Linux-Advocacy Digest #301, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 08:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Help setting up a home network.
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (Terry Porter)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:42:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You call that big???
>
>Try half a BILLION (thousand million to you Brits) and get back to me.
A drop in the ocean. Still don't see why knowledge of the scheduler will
help me in developing applications.
>> records to the user in such a way that he didn't have to wait for ages
>> loading _all_ the records, but only the first 20 or 30 and then grabbing
>> the next page. All done on a Windows GUI.
>
>Your masochism is your problem.
Your bigotry is yours.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:44:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>While knowing assembly language is still a very useful skill, it is
>not nearly as important as understanding how your system's task
>scheduler works.
Why? You still haven't answered that one! Of what relevance is knowledge of
the scheduler to an applications developer?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:45:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:17:43 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You should >>>definitely<<< know how dynamic memory allocation works on
>a system. There is certainly no excuse for not knowing that. For the
>application I am currently working on, I have written my own memory
>manager, and do not use the OS to do memory management for me at all.
I meant DRAM, you know, physical REAL memory, not dynamic memory
allocation.
>>I as an application programmer do not need to know how the underlying
>>system works. Sure, I know how a scheduler works, I studied the one on
>>OpenVMS and a few others. But it does _not_ help my effectiveness as a
>>programmer. Where do you get these strange ideas?
>
>For certain types of programming, you should most definitely know how
>the scheduler works, if you are doing anything with threads (which all
>non-trivial programs do).
Not for any of the types I've been involved with.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:50:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> What is the .3 in reference to?
>
>
>Microsoft FUD.
I think the 0.3% figure came from
http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
Tell me, is this a Microsoft company?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:52:30 GMT
No-Spam (Terry Porter) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Yes, you love to ignore people who try to pin you down, don't you,
>>Charlie boy.
>Well you aint them Goodwin, you'll be sorry to hear.
So true.
>> You let others post for you, with a few smatterings of
>>things you're talking about. How about backing up your statements next
>>time for a change.
>Good advive for you to follow Goodwin.
Really? I backed up all my statements with fact. Has Charlie done that yet?
Nope. He simply rants and raves.
>Label away Wintroll.
>
>I take Charlie seriously, PROOF Goodwin is wrong again.
Then you must be as much a Linux-Gnome as laughing boy Charlie is.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:54:49 GMT
No-Spam (Terry Porter) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Nothing actually posted by the Laughing-Linux-Gnome Charlie boy!
>So what, you've had your answers, by the bucket load, Charlie doesnt
>have to personally supply them.
No but it would help if he provided just _one_ reference to the rants and
raves he comes up with, would you not agree?
>Excepting you and a few other trolls, we are a close knit group here. We
>all help each other out, take the info others supplied in good grace, it
>DOESNT have to be supplied by Charlie himself .... scheese.
See above.
>Well answering trolls like you does keep Charlie busy.
He doesn't answer anyone I know of, he simply posts a whole slew of
unsupported rants and raves. Like "Linux is three times faster than
Windows!" in one post. No backup of fact or anything.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 24 Jun 2000 11:27:20 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> On 23 Jun 2000 11:16:25 +0100, Phillip Lord
Kenneth> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the working class
>> should rule themselves rather than being ruled over by small
>> powerful class.
>>
>> The difference between leftist anarchism and communism is not one
>> of democracy. Both forms are democratic. The difference is that
>> anarchism sees no role for the machinery of the state, whilst
>> communism sees the state as a mechanism for democracy.
Kenneth> I think it also implied some use of force during the
Kenneth> transition. The workers rise up, the workers force their
Kenneth> will on the former system, eventually everyone is happy and
Kenneth> voluntarily cooperates.
Communism is a revolutionary form of politics rather than
a reformist one, it is certainly true. The idea is that the current
system can not be changed gradually. Its in the nature of things that
those who benefit from the current system will use force, both
economic and military to maintain it. As recent events at Seattle show
even that bastion of freedom, the US is quite prepared to use fairly
extreme military force against relatively mild demonstrations.
Kenneth> There is a middle step in which consent is not required.
>> I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit on. To me it
>> appears that the aims are fairly similar in that they both aim to
>> end the class system, but that the means are very different.
Kenneth> Any extreme system results in failure. Pure socialism is a
Kenneth> failure. Pure capitalism is a failure. Some blend is
Kenneth> necessary.
This is a simple argument for the status quo.
"Extremism" is defined by reference to what the current
situation is. But that changes over time. So during my life, starting
with Thatcherism and moving onto the vacuousness of the "third way",
politics have moved inexorably to the right. My own views which would
have been considered to be a blend 20 years ago, are now considered to
be hard line left. My views are as right (or as wrong) now as they
have ever been, and whether others consider them to be extreme or
moderate does not change that.
