* relic peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>>
>> Then you're just as idiotic.
>
> You're just mean.

Nope, not this time.

>> (Where do these lunatic fringers come from?)
>
> (The linux cults?)

I'm talking about you Windows fans who cannot tolerate the existence of
an alternative PC operating system.

--
Gomme's Laws:
(1) A backscratcher will always find new itches.
(2) Time accelerates.
(3) The weather at home improves as soon as you go away.

Ezekiel <y@r.com> wrote:
>
> "Ben" <beno1990******.com> wrote in message
> news:g60t3g$6uf$1@news.mixmin.net...
>> Rick wrote:
>>> Hopefully, in the near future, vendors will no longer feel compelled to
>>> add Windows based models.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'd love to see that happen, truth be told. And it's not just about Linux
>> for me. It's about genuine competition. I'd like to see at least 4
>> different OSs on the desktop market in good competition. I just think
>> Linux should be one of those 4.
>
> I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in another
> way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all competing for
> marketshare would be a pain for developers and manufacturers in some ways.

It worked in the 80s, when there were not only a dozen different operating
systems, but hardware platforms all vying for market share.

It's called competition, it drove innovation, the people who produced crap
or were badly managed fell by the wayside, the people who produced good
quality stuff succeeded until the next generation of computers arrived and
it was back to square one.

> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly developing
> for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to support 4
> different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller companies.

Not if they use the correct tools, in which case they can produce identical
software for all platforms with minimal (or no) tweeking.

Using gtk or Qt libraries... (or wx or sdl for that matter), they could
produce software that would compile and run on windows, OS X, linux and
the BSDs. OK, the binaries would differ for each, but it's just the matter
of running a crossplatform compile for each.

This is what opera do. They produce opera for all of those platforms and
more. Do you think they wrote opera differently for each platform? Or just
have a single source tree?

> There are advantages to having large percentages of people running the same
> OS.

Just as there are advantages to growing the same strain of potato...
It's cheaper that way. But the disadvantages...
We all know what happened in ireland...
It's called monoculture and it leaves you wide open for mass exploits and
viruses. Something the diversity of linux and the BSDs happily avoid.

> What would it be like if there were 4-5 "choices" for electrical service
> and each electric company had it's own voltage and frequency. An "appliance"
> that you use with one power company wouldn't be compatible with the
> voltages/frequency of another power company.

Bad example. That's why STANDARDS exist, and it's possible for different
platforms to all abide by the same standards...

Unless you're microsoft, in which case you'll go out of your way to tag on
illegal extensions in the hope of snuffing out the competition.
(See HTML and Java as examples of this phenominon)

>
> Obviously it's less than ideal to have a single (monopoly-like) supplier for
> the OS that ninety-something percent of the population uses. But the other
> extreme (having many different/incompatible OSes) isn't also without
> problems.

The OSes aren't incompatible in the important respects though.
OK, so you need a different binary to run on each (or run an API conversion
layer like WINE or the BSD linux compatibility layer). But the source for
each platform can be the same if done properly.

>> Also, if ReactOS is a success, that might knock down the Windows market
>> share a little by those who want a Windows binary compatible OS for free.
>
> I never heard of ReactOS. The problem with these attempts is that Windows
> changes too quickly for the project to keep up.

And this is why flatty constantly derides wine...
Because windows changes so quickly, wine is always playing catchup.
He doesn't appear to grasp this. (he does of course, but he likes to make
out that it's wine's fault)
--
| spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

Linonut wrote:
> * relic peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Linonut wrote:
>>>
>>> Then you're just as idiotic.
>>
>> You're just mean.
>
> Nope, not this time.
>
>>> (Where do these lunatic fringers come from?)
>>
>> (The linux cults?)
>
> I'm talking about you Windows fans who cannot tolerate the existence
> of an alternative PC operating system.

I would fully support the return of CPM.

(I spent too many years supporting UNIX systems to now support the existence
of linux)

Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> writes:

> Ezekiel <y@r.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ben" <beno1990******.com> wrote in message
>> news:g60t3g$6uf$1@news.mixmin.net...
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> Hopefully, in the near future, vendors will no longer feel compelled to
>>>> add Windows based models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd love to see that happen, truth be told. And it's not just about Linux
>>> for me. It's about genuine competition. I'd like to see at least 4
>>> different OSs on the desktop market in good competition. I just think
>>> Linux should be one of those 4.
>>
>> I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in another
>> way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all competing for
>> marketshare would be a pain for developers and manufacturers in some ways.
>
> It worked in the 80s, when there were not only a dozen different operating
> systems, but hardware platforms all vying for market share.

Except most went bust.

>
> It's called competition, it drove innovation, the people who produced
> crap

Yes, when it was all new. No one doubts the need for some competition.

