life after Windows....

Floyd L. Davidson writes:

Linux specifically is the Kernel. GNU specifically is
the required userland toolset.

So neither is actually an operating system.

FreeBSD, UNIX, Mac OS, Windows, and OS/2 are all operating systems. Linux and
GNU are not.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson writes:

Linux specifically is the Kernel. GNU specifically is
the required userland toolset.

So neither is actually an operating system.

Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an
Operating System.

FreeBSD, UNIX, Mac OS, Windows, and OS/2 are all operating systems. Linux and
GNU are not.

Why are you trying so hard to be so asinine? RedHat,
Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS,
Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus,
Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full
fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions.

Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that
neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed
are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but
neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less)
than GNU/Linux does.

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

Floyd L. Davidson writes:

Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an
Operating System.

So it makes little sense to promote Linux alone vs. complete operating
systems.

RedHat,
Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS,
Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus,
Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full
fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions.

You illustrate my point. You've named fifteen and alluded to dozens of other
versions of "Linux" that are all different. There's absolutely no hope that
Linux or operating systems built with it will ever replace the desktop as long
as there are a hundred different versions floating around.

And, of course, all the versions are effectively proprietary, because they are
all unique.

Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that
neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed
are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but
neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less)
than GNU/Linux does.

Every version of UNIX or Windows runs complete in itself. Linux does not.
There are indeed many versions of UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, which
is one of its major disadvantages. Windows is fairly limited in the number of
versions it has, and all of the current versions share the same code base,
with mainly features enabled or disabled within the code, or a handful of
modules present or not present. Mac is even more consistent.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson writes:

Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an
Operating System.

So it makes little sense to promote Linux alone vs. complete operating
systems.

RedHat,
Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS,
Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus,
Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full
fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions.

You illustrate my point. You've named fifteen and alluded to dozens of other
versions of "Linux" that are all different. There's absolutely no hope that
Linux or operating systems built with it will ever replace the desktop as long
as there are a hundred different versions floating around.

And, of course, all the versions are effectively proprietary, because they are
all unique.

Why work so hard to be obtuse?

There is nothing that makes them "effectively
proprietary", and clearly if they all use a Linux kernel
and GNU toolset they are not "all unique".

Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that
neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed
are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but
neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less)
than GNU/Linux does.

Every version of UNIX or Windows runs complete in itself. Linux does not.

Every single Linux distribution runs complete in itself.
Yours statement is false on its face.

There are bits and pieces from each UNIX or Windows that
are unique to that particular version, or to one set of
versions, and do not work with others. That is
particularly significant with Windows because it is
proprietary and one does not have open access to
component parts.

There are indeed many versions of UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, which
is one of its major disadvantages.

That is one of the major advantages, in particular for
Linux.

Windows is fairly limited in the number of
versions it has, and all of the current versions share the same code base,
with mainly features enabled or disabled within the code, or a handful of
modules present or not present. Mac is even more consistent.

And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any
number of special needs, and instead must try to
shoehorn onto place something not intended for the
purpose served. And because component parts are not
openly available it is literally impossible to mix and
match.

But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt
model. How many completely new designs, virtually
unrelated to the last set, has Microsoft produced? Each
one is a start from scratch totally new can of worms to
be debugged by users. And not a one of them ever came
close to getting it right, on the basic idea in the
first place. Apple to some degree finally left that
method behind and incorporated a BSD kernel.

It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes
up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to
develop and debug a kernel. And Vista, as one example,
will probably *never* be "fixed". Instead there will
come a time when Microsoft also looks around and
realizes that they cannot possibly compete with
development of something like Linux or FreeBSD. They
need to *use* it, rather than provide fodder for fanboy
people like yourself. It may take another 12-15 years,
but that is where they are going to be eventually.

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

Floyd L. Davidson writes:

There is nothing that makes them "effectively
proprietary" ...

When they are built and supported by a single entity, they are effectively
proprietary.

... and clearly if they all use a Linux kernel
and GNU toolset they are not "all unique".

