In article <z7-dnXLNq9OUjoLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>

>Linux is based on the outdated Unix

 

Lol.

* Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ peremptorily fired off this memo:

> I've used Linux before, and it's useful in its place: But as a main

> operating system, and I speak for over 90% of computer users, I want

> something efficient, user-friendly, and new: Linux just doesn't cut it.

 

I disagree violently <grin>. Its efficiency, power-user-friendliness,

and constant newness is the reason I'm a Linux nut.

 

I do agree that many many people like Windows, and there is much to like

in it, but I'm happy to have other choices, including Linux, OS X,

Solaris, and the BSDs.

 

--

Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't

lose.

-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (1995)

* the wharf rat peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <z7-dnXLNq9OUjoLVnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@bt.com>,

> Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>Linux is based on the outdated Unix

>

> Lol.

 

LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

 

--

The finest pieces of software are those where one individual has a complete

sense of exactly how the program works. To have that, you have to really

love the program and concentrate on keeping it simple, to an incredible

degree.

-- Bill Gates

In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,

Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:

>

>LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

>

 

Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of

"outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground

up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.

On Mon, 5 May 2008 15:00:46 +0100, "Dr.Hal0nf1r£$"

<femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>That's a very small number compared with XP or Vista.

 

Now if Microsoft did not engage in their extremely aggressive business

practices of bundling and so forth, and the OEM's actually had the

brass it would take to stand up to MS, then it would be a very

different landscape.

>Linux is based on the outdated Unix

 

An outdated AMD K5 is still going to perform far better than a

3-transistor circuit. I like Windows however it's far from perfect and

Microsoft seems to be heading in the wrong direction. Pulling out

DirectSound is one significant example.

 

JD

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat

<wrat@panix.com>

wrote

on Mon, 5 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000 (UTC)

<fvncof$jeb$1@reader2.panix.com>:

> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,

> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:

>>

>>LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

>>

>

> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of

> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground

> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.

>

 

Linux is to Unix as a Chevy is to a Ford both Linux

and Unix manage computer resources, and both conform to

standards, POSIX among them.

 

Linux *may* include some Unix drivers, but I'd frankly have

to look for them the kernel proper is, as you correctly state,

written from the ground up, and while it does implement such

things as fork(), it has no Unix code as such. There was,

however, an iBcs2 effort at one point, allowing Linux systems

to run BSD386 apps.

 

As for SCO...good riddance. :-P

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all!

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat

> <wrat@panix.com>

> wrote

> on Mon, 5 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000 (UTC)

> <fvncof$jeb$1@reader2.panix.com>:

>> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,

>> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:

>>>

>>> LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

>>>

>>

>> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of

>> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground

>> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.

>>

>

> Linux is to Unix as a Chevy is to a Ford both Linux

> and Unix manage computer resources, and both conform to

> standards, POSIX among them.

>

> Linux *may* include some Unix drivers, but I'd frankly have

> to look for them the kernel proper is, as you correctly state,

> written from the ground up, and while it does implement such

> things as fork(), it has no Unix code as such. There was,

> however, an iBcs2 effort at one point, allowing Linux systems

> to run BSD386 apps.

>

> As for SCO...good riddance. :-P

 

http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9590_22-199987.html?tag=nl.e550

 

:-D

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dr.Hal0nf1r£$

<femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid>

wrote

on Tue, 6 May 2008 00:51:57 +0100

<cOidnWOQ5aQKAILVRVnyjwA@bt.com>:

> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, the wharf rat

>> <wrat@panix.com>

>> wrote

>> on Mon, 5 May 2008 16:31:11 +0000 (UTC)

>> <fvncof$jeb$1@reader2.panix.com>:

>>> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,

>>> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of

>>> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground

>>> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.

>>>

>>

>> Linux is to Unix as a Chevy is to a Ford both Linux

>> and Unix manage computer resources, and both conform to

>> standards, POSIX among them.

>>

>> Linux *may* include some Unix drivers, but I'd frankly have

>> to look for them the kernel proper is, as you correctly state,

>> written from the ground up, and while it does implement such

>> things as fork(), it has no Unix code as such. There was,

>> however, an iBcs2 effort at one point, allowing Linux systems

>> to run BSD386 apps.

>>

>> As for SCO...good riddance. :-P

>

> http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9590_22-199987.html?tag=nl.e550

>

>:-D

>

 

Well, I'll give Darl McBride points for being consistent,

but that's about it... -) It'll be interesting to see

how many other vendors Novell will sue, though.

 

Oh, and from the "better late than never" department:

 

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9593_22-5926241.html?tag=btxcsim

 

They've finally identified 217 contract violations, but the

document is presumably still under court seal. (Why, I'm

not sure this report is dated 2005-11-01.)

