Linux-Misc Digest #153, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Feb 01 19:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: QT libraries (Mark Bratcher)
Re: permissions (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Size of LINUX (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
usb mass storage support (Vandenheede Bjorn)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: usb mass storage support ("Eric Wertman")
Re: Getting started with Java (Robert Morelli)
using rm to delete thru the tree ("Sudhakar R.")
Re: Linux Dial Up Problem (Mike)
Re: Exiting programs. (Rolie Baldock)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:48:46 GMT
Yes, external jumps and calls to other modules were always a problem
so you had to be a bit of a memory gifted person if there were many of
these in a big system. That's all in a system programmers life.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:47:14 -0500, Jean-David Beyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Harlan Grove wrote (in part):
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock) wrote:
>> ...
>> >Are you a super fast typist? Don't you ever stop to scratch you head
>> >because the problem is a little baffling. 110 baud was quite adequate
>> >for SERIOUS programmers. We used BRAINS in the old days not FANCY GUIs.
>> ...
>>
>> Maybe you SERIOUS types didn't need output because you could memorize
>> the source code for entire systems AND calculate program output in your
>> sleep. Kinda makes me wonder why you superhumans bothered with computers
>> in the first place.
>
>I remember the first time I tried reading the source code to the
>Unix kernel. In those days, it was 6 files named something like
>k1.s, k2.s, ... . You did cat *.s | as and the a.out file produced
>was your new kernel. The files were not organized in any particular
>way that I could figure out. In those days, the maximum file size of
>UNIX was 65536 bytes, so when one filled up, they just started
>another.
>
>But I inferred that even Ken and Dennis could not keep all that in
>their minds, because you would frequently find a jump in one file to
>a label in another, where the first instruction at that label was a
>jump to yet another label. Obviously, the person writing the former
>jump remembered that the first label did what was needed, but did
>not know that that label was a jump to yet the other label where it
>got done. The first jump should probably have been a jump direct to
>the ultimate label.
>
>So even Dennis and Ken could not remember all the source to the UNIX
>kernel back when it was only 6 small assembler files.
>
>--
> .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
> /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
>/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
>^^-^^ 6:40am up 20 days, 15:07, 4 users, load average: 2.06, 2.08,
>2.08
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:52:18 GMT
Hey Jean-David that is a coincidence my very good friends interfaced a
pair of CDC-854 disk packs on to our PDP-6 with the control using a
PDP-8. Quite an achievement in the late 60s.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:55:57 -0500, Jean-David Beyer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rolie Baldock wrote:
>>
>> Hello Jean-David,
>>
>> The PDP-6 had multiported memory which meant that one did not have to
>> ask the processor for memory access. The memory ports were prioritized
>> so the device with the highest real-time needs was connected to the
>> highest priority memory port. Did it matter if the processor had to
>> take the second port? NO not a jot.
>>
>So did my DDP-224. The memory actually had 4 ports -- sort-of, and
>the "DMA" channels came in two flavors: DMA and FBC. The DMA units
>did cycle stealing, sharing with the CPU. The FBC channels did not
>need to steal cycles, but could run totally independently, if they
>were using a different block of memory (memory was divided into 4
>blocks of 4096 words each on my machine); otherwise, they stole
>cycles too. Even with the DMA channels, the contention was not much
>of a problem because most machine instructions took two (or more,
>with multiply, divide, and floating point) cycles, only one of which
>was needed for memory access. The contention was negotiated at the
>hardware level, not needing interrupts for each word transferred.
>
>That machine had two removable-pack disk drives (made by CDC), each
>of which could hold 40 Megabytes. That was enormous, in those days.
>My RAM on this machine over 12x the size of one of those disk
>drives. The clock on that machine was about 800 KHz, and the clock
>on this machine is 2x550MHz (I guess you could say).
>
>I do prefer my present machine running dual Pentium IIIs in Linux
>SMP.
>
>Not wishing for "the good old days" ... .
>
>--
> .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
> /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
>/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
>^^-^^ 6:45am up 20 days, 15:12, 4 users, load average: 2.13, 2.08,
>2.08
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:01:13 GMT
Hello Grant,
I seem to have missed a point. We had a protection scheme in the file
system and if you had protction 000 on you files then anybody could
read them. if you had 007 then only people in your group could read
them. 077 and only you could read them ....etc....etc.
