
>>>
>>>> Why would Apple use anything but 64-bit processors?
>>>
>>> Because they weren't available when OS-X was written.  It's
>>> been around for a couple years now.
>>
>> 	So have 64bit cpus.
>
> Of course there have been other 64-bit processors around for
> quite a while, but OS-X predates _Intel_ 64-bit processors by
> several years.
>
> People seem to be missing the point: this is more a

	No, we get the point.

	You can either build for the future (like Motorola) or build
for the past (like Microsoft). Your ability to move forward quickly
and exploit new technology is dependent on which path you choose.

> supply-chain/vendor issue than an architecture issue. IBM
> couldn't ship the parts Apple needed.  The goal is more to
> switch from IBM to Intel than to switch from PPC to IA32.
>

	The fact that "something doesn't exist now" has never been a 
sufficient reason to not plan for the future. Lay off the Lemming
Cool-Aid.

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

On 2005-06-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <GISdndQpsvfhAjjfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
>> > On 2005-06-07, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
>> >> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:
>> >>
>> >>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>> >>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>> >>>Linux in the Server space.
>> >>
>> >> But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
>> >> x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.
>> >
>> > Yup.  For most users and most purposes, this is a complete
>> > non-event.
>> >
>> > Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
>> > a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
>> > not going to be any significant pricing difference.
>> 
>> 	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
>> MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
>> very expensive previous PC hardware investment.
>
> Sure, but people dump hardware investments every 3-5 years anyway.

	That still leaves the software. The slightest perception that they
might not be able to use some trivial widget on a new platform is more than
sufficient to scare the typical consumer away from an AltOS.

>
>> 	There will still be this price chasm that discourages users from
>> casually switching.
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>> 	It will be kind of like Mac vs. Atari vs. Amiga.
>


-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> >> 	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
> >> MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
> >> very expensive previous PC hardware investment.
> >
> > Sure, but people dump hardware investments every 3-5 years anyway.
> 
> 	That still leaves the software. The slightest perception that they
> might not be able to use some trivial widget on a new platform is more than
> sufficient to scare the typical consumer away from an AltOS.

when did that happen?  the culture is far different in the mac world, a 
trivial widget would be overlooked and the user would just use an 
alternative. one of the beauties of the mac is that there are so many 
choices for that type of stuff, and since all programs generally "just 
work", mac users are far more likely to experiment with unknown 
utilities, programs, approaches. it's probably the creative nature of 
the culture, experimenting is encouraged, being rigid and stuck in the 
past, is not.

In article <hqedna_YpP8W3jXfRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2005-06-07, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <GISdndQpsvfhAjjfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2005-06-07, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> wrote:
> >> > On 2005-06-07, Richard Steiner <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote:
> >> >> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Oxford <csma@mac.com> spake unto us, saying:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> >> >>>seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> >> >>>Linux in the Server space.
> >> >>
> >> >> But Apple has already stated that their OS will not run on non-Apple
> >> >> x86 hardware, meaning the two OSes will have very little overlap.
> >> >
> >> > Yup.  For most users and most purposes, this is a complete
> >> > non-event.
> >> >
> >> > Macs are still going to look and act like Macs, it's just that
> >> > a few of the chips inside are going to be different. There's
> >> > not going to be any significant pricing difference.
> >> 
> >> 	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
> >> MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
> >> very expensive previous PC hardware investment.
> >
> > Sure, but people dump hardware investments every 3-5 years anyway.
> 
> 	That still leaves the software. The slightest perception that they
> might not be able to use some trivial widget on a new platform is more than
> sufficient to scare the typical consumer away from an AltOS.

Obviously anyone who doesn't want anything to change is not a very good 
candidate for an operating system switch. Fortunately for Apple (and for 
the Linux world) there are some people who are a bit more flexible.

-- 
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
   -- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005

On 2005-06-09, WWDC <bewolf@cluster.net> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> >> 	More importantly, end users that might be interested in using
>> >> MacOS rather than Windows will still have to dump all of their potentially
>> >> very expensive previous PC hardware investment.
>> >
>> > Sure, but people dump hardware investments every 3-5 years anyway.
>> 
>> 	That still leaves the software. The slightest perception that they
>> might not be able to use some trivial widget on a new platform is more than
>> sufficient to scare the typical consumer away from an AltOS.
>
> when did that happen?  the culture is far different in the mac world, a 

	About 1983.

[deletia]

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> >> 
> >> 	That still leaves the software. The slightest perception that they
> >> might not be able to use some trivial widget on a new platform is more than
> >> sufficient to scare the typical consumer away from an AltOS.
> >
> > when did that happen?  the culture is far different in the mac world, a
> > trivial widget would be overlooked and the user would just use an 
> > alternative. one of the beauties of the mac is that there are so many 
> > choices for that type of stuff, and since all programs generally "just 
> > work", mac users are far more likely to experiment with unknown 
> > utilities, programs, approaches. it's probably the creative nature of 
> > the culture, experimenting is encouraged, being rigid and stuck in the 
> > past, is not.

> 	About 1983.

Ah, so it's a PC thing, not a Mac thing, I figured that much.

On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> Linux in the Server space.
> 
> Before today, Linux's saving grace was that it ran on cheap Intel 
> hardware, now it doesn't have that last advantage.

Um, I really like Apple hardware, but OS X does NOT run on cheap 
hardware... I will get reminded of that when my VISA bill comes.

> 
> Wise linux developers will jump quickly and get the transition kit. 
> It's a whole new ball game starting today!
> 
> The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to 
> all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further 
> information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at 
> developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading 
> development tools support for Apple later this year, including the 
> Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel 
> Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance 
> Primitives for Apple.
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/

What a total load of crap.  Linux is just a open source OS
what we make of it is what we make of it.  Apple might have moved to
Intel but have they ported the OS to all PC can I buy a package that 
won't kill my bank account.

Apple stand for profit and has alway been over priced snooty Company, it 
cares little about its customers.  It left its open source after it used 
it to develop it OS applications.  Linux is open to anyone to use even 
if it means to make it obsolete, which OS-X will never do its based on 
the same OS as Linux.

Its open source with a proprietary GUI. It looks pretty  and works good 
but will it be ported to PC's I truly dought it.  I would be the first 
to jump if  I could get OS-X to run on my New 64X system, but unless it 
has a Apple label  I dought it and the price would be ridiculous Linux 
is either free or very resonable can't say that about OS-X or even the 
new MS VISTA Os.

On 08/30/2006 10:50 AM, Michelle Ronn wrote:
> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> 
>> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to
>> all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further
>> information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at
>> developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading
>> development tools support for Apple later this year, including the
>> Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple,
>> Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance
>> Primitives for Apple.

Sorry to jump late into the thread, but Can I ask why pay $999 to apple
when 10's of 100's good developments tools are already available for
free particularly for Linux and generally even for UNIX?

Intel C/C++, ...? sorry we are happy with our versatile, extensible,
high speed, optimizing  and cross compiler collection i.e. GCC itself
including good enough source code debugger and profiler.

FYI, I'm brave enough to use a testing gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20060613
(prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-5) even to compile my kernel version 2.6.17.8
without any problems.

And if I'm not wrong that said Rapple like Microshit is not contributing
anything back to FreeBSD and, or other such BSD variants and GNU from
where they stolen code to build their OS/X thing.

-- 
Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman          Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu's Linux@HOME                      Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India         Distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix
Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/  Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Basil Fitze wrote:

> What a total load of crap.  Linux is just a open source OS
> what we make of it is what we make of it.  Apple might have moved to
> Intel but have they ported the OS to all PC can I buy a package that 
> won't kill my bank account.
> 
> Apple stand for profit and has alway been over priced snooty Company, it 
> cares little about its customers.  It left its open source after it used 
> it to develop it OS applications.  Linux is open to anyone to use even 
> if it means to make it obsolete, which OS-X will never do its based on 
> the same OS as Linux.
> 
> Its open source with a proprietary GUI. It looks pretty  and works good 
> but will it be ported to PC's I truly dought it. 

Ask Mike... he's got OS X running on an IBM thinkpad.
 From what I understand, it isn't that hard to do.

> I would be the first 
> to jump if  I could get OS-X to run on my New 64X system, but unless it 
> has a Apple label  I dought it and the price would be ridiculous Linux 
> is either free or very resonable can't say that about OS-X or even the 
> new MS VISTA Os.
> 

That much is true.  Of course Vista will cost you the most.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message 
news:sJCdncZ0xovwIWjZnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@bresnan.com...
> Basil Fitze wrote:
> Ask Mike... he's got OS X running on an IBM thinkpad.
> From what I understand, it isn't that hard to do.

Also on this very generic DIY PC tower.    The only problem I had was 
getting the wireless networking on the ThinkPad going.   But there is a 
driver floating around for that also - it was included in 10.4.5, but is 
missing from later versions.

Other than that, it's basically download, burn the DVD, boot and install.

Mike

On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:

> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>> for chips.
>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>> No loss.
>> 
>> Good Riddence Linux!
> 
> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
> Linux in the Server space.

First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has 
to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.  
Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long as 
companies like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never 
considered Linux to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the fight 
to keep Microsoft from making the entire internet proprietary.

-jcr

On 2005-06-06 13:53:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> said:

> 	So? Solaris x86 had that "advantage" already and still does. Infact,
> if anytone is going to "eat Linux's lunch" it will be Sun.

No, it's too late for Sun.  If they'd shaped up ten years ago when it 
was obvious that they were suffering a severe brain-drain, they might 
have had a hope.   All the cash they got from the dot-bombs overbuying 
server capacity kept them from realizing just how much trouble they 
were in until their stock crashed.

-jcr

> 

John C. Randolph wrote:

> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> 
>> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>> for chips.
>>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>>> No loss.
>>>
>>> Good Riddence Linux!
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is extremely bad news for the Linux movement. It basically 
>> seals the end of Linux on the Desktop, and accelerates the death of 
>> Linux in the Server space.
> 
> 
> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has 
> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.  
> Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long as 
> companies like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never 
> considered Linux to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the fight 
> to keep Microsoft from making the entire internet proprietary.
> 

I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
Anybody have opinions about this?


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

On alt.os.linux, in <2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>, "John C  Randolph" wrote:

Correction: A dishonest coward who _sometimes_ calls himself
"John C Randolph wrote:

<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>

Funny. My system (Debian GNU/Linux) is still working fine.

When's this supposed "Death Blow" coming?

Your problem is that you don't understand that most Linux Runners
are not trying to compete with Windows or Mac.

We are _amateurs_.

We don't care whether you or anybody else uses Linux or not.

Do so if you choose (and you are willing to study and actually
learn something about computers). Don't if you don't.

Furthermore, we don't want to use our computers as virtual
shopping malls (games,music,movies,shopping). We do not want to
turn the computer into a glorified boob tube.

We are not looking for mindless entertainment and convenient
shopping.

Alan

-- 
If you replied to an article of mine and are wondering
why I didn't respond to you, the fact is that I didn't
even download your article. For an explanation, see:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/newsfilter.html

Alan Connor wrote:
>
> Funny. My system (Debian GNU/Linux) is still working fine.

Liar, you're trying to convince the wrong people with your troll. 

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:52 -0700, John C. Randolph wrote:

> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has 
> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.
>

Though I probably am guilty of feeding trolls, I wonder at such a
statement.  I, at least, have been using linux on my desktop (and on my
laptop, and now palmtop) since 1991.  Just barely started?

But as far as "better than windows", IMNSHO it has been there since 1991;
back when MS had no idea that anyone would want to bother with the
internet for anything beyond e-mail, and that from a server.  Certainly
now, when installation is within the capabilities of 12-year-olds, there
is no reason why anyone need bother with MS.  

So, why do they?  There are a number of reasons.  Certainly the games that
only run on it are one reason, and the attempt at horizontal integration
by MS --- a raft of programs that only run on their OS, and which everyone
is encouraged to use by sweetheart deals to companies, is another.  But
the biggest is the bullshit that MS spreads about using it versus using
linux.  I had a great hassle this afternoon, trying to explain to a
retired colleague (who actually was quite computer literate in his day)
how to ftp from a windows box.  The things they hide from the user.  But
his fear was the command line.  MS trains users to fear giving commands. 
Total bullshit.

"Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station."  

Never fear, though, once the new version comes out there will be rafts of
converts.  Since rumor has it that it won't run without at least a gig of
ram, anyone with modest software will face a dilemma of either buying a
new machine or finding a new OS.  Apple's OS still won't run on all
machines, even though it runs on their x86 machines.  Linux will be the
only viable choice.  

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.  
 _`\(,_  | -- Paul Erdos  
(_)/ (_) |

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:14:16 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:

> I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
> Anybody have opinions about this?

I first heard of this in about 1993.  Developments since have suggested it
doesn't really work that way.

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | It is probably that television drama of high caliber and
 _`\(,_  | produced by first-rate artists will materially raise the level
(_)/ (_) | of dramatic taste in the nation. -- David Sarnoff, 1939

On comp.os.linux.misc, in <44f61e69$0$7243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, "chrisv" wrote:

> Path: text.usenetserver.com!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!atl-c06.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
> From: "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
> Newsgroups: alt.os.windows-xp,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
> References: <1118082881.100186.3780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <r61pe.32$Ru4.1610@news.uswest.net> <2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom> <slrnefc69v.26p.i3x9mdw@b29x3m.invalid>
> Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Linux Dealt a DEATH BLOW by Apple !!!!!!!
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:25:42 -0700
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869

A windoze-weenie! And a newbie at that: OE is the worst
newsreader on the face of the planet.

Unless this is a troll and that header is a forgery. That
sure isn't the "From:" header of a newbie.

Nor is this the posting history of a newbie:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search                                 :
chrisv
Results 1 - 100 of 2,420 posts in the last year
      5 24hoursupport.helpdesk
      1 alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
      1 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
      1 alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
      2 alt.comp.os.windows-xp
      1 alt.invest.stocks.amd
     11 alt.os.windows-xp
      2 alt.os.windows.xp
      1 alt.politics.usa.republican
      1 alt.video.dvd
      1 alt.windows-xp
     40 comp.os.linux.advocacy
     10 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
      2 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
      4 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video
      1 feedhunter
      1 microsoft.public.exchange.admin
     12 microsoft.public.fr.excel
      1 microsoft.public.fr.outlook
      1 microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
      1 myLifeOrganized

Q. Why would a windows user post 3 times as often on a
Linux advocacy group than any windows group?

A. Because he's another dipschitt troll.

> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Lines: 7

Only 7 lines in response to my 36 lines?

That isn't enough for an intelligent reply.

