Linux-Advocacy Digest #204, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (mlw)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (mark)
RE: Windows98 ("David Cancio")
Re: What Tim is good for (was Re: What UNIX is good for.) (Martijn Bruns)
Re: What Tim is good for (was Re: What UNIX is good for.) (Martijn Bruns)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 10 things you can do with Windows... (Jacques Guy)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Illya Vaes)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: What Tim is good for (was Re: What UNIX is good for.) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: BSOD in the airport (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson))
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (mlw)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (2:1)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (2:1)
Re: iMac: the iTelligent Choice (Bill Vermillion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:10:18 -0400
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
> >No, it isn't the '70's, it is a new century.
>
> No, it's not. The new century starts on the comin January 1st.
I just knew that would come up! I figured I would use the populist view
of new years instead of the chronologically accurate one. Damn romans.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:26:05 +0100
In article <393e661e$12$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer wrote:
>On 06/06/2000 at 11:38 AM,
> Brad BARCLAY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Joseph wrote:
>> >
>> > Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>> > >
>> > ...
>> > > Meanwhile, Canadian forces burned down the original White House, and
>> > > destroyed the primary port on the US side of Lake Ontario (at a great
>> > > loss of life - on both sides).
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Canadian forces attacked WA DC? Did they use the Canadian Navy ? I've
>> > never heard a Canadian tell me they, not the British, attacked WA DC.
>
>> Sigh. Let's try this: during the American Revolutionary War, what
>> nationality were the combatants fighting against the British?
>
>British. It was a REVOLUTION after all. We were called Rebels not
>Americans by the British government. We didn't become Americans until
>1783. The term United States of America did not become our title until the
>adoption of the Constitution was adopted in 1788.
>
>> The people of Upper and Lower Canada were British subjects, but even
>> back then they were refered to as Canadians. Citizenship sometimes
>> transcends governance.
>
>Not on period maps for the most part. It was called British North America.
>
>> We can call them proto-Canadians if you like. Not all of them were
>> British subjects (for example, the indiginous native peoples). Refering
>> to them as "British" is thus also quite incorrect. Most of the
>> combatants were born in a place called (at that time) either "Upper
>> Canada" or "Lower Canada", making them Canadians. There descendants
>> were -- and are -- also Canadians.
>
>Were that true, they would have been Upper Canadians or Lower Canadians,
>as different as citizens of North Carolina and South Carolina here or
>Quebecois and Ontarians in Canada today.
>
>> Nowhere have I denied that Canadians were not also British subjects.
>> Indeed, Canadians continued to be British subjects even after formal
>> Confederation (the act that made Canada a nation in the first place).
>
>> Really - I don't think that this is a very hard concept to grasp.
>
>They why can you not grasp the facts? Until the Articles of Confederation
>conferred limited nation status on the various provinces which came
>together as Canada there was no nation called Canada. It was just as much
>a part of Britain as India or Scotland or Wales. Just as there was no
>Welsh Army, Scotish Army, Indian Army in 1812, there was no Canadian Army.
>Ditto for the Navy.
There was no English Army either. There were a vast number of Regiments,
including an American one (Royal American Rifles), Canadian ones, Indian
ones, Australian ones, Welsh ones, Scottish ones, Irish ones, Yorkshire
ones, lots of English ones etc. etc. I don't think you know what
you're talking about.
>
>The United States did not fight a Canadian Army or Navy in 1812. We fought
>various British Armies and the Royal Navy and beat them both. That some of
>the British Armies (King George had several armies don't forget) were
>peopled with residents of Canada most likely made our job that much easier
>since many the best British troops came from Scotland and Ireland.
Er, what? They came from all over the empire. I don't think you know
a great deal about the British Military.
Mark
--
A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer. Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Windows98
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:28:18 GMT
> > I mean, why have only GNU/Linux at my home when a magazine
> > gives an English course (for Windows) ? Why can't I test all those new
games
> > ?
>
> As long as lots of people maintain that attitude, those companies
producing the
> courseware and games will not be motivated to port to Linux.
> Personally, I can live without a lot of commercial software. If they
expect me
> to use a second rate OS just so I can run their product, then they have
lost a
> customer.
Yes, but if you can't live without it, you just need Windows, call it
your
secondary OS or whatever.
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What Tim is good for (was Re: What UNIX is good for.)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:48:35 +0200
Ian Pulsford schreef:
>
>
I believe Tim is a great supporter of the saying:
"Supidity got us into this mess -- why can't it get us out?"
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What Tim is good for (was Re: What UNIX is good for.)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:48:38 +0200
Ian Pulsford schreef:
>
>
I believe Tim is a great supporter of the saying:
"Supidity got us into this mess -- why can't it get us out?"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 12:47:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> Why would I want to run more than a dozen processes?
>>>Many, many reasons.
>>
>>Name one.
>
>I run more than a dozen processes all of the time, because I can.
That's a circular argument. Why do run so many processes. What are they all
doing?
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:55:03 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 things you can do with Windows...
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:07:33 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >#5. Upgrade to the next version!
> Yes, I *must* upgrade [ allow me to snip: soon Windows may be as good as Linux!]
