Linux-Advocacy Digest #166, Volume #26 Mon, 17 Apr 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Tim Hockin)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Tim Hockin)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Vehical Comparisons (Klamer Schutte)
Re: Rumors ... (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Windows is scary all right (Loren Petrich)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Truckasaurus)
Re: New Linux User Question ("Tobias Adrianse")
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Truckasaurus)
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Steve Ballantyne)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mandrake is listening! It's "Da Bomb"! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: 17 Apr 2000 06:27:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Fucking GOTO's all over the place.
: Have you looked at the source for the linux kernel?
: Same thing.
: Theyre fast.
dammit yttrx - I thought you hated linux, or at least 'preferred slowaris
and Crapintosh'? :)
To stay on topic - goto is an unconditional jump, and the compiler can
optimize that better than a conditional jump
--
Tim Hockin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This program has been brought to you by the language C and the number F.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: 17 Apr 2000 06:29:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: For what it's worth. Now...can we get rid of these GOTOs? Would it
: be worth it?
nope - almost all of them are optimizations on various common-paths (fast
paths).
--
Tim Hockin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This program has been brought to you by the language C and the number F.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 06:44:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would
say:
> >On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 05:26:26 GMT,
> > Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> >>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would
say:
> >>>>How can you be an anarchist ans support capitalism at the same
time?
> >>>
> >>>How could I be an anarchist and oppose it?
> >>
> >>I thought that anarchism formally _was_ somewhat antagonistic
towards
> >>the notion of "capital."
> >>
> >>Or am I perhaps missing the _degree_ of antagonism?
> >
> >an-archos, without a ruler, neither pro nor anti capital, but
> >orthogonal to it. I am opposed to being oppressed by anyone, whatever
> >their professed political leanings.
>
> The material I've seen on anarchism has been pretty antagonistic
towards
> both capital and money.
>
> According to the Anarchism FAQ...
>
> G1. Are individualist anarchists anti-capitalist?
>
> Yes, for two reasons.
> [1. Interest/rent/dividends being considered an extortive form of
usury, and
> 2. They desired a society with no capitalists and workers, only
workers.]
>
> Another position expressed is that anarchism seems to involve a desire
> for a lack of hierarchy, which is antagnonistic to the hierarchy
> established by the separate roles in capitalism.
>
> The FAQ also indicates opposition to private property, as it
represents a
> source of authority.
Exactly, Anarchists oppose all kinds of hierarchy and authority
*especially* the ones found in capitalist workplaces. Private
comnpanies are probably among the worlds most tyrannical and
undemocratic organizations.
Vlad.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Klamer Schutte)
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: 17 Apr 2000 06:53:00 GMT
In article <8d2q2a$g6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Davorin Mestric wrote:
>however, most of the people DON'T have problems when running windows that
>are not solvable.
Most people DO have such problems, but try to ignore them or accept them
as a fact of life.
>most of the people that run linux DO have problems running and installing
>linux.
This is not true. Most people RUNNING linux have no problems, or have
overcome those. There could be a lot of people trying to install Linux
and failing -- as it didn't turn out to be Yet Another Windows they
hoped it to be, but it turned out to be Linux.
>linux apps crash more often.
Not true.
>i have yet to see someone that actually used source to fix some problem that
>he had with linux. "you have source so you can fix your problem" is a myth.
Look better -- perhaps through CHANGELOG files of any serious package.
You will notice a lot more names then only the primary author or the
primary authors company -- which proves that other people use the source
and fix / improve it.
Klamer
--
Klamer Schutte, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electro-Optical Systems, TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory
Tel: +31-70-3740469 -- Fax: +31-70-3740654 -- Mobile: +31-6-51316671
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:54:33 -0700
In article <rBsK4.2457$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, Judge Jackson has not had very good luck with his rulings
against MS
>on appeal. And there are enough flaws in both the findings of
law and
>findings of fact that are easily proven false that I have no
reason to
>believe this appeals round will be any different than all the
ones that came
>before.
>
Please fill us in on the flaws in the findings of fact and the
findings of law. I for one would love to hear them.
Osugi Sakae
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows is scary all right
Date: 17 Apr 2000 07:28:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > But after the track record of the last 10 years, NO Fortune 500
>> > company is putting ANY mission-critical application on Windows.