> Message-ID: <44f61e69$0$7243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
> Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: f706fbd2.news.astraweb.com
> X-Trace: DXC=KV=4S<L1jgN;VG4<An`lKBL?0kYOcDh@J?_1W81hd8VHRQNi]BlDnRHG24M31<A@5DhojdQ93m?4B:aWia<ZiQbA
> Xref: usenetserver.com alt.os.windows-xp:623361 comp.os.linux.misc:550754 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1240585
> X-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:46 EDT (text.usenetserver.com)

No posting IP. Trolls love that.

<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>

We'll let "chrisv" eat his own schitt.

Alan

-- 
If you replied to an article of mine and are wondering
why I didn't respond to you, the fact is that I didn't
even download your article. For an explanation, see:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/newsfilter.html

Alan Connor wrote:
>
> A windoze-weenie! And a newbie at that: OE is the worst
> newsreader on the face of the planet.
>

A linux-luser!  Your jealousy is showing, linuxfucktard.

Too bad you can't get OE for linux, but then Microsoft isn't /THAT/ stupid.

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:

> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:52 -0700, John C. Randolph wrote:
>
>> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has 
>> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.
>>
>
> Though I probably am guilty of feeding trolls, I wonder at such a
> statement.  I, at least, have been using linux on my desktop (and on my
> laptop, and now palmtop) since 1991.  Just barely started?
>
> But as far as "better than windows", IMNSHO it has been there since
> 1991;


Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
you mean maybe 2001?

Could you quantify that a little as I find it a little surprising?

"John C. Randolph" <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message 
news:2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:

> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has to 
> be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users. 
> Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long as companies 
> like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never considered Linux 
> to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the fight to keep Microsoft 
> from making the entire internet proprietary.

Yeah, because Apple isn't proprietary, right?

Mike

"Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87mz9lln89.fsf@mail.com...
> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:52 -0700, John C. Randolph wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has
>>> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.
>>>
>>
>> Though I probably am guilty of feeding trolls, I wonder at such a
>> statement.  I, at least, have been using linux on my desktop (and on my
>> laptop, and now palmtop) since 1991.  Just barely started?
>>
>> But as far as "better than windows", IMNSHO it has been there since
>> 1991;
>
>
> Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
> you mean maybe 2001?

Linux won't be a better desktop OS than Windows in 2011.  Or 2021.  Or ever.

Mike

David L. Johnson wrote:

[snip]

>  Linux will be the
> only viable choice.  
> 

WRONG!  I'm so irritated that people become one-minded.  either it's the 
one-minded-ness that "windows is the only OS" that we're all familiar with.

Or the mindset that "linux is the only other choice"..   no!

You still have mac, and they aren't going anywhere.  Thery're increasing 
their user base, even though the hardware (used to be) more expensive.

How about a dual-core Intel Mac Mini machine, brand new, computer only, 
for $600.  ...umm, most "new" machines are around that price too. 
they're no longer expensive like they used to be.

and what really made me write this...

In the unix world, there is Linux (true) and BSD, from Berkely (sp?).

I've tried many of many Linux operating systems, and they're all falling 
short of what I like about BSD -- it's integral behavior and structure. 
  I feel (personal opinion only), that the BSD operating systems, the 
three major ones: FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD -- are the best 
IBM-PC-compatable operating systems I've ever seen.

Across all desktop computers, Mac OS X is the best (personal opinion). 
Then comes BSD, then Linux, and if I have to use Windows I will.  But I 
hate it.

So please -- everyone -- with the same mindset that we all want to get 
away from Micro$oft, Linux is not the only choice.  There is BSD, and 
FreeBSD being the most popular, please come take a look.

In article <2006083015350775249-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>,
 John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:

> On 2005-06-06 13:53:09 -0700, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> said:
> 
> > 	So? Solaris x86 had that "advantage" already and still does. Infact,
> > if anytone is going to "eat Linux's lunch" it will be Sun.
> 
> No, it's too late for Sun.  If they'd shaped up ten years ago when it 
> was obvious that they were suffering a severe brain-drain, they might 
> have had a hope.   All the cash they got from the dot-bombs overbuying 
> server capacity kept them from realizing just how much trouble they 
> were in until their stock crashed.

John, things have changed inside Sun; they're not the same company they 
were even a year ago. Just wait a bit.

Not that anyone's going to eat Linux's lunch, mind.

Mike wrote:
> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message 
> news:2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> 
>> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has 
>> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users. 
>> Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long as 
>> companies like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never 
>> considered Linux to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the 
>> fight to keep Microsoft from making the entire internet proprietary.
> 
> Yeah, because Apple isn't proprietary, right?
> 
> Mike
> 

not as much, anymore, no.

they take PCI cards, like PCs do.  AGP too.  I don't know yet about the 
PCI-E and PCI-X variants, but I don't even have a PC with those slots.

they started unifying late '90s.  I'm curious, when was the last time 
you honestly took a look at a mac, it's innards, it's OS, it's price 
tag?  :)

"Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:YMudnbMaz-8W22vZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike wrote:
>> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message 
>> news:2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>>> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
>>
>>> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has 
>>> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users. 
>>> Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long as 
>>> companies like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never 
>>> considered Linux to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the fight 
>>> to keep Microsoft from making the entire internet proprietary.
>>
>> Yeah, because Apple isn't proprietary, right?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> not as much, anymore, no.
>
> they take PCI cards, like PCs do.  AGP too.  I don't know yet about the 
> PCI-E and PCI-X variants, but I don't even have a PC with those slots.
>
> they started unifying late '90s.  I'm curious, when was the last time you 
> honestly took a look at a mac, it's innards, it's OS, it's price tag?  :)


Um, the last time I ran OS X on any of the 3 machines here that run it?

Mike

Alan Connor wrote:
> On alt.os.linux, in <2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom>,
> "John C  Randolph" wrote:
>
> Correction: A dishonest coward who _sometimes_ calls himself
> "John C Randolph wrote:
>
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
>
> Funny. My system (Debian GNU/Linux) is still working fine.
>
> When's this supposed "Death Blow" coming?
>
> Your problem is that you don't understand that most Linux Runners
> are not trying to compete with Windows or Mac.
>
> We are _amateurs_.
>
> We don't care whether you or anybody else uses Linux or not.
>
> Do so if you choose (and you are willing to study and actually
> learn something about computers). Don't if you don't.
>
> Furthermore, we don't want to use our computers as virtual
> shopping malls (games,music,movies,shopping). We do not want to
> turn the computer into a glorified boob tube.
>
> We are not looking for mindless entertainment and convenient
> shopping.
>
> Alan


and exactly who gives a fuck about your useless drivel???? 

Mike wrote:
> "Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:YMudnbMaz-8W22vZnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
>>>> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
>>>
>>>> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only 
>>>> has to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop 
>>>> users. Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long 
>>>> as companies like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never 
>>>> considered Linux to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the 
>>>> fight to keep Microsoft from making the entire internet proprietary.
>>>
>>> Yeah, because Apple isn't proprietary, right?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>> not as much, anymore, no.
>>
>> they take PCI cards, like PCs do.  AGP too.  I don't know yet about 
>> the PCI-E and PCI-X variants, but I don't even have a PC with those 
>> slots.
>>
>> they started unifying late '90s.  I'm curious, when was the last time 
>> you honestly took a look at a mac, it's innards, it's OS, it's price 
>> tag?  :)
> 
> 
> Um, the last time I ran OS X on any of the 3 machines here that run it?
> 
> Mike
> 

Your English grammar needs work.

"Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:JdmdnQvVb9d6xWvZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> Um, the last time I ran OS X on any of the 3 machines here that run it?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> Your English grammar needs work.


No it doesn't.  What needs work is your inability to post meaningful 
messages.

Mike

GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> pinched out a steaming pile 
of<pqidneFBTeNXhmvZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>:

>> 
>
>I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
>Anybody have opinions about this?
>
>
The telco want to create a tierd pricing structure that would let some 
content providers have higher bandwidth and allow them to be easier to 
access. What we have now is a level playing field. If Net Neutrality 
*dosent* get passed the telcos can have some sites loading much quicker 
and this will lead to censorship.
Which is exactly what the republicans want since they are learning that 
they cant control the propaganda machine if the internet allows people 
to access a non-GOP controlled message.
FYI

Mike <no@where.man> pinched out a steaming pile 
of<12fcego329lcub7@news.supernews.com>:

>"Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:87mz9lln89.fsf@mail.com...
>> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:31:52 -0700, John C. Randolph wrote:
>>>
>>>> First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has
>>>> to be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Though I probably am guilty of feeding trolls, I wonder at such a
>>> statement.  I, at least, have been using linux on my desktop (and on my
>>> laptop, and now palmtop) since 1991.  Just barely started?
>>>
>>> But as far as "better than windows", IMNSHO it has been there since
>>> 1991;
>>
>>
>> Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
>> you mean maybe 2001?
>
>Linux won't be a better desktop OS than Windows in 2011.  Or 2021.  Or ever.
>
>Mike
>
What would you know since you're using this:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.5472.5

Try Damn Small Linux for old hardware.
Or if you have new kit try Simply Mepis.

--
www.beosnews.com

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:15:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

> Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
> you mean maybe 2001?
> 
Oops, I was wrong.  1992, not 1991.

> Could you quantify that a little as I find it a little surprising?

Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all that
great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting, however,
you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.  

On the other hand, linux/X could handle a real multitasking, multiuser
environment.  While networking was difficult back then compared to the
present, at least it was possible.

Heck, I was even able to display remote X programs on my local display,
over a 12k phone line.  Slowly.

Actually, my first linux box had dual boot Windows-3.1/linux (mcc interim
distribution, mostly, with a 0.96c kernel).  I quickly weaned myself from
bothering with windows.  That was in the fall of '92.

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored 
 _`\(,_  | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:14:05 -0600, Tim Judd wrote:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>  Linux will be the
>> only viable choice.  
>> 
> 
> WRONG!  I'm so irritated that people become one-minded.  either it's the 
> one-minded-ness that "windows is the only OS" that we're all familiar with.
> 
Ah, come on.  That was a bit tongue-in-cheek.  But it was also in
reference to older machines, that are not, according to those testing MS'
new OS, going to be able to run it.  

As far as bsd- flavors go (BTW, that would be Berkeley), I haven't used
them, but certainly there are adherents.  

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | Let's be straight here.  If we find something we can't
 _`\(,_  | understand we like to call it something you can't understand, or
(_)/ (_) | indeed even pronounce.  -- Douglas Adams

"���hw��f" <snuhwolf5150@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ed6q2o$s1s$3@news.datemas.de...
> Mike <no@where.man> pinched out a steaming pile
> of<12fcego329lcub7@news.supernews.com>:
>
> What would you know since you're using this:
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.5472.5

Yes, that's because I'm on my Vista box right now.  Would you be happier if 
I booted up Ubuntu and posted from that?

Or perhaps I can fire up my ThinkPad laptop running OS X and post from that?

> Try Damn Small Linux for old hardware.
> Or if you have new kit try Simply Mepis.

No thanks.   Myabe you should try Vista if you have "new kit"!  Or XP for 
your "old hardware"!

Mike

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:15:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
>> you mean maybe 2001?
>> 
> Oops, I was wrong.  1992, not 1991.
>
>> Could you quantify that a little as I find it a little surprising?
>
> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
> that

Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.

> great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
> little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting,
> however,

That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.

> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.  

But what office apps did you use?

>
> On the other hand, linux/X could handle a real multitasking, multiuser
> environment.  While networking was difficult back then compared to the
> present, at least it was possible.

So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.

>
> Heck, I was even able to display remote X programs on my local display,
> over a 12k phone line.  Slowly.

Did the same : it was all style and no substance - and led to the
absolute mess which XOrg/Xfree are no today.

>
> Actually, my first linux box had dual boot Windows-3.1/linux (mcc interim
> distribution, mostly, with a 0.96c kernel).  I quickly weaned myself from
> bothering with windows.  That was in the fall of '92.

No way I could have done that : as a professional SW developer there was
no Linux market and people were adopting windows in droves around this
time. OS/2 missed the boat.

"Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87irk9nflo.fsf@mail.com...
> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>
> That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.
>
>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.
>
> But what office apps did you use?

Why none, of course!   He spent all day formatting those floppies!

Mike

Mike wrote:
> "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:87irk9nflo.fsf@mail.com...
>> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>>
>> That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.
>>
>>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.
>>
>> But what office apps did you use?
> 
> Why none, of course!   He spent all day formatting those floppies!
> 
> Mike
> 

I remember selling 5.25 inch preformatted (Linotype) floppies for
like 10 � and they sold in abundance, thousands. Those were the
days :)

Vahis
-- 
Sometimes I reply to top posters. Seldom. And usually just once.
http://waxborg.servepics.com/English/Linux/SUSE.10.1/suse10.1.html
SUSE Linux 10.1 Suomi:
http://waxborg.servepics.com/Linux/10.1/suse-10.1.html

Vahis <waxborg@mbnet.fi.invalid> writes:

> Mike wrote:
>> "Hadron Quark" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:87irk9nflo.fsf@mail.com...
>>> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.
>>>
>>>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>>>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.
>>>
>>> But what office apps did you use?
>> 
>> Why none, of course!   He spent all day formatting those floppies!
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>
> I remember selling 5.25 inch preformatted (Linotype) floppies for
> like 10 € and they sold in abundance, thousands. Those were the
> days :)

I remember having my nappies changed. Oh. But that was only yesterday. Whoops.

David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:15:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
> 
>> Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
>> you mean maybe 2001?
>>
> Oops, I was wrong.  1992, not 1991.
> 
>> Could you quantify that a little as I find it a little surprising?
> 
> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all that
> great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
> little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting, however,
> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.  

You COULD however run e.g. CorelDraw on it..for up to half an hour 
before it crashed anyway ;-)

> 
> On the other hand, linux/X could handle a real multitasking, multiuser
> environment.  While networking was difficult back then compared to the
> present, at least it was possible.

Lots of networking available for windows 3.0. Heck I had TCP running on 
DOS 2.2...
> 
> Heck, I was even able to display remote X programs on my local display,
> over a 12k phone line.  Slowly.
> 
> Actually, my first linux box had dual boot Windows-3.1/linux (mcc interim
> distribution, mostly, with a 0.96c kernel).  I quickly weaned myself from
> bothering with windows.  That was in the fall of '92.
> 

Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:15:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>
>> Oops, I was wrong.  1992, not 1991.

I was using Torvalds' code immediately after he posted it.  But
with ATT UNIX at home, and I had to go out an purchase a 486 PC
to run Linux on, that took awhile.  Sounds like David was
booting it 3-4 months sooner.

>>> Could you quantify that a little as I find it a little surprising?
>>
>> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
>> that
>
>Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.

