Linux-Advocacy Digest #363, Volume #28 Sat, 12 Aug 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gutenberg (Arthur Frain)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Courageous)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Jim Richardson)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Jim Richardson)
Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish..... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Mike Marion)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Courageous)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:53:39 -0700
Jacques Guy wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > But for someone arguing that Gutenberg was not
> > an innovator, it would be more interesting to
> > explain why no books were printed *before*
> > Gutenberg.
> Well, books were printed before Gutenberg, but in
> Korea. Koreans were the first to invent movable
> type and use it, in the 12th century, if memory
> serves. Some argue that movable type was invented
> much earlier, probably in Crete. Do a search
> on "Phaistos disk" and find out. Fascinating
> stuff.
Then one question would be did the Koreans
first invent books, and then invent movable
type to produce them? The answer doesn't
make a whole lot of difference anyway.
Movable type was a major innovation regardless
of whether it enabled the printing of books,
or was invented because of the prior invention
of books.
Additionally how wide was the influence of
the Korean invention (or earlier inventions
if they existed), and was Gutenberg aware
of the existence of Korean movable type and
Korean books?
"History" is very often wrong about priority
of invention, but that's only important if
you're trying to prove some point about
individualism or cultural superiority.
Arthur
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:19:29 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
JS/PL wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > >I'm relating my experiences, Window 2000 Advanced Server is extremely
> > >reliable, as a matter of fact I've not had a single OS related problem.
> >
> > You haven't any credibility.
>
> You have no concept of credibility.
Of course I do -- I disgaree with you.
> > >What's nonsense about that, I have yet to see any proof to the contrary
> by
> > >anyone. What is nonsense is the constant reliability bashing with without
> a
> > >shred of supporting documentation.
> >
> > You don't understand the word PROVEN.
>
> > A PROVEN technology is one that has proven itself. W2K is NOT proven
> reliable
> > by default -- unless one is irrational.
>
> You don't work for Websters do you? Your definition of "proven" aside,
> I
> don't even really think W2K is even best described a "technology". Maybe an
> Operating System in general or a modern computer as a whole could be termed
> "a technology" but it's pretty hard pressed to be calling a specific OS a
> "technology", it's much closer to "a product". So re-write your argument
> again and I'll take a look at it.
Let me show you a slam dunk.
MS NT is short hand for Microsoft Windows New Technology.
[No folks I'm not paying this guy -- he's doing it for free.]
> >
> > >> I'm sure Hotmail will be running a version of W2K now that MS is
> finishing
> > >> Window2000 Data Center and will NEED to test W2K DC on HotMail. That's
> > >good
> > >> since the OS needs to be tested before customers will deploy the OS.
> MS
> > >> isn't going to use the toy verion of W2K you said is stable but I
> suppose
> > >these
> > >> differences don't register with you.
> > >
> > >Depending on your definition of tested.
> >
> > Tested as in Windows2000 Data Center is just released to manufacturing --
> > it is untested in real settings.
>
> What is "untested in real settings"? More importantly, tell me what the
> method of testing has been used to date? Theoretical testing? Pen and paper
> testing? You mean to tell they have written one version, figured out that
> according to the math, it ought to work, compiled it and sent it to the CD
> machines.
>
> I submit to you that it has been tested and refined at nauseum in "real
> world settings".
Non-Credible. You're a bad liar.
Windows 2000 Data Center wasn't finished until this month. It's unproven and
not tested in real world settings -- MS Hotmail will be a great place to work
out all the bugs.
> > Windows2000 Data Center was NOT finished Dec 1999. You're mixing up a
> desktop
> > client with a server OS.
>
> Windows2000 "Pro, Server,and Advanced Server is what I'm talking about. Do
> you disagree that those 3 versions contain mostly December 1999 file
> creation data.
ohh these are wonderful words "Pro" and "Advance"
These versions are not STABLE enough for MS and MS customers. Windows2000 Data
Center - is supposed to be the stable OS.