We had remote peripheral computers connected to the six, one about
8 miles away. I rewrote some of the code of the RPC service routine in
the 4S76 time sharing O/S. In latter years I connected my VT05 from
home 20 miles away over the telephone network, and did a lot of work
from home. Later the systems engineer worked from a place 120 miles
East for 4 of the 5 weekdays.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:07:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
>
>>Networking we did have
>>and we had some other things I have yet to see on todays personal
>>computers.
>
>Just for curiositie's sake, what sort of netowrking was available on the
>PDP-6? (I'm familiear with the PDP-11 but not with the "mainframe machines
>like the 10, and I presume, the 6.)
>
>>Why would one want a dozen different file systems?
>
>Sometimes it's nice to be able to share data with other people. Presuming
>you care about what other people are doing or they care about what you're
>doing. If not, then I guess it doesn't matter.
>
>--
>Grant Edwards grante Yow! I invented skydiving
> at in 1989!
> visi.com
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: QT libraries
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:52:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew HIll wrote:
>I'm having trouble getting qt libraries to install for what seems like a
>simple reason.
>In the INSTALL file it says to set the variable $QTDIR to the install
>path in .profile, then logout so that the file is re-sourced.
>The problem is that I have already done this and .progile reflects my
>changes, but when I try to ./configure, the errmsg says that $QTDIR is
>set to "" insted of what I set it to "/usr/local/qt". What should I do?
>
Did you export it after you set it?
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply direct, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===============================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: permissions
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:51:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Mcclain wrote:
>Howdy All,
> I thought I had permissions down, but guess I don't
>because I don't know why this is happening on my
>Slackware 7.0 system.
>As a security precaution I recently changed permissions
>on /mc a data partition to 600. Now I'm getting this warning
>in the mail:
>
>From: nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: cron: cd / ; updatedb --prunepaths='/proc /tmp /solaris /deb'
>
>find: /mc: Permission denied
>
>Permissions of the pertinent files given by 'ls -l' are:
>drw------- 7 root root /mc
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin /usr/sbin/crond
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin /usr/bin/updatedb
>-rw------- 1 root root /var/spool/cron/crontabs/nobody
>
>Since it's all owned by root, why the denial?
>
Perhaps because you made the directory /mc not executable (browsable) by
_anyone_ including the owner? Also, does "nobody" have root permission?
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply direct, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===============================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:07:10 GMT
Hello Grant,
You are absolutely right of course. Good engineering is making the
best product in the widest sense. But creating disposable junk which
is now turning into a major problem is not clever. People are
beginning to realise that it just might reduce the headaches we are
leaving for our children by making better products which last longer.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:24:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
>
>>I am not specifically condemning LINUX as such. I am wondering if
>>LINUX was written in assembly language by a COMPETENT assembly
>>language programmer(the likes of which I have not seen for a long
>>time) would it be a lot smaller and faster.
>
>It could probably be made somewhat smaller/faster, but I doubt it could be
>made "a lot" smaller faster. I've spent 15 years doing real-time embedded
>software development. During that time, I've spent a fair amount of time
>re-writing critical things in assembly language to try to get them just a
>tiny bit smaller and faster. Modern compilers do a pretty decent job. I'm
>basing that not on trust in the author of a compiler but on hundreds of
>hours spent trying to do better than the compiler. And I am a competent
>assembly language programmer.
>
>Engineering is about cost vs. benefit.
>
>Any fool can build a bridge that will stand up. Engineering is being able
>to build bridge that you know will just barely stand up.
>
>Writing Linux in assembly is definitely _not_ something a good engineer
>would do. The increase in cost (in both calendar time and man-hours) would
>be huge compared to the small benefit gained in code size/speed. The
>increase in maintenance costs would be even worse. Memory and CPU
>horsepower are too cheap.
>
>Back the the "good old days" it may have been worthwhile to speed $100K to try
>to save a few K bytes of RAM in a piece of software. Today, RAM is too
>cheap.