*Nothing* could be farther from the truth.  Even WinNT didn't
*fix* the problems with Windows, and that was *years* later.

>> great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
>> little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting,
>> however,
>
>That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.

The point is well taken: it was not designed to multi-task well,
never mind be multi-user.

I was forced to use Windows and OS/2 at work, and both were an
abomination compared to the functionality available from such
things as an ATT 3B1 or a WGS386, in particular with network
access to an ATT 3B2 and a large Sun-4.

>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.
>
>But what office apps did you use?

Prior to Linux, various versions of emacs and of course n/troff.
After Linux I switched to TeX and XEmacs, both of which I use
today.  (Can you imagine the ease of use for something like that
after that many years of practice?)  I even managed to install
TeX on an OS/2 machine at work, because it was *disgusting* to
try using the so-called "word processing" and other "office
apps" of the day.  I needed *quality* results, not a product so
"easy to use" that every idiot did use it.

>> On the other hand, linux/X could handle a real multitasking, multiuser
>> environment.  While networking was difficult back then compared to the
>> present, at least it was possible.
>
>So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
>desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.

Same reasons *you* need them today!  Would you even begin to
think of going back to something that doesn't have that
functionality?  Well, for those of use who had it then, it
wasn't within the realm of reality to use something that didn't
provide the same functionality.

(Which is to say that just because you didn't know how to use it
doesn't mean others were equally unqualified.)

At the time I always got a laugh out of Windows supporters, who
insisted at each step of the way that *nothing* UNIX had and
Windows didn't was necessary...  But as each was added (usually
in a nearly non-functional way) to Windows it too became the
cat's meow, and was an absolute necessity once it was available
from Microsoft.

What a hoot.  Multitasking and multiuser desktops were available
and absolutely essential long before Microsoft had even a foggy
notion that it could be done.

>> Heck, I was even able to display remote X programs on my local display,
>> over a 12k phone line.  Slowly.
>
>Did the same : it was all style and no substance - and led to the
>absolute mess which XOrg/Xfree are no today.

No substance???  X did *networked* graphics years before the
others caught up.  In the early 90's the University of Alaska
Fairbanks was processing digital images on an SGI machine.  The
Geophysical Institute owned the satellite tracking facility and
the Institute of Marine Science had the Internet connection and
the SGI (along with Sun workstation).  I had a guest account at
IMS, and could access all of that from home, about 50 miles
away.  Later on I did systems admin for the first two ISP
startups in Fairbanks, and did things like NFS mount whole file
systems at home over a 24kbps link.

Trust me, Windows was never even in consideration.

I might point out though that one of the first ISP's there was
actually started using the then new WinNT.  That was a total
failure, and I was eventually one of the two fellows who sat
down one night and converted them to BSDI Unix.

WinNT was better, but it is/was still a waste of time.

>> Actually, my first linux box had dual boot Windows-3.1/linux (mcc interim
>> distribution, mostly, with a 0.96c kernel).  I quickly weaned myself from
>> bothering with windows.  That was in the fall of '92.
>
>No way I could have done that : as a professional SW developer there was
>no Linux market and people were adopting windows in droves around this
>time. OS/2 missed the boat.

What has mass marketing got to do with whether it is adequate or
not?  I first booted Linux early in '93 because it would *do*
the things I wanted.  Windows didn't have the same facilities
for *years*, by which time Linux had advanced even farther
ahead.

Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
moving to a Linux based kernel.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:29:23 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:

>> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
>> that
> 
> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.

Not really.
> 
>> great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
>> little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting,
>> however,
> 
> That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.

Actually, back then, yes, we did. Most arrived non-formatted, and there
wasn't much else to use for backups back then, unless you had tape.
> 
>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.
> 
> But what office apps did you use?

TeX was my main thing, since I need mathematical typesetting.  It ran
much better on linux, even in the early days, than on Windows.  There was a
spreadsheet (at first, just sc, but later Wingz came around), a lot of
database choices. CAM programs (maple/Mathematica/axiom/maxima) were a
little slow getting to linux, but maxima actually was available around
that time. Aside from that, I had a good calendar/scheduler/phonebook,
e-mail, Web access when it became available.  


> So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
> desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.

Multi-user was not a big deal to me then (it is now), but multitasking
was.  
> 
> 
>> Heck, I was even able to display remote X programs on my local display,
>> over a 12k phone line.  Slowly.
> 
> Did the same : it was all style and no substance - and led to the
> absolute mess which XOrg/Xfree are no today.

Huh?  Why then has Windows done all those silly kludges to get something
like that capability?  I still remotely display programs from one machine
on another, so I can run intensive computations on a faster machine.

> No way I could have done that : as a professional SW developer there was
> no Linux market and people were adopting windows in droves around this
> time. OS/2 missed the boat.

Oh, well.  So, you used Windows not because it was better, but because it
had the largest market share.  Supporting a monopolist perpetuates the
monopoly.  Not having to worry about that, I went with what worked better
for me.  

-- 

David L. Johnson

   __o   | Deserves death!  I daresay he does.  Many that live deserve
 _`\(,_  | death.  And some that die deserve life.  Can you give it to
(_)/ (_) | them?  Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. 
           -- J. R. R. Tolkein

���hw��f wrote:

> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> pinched out a steaming pile 
> of<pqidneFBTeNXhmvZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>:
> 
> 
>>I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
>>Anybody have opinions about this?
>>
>>
> 
> The telco want to create a tierd pricing structure that would let some 
> content providers have higher bandwidth and allow them to be easier to 
> access. What we have now is a level playing field. If Net Neutrality 
> *dosent* get passed the telcos can have some sites loading much quicker 
> and this will lead to censorship.
> Which is exactly what the republicans want since they are learning that 
> they cant control the propaganda machine if the internet allows people 
> to access a non-GOP controlled message.
> FYI
> 

Hmmm... sounds like I need to do some reading on this subject.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

Alan Connor wrote:

> On comp.os.linux.misc, in <44f61e69$0$7243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, "chrisv" wrote:
> 
> 
>>Path: text.usenetserver.com!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!atl-c06.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
>>From: "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
>>Newsgroups: alt.os.windows-xp,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>References: <1118082881.100186.3780@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <r61pe.32$Ru4.1610@news.uswest.net> <2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom> <slrnefc69v.26p.i3x9mdw@b29x3m.invalid>
>>Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Linux Dealt a DEATH BLOW by Apple !!!!!!!
>>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:25:42 -0700
>>X-Priority: 3
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
> 
> 
> A windoze-weenie! And a newbie at that: OE is the worst
> newsreader on the face of the planet.
> 
> Unless this is a troll and that header is a forgery. That
> sure isn't the "From:" header of a newbie.
> 
> Nor is this the posting history of a newbie:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search                                 :
> chrisv
> Results 1 - 100 of 2,420 posts in the last year
>       5 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>       1 alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64
>       1 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt
>       1 alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd
>       2 alt.comp.os.windows-xp
>       1 alt.invest.stocks.amd
>      11 alt.os.windows-xp
>       2 alt.os.windows.xp
>       1 alt.politics.usa.republican
>       1 alt.video.dvd
>       1 alt.windows-xp
>      40 comp.os.linux.advocacy
>      10 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
>       2 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
>       4 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video
>       1 feedhunter
>       1 microsoft.public.exchange.admin
>      12 microsoft.public.fr.excel
>       1 microsoft.public.fr.outlook
>       1 microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
>       1 myLifeOrganized
> 
> Q. Why would a windows user post 3 times as often on a
> Linux advocacy group than any windows group?
> 
> A. Because he's another dipschitt troll.
> 
> 
>>X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
>>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>>Lines: 7
> 
> 
> Only 7 lines in response to my 36 lines?
> 
> That isn't enough for an intelligent reply.
> 
> 
>>Message-ID: <44f61e69$0$7243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
>>Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: f706fbd2.news.astraweb.com
>>X-Trace: DXC=KV=4S<L1jgN;VG4<An`lKBL?0kYOcDh@J?_1W81hd8VHRQNi]BlDnRHG24M31<A@5DhojdQ93m?4B:aWia<ZiQbA
>>Xref: usenetserver.com alt.os.windows-xp:623361 comp.os.linux.misc:550754 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:1240585
>>X-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:25:46 EDT (text.usenetserver.com)
> 
> 
> No posting IP. Trolls love that.
> 
> <article not downloaded:
> http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
> 
> We'll let "chrisv" eat his own schitt.
> 

Just say "HI!" to K-man.
It isn't the real chrisv.

-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
news:8764g8528c.fld@apaflo.com...
> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
> moving to a Linux based kernel.

Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!

Mike

"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:29:23 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
>>> that
>> 
>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>
> Not really.

Yes it did. It was stable and worked. And windows apps did have
multitasking. Non preemptive it might have been, but it worked.

>> 
>>> great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
>>> little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting,
>>> however,
>> 
>> That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.
>
> Actually, back then, yes, we did. Most arrived non-formatted, and there
> wasn't much else to use for backups back then, unless you had tape.

Yeah yeah. I used windows. And Unix before that and OS/2 : and being
able to "multitask" while formatting a floppy wasnt that big a thing : I
did the multitasking - I wrote the label out :-;

>> 
>>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.
>> 
>> But what office apps did you use?
>
> TeX was my main thing, since I need mathematical typesetting.  It ran
> much better on linux, even in the early days, than on Windows.  There was a
> spreadsheet (at first, just sc, but later Wingz came around), a lot of
> database choices. CAM programs (maple/Mathematica/axiom/maxima) were a
> little slow getting to linux, but maxima actually was available around
> that time. Aside from that, I had a good calendar/scheduler/phonebook,
> e-mail, Web access when it became available.  

Fair enough : you're an academic. Most people aren't.


>
>
>> So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
>> desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.
>
> Multi-user was not a big deal to me then (it is now), but multitasking
> was.  

I used to play games on windows while compiling or emailing etc. It
worked well enough.

>> 
>> 
>>> Heck, I was even able to display remote X programs on my local display,
>>> over a 12k phone line.  Slowly.
>> 
>> Did the same : it was all style and no substance - and led to the
>> absolute mess which XOrg/Xfree are no today.
>
> Huh?  Why then has Windows done all those silly kludges to get something
> like that capability?  I still remotely display programs from one machine
> on another, so I can run intensive computations on a faster machine.

Useful yes : but messy too. The X stuff is currently under review but it
is a mess.

>
>> No way I could have done that : as a professional SW developer there was
>> no Linux market and people were adopting windows in droves around this
>> time. OS/2 missed the boat.
>
> Oh, well.  So, you used Windows not because it was better, but because it
> had the largest market share.  Supporting a monopolist perpetuates the

I didnt support anything : I wrote SW for the OS which the public
adopted. I also did a lot of work on OS/2 too.

> monopoly.  Not having to worry about that, I went with what worked better
> for me.  

And fair enough and amen to that. Now I dont play so many games and only
program for "fun" Ive moved to Linux too.

>
> -- 
>
> David L. Johnson
>
>    __o   | Deserves death!  I daresay he does.  Many that live deserve
>  _`\(,_  | death.  And some that die deserve life.  Can you give it to
> (_)/ (_) | them?  Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. 
>            -- J. R. R. Tolkein

-- 

On 2006-08-30 19:15:37 -0700, Steve Hix 
<sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> said:

> John, things have changed inside Sun; they're not the same company they 
> were even a year ago. Just wait a bit.

Oh?  Is Schwartz on his way out?

-jcr

In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
> I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
> Anybody have opinions about this?

Funny you should mention it... I just helped deliver a stack of
petition signatures to Senator Herb Kohl's office on this very
issue.  I was even talked into being the spokesperson for our
group and gave a little speech on why this issue matters to us.

In short, Net Neutrality is a policy that has been in place since
the earliest days of the Internet.  It states that once a packet
makes it onto the Internet, the telecoms must route them all the
same and not give one preference over another based on origin or
packet type.  The telecoms don't like this because it does not
let them fully leverage their size and local monopolies.  What
they want (and they've admitted this) is to extort money from the
googles and the ebays of the world, making them pay extra to make
sure their packets actually make it to their customers.

Keep in mind that google and ebay already pay for their Internet
access just like anybody else, and they pay a huge pile more because
they have much larger connections.  What the telecoms want them to
pay for is the final delivery of packets coming from google when
they are delivered to YOUR desktop... something you already paid
for.

Why should that matter to you?  It provides a lever by which the
telecoms can squeeze content providers out of the market in favor
of their own services or those of their partners.  It reduces your
choice, reduces free speech... in short, it will make the Internet
suck.

The issue gets stickier when you look at the telecoms' desires to
control what types of traffic are allowed over the Internet.  Like
using that voice over IP software?  To bad, your telecom came up
with a proprietary competing protocol, so they are degrading the
competition to make their version more attractive.  Can't seem to
download files from the Internet?  Perhaps your not using the
DRM enabled protocol that your ISP prefers.

Imagine sending a letter to your grandma in Smallville only to get
a phone call from the Smallville post office saying "We notice you 
are mailing from Middletown, so we won't deliver your letter unless 
you give us some extra money over and above the usual first class
postage."  Or you learn that they are throwing away all the letters
in envelopes made by a particular company (maybe because the postmaster
owns a competing envelope company).  Image each local post office 
could set these policies as arbitrarily as they like, with no 
uniformity.

It means independent business people like me will have an uphill
battle becoming the next google or ebay, as the entrenched telecoms
will stack the deck in favor of the established players that can
afford their extortion racket.  It means the independent sources 
of news and information (i.e. blogs) will be squeezed out.  Its
a move back to the days of big coporate content providers and
passive consumers, with little room for edgy or controversial
content from citizen artists or political activists.

That is what the telecoms want for the future of the Internet.  This
is what the loss of Net Neutrality means.

Thad

In comp.os.linux.misc thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
:> 
:> I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
:> Anybody have opinions about this?

: Funny you should mention it... I just helped deliver a stack of
: petition signatures to Senator Herb Kohl's office on this very
: issue.  I was even talked into being the spokesperson for our
: group and gave a little speech on why this issue matters to us.