> > Did you ever prove the OS has performed as promised? Please understand
> where
> > the burden of proof lies. No customer is going to depend on W2K because
> it has
> > NOT been proven unreliable. You have it all ass-backwards.
>
> I do understand the burden of proof, (in America) it rests with the
> Plaintiff not the Defendant. The person accusing has the bruden of proving
> the accusations.
Yes Perry Mason. You do not understand - we are not in a court room.
The burden of proof lies with the vendor. In the case of MS they are not lying
about Windows2000 - They admited W2K DC is more stable than the PC OSs you
advocate.
> >By building W2K Data Center MS openly admits W2K isn't As
> > stable and reliable as you have said.
>
> That's pretty assinine. It's like saying "By building a Cadillac, GM is
> openly admitting the Saturn isn't stable and reliable" Come on....
You need to apologize to MS for misrepresenting their products.
Homework assignment -- write "NT refers to Windows New Technology" 100 times.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 14:47:56 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n2uj7$r4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Furthermore, with operating systems consuming 100
> megabytes and taking nearly 10 minutes to reboot and an hour to
> recover the context you had created before the crash (all browsers
Which OS do you use that takes 10 minutes to reboot? My Windows 2000
machine takes about 45 seconds (ignoring POST, which has nothing to do with
the OS) to completely load. Servers can take a bit longer because they need
to load additional services, but i've never seen a Win2k server take longer
than 2-3 minutes.
Of course my Linux box takes about 7 minutes to boot, but then it's not
quite configured correctly and I have a few services which time out while
trying to load.
> AT&T decided to use UNIX to control it's switching systems. Since
> they made this decision prior to divestiture, all of the Baby Bells
> were dependent on UNIX too. What would happen if your company's
> telephone system stopped working for an hour or two? How about
> if an entire city came "unplugged"?
You do realize that AT&T and the bells have always used redundancy.
switches fail, but they've always had extensive cutovers and the ability to
re-route around failures.
> The culture of UNIX was "It will fail, what will you do?".
> As a result, code was much more carefully tested, reliable code
> was packaged into self-contained units that could be linked together
> without risk of breaking the components. UNIX developers also
> came up with things like RAID, Clustering, and hot-standby or
> active-redundant systems that could cutover in a matter of
> milliseconds.
RAID was developed as a means of producing faster, more inexpensive disk
subsystems. Redundancy was added because it made sense, but was not the
primary motivation.
> Eventually, UNIX even found it's way into things like Air Traffic
> Control, Military tactical systems, and even strategic systems like
> Norad and SAC.
Although these systems were primarily mainframe based until recent years.
> Linux did have certain advantages over traditional UNIX. It was
> modular, but not a "microkernel". This made it much easier to add
> and debug driver software. Many hardware vendors even test their
> Microsoft Windows drivers on Linux before switching from the Linux
> wrapper to the Microsoft wrappers.
Many? Name one.
> Unfortunately, the very nature of the Windows APIs and OLE/COM
> environment dictates that processes pass blocks of memory around
> and to the event queues of thet main interpreter. If there is a
> 1 microsecond window between when a process checks a variable and
> when it attempts to modify that variable, and you do this 1 million
> times a day, you will corrupt the system about once a day.
What the hell are you talking about? OLE/COM uses memory copies between
processes, not direct writes. This is done by LRPC on NT.
What "main interpreter" are you talking about? There's no such thing.
> A process would ask the kernel for service which would pass control
> immediately back to the kernel. The result was that you never had
> more than one system tinkering with shared memory at a time.
I guess that's why mmap exists, right?
> Ironically, this makes the system faster, because you don't have
> to arbitrate for resources as often. The cost is a few more context
> switches, but Linux and UNIX have optimised the scheduler to reduce
> the number of cache misses. The net result is that Linux can run
> thousands of independent processes that simply pass messages back and
> forth via data-streams, more efficiently and more quickly than NT
> can schedule it's apartment threads.
