Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 23:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Linux wins again (Rex Ballard) Re: MySQL? (David Dorward) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Chad Myers) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (Chad Myers) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (Chad Myers) Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Chad Myers) Re: What does XP stands for ??? Re: More micro$oft customer service (Woofbert) From: Rex Ballard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux wins again Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 02:17:26 GMT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ==56446CF1E2D8A470700DAE81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew Nesbit wrote: Linux Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], drsquare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:45:38 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, (Linux Admin [EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Linux stops Solaris and the best the over priced W2K can do is come close to a tie on one benchmark while falling far behind on another! Benchmarks are bollocks. Of course you have documented evidance to show these benchmarks as flawed??? I've responded to the nature of these benchmarks elsewhere in this thread. Major holes: Comparison of third string versions (Linux 2.2 and Solaris 2.8) Use of proprietary software for the benchmark. Tuning the benchmark to improve performance. I'm not sure whether he meant those *specific* benchmarks are bollocks for some particular reason, or whether benchmarks in general are bollocks. There are several different types of benchmarks. Some test a specific component of a system. The bytemarks are a comprehensive set of benchmarks which test specific components such as computational speed, floating point speed, file system speed, and interprocess communications effeciency. Linux as established itself as at least equal to all other commercial UNIX systems. At the same time, no version of Windows has ever had the results of these benchmarks published. Of course, just because you haven't published the benchmarks, doesn't mean that you don't know the results. Microsoft knew their details and used these to tune the Mindcraft benchmarks in it's favor. Simple tricks to make Windows 2000 look good: 4096 byte files - NT reads clusters at a time. Very large database files - NT works best with large files. Threads - NT threads are kernel managed. Single Process - NT doesn't multitask well, put everything into one executable memory space. Lots of hard drives and network cards. NT has hundreds of spinlocks, just make sure that the benchmarks don't trigger a fatal embrace (this is the most common cause of DLL hell. COM or other interthread communication without memory protection, just make sure that you keep spinlocks to a minimum. Be sure to compare it to CORBA. Lots and lots of memory. Windows 2000 needs plenty. One machine per Server. Simple tricks to make Linux look good. rand length files - Linux opens files faster. lots of little files - Linux ext2 was tuned for news and mh directories. Forked processes - shared memory, the mmu is all that changes, very fast context switching. Lots of little processes - Linux has faster context switches, better shared library optimization, and the Open Source libraries reduce the number of functions that reinvent the wheel. SCSI Raid Arrays, with lots of drives. Linux can optimize very effectively. Carefully partition the hard drives - Linux can optimize disk seeks. Not too much memory, not too much cache, Linux needs much less and uses it more efficiently. Put the database, web server, complex logic, custom applications, and middleware on the same machine. This usually triggers DLL Hell on NT/2K, but Linux was designed for this type of abuse. But yes, it is a fundamental fact in the computer industry that benchmarks, as a whole, are indeed, bollocks. The *only* way that one can tell whether some particular software/hardware configuration meets *your* specific performance requirements is to put use your own experience. There is an old saying: Even this requires that each corporation must run their own comparisons, even if they have been run for other companies using the same products. Microsoft forbids the publication of benchmarks, - and this is sufficiently general to prevent even communication between a consulting
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #34Mon, 7 May 01 08:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (SoneoneElse) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Matthew Gardiner) Re: the Boom, Boom department (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux books (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linus responds... (David Coto) Re: Linus responds... (David Coto) Re: Shared library hell (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux disgusts me (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: IE (Michael Pye) Cold feet or Reality Check? (Tom Wilson) Now push hard (David Coto) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux Advocacy (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Aaron R. Kulkis) Re: Windows makes good coasters (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Johan Kullstam) Re: Now push hard (pip) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:51:56 -0400 billwg wrote: Sort of. Microsoft lost the patent infringement case to Stac because the compression algorithm was judged to be an enforcable patent. Stac