 

There's also

 

http://www.cyber.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html

 

(found using Google Search) which, if complete and

accurate, means Linux suffers not one whit, except perhaps

in perceived reputation, and that only if one believes

Darl McBride, from all this.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

* the wharf rat peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <UzGTj.17306$28.1264@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,

> Linonut <linonut@be11south.net> wrote:

>>

>>LOL yourself. Mac is based on the "outdated UNIX", too.

>

> Well, first of all, ducky, I was laughing at the idea of

> "outdated". Second of all, Linux isn't based on unix. It's a ground

> up complete re-write, which is why poor SCO is no longer with us.

 

Not to continue niggling, but Linux is based on UNIX, enough so that

it's replacing it in a lot of contexts.

 

"Based on" != "same code"

 

Oh well, we're just meta-arguing here.

 

--

Whether it's Google or Apple or free software, we've got some fantastic

competitors and it keeps us on our toes.

-- Bill Gates

* Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> As for SCO...good riddance. :-P

>

> http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9590_22-199987.html?tag=nl.e550

>

> :-D

 

Indeed. McBride is, and always has been, a deluded clown.

 

In the hearing, which concludes on Friday, SCO chief executive Darl

McBride made claims--including that "Linux is a copy of Unix"--which

are directly contradicted by the open-source community and apparently

run counter to other SCO testimony, ...

 

--

Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very

efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.

-- Bill Gates

On 2008-05-05, Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ <femail@nospam.kustomkomputa.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> Matt wrote:

>> Ignoramus20845 wrote:

>>> On 2008-04-04, Josef Moellers <josef.moellers@fujitsu-siemens.com>

>>> wrote:

>>>> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> After 10 years, .7 percent is pathetic.

>>>> After 10 years without a multi-billion advertising campaign and

>>>> massive bullying, one in 143 is all but pathetic.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Keep in mind that "desktop" is only one of the markets where Linux is

>>> a player. The other two markets are servers and gadgets (including

>>> those EEE PCs and PMPs). There, Linux is much more successful.

>>>

>>> I think that rather than froth at the mouth with "advocacy", we'd do

>>> better to promote Linux by writing better software to make Linux run

>>> smoother.

>>>

>>> i

>>

>>

>> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.

>>

>> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of

>> the most popular OSes.

>

> The thing is that under 7% of users use Linux: That's a very small number

> compared with XP or Vista. Linux is based on the outdated Unix using which

> is as sensible as using a 1960s immersion heater with most of its old wiring

> to supply your house with hot water: It does its job although

> inefficiently, and it requires constant servicing with obsolete parts to

> keep it in a good condition.

>

> Manufacturers in the 21st Century won't be manufacturing updated parts to

> improve its performance or selling it as today's technology with a whole new

> look and feel to the original Belling and Howell immersion unit: They'll

> have instead moved on and designed something much more efficient in terms of

> operation, energy conservation/utilisation, and cosmetic appearance.

 

...except Unix was an industrial grade design when it was created.

 

Windows never was. Even when it was retrofitted with industrial parts

inside it still retained it's "ronco" quality exterior.

 

Think of it another way... Unix was created by the same people that

gave you your reliable first class land line communications system.

 

[deletia]

 

This is the common "it is old, therefore it must be bad or primitive"

fallacy. There are many devices that are not just based on old designs but

are just plain themselves OLD that are better than what's "shiny and new"

simply because they were engineered better.

 

It's like a 40 year old Benz versus a brand new Chevy.

 

--

 

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

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usenet.com

Linonut wrote:

> * Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> One of the keys to winning the desktop is cross-platform development.

>>

>> Every new application should be made to run on all three or four of the

>> most popular OSes.

>

> Some may argue about that.

 

!

> But, in any case, all too many developers in

> the commercial arena do not feel they have even time enough for one

> platform, and so they stick with the largest platform.

 

 

Partly inertia, partly lack of tools. I don't know, but I understand

GTK+ is kind of a mess, and Qt suffers from licensing issues.

* Matt peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:

>

>> But, in any case, all too many developers in

>> the commercial arena do not feel they have even time enough for one

>> platform, and so they stick with the largest platform.

>

> Partly inertia, partly lack of tools. I don't know, but I understand

> GTK+ is kind of a mess, and Qt suffers from licensing issues.

 

Inertia, sure. Lack of tools? Nah! In addition to GTK and Qt, there's

wxWidgets and the Fox toolkit. Then there's Python, and even Perl and

Tcl/Tk can be used to reasonable effect.

 

I normally don't do GUI programming, but I took one of our GUI apps

(shows a bunch of widgets representing a map of an installation, and

you can click the widgets to cause hardware to do stuff) that someone

else had written using Qt, and ported it to Linux over a weekend.

 

I don't think Microsoft tools have much on Linux tools except looks

(maybe), and an annoying level of integration. I know two guys, one who

really likes Eclipse (though he uses it on Windows mainly) and another

who really likes Netbeans.

 

There's really no excuse these days, for not programming in a

cross-platform manner, unless you are "locked-in". You snooze, you

looze! <grin>

 

--

Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't

lose.

-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (1995)