> or were badly managed fell by the wayside, the people who produced good
> quality stuff succeeded until the next generation of computers arrived and
> it was back to square one.

Not true. Some great HW fell by the wayside - the QL included. The
Dragon. The Oric. The Lynx. The Speccy fan boys ensured that ...

>
>> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly developing
>> for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to support 4
>> different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller companies.
>
> Not if they use the correct tools, in which case they can produce identical
> software for all platforms with minimal (or no) tweeking.

In the real world that was never easy. Even now its not particularly
straightforward while maintaining a native interface.

>
> Using gtk or Qt libraries... (or wx or sdl for that matter), they could
> produce software that would compile and run on windows, OS X, linux and
> the BSDs. OK, the binaries would differ for each, but it's just the matter
> of running a crossplatform compile for each.

None of which tend to be as slick as when coded for the native APIs. Its
the nature of the beast - compromise and supporting a common subset.

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Not true. Some great HW fell by the wayside - the QL included. The
> Dragon. The Oric. The Lynx. The Speccy fan boys ensured that ...

I did say "or were badly managed"
We all know what killed the QL.
Released in an incomplete form due to a rush to get it out of the door
before the ST and Amiga.
Buggy ROMs for months after release with 4 updates before it reached a
stablish state.
Expensive storage media, microdrives could only store 100k and cost £4.99
EACH back then.

And the big killer, the thing that actually killed sinclair research
itself...

The Sinclair C5.

>>
>>> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly developing
>>> for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to support 4
>>> different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller companies.
>>
>> Not if they use the correct tools, in which case they can produce identical
>> software for all platforms with minimal (or no) tweeking.
>
> In the real world that was never easy. Even now its not particularly
> straightforward while maintaining a native interface.
>
>>
>> Using gtk or Qt libraries... (or wx or sdl for that matter), they could
>> produce software that would compile and run on windows, OS X, linux and
>> the BSDs. OK, the binaries would differ for each, but it's just the matter
>> of running a crossplatform compile for each.
>
> None of which tend to be as slick as when coded for the native APIs. Its
> the nature of the beast - compromise and supporting a common subset.

Well, the native APIs tend to be accessed with the libraries anyway, just
via an extra layer. Sometimes they're just "wrappers" to the native APIs.
And you can't deny opera does look good on all platforms
(well, all platforms I've seen it on anyway).

Now that wasn't too hard was it?
Not a single line of abuse in the entire post.
--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |

Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> writes:

> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Not true. Some great HW fell by the wayside - the QL included. The
>> Dragon. The Oric. The Lynx. The Speccy fan boys ensured that ...
>
> I did say "or were badly managed"

Or the market was saturated and no one wanted anything more since things
like th Speccy and C64 pretty much had it wrapped up.

> We all know what killed the QL.
> Released in an incomplete form due to a rush to get it out of the door
> before the ST and Amiga.
> Buggy ROMs for months after release with 4 updates before it reached a
> stablish state.
> Expensive storage media, microdrives could only store 100k and cost £4.99
> EACH back then.

Yup. Nightmare. But a good idea in the day - pity they never really
worked. Its easy to forget how limited tape players were in those days.

>
> And the big killer, the thing that actually killed sinclair research
> itself...
>
> The Sinclair C5.

That certainly helped the downfall. But the QL never really sold. Which
was a bummer as I was programming 68000 (well, 68008) and had some nice
graphics libraries in development.

>
>>>
>>>> It's bad enough (as in difficult and complicated enough) properly developing
>>>> for and supporting a single OS. Trying to write a product to support 4
>>>> different operating systems would be expensive for the smaller companies.
>>>
>>> Not if they use the correct tools, in which case they can produce identical
>>> software for all platforms with minimal (or no) tweeking.
>>
>> In the real world that was never easy. Even now its not particularly
>> straightforward while maintaining a native interface.
>>
>>>
>>> Using gtk or Qt libraries... (or wx or sdl for that matter), they could
>>> produce software that would compile and run on windows, OS X, linux and
>>> the BSDs. OK, the binaries would differ for each, but it's just the matter
>>> of running a crossplatform compile for each.
>>
>> None of which tend to be as slick as when coded for the native APIs. Its
>> the nature of the beast - compromise and supporting a common subset.
>
> Well, the native APIs tend to be accessed with the libraries anyway, just
> via an extra layer. Sometimes they're just "wrappers" to the native APIs.
> And you can't deny opera does look good on all platforms
> (well, all platforms I've seen it on anyway).

Yes, but the point is that the wrappers can only concentrate on the core
similarities of the code is not "platform exact" - you lose
features. GTK is quite nice but still **** hard in many cases. I am a
big fan of Glade mind you.

>
> Now that wasn't too hard was it?
> Not a single line of abuse in the entire post.

