Linux-Advocacy Digest #593, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (mlw)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Static66)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (mlw)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Daniel Berger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:21:03 +1000
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9TWE5.65867$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s05hl$1vc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:g3ME5.61377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You're referring to the kernel, of course, and you're right. Win32,
> > > properly speaking, is only the kernel. But the kernel by itself,
> without
> > > the accompanying DLL's produced by the OTHER 27 million lines of code,
> is
> > > pretty useless. Still, you're right --I should have said "Windows",
not
> > > "Win32".
> >
> > No, Win32 is NOT the kernel. The kernel is the kernel. Win32 is a system
> > that sits on TOP of the kernel.
> >
> > > At Microsoft, that's *every* department's job. Ever heard that story
> > about
> > > Microsoft inserting some code into Windows that displayed false error
> > > messages if it detected that it was running on any DOS other than
their
> > own?
> > > You do know that it's true, don't you?
> >
> > Only for the Beta, oh Mr. Magic Munchkin.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> The code was still there in the release version, kiddo. It was disabled,
> awaiting only the setting of a single bit to enable it at any time in the
> future.
>
> The code was encrypted, obfuscated, and self-modifying, and it included
> logic that attempted to disable any debugger software that was trying to
> step through it. It disabled Microsoft's own debugger, of course, but
there
> was a superior debugger on the market that was immune from the steps it
> took. If not for that fortunate fact, that code would never have been
> discovered, and you would have been saying that Microsoft would NEVER have
> done something like that. And no one could have proved you wrong. As it
> is, you're probably going to say "so what? Ancient history."
>
> So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
I have to wonder what is so evil about displaying a non-fatal error message
based on an OS version.....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:53:53 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because they're
> "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when they're
> "getting it right". Why the double standard?
Because Linux isn't late? Nobody, AFAIK, has made any promises about
time of delivery - and if they did, they could just slap "2.4" on
whatever they have.
(And of course, you can get all but the most recently discovered bugs
fixed by applying various patches freely available.)
Besides, I fail to see how Linus and the other kernel developers owe
it to anybody to follow a schedule. If you want timely updates to
software, I suggest you find somebody you can pay for them -
Microsoft, for instance. And then you can bitch about not getting
them on time, which is, in fact, what people are doing.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:01:37 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff <./SNIP>
> >> Do you plan your own life with this level of foresight?
> >
> >Always in motion is the future. What has it got to do with the matter at
> >hand anyway ?
<SNIP> Some stuff about computers architectures </SNIP>
I was talking about the planning of my own life or lack of there off that
you felt the need to bring into the discussion. :)
> It only seems/seemed like the future to users obsessed with DOS.
>
> >
> >> That doesn't matter. The point is that Microsoft had quite
> >> a few years to prepare for the inevitable dominance of the
> >> IA32 architecture in their little niche.
> >
> >Well, they seem to be actually dominating that IA32 architecture, so IMO,
> >they didn't do all wrong.
>
> That has less to do with technology than it does the natural
> compatibility barriers that arise in software.
Of course, of course. IMO, you also forgot marketing. :)
> >There you can put some conspiracy as to why MS dominates th x86 market
> >theories if you feel like it here. :)
>
> Why do you find it necessary to indulge in some lame form
Let's call it a preemptive strike, I'm just tired of those lame, as you put
it, conspiracy theories, where people don't want to acknowledge that a non
negligible part of MS dominance comes from their ability to deliver to the
market what it wants at a reasonable price. Reasonable is from the market's
POV.
It looked like my premeptive strike worked.
> of guilt by association?
Just because I'm not sure of my understanding of that sentence, am I somehow
compelled to feel guilt, or MS, or both ?
> ><...>
> >
> >
> >> Windows itself was a dog on anything less than a 386, so
> >> targeting anything less was fairly senseless. Although
> >> they could still abstract the system enough to make that
> >> not an issue anyways.
> >
> >apparently, it nevertheless paid of to them.
