Linux-Advocacy Digest #347, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: OS's ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Marcus Turner")
RE: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (salvador
peralta)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Where is Linux going? ("Joe Kiser")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. ("Joe
Kiser")
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (salvador
peralta)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:21:49 GMT
Take it to MS advocacy. The 1995 Unixes could still beat w2k and
millenium.
In article <U8H55.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you remember that by 1995 DOS/Windows users were still
> using DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 ? I point that, because I want
> to denote that Microsoft Windows has done a big and good way
> since 1995, and that Millenium and Windows 2000 are much more
> powerful and stable. I mean, in 5 or 6 years, Microsoft has even
> reached the goal of competing with Unix (at least they try to do so)
> and has won the desktop market; remember that by 1995 it was not
> as clear that DOS was the best choice, but now, who do think about
> a desktop without Windows ? Perhaps with DOJ and Linux hype
> people is starting to do so just now, but still far from winning.
>
> On the other side, where was Linux by 1995 ? It was a much more
> difficult OS that today it is; kernel had little features, PnP was a
dream
> (or at least a pain), PPP links were hard to configure, and X11 was
> really hard to set up and slow. Applications by then were little, very
> little, and very bad (do you remember StarOffice 3?). What I mean is
> that Linux, has made a big and good way too, it has taken a lot of
> the server market, and now is attempting to get desktop usability.
>
> Windows ----> Stability and Power ----->
> Linux --------> Usability and Power ---->
>
> The two OS's if they keep on evolving as they've done, can very
> well converge at a thing as equal powerful and as equal usable. Time
> will tell if Linux manage to get all of that based only on open source
code,
> and then it will have won. If Linux relies on non open source (this
will
> mean
> most of the cases you have to pay for it), may be it is nothing but a
> alternative as powerful and as stable as another propietary OS's.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:40:24 GMT
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j5oiv$a37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >...I could very well ask how much money you get from Sun or Novell -- but
> >I really don't think they would want to pay the retard you are.
>
> Not a penny. But though I've used Sun stuff, I've never used
> Novell stuff. And I prefer to have critical sense, rather than to emit
> such effusive praise that one might wonder who has been paying me.
Ah, Loren, You have learned much from Master Tailgunner Joe. Have you
considered a career in politics?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:31:04 GMT
No, I did. You want to compare OS's? Let's compare.
In article <ySG55.58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now, lets talk servers! Linux blows the socks of w2k in many areas
NOW
> > and will be even better when the 2.4 kernel is released!
>
> I did not say anything about servers.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:34:10 GMT
In article <BSG55.62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nobody in their right mind would write a book in Word.
>
> May be by very short chapters :-) ... anyway, I do not write
> books and Word serves me right for my light work.
>
>
Word is very expenisive for "light Work".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:35:47 GMT
In article <zSG55.59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You seem to like all these windows apps so why don't you like
windows?
>
> Obviously it lacks stability and security, but ... I remain tied to
it by
> now.
>
>
Until all your personal data stored on your computer is lost because of
an Email virus or crash!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:39:55 GMT
In article <ASG55.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux is harder? Bullshit. Heaping, steaming, bletcherous wet
soddy
> > mounds of bullshit. I may hate Windoze, but Windoze hates me worse.
>
> I did not say Linux was harder, just that now I do use primarily
Windows
> just because it haves the applications I like.
>
>
Isn't *Choice* wonderful? You can have your overpriced software that
*YOU* like, I can have the free or cheap software the *I* like! So, what
your point? That everyone sould use MS software because *you* like some
of the applications it runs???
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:53:07 -0500
MK wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:47:41 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >MK wrote:
> >>[A bunch of stuff about how great Microsoft is.]
>
> >So I'm curious. Does MK stand for Microsoft Klingon?
>
> Ad hominem instead of response based on merit is the last
> resort of loser.
>
> MK
>
> ---
>
> Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
Believe me, I've been called a loser (and worse) by much better people
than you (and much worse I'm sure). BTW, doesn't that single statement
by you make it seem as if you are a loser as well?
If this hadn't been posted to a Linux advocacy group, you probably
wouldn't have gotten this response. But, walking into a crowd of people
that you know aren't going to agree with you and shouting your views
tends to get you slammed. Just my point of view. You don't see me in
any Windows advocacy groups, do you?
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:57:54 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Stefaan> The problem with participatory democracy is that a a group
> Stefaan> of people always pawns "leaders", and that these leaders
Oops, should be "spawns"...
> Stefaan> then try to perpetuate their prime position in their
> Stefaan> offspring. Nobility wasn't handed down from heaven, it
> Stefaan> evolved. One only has to look at the current nobility (our
> Stefaan> "democratically elected representatives") to notice how
> Stefaan> often sprogs follows daddy or mummy into politics.
