Re: Fred's EVER GROWING Linux Annoyance List THREAD; take out EVER GROWING THREAD for the original Subject!

Gregory:

Agreed.  On every single point.

On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 16:46, Jones, Gregory James wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 12:38:41 -0400
> > From: "Fred P." <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [Annoyances] Fred Linux Annoyance List.
> > To: [email protected]
> > Message-ID: <BAY2-F94NnEthw0ENBP00013f8b-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> > 
> 
> <<<Snipped>>>
> 
> > > > 2) You're a junior programmer that never worked on large scale
> > >production
> > > > system,
> > > >      I'll be scared to death maintaining it if you ever did !!!
> > > >      and you have a .gov addesss HAAAAAA!
> > >
> > >I've never worked on a large scale production system.  You got me 
> > >there.  This is a national research lab.  But thanks for playing.
> > 
> > Linux and X11 is a large scale production system.
> > 
> > The problems I was mentionning won't happen for "small scale" 
> > projects, 
> > hacks and stuff like that.
> > 
> > The problem with large scale system is that it takes years to 
> > fully get the 
> > big picture,
> > since you cannot read the entire code base to verify your patch.
> > 
> > For instance, let say you read pretty fast let say 36000 LOC 
> > per day, that's 
> > 13 MLOC per year,
> > which means in one year you can read lets say the entire 
> > Linux repository. How many times you normally read some code 
> > to verify changes? 1,2,5,10,20 
> > times?
> > Which means it would take on average 5 years to change let 
> > say your "rect" 
> > entity.
> > That's why Linus ain't alone working on the code, he can't 
> > simply follow 
> > everything,
> > he simply trust peers and do some small code review, which is normal.
> > 
> 
> The classic Open Source argument is "GIVEN (I emphasize this as it is
> ofter dropped) enough eyes, all bugs are shallow".
> 
> This may or may not be inherently true.  It is hard to prove after all,
> but anecdotal evidence seems to support the claim.
> 
> A case in point is the "Ping of Death" debacle that affected pretty much
> every operating system around at the time because of the BSD (I think)
> code they all incorporated to handle this simple network functionality.
> 
> Once the exploit was confirmed in the wild, Open Source projects (made
> up mostly of volunteers) fixed and distributed patches in hours (under
> 10 if I remember correctly)(patches that worked) whereas proprietary
> offerings measured their response time in DAYS.
> 
> Because of the openness of the code AND an obvious threat, enough eyes
> were brought to bear on the code that fixing the problem proved to be
> shallow.  Proprietary code bases on the other hand can bring only a
> limited number of eyes to the project making bug fixing less than
> trivial.
> 
> This is just one example... there are many others.
> 
> Does that mean all bugs are gone from the software? No.  Does that mean
> that critical bugs are probably more likely to be found and fixed in a
> timely manner? Its likely.
> 
> It has been shown a number of times that Linux has more documented
> vulnerabilities than Microsoft.  The key word here is "documented."
> People find them because the code is open.
> 
> Generally they fix them faster as well.
> 
> 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     Now ask a newbie what the following means WITHOUT 
> > thinking 
> > > > > > at
> > >all
> > > > >(Homer
> > > > > > simpsons after 6 beers):
> > > > > >     dd, df, ln, ls, su, uname, ld, ldd, xxd, sg, shar
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     Now ask a newbie what the following alias means without 
> > > > > > thinking
> > >at
> > > > >all:
> > > > > >     diskcopy, diskusage, filelink, dir, chuser, printsysinfo,
> > >linker,
> > > > > > dllinfo, hexdump, execgroup, shellarchive
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     Too long to type?
> > > > > >     Alias the other way around!!!!
> > > > > >     Having a alias dd='diskcopy' that would make way 
> > more sense.
> > > > > >     BAD BAD BAD UNIX design...