This is COLM- please try and stay with LINUX topics.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
>>I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... ???
>>Anybody have opinions about this?
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention it... I just helped deliver a stack of
> petition signatures to Senator Herb Kohl's office on this very
> issue.  I was even talked into being the spokesperson for our
> group and gave a little speech on why this issue matters to us.
> 
> In short, Net Neutrality is a policy that has been in place since
> the earliest days of the Internet.  It states that once a packet
> makes it onto the Internet, the telecoms must route them all the
> same and not give one preference over another based on origin or
> packet type.  The telecoms don't like this because it does not
> let them fully leverage their size and local monopolies.  What
> they want (and they've admitted this) is to extort money from the
> googles and the ebays of the world, making them pay extra to make
> sure their packets actually make it to their customers.
> 
> Keep in mind that google and ebay already pay for their Internet
> access just like anybody else, and they pay a huge pile more because
> they have much larger connections.  What the telecoms want them to
> pay for is the final delivery of packets coming from google when
> they are delivered to YOUR desktop... something you already paid
> for.
> 
> Why should that matter to you?  It provides a lever by which the
> telecoms can squeeze content providers out of the market in favor
> of their own services or those of their partners.  It reduces your
> choice, reduces free speech... in short, it will make the Internet
> suck.
> 
> The issue gets stickier when you look at the telecoms' desires to
> control what types of traffic are allowed over the Internet.  Like
> using that voice over IP software?  To bad, your telecom came up
> with a proprietary competing protocol, so they are degrading the
> competition to make their version more attractive.  Can't seem to
> download files from the Internet?  Perhaps your not using the
> DRM enabled protocol that your ISP prefers.
> 
> Imagine sending a letter to your grandma in Smallville only to get
> a phone call from the Smallville post office saying "We notice you 
> are mailing from Middletown, so we won't deliver your letter unless 
> you give us some extra money over and above the usual first class
> postage."  Or you learn that they are throwing away all the letters
> in envelopes made by a particular company (maybe because the postmaster
> owns a competing envelope company).  Image each local post office 
> could set these policies as arbitrarily as they like, with no 
> uniformity.
> 
> It means independent business people like me will have an uphill
> battle becoming the next google or ebay, as the entrenched telecoms
> will stack the deck in favor of the established players that can
> afford their extortion racket.  It means the independent sources 
> of news and information (i.e. blogs) will be squeezed out.  Its
> a move back to the days of big coporate content providers and
> passive consumers, with little room for edgy or controversial
> content from citizen artists or political activists.
> 
> That is what the telecoms want for the future of the Internet.  This
> is what the loss of Net Neutrality means.
> 

Thnx!  That's the most eloquent piece I've read yet.
Sounds like these big outfits are taking lessons from Microsoft.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

Mike wrote:
> "Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:JdmdnQvVb9d6xWvZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 
>>> Um, the last time I ran OS X on any of the 3 machines here that run it?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>> Your English grammar needs work.
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  What needs work is your inability to post meaningful 
> messages.
> 
> Mike
> 

You even have a grammatical error there that I won't touch.  I won't 
feed fuel to your fire.  If no coherent messages can be made, I will 
simply step back and let you burn.

"Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:B8ydnZnhKbJY9mrZnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:JdmdnQvVb9d6xWvZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>> Um, the last time I ran OS X on any of the 3 machines here that run it?
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your English grammar needs work.
>>
>>
>> No it doesn't.  What needs work is your inability to post meaningful 
>> messages.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> You even have a grammatical error there that I won't touch.

Sure I do.   When you are reduced to attacking "grammatical errors", it's 
clear you have no point to make.

> I won't  feed fuel to your fire.  If no coherent messages can be made, I 
> will simply step back and let you burn.

The last refuge of a losing argument: spelling and/or grammar attacks!

Mike

Mike wrote:
> "Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:B8ydnZnhKbJY9mrZnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:JdmdnQvVb9d6xWvZnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>> Um, the last time I ran OS X on any of the 3 machines here that run 
>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your English grammar needs work.
>>>
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.  What needs work is your inability to post meaningful 
>>> messages.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>> You even have a grammatical error there that I won't touch.
> 
> Sure I do.   When you are reduced to attacking "grammatical errors", 
> it's clear you have no point to make.
> 

You were the one that was trying to make a point, had grammatical 
errors.  I pointed it out, and now you're fucking flaming me.  So, I 
have a life, and apparently, you don't.

>> I won't  feed fuel to your fire.  If no coherent messages can be made, 
>> I will simply step back and let you burn.
> 
> The last refuge of a losing argument: spelling and/or grammar attacks!

No, the last refuge is a "whatever" statement.  I'm not saying it.

> 
> Mike
> 

No, I'm just smarter than you.  I know when somebody won't accept 
anything, so there's NO POINT.  I don't give a flying fuck what you say. 
  There are other important things in life, and it's already been shown 
you're just a fucking troll.

<end>  -- you're now a bozo.  congratulations.

"Tim Judd" <tjudd@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:DJCdnZ-hkOmKFmrZnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> You were the one that was trying to make a point, had grammatical errors. 
> I pointed it out, and now you're fucking flaming me.

No, you didn't "point it out" - you just made the claim.  Exactly *what* was 
the error?

> So, I  have a life, and apparently, you don't.

Sure you do.   That's why you're here pointing out "grammatical errors"!

>  There are other important things in life, and it's already been shown 
> you're just a fucking troll.

It has?   Where?

Mike

On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> "David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:15:18 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> Linux has been a better desktop OS than Windows since 1991? 1991? Did
>>> you mean maybe 2001?
>>> 
>> Oops, I was wrong.  1992, not 1991.
>>
>>> Could you quantify that a little as I find it a little surprising?
>>
>> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
>> that
>
> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.

	Not really.

	It was still a joke compared to the MacOS and something that
needed more swap than the underlying "OS" could handle just to load
itself. Anyone with any clue was trying to buy bolt-ons to make it 
a reasonable GUI.

	Except WinDOS has never been too kind to bolt-ons (like X is).

>
>> great to beat out Windows then.  You could, in Windows 3.0 or 3.1, open a
>> little window to format a floppy disk.  While it was formatting,
>> however,
>
> That old line? Sure. because we spent so much time formatting floppies.

	Substitute any slow running operation, any batch job that 
will be throttled either by IO limitations or cpu limitations. On
the hardware of those days, there were certainly plenty of opportunities
for that.

>
>> you could not do anything else but stare at the screen.  Networking was
>> flat-out impossible, security was worse than nonexistent.  
>
> But what office apps did you use?
>
>>
>> On the other hand, linux/X could handle a real multitasking, multiuser
>> environment.  While networking was difficult back then compared to the
>> present, at least it was possible.
>
> So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
> desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.

	This is simply priceless.

[deletia]

-- 

	The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals           ||| 
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs           / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.



 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>
> Not really.
>
> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS

Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the 
mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a dialup 
internet connection and save the file to a network drive because only one 
network could be active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told the OS 
how much memory to give to apps?!?!?

Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!

Mike

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>
>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!

Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
place?

Remember when some folks didn't think the Internet was useful?

Somebody *else* is running their businesses now, because they
failed.

Do you remember Western Union?  Where are they now?
Do you remember the Bell System?  Where is it now?

They didn't change with the times, and even if the names
persist, they are *not* the same company with the same
management.

Do you know of *any* newspaper that was ranting against the
Internet 10-12 years ago that still has the same management (and
doesn't use computers, networking and the Internet as an
integral part of their business plan)?  They all failed and were
bought up by someone who saw the light and moved forward.

Alice in Wonderland is the idea that Microsoft can continue with
the same business plan that worked 20 years ago.  Certainly in
the beginning Bill Gates did *not* stick with any "favorite"
plan, he wanted to get rich and kept changing what he did until
he found a way to do it.  He has stuck with that because it was
working.  But 1) he is retired, 2) the world has changed, and
from that you can conclude that 3) Microsoft is going to change
what they do, one way or another.

There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
run circles around any individual proprietary software project
that becomes a target.

Hence it is only a matter of time.  IBM, HP, etc. etc. are all
positioning themselves to be in the thick of it at the time.

I don't think the management at Microsoft is stupid; they will
be there too.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
> that becomes a target.

ROFL!  Sure... keep telling yourself that.  You'll be 80 years old and 
mumbling in circles.



> Hence it is only a matter of time.

How much time?  And until what?

There are a tiny few successes, but the open source dev model has proven 
itself almost totally incapable of creating software applications 
competitive in the real world.  If it wasn't free, nobody would use it  (and 
before you start with the standard Linux-pedant whining: nobody==very few). 
Price it on par with commercial software and you have a completely dead OSS 
industry.



> IBM, HP, etc. etc. are all positioning themselves to be in the thick of it 
> at the time.

Your etc etc ended really quickly.

IBM doesn't even use Linux internally.  Neither does HP.  Or Oracle.  That 
alone speaks louder than 10,000 cola maniacs ever could.

Apparently Ernie Ball (80 seats) uses Linux.  And Novell is still *trying* 
to move to Linux, but we haven't heard any success stories there, and I'm 
sure it's a mess to go into work each day and try to rewrite all the nice 
Windows business systems they ran on for years.



> I don't think the management at Microsoft is stupid; they will be there 
> too.

Open source Windows and Office?  Not gonna happen.

Office for Linux?  Very doubtful - there's no gain in selling 3 copies to a 
small group of hostile, cheapskate, loudmouths.

Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:29:23 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>>> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
>>>> that
>>>
>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>
>> Not really.
>
>Yes it did. It was stable and worked. And windows apps did have
>multitasking. Non preemptive it might have been, but it worked.

Stable?  Worked?  And you call that multitasking?

Look, lets be honest, not whimsical. :-) Something that crashed
with the regularity of Windows 3.1 and had no multiuser and no
networking, was nothing but a joke, from a technical point of
view.  But Gates *never* intended to design the best OS the
world has ever known.  His stated purpose was to separate more
money from customers than anyone had ever done before...

>>> But what office apps did you use?
>>
>> TeX was my main thing, since I need mathematical typesetting.  It ran
>> much better on linux, even in the early days, than on Windows.  There was a
>> spreadsheet (at first, just sc, but later Wingz came around), a lot of
>> database choices. CAM programs (maple/Mathematica/axiom/maxima) were a
>> little slow getting to linux, but maxima actually was available around
>> that time. Aside from that, I had a good calendar/scheduler/phonebook,
>> e-mail, Web access when it became available.
>
>Fair enough : you're an academic. Most people aren't.

I'm *not* an academic, but I've been using TeX for the same
reasons, and before that n/troff.  I wanted precision.  (Others,
using Windows, seemed to mostly be fascinated with the ability
to change fonts 20 times in a paragraph or two... :-)

>>> So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
>>> desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.
>>
>> Multi-user was not a big deal to me then (it is now), but multitasking
>> was.
>
>I used to play games on windows while compiling or emailing etc. It
>worked well enough.

The fact that you lacked the imagination to put it to use, does
not mean it wasn't useful then.

Who would go without it today?  (Why would *I* have gone without
it then???  I have no idea why you were willing to...)

>>> Did the same : it was all style and no substance - and led to the
>>> absolute mess which XOrg/Xfree are no today.
>>
>> Huh?  Why then has Windows done all those silly kludges to get something
>> like that capability?  I still remotely display programs from one machine
>> on another, so I can run intensive computations on a faster machine.
>
>Useful yes : but messy too. The X stuff is currently under review but it
>is a mess.

Messy?  Why?  Because it isn't Microsoft?   That is not valid.

>And fair enough and amen to that. Now I dont play so many games and only
>program for "fun" Ive moved to Linux too.

When you are not engaged in support for Windows, but just need
to *use* an OS to get "real work" done, Windows is not a good
choice.  It never really was either.

Which is to say that I do not have a problem with you having
chosen to earn a living by supporting Windows users.  That makes
sense.  But lets not morph that into anything suggesting Windows
had some technical advantage over better OS's.  What it had was
the *best* marketing and sales mind that existed, fully intent
right from the start at becoming the world's wealthiest man.

Gates didn't make the best computer systems around, ever.  He
made the most money!  Give Gates his due, but give the same due
to Linux Torvalds for what he did too.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> pinched out a steaming pile of<Sp-
dnf5ErMtkmmrZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@bresnan.com>:

>���hw��f wrote:
>
>> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> pinched out a steaming pile 
>> of<pqidneFBTeNXhmvZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>:
>> 
>> 
>>>I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... 
???
>>>Anybody have opinions about this?
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> The telco want to create a tierd pricing structure that would let 
some 
>> content providers have higher bandwidth and allow them to be easier 
to 
>> access. What we have now is a level playing field. If Net Neutrality 
>> *dosent* get passed the telcos can have some sites loading much 
quicker 
>> and this will lead to censorship.
>> Which is exactly what the republicans want since they are learning 
that 
>> they cant control the propaganda machine if the internet allows 
people 
>> to access a non-GOP controlled message.
>> FYI
>> 
>
>Hmmm... sounds like I need to do some reading on this subject.
>
>
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

"This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First 
Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the 
smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by 
preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field 
for only the highest-paying sites.

But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending 
millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If 
Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality 
provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.""

Mike <no@where.man> pinched out a steaming pile 
of<12fds1i4qhtfa1a@news.supernews.com>:

>"���hw��f" <snuhwolf5150@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ed6q2o$s1s$3@news.datemas.de...
>> Mike <no@where.man> pinched out a steaming pile
>> of<12fcego329lcub7@news.supernews.com>:
>>
>> What would you know since you're using this:
>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.5472.5
>
>Yes, that's because I'm on my Vista box right now.  Would you be 
happier if 
>I booted up Ubuntu and posted from that?
>
Sure :)

>Or perhaps I can fire up my ThinkPad laptop running OS X and post from 
that?
>
Even better! Tried Darwin yet?

>> Try Damn Small Linux for old hardware.
>> Or if you have new kit try Simply Mepis.
>
>No thanks.   Myabe you should try Vista if you have "new kit"!  Or XP 
for 
>your "old hardware"!
>
>Mike
>
XP sucketh :P

ReactOS is shaping up to be a viable alternative though.

www.reactos.org

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:

> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
> that becomes a target.

Why?   It certainly hasn't yet.

Mike

"Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com on
9/1/06 6:24 AM:

> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>> 
>> Not really.
>> 
>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS
> 
> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the
> mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a dialup
> internet connection and save the file to a network drive because only one
> network could be active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told the OS
> how much memory to give to apps?!?!?
> 
> Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!

Sadly, it was.

-- 
� If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
��Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
� One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> stated in post
8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com on 9/1/06 6:25 AM:

> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>> 
>> Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
> 
> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
> place? 

Yes.
 
> Remember when some folks didn't think the Internet was useful?

Yes.
 
> Somebody *else* is running their businesses now, because they
> failed.
> 
> Do you remember Western Union?  Where are they now?
> Do you remember the Bell System?  Where is it now?
> 
> They didn't change with the times, and even if the names
> persist, they are *not* the same company with the same
> management.
> 
> Do you know of *any* newspaper that was ranting against the
> Internet 10-12 years ago that still has the same management (and
> doesn't use computers, networking and the Internet as an
> integral part of their business plan)?  They all failed and were
> bought up by someone who saw the light and moved forward.
> 
> Alice in Wonderland is the idea that Microsoft can continue with
> the same business plan that worked 20 years ago.  Certainly in
> the beginning Bill Gates did *not* stick with any "favorite"
> plan, he wanted to get rich and kept changing what he did until
> he found a way to do it.  He has stuck with that because it was
> working.  But 1) he is retired, 2) the world has changed, and
> from that you can conclude that 3) Microsoft is going to change
> what they do, one way or another.
> 
> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
> that becomes a target.

