In <3f4b9c2e$1_4@newsfeed>, on 08/27/2003
at 01:46 PM, "Sparky" <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> said:

No. He wrote it from scratch.

Au contraire, it is to recognize that you are clueless. If you
attribute Linux to the Minix architecture you would have at least have
had some semblance of a pretext, but to claim that he copied the Unix
architecture is stupidity above and beyond the call of duty.

I've wasted more time on you than you're worth. FOAD. HAND. HTH.

*PLONK*

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT

Any unsolicited bulk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.

Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply
to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

"Sparky" <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote in message news:<3f4b9c2e$1_4@newsfeed>...
if you don't understand something, don't make sarcastic comments on
the same.
Firstly, Linux is not UNIX. It doesn't have a lot in common with
traditional UNIX and does not share the AT&T code found on other
versions of UNIX.
Technology finds its value in (a) how good its design is and (b) how
well it addresses the needs of society.
UNIX wins (a) hands down. windows does win (b) to some extent. that
is because most people who use windows are not competent enough to use
UNIX.
Im actually hoping that Apple comes out with a cheap version of Mac
OS X. That coupled with OpenOffice-like tools should suffice to put
MSFT out of business. [along with it symantec perhaps:-)].
I work for a first-rate organization that has windows on my desktop
but UNIX on everything else. It turns out the most frustrating thing
about my work environment is the desktop because of the numerous
updates I need to keep downloading.
Someone needs to tell the folks at MSFT, the less code change the
more mature the code base is, and hence better in quality.

regards
-kamal

"Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message
news:181e352f.0308301005.723bff9a@posting.google.c om...

Two products do not need to share code in order to have the same basic
architecture. Please explain where the Linux radically departs from the
basic Unix architecture?

What I find so perplexing is the amount of intellectual capital that is
being wasted on Linux. Other than being free, Linux offers nothing new to
the community. In fact, instead pushing the outside of the envelope,
creating new areas for value added computing, it merely commoditizes an
existing technology base.


In closing, once again, I will reiterate that Linux will never replace
Windows on the desktop. I am not saying that Windows will not be replaced
by another OS. What I am saying is that what replaces it will not be Linux.

In comp.os.linux.misc Sparky <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote:

Oh, having loadable kernel modules and about 4 million lines of code,
instead of a few thousand. That'll do. And preempted task switching
(nowadays). Apart from that, yes, it looks a lot like VMS. Where
does VMS depart from the basic Unix architecture?

Don't be silly - it replaced windows on my desktop nearly ten years
ago. Where and when are you living?

Peter

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:vutrib.pbm.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
NT looks a lot more like VMS than does Linux from an internals point of
view. Linux has Unix's everything is a file architecture. Linux's
process management, memory management, interprocess communication methods,
and interrupt handling are nothing like that of VMS. On the other hand,
there is almost a one to one correlation between NT and VMS at the kernel
level. For example, in VMS, a device driver ISR, servicing a high priority
interrupt, usually defers execution by performing what is know as "fork
processing" (this method of handling interrupts minimizes the amount of time
spent at an elevated priority level). NT has this same exact mechanism, but
it is called "deferred procedure call." In fact, here is a little table
that maps a few key VMS features to their NT equivalents (there are many
more):


Fork Processing (VMS) = Deferred Procedure Call (NT)
Async System Trap (VMS) = Async Procedure Call (NT)
Working Set (VMS) = Working Set (NT)
Paged Pool (VMS) = Paged Pool (NT)
Non-Paged Pool (VMS) = Non-Paged Pool (NT)
I/O Request Packet (VMS) = I/O Request Packet (NT)

For all intents are purposes, NT is the latest incarnation of VMS.

Yes, but it will never replace Windows on the corporate desktop!

In comp.os.linux.misc Sparky <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote:

Nah - linux has ethernet drivers that aren't files. Linux has
directories that aren't files. Lots of things aren't files. Including
the kernel. Count the ioctls.

In what way are they different? Linux IPC exists in about three or four
different forms anyway!

This is what happens in linux as well. Device drivers have a top half
and a bottom half. One half serves only to immediately take the
interrupt and queue it for later servicing by the other half.

Sounds exactly like linux.

Nonsensical technobabble.

I think you might be talking about the wakeup mechanisms for tasks.
But who knows.

Windows is not on a corporate desktop anywhere I know. Always ran
perqs, suns, hp's, sgi's or pcs. All with appropriate ux. Secretaries
get windows because they're supposed to be dogsboddies and so get
dogsoss.

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Sparky <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote:


So very, very wrong.

What Linux offers is source code, and THAT is what is new and
important.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:15:17 -0400, Sparky wrote:

You might want to tell that to movie makers, Wall Street, Brazil, the
Netherlnds, China, ...
--
Rick

"Sparky" <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote in message news:<3f5024be_1@newsfeed>...
nor a significant modification of the same. its so-to-speak re-written
and has had some additions lately by UNIX vendors (guess who?).

pitting freeware [thats almost like UNIX] againts it. The intellectual
capital that is being wasted is not being paid for by you -so you
need'nt bother about it. The trademark UNIX belongs to the OpenGroup,
and its their idea that there should be conformance with regard to
interfaces and functionality but not underlying implementation for
vendors to get a seal of approval {also referred to as POSIX]. ie
Linux and/or windowa could get the same seal if they adhere to it.