> 
> Seriously... As this same question about the following DOS commands to
> the _average_ Windows user (and even some "advanced" users) and they
> cringe:
> 
> _A_
> Append
> Arp 
> Assoc 
> At 
> Atmadm 
> Attrib 
> 
> _B_
> Break 
> Buffers 
> 
> _C_
> Cacls 
> Call 
> Chcp
> Chdir 
> Chkdsk 
> Chkntfs 
> Cipher 
> Cls 
> Cluster
> Cmd 
> Codepage 
> Color 
> Comp 
> Compact 
> Convert 
> Country 
> 
> _D_
> Del
> Device 
> Devicehigh 
> Devinfo 
> Diskcomp 
> Diskperf 
> Doskey 
> Driveparm 
> 
> _E_
> Echo 
> Edlin 
> Endlocal 
> Evntcmd 
> Exe2bin 
> Expand 
> 
> _F_
> Fc 
> Fcbs 
> Findstr 
> Finger 
> Ftp 
> Ftype 
> 
> _G_
> Graftabl 
> 
> _I_
> Ipconfig 
> Ipxroute 
> Irftp 
> 
> _J_
> Lastdrive 
> Libpath 
> Loadfix 
> Loadhigh
> Lpq 
> Lpr 
> 
> _M_
> Mkdir
> Mode 
> Mountvol 
> 
> _N_
> Nbtstat 
> 
> Net (command options) <--- Don't get me started with these... You have
> to have a book open to remember what the second command option is and
> guessing doesn't always help.
> 
> Netsh
> Netstat 
> Nlsfunc 
> Nslookup 
> Ntcmdprompt 
> 
> _P_
> Path 
> PathPing 
> Pax 
> Pentnt 
> Ping 
> Popd 
> Portuas 
> Protshell 
> Pushd 
> 
> _R_
> Rcp 
> Rem 
> Rexec 
> Rmdir 
> Route 
> Rsh 
> 
> 
> _S_
> Setver 
> Subst 
> 
> _T_
> Tcmsetup
> Tftp 
> Tracert 
> Tree 
> 
> _U_
> Ver 
> Verify 
> Vol 
> 
> _X_
> xcopy
> 
> DOS is just as "inconsistent" as the *nix command line.  As others have
> argued, users _may_ just be more familiar with DOS because that is what
> they used first or have more experience with.
> 
> Even the commands that are full words in DOS can be confusing.  What
> does "tree" do (rhetorically channeling an average user)? There really
> is no indication.
> 
> Heck, half the users that I work with are confused by the idea of
> Directories because they are so used the the windows/real world metaphor
> of Folders.  Ask someone which directory they save their data in and you
> get blank looks, ask them which folder and they are right with you.
> 
> Why can't "rexec" be named "remoteexecute"?  Well, because if you had to
> type that out 50 times in a row multiple times in a week, you'd be put
> into hospital with really serious carpal tunnel syndrome.
> 
> What the hell does "pax" do? Quick, without looking?  Well, it starts
> the Portable Archive Interchange (P A I... no, wait, I mean X).  The
> command's acronym isn't even correct!
> 
> DOS AND Linux are guilty of this, but it is for a reason.  A user might
> not be familiar with Linux's reason (and, trust me, the same number
> wonder why Microsoft's software engineers chose the names they did as
> well), but that doesn't mean they are necessarily bad.  They were design
> decisions that were made.  Now it is up to the user to learn them.
> 
> And looking up the answer isn't a bad thing.  That's how you learn and
> get comfortable with them.
> 
> Finally, as has been pointed out, should a user want to, they can always
> customize the names THEY use for commands via the alias commands and
> their login scripts.  I think you can find a DOS translation alias file
> on the net without much difficulty, but why you'd want to change from
> one set of enigeering decisions to another set is beyond me.  It is
> probably just better to learn both and not rely on that crutch.
> 
> 
> 
> > > > >
> > > > >We like it that way.  You can remember the ones you use, 
> > and it's 
> > > > >no
> > >fun
> > > > >to type long commands.
> > > >
> > > > You don't like long commands, then use alias, I have no 
> > problem with
> > >that.
> > > > How come all my friends never remember if it's df, dd, 
> > du, etc to do
> > >what
> > > > they need
> > > > even if they did it a weekago, because it's hard to 
> > remember! voila.
> > >
> 
> So they look it up... so what.
> 
> df --help
> du --help
> du --help
> 
> never hurt anyone.
> 
> How do you get command line/syntax help in DOS again?
> 
> /?
> 
> That's not too intuitive either... but it is there when you need it.
> 
> 
> > >Actually, you don't like short commands, so YOU use alias.  
> > We already 
> > >have the short commands and we like them very much, thank you.  Unix 
> > >was designed to be easy to use after you learn it.
> > 
> > IT'S NOT EASY TO USE, even AFTER you learn it.
> > If your head is under the soil and you can't figure that out, 
> > let me know.
