Linux-Advocacy Digest #752, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Christopher Smith")
Re: I just don't buy it ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ("Bas v.d. Wiel")
Re: Linux is just plain awful ("MH")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (abraxas)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("MH")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("MH")
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ("MH")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("MH")
Re: Help with printer ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Help with printer ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... ("Davorin Mestric")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:17:18 +1000
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > unreliability and poor cost/performance? You couldn't be more wrong and
if
> > you'd quit living in 3.51 days you'd know this. When is the last time
anyone
> > not a linux zealot ever saw a blue screen? I can't remember. It's been
over
> > a year I think. Crashes? That's what W98 is for, and even the beta of
> > Windows ME is as stable as most would want. W2K is as stable as any *nix
you
> > could name.
>
> Oh Please, Our local windos zealots running W2K and I am running RedHat
> 6.2,
> Care to guess who has the longest uptime?
The one who hasn't turned his machine off for the longest time ?
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:10:40 +0200
"Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
> advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business perspective.
>
> 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
> some remote server?
yes, if those 'private documents' are actually book orders or something.
where would you store your amazon.com order?
as for running word over the internet, this will bomb, but this is not
what .NET is about. .NET is about developing web sites in a better way, the
only C# demo i've seen so far was for a web store.
next question, please... oh, there it is.
> 2. Why would I want to log onto the internet everytime I want to write a
> short letter or note?
because you need the internet to send it. at least, this is what i do
today to send an email. write it, connect, send. .NET development tools
will not change this one litte bit, only perhaps that the email client will
be written with WinForms classes instead of MFC. .NET also simplifies
writing standard applications, so it is not all 'the return mainframe
model', as you are trying to imply, or as you incorrectly understood .NET
technologies.
> 3. Why clog up internet bandwidth more with stuff that really belongs on
> the home PC/business file server?
exactly. this is what .NET enabled HTML clients can do, instead of always
getting the full page refresh, you only get the needed data, and the
response time is greatly improved! this is what WebForms classes do for
you. it is also backward compatibile, so it will work with older HTML only
clients, too. so, you see that some .NET stuff really does save bandwith.
> 4. What company would trust strorage of information to a server on the
> internet?
i trust amazon to store my orders, no problem. i trust cnet to store
the news articles i read, no problem. there is a big misconnecption
floating around that .NET will put all your data on the net, but this is
simply not true.
> 5. Hard drive capacity gets bigger every year, no need for
> 'internetwork' disk space.
> 6. Intel, AMD, etc want to sell faster expensive processors, not cheap
> thin client gear.
true. that's why it is important to move more functionality to the
client. this is exactly what .NET technologies do. how? by making HTML
clients much more intelligent, with scripting, with COM controls, with CLR
classes available on the client, so your code can be sent to the client and
executed there. in this model, the client does much more work than today,
where the client only parses and displays HTML.
you are trying to push other applications into this model, which is not
logical, and which is not something .NET will force you.
> 7. Everyone already has an office suite of some sort
> 8. What can .NET do that an intranet + an internet gateway cannot do?
your HTML applications can be more rich, with more code executing on the
client. you also have a better way than todays urls to invoke the server
code (SOAP).
> Plus probably loads of other reasons.
yeah, right. if you had loads of other reasons that were half as strong
as those that you did list, you would sure list them. otherwise, this
statement only shows your bias.
------------------------------
From: "Bas v.d. Wiel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:28:21 GMT
Smartdrive would have helped you A LOT.. for Win2K's install.
I use the following manual procedure for Windows 2000 Professional in a
production environment for non-managed equipment. (ie. PC's that don't
accept Win2K's Remote Installation through network cards' bootroms or boot
floppy). You'll need a Win98 bootfloppy for it, downloadable at
www.bootdisk.com, really neat site! I believe this procedure is the fastest
way to do a fully manual install of Win2K.
