Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #28 Wed, 30 Aug 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (Glitch)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (David M. Cook)
Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (Tim Hanson)
Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but... (David M. Cook)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? (Steve Mading)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:10:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:04:11 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:03:12 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:8oe1jv$ddc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> >Also, Win9x's design goal was to run on the same
> >> >> hardware
> >> >> > that typical Windows 3.x machines were running on in 1995 and be
as
> >> >> fast, or
> >> >> > faster than Windows 3.x. All of which it achieved.
> >> >>
> >> >> What?! I have never heard anyone claim thet win 95 is as fast as
> >win3.x.
> >> >> This also goes directly against my personal experience and the
> >> >> experience of many people that I know. Try running them on an old
486.
> >> >> 95 is a little sluggish. On a fast pentium, win311 flies.
> >> >>
> >> >Win95 is about the same speed Win3.11 if you have more than 16 megs.
If
> >you
> >> >have less than 16 megs, Win95 is slower than Win3.11. How many
Win3.11
> >> >computers had more than 16 megs? 16 megs cost over $250, in August
1995.
> >>
> >> Actually, it was more like $700 for 16M.
> >>
> >I didn't realize it was that much, I bought 16Megs in 1996 and it was
$240.
> >Also thats why I said it was OVER $250.
>
> RAM prices dropped like a brick that year.
All I remember is it was the first upgrade to my P75 and it was in 1996
> >
> >>
> >> Win 3.1 and Win 9x are BOTH painful to use in 4M or 8M. Win95 certainly
> >> did NOT run faster than it's predecessor on the hardware in common use
> >> when it was released.
> >
> >If you gave Win95 more than 16 megs it was fine, but with less, it was
> >slow. When I went to 24 megs, Win95 almost doubled in speed. Win3.11
>
> When going from 8M to 32M on a 486, my wife was convinced that I
> had gone out and bought a CPU upgrade behind her back.
>
I know what you mean, my friend upgraded his sister's computer, 8 megs to
40megs. She was amazed at the speed difference.
> >wasn't bad with 8 megs and a Pentium class cpu, I had a P75 with 8 megs,
in
> >June 1995.
> >BTW I agree with second part but not the first part. Win3.11 wasn't
painful
> >to use with 8megs.
>
> Yes it was. It swapped like a motherfucker. That reduced it's
> effective speed to the speed of disk rather than the speed of
> DRAM or of CPU.
>
I just don't agree with you. Win3.11 was what I used for 3 months, and it
didn't hit the drive any were near as often as Win95, 3.11 did crash about
5 times a day, though. I also used 3.11 for 6 months before I got my
computer at college. I guess you don't know what pain can truly be until
you C64 GeoPublish without an REU. That is the most painful experence, I
have ever had.
> Until RAM became cheap enough to support Microsoft bloatedness I
> still had thoughts of defecting back to Atari 680x0's...
>
I do agree Microsoft is bloated....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:21:35 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
OSguy wrote:
>
> Glitch wrote:
>
> > OSguy wrote:
> > >
> > > Glitch, you just lost all credibility in quoting prices. Anything to
> > > make your $170 Win2K upgrade look cheap huh?
> >
> > I like Linux. Billy says b/c some CDs of Linux cost $2 that they are
> > cheap in quality as well as price. To counter that I said that *a*
> > version of RH is $180.
>
> OK, you were being sarcastic (or whatever). One of the major problems I have with
> the MS mindset is the attitude that things have to have a hefty price tag to be
> good. I hate seeing that attitude even in joke form simply because it comes from
> misguided and clueless people. I'm really glad Linux goes contrary to this
> attitude.
You conveniently cut out the rest of that paragraph which stated among
another sentence or two:
My statement was completely valid. I did not specify the lower
priced
versions as I wanted Billy to realize that not all versions of Linux are
cheap,
and even if they are it doesn't mean their quality is.
I specifically said here that even if they CDs are cheap, which some are
like the cheapbytes CDS, it doesn't mean the quality is bad. I realize
the MS mindset is that and b/c of that I tried to make the point that
the reality in the Linux world is not the way it is in the MS world.
THings don't have to be expensive to be good. I am not misguided or
clueless. I don't like MS anymore than you do probably. I know what they
have done and are doing and I like Linux b/c it isn't WIndows. What I
was saying wasn't a joke either, in case you directed that comment
towards my response. I was merely trying to respond to the original
poster on his level of thinking. We all know that a $2 cheapbytes cd is
great but to him he thinks that anything less than $100 is shit. With
that in mind I told him the most expensive version of RH is $180. With
his way of thinking maybe that will make him consider Linux. But to us
we all know the price doesn't really matter.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:30:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donavon Pfeiffer Jr in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Courageous wrote:
>
>> > They are decreasing, but we are still subsidizing out-of-wedlock
>> > pregnancies for high school girls.
