Linux-Advocacy Digest #353, Volume #30 Tue, 21 Nov 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION: (kiwiunixman)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:54:03 GMT
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:43:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:40:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>A "direct cable connection" is the biggest PITA I have ever dealt with wrt
>>>Windows. I have yet to get 1 to work. I would rather use Linux than rely
>>>on that.
>
>>You must be a real idiot then because at least where I live the cable
>>company comes and sets the entire thing up.
>
>Go back and read the post again. They aren't talking about cable
>modems.
Ooopps...You are correct...My mistake.
Sorry to all..
claire
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:58:26 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:56:39 GMT, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How's this better? More usable to the average computer user? I think not.
> >What's wrong with a well written setup program that autoruns when you insert
> >the CD? You know the ones that ask to install the program if its not installed
> >or run it or uninstall it if it is. The same ones that often offer to display
> >a release notes file that usually contains a list of the files installed, etc.
> >
> >Face it, most folks do NOT want to have to enter cryptic codes to do basic
> >things like install software.
>
> It made me ill just trying to find all the different keys on the
> keyboard.
Every high school in America offers typing courses.
And night classes for adult education.
Lack of typing skills is NOT a valid excuse.
>
> Personally I prefer Win2k's Search function. It is so much faster than
> Linux which seems to churn and churn and churn the hard disk before it
> finally comes up with a result.
>
> claire
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:00:14 GMT
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:49:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > How do you know if I post in any other groups? Just because you look
>> > for "claire" doesn't mean there aren't post's from me.
>> >
>> > Look a little bit harder.
>>
>> And you think this helps your credibility?
>
>He/she's right, you know. You'd have to look under his/her thirty-two
>other aliases as well; a daunting task just to confirm what everybody
>already accepts as fact. Claire's a troll, and a not very believeable
>one at that.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Believe what you will, but unlike the Linux trolls around here I have
actually tried to install and use the various half abortive
distributions of Linux, current ones at that. Not some Windows 95a
install that died 6 years ago like some of the Penguinista's like to
wine about.
You can believe it or not, but I can back up every statement I make
with facts. Something the Penguinista's can't do.
I post over and over again messages from other people in other groups
having the EXACT same problems I am having, yet you Penguinista's
ignore it.
I don't have to post a thing in fact. You can go back 3 years ago and
see the exact same problems posted in the Linux set up groups.
Clearly Linux is still the same pile of shit it was 3 years ago, with
only some pretty interface to try and cover it's crappiness up.
That's ok, because I don't give a shit one way or the other. Linux is
a pile of stinking crap and that has been proven over and over again.
"Just one look and that's all it took"
claire
"Linux...Build it yourself or suffer forever".
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION:
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:56:27 +1300
Historically, New Zealand has had the largest contingent of troops, per
capita, when New Zealand particpates in any war. Where was the o'l US
of A during WWI and WWII? wasn't in there until the ol' Japanese bombed
perl harbour. Get ya bloody facts right claire or keep your trap shut!
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I didn't realize New Zealand had an army?
>
> claire
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:37:04 +1300, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Read the story below:
>>
>> http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,497306a1896,FF.html
>> Who said Linux wasn't ready for the big league?
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:01:38 GMT
Actually it is about 6 times, but whose counting :)
claire
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:45:08 -0800, "Keldon Warlord"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Chip
>>
>
>whatever newsreader you are using. IT SUCKS. I've seen this same message
>three times from you already.
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:03:41 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:17:52 -0500, mlw wrote:
> > > > >Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >If one were to time the execution of the code, it is possible that the
> > > > >C++ example will be faster because printf and its varients parse strings
> > > > >one character at a time, where as iostreams will accept a string
> > > > >parameter. Still, the end result is that the code snippet you present
> > > > >has nothing to do with C++, but of different designs. There was no
> > > > >reason one should have to code the C++ example any differently than the
> > > > >C example.
> > > >
> > > > There's a bunch of other points the example doesn't address:
> > > >
> > > > (*) The iostreams do much more than printf. The difference would decrease
> > > > somewhat if the C program used more of the functionality that iostreams
> > > > and strings make trivial.
> > > >
> > > iostreams are C++. printf is C. You can't use iostreams in a C program
> > > and you can't use printf in C++ program. You can use printf in a C
> > > program disguised as a C++ program though.
> >
> > Where do you get that? printf is very much part of C++, if you think
> > otherwise, you are very very confused.