Then why aren't they identical?

Every single Linux distribution runs complete in itself.

A distribution is not Linux.

And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any
number of special needs, and instead must try to
shoehorn onto place something not intended for the
purpose served.

Most people don't have special needs, and they don't require an exact match
for any of their needs. They just require a simple tool to do a number of
straightforward tasks. The best solution for that is Windows, because it is
relatively easy to use, and there are many applications available for it. A
Mac provides slightly greater ease of use, but at the expense of a much
smaller choice of applications. Linux provides neither, and thus is not even
on the radar.

But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt
model.

It isn't a Microsoft model, it is a standard business model that companies in
IT have been using since the machines were invented.

How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set,
has Microsoft produced?

Nobody in IT has ever produced a completely new design of anything.

It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes
up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to
develop and debug a kernel.

Microsoft has known that for a long time, which is why current operating
systems use essentially the same kernel developed for Windows NT more than a
decade ago. The details change, but rewrites are prohibitively expensive,
even for Microsoft.

In message , Floyd L. Davidson
writes
Mxsmanic wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson writes:

Not until you put them together, and then it is indeed an
Operating System.

So it makes little sense to promote Linux alone vs. complete operating
systems.

RedHat,
Novel, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Slackware, Debian, CentOS,
Gentoo, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, DreamLinux, Elive, Mepus,
Puppy, Slax, and a couple dozen others are in fact full
fledge GNU/Linux Operationg System distributions.

You illustrate my point. You've named fifteen and alluded to dozens of other
versions of "Linux" that are all different. There's absolutely no hope that
Linux or operating systems built with it will ever replace the desktop as long
as there are a hundred different versions floating around.

And, of course, all the versions are effectively proprietary, because they are
all unique.

Why work so hard to be obtuse?

There is nothing that makes them "effectively
proprietary", and clearly if they all use a Linux kernel
and GNU toolset they are not "all unique".

Actually they are as are the VERY many version of the GNU tools.
There is a web site that list the top 100 (of over 1000) *DIFFERENT*
Linux distributions. There are almost as many *DIFFERENT* sets of GCC
tools

There was a recent report on how GCC compilers handled volatile and they
were all wrong but wrong in different ways. Also they are "proprietary"
as they have restrictive licenses to use them.

Using your ridiculous arguments it could be said that
neither the "UNIX" nor the "Windows" objects you listed
are actually OS's. They are both a family of OS's, but
neither term describes a specific OS any more (or less)
than GNU/Linux does.

Every version of UNIX or Windows runs complete in itself. Linux does not.

Every single Linux distribution runs complete in itself.
Yours statement is false on its face.

No... It is correct. Linux does need drivers and other things that may
or may not be in the package. Also you may need updates etc. Then again
the same is true to some extent for windows.

There are bits and pieces from each UNIX or Windows that
are unique to that particular version, or to one set of
versions, and do not work with others. That is
particularly significant with Windows because it is
proprietary and one does not have open access to
component parts.

It is not more restrictive on Windows as it is on Linux. Open access to
the parts is irrelevant in this case

There are indeed many versions of UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems, which
is one of its major disadvantages.

That is one of the major advantages, in particular for
Linux.

Actually it is a MAJOR disadvantage.

Windows is fairly limited in the number of
versions it has, and all of the current versions share the same code base,
with mainly features enabled or disabled within the code, or a handful of
modules present or not present. Mac is even more consistent.

And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any
number of special needs,

Such as?

and instead must try to
shoehorn onto place something not intended for the
purpose served. And because component parts are not
openly available it is literally impossible to mix and
match.

CRAP. The MAJOR problem with Linux is that it comes with Religion

But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt
model. How many completely new designs, virtually
unrelated to the last set, has Microsoft produced?

Ditto Linux?

It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes
up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to
develop and debug a kernel.

That also applies to Linux. BTW I have a SIL3 Kernel.. Actually I can
get 2 of them There is no way Linux can get anywhere near that. OTOH
Windows would not attempt it either.

