Linux-Advocacy Digest #339, Volume #30 Tue, 21 Nov 00 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Small Distro? (mitch)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION: (kiwiunixman)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (kiwiunixman)
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: And it just goes on and on.... (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS Office goes SUBSCRIPTION! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Corel To Dump Linux? (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Small Distro?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:12:03 GMT
Sorry if this is in an FAQ somewhere, but is there a small, stable,
fully functioning (ie. PPP, X, etc ) available anywhere suitable for
downloading via a 56k modem? (ie. Less than, say, 40Mb. )
It`s not just the download issue, but the footprint on my harddrive,
as I`ll only be giving it a 400Mb partition, or so.
Thanks for any pointer,
Mitch.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:38:31 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, C++ is not a superset of C. It started that way, but it isn't that
> way now, any more than Java is a superset of C. C++ has a lot of C like
> syntax, but lots of valid C programs won't compile under C++. The
> differences between "void" and "static" come to mind.
That's correct. C++ is not a proper superset of C++, but it's 99.9% of a
superset.
Generally speaking, most ANSI C(89) code will compile under an ANSI C++
compiler. C99 is a little different, but then there really isn't much C99
code out there yet.
> The right way to approach the problem depends on the problem. There is
> no "Right Way" in general. The posted code was one way to approach a
> specific problem.
But not necessarily the correct approach. You chose a very simple example
and used a sledghammer to do the work of a tweezer.
For instance, this code compiles to 43k, without any external dependancies
like runtime DLL's. It's all static.
#include <iostream>
int main(void)
{
std::cout << "Hello World" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
while this program compiles to 25k
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}
However, when doing timings (using QueryPerformanceCounter()), this is what
I find:
Program 1 averages an execution time of 1943 wile program 2 averages an
execution time of 1922.
I ran the program 3 times each, then averaged time times. The time unit is
1 / 3579545ths of a second.
As you can see, there is virtually no difference in execution time between
them, and what difference there is can be explained by context switch
overhead. BTW, I used the same compiler and linker switches for both. Same
optimizations, same everything.
> The reason is simple : in a kernel, the determinism, general speed,
> general size, and extant library makes C the choice over C++. Second
> alternative is Assembly Language, then Ada, then perhaps, Smalltalk or C
> with Classes. Forth has been used successfully.
You can't create an OS in smalltalk. Smalltalk is a quasi-interpreted
language similar to Java in that it's compiled at run-time and uses a
byte-code system. That requires an OS in and of itself to run smalltalk
code.
> If you think writing a kernel in C++ is easy why don't you do it? Even a
> simple version of something like Micro-C OS would be a valuable
> contribution to the community if you made it.
There have been OS's and kernels written in C++. BeOS is, for instance.
Also, check out Choices:
http://choices.cs.uiuc.edu/choices/index.html
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION:
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:37:04 +1300
Read the story below:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,497306a1896,FF.html
Who said Linux wasn't ready for the big league?
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:44:39 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> iostreams are C++. printf is C. You can't use iostreams in a C program
> and you can't use printf in C++ program. You can use printf in a C
> program disguised as a C++ program though.
What are you talking about? Is this like your "You have to check out
everyting in VC++" knowledge?
So you're saying that this program is not C++?
int main(void)
{
std::cout << "Hello";
printf(" Word\n");
return 0;
}
I just used both printf and cout in the same program. Is that C
masquerading as C++?
Further, if you use the new C++ includes, <cstdio> instead of <stdio.h> then
printf lives in the std namespace, along with cout and other standard
functions.
Just because printf is part of C, doesn't mean it's not part of C++.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Nov 2000 10:43:28 +0100
Jake Taense wrote:
>Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You proved that POV compiled with a specific Win* compiler ran faster on Win
>>than POV compiled with a specific Linux compiler on Linux. Exactly what
>>can be interpreted out of that I don't know, other than the obvious fact
>>in the last sentence. It's interensting nevertheless.
(to clearify, I said "specific X compiler" because I don't know what
compilers were used. I assume MSVC and GCC though)
>This logic invalidates every possible benchmark or comparison.
>
Oh no it doesn't.
What it means is that there are a lot of big IF's before the real issue.
IF the code is the same, IF the compilers are equally good, IF they
are set to optimize in the same way, IF the base libraries (math?) used are
equally good and optimized, THEN we might have a good benchmark.
There are a lot of pitfalls in benchmarking.
First thing I would want to do would be to compile windows-POV with
GCC on Windows and see how _that_ turns out.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] � There will always be survivors - Robert A. Heinlein � []
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:50:19 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's because you don't know what you're doing.
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q156/5/13.asp
> I won't tell that to my customer because I don't want him to take his
> millions and go home. Everything that is part of a build gets checked in
> and controlled. MS may think that there is no need to put the
> autogenerated files under source control, but they aren't paying me to
> develop software. We even have to save the compiler used to make the
> build!