>
>--
>Grant Edwards grante Yow! Four thousand
> at different MAGNATES, MOGULS
> visi.com & NABOBS are romping in my
> gothic solarium!!
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:08:06 -0500
Rolie Baldock wrote:
>
> Hello Grant,
>
> If that is the case, then why are ther so many BLEATS about security?
Because, while the hardware has hardware memory management and
protection, writers of brain-damaged operating systems fail to
employ them effectively, and can write security flaws into their
products, either accidently, or deliberately (in the form of
"featurse") that allegedly give the novice an easier time of things,
but compromising the entire system.
>
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 00:09:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
> >
> >>We usesd a KSR33 teletype to input our commands to the PDP-6 and we did a
> >>lot of very fancy computing which you would find difficult to do on a
> >>WINDOZE machine today. Try inputting data to a PC in REAL TIME and see how
> >>you go.
> >
> >Piece of cake. Not with Microsoft products, of course.
> >
> >>We had a diffractometer and a mass spectrometer and peripheral computers all
> >>inputting data into the PDP-6 in real time CONCURRENTLY. Moreover we had
> >>HARDWARE relocation and protection so security was ASSURED.
> >
> >All PCs sold these days have hardware relocation and protection.
> >
> >--
> >Grant Edwards grante Yow! Well, O.K. I'll
> > at compromise with my
> > visi.com principles because of
> > EXISTENTIAL DESPAIR!
>
> --Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
^^-^^ 6:05pm up 21 days, 2:32, 4 users, load average: 2.30, 2.16,
2.10
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:10:44 GMT
Yes, Yvan, It does sound a bit like a "bean counter" philosophy. Have
no concern for future generations. Profit before People. Leave the
cleanup of ther junk as a problem for future generations. They will
hate us for that.
On 18 Feb 2001 13:15:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yvan Loranger)
wrote:
>Grant Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>>
>> Any fool can build a bridge that will stand up. Engineering is being able
>> to build bridge that you know will just barely stand up.
>
>I've never heard it put quite *that* way before. Is that the "I'm not
>drunk yet" model?
>Maybe we should forward this to some other unsuspecting newsgroups -
>consumer, ufo, religious? :)
>
>--
>Merci.........................Yvan Pour le plein air: Club Vertige
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ncf.ca/vertige
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: Vandenheede Bjorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: usb mass storage support
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:08:36 GMT
Hello
I would like to compile support for usb mass storage in a 2.2.18 kernel,
but I'm not able to select the option. What other option do I have to
select before I can select the usb mass storage option.
TIA
Bjorn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:19:11 GMT
My friend summed up C in the following way:
A language written by "smart arses" who stood back when they
finished it and said aren't we clever we have compacted so many
machine instructions into one line of C so as to make it
unintelligible to any but C gurus. Compares with the Lawyers who write
the law so that nobody but lawyers can fathom it. That is a far cry
from the original intention of a high level language. It was supposed
to be intelligible to engineers mathematicians and scientists in
general. It is significant that there are still programmers using
BASIC (VB) and even some using FORTRAN, so I'm told.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 01:56:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark
Bratcher) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
>>Hello Folks,
>>
>>I am not specifically condemning LINUX as such. I am wondering if
>>LINUX was written in assembly language by a COMPETENT assembly
>>language programmer(the likes of which I have not seen for a long
>>time) would it be a lot smaller and faster. Putting all ones faith in
>>the author of the C compiler in my view is not good software
>>engineering. It simply CANNOT be proved that the compiled code is the
>>tightest and fastest that can be produced. My experience with high
>>level language compilers is that they are ALWAYS inefficient. I write
>>assembly language code for my PC and the .COM files are always VERY
>>SMALL, amazingly so sometimes. "Get last disk" uses just 651 bytes!!
>>Try that in C and see how many bytes it takes.
>
>Linux is virtually all in C. The benefit of this over assembly language
>is that it is highly portable. Being well architected for this purpose
>helps, too. :-) If it were in assembly language you may likely not
>see Linux on as many different hardware platforms as you do today
>(eg, x86, alpha, IBM mainframe, sparc, etc).
