Linux-Advocacy Digest #277, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (mark)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (mark)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Yannick")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (mark)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:17:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:47:47 -0700
<8q5s76$vl8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q5mqf$env3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> How often do linux distro's remove drivers for old hardware in new
>> versions - my copy of
>> mandrake 7.1 still seems to carry drivers for every device that was
>> supported when I had
>> my first linux distro (slackware 2.0) back in october 1994 as well as most
>> devices invented
>> since them except the horrible windblows only type hardware (mainly
>>modems).
>
>I recall the removal of support of one filesystem from Linux, but that is
>about it.
I count two: extfs and xiafs. However, I think one can probably try
to back-patch the current kernel with older source (no warranties
here, folks!), as every kernel since about v1.0pl15 is still available.
(For some reason, though, ftp.kernel.org doesn't store the complete
sources for 1.0.0 through 1.0.9, just the patches. *scratches head*)
Whether they're compatible with various aspects of the support system
(bread() [*] et al) is not clear to me, since I haven't looked in there
lately. But in theory one could go in there and fuss with it; I've
wondered myself about what routines would be needed to build a
standalone (i.e., user-level code, as opposed to kernel-level) tool
that tests/exercises the file system, and/or a Very Stupid File System to
go with it. (This VSFS would be extremely braindead, making no attempts
at all to optimize allocations of blocks, and would primarily be a tool
to study how file systems are accessed in Linux, and how to build
one from scratch. One of my many "wish list" projects, I guess... :-) )
Of course, expecting a rank newbie to know about this sort of stuff
would be ridiculous -- but rank newbies don't remain such for long. :-)
[*] Block read, not a baking product. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:18:39 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
@> He's not asking you to educate hime--he's asking you to back up your
@>claims. Take a look back at
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
@>said, "Your lack of knowledge is apalling." You seem to be implying
@>that he didn't know something.
@
@Yes - that would be him admitting he doesn't know a thing about
@Win2k/NT.
@
@>In that case, it is your responsibility
@>at the very least to narrow down the search criteria.
@
@To Win2k/NT?
@
@>Telling him to go
@>to www.miscosoft.com doesn't do it, since that encompases much more than
@>he asked for.
@
@To learn about Win2k/NT? What better way than to go there? MS has a
@nice page on the subject that tells all about it. I'm dead certain he
@can find it if he looks.
Doubtful. The MS site is very large, poorly organized, and fucking
slow over a modem. Not to mention that every single HTML tag on every
page is malformed. Why should he have to plow through a site like that,
when you could probably rattle off the url off the top of your head?
@> On the other hand, it is very interesting that you continue to refuse
@>to provide proof that you know the difference.
@
@I guess Microsoft knowledgebase articles on subjects that baffle him,
@corrections to several people on how WOW/NTVDM/Win32, DHCP, NAT, and a
@host of other subjects really function, all having to do with
@Microsoft technologies, don't count?
You haven't posted them (or a url) in this thread. [by "this thread"
I mean the chain of articles I can get from the Reference header] You
have simply stated over and over, "Why should I?" Not very convincing.
@>You've probably written
@>more, and spent more time, refusing to provide proof, than you would
@>have providing the proof. I find it somewhat humorous. Also a pretty
@>good indication that either you don't know, or are afraid that the
@>differences aren't good enough.
@
@Oh, yes, please, just skip over all of the proof I've provided....
@CLund (and you) only needs to read in this forum for proof.
Why should he have to dig through every article you have posted to
find the occasional gem that says more than, "Nope, I was right, you're
wrong"? He asked nicely enough for you to post it to this thread, and
if it is so obvious it should not be a difficult task. Certainly no
more difficult than sayong over and over that you already did.
But you haven't, and probably won't. So a casual observer will
probably be more inclined to believe his claim that you cannot list the
differences than your claim that you did and he was too dumb to
understand.
Good luck on proving him wrong. You'll apparently need it.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:14:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Tribelli wrote:
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>
>>> Your willingness to comment on subjects you are ignorant of is only
>>> matched by your ability guess ot wrong. The developers are quite familiar
>>> with Unix, they are not a Win32 shop.
>>
>> I expect, therefore, that they were deeply concerned to be writing such
>> code for a platform the knew to be inadequate for the task in hand.