>
> I think that this is some truth in this, but I don't
> think that it is necessary that it happens. For me the main problem
> with democracy at the moment is that our democratically elected
> leaders are pawns to the large capital interests (as were are previous
> unelected leaders!). Democracy is very limited in its scope
> therefore. I think that a fully participatory democracy could work. It
> has been tried before successfully but failed usually due to outside
> influence.
The problem is that we can't start from a level playing field, and
that the field doesn't seem to stay level very long. Our current
system effectively limits the powers of our "leaders", and as such
it's a huge improvement over less accountable systems.
Real participatory democracy is quickly eroded by
a) the lack of interest of 60-80% of the population when
things go well.
b) the very real desire of 10-20% of the population
to be "leaders"
c) the natural tendency of people to favour their offspring
So-called intelligence doesn't help either, as the hallowed
halls of the academia are rife with politicking, nepotism,
and power brokering.
> Stefaan> Lenin benefitted from a lot of support from Germany.
>
> True enough.
>
> Stefaan> He wouldn't have been able to reach Russia were it not for
> Stefaan> their active support (the more troublemakers in Russia the
> Stefaan> merrier). In any case, Lenin's contribution to communism
> Stefaan> was that because the proletariat was to stupid to rule
> Stefaan> itself, it should be ruled by the
> Stefaan> intelligentsia. Obviously, this was a huge improvement over
> Stefaan> being ruled by inbred nepotist aristocrats ;-).
>
> Not a statement that I would support.
I'd have no hesitation to say that stalinism was a lot worse than
the tsarism of the early 20th century. Russia was industrializing,
and without the war it would probably have moved to a more western
style particracy.
> Although it should be
> noted that it is possible to be both "intelligensia" and "proletariat"
> particularly in this day and age, where "mind workers" often suffer
> from the same abuses that labourers did in the past.
But they get paid a lot better, and quite often want to work for
the large corporations that exploit them. It's not amazing either,
as "working for a large company" is the mantra the schools use.
> Stefaan> The new regime was in any case a lot more efficient when it
> Stefaan> came to eliminating its opponents. Oh well, tsarism,
> Stefaan> communism, or capitalism, it's Russia's fate to always get
> Stefaan> the worst implementation of a political system. And always
> Stefaan> a despot. Poor Russia.
>
> Russian history has a lot of very low points. I don't know
> why. For me though the revolution was one of the points where it
> things look promisingly good, even if that promise failed to
> materialise...
The French revolution gave us Napoleon, the Russian revolution
gave us Stalin, etc. Revolutions serve the purpose of power-hungry
individuals, not of the general populace.
The American revolution was an exception because it was a small
bunch of wealthy land-owners who dumped an inept king. We forget
that when they wrote "we believe all men to be created equal", they
really meant "all white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males".
--
Stefaan
--
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:12:59 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MK wrote:
>
> Absolutely. I don't claim govt is inherently unable to do anything.
...snippage.. .
>
>
> >NCSA paid for the first graphical browser?
>
> Govt (read: taxpayer) paid for first man in space, too, but I don't think
> it is really the proof private industries couldn't do it.
Such claims are impossible to prove or disprove. What we do know is that they
*didn't* pay for it. Just like they didn't pay for the development of the first
computer, most of those protocols, particle accelerators, etc. One thing that we
do know is that corporations exist for a profit motive. They will tend not to part
with their cash unless they see some clear-cut economic benefit. Usually a
near-term economic benefit. And you can't always see a near-term benefit with
that type of research. Given that, they cannot be relied upon, as a general rule,
to pay long costs associated with that type of development, even as they cannot be
relied upon to pay for public goods such as roads and other infrastructure
> Who's developing
> big, feature rich graphical browsers used in real world NOW?
The question isn't who is buiolding them now, the question is, would they have ever
been built? More to the point, built with the type of open standards that have
made the proliforation of those technologies possible. Would a company that finds
the keys to that vehicle share it with potential competitors and give away their
competitive advantage? One would have to be naive to think so.
> I'm not saying they all govt labs should be eliminated, for they are mostly
> necessary for research on weapons or other national security matters. However,
> existing products or standards that came from them are rather side effects
> of either military programs, or programs done for propaganda reasons, not
> goals on their own.
Even better.
> Like sending man to moon was mostly result of propaganda
> flexing muscles during Cold War. Now we have also have teflon thanks to that
> program, but I would not say that teflon is result bc of good govt wanting to
> give teflon to people.
Who said that it was? Why would it need to be?
>
> >The
> >first mail protocols developed at ucla, and ucsb were paid for with
> >government funds. Large portions of every telephony infrastructure
> >across the globe were paid for with public funds, etc.