When you're not being a COLA 'tard why should there be ? :-;

--
"Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
-- Rick <none@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:45:55 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

>> I'd love to see that happen, truth be told. And it's not just about
>> Linux for me. It's about genuine competition. I'd like to see at least
>> 4 different OSs on the desktop market in good competition. I just think
>> Linux should be one of those 4.
>
> I understand what you're saying and in a way it sounds good. But in
> another way it also sounds impractical. Having 4 major OS's all
> competing for marketshare would be a pain for developers and
> manufacturers in some ways.


Java!


Seriously, though, the point isn't to make it better for developers, but
for consumers. Admittedly it's a weird situation, because it *is*, to my
mind, a prime candidate for a "natural monopoly" for the very reasons you
give and allude to. Also, it's sorta/kinda good for the USA if Europe is
paying for a US product, however that might be offset by all the nonsense
Windows brings along with it.


-Thufir

Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> When you're not being a COLA 'tard why should there be ? :-;

I knew it wouldn't last.

--
| spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |

Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> writes:

> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> When you're not being a COLA 'tard why should there be ? :-;
>
> I knew it wouldn't last.

Why, are you back to being one already in another thread?

--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>

* relic peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Linonut wrote:
>>
>> I'm talking about you Windows fans who cannot tolerate the existence
>> of an alternative PC operating system.
>
> I would fully support the return of CPM.
>
> (I spent too many years supporting UNIX systems to now support the existence
> of linux)

That's why you're a "relic". Your perceptions are quaint.

You want to see how "easy" Windows is to support? Check out a site
running under NMCI.

And it took EDS and its partners /years/ to get it to where it is at
today.

--
I think it's fair to say that personal computers have become the most
empowering tool we've ever created. They're tools of communication, they're
tools of creativity, and they can be shaped by their user.
-- Bill Gates

In article <221hbv.ral.19.1@news.alt.net>, relic <relic2@cjb.net> wrote:
>
>Our developers modified our high-end UNIX for a continuously available
>environment (99.997). They had to plug hundreds of panic holes, create queue

Gee. And all they had to do was buy a Tandem. Bet they feel stupid.

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <221hbv.ral.19.1@news.alt.net>, relic <relic2@cjb.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Our developers modified our high-end UNIX for a continuously
>> available environment (99.997). They had to plug hundreds of panic
>> holes, create queue
>
> Gee. And all they had to do was buy a Tandem. Bet they feel stupid.

It took Tandem years, and the same effort to handle the Panic Traps. I don't
remember Tandem doing anything with Queue Managers; I believed they kept the
UNIX "Throw it over your shoulder and hope someone catches it" technique.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:12:54 -0700, relic wrote:

> the wharf rat wrote:
>> In article <221hbv.ral.19.1@news.alt.net>, relic <relic2@cjb.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Our developers modified our high-end UNIX for a continuously
>>> available environment (99.997). They had to plug hundreds of panic
>>> holes, create queue
>>
>> Gee. And all they had to do was buy a Tandem. Bet they feel stupid.
>
> It took Tandem years, and the same effort to handle the Panic Traps. I don't
> remember Tandem doing anything with Queue Managers; I believed they kept the
> UNIX "Throw it over your shoulder and hope someone catches it" technique.

Tandem was transaction oriented and IBM was batch oriented if I remember
correctly.

Tandem was used a lot as front ends in banking and brokerage firms.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Linonut wrote:

>Thanks for the anecote, relic. It makes me appreciate what you say
>more, and I no longer think you're simply a troll.

Which is why he's one of the "Linux makes you you stupid" nitwits,
right?

Damian illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
> Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>> In article <g62g16$52c$1@news.tornevall.net>, "Damian"
>> <nospam@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>>> the wharf rat wrote:
>>>> In article <C4A96491.CA06A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>,
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If the hardware is not, in some way, focused and even controlled
>>>>> then it will cease to be compatible...
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Look at what happened with SCSI. Since there was no
>>>> focus or control by Microsoft it's not like I can install some
>>>> crappy old Tekram SCSI card and a 2/4GB DAT drive and expect it to
>>>> work perfectly.
>>>>
>>>> Not on Windows at any rate. Works fine on Linux of course.
>>>> Thank God Microsoft is out there protecting me from being able to
>>>> run legacy hardware by providing focus and control.
>>>
>>> SCSI is king on Servers, not Desktops. Any *Windows Server* product
>>> has full support for them, always have.
>>
>> So ... why are there so many versions of windows then ?
>
>
> So ... why isn't there a version of linux that works?

Wanna pop around here and take a quick look at the four laptops,
twelve desktops, three servers and two windows boxes and play a game
of "spot the machine that regularly crashes"?

I'll give you a clue, it ain't a linux machine. They just work.

--
"I was sleeping the other night, alone, thanks to the exterminator." ~
Emo Philips