>> Gosh, I do so like speculation. It's fun.
>
>I wouldn't know, I checked the developer's website before commenting on
>them.
Do you have the link which shows they considered the platform they'd
been asked to code for adequate for the job, or did you just assume
that bit?
>
>>>> ... Either way, it is the fact that we have no basis
>>>> for a comparison against Win32 that I so loudly and stridently point out
>>>> that Windows and all Microsoft software is crappy. If there were a
>>>> competitive environment, I wouldn't be saying that, for two reasons: 1)
>>>> I wouldn't have to; everybody would recognize it themselves, and 2)
>>>> crappy software doesn't survive in a competitive environment, so there
>>>> would be no issue to begin with.
>>>
>>> Naive, ex. AOL.
>>
>> It's an interesting thing, but I've found very few folk who have any
>> grievance with AOL, whereas I know stacks who really object to Microsoft.
>> Speculation is lovely :)
>
>The truth is even better, some friends do quite a bit of in-home upgrades,
>sales, support, etc. and they have upgraded many AOL users to other
>providers and these customers are generally pretty happy.
AOL do not have the market penetration of Microsoft. There is a continuous
amount of customer churn in all markets, except where there's a monopoly.
AOL users can turn somewhere else. Microsoft have been found to be a
monopoly, thus the amount of churn is limited. Consequently, there may
be folk who've left AOL and gone to another provider and are happpier,
there are undoubtably many more who remain with Microsoft and either
consider themselves unable to move or are locked in for some reason.
Thus it's quite hard to find people who've moved from Microsoft and
are happy.
Don't suppose AOL offer any support to Smartships, either, or even
make improbable claims about their product's capabilities, reliability,
stability etc.
>
>>>> You now seem entirely delusional. Are you trying to tell us that
>>>> Windows handles application failures well?
>>>
>>> If an application does not supply it's own exception handler the default
>>> WinNT handler will terminate the app. If an application uses Structured
>>> Exception Handling internally it is not unlike C++ exception handling.
>>> However since it is provided by the core OS it is available to any
>>> language that can use the Win32 API. The exceptions range from processor,
>>> to OS, to users defined exceptions. The handlers have the ability to
>>> handle the error themselves, pass the error to a higher level handler, or
>>> to continue execution.
>>
>> Then why does it crash so often? Are the exception handlers as bad as the
>> DOS ones used to be?
>
>That troll gets a B-. Taking advantage of the overloaded term "exception
>handler" in two different contexts, "Structured Exception Handling" and "x86
>Exception Handlers" was a good effort.
I really can't see how asking if things have improved or not, comparatively,
on the closest basis I have for DOS to NT comparison could possibly
be considered a troll. You not liking the comparison does not make it
a troll.
So, my question still stands - are they as bad or not?
>
>>> The ignorance and misrepresentation is on your side. You demonstrate an
>>> ignorance of WinNT and yet you attempt to comment upon it, grossly
>>> misrepresenting things along the way. Your above troll only rises to about
>>> D+. It could have been a good solid C if you had refrained from mentioning
>>> trolling, raising the subject only makes your efforts more transparent,
>>> and the cursing is definitely a losing gambit.
>>
>> No, he's made a huge number of valid points - it's a shame that the
>> Microsoft folk couldn't brief you to deal with them more effectively.
>> I imagine that there'll be another course up soon - get booked on it!
>
>Your slipping, that troll is about a C-. Please try harder.
hmm, so we're all trolls apart from you? . Now, I wonder if the astroturfing
courses at Redmond include style hints as well as technical overviews.
I'll be more generous than you, and say that you're a B+ for turfing style.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:22:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Sep 2000 15:24:16 +0100
<8q7svp$nm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:HpKx5.232$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>> quick format? what the fuck is that? win2ksetup doesnt even have the
>> capability to do a quick format (on a empty disk)
>> UNLIKE linux for example...how are you kidding??
>
>Run setup on a blank disk, and choose to format as NTFS. It takes about 20
>seconds max to format. Try it and see, you might be surprised.
I suspect this is little more than writing out the block structures
necessary to those sectors that need it. I'm surprised one needs
20 seconds for that. (mkext2fs doesn't take that long to "format"
a volume either -- most of its time is spent writing the inodes
and bitmaps for each group, which are scattered throughout the partition.