>> > They might use Windows as a data-terminal to front-end to the app,
>> > but no way in hell is anybody putting ANYTHING mission critical
>> > on a Microsoft machine.
>> Look, proof that humans can be successfully undergo cryogenic suspension !
>Obviously, you're a dork whose only experience with a non-Mickey-soft
>O/S has been Applesauce.
Applesauce???
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 07:19:14 GMT
So what?!?
Linus Torvalds is finnish too!
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Tobias Adrianse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Tobias Adrianse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux User Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:35:03 -0700
Thank you all for your input. Hearing more good then bad has given me more
confidence in this decision. I appreciate Charlie and Donovan's input. I
think the best thing for me to do would be to run 98 and Linux parrallel
until I wean myself off altogether.
Whats the best version Charlie? There seems to be so many. I heard red hat
was good but these other posts suggest some I have never heard of.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 07:26:42 GMT
In article <HwoK4.1901$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you have
too have
> a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to suceed.
That would be the lousiest conspiracy _ever_; everyone who wants to know
about it can just read some lines of code - way to hide somthing, dude!
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:58:16 -0500
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <rBsK4.2457$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
> Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Also, Judge Jackson has not had very good luck with his rulings
> against MS
> >on appeal. And there are enough flaws in both the findings of
> law and
> >findings of fact that are easily proven false that I have no
> reason to
> >believe this appeals round will be any different than all the
> ones that came
> >before.
> >
>
> Please fill us in on the flaws in the findings of fact and the
> findings of law. I for one would love to hear them.
I have already done so in other threads. But here are a few quickies.
1) The findings of law claim that neither Microsoft or it's OEM's believe
that any other OS could viably be shipped by the OEM's in the "foreseeable
future", yet many of those same OEM's are shipping Linux in both server and
desktop configurations.
2) The findings of fact claim that Microsoft deliberately embedded the
browser into the shell for the sole reason of thwarting Netscape, yet
Microsoft has memos going back to 1993 talking about their plans to
integrate internet functionality into the OS and include an integrated WAIS
engine. That was almost a year before netscape even existed as a company.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:59:45 -0500
Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8deeb7$tdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <HwoK4.1901$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you have
> too have
> > a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to suceed.
>
> That would be the lousiest conspiracy _ever_; everyone who wants to know
> about it can just read some lines of code - way to hide somthing, dude!
It's quite easy to "hide in plain sight". For instance, self-modifying code
could be implanted into the system which would be very difficult for someone
to notice in a casual perusal.
------------------------------
From: Steve Ballantyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:20:24 +1200
In article <aTuK4.43338$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Steve Ballantyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <jArK4.43241$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve Ballantyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James L.
> > > > Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> ...
> > >
> > > Even in DOS, print spooling using the "PRINT.EXE" utility was
> > > available.
> > > QNX and other Unix derivatives were also available on PC's at the
> > > time,
> so
> > > any argument about PC's not supporting multi-tasking or print
> > > spooling
> is
> > > ridiculous.
> >
> > QNX? Too bad the applications I used back then weren't available on
> > UNIX. Or did it not occur to you that I might be interested in
> > printing
> > documents from particular applications, rather than just "printing' in
> > general? The arrogance of PC fanatics and their determination to push
>
> You don't understand what I'm saying. The "PRINT.EXE" utility would
> install a print spooler available to all DOS applications.
DOS? UNIX? Make up your mind which you're trying to tell us we should
all have been using.
> It uses a timer tick
> to steal CPU cycles and dump information from a buffer to a printer. Pretty
> simple, and I'm not sure why this spooling thing is such a big deal.
Weren't you the one who raised the issue in the first place?
> For
> multi-tasking, well a number of options existed to add multi-tasking to
> DOS -- DR DOS for instance. I'm not certain of the time, but they sure
> were close to 1990.
Right -- well after Macintosh Multifinder.
> > one hardware platform on the rest of us, regardless of how we prefer to
> > work, is something that's persisted from the 80s to the present.
>
> Huh? Now that's hilarious. ONE PC PLATFORM? Really!
>
Yes really -- much the same crap from multiple manufacturers, all
running operating systems that don't do what users want. Well, except
for computer geek users, that is. The slow progress of Windows towards
something more closely approximating a Macintosh shows how poorly PCs
and Windows have met the needs of most users, compared to the Macintosh.
>
> It's also intriguing that you dwell on the past; the good old Mac days.