While there have been a few examples of this, for the most part that has not
happened now.  What makes you think it will, as a general rule?

> Hence it is only a matter of time.  IBM, HP, etc. etc. are all
> positioning themselves to be in the thick of it at the time.
> 
> I don't think the management at Microsoft is stupid; they will
> be there too.


-- 
��Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
��Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
��Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> But Gates *never* intended to design the best OS the
> world has ever known.  His stated purpose was to separate more
> money from customers than anyone had ever done before...

Sounds like a good quote.  If you could only prove it...


> When you are not engaged in support for Windows, but just need
> to *use* an OS to get "real work" done, Windows is not a good
> choice.  It never really was either.

Linux is a much worse choice.  But nobody uses an OS to get work done, 
anyway.



> Which is to say that I do not have a problem with you having
> chosen to earn a living by supporting Windows users.  That makes
> sense.  But lets not morph that into anything suggesting Windows
> had some technical advantage over better OS's.

Enormous industry support is a big Windows advantage.  Whether you label 
that a 'technical' advantage is up to you.



> Gates didn't make the best computer systems around, ever.

Yes they did... for their intended market.



> He made the most money!  Give Gates his due, but give the same due
> to Linux Torvalds for what he did too.

We do.  I think anybody with an open mind would recognize the value of open 
source and the ideals behind it, as well as the technical worthiness of the 
Linux kernel.

It's nice to have a pseudo-competitor for Windows, 'cause the world needs an 
alternative to one hugely dominant OS.

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>
>>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>
> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
> place?

Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?

> Remember when some folks didn't think the Internet was useful?

Remember when 2001 was "the year of Linux"?

> Do you remember Western Union?  Where are they now?

Remember when 2002 was "the year of Linux"?

> Do you remember the Bell System?  Where is it now?

Remember when 2003 was "the year of Linux"?

> Alice in Wonderland is the idea that Microsoft can continue with
> the same business plan that worked 20 years ago.

Why not?   It's a perfectly viable plan.   Sell the software that everyone 
wants/needs.  Since no one wants/needs Linux, why should MS be interested in 
selling it?

No, Alice in Wonderland is the idea that *any* year will be "the year of 
Linux".  It's going absolutely nowhere on the desktop.   It's gaining ground 
in servers only at the expense of other *nixes.

You believing that Microsoft will abandon Windows and "move to a Linux 
kernel" is the silliest thing I've ever heard!   Comedy Gold!

Mike

"Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:C11D89B5.5E073%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com on
> 9/1/06 6:24 AM:
>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS
>>
>> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the
>> mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a 
>> dialup
>> internet connection and save the file to a network drive because only one
>> network could be active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told the 
>> OS
>> how much memory to give to apps?!?!?
>>
>> Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!
>
> Sadly, it was.


Happily, it wasn't.

Mike

GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>> In short, Net Neutrality is a policy that has been in place
>> since
>> the earliest days of the Internet.  It states that once a packet
>> makes it onto the Internet, the telecoms must route them all the
>> same and not give one preference over another based on origin or
>> packet type.  The telecoms don't like this because it does not
>> let them fully leverage their size and local monopolies.  What
>> they want (and they've admitted this) is to extort money from the
>> googles and the ebays of the world, making them pay extra to make
>> sure their packets actually make it to their customers.
....
>> Why should that matter to you?  It provides a lever by which
>> the
>> telecoms can squeeze content providers out of the market in favor
>> of their own services or those of their partners.  It reduces your
>> choice, reduces free speech... in short, it will make the Internet
>> suck.
>> The issue gets stickier when you look at the telecoms' desires
>> to
>> control what types of traffic are allowed over the Internet.  Like

It gets *much* stickier!

One area that is a serious problem is the relationship to
"Universal Service", where big users subsidize a ubiquitous
network to improve their own ability to utilize the network, and
in the long run make it "universal" rather than a mechanism for
class division.  It's good for business and good for society...

But one of the biggest political obstacles is Alaska's Senator
Ted Stevens, who lately has come in for a lot of ridicule
(mostly from people who don't actually have half the acuity that
our "Uncle Ted", as Alaskans know him, does).  Do *not*
underestimate the technical comprehension of Ted Stevens.  He is
80 something years old and sometimes the way he says things is
difficult to understand, but trust that he is virtually *always*
about 10 layers deeper into it than the level he is willing to
talk about.

Convincing Stevens that Network Neutrality has more benefits
than detriments is essential.  He has little problem with
letting big business do business (he is a Republican, after
all).  And he has been, for decades, the champion of bringing
telecommunications services to *every* American.  He understands
subtleties of Universal Service that even those of us with a
telecom background are hard pressed to keep up with!

Note that I deleted virtually all of the examples of how a
telecom might abuse the system, but keep in mind that those are
*valid* points, and would in fact reduce the benefit of
Universal Service as applied to the Internet.  That is the
message that needs to be made clear to politicians, because it
will have an overall negative effect on business, not the
positive one that only the largest telecommunications companies
would see. (Ted Stevens has been *well* acquainted with the
management of large telecommunications companies for at least 20
years that I know of.  They *do* have his ear.  He needs to hear
the other side, in a way that demonstrates it is indeed an
overall loss, not a gain.)

>> It means independent business people like me will have an
>> uphill
>> battle becoming the next google or ebay, as the entrenched telecoms

Exactly!

>> will stack the deck in favor of the established players that can
>> afford their extortion racket.  It means the independent
>> sources of news and information (i.e. blogs) will be squeezed
>> out.  Its
>> a move back to the days of big coporate content providers and
>> passive consumers, with little room for edgy or controversial
>> content from citizen artists or political activists.
>> That is what the telecoms want for the future of the Internet.
>> This
>> is what the loss of Net Neutrality means.
>>
>
>Thnx!  That's the most eloquent piece I've read yet.

It was the best that I have seen.

>Sounds like these big outfits are taking lessons from Microsoft.

Not likely.  No telecom has ever demonstrated half the smarts
that Microsoft could bring to bear on sales and marketing.  ;-)

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>You believing that Microsoft will abandon Windows and "move to a
>Linux kernel" is the silliest thing I've ever heard!   Comedy
>Gold!

People said the same thing about Railroads, Western Union, and
any number of other large business entities that faced a
changing business environment.

Why do you think Microsoft is making such a big fuss about
Linux, calling it a cancer and generally spending huge amounts
of money to produce FUD?  You may not know where the next hurdle
for Microsoft is, but *they* do.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

"Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgflvadhvmd39@news.supernews.com on
9/1/06 7:07 AM:

> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:C11D89B5.5E073%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com on
>> 9/1/06 6:24 AM:
>> 
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>>> 
>>>> Not really.
>>>> 
>>>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS
>>> 
>>> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the
>>> mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a
>>> dialup
>>> internet connection and save the file to a network drive because only one
>>> network could be active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told the
>>> OS
>>> how much memory to give to apps?!?!?
>>> 
>>> Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!
>> 
>> Sadly, it was.
> 
> 
> Happily, it wasn't.

I was teaching computers back in the days of System 6 and Win 3.1.  There
simply was no comparison - the ol' one piece Macs has screens that were far
too small, but other than that they blew away anything MS offered... partly
*because* of MS ... with MS Word for the Mac.

-- 
��A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
� A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
� Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
news:87sljbk6j8.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>You believing that Microsoft will abandon Windows and "move to a
>>Linux kernel" is the silliest thing I've ever heard!   Comedy
>>Gold!
>
> People said the same thing about Railroads, Western Union, and
> any number of other large business entities that faced a
> changing business environment.

But the *business* environment isn't changing.   The *business* environment 
wants Windows.

> Why do you think Microsoft is making such a big fuss about
> Linux, calling it a cancer and generally spending huge amounts
> of money to produce FUD?

They were a few years ago, not so much anymore.   Why?  It became clear that 
Linux isn't going anywhere.

>You may not know where the next hurdle
> for Microsoft is, but *they* do.

Yes, they *did*.   They met it and stopped it.   Linux is nowhere to be 
found on the desktop.

Mike

After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Office for Linux?  Very doubtful - there's no gain in selling 3 copies to a 
> small group of hostile, cheapskate, loudmouths.

I'll bet there are a large number of corporate types who would love to
have MS Office on a safer, easy-to-administer platform such as Linux.

-- 
   I'd rather have a bottle in front of me
   than a frontal lobotomy.

After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Linux is a much worse choice.  But nobody uses an OS to get work done, 
> anyway.

I must get back to simply ignoring you when you act stoopid.

-- 
   Yes, I've heard of "decaf." What's your point?

floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:29:23 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Why?  Did you ever use Windows 3.0?  Frankly, X didn't have to be all
>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>>Yes it did. It was stable and worked. And windows apps did have
>>multitasking. Non preemptive it might have been, but it worked.
>
> Stable?  Worked?  And you call that multitasking?

Err, yes. What would you call it?

>
> Look, lets be honest, not whimsical. :-) Something that crashed
> with the regularity of Windows 3.1 and had no multiuser and no

Maybe you're like Jim : totally unable to configure your system. Did you
buy cheap HW?

> networking, was nothing but a joke, from a technical point of
> view.  But Gates *never* intended to design the best OS the
> world has ever known.  His stated purpose was to separate more
> money from customers than anyone had ever done before...

His aim was to build an OS and front end that was affordable and would
open up PCs to the masses and make him some money. And he succeeded.

>
>>>> But what office apps did you use?
>>>
>>> TeX was my main thing, since I need mathematical typesetting.  It ran
>>> much better on linux, even in the early days, than on Windows.  There was a
>>> spreadsheet (at first, just sc, but later Wingz came around), a lot of
>>> database choices. CAM programs (maple/Mathematica/axiom/maxima) were a
>>> little slow getting to linux, but maxima actually was available around
>>> that time. Aside from that, I had a good calendar/scheduler/phonebook,
>>> e-mail, Web access when it became available.
>>
>>Fair enough : you're an academic. Most people aren't.
>
> I'm *not* an academic, but I've been using TeX for the same
> reasons, and before that n/troff.  I wanted precision.  (Others,
> using Windows, seemed to mostly be fascinated with the ability
> to change fonts 20 times in a paragraph or two... :-)

Precision? OK...

>
>>>> So what? What did you need a multitasking multiuser for on your office
>>>> desktop? Most people didnt need or use one.
>>>
>>> Multi-user was not a big deal to me then (it is now), but multitasking
>>> was.
>>
>>I used to play games on windows while compiling or emailing etc. It
>>worked well enough.
>
> The fact that you lacked the imagination to put it to use, does
> not mean it wasn't useful then.

Did you just read what I said? I did put it to use.

>
> Who would go without it today?  (Why would *I* have gone without
> it then???  I have no idea why you were willing to...)

Err, I wasnt. I used. And since I used to program GUI apps for it I
expect I know a lot more about how the message system worked and
"multitasked" than you do. Why do you keep ignoring what I said. I did
use the multitasking. Just not for formatting floppies all day.

>
>>>> Did the same : it was all style and no substance - and led to the
>>>> absolute mess which XOrg/Xfree are no today.
>>>
>>> Huh?  Why then has Windows done all those silly kludges to get something
>>> like that capability?  I still remotely display programs from one machine
>>> on another, so I can run intensive computations on a faster machine.
>>
>>Useful yes : but messy too. The X stuff is currently under review but it
>>is a mess.
>
> Messy?  Why?  Because it isn't Microsoft?   That is not valid.

Err, no. Because its all over the place and is currently being tidied
up a lot. Look at Xorg v XFree etc. Look at open source v proprietary
modules for video cards. Its messy.

>
>>And fair enough and amen to that. Now I dont play so many games and only
>>program for "fun" Ive moved to Linux too.
>
> When you are not engaged in support for Windows, but just need
> to *use* an OS to get "real work" done, Windows is not a good
> choice.  It never really was either.

Yes it was. XP was stable and does a damn good job.

>
> Which is to say that I do not have a problem with you having
> chosen to earn a living by supporting Windows users.  That makes

I dont now. I did then. As well as other OSs.

> sense.  But lets not morph that into anything suggesting Windows
> had some technical advantage over better OS's.  What it had was

Did I say it did?

> the *best* marketing and sales mind that existed, fully intent
> right from the start at becoming the world's wealthiest man.
>
> Gates didn't make the best computer systems around, ever.  He
> made the most money!  Give Gates his due, but give the same due
> to Linux Torvalds for what he did too.

Calm down. What are you talking about? Who said he/they did. Dont paint
it blacker than it is though.

>
> -- 
> Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

-- 

This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on  Fri, 01 Sep 2006
10:07:06 -0500, Linonut wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> 
>> Linux is a much worse choice.  But nobody uses an OS to get work done,
>> anyway.
> 
> I must get back to simply ignoring you when you act stoopid.

That would be 99.98% of the time then.

-- 
  Linux is not a desktop OS for people 

whose VCRs are still flashing  "12:00".

  That eliminates a lot of wintrolls then.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
> 
> They were a few years ago, not so much anymore.   Why?  It became clear that 
> Linux isn't going anywhere.
 
Actually, they stopped because Linux had become such a fixture in the
server space that the FUD was beginning to sound ridiculous.

> Yes, they *did*.   They met it and stopped it.   Linux is nowhere to be 
> found on the desktop.

It owns the Internet space, has a huge chunk of the commodity server
space, and has made noticeable in-roads on the desktop (around 4 to
6 percent last I checked) and it continues to show very strong year 
over year growth.

Linux isn't going anywhere?  Its odd, then, that I just got another 
call for a linux developer job.

Thad

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Stable?  Worked?  And you call that multitasking?
> 
> Err, yes. What would you call it?

Call me a Unix snob, but I've always felt that 'non-preemptive 
multitasking' was something of an oxymoron.  Sort of like going
to one of the restaurants where they make you cook your own food.  

>:)

Thad

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:04:59 -0400, Mike wrote:

> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87sljbk6j8.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You believing that Microsoft will abandon Windows and "move to a Linux
>>>kernel" is the silliest thing I've ever heard!   Comedy Gold!
>>
>> People said the same thing about Railroads, Western Union, and any
>> number of other large business entities that faced a changing business
>> environment.
> 
> But the *business* environment isn't changing.   The *business*
> environment wants Windows.

No, we don't.