lost the reverse engineering suit because the Microsoft license Stac agreed to denied that right. So the parties were at an impasse. Microsoft had to license the Stac algorithm because a jillion copies of DOS 6.x were on the street and were using it and would have to be recalled. Stac had to settle because they could not use the system file interfaces to connect their Stacker product to DOS either. Both were effectively out of business until they could compromise. Stac didnot settle. They won their case. You forget the part that M$ STOLE Stacs IP and leveraged their ownership of DOS to load the compression algorithm in a more effective area. Stac reverse engineered becasue M$ would give up the info. Now, which is more evil? Microsoft paid some big chunk of money up front and agreed to a payment schedule in exchange for allowing Stac to use the system interfaces and for a license to use the Stacker algorithm in DOS. Part of that was in the form of a purchase of Stac stock. Microsoft quickly changed to their own algorithm, too. Steve Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9d4mhc$hvu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Stac may have a case; I've heard conflicting reports. Stac won its lawsuit. My understanding is Microsoft countersued, and they settled out of court. -- Rick -- From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:55:36 -0400 JS PL wrote: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst* they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell. Then why were their OEM-licenses dependant upon NOT selling any other vendor's OS? They weren't. Remember, not everything Max says is true. :D Then, try expalain what a per-processor license is. The per processor license simply required the OEM to pay a royalty to Microsoft for each computer it manufactured containing a particular microprocessor type during the term of the agreement. The minimum commitment provision allowed the OEM to receive a volume discount by committing to ship a designated number of computers. These agreements had obvious benefits for both the OEM and Microsoft. Microsoft did not, however, require any OEM to enter into a per processor license in order for the OEM to license Microsoft 's operating systems products. Rather, it was one of several licensing options made available to each OEM, and it was selected only by those OEMs that found it to be to their economic advantage. Indeed, the majority of Microsoft's license agreements for its operating systems were not per processor agreements. AND... Microsft set the pricing so that it was almost impossible ot NOT use per-processor licensing. And since vendors were already paying for M$' OS, if they loaded another one, they ( and the customer) paid for another license. And befor you start braying about
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #33Mon, 2 Apr 01 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Dana")
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:25:58 GMT
It really was a very nice try, Beth. Very nice. Thanks for posting.
Don't get discouraged by Aaron here; he is indefatigable to a fault.
Not everyone who evidences the knee-jerk reactions that he does is
equally as clueless.
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
Beth wrote:
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
Beth wrote:
People, people...give up the "party line" BS and face facts:
ALL political systems are crap.
Communism is crap.
Capitalism is crap.
To badly paraphrase Churchill, "Democracy is crap but it's the best
we've
thought up so far"...
I mean, if you want to get your kicks from needlessly arguing back and
forth
about "lefties" and "facists" then feel free but you'll get nowhere
fast...what you think all the political thinkers since the dawn of time
have
been doing? This argument: "selfishness" vs. "altruism", me vs. you,
blah-blah-blah...is the oldest thing mankind has fought over...
It's interesting that someone pointed out the very close parallels
between
Hitler (far, far right) and Stalin (far left)...don't you get it? Both
ideas
at their extremes are more or less identical...they are BOTH CRAP...
Yes, SOCIALISM in all it's forms is craps.
I bet you think you're oh-so-clever for twisting my words around...you know
what I meant...ALL of them are ALL crap...
Guess what? Nope...you are now looking dumb...just ask around if you don't
believe me on that score ;)
How such observations indight the US Constitution, which is specifically
ANTI-socialist, is beyond me.
Anti-socialist? Really? They've made a whole load of amendments and
revisions to it recently then, have they?
No. We merely have a whole lot of unconstitutional programs brought
into being by treasonous politicians.
Stealing from those who work for the benefits of the parasites is
unconstitutional, no matter how popular it is.
Don't get me wrong...I _greatly_ admire the US constitution...I'm not an
American but I always advocate freedom of speech, the right to silence and
lots of the ideals of the US constitution but I urge you to not be so
flag-waving ("Patriotism is the love of one's country NOT ever the hatred of
another" :) and look at it with a little cynical eye...if it is as good as
you say, then even outright cynicism and pessimism won't tarnish it...you
can't do any harm that way...BUT if you just swallow everything they
spoonfeed you without thinking then guess what? You're NO better than living
under a dictatorship...IT IS CRUCIAL THAT YOU THINK FOR YOURSELF...the
freedom of speech implies the freedom of thought...THAT is what MUST be
defended and preserved...