> >
>
> Not really. Until recently you had to include <stdio.h>. Now it is
> <cstdio.h>. Why do you think the new name has the "c" prefix? It
> indicates that you are doing C style programming, not C++. This is,
> IMHO, a bad feature of C++. The mixing of C style with C++ style is nice
> for bringing up old C programmers, but it makes for bad code on real
> projects.
I just don't understand your opinions. I have been developing software
since the late 70's. I first started in C using K&R C on a Sun 1. I have
been with it ever since. There is no serious document or guideline which
supports your position.
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("Hello World\n");
}
Is just as much a C++ program as it is a C program. This is a fact. The
difference is that:
class foo
{
protected:
virtual void function(int);
};
Is not a C program, and can not be emulated using C as efficiently with
a C compiler, where as a C++ compile can do it very efficiently. For C
to emulate this behavior, a programmer would have to do this:
struct _foo_vtable
{
void (*function)( struct * _foo, int);
};
struct _foo
{
struct _foo_vtable vtable;
};
static struct _foo_vtable vt_foo = {foo_function};
struct _foo *CreateFoo(...)
{
struct _foo *foo = malloc(sizeof(struct _foo));
if(foo)
{
foo->vtable = _foo_vtable;
return foo;
}
else
return NULL;
}
And then you'd still have to access the functions like:
struct _foo foo = CreateFoo(...);
assert(foo);
foo->vtable->function(..);
C++ offers an amazing advantage over C in that when used procedurally
offers many features that make developing easier. When used as an OO
environment, enhances the language with features that make OO design
easier.
> > > .
> > > > (*) The difference does not increase proportional to program size. In fact
> > > > the fact that C++ has destructors and a bunch of useful functionality
> > > > in the string and stream classes could result in less code that is
> > > > "inlined-by-hand". In any case, it seems doubtful that the size
> > > > difference in favour of C would outweigh the safety of iostreams
> > > > in a nontrivial program (unless size is *extremely* critical)
> > > >
> > > Depends. In a kernel, the speed trade off is critical. In the TV
> > > example, size is critical with speed a close second. In both, safety is
> > > better in C due to tigher control over the compiler.
> >
> > Suffice to say, I have made mention of much C++ code I have done in
> > kernel space. Often code can be tighter and more efficient with a
> > virtual function than with a switch table. C++ can make more efficient
> > code. For instance:
> >
> > switch(object->type)
> > {
> > case TYPE_PCIDMA:
> > ...
> > case TYPE_ISADMA:
> > ...
> > case TYPE_ISABUS:
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > vs
> >
> > DmaObject->HandleEvent(...)
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> Care to post a little more of the overall code so I can check it out? If
> you have a way of improving interupt handlers, I'm willing to learn.
> 68HC08, 68HC16, 8502 and similar targets would be nice. I don't have a
> C++ compiler for the targets, so if you could post the *.s file
> (assembly code) generated by your compiler for one of those, it would be
> helpful.
I'm not sure it would be useful in an environment without a C++
compiler. However a few snippets look like this:
(NT code)
LIBCALL(BOOLEAN) IrqService(IN PKINTERRUPT Interrupt, IN PVOID
ServiceContext)
{
register Win32KernelObject *pko = (Win32KernelObject *)
ServiceContext;
return pko->IrqHandler() != 0;
}
LIBCALL(void) DpcService (IN PKDPC Dpc,IN PVOID DevObject,IN PVOID
pvIrp,IN PVOID SysArg)
{
Win32KernelObject *pko = (Win32KernelObject *)SysArg;
pko->DpcHandler();
}
void * _cdecl operator new (unsigned int size)
{
register void *p = ExAllocatePool(NonPagedPool, size);
return p;
}
void _cdecl operator delete (void * p)
{
if(p)
ExFreePool(p);
}
Where as the Windows 95 code looks like this:
(windowsa.asm)
BeginProc _VxD_Irq_Handler, High_freq
pushfd
; sp+4 Save the whales
push eax
push ebx
push ecx
push edx
push edi
push esi
push
edx ; push
this
call _WINIrqHandler@4 ; sp+12
pop esi
; Restore the whales
pop edi
pop edx
pop ecx
pop ebx
pop eax
popfd
VxDCall VPICD_Phys_EOI ; Unmask
the IRQ.
clc
; Clear carry, inform it was ours.
ret
; Return.
EndProc _VxD_Irq_Handler
BeginProc VxD_Dpc_Callback
Push_Client_State
; gotta save this!
push edx
call _WINDpcHandler@4 ; Call
core DPC routine.
add esp, 4
Pop_Client_State
; restore client stuff now
ret
; Return.