>> Why do you think Microsoft is making such a big fuss about Linux,
>> calling it a cancer and generally spending huge amounts of money to
>> produce FUD?
> 
> They were a few years ago, not so much anymore.   Why?  It became clear
> that Linux isn't going anywhere.

You are misinformed:

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/09/01/commission

-- 
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
  Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
                           It's the law.

<thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message 
news:ed9mkm$cdb$1@tux.glaci.com...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
> It owns the Internet space, has a huge chunk of the commodity server
> space, and has made noticeable in-roads on the desktop (around 4 to
> 6 percent last I checked) and it continues to show very strong year
> over year growth.

4 to 6 percent?   Guess again.    Try 1%.

Mike

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
> 
> 4 to 6 percent?   Guess again.    Try 1%.
> 
> Mike

Ack, this topic has been beat to death. There are surveys from Forrester
and Gartner etc that put desktop linux at close to 4 percent a couple
of years ago.  Stats from the midwest ISPs I work for show the same
thing.  The line between server and desktop can be a bit blurry with
Linux, so depending on how you dice it, the numbers can swing by a few
points... but they are well over 1 percent.

Thad

Mike wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>>
>>> Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>>
>> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
>> place?
> 
> Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?
> 
>> Remember when some folks didn't think the Internet was useful?
> 
> Remember when 2001 was "the year of Linux"?
> 
>> Do you remember Western Union?  Where are they now?
> 
> Remember when 2002 was "the year of Linux"?
> 
>> Do you remember the Bell System?  Where is it now?
> 
> Remember when 2003 was "the year of Linux"?
> 

I remember it before that when 1993,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 2000 were all going 
to be the year of Unix.

In fact, they all were..but by bit VMS, MVS and all the other big iron 
systems sold less and less and unix went up from minis to almost 
mainframes, and down as far as office servers.

Its konocking on the desktop door, but it may be too late - will we have 
a 'desktop computer' in 2010? or will it be some kind of super Ipod like 
thing that runs only java...

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> You believing that Microsoft will abandon Windows and "move to a
>> Linux kernel" is the silliest thing I've ever heard!   Comedy
>> Gold!
> 
> People said the same thing about Railroads, Western Union, and
> any number of other large business entities that faced a
> changing business environment.
> 
> Why do you think Microsoft is making such a big fuss about
> Linux, calling it a cancer and generally spending huge amounts
> of money to produce FUD?  You may not know where the next hurdle
> for Microsoft is, but *they* do.
> 
They are far more worried about internet sited application services 
running through simple browser/java type clients.

If Google hosts your word processing, what price NT office servers, and 
copies of MS Office?

If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running some kind 
of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into ethernet, wifi or a 
phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?

Mike wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
> news:87sljbk6j8.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You believing that Microsoft will abandon Windows and "move to a
>>> Linux kernel" is the silliest thing I've ever heard!   Comedy
>>> Gold!
>>
>> People said the same thing about Railroads, Western Union, and
>> any number of other large business entities that faced a
>> changing business environment.
> 
> But the *business* environment isn't changing.   The *business* 
> environment wants Windows.

It doesn't. It simply has no choice. Not yet. In most cases.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
<linonut@bone.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 10:06:21 -0500
<evedndViPvzw0WXZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Office for Linux?  Very doubtful - there's no gain in selling 3 copies to a 
>> small group of hostile, cheapskate, loudmouths.
>
> I'll bet there are a large number of corporate types who would love to
> have MS Office on a safer, easy-to-administer platform such as Linux.
>

A bit pointy-haired, that -- mostly because MS Office still
has the little problem of allowing a user to doubleclick
scripts, and not correctly showing said scripts.

At least on Linux the actual *system* (kernel, /bin, /lib,
/usr/bin, /usr/lib, /usr/X11R6/bin and /usr/X11R6/lib for
those systems who still have it, etc.) would be reasonably
safe, though -- unless the user was dumb enough to run MS
Office as root.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
<SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
 wrote
on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:39:49 -0700
<C11D9445.5E0AF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgflvadhvmd39@news.supernews.com on
> 9/1/06 7:07 AM:
>
>> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
>> news:C11D89B5.5E073%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com on
>>> 9/1/06 6:24 AM:
>>> 
>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not really.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS
>>>> 
>>>> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when
>>>> you held down the mouse button?

I know Win95 liked to consume 100% CPU when the mouse button
was held down.  Don't remember whether everything stopped
or not, though.

>>>> The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a
>>>> dialup internet connection and save the file to a
>>>> network drive because only one network could be
>>>> active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told
>>>> the OS how much memory to give to apps?!?!?

As opposed to giving it all away, like DOS?  :-)

In any event, modern operating systems require that the user
(or the IT guys) specify the amount of available virtual
memory; this is then divvied up amongst the applications
on a first-run, first-served basis.

>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!
>>> 
>>> Sadly, it was.
>> 
>> 
>> Happily, it wasn't.
>
> I was teaching computers back in the days of System 6

I'm assuming you're referring to MacOS version 6.  System 6
was a Unix derivative prevalent in the early 1980's (at
least at my alma mater) and ran on PDP 11/70s.

> and Win 3.1.  There
> simply was no comparison - the ol' one piece Macs has screens that were far
> too small, but other than that they blew away anything MS offered... partly
> *because* of MS ... with MS Word for the Mac.
>

And yet Mac still lost that battle.  Why?  An interesting question,
and rather depressing (at least Mac survived; Amiga is in some form
of real weird limbo though they might have found a speciality niche
in casino games).

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike
<no@where.man>
 wrote
on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 09:54:21 -0400
<12fgese4rc46k97@news.supernews.com>:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>
>> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
>> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
>> that becomes a target.
>
> Why?   It certainly hasn't yet.

And it won't.

Marketing is the key.  Do you remember the Amiga?  I do.
It did well for a time but Commodore didn't have a clue,
and ultimately croaked.  The Amiga chipset is now in a
weird limbo, and considering most cards now support GL
(or DirectX in lieu thereof), is probably now more or
less useless.

Apple has done well enough thus far because they've
been truly innovative in at least the packaging of their
computer hardware (the computer-in-a-round base idea of the
iMac G4 was an interesting visual variant, although I don't
know how well it actually sold and is no longer available;
the iMac G3 was very popular and iPods are the de facto
"gotta have" music player standard nowadays).

Microsoft understands marketing, too.  I don't know if they
understand anything else at this point.

That said...the best marketing is by word of mouth.
Since Microsoft seems to make a very good show of shooting
itself in the foot every chance it gets (of course it
helps that everyone's watching -- America loves to see
leaders hobble, apparently!), and the virus writer types
have their own agendas, from purely commercial to just
being nasty, Linux might very well do well as the Internet
gets more spam, more virus probes, more malware.

I don't know how well IBM will be able to market Linux.
They spun off Lenovo and are targetting the mainframe/server
market with the zx90 line.  Other manufacturers are probably
either taking a "wait and see" or just going with what they
think the market's future is.

We'll see when Vista actually launches, and how impressive
Microsoft's videos are.  Should be interesting either way.

>
> Mike
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

: Its konocking on the desktop door, but it may be too late - will we have 
: a 'desktop computer' in 2010? or will it be some kind of super Ipod like 
: thing that runs only java...

2010, only 3 years away?

desktop computer

no way that any sort of proprietary gadget can possibly
supplant desktops in that short a time. 

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
ovams3-66m.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 9/1/06 12:00 PM:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
> <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:39:49 -0700
> <C11D9445.5E0AF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgflvadhvmd39@news.supernews.com on
>> 9/1/06 7:07 AM:
>> 
>>> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
>>> news:C11D89B5.5E073%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com on
>>>> 9/1/06 6:24 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when
>>>>> you held down the mouse button?
> 
> I know Win95 liked to consume 100% CPU when the mouse button
> was held down.  Don't remember whether everything stopped
> or not, though.

I do not believe it did... it did not when a menu was pulled down.  System 6
did.
> 
>>>>> The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a
>>>>> dialup internet connection and save the file to a
>>>>> network drive because only one network could be
>>>>> active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told
>>>>> the OS how much memory to give to apps?!?!?
> 
> As opposed to giving it all away, like DOS?  :-)
> 
> In any event, modern operating systems require that the user
> (or the IT guys) specify the amount of available virtual
> memory; this is then divvied up amongst the applications
> on a first-run, first-served basis.

Usually the OS handles this itself.
> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!
>>>> 
>>>> Sadly, it was.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Happily, it wasn't.
>> 
>> I was teaching computers back in the days of System 6
> 
> I'm assuming you're referring to MacOS version 6.  System 6
> was a Unix derivative prevalent in the early 1980's (at
> least at my alma mater) and ran on PDP 11/70s.

You are correct.

>> and Win 3.1.  There
>> simply was no comparison - the ol' one piece Macs has screens that were far
>> too small, but other than that they blew away anything MS offered... partly
>> *because* of MS ... with MS Word for the Mac.
> 
> And yet Mac still lost that battle.  Why?  An interesting question,
> and rather depressing (at least Mac survived; Amiga is in some form
> of real weird limbo though they might have found a speciality niche
> in casino games).

Sadly market share is not very closely related to quality... not just in
computers.

-- 
� OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
� OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
� Photoshop is an image editing application



 

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
<1157055830.181326@newsreg.cos.agilent.com>, stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:

>In comp.os.linux.misc thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>: In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]

>This is COLM- please try and stay with LINUX topics.

Free Clue for Stan:

From the bottom of the "A new reader? Welcome to comp.os.linux.misc,
read this first if you're new here (FAQ)" posted twice a week to this
(and other) newsgroups:

  "How to make killfiles for use with various newsreaders."
  http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm

>User-Agent: tin/1.4.2-20000205 ("Possession") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.11
 (9000/785))

See section 8.12 of the above web page. If tin can't kill on cross-posts,
maybe you ought to be getting a more capable news tool.

[compton ~]$ grep ^08 newslog | grep comp.os.linux.misc: | grep killed |
cut -d' ' -f5,6 | column
(11 killed),    (10 killed),    (24 killed),    (15 killed),    (8 killed),
(28 killed),    (3 killed),     (11 killed),    (17 killed),    (15 killed),
(11 killed),    (11 killed),    (29 killed),    (31 killed),    (33 killed),
(4 killed),     (7 killed),     (63 killed),    (43 killed),
(55 killed),    (14 killed),    (31 killed),    (61 killed),
(6 killed),     (15 killed),    (24 killed),    (38 killed),
(8 killed),     (20 killed),    (26 killed),    (27 killed),
[compton ~]$ 

You'll find reading news is a lot less painful.  699 killed out of 2957
that were available in August on the news server I use.

        Old guy

Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:
: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
: <1157055830.181326@newsreg.cos.agilent.com>, stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:

:>In comp.os.linux.misc thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
:>: In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
:    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: [...]

:>This is COLM- please try and stay with LINUX topics.

: Free Clue for Stan:

if you had read a little closer in the headers you would see
that my response was ONLY to COLM.

kill file is always an option to increase the SNR but
better to lessen the "N" in the first place.

Stan

-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

Mike <no@where.man> wrote:

> "John C. Randolph" <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote in message 
> news:2006083015315216807-jcrnospam@nospammaccom...
> > On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> 
> > First of all, Linux on the desktop has barely started, and it only has to
> > be better than windows to make a significant dent in desktop users.
> > Secondly, Linux will continue to be a major server OS as long as companies
> > like IBM keep offering it, and thirdly, Apple has never considered Linux
> > to be a competitor, but rather as an ally in the fight to keep Microsoft
> > from making the entire internet proprietary.
> 
> Yeah, because Apple isn't proprietary, right?

Do you even know what "proprietary" means? 
-- 
Lars T.

Michelle Ronn wrote:
> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> 
>> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>> for chips.
>>> FINALLY we Intel users will have a quality Unix Desktop System to run.
>>> OSX on Intel kind of makes Linux and it's hacked together, half done,
>>> beta crap software irrelevent.
>>> No loss.
>>>
>>> Good Riddence Linux!

Bull poop, I run Linux on my iMac because I want to, so why in the heck 
would I run Apple software on my Intel, if it was not already installed 
that is? Only a Dumb Ass with Pirated software would want to do that.

-- 
regards,
Bad Dog

      INTEL P-IV/HT 3.0GHz - 2X256 DDR3200 - SimplyMEPIS 6.0
KDE 3.5.3 - Kernel 2.6.15-26-686-SMP - My iMAC runs Debian Sarge

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running
>some kind of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into
>ethernet, wifi or a phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?

The Sony will probably use an embedded Linux.  So does the wifi
access point.  For that matter, so will the phone.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

���hw��f wrote:
> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> pinched out a steaming pile of<Sp-
> dnf5ErMtkmmrZnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@bresnan.com>:
> 
> 
>>���hw��f wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> pinched out a steaming pile 
>>>of<pqidneFBTeNXhmvZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@bresnan.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I keep seeing stuff in the local papers about 'Net Neutrality'... 
> 
> ???
> 
>>>>Anybody have opinions about this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The telco want to create a tierd pricing structure that would let 
> 
> some 
> 
>>>content providers have higher bandwidth and allow them to be easier 
> 
> to 
> 
>>>access. What we have now is a level playing field. If Net Neutrality 
>>>*dosent* get passed the telcos can have some sites loading much 
> 
> quicker 
> 
>>>and this will lead to censorship.
>>>Which is exactly what the republicans want since they are learning 
> 
> that 
> 
>>>they cant control the propaganda machine if the internet allows 
> 
> people 
> 
>>>to access a non-GOP controlled message.
>>>FYI
>>>
>>
>>Hmmm... sounds like I need to do some reading on this subject.
>>
>>
> 
> http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
> 
> "This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First 
> Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the 
> smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by 
> preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field 
> for only the highest-paying sites.
> 
> But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending 
> millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If 
> Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality 
> provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.""
> 

Thnx for the url.  Now I'm getting the idea.  It looks like I've got 
some work to do locally as quite a few big ISPs are now trying to gut 
Net Neutrality here.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS
>
> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the 
> mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a dialup 

	Odd then that this never came up when I was programming on them
in the late 80's. Should I trust some schmuck from the ether or my own
experiences?

> internet connection and save the file to a network drive because only one 
> network could be active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told the OS 
> how much memory to give to apps?!?!?

	vs. WinDOS where you had to tell the OS EXACTLY where to put things.

>
> Yeah, Windows certainly was a joke compared to that!
>
> Mike
>

	Yes it was.

	I would have LOVED if WinDOS were that simple in those days.

	Did you just pop out of your pod yesterday? Cause you never
	could have used 16-bit Windows based on your rantings.