Bullshit. pthreads and kernel threads would not exist if this were the
case.
> By the way, none of this was lost to Windows 2000. Microsoft's
> "fabrics" very similar to the interaction between linux "fork"
> processes (which clone the process but alter/remap only the buffer
> space, which is minimal because streams are used). Unfortunately,
> Microsoft still didn't understand the benefits of streams, pipelines,
> and processes that can be connected independently. As a result, the
> Windows API still requires that applications be linked together into
> huge monolithic applications that can't be reconfigured on-the-fly.
Oh, give me a break. Like you can reconfigure "tin" or "elm" on the fly.
Whatever "reconfigure" is supposed to mean here. More Rex-no-babble.
> Linux and UNIX provide tools that make dynamic configuration trivial.
> The shell, which seems like a primitive command line interface, also
> provides a very simple way to interconnect a series of processes
> that can be very quickly be reconfigured for different needs.
You mean pipes? MS has had pipes for years.
> Finally, Microsoft depends on proprietary file formats that can't
> be parsed by either stream parsers or by human beings. This is
> because Microsoft wants it's content to be managed as objects
> created exclusively for and by Microsoft Applets rather than as
> information created by and used by the end-user.
Anything can be parsed. If text based file formats are so cool, why does
the red had packaging system use binary fiiles for it's file format? Check
out the files in /var/lib/rpm. Fact is, text formats are orders of
magnitude slower to process than binary formats are in most cases.
> Linux and UNIX decided to document the formats used to pass
> information between processes. Furthermore, they decided to
> pass ever GUI object messages as datastreams known as X-wire.
> The result is that all messages can be passed between processes
> in the same machine, or between processes in different countries,
> with about the same level of ease.
Linux developers did nothing of the sort. X was developed long before Linux
was even a thought.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 15:39:32 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes Perry Mason. You do not understand - we are not in a court room.
> The burden of proof lies with the vendor. In the case of MS they are not
lying
> about Windows2000 - They admited W2K DC is more stable than the PC OSs you
> advocate.
Can you post a link, or a scan where MS specifically says we are selling
Datacenter Server because our Advanced Server isn't reliable enough. I'm
nearly through wasting time on you but I implore you to clue in on the fact
that it's just another offering, it isn't making up for anything. It's just
an OS for HUGE networks. Advanced Server is still as rock solid as ever. The
average person cannott even lay hands on it (Datacenter Server) without
purchasing the matching hardware.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 19:52:57 GMT
> > Eventually, UNIX even found it's way into things like Air Traffic
> > Control, Military tactical systems, and even strategic systems like
> > Norad and SAC.
>
> Although these systems were primarily mainframe based until recent years.
These days, there is tremendous pressure from the DOD to use NT.
For whatever reason.
> > By the way, none of this was lost to Windows 2000. Microsoft's
> > "fabrics" ....
Are you thinking of "fibers"? This is a cooperative multitasking
interface, and nothing more.
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 09:38:28 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Aug 2000 00:58:23 GMT,
Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 3 Aug 2000 17:33:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>> However, SS has been remarkably efficient at improving the
>>>standard of living of the elderly.
>>However, SS has negative return for most of people taking part in
>>it.
>
> Tell that to those who claim that SS is about to go broke. If it
>has such poor returns, it would not be going broke.
??? of course it is, it's not a closed system, the govt has been robbing
the SS "trust fund" for years, leaving IOU's, it's part of the massive
debt.
>
>>Some benefit. Buying stocks or even treasury bonds is much
>>better investment.
>
> Dream on. And Treasury bonds are issued by ... the government.
And backed by... hope...
>>Go ahead, Petrich, hell, I'll give you a million of future dollars, now you
>>give me just half of million dollars in pokemon cards of stocks of
>>GE and Coca-Cola or even treasury bonds.