It might, it might not. the world has its own momentum. what I do know
that even the most savvy of business owners will soon find it
unaffordable to buy Microsoft Office. its on the wrong side of Moore's
law.

regards
-kamal

Sparky wrote:

"Never" is a big word. Eighteen months ago if you told me I would be
using a Debian based Linux distro, I woulda have laughed, I'm dumb when
it comes to this. I'm no geek, nor do I care about the intricacies of
compiling the kernel. With Libranet 2.8 I have recompiled the kernel
(two clicks, choose my processor, and go watch a flick), I did this to
experiment, I didn't need to, everything was recognized and worked in
Libranet.

I do everything I did before in XP (OOo takes care of my office chores,
I use MySQL, gnumeric, Mozilla, Firebird, Galeon to cruise the Net,
Mozilla-mail/news is better than Outlook (actually, anything is better
than OE), sylpheed is great too (mail and news), Gecko-based browsers
offer you the option of no pop-ups ads, real handy.
XAdminmenu (in Libranet), formats my diskettes, add users, reconfigure
my mouse, keyboard, adds flash, and the rest of the java crap, for a
dummy like me, it's heaven. Copy/paste = highlight/press scroll button,
little details...

And now we have Lindows 4.0 (based also in Debian):

http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4378

I give it one more version to be introduced to the unwashed masses.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Sparky" <no.spam@wanted.you.fool.org> wrote:
"Never" is a rather long time.

It might turn out that someone instead harnesses NetBSD or FreeBSD as
an OS substrate for systems to replace Windows "en masse."

After all, the notion that Linux would "replace" Windows is, to a
great extent, nonsense, because Linux is merely an OS kernel,
alongside great gobs of other stuff that (by virtue of working
perfectly well with FreeBSD and other NON-LINUX systems) is
demonstrably Not Linux.

What would lead to Windows being replaced is the availability of
mature alternatives to the _APPLICATIONS_. Mozilla is getting to be
an increasingly viable alternative to Internet Exploder;
OpenOffice.org is getting functional enough to be realistically viable
as alternative to Microsoft Office.

It is easy to find counterexamples where someone has an application
that is tightly integrated to MS Office, but such examples are quite
dangerous to the users, as MS Office gets "upgraded" incompatibly
often enough for such integration to be quite dangerous.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
woman she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to
kill again." -- Unknown, Marin County newspaper's TV listing for _The
Wizard of Oz_

Oops! kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
Linux may not share code with SysV, but most UNIX(tm) systems don't
share much code anymore either. That seems a specious difference to
point at.

Linux is not a trademarked UNIX(tm), but most of the "Unix-like"
systems around these days aren't trademarked either. HP isn't paying
in to TOG, nor is SGI, nor are any of the "BSD variants."

Please explain where Linux radically departs from the basic Unix
architecture _FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF FUNCTIONALITY_.

One of the things falling out of the SCO case is that the "formal
identity" of UNIX(tm) is becoming increasingly unimportant. The only
vendors still calling their products UNIX seem to be SCO and the
remains of Digital within HP.

We aren't all that interested in identity; if you want to claim some
difference between Linux and the Unix architecture, feel free to point
to actual differences in that regard.

No, Linux is the result of a whole lot of people desiring a free
implementation of something "sufficiently similar to Unix."

That desire also led to the implementations of numerous forks of the
BSD 4.4 Lite code base, that was another project to implement
something "reasonably similar to Unix."

Had AT&T not filed suit over the BSD project, or had it been resolved
more quickly, we might all be using FreeBSD today instead, and there
might be a subtly different political dynamic.
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-- Paul Graham, _On Lisp_

In comp.os.linux.misc Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
Only when you explain how come Windows satisfies posix ... (yah, we
know, you're not talking about functionality - that's posix -, you're
talking about implementation. Get it right).

Peter

After a long battle with technology,"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>, an earthling, wrote:
Come on. Windows never pretended to be intended as a
"nearly-bug-for-bug equivalent" to Unix.

There exist "hacks" that allow running something vaguely resembling
Unix on top of Windows, but the notion that Windows, via POSIX, is as
similar to Unix as Linux is represents either folly or someone's sour
grapes that BSD didn't win the popularity battle.
--
output = ("aa454" "@" "freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lsf.html
Honuphrius is a concupiscent exservicemajor who makes dishonest
propositions to all.

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message news:<bitbfg$ckr96$2@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Well -Its not my idea to stir up a political debate.

If its a descendant of sysV, it must have been quite similar at one pt
of
time, and thereafter constrained by the original sw design when
evolving from that pt onwards.