> >
> 
> Neither is DOS... I guess that's my point.  There is a reason it was
> abandoned by the general populace.  It is also the reason why
> "graphical" file manipulation shells, and Menu systems were so popular
> in DOS (anybody remember DougMenu?)... because the average everyday user
> HATED DOS, they wanted it DEAD, and they have fully embraced graphical
> computing.  
> > 
> > >If you optimize the
> > >design for people who don't know how to use it, then once 
> > they learn, 
> > >they will be unhappy.
> > 
> > They won't be unhappy, they'll customize it to fit there 
> > needs, and they can always rely on the easy long solution of 
> > typing extra 
> > characters
> > if they forgot which alias it was...
> > 
> 
> Your argument doesn't make sense.  Many distributions alias common
> commands to match DOS (even though most users haven't used DOS in years,
> but that's a different argument) or the user can do it themselves (SuSE
> used to tell you how to do this in the printed documentation that came
> with the computer).  So you're saying that the default commands should
> be longer and can be aliased to shorter command names as the user gains
> experience.
> 
> If all users are eventually going to be experienced users, wouldn't make
> sense to just to leave the system defaults as the short "advanced"
> names?  Then only the subset of commands that a novice uses should be
> aliased for the novice.  Once they advance they don't have to re-alias
> every command on the system, they just drop the aliases of the commands
> they now know how to use.
> 
> Your argument is just one of reversal. 
> 
> >
> > >It's better this way.  Trust me:-)
> > 
> > Okay, I gave you an F for Usability 101.
> > 
> > The client is always right, the programmer is always wrong. 
> > Make the client happy, unless it doesn't make sense or it's 
> > impossible to 
> > fabricate.
> >
> 
> So pre-alias a subset of commands to be like DOS (which they never used
> either).  Many distributions do this already.  Check that one completed.
> 
> > 
> > > > >Did you ever use VMS?
> > > >
> > > > That's a flamebait, saying hey there's WORST, why aren't 
> > you happy? 
> > > > You're not happy with your broken car, hey in my time we used to 
> > > > walk 3miles in the snow without boots every morning!
> > >
> > >No, it's an example of just what you proposed.  It is a very well 
> > >thought-out, consistent, command syntax that uses 
> > descriptive names for 
> > >all of the commands.
> > 
> > Okay, I never used VMS.
> > 
> 
> When I started College, we programmed and worked on the VMS system.  I
> won't miss how sore my hands were after even a little use.  Having to
> type everything, EVERYTHING, out ever time stinked.  You could alias the
> commands to shorter syntaxes, but it you helped someone else out on
> their login there was no consistency.
> 
> VMS was a wonderful powerful system, but when I discovered UNIX, even
> though the initial stages were tough going (its always hard to learn
> something new), I was so thankful for the shortened syntaxes.
> 
> 
> >
> > >Unfortunately, you do a lot of typing.  I prefer
> > >the short commands because it's quicker.  But when I switched, I was 
> > >unhappy with Unix commands for a short time because they 
> > were cryptic.
> > 
> 
> >
> > See? They ARE cryptic, therefore, difficult to learn.
> > That's a bad design. You could have a standard set of alias 
> > on every Linux 
> > system
> 
> Cryptic is the wrong word here.  DIFFERENT would be better.
> 
> If you want to see cryptic, back in VMS which had a much more
> descriptive command set than DOS or UNIX, try copying a directory of
> files and switching between directories was always confusing.  That's a
> simple operation, but (believe me) it was strange.  I was so happy to be
> able to just type "cd <directory name>" instead of having to not only
> tell VMS that I was changing the directory but tell it that I wanted to
> tell it the username that held the directory.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> not fun...
> 
> AND A HELL OF A LOT OF TYPING.  My hands hurt just thinking about it.
> 
> > for ultra-geeks or the other way around for newbies.
> > 
> 
> I still say, put a non-DOS using newbie (some kid that has only been
> raised on Windows) in front of DOS and it won't be easy for them either.
> 
> Try it.  I will eat my hat if they are productive without help.
> 
> > > > >You could always
> > > > >understand what the command would do, it was extremely 
> > consistent, 
> > > > >but it took FOREVER to type long commands.
> > > >
> > > > Most guru use tons of alias and shell script anyway, so having 10 
> > > > mores
> > >to
> > > > save you typing ain't an issue.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, I got 300 aliases on my .cshrc and 300 batch file in DOS.