Add the -c (check for bad blocks) option, and you'll be there awhile,
though.)
There is the possibility that WinME improved the I/O throughput in the
low-level drivers, though, so that a bunch of blocks can be written
at once; these queued I/O requests might even be sorted to try to
optimize the head seeks. (VMS used to do that, long ago; it probably
still does.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:28:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:14:21 -0700
<8q87pb$chg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q844a$bqm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
[snip]
>> It just does it. Unlike the old NT 4 setup which did a slow
>> format to FAT, then ran convert on the next boot, it just does
>> a quick NTFS format. On all the machines I've done so far it
>> doesn't grind away like NT 4 used to doing a slow FAT format,
>> it takes about 20 seconds to do the NTFS format.
>
>You are not really talking about formatting the disk are you, you are just
>talking about installing the file system on an already formatted disk.
>Correct?
All modern disks are factory-formatted; there's very little reason
nowadays to do a low-level format. (There are lots of issues here,
not the least of which is the fact that modern drives no longer have
a constant number of sectors per cylinder.)
Of course, this is different from DOS's FORMAT command (which just
writes junk to each block to ensure it's good, I think). I don't
know enough about NT or WinME to be sure, but it sounds like Microsoft
finally got rid of "let's write each block to test it" syndrome. :-)
To be fair, FORMAT does have a /Q/U pair of options to bypass
the bad block check, if memory serves. It's also possible that
Microsoft does FORMAT/Q/U, then a convert, on an empty FAT volume...that
would be consistent with the rest of the hackery that seems to
pervade Windows.... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random tested block here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:28:29 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Tribelli wrote:
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>>> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> No, PCs don't work great for these applications, even ruggedized ones.
>>>>> Custom designs can be made much more reliable, repairable, etc.
>>>>
>>>> No you don't need a 'custom design'. You need a COTS solution that
>>>> meet's applicable mil-specs. Have you ever worked with complex
>>>> control systems, or with mil-specs?? Obviously not.
>>>
>>> You are quite confused, you mentioned VME backplanes with special purpose
>>> CPU boards and such. That is a 'custom design' compared to a PC.
>>
>> VME is a published spec. I'm surprised that you'd suggest otherwise.
>
>You misread. The "custom design" is the overall system, as opposed to an
>off-the-shelf IBM PC or UNIX box of some sort.
>
Okay, it can read that way as well. I'm not sure, however, that I agree
with the other sentiment, though. The PC is essentially a set of interface
specs, some well designed, some dated, some very inflexible. It could
be argued that there are more custom designed devices which will connect
to these interfaces and function than for any other related set of
interfaces, but that doesn't of necessity mean that the devices connected
together by the interfaces are any more custom than those devices which
connect together on a VME bus.
When I've specified eg., management and control systems, I've specified
the interface/NNI/API which must be connected to, and the general
characteristics of the control elements which connect, eg., radiation,
EMC proofing, power requirements, availability and so on. Whether that's
to be achieved with a Sun E series or and IBM Aix box is not specified.
Apart from anything else, specifying that bit removes any possibility
of competition in tendering exercises, which usually increases the
cost to the purchaser - I don't have infinite budgets :(.
I think what I'm driving at is the layer at which a system is viewed
at defines whether it appears to be custom designed or not. If you
view a Video card at the asic/silicon level, they're all custom.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:48:33 GMT
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT, Mike Byrns
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bob Hauck wrote:
> >Multiple workspaces are a video driver fucntion.
>
> Not on Unix. It _shouldn't_ be on Windows either, IMO, but they didn't
> ask me.
Of course, having multiple desks by default would be nice and should not be
difficult to implement. But that does not mean you have to prevent it from
optionnally being a video driver function, especially as you can provide
more efficient scrolling desks that way.
> >You *can* move the taskbar around and even add new bars to it.
>
> In which Windows? I think KDE may have beat them to that one. OS/2
> did for sure.
You can move the taskbar around since Windows 95 and Windows NT 4. Ever
since it's been there. OS/2 was beaten for the taskbar like thing (available
since Warp 4), but OS/2 had the "launch pad" quite before Windows had its
start menu. Besides, the Warp 4 bar is not exactly equivalent to Windows'
task bar in terms of features, so you cannot really compare the two.