1. Partition your drive with fdisk from the downloaded Win98 bootdisk that
contains CD drivers
2. reboot
3. format your partition
4. REBOOT!! (smartdrv will be only half-working if you don't, making a HUGE
difference when copying Win2K's enormous number of tiny files)
5. start Smartdrv.exe from your bootdisk (I tested many Smartdrv's and found
Win98's to work fastest for me)
6. start winnt.exe from your CD's \i386 directory.
7. Wait between 20 minutes and an hour depending on machine specs.
8. done!
You'll at least have a 640x480x16 screen from where you can start installing
custom drivers that you may need. There aren't that many drivers for W2K
yet, and most are still in beta, but they usually work quite well..
I'm REALLY interested in what your 'knowledgeable' friend did when he
'tweaked' at the command-prompt level. There's hardly anything drastic you
can do from the command shell on Win2K. Most tweaking is done using regedit
in GUI mode. Only thing I can think of with a rescue disk (ie. command
prompt level) is restoring a backup of system state data or Active Directory
(which I think your friend doesn't have installed).
So either your video card isn't VGA-compatible (HIGHLY unlikely!), or you're
running on unsupported SCSI hardware (for which you can press F6 at the
text-part of the installation and install custom drivers right there).
Also I think your judgement of Gnome's stability based on its beautiful face
is shoddy at best. Either way, in both cases you have to know what you're
doing before you'll be able to judge any OS on its flaws or merits. Your
friend clearly isn't very NT-savvy (so to speak).. it really shouldn't be
that hard, unless you have lots of non-standard hardware (ie. blank 'made in
honkong' stuff). Keep in mind that Win2K was meant for business and thus
goes with the big names first.. you'll find brands like 3Com or IBM
supported a lot better than consumer brands like Trust.
Right now I'm dual booting.... Working Windows, Learning Linux.. (couldn't
help the alliteration).. and I say Linux (SuSE 6.4 in my case) has a lot of
potential! It certainly is a FAST server when you get it running properly.
Now throw in some good GUI-based config tools (but keep those optional so
the non-GUI fans can still go for textfiles) and it would be really great!
Bas
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:29:14 -0400
> A friend of mine showed me a kernal-code sample sent to a friend of
> his (by a microsoft programmer) when he had a questions about how to
> use an API call.
Perhaps because he's writing code for some new type of OS?
I've never heard of 'kernal-code'.
Do you mean Kernel code?
> Freaking GOTO statements all over the place.... in C CODE!!!!!
If the statement is there, it has a use. Just because someone says different
doesn't make it so.
Why do so many nix proponents feel the need to condemn everything they may
not find appropriate for their needs?
Maybe they shouldn't look down, for they might fall from that high and
mighty perch.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: 18 Jul 2000 15:29:31 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8kt99f$gsv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> You must not have thrown a configured TCP/IP stack at it, because
> theres
>> known breakage in the irq department. Apparantly thats being 'worked
>> on'.
>
> That's news to the two machines I configured with TCP/IP.
>
Sorry, TCP/IP bound to an ethernet interface. I didnt mean "what you
use".
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 10:35:31 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8knvdb$1tst$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > oh, grow up and get a life child. You couldn't possibly know how much
> code
> > > I've done and copyrighted in my life. Yep, as in registered at the
> copyright
> > > office, not just a little (C) in some remarks somewhere.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah? Lets see some examples, dresden.
> >
> > Not some examples of VB (which anyone with a mouse can write, literally),
> > I want to see c, c++, fortran, etc. And ill know if you used 'visual *'
> > to write it, as will approx. half of this newsgroup.
> >
>
> oh give me a break... sigh... you know that no matter what I would write
> you'd just pick it apart and either call it shit or say it was copied. It's
> a no win scenario. I haven't used Fortran since college (or RPG and Cobol).
> C++ , it takes half a page to write hello world, fuck that. So... piss
> off...
_______________________________________________
#include<iostream>
main()
{
cout << "Hello World!" << endl;
return 0;
}
_______________________________________________
Um, half a page?!?!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:40:45 -0400
> >>> Not some examples of VB (which anyone with a mouse can write,
literally),
Another common misconception perpetrated by obvious ignorance of the facts.
