Linux-Advocacy Digest #175, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server ("Colin R. Day")
Re: An Abortion Horror Story (JS)
Re: An Abortion Horror Story: go figure, it's Trent again... (JS)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Gary Hallock)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roger)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (JoeX1029)
Re: Good books on writing a kernel. (JoeX1029)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (tinman)
Re: Processing data is bad! ("Anon")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:42:48 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> > mlw wrote:
>
> >Why on earth would your grandmother want to know about software design.
> >This post was intended to show the technical difference between two
> >methodologies. The same bogus statement can be made were one to describe
> >the difference between 98SE an W2k.
>
> That's my point. She doesn't care. Linux zealots (advocates if you
> like) spend so much time telling people why they *have* to use Linux
> and NO ONE cares the least bit that X is some magical bit of a code
> for nuts around the globe to embrace and celebrate.
>
> >> >
> >> >We want an OS that is not dumbed down to your grandmother.
> >>
> >> and that's why Turbo Linux and Corel are laying off people. There
> >> isn't a big enough market for even one Linux company.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
> >> >> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
> >
> >But X isn't ugly. X is the device driver, not the code which does the
> >presentation. As for fonts, there are many very good fonts for X. X,
> >btw, isn't the fastest display technology, sure, but it is hard to
> >characterize it as slow.
>
> You know what I consider slow? When I scroll in Netscape and I see the
> page fliker.
I don't see it flicker on mine.
> That's ugly and slow. They reason why everyone blames X
> is because none of the window managers are nearly as fast as the
> Windows UI.
Everyone blames X? I don't blame X.
> The only common link is X. I don't care what the exact
> reason is. Either it needs to be fixed or people need to stop
> promoting Linux as the second coming of Jebus for the consumers.
>
> KDE exists to apeal to a desktop user. Since it clones the Windows UI
> we'll assume it is meant to apeal to a Windows desktop user.
So Windows comes with 8 desktops out of the box? I would hope
that the KDE team is more ambitious than just trying to clone Windows.
> For
> whatever reason, it's slow and ugly.
Ugly?
> It has been slow and ugly for
> years now.
KDE hasn't even had release versions for two years.
> If Linux was only going after the server market it wouldn't
> be a big deal... they're not. KDE is a consumer level product and it's
> just not very good. (for whatever reason)
>
KDE is good.
>
> Is X better than MS TS? Maybe. I don't know/care. TS works great for
> doing remote administratoin of my servers.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,free.uk.guns,alt.night-club.review.uk,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.linux.os,alt.startrek,alt.uk.teens.london,at.troll,alt.trentworthington.sucks
Subject: Re: An Abortion Horror Story
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:47:36 -0400
Funny, your name wasn't in the title and you still read it, because
you knew it was about you.
If you didn't leave a reply, we would have never known that you read
the message...but you were drawn to the message, right.
You just told us more about yourself...in your pathetic search for an
identity...
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:52:43 -0400, Mr.Right <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> An Abortion Horror Story
>>
>>It's was the morning June 5th, 1984. I was working at the Yarbury
>>Clinic. This young lady walked in and asked about our services. I
>>explained to her what we do here. She said, okay, and that it was her
>>boyfriend that was making her do this. I told to just fill out these
>>forms and we can get started. After the forms were filled out, we
>>preceded. About halfway through the procedure, this ugly, short, bald
>>man walked into the room and said, "sweet, jesus, Martha, what are you
>>doing here?"
>>
>>The woman replied, "But you told me to get an abortion"
>>
>>The man said, "No, no, no, I said, go to the auction..."
>>
>>"oh," the woman replied.
>>
>>Then the man looked at me and asked, "is it too late,"
>>
>>Seeing that this guy was a retard, I said, "no, it's not too late,
>>here take it it's yours..".
>>
>>The man look upwards and said, "Trent, I'll call the little bugger
>>Trent Worthington."
>>
>
>Another leg humper for my collection, cool! I OWN JOOO!!!!!
------------------------------
From: JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,free.uk.guns,alt.night-club.review.uk,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.linux.os,alt.startrek,alt.uk.teens.london,at.troll,alt.trentworthington.sucks
Subject: Re: An Abortion Horror Story: go figure, it's Trent again...
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:48:13 -0400
Funny, your name wasn't in the title and you still read it, because
you knew it was about you.
If you didn't leave a reply, we would have never known that you read
the message...but you were drawn to the message, right.
You just told us more about yourself...in your pathetic search for an
identity...