You might be closer to the truth than you imagine. The other day, at
the newsagent's, I overheard a conversation between a fellow and
a child (father and son they must have been). It was about Windows
2000.
I gathered the "in" thing for kids was to have the latest, ie Win2000.
A sort of keep up with the Joneses. Dad, I need 128M of RAM to run
Win2000! All the other kids at school run Win2000! Dad, I need an
upgrade! DAAAAD!!! I *must* upgrade!!!!
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:14:15 +0200
Pete Goodwin schreef:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>>> Why would I want to run more than a dozen processes?
> >>>Many, many reasons.
> >>
> >>Name one.
> >
> >I run more than a dozen processes all of the time, because I can.
>
> That's a circular argument. Why do run so many processes. What are they all
> doing?
What i think he means, is that you can leave all your old
programs open if you want to do something else, and then you can
go back to your old programs directly afterwards.
Also, you can have processes running in the background, without
ever being bothered by them, like httpd, ftpd, telnetd and such.
The amount of background processes can really grow large, but
still you won't be bothered. Try looking at the process status
and see how many processes you are running right now (if you have
Linux, that is). It can easily grow up to 20 or 30 processes at a
time.
I like good, complete information on what my computer is doing.
Don't you?
--
Pillage, rape, and loot and burn, but all in moderation.
If you do the things we say, then you'll soon rule the nation.
Kill your foes and enemies and then kill your relations.
Pillage, rape, and loot and burn, but all in moderation.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:26:26 +0200
Grant Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:26:07 GMT, Daniel Johnson
>I think this is the real basis of why we're
>talking at cross-purposes. We don't agree on a very
>basic security term. This terminology isn't specific
>to UNIX.
Obviously, Daniel's definition of "Unix" is "non-NT, non-MS" or something like
that. MS NT is the end-all, be-all and everything else is 'that dreaded Unix'.
Needless to say, this gives rise to circularu reasoning and endless
'discussions' without resolving anything.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 20 Jun 2000 12:16:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In Windos, if the softwhere is beta, you won't see it on the market.
> Congrats. This comment gave me a great laugh. Exactly how much do
> you know about the realities of cemmerical software development ?
Tim's right, but not in the way he means: everything gets shovelled
out the door to market while it is still at the *alpha* stage (often
in order to steal a march on rivals, or because the project has cost
so much and taken so long that the plug is going to be pulled on it if
it doesn't start earning ASAP...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What Tim is good for (was Re: What UNIX is good for.)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:50:22 -0500
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
>
Perfect, I couldn't agree more.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality
or fantasy?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:03:11 -0500
> I do not fear open source. I fear the zealots who insist that
> something which does not match their definition of open source is
> somehow evil or worthy of contempt. If you read my original post I
> acknowledge that open source software has a very valid place in the
> industry, but closed source software also has its place. To deny
> either is unreasonable closed mindedness.
>
> Beware of zealots who call your mind closed. They are often too
> binded by their own beliefs to see the truth.
>
> John Wiltshire
OK, tell me exactly where I said that closed source is a bad thing. I
was just pointing out that open source has possiblities. Although I
realize that it is fashionable to jump all over someone that is
pro-open-source at the moment, as I am, that does not mean that I am
completely anti-closed-source. The two are not necissarily mutually
exclusive. In a software only company there is definitely good reason
to allow people a shot at closed source (for the revenue alone). At
least there is a valid argument for it. But, when it comes to hardware,
I say let the best hardware win. Maybe opening up the driver would push
hardware vendors to actually come up with something new in hardware to
trump the competitor. I think a hardware vendor should focus on the
hardware. They usually don't hire the most brilliant software
developers (I said usually, there are exceptions) for drivers. While in
some aspects of the industry I understand the reason for closed source
programs, I don't think drivers fall into this category.
Let's just say we agree to disagree on this point. If that makes me a
zealot (god damn I hate that word) then so be it. Every time I try to
point out that open source may be a good idea some idiot comes out to
tell me what a freak I am. Kind of reminds me of high school.
"OOOoooh. This guy doesn't agree with the popular people, he must be a
freak." Yeah, that's me. Whatever.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 14:26:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ind3v$n98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>
>>OK, so what happens if I run the official version on Windows with
>>Threshold of 25, as the Linux would run with by default (and as did my
>>VC version).
>
>>I get 28 minutes 30 seconds with the official Windows version.
>
>That doesn't make *any* sense. That would mean that going from Threshold
>3 to Threshold 25 adds less than 6 minutes under Windows on your Windows
>installation.
>Meanwhile, on my generally faster Celeron400, it adds more than 11
>minutes.
>
>Do you have an explanation?
No. Do you?
>And, quite frankly, I don't buy that 28:30 as being the result of the
>official Windows version, running the same render with the same
>settings. You'd have to come up with a pretty impressive explanation for
>why it wouldn't fit the usual "slightly slower than the C400"
>pattern....
I couldn't care less whether you buy it or not, that's the figure I got.
>>And I've come to the opposite conclusion, which leads me to suspect
>>there's something else going on here - how come your Linux version on a
>>Celeron 400 is running faster than mine on a PII 400MHz?