> >The seed money
> >for research in most internetworking originated with public funds, not
> >the private sector. First computer? Paid for by the U.S. army. etc.
> >etc. etc.
>
> It's all true -- but it doesn't prove anything but forceful monopolization of
> those domains by govt.
Something was preventing private industry from developing computers? Something was
preventing private industry from investing in internetworking protocols? Nothing
forceful about it. The lack of that research as a clear-cut vehicle for profit
was the only thing stopping industry from engaging in it. And when industry does
engage in that type of research, they usually start doing it because the government
is paying them to do it.
> >More like they are the result of the US government wanting to develop
> >first a machine capable of cracking german codes in WWII and later, a
> >decentralized communications infrastructure that could survive a nuclear
> >exchange.
>
> US govt? IIRC, the bulk of work on cracking Enigma during WWII was done
> in Bletchley Park in UK,
True enough. Still government funded research. But it was DARPA that got the
internet ball rolling. Since you're talking about the contributions made by the
british government, why don't you through in radar that makes commercial avaiation
possible as well.
> >...lol... Unstable governments and a populace that is unprotected from
> >economic hardships are great for market economies... lol... It's no
> >coincidence that every first world country in the world can be labelled
> >a social democracy.
>
> Correlation is not causation -- socialdemocracy is result of politics that
> makes it worse, not better.
So you keep saying. And it's a convenient out. But if every successful country is
following the same or similar sets of policies, at what point does the
"coincidence" becoem too great for even someone like yourself to ignore.
> As Brink Lindsey likes to put it, the fact
> that I can move uphill with a pack of cement on my back doesn't
> mean that that pack makes me run faster. You make typical, common,
> vulgar post hoc, ergo propter hoc error.
And you're sticking your head in the sand to keep yourself from seeing what you
don't want to admit.
> Well, why don't you check how European socialdemocracies are
> doing economically. They do it so "well" they recently had
> to ask US to impose new Internet taxes.
lol... "Well" is a relative term. Doing well compared to the rest of the world?
Doing well compared to where they were 70 years ago? 150 years ago? In both the
United States and in Western Europe, the period of greatest social revolution, and
the least amount of stability came prior to the advent of the welfare state. Prior
to the advent of fair labor laws. There's a reason for that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 26 Jun 2000 14:06:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does UNIX cope when a badly written application starts to fork and its
> children start to fork too. I saw what happened when I did exactly that on
> a UNIX course. The system got swamped by hundreds of children all trying to
> fork. They had to reboot to recover the system.
If the system is competently administered, the resource limiting
mechanisms built in will keep the number of simultaneous processes
owned by a single user down to a reasonable level, and the system will
remain usable. No idea if most Linux systems have this turned on by
default though.
> How does UNIX cope when a badly written application sits in a tight loop
> eating 100% of CPU? Does the system start to grind a bit, feel sluggish
> etc.? I'll have to see.
Well, I'm writing this while such a program I wrote is running. :^)
I wouldn't even notice that this was happening other than for the fact
that the CPU utilisation meter is sitting at about 100% (modulo the
fact that the meter isn't very accurate or very big. :^) This is
because the UNIX scheduler reduces the priority of processes/threads
that use up (large fractions of?) their time slice.
> Any OS can't cope with a badly written application. If on UNIX you open
> hundreds or thousands of file handles, then exit without closing them, the
> system will try to close them all - what happens then? I'll have to try it
> and see.
I'm currently running with a limit of 64 simultaneously-open file
handles per process, and virtually everything can live quite nicely.
(Heavy duty network servers would need more, but I can always let the
limit up as far as 1024 if I need to.) A quick test indicates that a
process that opens that many on this machine and then exits without
closing neatly causes no significant problem to the running of the
machine, as it completes too quickly for me to switch to something
else to measure the difficulty of doing anything while the shutdown is
happening. :^)
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Date: 26 Jun 2000 14:10:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Man pages do not have hyperlinks - Windows help does.
That does depend on your manual page browser. :^)
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: "Joe Kiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is Linux going?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:16:23 -0400
"Goofy root" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where is Linux going?
Where is *BSD at in your prediction?
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:16:49 +0200
is this why complete 0.3% of destop computers have linux?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >and of course, ten downloads, ( or even ten sales) can result in zero
> >installations. this is much less likely with NT.
> >
> >most of the linux cd-s are burned because it is free and people want to
> >check it out. after that, it is left on a separate partition and never
> >booted into again.