>
> ???
>
>>>They had once been one of the poorest
>>>groups, now they are often upper-middle-class.
>>According to contemporary standards, pretty everyone was very
>>poor in the past, you dumbass, but the elderly were no significantly
>>poorer than other groups. Esp. in extended/multi-generational families.
>
> Source: Claudia Koonz's abundantly-researched book "The Way We
>Never Were". However, MK's position seems to be that of some Communist
>ideologue who says "read Marx, Engels, and Lenin".
The elderly are, as a group, the wealthiest demographic group in the country,
thank's to personal savings, not SS and th� like.
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:00:56 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 07:23:38 GMT,
Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> > Self-interest can pop up in the oddest places.
>>
>> Wanting to see one's self as a nice_guy(tm) is a form of
>> self-interest, isn't it??
>
>Yes, but I think you fail to realize that there is a difference
>between wanting to *see* oneself as a nice guy and wanting to
>*be* a nice guy (1). People who want to *be* nice do not have a
>choice in the matter, their empathy and morality FORCES them to
>want to be nice, and thus there can be no question of self-interest.
>
>/Being/ a nice guy is NOT a form of self-interest.
>
Of course it is! if said person isn't a nice guy, then they are
miserable, and they'd rather be happy.
>
>This kind of error is typical in libertarian/objectivist ideology
>and is why libertarians are so full of crap that they can cause a room
>full of genuine philosophers to collapse in hysterical laughter.
>
genuine philosphers? gee, is there some kinda entrance exam for that club?
or is it an "invite only" thing?
>
>1: the projective versus the empathic response if you know
> something of psychology
Which says nothing on self interest or the lack thereof.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 10:25:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Aug 2000 03:43:51 -0500,
Tim Palmer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 31 Jul 2000 07:44:55 -0500,
>> Tim Palmer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>Cap'n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I'll admit I'm somewhat of a newbie to Mandrake Linux,
>>>>and this is probably a stupid question...but, I need the
>>>>answer.
>>>>
>>>>I just installed Mandrake 7.1 on my system in a dual boot with
>>>>Win98. My hard drive is in four partitions:
>>>>
>>>>Partition 1: Win98 system files (1.5 GB) - hdc1
>>>>Partition 2: Win98 programs (8 GB) - hdc2
>>>>Partition 3: Linux Swap (133 MB) - hdc6
>>>>Partition 4: Linux Native: Mandrake Distro (2.3 GB) - hdc7
>>>>
>>>>After I installed Mandrake and LILO, Linux is the first
>>>>boot option and loads Mandrake after 10 seconds,
>>>>unless I type Windows. I want to set it up so that Windows
>>>>boots after 10 seconds, unless I type Linux.
>>>>
>>>>What's the easiest way to change this in Mandrake? Or
>>>>if someone could point me to a Mandrake HOWTO Web link
>>>>for this, I would appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*** The Cap'n ****
>>>
>>>Eddit a text fial and recompial kernal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Despite Tim's (poorly spelt) hyperbole, you can change the boot order in
>>one of 3 ways.
>>Edit /etc/lilo.conf to put the entry you want first in line and rerun lilo
>>Edit /etc/lilo.conf to add the line default=windows (or whatever the windows
>>entry is called) at the top of the file in the global variables section,
>> and rerun lilo.
>>Or IIRC using Drake, the mandrake config tool, you can do this, but I don't
>>use mandrake so I can't be sure there.
>>
>>Note that Tim was either incorrect, or simply lying about recompiling the
>>kernel.
>>
>
>One out of too aint bad. And you half to restart LILO. So mutch for never having to
>reboot.
>
hmm, seems as if your attentions span is as awesome as your spelling skills
Tim, the whole point of the excersize was what happens on the next boot...
Unless of course you think that rerunning lilo means you reboot? then I'd
just have to add your knowledge of linux up there with your spelling...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish.....