And Vista, as one example,
will probably *never* be "fixed". Instead there will
come a time when Microsoft also looks around and
realizes that they cannot possibly compete with
development of something like Linux or FreeBSD.

It is doing VERY well at the moment. Linux is only used by Geeks and
very few others.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Mxsmanic
writes
Floyd L. Davidson writes:

There is nothing that makes them "effectively
proprietary" ...

When they are built and supported by a single entity, they are effectively
proprietary.

Then Windows is NOT proprietary by that measure.

And you cannot find a version that precisely matches any
number of special needs, and instead must try to
shoehorn onto place something not intended for the
purpose served.

Most people don't have special needs, and they don't require an exact match
for any of their needs. They just require a simple tool to do a number of
straightforward tasks.

True.

The best solution for that is Windows, because it is
relatively easy to use, and there are many applications available for it.

And almost everyone knows at least two people who can do informal
windows support.

A
Mac provides slightly greater ease of use, but at the expense of a much
smaller choice of applications.

Generally yes but it does have the main group of program people need (I
use MS Office on my PPC Macs. However in certain areas the MACS have
extremely good software support. In a few areas better than the PC

Linux provides neither, and thus is not even
on the radar.

Linux is a mess. OK for Geeks but not for the average punter.

But that is not the worst failing of the Microsopt
model.

It isn't a Microsoft model, it is a standard business model that companies in
IT have been using since the machines were invented.

Now you are bringing reality into it... :-) You have to Remember that
FOSS invented it's own rules an and gets very upset when the rest of
the bit bad business world won't play by them.

How many completely new designs, virtually unrelated to the last set,
has Microsoft produced?
Nobody in IT has ever produced a completely new design of anything.

True. Thank god I work in embedded systems not IT :-)

It is only a matter of time until Microsoft also wakes
up to the simple fact that it takes multiple years to
develop and debug a kernel.

Microsoft has known that for a long time, which is why current operating
systems use essentially the same kernel developed for Windows NT more than a
decade ago. The details change, but rewrites are prohibitively expensive,
even for Microsoft.

The Kernel is not the problem it is all the boat ware that is added on
top of most OS. That tends to be where the problems lie. There are only
a few OS kernel models (Refer to the Tananbaum/torviolds debate) and
they are well understood. It is what the whole OS does that is the
problem

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Chris H writes:

Then Windows is NOT proprietary by that measure.

Remember that the next time someone accuses Microsoft of monopolistic
practices.

And almost everyone knows at least two people who can do informal
windows support.

Also, yes. I sometimes do impromptu Windows support for people at work, since
I'm more competent than the so-called IT staff.

Generally yes but it does have the main group of program people need (I
use MS Office on my PPC Macs. However in certain areas the MACS have
extremely good software support. In a few areas better than the PC

Which areas?

I've considered using a Mac many times, but the price always puts me off. Not
only that, but after being beholden to Microsoft for an operating system for
so many years, I'm not sure I wish to tighten the yoke further with a vendor
that controls both hardware and software.

Linux is a mess. OK for Geeks but not for the average punter.

Agreed.

Now you are bringing reality into it... :-)

I prefer reality to emotion and religion.

The Kernel is not the problem it is all the boat ware that is added on
top of most OS. That tends to be where the problems lie. There are only
a few OS kernel models (Refer to the Tananbaum/torviolds debate) and
they are well understood. It is what the whole OS does that is the
problem

Or the solution, depending on the merits of the overall design.

An explanation I wrote a while back on Mxsmanic's trolling technique in
the photography newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/737ae6eefc6efa89

Msxmanic admits to trolling, & explains why he does it:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/77b4d6d707b566f6?hl=en

Hopefully, this might help people avoid wasting their time trying to
talk to MsxManiac.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Also, yes. I sometimes do impromptu Windows support for people at work,
since
I'm more competent than the so-called IT staff.

You mean you've got a proper job?

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.