Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.
From: Curtis Bass (cmbass_us_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/25/04
- Next message: Curtis Bass: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- Previous message: Chuck Harris: "Re: Correct modeling of parasitic elements"
- In reply to: MMI: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- Next in thread: David Sutherland: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Jun 2004 09:54:45 -0700
MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rpGBF$8dq@news.consultron.ca>...
> Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> > MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rmQKQ$8dh@news.consultron.ca>...
> >
> >>Curtis Bass wrote:
> >>
> >>>MMI <mmi@nautimail.com> wrote in message news:<c1.2b5.2rjyw9$8eU@news.consultron.ca>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>David Sutherland wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
> >>>>>for you.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
> >>>>that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
> >>>>suite.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What you "expect" is irrelevant -- The Ghost In The Machine never
> >>>claimed that Windows had "out of the box" TCP/IP support, and, whether
> >>>you like it or not, 3rd party support is just as legitimate and
> >>>relevant as "out of the box" support.
> >>
> >>Great. Will remeber the last one. :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>>>But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
> >>>>NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If it's actually true, then yes, absolutely.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Great. And don't tell me you
> >>>>didn't find any in your OS/2 box. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody but you . . .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
> >>>>shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
> >>>>Winsock... You can choose...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sure, you can be "right" about Trumpet WinSock if we all adopt your
> >>>pet meaning of "support", but that is rather unlikely, considering
> >>>that your pet meaning is itself wrong.
> >>
> >>OK, I will adopt the 'right' meaning, why not. It allows me now to say
> >>that OS/2 has a local multiuser and a local security support (not
> >>HPFS386 related), because there is a 3rd party product that does that.
> >>How do you like it?
> >
> >
> > I have no problem with it,
>
> Good then. Before this thread, I'd never say something like "OS/2 has
> multiuser and local security support. It is made by the 3rd party."
> sentences. Well now I can say that. Before, the words "OS/2 has
> support," or "<anything> has support" would mean that OS/2 or that
> <anything> would have to support it on its own. And that really means
> out-of-the-box.
Perhaps you should clarify in your own mind the difference between
"has support" and "supports". OS/2 "has support" of multi-user access
via a 3rd party product. However, to say that "OS/2 'supports'
multi-user access" would be a false statement, because "supports" does
indeed imply out-of-the-box support.
See the difference?
> > as long as you are clear that the support
> > is 3rd party, just as The Ghost In The Machine was:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7hu3q1-drn.ln1%40lexi2.athghost7038suus.net&output=gplain
> >
> > "Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.
> > (Trumpet Winsock was a 3rd party addon product
> > that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)"
> >
> > The Ghost In The Machine -- June 15, 2004
> >
> > It's easy to assume vendor (out of the box) support, as you did, but
> > the problem is that you went into an "out of the box" rant in spite of
> > The Ghost In The Machine's clarification that the support he was
> > talking about was indeed 3rd party, and now it seems you have a desire
> > to mislead people into thinking that OS/2 has out of the box
> > multi-user and file system security support.
>
> And now it seems you know me better than I do, which of course, is
> impossible. Kinda sutherlandish, but I can live with that.
What part of "seems" do you not understand?
> >>Multiuser-OS/2-plus-local-security* (protecting files and
> >>directories by UID/PSWD) according to your 'right' definition?
> >
> > It ain't "my" right definition -- it's just _the_ right definition.
>
> Alright, I accept that.
>
> >>I just can't wait until some of you comes here into COOA ranting about
> >>NT's local security and OS/2's lack of it. :-)
> >
> >
> > Well, out of the box, OS/2 does lack local file system security and
> > multi-user access, and the 3rd party add-on that provides it is a beta
> > port of Linux code.
>
> Anything to support this claim (about beta port of Linux code)?
http://os2.kiev.ua/en/sses.php
http://os2.kiev.ua/en/sses.download.php
I may be wrong about its being a port of Linux code, and I was
definitely wrong about its beta status -- it's actually alpha-level
code.
> Because AFAIK the only things that look like Linux in that product
> is the "su" command, using the "passwd" file with similar structure,
> and perhaps "etc" directory. The rest is quite different, for example
> the driver that uses security hooks in the Warp 4+ kernel, which is,
> and you're surely not going to argue that, quite a different beast
> from the Linux kernel.
None of this proves that it isn't a port. The fact that there are
differences is to be expected -- that's what "porting" is all about,
after all.
> Then there is multiuser process concept, but that is common to
> all multiuser systems, even NT.
The point here is that OS/2 is _not_ a multi-user system unless you
_add_ _on_ a 3rd-party product. Out of the box, OS/2 is as
single-user as you can get.
> And don't forget, that software does have more "actions" to disable
> or enable than typical Linux rwx-rwx-rwx "holy trinity" of attributes
> :-)
<Shrug> If you say so.
> > Which, of course, leads to the obvious question:
>
> How are you going to support that claim of yours?
What claim?
> > Why not just use Linux,
>
> You know, I have Linux on my secondary machine. And well, "Linux is not
> quite there yet" from my point of view. I'll wait for some more years to
> come. Then I may switch.
Fair enough, but my question then becomes: Where is "there"? You say
that Linux "isn't quite there, yet", so where does it need to be?
> > instead of porting all of this Linux/GNU code
> > over to the OS/2 kernel?
>
> I dunno, first I've got to see the support of your claim.
Even if the code I referenced isn't Linux code, my point that a
substantial portion of development seems to be porting GNU/Linux code
over to OS/2 is still valid. For example, the WarpVision program that
people rave about includes GNU code. The GIMP is another obvious
example. And "UniAud is based on the Linux ALSA project"
(http://www.os2warp.be/index2.php?name=uniauddown).
Ironically, it took UniAud (ALSA . . . _LINUX/GNU_ technology) to
finally provide sound on my old Gateway notebook -- native OS/2
Allegro drivers never did work. For better or worse, that notebook is
retired and I currently use a Sony Vaio notebook, which doesn't even
have a floppy disk drive. eCS 1.0 will not install on this machine,
although 1.1 allegedly will.
Linux, otoh, has no problem installing, and the GL screensavers work
beautifully with my nVidia hardware. Sound was somewhat problematic,
but, with a little internet research, I was able to get that problem
solved. The neat thing is that Linux and Windows both see the
hyperthreading P4 as 2 processors, so I am running the SMP kernel as I
type this. And GNOME looks great at 1400 x 1050 x 24. And I have
hardware 3D acceleration for the GL stuff.
Curtis
- Next message: Curtis Bass: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- Previous message: Chuck Harris: "Re: Correct modeling of parasitic elements"
- In reply to: MMI: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- Next in thread: David Sutherland: "Re: I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