Kenneth> Taxes and regulations on behavior seem to be passed without
Kenneth> the consideration that they should entail. This doesn't
Kenneth> just apply to the United States.
Im not sure what you are saying here. That in the US taxes
and regulations are not passed without proper consideration? Where as
no one else thinks about them enough.
My own feeling is that most of the restrictions on my life
do not come from government, but from capitalism, in so far as they
are different. To spend time talking about how the government is
wrong, and what we should do to improve it is to miss the point
entirely. At least in our current society.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Help setting up a home network.
Date: 24 Jun 2000 10:54:05 GMT
A friend of mine who uses Windoze has just got a new computer to replace
the one he already had. Both of them have network cards, and the old
one has a modem. He wants to set up a small network between the two
computers so that they can both use the same dial-up modem to connect to the
local Internet Service Provider. Is this easy to do using Mandrake
(probably 6 or 7)? How would they go about doing it? Would the installation
process guide you through setting it up?
He already has some kind of cable connecting his Windoze PC to his
girlfriend's labtop she borrowed from work, which allows them to see
each other's hard-disk. Would he need to buy more cables, or hardware to
set up the network he wants?
He is pretty much sceptical about Windoze but trust Linux even less.
If I could convince him that what he wants can be done with Linux,
he might give it a try. Then again he might not. But its worth a try if
you can refer me to any relevant documentation.
By the way, he also has one of the latest versions of SUSE too. If this
any easier than Mandrake.
The main reason I suspect he keeps hold of Windoze is because he cannot
play some of the games he wants to. These run on Windoze 95, and since
Windoze 95 is built on DOS is it possible to run it under WINE or some
other emulation?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows, Easy to Use?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Jun 2000 18:58:28 +0800
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:02:52 GMT, TimL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ah, another loveley afternoon dealing with a Windows Protection Fault.
>Does Windows give any indication as to why? No.
>Does Windows let you see what the OS is loading as it loads? No.
>If you do a logged boot does the log file ever get written? No. (Not w/ a
> protection error)
>I've posted about this before and someone said its usually bad hardware. BS.
>In every case I've seen its been corrupted *something*. Corrupted what?
>Who knows, windows never gives any indication. Damn, if it did we'd
>probably know more than MS wants us to know about how its OS works.
>Fortunately I did finally figure out it was a corrupt NIC driver. But windows was
>absolutely no help.
>FSCK MS! :)
Im truely sorry to hear about your hassles, but I cant say Ive seen them myself
as I havent used Windows since Aug97. Linuc has been my only DESKTOP and SERVER
(in the one box of course) since that time.
Hey Goodwin and Simon, is *THIS* the kinda Windows "friendliness" your allways
telling us about ????
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 days 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 11:20:56 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:03:40 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
>
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Actually, most people print and then wait for the printer to finish.
>> Usually when you print something you actually want to do something
>> with the output. I'm not saying this is always the case, but it's
>> usually the trigger that makes you print in the first place. If you
>> are waiting for the printout then you aren't using the CPU.
>
>While your assumption may be valid for casual page or two at a time
>printing. This example is well designed to make your argument seem
>resonable. However, it is not valid for other more common situation within
>the business and network computing situations, or any other heavy printing
>siuations.
I've never seen a Winprinter designed for these situations, and I'd
hardly recommend them. My point was you buy the hardware that suits
the job at hand. For a home user this may very well be a Winprinter
as it isn't going to get the usage you are talking about. For
networked use in a business you get something a little more
intelligent that probably has a NIC inside it anyhow.
Imagine all the following arguments with a PCL printer and the
workstation having to use ghostscript as a filter as well. Even
wondered why companies sell non-postscript (ie cheaper) printers for
home use and postscript ones for business use?
>Start printing multiple copies of a two hundred page report with a number a
>large number of graphical elements, a number of contones, twenty fonts using
>two typefaces. I would initiate the print job and let it run in the back
>ground, while I run other apps to do more work while the copies of the
>report are printing.
Sure. Your print spooler runs niced too, I'd imagine, so it only uses
up the time you are not no matter what technology you are using.
>Consider a network fileserver that also serves as a printserver offering the
>network multiple printers, lets say three printers. When all the printers
>are in use what happens to the fileserver access time?
Not a lot actually. Fileserving is usually higher priority that print
jobs. Fileservers tend to be SMP, especially in an office that needs
three printers running which makes things smoother again. What is
actually a bigger problem is the "standard" parallel port which has to
be polled rather than interrupt driven.
>Now consider a remote printer that is run off of the workstation whenever
>someone starts a print job on that printer, what happens to the user of the
>workstation who may be running a compute intensive job.
Yep - acts like a dog. Like I said - you buy the technology that
suits. For home use the winprinter is perfectly fine technology. You
are pointing out things I've never argued against.