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:26:05 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 00:29:19 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following gibberish...:
>
>Yea and if you try to use anything BUT a SCSI scanner on Linux it
>dies. Same goes for high end sound cards, high end video cards and USB
>devices.
Gee, you mean my wife's Handspring Visor with the USB cradle won't communicate
with any of our machines (all running linux) with USB ports?
Wonder what it's doing then? sure seems to work fine to me...
>
>Linux just sucks...
>
>It's a collection, a garbage collection, of junk, that nobody wants.
nobody? foolish generalizations again...
maybe you don't want linux, that's fine, but many of use are very happy
with it.
>
>Who the hell needs 15 different editors? Or 10 dialup programs? Or 5
>different ways to change your monitor resolution (none of which work
>BTW).
sure they do, but your ignorance of linux is not too surprising I suppose.
Or perhaps you are simply indulging in hyperbole?
>A collection of raw sewerage is Linux.....
>
>The people have spoken, largely by ignoring Linux, even though it is
>free.
>
>Give it up dude, you have lost before you have even begun.
>
>
Keep thinking that, please...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 20:33:37 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> and pretty soon, Linux became the platform of choice for developing
> UNIX applications. They could use the same languages, tools, and
> utilities that would be on Solaris, HP_UX, AIX, or any other version
> of UNIX, but they could use them on a laptop running an 80486/33.
Got to agree whoeheartedly with this part. When I installed Linux while
in college, I couldn't believe how much time it saved me. Instead of
having to use DJGPP under DOS (I couldn't afford any commercial
windows/dos IDEs then.. and don't want them now) then having to do many
changes to get code to work on the school's Solaris box.. I could code,
debug and test on Linux, then upload to the school and often have it
work with no changes whatsover. In fact, I think the only time I had to
make any change was in my OS class when we used Solaris' native pthreads
and used a few Solaris-only calls to lock threads onto one CPU (this was
a project requirement).
My only other options at the time were to either:
- Use DJGPP (like I mentioned)
- Waste hours trying to get time on a terminal at the school (and who
wants to sit in a crappy lab for hours on end anyway?)
- Doing all work over less-then-ideal dialup lines that were 14.4k at
the time and way overloaded so it often took hours of redialing to get
an open line (plus using vi over that link sucked.. espcially since I
had a habit of getting ahead of what was echoed on the screen)
- Or using my normal dial-up ISP at the time, then ssh'ing to school,
which was about 19 hops via MAE-west (during the time whan MAE-west was
so overloaded it was insane) and having to often wait 10-15 seconds for
a keystroke to echo back.
I tell ya.. Linux was a Godsend. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo. -Fortune of the Day.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 16:16:57 -0400
Courageous wrote:
>
> > > Eventually, UNIX even found it's way into things like Air Traffic
> > > Control, Military tactical systems, and even strategic systems like
> > > Norad and SAC.
> >
> > Although these systems were primarily mainframe based until recent years.
>
> These days, there is tremendous pressure from the DOD to use NT.
> For whatever reason.
>
> > > By the way, none of this was lost to Windows 2000. Microsoft's
> > > "fabrics" ....
>
> Are you thinking of "fibers"? This is a cooperative multitasking
> interface, and nothing more.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Precisely.
>
>
> C//
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 21:08:10 GMT
> > Are you thinking of "fibers"? This is a cooperative multitasking
> > interface, and nothing more.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Precisely.
It's fairly useful that they *do* offer a formal cooperative
multitasking environment; for example, in simulation design,
cooperative multitasking can be very useful, because it saves
massive amounts of context switching overhead in some cases.
This begins to make a difference when, say, you have 10,000
simulation entities that simply *can't* be batch-driven, and
attempting to create that many os-backed threads would
bring the OS to its knees.
Of course, you can find a number of cooperative multitasking
products for Linux, too.
It is nice that the Windows Fiber interface is fairly polished.
C//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