> What's wrong, does the Mac of today not meet your expectations?
>
Today's Macs are the best ever. Well built, fast, expandable -- even
inexpensive.
If I'm interested in the past it's because for the last 16 years I've
heard arrogant PC users tell me that the computer I want to use is a
toy, is going away soon, is too easy to use, doesn't let you get at the
hardware, does pointless stuff like multitasking, is going away soon,
might be okay for sound and pretty pictures but isn't a real computer,
is too expensive, is going away soon, uses that weird PostScript stuff,
is going away soon, doesn't have proper parallel ports, is just a toy,
is no good for games, doesn't multitask, is going away soon... and so
on. Windroids have been around for years, and they're still spouting the
same ignorant crap as ever.
I'd like to read some worthwhile criticism of the Mac's faults, but this
thread isn't it. The Mac would be better with preemptive multitasking?
Hey, we know that; but even without PMT, the Mac still works better in
the real world than PCs running Windows.
> > > > get fragged anyway -- but Macintosh print spooling must have saved
> > > > me
> > > > working months worth of time compared to using a PC back in the 80s
> and
> > > > early 90s.
> > >
> > > Just imagine how much more time spooling in the background would save
> > > you.
> > >
> > > > As for print spooling as an interuptible task -- well, sure,
> > > > current
> > > > drivers are, ummm... But I don't think that's Apple's fault --
> > > > current
> > > > versions of the Mac OS allow applications to be internally threaded
> and
> > > > for these threads to be managed by the OS. With a re-write, I
> > > > imagine
> > > > Adobe could do that with its printer drivers as well. They probably
> > > > won't, though -- Adobe's Mac printer drivers are extremely robust;
> they
> > > > ain't broke, they don't need fixing.
> > >
> > > But if Adobe, a devoted Mac ISV, doesn't offer this feature then I
> > > doubt
> any
> > > would. Given the limitations of cooperative multitasking schemes,
> > > why
> do
> > > you think that it's caused by Adobe drivers and not Apple's operating
> > > system? If I remember correctly, Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 wfwg all
> > > shared this same trait with Mac OS. Coincidence? I think not.
> >
> > You've never read anything about how the Mac OS does threading, have
> > you?
>
> Only a little, but enough to understand that the programming model isn't
> all
> that different from 16 bit Windows.
> Have you read anything about the Mac
> OS yourself?
As a long-time Mac user, I own copies of Inside Macintosh volumes 1 to
VI. Of course all this stuff is way out of date now, and since I'm not
planning on resuming system-level programming I doubt if I'll bother to
catch up on current developments -- frankly, Macs now are so powerful
that the things I wanted to do in the past can easily be done with
scripting languages at adequate speed.
However, I did stick with it long enough to note that many of the more
tedious Mac-basher claims are already dealt with adequately by the
system as it is now, if programmers are willing to use threading and
stick to PPC instructions. Perhaps this is why Mac OS 9 works so very
well.
You think 16 bit Windows looks like the Mac programming model? That's
funny, I thought much the same thing when I skimmed the book on
developing for Windows included as a PDF file with the last copy of
Codewarrior I bought. Now, which do you suppose came first? And who
copied who?
>If not, then why not just check out the Apple site, and download
> Darwin 1.0 while your reading the wealth of technical information.
Your patronising advice is ignored.
--
Steve Ballantyne
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 17 Apr 2000 08:39:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote in
<8d9udo$2d4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Vi is a bit prehistoric - I prefer SEDT or something like I can get in
>> Windows style IDE's. Having an built in make is useful too.
>
>Please, please dont write anything for linux.
Why?
>> I didn't know about Qt for Windows. That might be an easier route for
>> me.
>
>Please.
Well it won't be in Qt since it has a $1000 licence on Windows.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Mandrake is listening! It's "Da Bomb"!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 17 Apr 2000 08:48:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Cat) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I've just installed Mandrake 7.0 and it appears that they are
>listening to the Windows community as to what issues we have with
>Linux and they are addressing them.
I had a few small problems with Mandrake 7.0 - it got confused as I had
System Commander 2000 installed, so I blew that away with fdisk /mbr, then
booting went ok.
I noticed after booting up the first time it took a _long_ time logging in
as root. This didn't happen again after that.
My SB16 sound card still refuses to work and auto detection of my SCSI
controller (aha1522) seems to miss it, but I'm working on these.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