>>
>> The cost of this is inconsequential to the cost of much
>> more relevant budgetary issues. Any serious conversation
>> about how are taxes are spent (and whether or not our
>> taxes ought be what they are) is utter verbal masturbation
>> if it does not address one of these topics:
>>
>> 1. The Debt
>> 2. Defense Expenditures
>> 3. Social Security
>> 4. Medicare
>>
>> If whether or not a high school girl is on AFDC makes your
>> radar, you're not paying attention.
>
> Wrong, if you are encouraging dependency at an early age you are
>creating an ever expanding problem. Of course that is OK with the powers
>that be as it allows for the rhetoric of the poverty pimps and the
>creation of a permanent voting block by establishing a self sustaining
>underclass who grow up dependent on politicians to control their incomes
>and lives. Ever notice the ratio of "I'll increase your benefits"
>rhetoric vs. "I'll give you independence and self determination"
>rhetoric?
Christ, I can't take any more of this horn-swaggle. First Aaron's
bullshit moralizing, then Joe's ignorant babbling, and now this shameful
pile of dung.
I should hope he wouldn't see any "I'll give you independence and self
determination" rhetoric. The concept is meaningless. People *have*
independence and self-determination. There is no gift necessary, *NOR
IS LACK OF IT WHAT MAINTAINS WELFARE ROLLS*. That's a fallacy, plain
and simple.
They *have* self-reliance, they *have* the desire to improve their
standard of living, they *have* a nominal amount of moral and
intellectual potential. They *still* don't have any money, or any
appreciable skills. Now what do you do?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: 30 Aug 2000 05:28:04 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:25:31 GMT, Ingemar Lundin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kernel 2.4, KDE 2.0, GNOME 2.0 (or Helix or whatever...), will all be
>released at least 2-3 months from now.
With a 6 month release cycle, that's too long to wait.
After the feature set of a release has been frozen, it takes a couple of
months of debugging before it's ready to go "gold", then about another month
to prepare for general release.
I don't see how these Linux companies are being greedy by sticking to their
usual release cycles.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:35:36 GMT
Grega Bremec wrote:
>
> ...and Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>
> <schnupp>
>
> >Linux 2.2.* kernel will support up to 32gb, but it won't automatically
> >support more than 8 gb.
>
> How come? I had no problems with a 13Gig Fujitsu MPE3136AH on a 2.2.16
> kernel. Just threw it in, configured the jumpers and powered on the
> box. Everything was automatically recognized, the only thing that
> needed being done was the usual fdisk/mke2fs/fstab procedure.
>
> Or do you mean booting? If this is the case, then you should mention
> Lilo versions here, not Linux versions. But I guess Lilo issues have
> already been covered above.
Not booting. I boot without problems from an 8gb.
Sorry, I'm not up on the minutia. I didn't have trouble until I bought
a 30gb Maxtor, which was double what I was using before. That's the
first and only time I had to use the extra parameters in lilo.conf.
This is on 2.2.14, the current SuSE kernel. The 15gb I had no trouble
with. Go figure.
>
> --
> Grega Bremec
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.gbsoft.org/
--
In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and
make it better.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:40:17 GMT
Glitch wrote:
>
> OSguy wrote:
> >
> > Glitch wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
> > > >
> > > > Billy
> > >
> > > RH charges upwards of $180 I believe for a version of their distro.
> >
> > Glitch, you just lost all credibility in quoting prices. Anything to
> > make your $170 Win2K upgrade look cheap huh?
>
> I like Linux. Billy says b/c some CDs of Linux cost $2 that they are
> cheap in quality as well as price. To counter that I said that *a*
> version of RH is $180. For one thing, you verified that by specifying
> the Secure Server was indeed that price. Secondly,I did not specify
> which version; I only said a version of RH. My statement was completely
> valid. I did not specify the lower priced versions as I wanted Billy to
> realize that not all versions of Linux are cheap, and even if they are
> it doesn't mean their quality is.
>
> >
> > The following prices are complete versions that can be used for
> > upgrading or new installs:
> >
> > Prices that I have found tonight.
> >
> > Redhat Standard Edition $30 - suitable for majority of new users.
> >
> > Redhat Professional Edition $80 - suitable for newbies that need that
> > 90-day E-mail support from RedHat (Word to Wise, not worth it!).
> >
> > Redhat Secure Server - $180 - suitable for newbies who need the
> > E-commerce transaction software & secure server (Like a whole lot of
> > newbies will go for this one).
> >
> > > Suse charges around $30 i believe.
> > > Debian I'm not sure.
> > > Slackware I'm not sure.
> > >
> > > All of them are downloadable, execept for the higher end RH versions.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > All of them are downloadable,
>
> Exactly what I said.
>
> > including all RH versions (secure server
> > disk not available for download).
>
> gee, I could have swore that is what I said. All of them can be
> downloaded except for the higher end RH versions. I added an 's' to the
> end of "version", so sue me.
>
> > Right Now you can download Redhat's
> > 6.9.5 Beta (which I'm using now with the linux-2.4.0smp-test6 kernel)
> > and Redhat's 6.9.5 Powertools.