For the new look of desktop bars (with the possibility to organize them as
you like on the borders of the screen and putting several bars on the same
line (like the quicklaunch bar), and auto-hiding them of course), this is
available once you install IE4 or better with desktop upgrade, and is
therefore available since IE4 was available even on Win95 and WinNT4, and is
now standard on Win98, Win2000, and logically must be on WinME.
For the user :
adding your custom shortcut bar is easy enough, create a directory anywhere
and fill it with shortcuts, then right-click a toolbar and choose Add
Toolbar, and select the directory. Exactly as simple as adding an active
desktop element.
For the developer :
If you want to do more, you can develop your own bars (they are called
desktop bands) to provide any functionality you like, and yet have them be
chosen and placed around the screen or among other bars by the user. In the
same way, you can develop new "explorer bands" (like folders, history,
search) for Explorer and Internet Explorer, as well as Comm Bands (like the
"Tip of the day" band in Internet Explorer).
Of course, all the info to do this is available for free (including a
skeleton sample) on msdn.microsoft.com/library, so let's not speak of
undocumented APIs, ok ?
As for the classical bars (like before the IE4 upgrade), you always had the
possibility to develop an application using a desktop bar since NT4 and
Win95. It would have been a full-width (or full-height) bar, but could
auto-hide too.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:34:23 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Tony Tribelli wrote:
>>
>> mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Wrong. In Linux, you can write a signal handler for any signal (other
>> >>>> than 9--SIGKILL), ***INCLUDING*** mathematic exceptions (which is what
>> >>>> is produced by a div_by_0 error.
>> >>>
>> >>> And with NT you can provide a Structured Exception Handler to handle any
>> >>> fault except NMI.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. The failure lay in a poorly programmed application that failed,
>> >> not in the OS. The OS stayed up, but even the most rabid Linux Loony
>> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That wasn't where I put the highlighting - see original post!
>> > My understanding was that it did not. That is an NT problem, since
>> > Linux does stay up in this situation, and doesn't require the programmer
>> > to write additional exeption handlers. This seems to be another hangover
>> > from the DOS days.
>>
>> You were misinformed. Programmers don't have to write exception handlers.
>> The default ones will shut down the app that does the divide-by-zero. The
>
>But, in this case, an exception handler would be needed. You WANT
>the navigation software to continue, despite the Divide By Zero error.
You certainly do. You want the OS to continue as well, of course,
but then:
>
>Unix and Linux offer this. And almost every Unix programmer I know
>wouldn't let such a simple thing slip past them.
>
>Why is it that 1960's mistakes like these are STILL so common
>in LoseDows software?
>
>Could it be that because so much of it is written by amateurs
>with MS (pseudo-) Cerification letters after their names....
>
>
>> programmers only need to provide exception handlers if they want the app to
>> handle the error itself.
>>
>> Tony
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: "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"
>
>I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> their behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:09:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, No Name
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 19 Sep 2000 15:26:37 GMT
<8q80jd$m2t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 08:35:33 -0500, Tim Kelley said:
>>Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>>>
>>> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:8q75ls$e0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> > Win2K took about 30 mins on a P-III 800, 256 MB, with 2 reboots.
>>> > I guess if you can't count past 1, you might lose count...
>>>
>>> pure BS Stuart ...Windows 2000 takes at least an hour to install...
>>> (1 hour and 5 minutes to be exact, on my machine, p3 733, 256 MB,
>>> geforce gts, sblive platinum)
>>
>>... but you don't meet the minimum hardware requirements (at
>>least a p-800)
>
>
>Holly cow! A P3 at 733MHz with 256 MB RAM is not enough!
>
>FUnny HOw I have been doing productive work for the last 5 years in my
>P166 (it was 133MHz, but what the heck!, I saw a cheapo P166 in an
>auction 4 months ago)!
>
>Did I say it has Linux?
Seconded; I have a PP200 with 64 MB. Runs like a champ, although
it has a slight tendency to bog down with Netscape. (Doesn't
everything? :-) )
I wouldn't mind something faster, admittedly, but Linux+X is
more than adequaste on this beastie. Even Linux (no X) on
a 16 MB box (P90) is very usable, within its limitations (no graphics).
Win95 isn't too bad, either, although I rarely boot into that now.
>
>Cheerios.
>
>
>>
>>--
>>Tim Kelley
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