>Now lets consider the case of a non-network accessible winprinter that is
>attaced to a networked workstation. The user start a complex and lengthly
>printjob and puts it into the background. He is also connected to the
>internet via a 56k winmodem and is downloading a couple of large files also
>in the background. The data is being stored on a file server connected
>through a 100Mbit winNIC. They are not making winNIC's yet are they? Since
>he now has a little idle time so he desides it is a good time to view a
>presentation that was stored in the form of a mpeg or a avi file. What
>would happen here?
I ask you, how many of the above are the target areas Winprinters are
being sold into? If the answer is "none" as it should be, then the
above arguments are pointless. It's kind of like me proving to you
that you shouldn't buy a family car to haul cattle to market.
(Sigh). Let's start again.
It is not always the most cost effective solution to place all the
intelligence in the device, rather it makes sense in most cases to
place intelligence (value) in the software driver. One example of
this is Winprinters for home users. Another example is Winmodems for
casual internet users. A third example is software RAID
implementations for low cost data redundancy. More examples are
graphics cards that don't implement a full OpenGL pipe, speakers that
don't implement a DAC, keyboards that don't send ASCII to the
computer, mice that only send movement deltas and not absolute
position, hard drives and CDROMs that only understand block addressing
and not filesystems, CPUs that don't do memory management for you, and
actually most of the components you'll find in a standard PC.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 11:30:31 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:42:29 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2000 18:14:20 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> wrote:
> >Those two items seem to indicate that as far as a definition goes, I'd
> >say the computer can be defined as the motherboard. If you buy a
> >non-OEM version of Windows, I imagine it means only on one system at a
> >time.
>
> That sucks. Hope they cop hell on tech support lines when people go
> to upgrade their CPU/Motherboard and want their "image" to work.
Indeed. I imagine they will, since PC Pro magazine did a survey on
whether people were for or against the scheme. IIRC the results were
98% against, 1% for and 1% unsure.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 24 Jun 2000 11:33:16 GMT
In article <8j1amh$lgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8j152l$6tc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>Also the policy of opposing public education, housing, and healthcare;
>>people are just supposed to do without these things, and if they die,
>>the Libertarians don't care. They also oppose laws regulating business
>>to provide environmental, worker, and consumer protection. The only
>>remedy they permit is lawsuits after the fact, which are expensive,
>>slow, and permit lots of people to be injured and killed.
>True enough. And watch them raise bloody murder as soon as anyone
>actually uses a lawsuit to remedy those injustices.
Indeed. One of the major projects of the Republican Party
(which is another part of the *same* pro-wealthy/anti-human
political/propaganda machine) is so-called "tort reform" --
laws that place all sorts of restrictions on suits against
corporations. It was one of the points of Newt Gingrich's
Contract On America.
>Besides, what good is
>a lawsuit if there aren't any laws that do "crazy" things like protect
>workers, consumers, et al. You can't raise much of complaint, even in
>civil court, unless there is a law on the books that suggests that you
>just might have something to complain about.
Right. While you might be able to claim monetary damages
if your car explodes due to a defect, there's no way to sue
a company for pollution without a law. Otherwise your lawyer
would have to bring 50 years of scientific research into
court to prove injury to health, and even then the company
could say they only contributed part of the pollution. You'd
have to sue all of them.
It's only by means of a sufficiently powerful and proactive
democratic government that the people can prevent large
powerful corporations from doing harm. Environmental pro-
tection requires regulations and inspections to *prevent*
pollution, instead of trying to collect damages years
later (if the perpetrators haven't declared bankruptcy or
disappeared).
Too bad it's not the conceptually simple solution that we'd
prefer; it's the only one that works. The same is true for
antitrust; the free market does not have enough negative
feedback by itself to stop the abuses perpetrated by wealthy
people to gouge even more money out of us -- which equals
days and years of our lives spent working.
Here is the result of our severely unequal distribution of
wealth. The richest 10% own about 90% of the total wealth,
whereas the other 90% of people own about 10% of the total.
The richest 10% get to live about 81 times easier, on the
average, than the rest of us.
Share of total value of family-owned assets in 1989
The richest 1% of families held:
45% of all nonresidential real estate
62% of all business assets
49% of all publicly held stock
78% of all bonds
The richest 10% of families held:
80% of all nonresidential real estate
91% of all business assets
85% of all stocks
94% of all bonds
A little arithmetic shows that if the richest 10% were willing
to survive on 41% less than they take now -- 53% of the total
instead of 90% -- then the rest of us would have 4.7 times
as much as we do now! Those in the richest 10% would still
be 10 times as wealthy, on the average, as those in the
poorest 90%, instead of 81 times as wealthy, as they are now.
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