>
> You got it backwards. Most copies of windows are preinstalled on
computers
> and wiped off to install linux.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:16:04 +0200
same with proving that each linux cd is installed 10 or 100 computers.
count the number of cd-s that can be counted and then measure the linux
usage (for example 0.3% of desktop. 20% of servers). i'm missing the first
number.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:24:52 +0200, Davorin Mestric
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >and of course, ten downloads, ( or even ten sales) can result in zero
> >installations. this is much less likely with NT.
> >
> >most of the linux cd-s are burned because it is free and people want to
> >check it out. after that, it is left on a separate partition and never
> >booted into again.
>
> This is not something you have any capacity to proove.
>
------------------------------
From: "Joe Kiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:22:51 -0400
"PowerUser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Looks like it's the usual "We troll the internet because high school
> is out and we don't have a girlfriends" group is back for the
> summer...
>
> Now instead of a little msg. here and there, these jerk-offs have time
> to post a lot of shit under different names, that is, when they are
> not jerking off...
>
> LINUX IS HERE TO STAY, AND AT THE RATE THAT IT IS GROWING/DEVELOPING,
> IT WILL BE THE MAJOR OS OF THE FUTURE.
And how old are you supposed to be?
------------------------------
From: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:27:37 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:27:58 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to
>run there Windows app?
> >>
> >
> >Because Linux is more stable.
>
> Lie-nux still crashes you LIE-NUX LIAR!
lol... I'd like to thank you. Tim, for doing so much to support linux advocacy. Your
posts will, I am sure, move people on the fence towards linux. Kudos. Keep u the
good work!
> Most people use Microsoft Office even though StarOfice is avalaball.
StarOffice sucks. You're comparing the flagship office product for windows with the
#2 or #3 office suite for linux.
> >Aren't VB scripts just text files? Besides, VB doesn't work in Linux.
>
> One more reasin not to run Lie-nux.
VB sucks when compared to the native scripting langauages on linux. Perl is better.
Python is better. Of course, unlike VB, both come distributed for free with the OS.
Compare
language support. $1100 for micros~1 visual studio, which comes with vj++, vb, and
vc++ or linux which comes free with perl, python, 4 or 5 shells, c. c++, java, basic,
pascal,
fortran, etc. etc. etc. Even after paying the $1100, you don't get as good a tool-set.
> >It's not the absolute number of CPU cycles, but a winmodem has to hit the CPU
> >in real time.
>
> Its unnoticable unless your on a 386.
Liar. I've got a 600mhz PIII with 128mb ram and a 133 mhz bus. It came with a
winModem which I got rid of within 3 days because it kept hanging my system and was
too unstable to
reliably maintain a ppp connection.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:26:05 -0500
MK wrote:
> >That
> >is my argument. If you go out of your way to change the circumstances I
> >am talking about, you are arguing around the problem, and not facing the
> >real situation I am trying to show you. Even if I purchased a machine a
> >year or more ago with a formatted/unformatted/non-loaded drive I would
> >have had to pay MS for the priveledge of buying a computer.
>
> No you would not. You could have found vendors selling you PC without
> OS installed, couldn't you?
Dell/Gateway/Micron/etc. were selling PCs with formatted hard drives,
but you still had to pay the MS tax. That is a fact. You can step
around it all you want, but it is a fact. They themselves did not like
it, but it was strongarmed by MS so that they (MS) would always get
paid, for every machine said companies were selling.
>
> MK
>
> ---
>
> Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 26 Jun 2000 14:17:23 GMT
In article <8j1sf9$n0f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>> But find can only avoid looking at inodes in leaf directories; if
>> there are any subdirs then it needs to examine the inodes to find
>> which dir-entries are directories... :^)
>
> Still makes things a whole lot faster, especially because GNU find seems
> to keep a running total of how many child directory it has found, and
> once it got them all, stops checking the type (i.e. no longer goes
> for the inode).
I thought of this shortly after I sent the message. Things aren't
too bad on Linux, since the slowest operation is the read of the
linearly-arranged directory, but you're doing that anyway, and the
inode tables get cached conveniently.
> Often when you have both files and subdirectories in a directory, the
> subdirectories were created earlier and thus tend to be near the start
> of the directory....
Doesn't necessarily follow. Though I usually find the limiting factor
is the ability of the terminal to display the output... :^)
>> (A smart person would use locate of course, and avoid looking at any
>> inodes at all... :^)
>
> But that would be cheating, of course --- you'd still be using "find",
> only you'd be using the results of a "find" run at some other time.
So what? One find and a few dozen locates is going to be far faster
than a few dozen finds. Every time.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 26 Jun 2000 14:20:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ever notice how the little VW Beetle NAZI-MOBILE is the cherished
> posession of so many hippy-dippy liberals?
Oh dear. Thread's over. Move Along Now.
- Police Line -- Do Not Cross -- Police Line -- Do Not Cross -- Police Line -
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