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:52:43 -0400, Mr.Right <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> An Abortion Horror Story
>>
>>It's was the morning June 5th, 1984. I was working at the Yarbury
>>Clinic. This young lady walked in and asked about our services. I
>>explained to her what we do here. She said, okay, and that it was her
>>boyfriend that was making her do this. I told to just fill out these
>>forms and we can get started. After the forms were filled out, we
>>preceded. About halfway through the procedure, this ugly, short, bald
>>man walked into the room and said, "sweet, jesus, Martha, what are you
>>doing here?"
>>
>>The woman replied, "But you told me to get an abortion"
>>
>>The man said, "No, no, no, I said, go to the auction..."
>>
>>"oh," the woman replied.
>>
>>Then the man looked at me and asked, "is it too late,"
>>
>>Seeing that this guy was a retard, I said, "no, it's not too late,
>>here take it it's yours..".
>>
>>The man look upwards and said, "Trent, I'll call the little bugger
>>Trent Worthington."
>>
>
>Another leg humper for my collection, cool! I OWN JOOO!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:47:02 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
life.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:51:13 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:45:40 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How long is "years"? KDE hasn't been around for very long. And have you
>seen KDE 2.0?
>From the looks of KDE2 it hasn't evolved very much. It still looks
like a pathetic Windows clone to me.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:56:01 -0400
2:1 wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> > 1. It scails down
> >
> > Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on > > > todays
> ^^^^^
>
> > ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
> > only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
> ^^^^^
>
> make up your mind what you'll spell badly. Besides I thought the `fine'
> Misros~1 software would have 'fine' spel chekas.
Microsoft has chekas? I thought it left that stuff to the Software Protection
Alliance?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:53:11 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:51:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>>ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>
> This is just your own fantasy.
>
> X can be quite fast, and more responsive than WinDOS due to the
> fact that all windows are managed by a central executive (don't
> you just hate it when IE5 hangs and clutters your desktop) and
> there is more than enough eye candy and good fonts for X.
That doesn't happen to me. IE is very stable in general but I have had
it crash once or twice over the last year or so (counting the Win2k
beats) I just kill iexplore.exe and that's that. My other IE windows
remian open and I just go back to where ever I was.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:58:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ihth1$asr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>Does scheduling occur without the OS knowing or is that another
>>>alternate reality.
>>
>>And where, exactly, does scheduling come into your "test"?
>It doesn't. The OS does it without my knowledge. It does it automatically.
>It may not have anything else to schedule but it's always checking.
It does it whenever a time slice expires (or an event occurs that requires
a reschedule --- which doesn't happen in your example). Even if you make
your time slices as short as possible on linux/x86 (by playing around with
nice), that's not more than 100 times a second. On the sort of hardware
you are using, a full context switch (which includes everything done in
your example, and lots lots more) takes about 2.5 microseconds.
In other words, even assuming the OS to go through the scheduler 100 times
per second, and assuming that each time takes as long as a full context
switch, the total time spent on it is about 250 *microseconds* each second,
or 1.5 *milliseconds* during the 6 second run.
Considering that you measured time using time(), i.e. with a resolution
of 1000 milliseconds, it is pretty save to say that you did not measure
anything related in any way to scheduling.
Bernie
--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
sure about the the universe
Albert Einstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:58:20 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Well, when you say Linux can run on a 386 most people expect it to be
>just like it would be on a P3-550. After all, Windows 98 will run on a
>386 too. Boot to dos mode and you can actually do something useful.
No, it will not. It complains that it needs at least a 486, and refuses
to install.
Win95 *does* install even on a 386SX, but it pretty much takes overnight
to do so.
I have yet to try installing Win98 on a 486, and then moving the disk to
a 386....
Bernie
--
It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is
because we do not dare that they are difficult.
Seneca �
Ancient Roman poet and statesman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:58:21 GMT
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>> God, after using Linux for the last few months and now installing
>> Windows 2k it is like jumping in a time machine and going 10 years
>> into the future.
>Yeah, nice. Psychedelic colors and clicky clicky.
If you replace "cl" by "f", that's 30 years in the past ;-)
Bernie
--
We protest against unjust criticism, but we accept unearned applause.
Jose Narosky
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:58:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ihsak$aqa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I tried the official version of Linux and I get very different results from
>you. The Windows version, as you correctly stated, takes 22 minutes 29
>seconds, not much different from 22 minutes 51 seconds.
Huh? Where did I ever state 22:29? I didn't.
>However, when you run it on Linux, it takes 19 minutes 20 seconds.