"Don't believe the hype" ;)
Also, note that captialistic countries were/aren't/won't be purely
capitalistic and communistic countries were/aren't/won't be purely
communistic...they are ideals that cannot be physically reached...and,
if
they were, then BOTH would collapse...
For instance, in a pure capitalistic environment, then an individual
would
be striving for monopoly...it's the ideal state that a capitalist can
aim
for...BUT, as every capitalistic country knows, you CAN'T allow monopoly
because, ironically, it's a communist dictatorship you're aiming for in
the
ideal...
Let me just re-iterate: THEY ARE *ALL* CRAP...
Liberty is *never* crap.
Agreed; But Capitalism != Liberty...it is a stride towards that but it does
NOT guarantee it...in fact, a true communist (not those pretenders to that
title that you'd find in the former USSR...they only adopted some of
communism that suited them...in fact, a bit like how US (and UK, where I'm
from) only adopt the parts of capitalism that suit them...does the notion of
welfare ring any bells? Totally a socialist idea and employed by even the
mighty US :) would argue that their ideal better preserves liberty
Socialism relies on theft from the productive (i.e. slavery) for the
benefit of the parasites. Thus, Socialism cannot be liberty, at least
not for the workers.
Again, I re-iterate...I'm not arguing for or against here...I think they're
all crap...what I'm trying to explain to you is that the true enemy is
yourself...heck, if John Doe down the road wants to share out all his money
with everyone, who cares? It doe
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Feb 01 09:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Interesting article ("Edward Rosten")
Re: OS/2 limitations (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: please help - modprobe cannot locate modules (pip)
Re: M$ taking over linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: please help - modprobe cannot locate modules (mlw)
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (mlw)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("David Brown")
Re: [Q] newbie about TELNET into LINUX problem? (Dean Thompson)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Jasper)
Re: Interesting article ("David Brown")
Re: It's just too easy (Donn Miller)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rob S. Wolfram)
From: "Edward Rosten" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:07:53 +
Neither. Communist ideas are neither bad nor barbaric. They are,
however fundamentally flawed. The fundamental flaw of communism comes
from ignoring the human element. It is the human element which leads to
the barbarism.
Communism tries to deny that people are selfish...and thus, let's the
selfish motives of those who are in charge run completely unchecked.
Exactly, the fundamental ideas are not bad or immoral, they're just
flawed. It is too impersonal and rignores human nature. Because ti
ignores human nature and thet (some, it need not be all) people are
selfish, it can not work by itself. Once that happens, it needs a
dictatorship to enforce it, and since power corrupts, the whold thing
(nice ideas and all) go to pot and you just end up under another
dictatorship which is pretty much indistinguishable from ny other
dictatorship under a different political banner.
Capitalism and popularly-elected, Constitutionally-limited Republic,
both, in their spheres (economic and political, respectively) recognize
that people are selfish...
I don't think capitalism is as specific as that, but it is self
sustaining with some intervention from the state.
Capitalism harnesses selfishness and steers it to productive means.
Indeed, but sometimes the system breaks (eg MS), but no system is perfect.
Constitutionally-limited Republic form of government, quite frankly,
just STOMPS on selfishness which gets completely out of control.
Eventually.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
--
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
From: Johan Kullstam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:14:21 GMT
Steve Mading [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : In article 96i0us$d7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
: : Steve Mading [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: :In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: :
: :: Demonizing another organization doesn't really help, I'm afraid. IBM
: :: doesn't monopolize consumer OSes.
: :
: :Well, not recently anyway. Their past monopolizations are
: :singlehandedly responsible for EBCDIC and COBOL lasting much
: :longer than they had any right to as viable choices.
: :
:
: : EBCDIC maybe, not COBOL. Computer languages have tremendous
: : longevity if they meet the needs of even a small fraction of the
: : populace.
:
: : LISP and BASIC are still with us after years of being derided by
: : Computer Scientists.