>
>There is some need to balance "smallest and fastest" with "modular,
>maintainable, and portable". It's unfortunate that a lot of software
>written today is neither of these.
>
>--
>Mark Bratcher
>To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:27:26 GMT
After all that gassing, can anybody tell me how big a small LINUX
system sufficient to act as a LAN server would be say compared to
other software servers on the market? I have a couple of 486 DX-33
servers with 6 SCSI disks attached, the servers have 8 Mb of RAM and
their own 50Mb HDDs. I have two workstations running an old DOS which
is appropriate to the engineering software I run. Can LINUX fit in
such an environement and improve on what I have already got?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:38:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie
Baldock) wrote:
>Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
>system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
>required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
>to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
>In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
>language!!!!! I rest my case.
>
>
>--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: "Eric Wertman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: usb mass storage support
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:23:23 -0500
It's one of the first options, something like "prompt for
incomplete/development drivers". Set this to yes.
HTH
"Vandenheede Bjorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello
>
> I would like to compile support for usb mass storage in a 2.2.18 kernel,
> but I'm not able to select the option. What other option do I have to
> select before I can select the usb mass storage option.
>
> TIA
> Bjorn
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:24:37 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Getting started with Java
Steve Ackman wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 08:28:47 +0100, Nils O. Selåsdal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Python has been called THE language with which to learn OO.
> >>
> >> The Red Hat install program is written in Python, so it's
> >> already installed if you're running Red Hat. Type 'python'
> >> at the command line and see if it's there. If so, then type
> >> 'idle' and see if you might have also accidentally installed
> >> the so-called IDE.
> >>
> >> If not, check out http://www.python.org, and put the notion
> >> of Java on the shelf for some other day... (which, after you
> >> get into Python, will likely never come. ;-)
>
> >Do there exist any decent IDE's for python...(i refuse to code in an OO
> >laguage
> >if a cannot get an ide with a codeinsight feature..)
>
> I'm new to python and don't use an IDE (yet?), so I'm not sure
> what a codeinsight feature is. Searching through the help files,
> the term "codeinsight" doesn't show up. Perhaps it's known by a
> different name in IDLE. There's a class browser and a path
> browser, if that's what you mean.
>
> >And why is python not so widely used in the enterprise if it's so great?
> >(im' talkin about application servers, corba, and things that work behind
> >e.g. www.amazon.com)
>
> Isn't that kind of like asking why Linux isn't so widely used
> in the enterprise if it's not so great?
Seems like a nice day for a programming language war ...
To really understand the Python/Java arguments, it helps
to understand the difference in mentality between Unix and
Windows programmers. One of the interesting differences
between Unix and Windows is that Unix programmers seem open
to a wider variety of languages than Windows programmers.
Part of the reason is that under Windows there is tremendous
commercial support concentrated on a few languages, like C++
and Visual Basic. This tends to make it hard for alternatives
to gain a foothold. Under Unix the tools market never exploded
in the same way. Most Unix programmers still depend on the
primitive gnu tools (make, emacs, gcc, ...) and there's
relatively little support for any one technology.
In a sense, Unix programmers are more savage than Windows
programmers, but they are after all noble savages. Despite
appearances, tools like make and emacs can do a lot of what
ide's can do, if they are used resourcefully (and noble
savages are very resourceful). Also, being a noble savage
gives you more freedom in a sense. A Unix programmer can
throw his/her small sack of tools over his/her shoulder and
wander away confident they'll be able to brave whatever they
encounter. In the modern, bustling world of Windows
programming, you lose your freedom in the sense that you're
not willing to give up all the conveniences you enjoy.
Unix programmers think of Java and Python as just two
oo languages. From this viewpoint, you could say Python
might have some advantages -- nothing earth shattering,
just some minor and subjective stuff. If you're a noble
savage, and you don't need cross platform gui apps, standard
class libraries, etc. you'll probably be just as happy
or happier with Python than Java.
But here's the twist. Java is a totally modern technology
and most of the power that Windows programmers are accustomed
to is available, even under Unix. Noble savages won't
recognize this, but to anyone from a non-Unix background
it will make a big difference. The bottom line is that with Java you get
1. much more commercial support (ide's, tools, class libraries,
commercial quality implementations, etc.)