> >
> > Suse wants $50 for the version 6.4 (Version 7.0 available in September).
>
> I paid $30 for Suse 6.2 at a computer show when I'd say 6.2 was the
> latest one out.
SuSE has routinely been going for $29.95 on the street. I bought my
last one at CompUSA. This time will be different, however. There's
going to be a newbie's version, the full version (which is what we're
used to with DVD added), but there will also be a stripped down full
version, i.e., all the software without the book. That's probably the
one I'll get, if I decide not to pass until 2.4 ships with it.
>
> >
> > Debian 2.2 will be available for $6 (3 CDs) from www.cheapbytes.com
> > [Note: Debian doesn't distribute their own CDs].
>
> I'm off the hook with the rest of this as I already said I wasn't sure
> about Debian and Slackware.
>
> >
> > All these distros will be available from www.cheapbytes.com at a price
> > of around $1.99/disk. The newer distros will be available in September.
> >
> > BTW, Debian 2.2 and Redhat 6.9.5 Beta (Pinstripe) CD iso images are
> > available now, so if you have fast ADSL or T1 connection, it might be
> > worth downloading and burning your own CDs.
--
In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and
make it better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but...
Date: 30 Aug 2000 05:47:48 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:01:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In my spare time I'm trying to learn GTK+ programming,
See
http://laguna.fmedic.unam.mx/~daniel/pygtutorial/pygtutorial/index.html
Gtk programming is very easy in Python.
>and I was
>wondering if there was anything comparable to this sort of control
>available for Linux programmers? A bonobo component, maybe?
Maybe. Check
http://developer.gnome.org
>Methods were: Accept, Bind, Close, Connect, GetData, Listen, PeekData,
>SendData
There are several contributed chat-type modules for Python:
http://www.vex.net/parnassus/apyllo.py/812237977
This is in addition to the Internet-related modules that come with it:
http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/internet.html
CPAN probably has tons of stuff like this for Perl.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: 30 Aug 2000 05:45:12 GMT
Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Again is what is there miraculous in this new Linux way
: other than portability vs. assembler code specific solutions?
You just waved your hands there and dismissed a really big important
feature. Linux is more archetecture-portable, and therefore it
is better for using on special-purpose hardware such as one might
use to control a fridge.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:45:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >The average Joe doesn't care if it is "standard". He sees "windows 9x" on
the
> >box, and saves twenty bux.
What I would like to know is why this conversation has turned to what the
average Italian wants? (Joe is slang for Italian).
> People don't get WinModems in a box; they get them in a computer. And
> they're being ripped off, and Microsoft is breaking the law (again).
Sadly here you are somewhat wrong. Most people purchase prebuilt system and
today they usually come with some junker software "modem". That is how they
first get into using them along with their poor performance. Then when they
go out to buy a new one the get better performance they end up buying that
same thing again. I know of someone who went to purchase a 56 kilobaud
internal hardware modem for use on a 486DX4 and was convinced by the
salesman that a 486DX4 could never keep up with that speed and convinced him
to purchase a 14.4K software modem instead. Anyone knows or should know
that even a decent speed 386DX can operate a 56K hardware modem at full
speed so long as it has a good UART with a working multibyte buffer. That
person has since that time purchased a total of six modems all software
ranging in price from $12.00 to $16.00 and had not gotten one to work yet;
they are all old models without drivers for the current Windows and the
models are no longer supported by the manufacturers.
I on the other had purchases a modem about a dacade ago. It is a hardware
external model with a top speed of 14.4 Kilobaud , the manufacturer has quit
supporting its line of modems and is now concentrating on other hardware
instead. That modem still works fine, had until this year was my primary
modem, it is now my backup modem. I replaced it with a 56 Kilobaud external
hardware modem. The old modem has been used with a number of operating
systems and has been used on a number of computers. It never needed any
special drivers and has provided flawless performance. I expect the same
from my new modem as well which by the way has operated reliably at full
speed on a 386DX.
> But pine works, once you get used to it. Its better than what a lot of
> people had when they learned computers.
I will second and even third that. And when you are using a non graphical
terminal you need a curses based MUA!
> The average joe wants to get out from under the monopoly that's been
> ripping them off and stifling progress for the last fifteen years!
They sad truth is that what the average person really wants from computers
is different from what so many of them have been brained washed into
believing they want. What they want is realibility, flexibility,
dependability, and stability so they can concentrate on their work and not
have to worry about what has gone wrong with the system today. What they
have been vrainwashed into wanting is what they would get from Microsoft and
Apple; which it totally different. What is even sadder is that they have
come to expect those failures as being normal and unavoidable.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:58:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
[...]
>If American high schools are doing such a good job, then why have
>American universities found it necessary to put larger and larger
>percentage of incoming freshman (AMERICAN CITIZENS, not foreign
>exchange students) through remedial english classes.
I blame the Beatles.
>In fact, why is it RARE to find foreign-born students in collegiate
>remedial english classes?
Perhaps because they are the cream of the crop from their own countries
to begin with?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