:
: BASIC might fit that description, but LISP was not derided by Computer
: Scientists. They loved it. People who wanted to get practical work
: done hated it because it is a lot of work to think of every algorithm
: as a case of recursion, although it is in theory possible.
: Lisp, i.e., common lisp, does not require recursion. there is the
: LOOP macro. you are perhaps thinking of the teaching toy, scheme.
No. I was using Lisp. Procedural thinking is possible in Lisp, but
is not the norm, just as recursive thinking is possible in C, but is
not the norm. (In theory you could implement an entire C program as
being nothing more than main() calling one function, that in turn
called other functions, and so on.)
Actually, wha
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #31Sat, 6 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux is awful ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm
pst.) ("Adam Warner")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:13:06 -0500
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
I'm just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the American left-wingers who
get soo hung up on symbolism...and then get all goo-goo misty-eyed
every time they see a car originally designed as "The Peoples' Car" during
Hitler's reign.
I think you're drunk 24 / 7. You know, that car you're speaking of has not
ONE part in common with that "Peoples Car". In addition, it looks quite
different, does not have the motor in the rear, has a water cooled engine
etc etc.
It's not the engine that made these former hippies' eyes water at the
1999 Detroit International Auto Show.
It was the BODY SHAPE that looked so much like the little Nazi-mobile
they used to drive in the late 60's-early 70's that tugged at their heart strings.
Just to say that this new Beetle has something to do with the old
one is just bullshit and you know it. You're still an asshole.
You REALLY don't understand American left-wingers and how SYMBOLISM
permeates everything they do, and their judgement of everybody else.
--
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.
--
From: "Kyle Jacobs" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 04:10:08 GMT
I call it revolutionary. Bite me.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
I'm sorry, your sarcasm is lost on me. To me, this sounds like a good
idea.
You really are in junior high school, aren't you.
Anybody who would trust "artificial intelligence" to reconfigure their
system deserves whatever fucking disaster ensues.
"Roberto Alsina" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:935547$vsp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article QWb56.146542$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
"Kyle Jacobs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Listen, there IS a technology called "pattern detection" which works
on
Word
macro viruses (to detect "suspect" patterns).
Why can't pattern and behavior recognition be instituted into an
intelligent
recognition system to recognize the interdependencies, and MODIFY
the
previous configuration strings accordingly?
I'm thinking an XML system meets heuristics detection from AV.
Ok, sure. Now "using XML we
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #30 Fri, 17 Nov 00 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
RE: Linux Sux ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: Linux Sux ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Windows SUX ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows SUX (Jake Taense)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (JoeX1029)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Bob Lyday)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Jan Schaumann")
Re: Companies supporting KDE? ("Haakon Nilsen")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (Brian Langenberger)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux Sux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Sux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (WorLord)
Re: Windows SUX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (Pete Goodwin)
From: "Pedro Iglesias" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Linux Sux
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:51:20 GMT
Not true! With the latest Open Prostitution Protocol, or OPP,
Linux now supports a wide range of madams. And, if installed
on the proper hardware, Linux supports the
Wide Interface Network for Madams - or winmadams - to handle
all your prostitution needs.
I really liket this one :-)
--
From: "Pedro Iglesias" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Linux Sux
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:51:28 GMT
Don't feed the troll.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 17 Nov 2000 20:54:16 GMT
On 17 Nov 2000 10:52:15 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
Yes, in other words, there's built in support for new paradigms like OO and
generic programming. You can program using these paradigms in C, but it's
not that much fun.
Or, a lot of fun, if you like to do that sort of thing. :)
I think someone should write a "design patterns in C" book
that talks about how to write OO code in C. (So some of the patterns
would be "polymorphism" and "inheritence") Or even a book that
explains the GTK object model in some depth.It would make very interesting
reading.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
--
From: "Nigel Feltham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Windows SUX
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:56:53 -
DOESN'T SUPPORT HARDWARE FULLY ( I can run at 110hz refresh rate under
linux but on this windoze shite it only goes up to 75hz)
DOESN'T SUPPORT MODERN PROCESSORS ( linux supports ARM, PowerPC, R3000, New
Unreleased Intel 64 bit processor - and will soon support amd IA32-64 chip
yet windoze can only run on old fashioned intel chips).