For running the official version, on my Celeron400, with Threshold 3.
>My results on Linux are: 31 Minutes 15 seconds.
I assume that's still with the Bounding Threshold at 25?
Let's make a table:
Pete Bernie
================================================================
Windows, official version, ???? 32:20 [5]
Threshold at 25
Linux, official version, 32:42 [1] 29:00 [2]
Threshold at 25 32:36 [3]
31:15 [4]
Windows, built with 26:36 [3] n/a
VC++ 6.0, unsupported,
reported unstable,
Threshold at 25
Windows, official version, 22:51 [1] 20:58 [2]
Threshold at 3
Linux, official verison, ???? 19:29 [2]
Threshold at 3
[1] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2] <8ib50k$oic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[3] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[4] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Those are all the numbers posted so far.
[5] Just for completeness sake, I just rebooted my Celeron into
Windows once again, and ran the official Windows version with a
Threshold of 25.
There is also a time of 28:30 mentioned in one of your posts, for running
on Windows, with Threshold 25. However, it is patently unclear what version
of Povray you used to obtain that number, so I left it out of the table,
not knowing where to put it.
All you can see from the above numbers is
a) That you still haven't done (or at least haven't reported) a test of
the official Windows version against the official Linux version with
same settings for both,
b) That my Celeron400 is running roughly 10% faster than your P2/400 in
both linux and Windows, and
c) That the comparisons between official versions using the same settings
that I *have* done show a 7-11% advantage for the official linux version
Now, if I were you, I'd be most concerned about (b) ;-)
>Surely, the results ought to be the same - that is Linux is slower
>than Windows.
Only if that "ought" to be what I am out to prove, which would lead me
to post a whole shitload of numbers in the hope of confusing the point
that I still haven't done a proper comparison.
But as I am actually interested in the facts, rather than in throwing up
a smoke screen, I have compared like with like, official version with
official version, with identical settings of the Bounding_Threshold
parameter, and have come to a conclusion.
You have done all sorts of other stuff, but you haven't actually done the
obvious, and thus you have come to some weird and unfounded conclusion.
I apologize for applying proper methodology in an advocacy group, but
I will stand by the results of said methodology. You are welcome to
see whether you get different results if you do the same thing, but
please abstain from
a) comparing uncomparable things (as you have done all through this thred), and
b) claiming that I posted some timings that I never posted, and from those
timings deducing that your position is supported by my measurements (see
above, the 22:29 thing).
>>I don't know about you, but my priorities for compilers are
>>
>>1) correctness
>>2) correctness
>>3) correctness ;-)
>If you're talking about ANSI compliance, we all know that VC is not very
>ANSI compliant
Well, I for one didn't know that. In what ways isn't it ANSI compliant?
However, I was more concerned with producing executable code that actually
does what the C code describes. In their zeal to optimize, compilers
sometimes go that one step too far....
>>4) stability
>My long experience with VC tells me it is stable.
Then how do you explain the comment the good people who maintain Povray
put into the Readme?
Bernie
--
History is a collection of agreed upon lies
Voltaire
French philosopher, 1694-1778
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:14:56 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
>
> I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
> is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
> life.
So, is the guy that said he uses his for a file server lying? Do you use
DOS as a file server?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:14:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:45:40 -0400, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How long is "years"? KDE hasn't been around for very long. And have you
> >seen KDE 2.0?
>
> From the looks of KDE2 it hasn't evolved very much. It still looks
> like a pathetic Windows clone to me.
To each his own. Like I said, I think Windows looks ugly. At least I get more
function out of KDE than what WIndows provides .
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:15:06 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:55:22 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
>> drives
>> are treated like removable hard disks.
>
>So much for consistency in Windows.
Err..what's the difference between those two?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:17:43 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:00:24 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>
>
>>
>> They each have their drawbacks. The UNIX way is more obscure, until
>> you understand what's going on -- the MacOS way can lead to whacky
>> problems like strange names ("Please insert the disk named 'CA 5982'",
>> huh?) or the volume-swapping problems (floppy in, floppy out, floppy
>> in, floppy out -- I played that game quite often on my Macs) and
>> writing AppleScripts which go to non-standard locations (ie, other
>> than the extension folder and such names imported by the scriptable
>> finder) can have fun problems; part of the reason AppleScript is such
>> a pain is because of this convoluted naming system.
>>
>> Under unix, I can put in a multi-partion Zip disk and mount them to
>> any place I like:
>>
>> /My Zip Disk/First Partition
>> /My Zip Disk/Second Partition
>>
>
>Even if the partitions use different filesystems?