Please, as Mark Twain wrote "At least know the facts before you distort
them".
This type of post only compells one to constantly restate the obvious.
Anyone can indeed, write poor VB code. The reason for this proliference is
the sheer number of people using VB to learn \ write code. Good code is good
code, whether written in VB or C, Perl, et., not inclusive of platform.
I've seen very well written, very useful applications written in VB that do
just as they advertise. Your claim is tantamount to calling over 6 million
people morons. A claim made much too often by nix zealots. You'll never be
taken as anything but a zealot if you continue to take such a Neanderthal
stance.
This sounds like the sort of logic of one who would write a simple app with
C for no other reason than to say it's written in C. When the time saved
composing with a different tool would long overshadow any negligible
performance gain provided by using the more 'masculine' language. In a word,
the issue and its merit is balderdash.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:42:41 -0400
> > You cant' programm as good as Microsoft.
>
>
> Are you saying that causing system-crashes is "good programming" !?!?!?
Having to write script to remove almost daily Core files is?
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:46:34 -0400
VB is much more than a scripting language. Are we going to compare what
tcl\tk offers linux to what VB offers windows? Please. What planet are you
people on?
> > That is true - VB will never have the appeal on Linux that it does on
> > Windows.
> Indeed. And why would it? There's a half dozen better scripting
> languages on the platform already.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:46:19 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
> >
> >Wrong.
>
> Couldn't you just say "you're mistaken"? Or maybe skip it entirely and
> merely address the point, as you do below?
Why sugar coat it?
>
> >> Except its easier for the engineers, and doesn't work the way I want
> >> when I *don't* have any idle time. What happens in PMT if I *don't*
> >> have idle time?
> >
> >That's where a PMT system really excels.
> >
> >CPU time is still dealt out according to task priority, and, as has been
> >pointed out, user interface processes tend to accumulate priority
> >because they don't do anything most of the time. And what you have to
> >realize here is that we're working on such small time scales that even
> >if you're typing away like mad, from the computer's point of view the
> >time between keystrokes is so long that you're not doing anything most
> >of the time. Why shouldn't it be using that time to get other things
> >done?
>
> It should, but the assumption that any set of algorithms is the same
> thing as "smart" is what makes a lot of crap available in computers
> today. I recognize that process scheduling is a VERY low level issue,
> which certainly doesn't seem appropriate to this kind of
> double-checking, but obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so, as
> the link that Ed sent me in email will show:
>
> http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dmi/linux-srt/wm.html
>
> There's at least one engineer at AT&T who isn't blinded by assumptions,
> and realizes that the value of a desktop computer, regardless of *all*
> other considerations, is entirely based on the user's ability to make it
> work the way he wants it to work.
Give the user the option of designating processes to be a "realtime"
process, and it will get CPU time whether it needs it or not.
>
> Even PMT systems give a nod to what I've been talking about by providing
> re-prioritization via nice or the NT task manager. The idea that this
> issue is dealt with by, again, an automatical algorithm which uses a
> rule that user interface processes should "tend to" accumulate priority
> because they don't do anything most of the time is not enough to
> dissuade me of the notion that there is an issue here. Apparently these
> scheduling algorithms are deep magic, as this is the closest I've ever
> seen to a cogent explanation of their behavior for non-engineers.
it's rather simple, really.
Every time slice, (say, 1/1000th of a second), a timer generates an
interrupt. At that time, the recent "CPU usage" value of each process
which is NOT waiting for an event is sorted through, and the one with
the lowest value gets the CPU.
When a process gets the CPU, it's most-significant-bit is set to one.
After every N time slices (say, 10), all "CPU usage" values are
right shifted by 1 (effectively log2 decay of each bit which gets
flipped to on).
This VERY simple algorithm gives highest priority to whichever task
has used the CPU the least AND is ready to run.
Since most user response incurs a longer delay than what is needed
to completely bit-shift ALL bits off the right end before the user
gives some input (physiological response time of the user), the
process has a "CPU Usage" value of zero when the process wakes on
available input.