>
> Once again, the Lemming paying no heed to the needs of the
If the Lemming comment is adressed to me, I'll gladly take victory on this
one since you felt the need to throw insult my way instead of properly
debating.
> poor end user. We don't really give a damn about Billy-bob's
Me neither, why should I ? Note that you are the one apparently obsessed
with Bill Gates, I never ever mentioned him in this thread.
> stock options. We want product that actually works.
Some of MS products work for me. If using what works for me makes me a
Lemming, then so be it.
Should I use Linux instead ? Will that make me a cool "free thinker" to
switch because a random advocate insulted me on usenet ?
> [deletia]
>
> That is why for many of us the Win32 gui was our 4th or 5th.
>
> We chose not to wait for Microsoft to get it's act together.
Is that a royal "we" ? I ask for entertaiment purposes only.
<SNIP> Some quotes </SNIP>
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:10:17 GMT
This isn't to different from how Microsoft is trying to control
streamed media content on the internet. Basically, the trick is that
they have patented (yes, really) the .ASF file format, thus
prohibiting anyone else from writing converters.
Then, when only the official MS tools are legal, they remove the
ability to convert *from* ASF to anything open, while retaining (of
course) conversion *to*.
See e.g.
http://www.advogato.com/article/101.html
for further details.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:22:07 GMT
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows 2000 has shown itself to outperform Linux is almost every benchmark.
> Even Linux' traditional strong points such as OpenGL performance is
> outclassed by Windows 2000.
Could you please provide references for these claims?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:28:38 GMT
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This contrasts with the other side of the coin since as far as I
> understand it, Miranda is a perfect functional language.
You probably want to use Haskell, nowadays. And yes, infinite
recursion and circularity is no show-stopper, how better to produce
Fibonacchi numbers than
fibs = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:42:42 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and on
> linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
>
> #include <iostream.h>
> main()
> {
> for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
> cout << i <<endl;
> return 0;
> }
>
> What I get is 5 seconds on Linux 2.2 and it takes 2.30 minutes to show all
> the
> 100000 numbers.
>
> Yours Truly,
> Rizwaan
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
> made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What you are testing is a combination of "console" handling and the C++
iostreams (which are, IMHO, at best, a bad idea.)
This is not that consoles are not faster in Linux than in Windows, the
question is is it important. Did you run this program in an Xterm? (That
is closer to Windows)
There are three types of benchmarks, ones which test hardware, ones
which test I/O, and ones which test the OS.
A benchmark must be designed to focus on the particular aspect you are
testing. If you want to test the OS, you need to test the parts of the
OS that directly impact performance of a running program. Memory swap,
IPC, semaphore handling, task scheduling, device driver sychronization,
etc.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:04:35 -0400
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
> > >
> > > This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux, and the
> > > Linux people say it about Windows.
>
> <irrelevancies snipped>
>
> > Linux, however, is almost entirely based on it's Unix predecessors (which isn't
> > necessarily a bad thing).
> > Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has
> > none of the features of a modern OS. Linux should just be called the Unix
> > modernization project.
>
> Perhaps I should point out that your post makes use of "writing" - a 10,000 year
> old archaic technology. Sure, you're using a keyboard and electrons now, but its
> hack upon hack upon a hack upon a stylus and a clay tablet. Fundamentally you're
> doing the same thing. Usenet should be called the writing modernization project.
>
> > > But unless you're talking about the wheel or fire, all technology is based on
> > > older technology.
> >
> > But how deeply is it rooted? That's the question.
>
> What the hell does that mean? Is it some sort of Zen?
>
> Perhaps I should change it to: "Unless you're talking about the wheel or fire or
> NT, all technology is based on older technology."
NT is based on VMS, which was based on MVS, and so it goes.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[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
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:05:01 GMT
On 11 Oct 2000 04:41:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2000 21:21:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:04:05 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>>>>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > >> Purdue out-of-state tuition is NOT subsidized, and I wasn't
>>>>> > >> getting anything from my parents, either.