Im not all that knowledgable about the kernel src code. But from what
Ive seen, the diff between any two of the non-Linux versions is a lot
less than the diff between Linux and one of the other Unixes. (struct
task has no equivalent on any UNIX for eg).
Besides, if you consider the code outside the kernel, its heavily
influenced by GNU-ism. Im pretty sure that the desire to provide apps
that replicate windows functionality/ease-of-use has resulted in a lot
of code being added to it. Whether Linux is as good a product as UNIX
(tm) systems or windows (iuf thats you original q) is something of a
political question and Id rather not answer it.

for all you know, TOG might use this as an oopurtunity to stress that
if you want to call your OS UNIX, pl. do the following.

[snip]
True. but the dislike among volunteers (for MSFT) and corporate
supporters clearly points to something anti-microsoft.

Well -the political part of the equation is what I wouldn't like to
comment on. but lets just say that the codd base for linux has more
LOC and more frequest changes than what Id expect. in fact, its
getting closer to bloatware.

regards
-kamal

Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whenkamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad)wrote:
That's odd - I can hardly see your comments doing anything else.

The BSD folk would almost certainly disagree with that, particularly
in that they never descended from SysV.

That's not at all what I see. If Linux is _greatly_ similar to
anything, that "anything" would be Solaris.

The differences between modern "UNIX (tm)" variations seem to be quite
a bit _bigger_ than the differences between them and Linux.

The "GNU influence" for "ease of use" /long/ predates Windows, as
people were arguing over the GNU "long options" back when Microsoft
had released Windows 2, which everyone thought was a total joke in
comparison with DRI GEM.

Arguments about "ease of use" predate Windows being any kind of
influence on things.

At the time it started, it was much more "Anti-IBM," with Microsoft
being an irrelevant producer of crummy "Pee Cee" software.

... Then I presume you have never used Solaris ...
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
Would-be National Mottos:
Poland: "We probably would have had a happier history if we were
between Canada and Mexico, not Germany and Russia."

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:<3f4fdf14$18$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.n et>...
Um, hello? What does that have to do with it? It's still based on
the same UNIX architecture and concepts.

You are apparently some sort of blind fanboy. I guess you've ignored
that Linux is a UNIX clone, even down to the idea of dev files. Right
now, Linux is replacing many UNIX enterprise workstations for the
simple fact that it's a UNIX clone but free. Next time, I suggest
thinking and doing a little basic research before popping off and
making yourself look foolish.

The original thread starter is right. Linux is making headway
replacing UNIX workstations in enterprises as well as the server
market. But its very architecture (and community mindset) prevents it
from ever making serious headway into the desktop market. Especially
with the poor excuses out now, Xlib under some library under some
windowing library under a window manager under a desktop shell, hacked
together to make impressive marketing screenshots (look, it's a
desktop under Linux) but ultimately disappointing when you actually
grab the mouse and attempt to use the thing.

In general, the Linux community is reactive. It just reacts to
Redmond. That is its primary motivation. That's clear whenever
someone uses "M$," and you see the next open source project that is
merely reinventing the wheel of some Windows concept.

Cover your eyes you might have your mind opened!

On 2003-09-01, bonch <bonch@stupid.com> wrote:

Pure bullshit!

I'm running Slackware 9.0 w/ KDE. Works just like any M$ windows I've
ever used. Actually, better cuz I'm not crashing/rebooting all the
time. Using Netscape for the web, using Kword for reading .doc files.
Includes almost everything I can get for Windows. Has been my primary
desktop computer for over a year now and the only time I turn on my
Windows box is when I need to run Autocad. That may be changing, too.

I'm one lazy sumbitch. No hacker/programmer, here. I wanted a basic,
reliable, computer to surf the web, listen to music, post to usenet
and irc, etc, all the usual stuff home Windows users do. Linux works
just fine. The desktops like Gnome and KDE are way beyond the "hacked
together" stage. My mouse works everywhere I need it, including the
command line console.

nb

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote in message news:<bivtgr$dp14k$1@ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>...
why do you want to associate me with Martha Stewart?
when I replied to a sarcastic post [towards linux] by Sparky on
alt.computer.consultants.

OK. whether they descended or re-wrote (AT&T's version), its more unix
like than linux. what I was trying to tell Sparky is that no matter
what defects lie within linux, they cannot be generalized to all
versions of UNIX.

fine. I was under the impression that solaris grew out of BSD. all the
more so when you look at stuff like NFS.
[snip]
a bit. Ive used mostly BSD stuff.

regards
-kamal

kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Prasad) writes:
You can easily be excused for thinking that. In fact SunOS ( which was
retrospectively renamed to Solaris-1 when Solaris-2 was released) was a
BSD-based system.

Later, Solaris-2 was based on SysV. This caused a lot of angst with those
who had grown up with the original BSD-based SunOS and then had to retrain
to come up to speed with the new SysV-based Solaris.

jack
--
Vlad, Heisenberg & Thomas: The originators of FUD.