> > >
> > >And you, being a guru, would know.  I used to do that 
> > myself, about 15 
> > >years ago.  But the problem is that you learn your own personal 
> > >customized environment, and then when you go to a new machine (not
> > >yours) you can't use it because you don't have your 300 line alias 
> > >file.
> > 
> > That's why FTP, CD and floppy exists... if not rely on the 
> > long command.
> >
> 
> Your kidding, right?
> 
> So I need to carry around the "advanced" optimizations with me.  If DOS
> is so easy to use, why can't the newbie carry around the optimizations
> for the 1/10 of the standard system that they use and let advanced users
> have a good default system from scratch?
> 
> If I have to support their system, it is less productive (when there are
> problems) for me to first configure the system for me, do the work, and
> then set it back for them).  
> 
> If the defaults are for the advanced users, I can use those WITHOUT
> having to reconfigure the system as they will work even WITHOUT changes
> to the system.  They don't affect the newbies aliases AT ALL.
> 
> Again MOST NEWBIES HAVE NEVER AND WILL NEVER TOUCH DOS.  This is moot
> argument.
> 
> Have you ever done computer support?
> 
> > 
> > >Most experienced people I know don't have many aliases for 
> > this reason.  
> > >It is the same reason that I still know vi.  No matter where I go, 
> > >there is always vi.  I prefer SciTE, but not many other 
> > people have it 
> > >on their machines.
> >
> 
> Praise Be!  Someone with a clue.
> 
> The theoretical (because it ain't DOS) Newbie Wonder System that we are
> talking about is fine if you are the only user to ever touch it.  Find
> me a 100 computers in the same business that ONLY one person ever
> touches (EVER) and I think this would work.
> 
> Otherwise... Forget it.  Since NO NEWBIE USER USES DOS THIS ARGUMENT IS
> MOOT!
> 
> > 
> > Now, I know who you are... you're a vi freak, that's why 
> > you're so borned. vi is completely unusable, trust me.
> > 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Are you sure it is COMPLETELY unusable.  COMPLETELY?
> 
> > I rely on pico, else some GUI editor, else emacs else vi.
> 
> I noticed you didn't say that that's why you rely on the DOS editor.
> Hmmm?  Why is that?  Is it because it isn't full featured.
> 
> Personally, I write most of my documents in Notepad, Kate, Abiword,
> Word, Open Office Writer, Wordpad, notetab.
> 
> If I am on the command line, I use vi (though vim for Windows is a great
> safe way to look at potentially hazardous files).
> 
> I find vim to be very usable.  How do you remember all of the
> CTRL-META-Command key combinations in emacs?  Hmmm... could it be that
> you have learned them over time?  And if you forget them, I bet you have
> to look them up... thought so.
> 
> > I'll stick to MS Office, thank you,
> > it seems to also works through Wine or something like that.
> >
> 
> Wordperfect exists for Linux and so do a number of other free/commercial
> office suites, like GoBe Productive, Abiword, Kwrite, Kate, Hancom
> Office... among others.
> 
> Also the New Open Office is quite nice.  Time is on its side.
> 
> > 
> > > > > > 6) Finding what is the damn parameter for that application 
> > > > > > inside a
> > > > >config
> > > > > > file is a nightmare.
> > > > >
> > > > >But you understand the Windows Registry in depth, know 
> > what all of 
> > > > >the parameters are for, and can easily fix it when it gets 
> > > > >corrupted.
> 
> Yeah right.  Minor corruptions sure.  Major corruptions.... no way!
> 
> It is VERY hard to corrupt a simple text file.  It is amazingly easy to
> irrepairably corrupt a binary file (like the registry).  The fact that
> there are no (default) tools to hand repair a corrupted registry from
> the command line is mindboggling.
> 
> That's funny because, given the right misconfiguration of the registry,
> Windows will not boot to allow you to use the graphical tools to fix the
> problem.
> 
> A simple text editor (like vi for instance) can be easily used to hand
> repair a misconfigured config file.
> 
> > > >
> > > > In most case, it's straight-forward.
> > > > In most case, you don't need any regedit, just use 
> > Tools->options... 
> > > > If you need regedit, it's mostly in HKLM->Software->Company->app
> > >
> > >But when the registry breaks, you often have to reinstall 
> > all of your 
> > >software or even the entire OS + software packages.
> > 
> > You never EXPORT regedit the entire registry on 
> > C:\backup\yyyymmjj.reg ? If it BREAKS you can fall back using 
> > DOS, forget WinXP.