CRASHES AT LEAST 3 TIMES PER DAY
DOESN'T RUN GAMES (without regular crashing)
ONLY HAS 2 CRAP EDITORS (without installing extra software)
NO DECENT BROWSER ( the unstable IE shite doesn't count )
NO DECENT WINDOW MANAGER (what if I hate explorer interface - how do I
install Openstep, ICEWM, etc)
NO DECENT OFFICE PACKAGE (unless stupid enough to pay $300 for office2k).
IS BUILT BY MONOPOLISTS FOR PLONKERS
WINDOWS SUX
NIGEL
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:17:41 GMT
In article 8v46c3$3idee$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nigel Feltham"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DOESN'T SUPPORT HARDWARE FULLY ( I can run at 110hz refresh rate under
linux but on this windoze shite it only goes up to 75hz)
DOESN'T SUPPORT MODERN PROCESSORS ( linux supports ARM, PowerPC, R3000, New
Unreleased Intel 64 bit processor - and will soon support amd IA32-64 chip
yet windoze can only run on old fashioned intel chips).
CRASHES AT LEAST 3 TIMES PER DAY
DOESN'T RUN GAMES (without regular crashing)
ONLY HAS 2 CRAP EDITORS (without installing extra software)
NO DECENT BROWSER ( the unstable IE shite doesn't count )
NO DECENT WINDOW MANAGER (what if I hate explorer interface - how do I
install Openstep, ICEWM, etc)
NO DECENT OFFICE PACKAGE (unless stupid enough to pay $300 for office2k).
IS BUILT BY MONOPOLISTS FOR PLONKERS
WINDOWS SUX
NIGEL
Oooo - you rebel! Posting an anti-windows message in a linux advocacy group!
Wow - I'm always impressed when somebody sticks their neck out like that...
Can you pat your own back, or would you like somebody else to help you?
Incidently, if you're gonna po
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #29 Sun, 24 Sep 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (lyttlec)
Re: [OT] Tholen Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (MOUL est)
Re: [OT] Tholen Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Andres Soolo)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Boyle M.
Owl")
Re: TEST---DO NOT READ (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("PistolGrip")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("PistolGrip")
From: lyttlec [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 14:01:55 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Sun, 24 Sep 2000 03:39:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
lyttlec wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[snip for brevity]
I'll have to try dividing by 0 on both operating systems the next
chance I get. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random NaN here
I just did a program with lots of divide by zero for both Windows95 and
Linux. It just printed out the values of 1/sin(x) where x would pass
through 0. The first time under Linux, the application died but not the
OS. A change got it to print NaN and continue. Under Windows95 (using MS
VisualC++ 5.0) neither died, but I got a garbage number.
In the process of doing the above I wrote the following program :
// hello.cpp
// prints hello world
#include iostream.h
#include string
#include math.h
using namespace std;
inline void pr_message(string s = "Hello Russ!")
{cout s endl; }
int main()
{
pr_message();
for (int i = 0; i 3; i++){
cout 1/sin(i) endl;
}
}
It compiles and runs with g++, and Borland C++ Builder 4.52 and others,
but under VC++ 5.0 I get lots of errors saying such things as "std is
not a namespace" and that "" does not have a right hand operator of
type string.
I know; we have to deal with that as well.
#define __STL_NO_NAMESPACE 1
at the top of your file should work around that, or you
can just prefix 'std::' to string everywhere.
A bit dumb, I know; no other OS we port to has this problem.
Anyway, when I get all versions to compile and run :
g++ gives inf as the result of divide by zero ( it should if I read the
standard correctly)
Borland gives a "divide by zero" message and dies. The application dies,
but not the OS
Well, there you have it, folks; programs generated by Borland's compiler
can't divide by 0 without crashing. :-)
Mind you, I suspect exactly this sort of thing in the case of
the Yorktown. The OS remained unaffected, but the app croaked.
I think the popular press can't tell the diff between an app crash
and an OS crash. (It's not their area of expertise, admittedly.
So what? I would probably be terrible at writing bylines. :-) )
VC++ prints 1.#INF.
What gives? I don't expect the Borland to be correct, as it is too old.