-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
>>thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>>
>>>In short, Net Neutrality is a policy that has been in place
>>>since
>>>the earliest days of the Internet.  It states that once a packet
>>>makes it onto the Internet, the telecoms must route them all the
>>>same and not give one preference over another based on origin or
>>>packet type.  The telecoms don't like this because it does not
>>>let them fully leverage their size and local monopolies.  What
>>>they want (and they've admitted this) is to extort money from the
>>>googles and the ebays of the world, making them pay extra to make
>>>sure their packets actually make it to their customers.
> 
> ...
> 
>>>Why should that matter to you?  It provides a lever by which
>>>the
>>>telecoms can squeeze content providers out of the market in favor
>>>of their own services or those of their partners.  It reduces your
>>>choice, reduces free speech... in short, it will make the Internet
>>>suck.
>>>The issue gets stickier when you look at the telecoms' desires
>>>to
>>>control what types of traffic are allowed over the Internet.  Like
> 
> 
> It gets *much* stickier!
> 
> One area that is a serious problem is the relationship to
> "Universal Service", where big users subsidize a ubiquitous
> network to improve their own ability to utilize the network, and
> in the long run make it "universal" rather than a mechanism for
> class division.  It's good for business and good for society...
> 
> But one of the biggest political obstacles is Alaska's Senator
> Ted Stevens, who lately has come in for a lot of ridicule
> (mostly from people who don't actually have half the acuity that
> our "Uncle Ted", as Alaskans know him, does).  Do *not*
> underestimate the technical comprehension of Ted Stevens.  He is
> 80 something years old and sometimes the way he says things is
> difficult to understand, but trust that he is virtually *always*
> about 10 layers deeper into it than the level he is willing to
> talk about.
> 
> Convincing Stevens that Network Neutrality has more benefits
> than detriments is essential.  He has little problem with
> letting big business do business (he is a Republican, after
> all).  And he has been, for decades, the champion of bringing
> telecommunications services to *every* American.  He understands
> subtleties of Universal Service that even those of us with a
> telecom background are hard pressed to keep up with!
> 
> Note that I deleted virtually all of the examples of how a
> telecom might abuse the system, but keep in mind that those are
> *valid* points, and would in fact reduce the benefit of
> Universal Service as applied to the Internet.  That is the
> message that needs to be made clear to politicians, because it
> will have an overall negative effect on business, not the
> positive one that only the largest telecommunications companies
> would see. (Ted Stevens has been *well* acquainted with the
> management of large telecommunications companies for at least 20
> years that I know of.  They *do* have his ear.  He needs to hear
> the other side, in a way that demonstrates it is indeed an
> overall loss, not a gain.)
> 
> 
>>>It means independent business people like me will have an
>>>uphill
>>>battle becoming the next google or ebay, as the entrenched telecoms
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> 
>>>will stack the deck in favor of the established players that can
>>>afford their extortion racket.  It means the independent
>>>sources of news and information (i.e. blogs) will be squeezed
>>>out.  Its
>>>a move back to the days of big coporate content providers and
>>>passive consumers, with little room for edgy or controversial
>>>content from citizen artists or political activists.
>>>That is what the telecoms want for the future of the Internet.
>>>This
>>>is what the loss of Net Neutrality means.
>>>
>>
>>Thnx!  That's the most eloquent piece I've read yet.
> 
> 
> It was the best that I have seen.
> 
> 
>>Sounds like these big outfits are taking lessons from Microsoft.
> 
> 
> Not likely.  No telecom has ever demonstrated half the smarts
> that Microsoft could bring to bear on sales and marketing.  ;-)
> 

Thnx for your input as well.  Right now, our local ISPs are apparently 
being duped that Net Neutrality is a bad thing.  Looks like I've got 
some work to do here locally.


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

On 2006-09-01, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
> ovams3-66m.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 9/1/06 12:00 PM:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>> <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>  wrote
>> on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:39:49 -0700
>> <C11D9445.5E0AF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgflvadhvmd39@news.supernews.com on
>>> 9/1/06 7:07 AM:
>>> 
>>>> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
>>>> news:C11D89B5.5E073%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com on
>>>>> 9/1/06 6:24 AM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
[deletia]
>> As opposed to giving it all away, like DOS?  :-)
>> 
>> In any event, modern operating systems require that the user
>> (or the IT guys) specify the amount of available virtual
>> memory; this is then divvied up amongst the applications
>> on a first-run, first-served basis.
>
> Usually the OS handles this itself.

No it doesn't. You have to set this up explicitly.

[deletia]

Many apps will also allow you to tell them how much shared
memory and such they should use so that you can tune memory
usage for speed and to avoid swapping. Even the overly-
automated mssql has a setting like this.


-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \

On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>
>> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
>> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
>> that becomes a target.
>
> Why?   It certainly hasn't yet.

	It's doing well enough to Solaris & NT.

-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \

On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>>
>>>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>>
>> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
>> place?
>
> Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?

	Linux is currently the marketshare leader among Oracle shops.

	Oracle is the marketshare leader among enterprise RDBMS servers.

[deletia]

	The desktop may be elusive but Linux has been kicking ass
	for quite a long time. Perhaps the "progression" will be
	the reverse of how Microsoft grew.

-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \

<stan@worldbadminton.com> wrote in message 
news:1157136675.105563@newsreg.cos.agilent.com...
>: Its konocking on the desktop door, but it may be too late - will we have
> : a 'desktop computer' in 2010? or will it be some kind of super Ipod like
> : thing that runs only java...
>
> 2010, only 3 years away?
>
> desktop computer
>
> no way that any sort of proprietary gadget can possibly
> supplant desktops in that short a time.

Particularly not one that "runs only Java"!

Mike

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
news:87k64njpmq.fld@apaflo.com...
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>
>>If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running
>>some kind of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into
>>ethernet, wifi or a phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?
>
> The Sony will probably use an embedded Linux.  So does the wifi
> access point.  For that matter, so will the phone.

But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?

MIke

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> stated in post 6aims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet
on 9/1/06 1:37 PM:

> On 2006-09-01, Snit <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> stated in post
>> ovams3-66m.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net on 9/1/06 12:00 PM:
>> 
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Snit
>>> <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>  wrote
>>> on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:39:49 -0700
>>> <C11D9445.5E0AF%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>:
>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgflvadhvmd39@news.supernews.com on
>>>> 9/1/06 7:07 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Snit" <SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote in message
>>>>> news:C11D89B5.5E073%SNIT@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID...
>>>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> stated in post 12fgd3qhre59l09@news.supernews.com
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> 9/1/06 6:24 AM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> [deletia]
>>> As opposed to giving it all away, like DOS?  :-)
>>> 
>>> In any event, modern operating systems require that the user
>>> (or the IT guys) specify the amount of available virtual
>>> memory; this is then divvied up amongst the applications
>>> on a first-run, first-served basis.
>> 
>> Usually the OS handles this itself.
> 
> No it doesn't. You have to set this up explicitly.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
> Many apps will also allow you to tell them how much shared
> memory and such they should use so that you can tune memory
> usage for speed and to avoid swapping. Even the overly-
> automated mssql has a setting like this.
> 
In most modern OSs these things happen automatically - though they can, of
course, be altered by a user.

If you disagree, please explain what the average OS X or XP user has to *do*
to set up how much virtual memory is available.

-- 
� Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
� Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
��Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:a5ims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the
>> mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a 
>> dialup
>
> Odd then that this never came up when I was programming on them
> in the late 80's. Should I trust some schmuck from the ether or my own
> experiences?

Clearly your own experiences are lacking.

Mike

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:6cims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>
>>> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
>>> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
>>> that becomes a target.
>>
>> Why?   It certainly hasn't yet.
>
> It's doing well enough to Solaris & NT.

Solaris, yes - as it is to all commerical *nixes.   NT is just a dead 
product.   Try comparing Linux to Server 2003.

Mike

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike
<no@where.man>
 wrote
on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:26:10 -0400
<12fh9bk81t33cc6@news.supernews.com>:
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:6cims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is little doubt that the Open Software model is going to
>>>> run circles around any individual proprietary software project
>>>> that becomes a target.
>>>
>>> Why?   It certainly hasn't yet.
>>
>> It's doing well enough to Solaris & NT.
>
> Solaris, yes - as it is to all commerical *nixes.   NT is just a dead 
> product.   Try comparing Linux to Server 2003.

To the forthcoming Server edition, actually.  Internal name
appears to be Longhorn Server; this will probably not be
its final name -- assuming this even exists now as most
of the articles mentioning Longhorn server appear to be
about a year old.  There is also a Microsoft 2007 Office
system but I don't know if that's just Office or an
integerated OS+Office product.

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/4408/53/

mentions all three of Vista, Office 2007, and Longhorn Server,
and is dated May 2006.

IE7 will also generate a lot of buzz.  Not because it's *good*,
but because it's *Microsoft*, the standard solution to all
one's web surfing problems.

(FSVO "standard", "solution", and "surfing".)

>
> Mike
>

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike
<no@where.man>
 wrote
on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:21:15 -0400
<12fh92deajb5n6d@news.supernews.com>:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
> news:87k64njpmq.fld@apaflo.com...
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running
>>>some kind of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into
>>>ethernet, wifi or a phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?
>>
>> The Sony will probably use an embedded Linux.  So does the wifi
>> access point.  For that matter, so will the phone.
>
> But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?
>
> MIke
>

That's why Microsoft has 5 versions of Vista. :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet>
 wrote
on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:40:40 -0500
<8fims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet>:
> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>>>
>>>>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>>>
>>> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
>>> place?
>>
>> Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?
>
> 	Linux is currently the marketshare leader among Oracle shops.
>
> 	Oracle is the marketshare leader among enterprise RDBMS servers.

Dumb question: market share comparison between Oracle and SQL Server
is ... ?

http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid41_gci953366,00.html?bucket=NEWS

is a face off between the two.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+gains+in+database+arena/2100-1012_3-1008588.html

suggests that Microsoft is making gains in the database arena
back in 2002.

http://databases.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm

suggests:

          Gartner    IDC
Oracle     33.8%     46%
SQL Server 13.9%     ?

but it's not clear to me what year this is.

>
> [deletia]
>
> 	The desktop may be elusive but Linux has been kicking ass
> 	for quite a long time. Perhaps the "progression" will be
> 	the reverse of how Microsoft grew.
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
>> news:m2nls3-oj3.ln1@nomad.mishnet...
>>> On 2006-08-31, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes. But windows 3.1 changed that.
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> It was still a joke compared to the MacOS

I agree with that.

>> Would that be the MacOS where *everything* stopped when you held down the 
>> mouse button?   The MacOS where you couldn't download a file from a dialup 
> 
> 	Odd then that this never came up when I was programming on them
> in the late 80's. Should I trust some schmuck from the ether or my own
> experiences?

Then you have made your "experiences" highly suspect, as the Mac most 
certainly did stop doing anything else when the mouse button was held. 
That's why the menus disappeared when the mouse button was released, so 
the Mac could go back to doing other things.

"Why does everything stop when you hold down the mouse button?"

"It doesn't all come to a stop. However, mouse operations have always 
been of the utmost priority in the Mac, so lots of other things get put 
aside while the user is busy with the mouse. If you're using an 
application which only does one thing at once, then everything else it 
does will be on hold while you hold down the button. (If you're not 
using Mac OS X, then nearly everything the operating system (not just 
that program) does will be on hold too.) This is a neat illustration of 
the difference between co-operative and pre-emptive multi-tasking. 
Because the mouse button has such high priority, under a co-operative 
multitasking system many other things the system might have to do simply 
have to wait. The mouse is more important, so everything else has to wait. "

http://www.macfaq.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/Multitasking

>> internet connection and save the file to a network drive because only one 
>> network could be active at a time?   The MacOS where the *user* told the OS 
>> how much memory to give to apps?!?!?
> 
> 	vs. WinDOS where you had to tell the OS EXACTLY where to put things.

Any operating system has to be told exactly where to put things.


[snip]

-- 
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS.  Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
-- Alan "Wrong Again" Baker

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
<1157138403.644275@newsreg.cos.agilent.com>, stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:

>Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote:

>: On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc, in article
>: <1157055830.181326@newsreg.cos.agilent.com>, stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
>
>:>In comp.os.linux.misc thad01@tux.glaci.remove-this.com wrote:
>:>: In comp.os.linux.advocacy GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>:    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>: Free Clue for Stan:

>if you had read a little closer in the headers you would see
>that my response was ONLY to COLM.

If you thought a bit further - many people wouldn't have seen it at all
except for your quoting the crap. Do us all a favor, and kill anything
to an advocacy or windoze group. Or at least ignore it and don't bother
replying.

>kill file is always an option to increase the SNR but
>better to lessen the "N" in the first place.

There will always be useless scum who like to spew - and I really can't
killfile all of them one at a time.

[compton ~]$ grep -vE '^([%\[ ]|Score|$)' /var/spool/slrnpull/score | cut -d' '
 -f1 | sort | uniq -c | column
    746 From:                 4 Message-ID:          69 Xref:
      2 Lines:              212 Subject:              2 ~Subject:
[compton ~]$ 

That takes enough CPU cycles. Note the Xref: number.  The From: gets whole
domains.

        Old guy

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running
>> some kind of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into
>> ethernet, wifi or a phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?
> 
> The Sony will probably use an embedded Linux.  So does the wifi
> access point.  For that matter, so will the phone.
> 

Indeed, which will put all the nerds out of action.

Because it won't be open source by then.

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>> If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running
>>> some kind of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into
>>> ethernet, wifi or a phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?
>> The Sony will probably use an embedded Linux.  So does the wifi
>> access point.  For that matter, so will the phone.
>>
>
>Indeed, which will put all the nerds out of action.
>
>Because it won't be open source by then.

Keep dreaming.  I *can't* be made proprietary

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87k64njpmq.fld@apaflo.com...
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>If all you need to access them is a Sony WorkStation, running
>>>some kind of java enabled browser, that simply plugs into
>>>ethernet, wifi or a phone line..who needs a PC, Windows OR Linux?
>>
>> The Sony will probably use an embedded Linux.  So does the wifi
>> access point.  For that matter, so will the phone.
>
>But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?

You apparently think a *lot* of dumb things, troll.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
news:878xl2k2ww.fld@apaflo.com...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?
>
> You apparently think a *lot* of dumb things, troll.

Translation: "software monoculture" only = bad when it's Microsoft! 
Everyone/Everything running Linux will be a Good Thing!

Mike

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:878xl2k2ww.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?
>>
>> You apparently think a *lot* of dumb things, troll.
>
>Translation: "software monoculture" only = bad when it's
>Microsoft! Everyone/Everything running Linux will be a Good
>Thing!

What *are* you rattling on about?