>>>>> > > Cry me a river. I presume that you reimbursed the government for the
>>>>> > >cost of military training also.
>>>>> > Yes I did, with hard work, sacrifice and months and months away from
>>>>> > my family, whilst you enjoyed the freedoms I was protecting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy feeling sorry for yourself. Did you pay in MONEY???
>>>
>>>> Loren, you owe every serviceman a LOT more than what you have paid
>>>> them. If it was not for us, you would be the impoverished subject
>>>> of some totalitarian regime.
>>>
>>>Hah. If it wasnt for you sitting in a comfortable chair in front of
>>>some kind of 'communications' console? You arent FIGHTING, friend, you're
>>>(if youre in the reserves, especially) wimping out. You are a coward
>>>and an idiot.
>>>
>> No you sir are an idiot.
>
>> You do not have the faintest clue. A man with a rifle is just that. An
>> army without logistic services and communication is worthless..
>
>> I happen to be what is know as an " F.O." forward observer. I (part of
>> a 4 man team) am dropped ahead of the front line by helo (or put on a
>> beachhead and then hike my ass and 200 lbs of gear inland) Then I sit
>> on a hill and rain steel down upon the enemy. that is to say
>> coordinate air strikes, call artillery strikes, adjust their fire
>> until the target is DEAD. Call in navel guns, etc etc.
>
>> so do not talk to me about cowards.
>
>I wasnt talking to you in the first place.
>
Some of my best friends were field radio operators, and part of my 4
man team. I won't have your know nothing punk ass talking shit about
them...
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[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
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:13:59 GMT
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:26:53 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> Marty wrote:
>> >
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Responsibility can mean giving others handouts, it would seem.
>> > > > > It's called CHOICE, retard.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Can you comprehend the idea of DECIDING to give something to a particular
>> > > > > person, as opposed to having the fruit of one's labors CONFISCATED and
>> > > > > distributed to shiftless and lazy drunks, drug addicts and whores, and
>> > > > > their demon spawn.
>> > > >
>> > > > You sure have a vivid imagination, don't you?
>> > >
>> > > Are you alleging that the welfare rolls are NOT filled with drunks,
>> > > drug-addicts, and out-of-wedlock-breeding sluts.
>> >
>> > One of the tenants upon which this country was founded is that it is better to
>> > let 1000 guilty men go free than it is to imprison an innocent man. Applying
>> > this logic a bit further, the government has decided that it is better to feed
>> > 1000 people who don't deserve it than it is to let someone who does go
>> > hungry.
>>
>> Here's a solution: GET A FUCKING JOB.
>>
>> The remaining *TRUE* hardship cases can be handled through private charity.
>
>Here's a scenario:
>An individual relies on the use of their body for a job. They have worked at
>this job all of their lives and have become expert in this field (whatever it
>is). A drunk driver smashes into them head-on and paralyzes them from the
>neck down.
>
>I guess this falls into the latter category you mentioned. Unfortunately,
>it's a very common scenario.
>
>> > Sure there are loads of folks living off of welfare and government
>> > programs who have no intention of working or changing their situation, but
>> > there are some hard-working individuals who have hit hard times and need the
>> > government's support to get them back on their feet.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> First...AFDC, WIC, SSI, etc, do NOT encourage anybody to "get back on their
>> feet"...quite the opposite...it encourages them to further indulge in their
>> pathological behavior.
>>
>> FUCK THAT!
>
>Admittedly, there are loads of problems with the way many of these programs
>are structured. It's just proof that good intentions are rarely enough to
>accomplish something truly good and lasting.
>
>> If the government wasn't confiscating %50 of what I earn, I could
>> be helping numerous people actually
>
>I'd be interested to see a study of some sort comparing voluntary charitable
>donation rates as income increases, to determine if needy folks would actually
>be better off without the mandatory systems in government today (given how
>"leaky" these organizations can be).
>
>> By the way...since when was it an American principle that 1000 people
>> should be held accountable for the self-destructive behavior of one?