But does the gnu project and I read the standard wrong or is it MS?
Looks like it's a Borland-specific problem, at this point -- or
perhaps the program's creator simply didn't think to wiggle something
correctly to prevent app crashes upon div by 0 errors. I'd have
to look -- I have Borland C++ 4.51 here.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
I got it to work with the #define __STL_NO_NAMESPACE 1 and then by
casting string to c_string : S.c_str()
Looks like VC++ has a problem with namespaces and with strings ( and
are supposed to be defined for C++ strings).
The exe file for VC++ is 142KB, for g++ it is 28KB, and for Borland
101KB.
So much for VC++ being the most standard compliant C++ compiler.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MOUL est)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 13:51:27 +
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:50:17 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay
Lee) in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
Joe Malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke thusly:
Tholen tholes, unfortunately for everyone save him:
My second point: show some goddamned originality.
Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he *must* employ
his stock phrases because that's all he has. If ever he were to enter into
the spirit of a debate, he'd be lost...which, come to think of it, isn't
t
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286
Linux-Advocacy Digest #286, Volume #28Mon, 7 Aug 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: THE BELL CURVE (ATTN: BIG DON!) (Arthur Frain)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (OSguy)
Re: I'm curious ("Robert Moir")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Courageous)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 (Pete Goodwin)
/proc/pid/stat does not jive with proc(5) man page ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic. (John Sanders)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 (Brian Langenberger)
Re: background in fvwm?? (John Sanders)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Dimitri Rotow)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Mark Ritchie)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (David Steinberg)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:04:58 GMT
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, but I'm not the one suggesting that Linux is a commercial
success now or that it's viable that we offer Linux boxes at the local
BB or CUSA.
No, but you *are* suggesting that Linux *cannot* be viable simply
because it "doesn't run Quicken." I'm simply saying that that's
nonsense.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:10:06 GMT
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:16:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
No we're not. We're talking about a box with the OS and apps
pre-installed and preconfigured, regardless of which OS and apps are
chosen. The point is that the only real reason Windows is "easy to
use" (and I use the phrase *very* loosely) is precisely because it
*is* preinstalled. The minor differences between running GNUCash on
Linux/GNOME and Quicken on Windows could be dealt with by any
intelligent user. End users have had to change paradigms numerous
times during the past couple of decades, from electric typewriters to
dedicated word processors to character-based PC word processors to
GUI ones. Compared to that, moving from Quicken to GNUCash is a walk
in the park.
One day that will happen. It isn't ready yet.
Says who? You? Or MS, who has the retail channel "sewed up pretty
tight?"
The point is that *IF* a preconfigured box was offered at Retail Outlet
USA, and *IF* Joe and Jane could play with it the same way they can play
with a Windows box, there is ***ABSOLUTELY NO WAY* that you can
guarantee that they will still buy the Windows box.
That is my only point.
Irrelevant. The fact that mac users are, by and large, snobbish about
the Mac GUI does not invalidate that a GUI is pretty much a GUI,
regardless of platform. A Mac user might turn his nose up at the
thought of using a Windows box (or a GNOME or KDE box), but he could
certainly do so, and that's the point here.
Sure, but if it's not better, why bother?
Well, that depends on how the people involved define "better" isn't it?
People turn their noses up at superiority all the time.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: Arthur Frain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,soc.culture.african.american,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: THE BELL CURVE (ATTN: BIG DON!)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:06:45 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
Arthur Frain wrote:
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
Check my reply to Arthur.
Sorry, it didn't show up on this news
feed, and I'm too disinterested to
check my other news feed to look for
it.
This did show up on my news feed,
so I'll respond.
Your claim was essentially that The Bell Curve was only attacked by
people shouting 'racism'. I provided 2 sites that didn't mention
the word at all. Therefore, as usual you were incorrect.
The first "critique" argued that two consecutive tests given
within the same school district would likely have highly skewed
results, because 3 out of 9 ( 33%) would not be attending
school the day of the second test (due to either illness or
"harvesting spuds", [When was the last time when a full 33%
of a class was absent from school barring an epidemic or
natural disaster...and what teacher w