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:54:08 -0400, Mike wrote:

> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:878xl2k2ww.fld@apaflo.com...
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?
>>
>> You apparently think a *lot* of dumb things, troll.
> 
> Translation: "software monoculture" only = bad when it's Microsoft!
> Everyone/Everything running Linux will be a Good Thing!
> 
> Mike

Everything 'running Linux' would not necessarily be a monoculture.

-- 
Rick
<http://ricks-place.tripod.com/sound/2cents.wav>

Mike wrote:

> Translation: "software monoculture" only = bad when it's Microsoft!
> Everyone/Everything running Linux will be a Good Thing!

Not likely, since business has fixated on the stability of OS400 and it's
native CL/COBOL/RPM capabilities.   The ILE (Integrated Language
Enviroment) predate and exceed java, .NET by a decade...providing a common
runtime to languages including c, c++, RPG, BASIC and so on.


-- 
Texeme Construct

After takin' a swig o' grog, William Poaster belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on  Fri, 01 Sep 2006
> 10:07:06 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>>> Linux is a much worse choice.  But nobody uses an OS to get work done,
>>> anyway.
>> 
>> I must get back to simply ignoring you when you act stoopid.
>
> That would be 99.98% of the time then.

I dunno.  If you talk nicely, DFS can come back with some good points.
If you talk shitty, well....

-- 
   "Take her in for regrooving." -- The Firesign Theatre

Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, William Poaster belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> This message was posted on Usenet, NOT JLAforums, & on  Fri, 01 Sep
>> 2006 10:07:06 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>>
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Linux is a much worse choice.  But nobody uses an OS to get work
>>>> done, anyway.
>>>
>>> I must get back to simply ignoring you when you act stoopid.
>>
>> That would be 99.98% of the time then.
>
> I dunno.  If you talk nicely, DFS can come back with some good points.
> If you talk shitty, well....

Exactly!  I'm easily trolled and manipulated.  I admit it.

Michelle Ronn wrote:
> On 2005-06-06 12:03:51 -0700, Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> 
>> "Raggs" <tony_raggs_92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Goodbye desktop Linux, your days are numbered as Apple moves to Intel
>>> for chips.
>>              Maybe, maybe not.

OSX is just a window manager for FreeBSD. FreeBSD is free and can run
Linux. FreeBSD can run many window managers including KDE which  runs
great on Linux.
Linux is free. OSX and all Apple stuff costs an arm and a leg.
You figure it out.




-- 

Attention Please:
All those who have 2, turn one in.
All those who are without, draw 1.
Thank         you          very         much.

Claude Hopper

On 2006-09-01, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:40:40 -0500
><8fims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet>:
>> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>>>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>>>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>>>>
>>>> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
>>>> place?
>>>
>>> Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?
>>
>> 	Linux is currently the marketshare leader among Oracle shops.
>>
>> 	Oracle is the marketshare leader among enterprise RDBMS servers.
>
> Dumb question: market share comparison between Oracle and SQL Server
> is ... ?
>
> http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid41_gci953366,00.html?bucket=NEWS
>
> is a face off between the two.
>
> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+gains+in+database+arena/2100-1012_3-1008588.html
>
> suggests that Microsoft is making gains in the database arena
> back in 2002.

	Why even bother with out of date information?

	If you have something relevant and current, just use it.

[deletia]


-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet>
 wrote
on Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:02:47 -0500
<7npps3-thu.ln1@nomad.mishnet>:
> On 2006-09-01, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
>><jedi@nomad.mishnet>
>>  wrote
>> on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:40:40 -0500
>><8fims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet>:
>>> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>>>>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>>>>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
>>>>> place?
>>>>
>>>> Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?
>>>
>>> 	Linux is currently the marketshare leader among Oracle shops.
>>>
>>> 	Oracle is the marketshare leader among enterprise RDBMS servers.
>>
>> Dumb question: market share comparison between Oracle and SQL Server
>> is ... ?
>>
>> http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid41_gci953366,00.html?bucket=NEWS
>>
>> is a face off between the two.
>>
>> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+gains+in+database+arena/2100-1012_3-1008588.html
>>
>> suggests that Microsoft is making gains in the database arena
>> back in 2002.
>
> 	Why even bother with out of date information?
>
> 	If you have something relevant and current, just use it.

I don't.  This is what I could find.  Apparently there's no
available comparison at the present.

Personally, I for one would think that a Microsoft/Oracle
or Linux/Oracle combination makes the most sense for many
businesses.  SQL Server's just a shade too small and I
don't know about other solutions such as Tandem (which got
bought by someone else?) or SAS.

>
> [deletia]
>


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@apaflo.com>
 wrote
on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 05:08:37 -0800
<8764g6iffu.fld@apaflo.com>:
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>>news:878xl2k2ww.fld@apaflo.com...
>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>But I thought a "software monoculture" was a Bad Thing?
>>>
>>> You apparently think a *lot* of dumb things, troll.
>>
>>Translation: "software monoculture" only = bad when it's
>>Microsoft! Everyone/Everything running Linux will be a Good
>>Thing!
>
> What *are* you rattling on about?
>

He does have a point.  However, there are three counterpoints.

[1] Linux actually comprises about 18 different kernels,
which differ mostly in the assembly-specific code
(/usr/src/linux/arch/*), and thereby offers a lot of
common functionality with a mininum of maintenance --
but it's not quite a monoculture.

[2] There are other offerings such as MacOSX (not quite
open source but a Unix variant nonetheless), FreeBSD,
and NetBSD (and, if it ever gets going, HURD), plus the
more traditional Unix vendors -- Solaris, HP-UX, AIX --
which can all leverage and contribute to FOSS efforts.

[3] Unix and Linux are inherently resistant to viruses.
Compare, for instance, the number of CERTs.  One can't
double-click and infect a system by attempting to open nude
pictures of young female tennis stars.  One has to actually
do some *work* before the script will even run on one's
system, and it won't run as root unless one logged into X
(actually xdm, gdm, or kdm) as root.

("Chmod +x picture.jpg"?  Huh?  What is this, some sort of...uh oh.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because it's time to refresh your hardware.  Trust us.

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Floyd L. Davidson
><floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>Translation: "software monoculture" only = bad when it's
>>>Microsoft! Everyone/Everything running Linux will be a Good
>>>Thing!
>>
>> What *are* you rattling on about?
>>
>
>He does have a point.  However, there are three counterpoints.

He has no point.  He is trolling with gross mis-statements that
faintly reference some valid facts.

>[1] Linux actually comprises about 18 different kernels,
>which differ mostly in the assembly-specific code
>(/usr/src/linux/arch/*), and thereby offers a lot of
>common functionality with a mininum of maintenance --
>but it's not quite a monoculture.

Oh, that's not the half of it.  A monoculture would be the
culture that produces the kernel.  A closed shop that is not
open to public scrutiny, for example.  Linux on the other hand
is produced by *thousands* of programmers that are very loosely
knit together.  It is totally open to the public too, and anyone
is able to join by simply contributing something of value.

That in no way constitutes a software monoculture at its base.
Then, as you note it begins to expand even from there, with many
different systems supported, through at least two very much in
use code tracks (v2.4 and v2.6 are both currently supported and
widely used).

The killer though is that each and every Linux distribution is
virtually also a whole new software culture in and of itself by
definition.  There are dozens and I have no idea how many.

Claiming Linux is a "software monoculture" is ridiculous, and
comparing it to Microsoft in that way is nothing but a troll.

>[2] There are other offerings such as MacOSX (not quite
>open source but a Unix variant nonetheless), FreeBSD,
>and NetBSD (and, if it ever gets going, HURD), plus the
>more traditional Unix vendors -- Solaris, HP-UX, AIX --
>which can all leverage and contribute to FOSS efforts.

None of which relates to what he said or what I said.

>[3] Unix and Linux are inherently resistant to viruses.
>Compare, for instance, the number of CERTs.  One can't
>double-click and infect a system by attempting to open nude
>pictures of young female tennis stars.  One has to actually
>do some *work* before the script will even run on one's
>system, and it won't run as root unless one logged into X
>(actually xdm, gdm, or kdm) as root.
>
>("Chmod +x picture.jpg"?  Huh?  What is this, some sort of...uh oh.)

Well, like point 2, that is all true, but how does it relate to
the monoculture business?

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

On 2006-09-05, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet>
>  wrote
> on Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:02:47 -0500
><7npps3-thu.ln1@nomad.mishnet>:
>> On 2006-09-01, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH
>>><jedi@nomad.mishnet>
>>>  wrote
>>> on Fri, 1 Sep 2006 15:40:40 -0500
>>><8fims3-36t.ln1@nomad.mishnet>:
>>>> On 2006-09-01, Mike <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:8764g7lnwb.fld@apaflo.com...
>>>>>> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:
>>>>>>>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me give you a clue from the Xtal Ball: Vista will be a flop,
>>>>>>>> and within 5-10 years after its introduction, Microsoft will be
>>>>>>>> moving to a Linux based kernel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Keep dreaming Alice!    Wonderland is right around the corner!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember when some folks didn't want computers in the work
>>>>>> place?
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember when 2000 was "the year of Linux"?
>>>>
>>>> 	Linux is currently the marketshare leader among Oracle shops.
>>>>
>>>> 	Oracle is the marketshare leader among enterprise RDBMS servers.
>>>
>>> Dumb question: market share comparison between Oracle and SQL Server
>>> is ... ?
>>>
>>> http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid41_gci953366,00.html?bucket=NEWS
>>>
>>> is a face off between the two.
>>>
>>> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+makes+gains+in+database+arena/2100-1012_3-1008588.html
>>>
>>> suggests that Microsoft is making gains in the database arena
>>> back in 2002.
>>
>> 	Why even bother with out of date information?
>>
>> 	If you have something relevant and current, just use it.
>
> I don't.  This is what I could find.  Apparently there's no
> available comparison at the present.
>
> Personally, I for one would think that a Microsoft/Oracle

	Oracle is a Unix centric product and Microsoft and
Oracle are fierce competitors. Trusting one to provide a
suitable platform for the other is wishful thinking given
Bill's personal and professional history.

> or Linux/Oracle combination makes the most sense for many
> businesses.  SQL Server's just a shade too small and I
> don't know about other solutions such as Tandem (which got
> bought by someone else?) or SAS.

	It's either Unix/Oracle or Unix/DB2.

-- 
     Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>  Linux on the other hand
> is produced by *thousands* of programmers that are very loosely
> knit together.  

And it shows in their attitude to writing man pages ...I'd say more 
'falling apart mentally' than 'loosely knit' :-)

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>  Linux on the other hand
>> is produced by *thousands* of programmers that are very loosely
>> knit together.
>
>And it shows in their attitude to writing man pages ...I'd say
>more 'falling apart mentally' than 'loosely knit' :-)

The programmers who contribute to Linux (that is a kernel, and
there of course no man page for it) have absolutely *nothing* to
do with writing man pages.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of just what Linux is.

Regardless, the programmers who contribute to the Free Software
Foundation's GNU project do write man pages.  I would say that
your characterization suggests something is far more wrong with
*you* than with that particular set of writers.

Man pages of course are not perfect, but they definitely are far
better than anything you have posted.  How do you account for
that, given the silly statement you made above?

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

JEDIDIAH wrote:

(lots of snippage)

>>Personally, I for one would think that a Microsoft/Oracle
> 
> 
> 	Oracle is a Unix centric product and Microsoft and
> Oracle are fierce competitors. Trusting one to provide a
> suitable platform for the other is wishful thinking given
> Bill's personal and professional history.
> 
> 
>>or Linux/Oracle combination makes the most sense for many
>>businesses.  SQL Server's just a shade too small and I
>>don't know about other solutions such as Tandem (which got
>>bought by someone else?) or SAS.
> 
> 
> 	It's either Unix/Oracle or Unix/DB2.

Or, for those who want industrial strength, a proven track record, and 
open-source software, you could try Unix/Ingres...

Jim

floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:

> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>  Linux on the other hand
>>> is produced by *thousands* of programmers that are very loosely
>>> knit together.
>>
>>And it shows in their attitude to writing man pages ...I'd say
>>more 'falling apart mentally' than 'loosely knit' :-)
>
> The programmers who contribute to Linux (that is a kernel, and
> there of course no man page for it) have absolutely *nothing* to
> do with writing man pages.

Wrong.

>
> You don't seem to have a very good grasp of just what Linux is.
>

Ask the contributors here what they think it is.

> Regardless, the programmers who contribute to the Free Software
> Foundation's GNU project do write man pages.  I would say that
> your characterization suggests something is far more wrong with
> *you* than with that particular set of writers.

Nope. There are many apps (non core GNUS) with zero documentation
available as man pages. These are the things the average user wants to
read about.

>
> Man pages of course are not perfect, but they definitely are far
> better than anything you have posted.  How do you account for
> that, given the silly statement you made above?

man pages are generally excellent. But heres a thing : if you bzuy a
Linux book like "Linux in a nutshell" do expect a lot of the info to be
wrong yor wour distro. Fact.

>
> -- 
> Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

-- 
Real Men don't make backups.  They upload it via ftp and let the world mirror
it.
		-- Linus Torvalds

Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@geemail.com> wrote:
>floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>>  Linux on the other hand
>>>> is produced by *thousands* of programmers that are very loosely
>>>> knit together.
>>>
>>>And it shows in their attitude to writing man pages ...I'd say
>>>more 'falling apart mentally' than 'loosely knit' :-)
>>
>> The programmers who contribute to Linux (that is a kernel, and
>> there of course no man page for it) have absolutely *nothing* to
>> do with writing man pages.
>
>Wrong.

Smoking that good stuff again are you?

>> You don't seem to have a very good grasp of just what Linux is.
>>
>
>Ask the contributors here what they think it is.
>
>> Regardless, the programmers who contribute to the Free Software
>> Foundation's GNU project do write man pages.  I would say that
>> your characterization suggests something is far more wrong with
>> *you* than with that particular set of writers.
>
>Nope. There are many apps (non core GNUS) with zero documentation
>available as man pages. These are the things the average user wants to
>read about.

What has *that* got to do with anything?  There are some apps
that have only html documention, some that have only info
documentation, and on and on.

You need to make sense if you want to troll here.

>> Man pages of course are not perfect, but they definitely are far
>> better than anything you have posted.  How do you account for
>> that, given the silly statement you made above?
>
>man pages are generally excellent. But heres a thing : if you bzuy a
>Linux book like "Linux in a nutshell" do expect a lot of the info to be
>wrong yor wour distro. Fact.

Hey, if you buy a 5 year old book and then run RedHat, do *not*
come here to complain...

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd@apaflo.com

In article <87k64haeq1.fld@apaflo.com>,
 floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> You need to make sense if you want to troll here.

If *only* that was a requirement!

Mike