> >
> 
> Like forever.  You mean if XP fails because of a registry corruption
> that you can't import the backup of... and we know you can't use
> regedit... then you will just continue working in DOS.
> 
> huh?  
> 
> You wouldn't reinstall the operating system and be mad that you could
> just fix the registry from DOS?
> 
> Just use DOS!?!  Funny, because of NT/2000/XP's security model, you are
> going to have a hard time (a) creating any files (b) reading any files
> not in the Windows (or winnt) directory or (c) copying any files off the
> system.  You also are only be able to use the edit command (I am not
> even sure that that will work).  I really don't think you are going to
> be productive.  But if that is what you do, that is what you do.  I am
> amazed.
> 
> When registry corruptions happen to ME... AND the backups don't work, I
> make sure I have all my data (oh... I have to use a Linux Boot CD to be
> able to copy off anything that wasn't already backed up) and then I
> reinstall Windows and ALL of my applications and THEN I restore my
> backups... all the time cursing the fact that a simple registry edit
> would have fixed the problem and the fact that no DOS tools exist for
> this.  Luckily some Linux based tools are coming out (there are
> non-linux tools out there, but they cost thousands of dollars) that will
> allow you to edit the registry from the command prompt.  Still a little
> iffy for me, but they are improving all the time... good thing I have
> the Linux command line experience.
> 
> Now, when my Linux systems screw up do to config-badness, I again boot
> with Linux CD (those things are darned handy... and Knoppix is graphical
> too) and then I edit the appropriate config text file and then I reboot
> the system and I am back up and running in minutes... all the while
> praising Linux Torvalds and Open Source Hackers everywhere for such an
> amazing operating system.
> 
> > 
> > >That is the beauty
> > >of the config files.  You can always just edit the config file.  You 
> > >can also boot something like knoppix and mount your disks 
> > and fix them 
> > >that way.
> > 
> > You can also boot DOS and fix it also, again WinXP DOS is 
> > more primitive 
> > than DOS 1.0
> > 
> 
> Exactly.  You can't do anything with it... which further amazes me that
> you would use this instead of just reinstalling Windows XP.  Again, I
> bow before your tolerance.
> 
> > > > > > 7) Trying to find what's the man page for that damn obscure
> > >parameter
> > > > > >      for that application inside a config file is a nightmare.
> > > > > >
> 
> Hmmm... I just read the config file's comments.  The examples usually
> explain everything nicely.
> 
> Back on the topic of the rigestry... what exactly does the CSLID
> 0043e-x34580-xdpw94-0034ds registry key do again?  I can't seem to find
> it in Windows or DOS help and the book at the library was only for
> Windows 98's registry and I am using XP.  I could buy an updated book
> but it costs $50 bucks, I have the problem right now, AND it gets
> terribly reviews on Amazon.com.
> 
> Talk about an obscure nightmare.
> 
> > > > > > 8) Trying to find all the DLL dependancy for that application,
> > > > > >      so I can kill it safely... and reload it is a nightmare.
> > > > > >
> 
> You're talking Windows right?
> 
> The process list for Windows is FLAT!  How can I tell what started what?
> Even the Linux ps command line lets me see things as a process tree
> (with the proper command line options)!  Then Parent Child process
> relationships are a breeze to riddle out!
> 
> This single thing drives me the most insane when working on a Windows
> machine with run-away processes.
> 
> > > > > > 9) Having more than one DLL version on one system without 
> > > > > > breaking
> > >all
> > > > > > application.
> 
> 
> This affects Windows too.  
> 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10) Where is it!? /usr/local/bin /usr/bin /bin /opt /opt/bin 
> > > > > > /home
> > >/var
> > > > >/etc
> > > > > > /etc/rc.d
> > > > >
> > > > >whereis APP or type APP will tell you where it is.  Also 
> > try locate
> > >APP.
> 
> Even better, type:
> 
> which APP
> 
> That will tell you what exact binary you are using.
> 
> > > >
> > > > Admit, it's stupid. I know the origin of this tree.
> > > >
> > > > /bin = boot minimum
> > > > /usr = mounted server
> > > > /usr/local = local mount
> > > > /opt = optional mounting stuff
> > >
> > >You don't like it, but it isn't stupid.  It's just not what you are 
> > >used to.  I don't care where the app goes.  I put my stuff in the 
> > >/usr/local tree.  Redhat likes to put everything in /usr.  