2. more available open source code and implementations
3. much more available documentation and mindshare
4. a much larger developer community
Also, if you need a source of income, Java is fairly hot in the
market, while Python is essentially nonexistent.
> But just to mention a few...
>
> Google
> Red Hat
> NASA
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
> IBM
> SGI
> MCI
> RealNetworks
> Infoseek
> eGroups
> Four11
> Yahoo
> Nortel
> Florida Dept. of Motor Vehicles
> Bell Atlantic Mobil
>
> For a more comprehensive list of who's doing what with python,
> see http://www.python.org/psa/Users.html
> For further discussion, there's always comp.os.lang.python
>
> --
> Steve Ackman
> http://twovoyagers.com
> Registered Linux User #79430
------------------------------
From: "Sudhakar R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: using rm to delete thru the tree
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:26:48 -0500
hi,
could someone please tell me how to go about deleting all files that match
the pattern *.*~ in every directory including sub-directories, sub-sub
directories and so on in one single sweep.
thanx in advance
-sud
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux.suse,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Linux Dial Up Problem
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike)
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:31:44 GMT
"David Ayliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I have recently set up Suse Linux 6 on a seperate HD, I am having
>problems setting up dial-up connections i have used KPPP to define two
>dial up connections I have selected the correct port, speed (115200),
>and variable settings.
>
>All seems to go well the modem initialises and then dials like my modem
>does in windows. However once I have got the modem icon in the corner I
>fire up netscape i cannot get any web pages also I cannot ping anything
>it says network unrouteable/untraceable
>
>Any ideas any programs I need to run settings I need to set up first?
>
>Many Thanks
>
>Please either reply to group or directly to email address
>
>Thanks
>David
Hello,
Did you try entering IP addresses instead of hostnames?
Your DNS might not be set up properly
===================================
Mike Koldychev (http://geocities.com/crazymikenet/index.html)
===================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Exiting programs.
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:30:04 GMT
Hello Harlan,
Yes we NOSE wot don't work. WOT we wants to NO is WOT does work.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 03:18:45 GMT, "Harlan Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock) wrote:
>...
>>I posted all the info I was provided with. If he wants to follow it up
>>he will have to post the fine detail. I thought there may have been
>>some general answer, like in the old days a <Control-C> stopped any job
>>instantly.
>
>Now it's clear you're talking about MS-DOS PCs. Ctrl+C doesn't stop
>everything - there are system calls to capture Ctrl+C, and even if not
>trapped Ctrl+C only works when there's an I/O call. There's no way
>(other than BIG RED SWITCH) to break out of infinite loops that make no
>I/O calls.
>
>Also, Ctrl+C is system-dependent. Try it on a Mac. Or a mainframe
>terminal. Just because your friend is using a keyboard connected to a
>machine that could run MS-DOS doesn't mean MS-DOS conventions are
>relevant to any other OS that machine might run.
>
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:37:37 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Hayes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:31:32 +0000
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Who cares about politics or government?
> >> As far as I'm concerned most of the world
> >> governments impose high taxes and do much
> >> more than they should do "for the people".
> >> Everything except law enforcement and the military
> >> should be privatized and out of government
> >> hands. Then maybe things will get better.
> >
> >Two words. California electricity.
>
> You confirmed his statement; the problem with California electricity
> is that PG&E did not spend money to upgrade its infrastructure.
> That's because PG&E wasn't allowed to raise rates to market value.
>
> At the time of the deregulation, we had a healthy surplus of electric
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rate controls and deregulation are mutually contradictory.
> power. It's now a deficit, and PG&E is bleeding badly.
>
> In other words, the goverment botched the deregulation by imposing
> a price ceiling.
No...the government botched by imposing MORE regulations.
Price control is NOT deregulation, no matter how many times
Kalifornia Kommunists claim it to be...
>
> At least, that's my understanding of the situation. TURN and
> other such groups may see things quite differently. :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 13d:11h:07m actually running Linux.
> It's a conspiracy of one.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
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-Misc Digest
******************************