Yes. What it is (what partition or drive) is completely abstracted
from where it is (/mnt/zip0, /mnt/zip1, /mnt/floppy, /mnt/cdrom0,
/mnt/cdrom, or even /mnt/nfs/server1, /mnt/nfs/server2, etc.)
>Also, are there
>multiple devices within a Zip drive, or does it use just one device?
1 device. You'd mount the Zip disk you stuck in there, and it would
appear at the mount point of your choice (/mnt/zip, say). Want
another Zip disk? Umount /mnt/zip, and pop out the disk (a modern
Unix implementation can frequently do that with "eject /mnt/zip"),
stick in the new Zip disk, and do the mount thing again.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:30:36 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:47:17 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger
><roger@.> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:40:38 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
>> wrote:
>> >> > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such
>> >> > dramatically
>> >> > higher productivity level?
>> >> I don't even try to. Then again I never experienced first hand a
>> >> _dramatically_ higher productivity level.
>> >Perhaps you haven't. But every published study says it's real. Too bad
>> >your little theory isn't consistent with that fact.
>> And too bad Joe neglects to mention that none of these studies
>> compares Mac OS with a * current * version of Windows.
>>
>> Wonder why that is?
>Probably because the people who do the studies gave up.
>
>They did mountains of studies when Win3.1 was current. Same result. The
>press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
>
>They did mountains of studies when Win95 was current. Same result. The
>press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
So, then you can point us all to, let's say, a dozen of these studies
specifically comparing the 9x interface? Why did you not post
pointers on your website? All I ever saw there was 3x...
>They did mountains of studies when WinNT 4.0 was current. Same result.
>The press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
Ditto -- a dozen here.
>They apparently got tired of casting pearls before swine.
>
>But I notice that you STILL haven't provided a single study from any
>time frame that supports your position.
Of course, since I've not stated a position, this can hardly be
considered extraordinary...
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 02:36:12 GMT
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : So where are all of these folks?
:>
:> In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
:> Microsoft.
: Is Microsoft an important business?
I guess it depends how you define "business," but assuming Microsoft
can be considered at least in part a business, not merely a criminal
organization, its market capitalization and the prominence of several
of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 02:36:46 GMT
>2. It's multi-user
Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is
that I have to
remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to
get their work
done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords
that can't
even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time
somethign goes
wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100
terminals can get
the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody,
mail, news, bin,
sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
Um actually multiuser is quite a nice feature. The same program can be run by
hundreds of different users unlike Winblowme which won't let me play QuakeII
off my buddues box while he's doing it. And by the way genius, passwd's are
disabled by typeing "passwd <usrname>" and not entering a new passdwd. Holy
shit that was hard.
6. The CLI can multitask and network.
...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
usefull to normal
people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
A: DOS can't do it because it's flat out shit. B) Multitasking is cool at the
cmd line, I can run CRACK, type a letter, browse the net, and what ever the
hell else i want. Try that with Winblowme
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Good books on writing a kernel.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 02:42:20 GMT
You want books on writing a kernel?? Whoa... Try "Designing and Implementing
a 32 OS" by Andy T. and some one else. I think thats what it's called, it's
something along those lines... Dunno how good it will be, Andy wrote MINIX and
we know how far that got... No really it is a good book.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:54:19 +1000
"tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
> > > drives
> > > are treated like removable hard disks.
> >
> > So much for consistency in Windows.
So you can partition a floppy disk under MacOS ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:56:22 -0400
In article <8ik1ti$ave$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
> > > > drives
> > > > are treated like removable hard disks.
> > >
> > > So much for consistency in Windows.
>
> So you can partition a floppy disk under MacOS ?
Hey mon, watch your snippage!
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:03:18 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff
Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:27:19 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>> find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
>>
>>Ummmm, you forgot to count the output lines:
>>
>>find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text | wc
>
>
> Wow! that's so much easier than just naming your extensive collection of
> text files *.txt and using Start - Find - *.txt
Moron! Go back to your little windows advocacy group.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:07:56 +1000
"tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8ik1ti$ave$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like
Jaz
> > > > > drives
> > > > > are treated like removable hard disks.
> > > >
> > > > So much for consistency in Windows.
> >
> > So you can partition a floppy disk under MacOS ?
>
> Hey mon, watch your snippage!
Erk, sorry. I was replying to Joe (since he's in my killfile) but I forgot
to take out your reference :\.
Still, anyone reasonably intelligent should be able to figure it out :).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