> > SuSE puts a 
> > >lot of stuff in /opt.  I can live with either one.
> > 
> > The problem is that there should be a standard and all distro 
> > use that 
> > standard.
> >
> 
> Yes and it is called the Linux Standards Base project
> (http://www.linuxbase.org/).  This is supported more and more with each
> new version of many many Linux distributions.
> 
> Next.
> 
> > 
> > > > > > 11) In 6 years, I never got one ./configure && make && make 
> > > > > > install
> > > > >working
> > > > > > at all.
> > > > > >     Mostly fails at configure or make with pages of errors and
> > > > >undescribable
> > > > > > messages.
> > > > > >     It needs to be compiled ==> means I'm screwed if 
> > there's no
> > > > >package...
> 
> Not one!
> 
> I have completely new student users who have been able to do this.
> Generally you have to remind them to change to the root user before
> attempting.  They also read the README and CONFIG files before starting.
> 
> Wow... not one.
> 
> On the other hand... I almost never have to do this with a straight
> install of the systems that I use.  I haven't compiled an application in
> over a year and then it was because I wanted a feature that wasn't in
> the version that shipped with the distribution.
> 
> > > >
> > > > > > 12) All Linux distribution should be EASY to install, 
> > like Knoppix.
> > > > > >     It boots, it works, it's configured. No hassle.
> > > > > >
> 
> One of the guys in my office (a complete Linux AND Unix newbie)
> installed Red Hat (fearing that it was going to be hard) on a system and
> was SHOCKED how easy it was... including setting up dual booting (by
> default it does this when it finds Windows already there) with Windows
> XP on an NTFS file system...
> 
> Linux installation IS easy.
> 
> He said that he had more problems with setting up XP on some systems.
> 
> > > > > > 13) Most problem with Linux distro including Knoppix,
> > > > > >     is that you need BADLY that application 
> > unsupported at all 
> > > > > > on
> > >your
> > > > > > distro.
> > > > > >     Knoppix cannot really be installed on hard disk... =(
> > > > >
> > > > >Wrong.  google for this one.  there are a couple of easy 
> > ways to do 
> > > > >it.
> 
> It's been able to be installed on the hard drive for at least a year.
> 
> > > >
> > > > It's not supported by default, it's a geek-hack, read the website.
> > >
> 
> Yeah it is supported by default.  Check www.knoppix.net.  Just open a
> command prompt and type knx-hdinstall.  Answer a couple of questions and
> it installs very easily.
> 
> <<<snipped>>>
> 
> > 
> > I read those:
> > 
> > W. Richard Stevens,
> > Unix Network Programming: Networking APIs: Sockets and XTI,
> > 2nd ed., Vol. 1,
> > Prentice-Hall,
> > ISBN 0-13-490012-X.
> > 
> > W. Richard Stevens,
> > TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1 The Protocols,
> > Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
> > ISBN 0-201-63346-9
> > 
> > W. Richard Stevens,
> > TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 2 The Implementation,
> > Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
> > ISBN 0-201-63354-X
> > 
> > NOT NETWORK PROGRAMMING, NOT PIPE, NOT SOCKETS,
> > I'm talking about message passing like in QNX4/6.
> > 
> > The only thing I could find for Linux is MPI which is a MESS.
> 
> Linux isn't a micro-kernel (then again...neither is Windows)...
> 
> for more on the debate as to why read the argument between Tannebaum
> (creator of the micro-kernel based minix... which Linus used as a
> jumping off point for Linux) and Linus (creator of the monolithic kernel
> based Linux):
> 
> http://www2.educ.umu.se/~bjorn/mhonarc-files/obsolete/
> 
> You want Linux to be something that it is designed not to be.
> 
> Use HURD (http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/) or QNX (as you have
> stated).  MACH (OS X) is also a microkernel.
> 
> > 
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Fred.
> > 
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> annoyances mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://michelangelo.renaissoft.com/mailman/listinfo/annoyances
-- 
    Lawrence MacIntyre     865.574.8696     [email protected]
               Oak Ridge National Laboratory
High Performance Information Infrastructure Technology Group

_______________________________________________
annoyances mailing list
[email protected]
http://michelangelo.renaissoft.com/mailman/listinfo/annoyances

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/jwxECNjP8rawCW4RAiDaAKCVtnt7vUrUmTUq2zUTFZi6CgI1MACdGdJj
0SvYoFN5yhdS9p4Ado4kXgg=
=nCfj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----