Thus, this algorithm always gives the highest priority for any
user-interactive process (exception: real-time processes like,
say, a flight simulator).
>
> Your "forever between keystrokes" idea is also disconcerting. Because
> it hints that the inverse is also true; while I'm sitting their for the
> CPU to get something *which requires CPU processing* done, the reason it
> is only at 30% utilization is because it is wasting more than two thirds
> of the time not getting it done. Please let me know if this is not a
> valid assumption. I am aware that CPU is not the only bottleneck. I am
> also aware, most specifically, that engineers who work with the
> technical details of a system can be surprisingly blind to the way that
> system actually behaves in the real world. The situation seems similar,
When it comes to computers, the FIRST people to use the system
day and day out are the people who actually design it.
> for instance, to a discussion between a frame relay and a router guy,
> with both sides being able to explicitly "prove" that its the other guy
> who is the bottleneck, and not them. And neither of them are even
> aware, often, until I explain it, that when a "network" is at 50%
> utilization, YOU CANNOT TELL if it is because you only needed 50% of the
> bandwidth, or if it is because you could only get 50% of the bandwidth.
> Because both are dealing only with their system, and not with its
> interaction, end-to-end, with the human beings who ultimately decide if
> something is efficient or if it works.
>
> >Additionally, GUI PMT systems typically give priority bonuses to the
> >foreground app. This means everything tends to stay nice and responsive.
> >
> >In a CMT system with no idle time, you end up with apps fighting over
> >the CPU. A heavily loaded CMT system can literally take _minutes_ to
> >respond to a user interface event as simple as registering a mouse click.
>
> As can, at least a bad, PMT system. I've had Unix boxes behave that
> way, too, but I've no idea what in particular caused the issue. Only
> that rebooting fixed it. ;-)
Sounds like an app with a memory leak.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:57:38 -0400
> BTW Quite a few typos result not from poor grammer/spelling skills, but
> poor typing skills.
Some, maybe. But how can the following examples from my collection of 100+
posts in COLA be attributed to typing skill?
They're - There - Their. Horrendously misused by so called "programmers"
and "sys-admins". There is really no excuse for their grammar to be so
horrific. They're suspect at best.
Lose - loose. What's up with this? If I see "I loose my connection" one
more time I'm going to "loose" my mind.
Payed - paid. I don't get it. Is inventing words a way around grammar
issues?
Chilling.
Contractions. Oh momma. Did these programmers take English?
How can you program and not posses basic English skills such as how to use a
contraction?
And the guy is bitching about "goto" in C code? Yikes.
I could go on but a dead horse is quite an ugly image.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:55:29 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:40:12 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:13:09 +0800, Aravind Sadagopan
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >It has nothing to do with Winprinter
> >>
> >> It has to do with Lie-nux not evan beeing abal to support it's own printers.
> >
> >I didn't realize Linux had "it's own printers" (actually should be its
> >own printers, but let's not get picky about spelling with Timmay!).
>
> Arvind sedd that a printer that Linux are suppost to support doesa'nt work with
>Lixnu but does work with Windo's.
>
> >So,
> >is this some new project by the kernel people to create "Linux's own
> >printers"?
> >
> >(THIS IS A JOKE! PLEASE CONSIDER THIS NOTICE WHEN REPLYING!)
>
> Linux are the jokes.
Are you, Tim Palmer, drooling on your keyboard?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:56:14 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Aaron Ginn wrote:
> >
> >> words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
> >> port support compiled into your kernel.
> >
> >Youre probably right with kernel support since it does not detect it. Just
> >tought it parallel port support was included in all kernels automaticly.
>
> Wat maid you tihk that? This is LIE-nux your tocking about hear. Like you sed, it
>work's fine with Windo's,
> so wye not use Win and be happie?
Being happy and using M$-Loseware are mutually exclusive experiences.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:52:40 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have followed this ng for a while now. One very interesting fact I
> picked up is the huge anti RAD (Rappid Application Development) fealing
> of the Linux Programmers.
that's because they don't have them. it is the same when you hate those
people in expensive cars.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