EndProc Vxd_Dpc_Callback
Windows.cpp
LIBCALL(int) WINIrqHandler(DWORD Param)
{
return (Param) ? ((Win32KernelObject *)Param)->DpcHandler() :
FALSE;
}
LIBCALL(void) WINDpcHandler (DWORD Param)
{
if (Param) ((Win32KernelObject *)Param)->DpcHandler();
}
void * Win32DeviceDriver::operator new(unsigned int size)
{
register void *f;
f = _HeapAllocate((ULONG) size, HEAPZEROINIT);
return f;
}
void Win32DeviceDriver::operator delete( void *ptr)
{
_HeapFree(ptr,0);
}
With just a little bootstrap code, Windows 95 and NT can look a lot
alike. (There is a lot of stuff that is being sniped for brevity)
I have a class called PciCard which encapsulates PCI cards, IRQ clases,
DMA classes, etc. A driver is then created as:
class PioCard: public Win32DeviceDriver, PciCard, IrqHandler,
DmaBusMaster
{
public:
PioCard(void);
~PioCard(void);
STATUS DeviceIoControl(PIOCTL pioctl);
};
When all is compiled, it works quite well. The overhead involved with
calling the functions are minimal. Two address indirections and a call.
Using this we were able to write our drivers and really really optimize
the various classes. The actual code was very highly optimized for the
various constructs, and allowed the less than great software guys who
knew the hardware to write great drivers.
It worked very well, it allowed the creation of a set of drivers that
out performed the earlier ones, and allowed both Windows and NT drivers
to be developed simultaneously with the same source.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:02:22 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > CLI-phobic? You can do the same with "kpackage".
> >
> > What's your point?
> >
> > why is EVERY debate framed in terms of "What if I'm a fucking dumbass
> > who refuses to learn a damned thing"?
> >
> > If that is the case, you should take your computer back to the store
> > where you purchased it from, and tell them, "I, pac4854, am too
> > fucking stupid to own and operate a computer."
>
> Actually, I use the command but I thought I'd point out that there are
> alternatives.
>
> At least I'm not too fucking stupid to trim my sig.
Why would I want to trim it, when it says EXACTLY what I want it to say?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:05:45 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > You are insane.
> >
> > An early pentium running Linux has more power than the late LoseDOS box.
>
> You're right. I've got a P166 machine running FreeBSD+WindowMaker, and
> it absolutely blows away a 450 MHz AMD running Windows 98 I have running
> here. Well, it's FreeBSD and not Linux, but I'm sure the effect is the
> same.
Correct. Same computing model yields same results.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:01:56 +1300
good on ya chum. Claire (if you are reading), for every nitwitt who
complains of Linux's "Complexity" there are 5 like this guy who have
been able to set up Linux flaulessly on their machine. Claire, if you
"friends" are experiencing problems, give them the book, "Linux for
complete and utter fuck witts Vol 1".
kiwiunixman
James wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Have just spent a few days playing with ML 7.2 using KDE2. Must admit that
> I am very impressed with the improvements. Even between ML 7.1 and 7.2.
> Now USB printing, USB scanning is working (albeit not by default). And my
> modem and ppp worked first time in KDE2.
> In fact all my hardware that I have tested is working OK, including UDMA-66
> on /dev/hda. Still have to try out the specific capabilities of my
> CD-Writer (an HP9310) and DVD reader, however.
>
> Well done Linux community! You now have a desktop which may stand a chance
> against W2k. The apps are not quite there yet. E.g., downloaded Netscape
> 6 which is even worse than Netscape 4.7 (why is the file>page_setup menu
> grayed out? Cannot even select landscape mode when printing).
>
> The system seems pretty fast - once I set up UDMA-66. Is there any way
> that I can determine whether my graphics system, a NVidia GeForce256 made
> by GigaByte, is optimally configured? Dragging screens seem a bit sluggish.
>
> James :-)
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:08:13 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vf6ke$voq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > Note also that there are less safeguards for saving attachments in
*nix
> > > mailers and a quick one-line instruction will soon rectify the lack of
> +x.
> >
> > But that one line has to come explicitly from the user in question.
>
> As does the command to open an attachment.
But 'open' has nothing in common with the meaning of 'execute' to
anyone who hasn't been brainwashed since birth.
> > It is
> > not hidden behind a disguised meaning of 'open' or automatically
> > associated with something controlled by an unknown sender.
>
> The meangin of open is not disguised, it behaves identically to "open"
> anywhere else in the GUI. Neither is the association controlled by the
> sender.
Email is an application, not a shell. It's meaning of open is unlike the
meaning of open in any other application. If you tell notepad or
word to open a *vbs file, will it launch an interpreter?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