>>
>> Answer: Never...this country was founded upon the principle of
>> PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
>
>That's the flip side of the coin, and one that the founders of these
>organizations in the government obviously didn't forsee.
>
>> If you FUCK UP and find yourself impoverished, then you had best
>> start to un-fuck yourself if you want to get out of poverty.
>>
>> Being broke is a matter of circumstance
>> Poverty is a way of life.
>
>I imagine that 50 years ago, if one walked up to a common street bum and asked
>him/her how he/she got there, that they'd have an interesting story to tell.
>If you did the same today, I'd wager they'd be much more likely to tell you
>that the street is where they've spent their whole lives.
>
>One interesting and unfortunate exception comes to mind. A man named Tim used
>to be an IBM employee (a software engineer I believe) in Endicott, NY. One
>day he suffered from a severe stroke which took away most of his mental
>capabilities. He had to quit his job because he could no longer serve IBM in
>his previous capacity. Today, he spends his days gathering up soda cans from
>around town and recycling them, as it is all he can handle anymore. He's out
>there every day, and somehow he manages to gather enough to keep a humble roof
>over his head and stay fed. (We always make it a point to help him out and
>bundle up some cans for him and leave them on the porch of our building.)
>This man could have been earning $100K/year easily and fate smote him to the
>point where he can barely scrape by even though he's working his ass off (the
>only way he really can) every day. Unless he receives a very generous gift,
>he'll be confined to a life of poverty in spite of a strong work ethic. Folks
>like him are few and far between, but they do exist.
Natural selection comes to mind... I am however heartened by the tale.
I noticed that you mentioned he "worked his ass off" and I do not
remember you mentioning him begging for help. So a handicapped man is
somehow able to meet the basic human needs, food, shelter, clothing.
Good for him.
Furthermore you have illustrated nicely (by leaving him the cans) what
I said earlier in the thread to the idiot loren. Americans are
generous people and help should be provided to those in genuine need
of assistance at the community level.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:15:01 +0100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> The middleware might be different, though -- NT doesn't have 'mv', but
> it does have 'iexplore.exe', for example. 'mv' is far more limited
> and specific -- stupid, in other words -- but that also means
> less testing.
...and reflects a central difference in philosophy. The Unix Way is small tools
that do one thing well. The Microsoft philosophy is to keep adding features. 'mv'
versus 'iexplore' demonstrates that difference very well.
I'm trying to be impartial here but I feel the urge to quote a French aeronautics
engineer (whose name I forget) - "Elegance in design is not achieved when there is
nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away".
This is the superiority that *nix users feel. The MS design philosophy clashes with
theirs, and they see the MS stuff as being clumsy and inelegant.
---
Nick
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 08:20:29 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> 2:1 wrote:
>
> > > Actually, it's not. Win2K is way more stable than Linux. FUDsters like
> > > to bash NT for stability and then claim that Linux is stable, which in
> > > and of itself is a joke.
> >
> > Chad, you're talking horseshit again. Win2K hasn't been around long
> > enough to proove if it is more stable than Linux. The longest Linux
> > uptimes are longer than the total life of Win2K.
>
> Where are those numbers? We're not talking peak are we :-) I've had an NT
> 3.51 box running for 3 years. We decommissioned it.
By running, do you mean 24x7 with no reboots?
When UNIX (Sun, FreeBSD, Linux, HP, etc.) people say "running" they
mean, on and up. It has been my experience when NT people say running,
them mean with a particular install and periodic service packages and
reboots.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me an uptime of three years requires a
very good infrastructure with no power glitches. Also, Windows NT 3.51
had AFAIR some pretty notable memory leaks which could cause problems if
not rebooted.
Seriously, Windows NT (at its core) is a very good OS, it is based on
VMS after all. It is the Win32 subsystem and the kernel code required
there in, which causes instability. Win32 was not designed to be a
secure robust environment, so as a requirement of implementation of it
they (MS) had to make compromises in the NT kernel space which makes it
unsuitable for many applications.