You're a moron then. Do you save the temp files generated by the compiler
in the Temp directory as well? That's what these are. Hell, the temp files
are even more relavant than the ones listed in the knowledge base article
because the temp files are actually generated code, while the the
autogenerated files are things to do with Intellisense and the class
browser.
In other words, they have nothing to do with either the code generated, or
the source code in any way. They're to do with the IDE as temp files.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:52:16 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Source Safe, I think you mean. CVS crippled by MS putting a gui over it
> and changing it for marketing. You can use it only if your customer buys
> your version control plan. The local ISO auditor won't buy that plan.
SourceSafe has nothing to do with CVS, nor was it designed by Microsoft.
They bought it from a company called OneTree about 5 years ago. SourceSafe
also has a command line, but then you wouldn't know that because you're such
an "expert".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:54:10 -0600
While I agree with you, that's actually a bit unfair. cout.write() is
equivelant to puts() rather than printf().
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:04:15 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >Mark Robinson wrote:
> >I could do a lot of things, including not using streams at all. The
> >fastest (C++ time = C time) would be to use C++ as a better C. But check
> >your timing. Your version still runs slower than my C version by a bit.
>
> I get this one running in 3.5 seconds:
>
> #include <iostream>
> int main()
> {
> for ( int i =1; i<5000000; ++i )
> std::cout.write( "Hello world\n", 12);
> }
>
> and this one takes 4.9:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> int main()
> {
> int i;
> for ( i =1; i<5000000; ++i )
> printf( "Hello world\n");
> }
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:52:17 +1300
sorry, forgot that major piece of info, on too many occasions I have
forgetton to do this and have found out the hard way.
kiwiunixman
Edward Rosten wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> goto shell prompt, type in
>>
>> vi /etc/lilo.conf
>>
>> press [ESC] then [i]
>> go down to the "linux boot section"
>> add mem=128M
>>
>> press [ESC] followed :wq
>
>
>
> ********REALLY IMPROTANT************
>
> then run /sbin/lilo
>
> or the new configuration won't be put in to the MBR
>
> -Ed
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:55:31 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > All our test equipment used to remain permanently powered for
> > precisely this reason - it's more reliable that way. I imagine
> > that Erik is suggesting otherwise because of the memory leaks in
> > NT/2k which require a reboot at < 60 days (which is a significant
> > improvemnt on weekly for NT4 - well done microsoft).
>
> Erik SPECIFICALLY called for power-cycling the equipment to "find faults",
> apparently unaware that power-cycling is the primary CAUSE of faults.
No, I didn't. Please quote anything where I said this.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:02:13 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vcfe7$as9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've already pointed out that there are literally 100's of thousands
> of NT
> > sites that are not listed in the uptime statistics.
>
> Because of a FLAW in NT! I love it when Winvocate try to say how good NT
> is based on a FLAW!
No, because netcraft only did their survey with a limited number of sites.
I've entered dozens of queries for sites that I know are running Win2k and
come up with the statement:
"Your site is in our database of monitored hosts, but we do not yet have a
sufficient number of samples to plot an uptime chart for
www.troublewithsam.com.
Please return in a few days, when we will be able to plot a chart for this
site"
Yet it's been saying this since this discussion began.
> On top of that, NT4
> > doesn't ever return an uptime larger than 49.7 days, even if it's been
> up
> > for a year. It cycles back to 0 after 49.7 days and reports as if it
> had
> > been rebooted when it hasn't.
>
> That is indeed NT's Problem!
And doesn't effect the length of time the machine has been up.
> > I have no idea how their maintenance is, nor do you.
>
> Are you saying that barns and noble are using an almost DAILY
> maintenance schedule for W2K? Man that will add to W2K's TCO BIG TIME!
Where do you get that? the bn.com graph shows the results of a clustered
server. Different machines have been up for different amounts of time. One
looks like it's been up for at least 15 days, while others are in the 4-7
day range. That's certainly not a daily reboot. Their average is currently
at 8 days.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:59:17 +1300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yea that's the ticket. What a typical Penguinista answer.
>
> The guy has a state of the art system and Linux turns it into a slug
> so you Penguinista's tell him he didn't read enough.
>
> Wonder how many people like him are running their 256 meg systems
> using only 64 meg all because they made the mistake of running Linsux.
>
> Know how many documents I had to read to run Windows, all the way from
> Windows 2.0 (yes that's 2.0) to Win2k?
>
> Absolutely zero.
Is because you can't?
>
> claire
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:29:19 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : I bought a new mother board, PC chips' VIA KT133 board, with duron and
>> : 128 M Pc133 RAM.