>
>It's not just the Linux version --- it's also the Windows version, don't
>forget that; 20:58 vs 22:51 for Threshold 3.
And I haven't done the threshold 3 for Linux as yet, and I'll bet if I do,
Linux will come out slower again.
>>In the end I did do comparisions with like settings and I get very
>>different results from you.
>
>You allegedly did *one* comparison (of the obvious two), and as I said,
>I don't buy one of the timings --- it falls completely outside all the
>other timings.
It fits with the timings I saw - that Linux runs slower than Windows. I
can't help it if you don't believe my results.
>I see. In other words, you have no indication whatsoever that the
>problems they allude to don't exist in your compile.
True, however I switched to using the official build and still get results
that indicate Linux is slower than Windows. If I run the VC version, it
gets even faster.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:32:56 -0500
pac4854 wrote:
>
> Don't feed the trolls.
>
> Once his acne goes into remission, and he graduates from high
> school, and he finally gets laid, he'll go away.
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
Yeah, I know. I was having a really bad day yesterday and venting on
dumbass seemed the best way to relieve some tension. I quite honestly
think that this guy has got to be getting paid for some of this shit.
Have you seen that amount of time he spends posting stuff under his
various names? He has got to either have a full time job in M$ doing
exactly this, or he is a drop out that absolutely refuses to leave the
house and spends all his time on the computer, hoping mommy can afford
to buy his food for him. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have a
feeling I'm not far off. One of those two has to be right. More than
likely the M$ is paying him theory is the correct one. Why else would
he be so incredibly pissed off at the mere existance of something other
than M$?
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson))
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: 20 Jun 2000 13:26:28 GMT
What about this?:
http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/news/bsod.html
:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mikey wrote:
>>
>> If you are in the New Orleans airport, take a look at this column in
>> concourse C that is supposed to have schedule information or something.
>> It has a monitor with the Windows BSOD. It was blue-screened when I was
>> leaving for Paris, and when I came back to New Orleans, I made a special
>> trip before picking up my luggage to check, and it was *still*
>> blue-screened.
>>
>> What an advert for M$
>>
>> --
>> Since-beer-leekz,
>> Mikey
>> Exerciser of Daemons
>
> I saw one of those touch screen public terminals (no keyboard) with a
> "this computer has booted in to safe mode" message. I'm not sure how
> they usually shut it down, but any attempt to reboot it lways left it in
> safe mode.
>
> -Ed
>
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:41:55 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:25:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >>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.
> >
> > ANY Unix on a 386 is considerably more useful than DOS on a 386.
> > It will likely be useful for something. You lie if you claim
> > that people such as my self are claiming that it would be useful as
> > a conventional desktop machine.
>
> You know as well as I do that if you say Linux runs on a 386 users
> expect it to run just like the pretty (minus the uglyness of KDE)
> little picture on the back of the box looks like.
I know that is not true, and I know of no one that would think that it
was. Except for, perhaps, you.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:12:15 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>>> Why would I want to run more than a dozen processes?
> >>>Many, many reasons.
> >>
> >>Name one.
> >
> >I run more than a dozen processes all of the time, because I can.
It depends what you define as `because I can'. because i can open every
source file, header and loads of relavent man pages on a program I'm
working on, I do. I find having all of them open at once very useful
because they are there when I need them to be.
Also, at the same time (if I was on line)I can have a mail client open,
a browser open and mabey have a calculation running at a low priority in
the background, not to mention lots of pretty things like xearth
running.
If I was that way inclined, I could serve personal web pages too (tho I
have another computer around to do that for me). So why limit yourself
to few processes, when many can be so useful.
So because I can run lots of processes, I do and find it very useful. If
I couldn't, then I wouldn't (obviously).
-Ed
>
> That's a circular argument. Why do run so many processes. What are they all
> doing?
>
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:17:45 +0100
> "Healp me my text-baste UNIX mailreder cant rede HTML!"
basted text. Mmmmmm, sounds delicious...
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: iMac: the iTelligent Choice
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:25:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:19 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> I would and do describe NT's hardware requirements
>>>> as extreme.
>>>You can name some other system offering as much with
>>>significantly lower requirements ?
>> Unix/X.
>X is definitely extreme--if you thought games ran slowly under NT, you
>should try them under X. It's too complex, too unwieldy and too
>resource-hungry to make for a good game platform.
>Trouble is, the UNIX folks think this is a virtue. Try to suggest to
>them that the graphics engine should be integrated into the kernel for
>efficiency, and you can see their brains just switching off.
Well I surely don't need X in a kernel on many of my machines. I
even have systems where on boot the BIOS output goes out the serial
port so I can change the BIOS setting on boot without even having a
video monitor or video card. Why do I need a monitor in
rack-mounted lights-out web-servers in a remote colocation facility?
It would be highly INefficient to have anything needed for video in
the kernel after that point particularly X.
That's part of the beauty of Unix system - slim enough to do what
you need - and you can add what you want as you need it.
You could classify Unix as a 'kit OS' and put it together for what
you need instead of having an OS that has everything for everyone.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