The first indication that Microsoft was not serious about the enterprise
was Windows NT 4.0, when they moved GUI code down into kernel space.
Windows 2000 took this trend to new disgusting levels.
I am concerned that Linux is making the same sorts of compromises,
however, I am confident that it will always be "optional."
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:30:23 GMT
>"David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
>comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
>threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
>computer software, or even computers:
Your post is off-topic for COOA. Read the newsgroup charter you
worthless and clueless poor excuse for an alleged "OS/2 Advocate"
(whose primary mission appears to be to harrass and denigrate
remaining, active OS/2 developers. Are you working for Microsoft?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:33:44 GMT
>Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>>
>> Marty wrote:
>> >
>> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
>> > > Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
>> > > comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
>> > > threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
>> > > computer software, or even computers:
>> > The hypocrisy continues! :-)
>> The nonsense posts continue!
>Are you really *this* blind?
>How many more "attack-the-person" threads are you going to launch after
>whining about such things, hypocritical troll?
He has already launched more than enough for me to explicitly document
and prepare a complaint against his ISP. He has revealed an ignorance
of, and numerous violations of, the newsgroup charter as well.
It doesn't look good for David
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:44:19 -0300
El mar, 10 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El lun, 09 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> ><rolleyes> They're not commenting on the genetic difference between
>> >humans and neanderthals, they're commenting on the common picture of
>> >neanderthals among the general population as stupid brutes.
>>
>> They are commenting on the appearance of neanderthals. Since that's all we have
>> to base our guess of their genetical differences, it does matter.
>
>Oh, of course, the fact that Neanderthals never possessed any language
>doesn't matter at all. This is entirely superficial, irrelevant and a
>matter of appearance only.
And pretty much a guess based on very little hard evidence. However, let's
assume they didn't. So what? Would that be enough to stop interbreeding? Why,
because they can't ask a chick to go on a date?
>> >> >Libertarians and Fascists versus Marxists, Anarcho-Syndicalists and
>> >> >Stalinists.
>> >>
>> >> I'm none of those.
>> >
>> >Which means nothing. I know extreme right-wingers who identify
>> >neither with Libertarianism nor Fascism.
>>
>> What can I say? My political position is known by me and not by you.
>
>And not even by you. "probably" to the left of the main US parties ??
I am not completely familiar with the political platforms of all main US
parties. And does "main" include the green party and the reform party? I simply
have no idea on THEIR platforms. So, I was guessing, and I qualify it as a
probably right guess.
>Doesn't sound like you know anything about your political position.
Ok, I pretty much agree with the platform of the Frente Grande, although I tend
to follow more Ibarra's than Chacho �lvarez' positions. Hope that enlightens
you. On the other hand, I have much sympathy towards the septiembrista
movement.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:25:20 GMT
Are there any free benchmark utilities out there that we, the casual
user, can compile and run on our favorite (and not-so-favorite) OS's to
specifically benchmark the OS?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > HI,
> >
> > If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows
and on
> > linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
> >
> > #include <iostream.h>
> > main()
> > {
> > for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
> > cout << i <<endl;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > What I get is 5 seconds on Linux 2.2 and it takes 2.30 minutes to
show all
> > the
> > 100000 numbers.
> >
> > Yours Truly,
> > Rizwaan
> >
> > ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via
the Web -----
> > http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to
60,000+ groups
> > NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other
posts
> > made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> What you are testing is a combination of "console" handling and the
C++
> iostreams (which are, IMHO, at best, a bad idea.)
>
> This is not that consoles are not faster in Linux than in Windows, the
> question is is it important. Did you run this program in an Xterm?
(That
> is closer to Windows)
>
> There are three types of benchmarks, ones which test hardware, ones
> which test I/O, and ones which test the OS.
>
> A benchmark must be designed to focus on the particular aspect you are
> testing. If you want to test the OS, you need to test the parts of the
> OS that directly impact performance of a running program. Memory swap,
> IPC, semaphore handling, task scheduling, device driver
sychronization,
> etc.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
--
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