>> : But my linux can't recognize all my memory. It tell me that all I have
>> : is only 64M RAM!!!
>> : I tried Mandrake 7.0, Redhat 6.0(RH6.2 doesn't work), the same results.
>>
>> : Under win98, 128M Ram is recognized.
>>
>> : Anybody know the problem?
>>
>> Yeah, you can't read. You can't read the FAQs in particular, or the
>> BootParam HOWTO, or any of the newsgroup articles in which this
>> non-problem is brought up 20 times a week, or perhaps your problem is
>> that you can't SEARCH ...
>>
>> Upgrade your bios or tell your kernel about the exptra memory at boot
>> (hint, man lilo.conf, if you boot wih lilo).
>>
>> Peter
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:07:00 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vcn0b$gr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hardly Identical. NT is acurate for 49 days, Linux/Unix is accurate TEN
> TIMES LONGER! 497 days! This is better design. When looking at the TIME
> that Unix was designed, memory was VERY expensive (the reason that 2
> bits were used for the year giving us Y2K), Programers did not program
> with large variables and computers were much less reliable, 497 days was
> a VERY reasonable number and shows a well thought out choice! When NT
> was being designed memory prices were far lower and it was not uncommon
> for computers to be up MUCH longer than 49 days. 49 day was a very poor
> choice, and is an example the LACK of thought in programing that drove
> me away from MS
You are completly clueless Matt.
No Unix system that I know of suffered from Y2k in the way you mention.
Unix has never used two digits for years (digits, not bits as you claim) in
any way except for textual printout (on screen or printer or text file).
All date and time variables are stored internally in a "seconds from" some
day (usually Jan 1, 1970, IIRC). The only Y2k issues Unix had were when
dates were stored in textual form, or when they were printed or read, not
when they were stored in binary form.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And it just goes on and on....
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:04:20 +1300
Where do you find the time to come up with such great anecdotal
stories? You must be a real procrastinator at work, unfortunately I
would fire you as soon as you stepped into the door for missusing
company internet time, and being a wintroll, mainly the wintroll bit.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yet another satisfied Linux user. Note the part about the hardware
> working fine under Windows. That part is repeated over and over and
> over again by people attempting to use Linux.
> ************************************************************************************
> Path:
>
>bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmasters2!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.mandrake
> Subject: The odyssey continues
> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:57:16 GMT
> Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
> Lines: 21
> Message-ID: <8v13l8$jii$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <8uudsj$ci7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <8uuel4$de5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 160.79.188.18
> X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Nov 16 16:57:16 2000 GMT
> X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x64.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client
> 160.79.188.18
> X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDthe_herring
> Xref: wnmasters2 alt.os.linux.mandrake:85984
> X-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:10:08 GMT
> (bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
>
> Now I've found the serialconf command. I find that both ttyS0 and
> ttyS2
> are using IRQ 4. Bad.
> So, I rm ttyS0.
> Kppp still says "modem busy" with device set to ttyS2.
> So I type: serialconf /dev/ttyS2 irq 5
> serialconf confirms that the IRQ has been changed to 5.
> Try kppp again. Modem is STILL busy.
>
> Am I just too stupid to use Linux? Win98 has no problem with this
> hardware.
> Since there's only one printer port on this machine, I can't see how
> IRQ
> 5 should be busy. Can anyone recommend any other IRQs to try, or
> another way of attacking this problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
> The Herring
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
> ************************************************************
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:08:10 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is less
> > precise.
> >
> > I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially
identical
> > between both platforms.
>
> If someone sells you a hot dog for $5 and another for $50 you'd say that
> the price is essentially identical?
I didn't say that. I said the problem is identical, even if the results are
different.
If the hot dog were really $ .50, then it's the same problem whether they
charge you $5 or $50.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Office goes SUBSCRIPTION!
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:10:12 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > This is called...not only do you not own the sofware your purchased,
> > > now MS won't even let you own your own data.
> >
> > Where the hell do you get that? You most certainly do own your own
data.
>
> Not according to Microshaft.
>
> Read the fine print on your EULA.
>
> It very clearly states that ALL documents created with Microsoft software
> are the property of Microsoft.
Then you don't mind quoting the EULA then. I've read and re-read my Office
EULA and can't find any such thing.
You're making this up. You're lying.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel To Dump Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:07:37 +1300
Thats why he is, in real life, Spindoctor Zxa.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What a spin!
>
> You should be working for the Gore campaign.
>
> claire
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:24:08 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> They are looking to sell linux to raise enough money to save the
>> company. Seems they see a great value in Linux, if it can be used to
>> save the company.
>>
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (xza) wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like Corel is trying to cut it`s loses and dump
>>> the Linux albatross around it`s neck.
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2656226,00.html
>>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3785993.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni
>>
>>
>> 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
******************************
