Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Tom Elam)
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:52:51 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
>
> [...]
> >To the average user, the GUI *IS* a core process,
>
> Who the hell cares? The "average users" opinion on what is or is not a
> core process is rather entirely meaningless, in terms of what is a core
> process.
And thus, we define the whole reason that Linux will likely never displace
Windows or even MacOS in the desktop marketplace.
> >And corrupted file systems don't usually happen with NTFS since it's
> >journaled. And I have never experienced a corrupted registry except when
> >the hard disk developed bad spots.
>
> No, you've never known that it was a corrupted registry that caused your
> system to fail. But since you're not even willing to admit your system
> has ever failed, and expect us to believe that somewhere, somehow,
> monopoly crapware is the height of robust and reliable technology, just
> because we can't prove your system has ever failed, I guess that's
> rather impossible to discuss.
I never said my systems have never failed. In fact, I stated quite
specifically in the text you quoted that they have failed. Note the "except
when the hard disk developed bad spots". I've had all kinds of problems
with Windows, just never a registry corruption, and i've supported a lot of
computers in my day.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:14:20 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:46:57
> [...]
> >User & Admin mistakes, faulty programs, ignorance, power failures, hard
> >drive failures... the list is endless.
>
> Precisely. Any rational and reasonable person, when presented with a
> system in which the list of problem causes is endless, recognize that
> the system is a piece of crap.
Ahh.. then that explains why I had so much trouble with Manrake 7.2 on this
older P200.
I couldn't get the video to come up with the correct drivers (Hercules
Dynamite 128/Video or the tseng ET6000 driver). It just gave a very cryptic
message about my settings and said "try some different settings". When I
tried the SVGA driver, it at least gave me video, but it was corrupted.
This same system worked fine with Mandrake 7.1 (the difference being XFree86
4.0.1 in 7.2 and 3.3.x in 7.1). I guess that means Linux and Xfree86 are a
piece of crap.
(Note: I don't believe that, since I understand that bugs happen. Max,
however, does not.)
> >It takes a *lot* to corrupt the registery, usually a hard drive failure.
>
> Only for the single specific instances of "corruption" which you are
> trying to limit the discussion to. The fact is, the list of problems
> with the registry is, as you have already indicated, endless. The files
> might not get corrupted often, according to your criteria, but the
> database which the files contain is, in many respects, the cause of many
> Windows problems, which are indeed routine and frequent in many
> implementations.
This is no different than if you enter bad values into a configuration file.
Someone has to edit it and change them.
> >Currupting the data *inside* the registry is another matter, and can
cause
> >system instability, just like putting invalid data in the files in the
/etc
> >dir.
>
> And thus we come full circle to the point Mark was making, and you were
> furiously trying to avoid. Windows system instability is routine,
> regardless of whether you believe this to be so or it matches your
> personal experience. The data "inside" the registry becomes 'corrupted'
> or otherwise disfunctional regularly, to an extent which cannot be
> adequately identified. The files in the /etc directory, on the other
> hand, practically never have any problems whatsoever. You tried to
> equate having a "corrupted /etc directory" with losing the disk or
> partition that /etc is on. That is much greater of a leap, even, then
> shifting from "corrupted data" to "corrupted registry files" in your
> response.
No, they are the same thing. Configuration data is stored somewhere. /etc
or /home/user for most applications under unix, the registry under windows.
If that data is incorrect, programs don't work right.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
>
> -----= 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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:18:17 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:11:36
> [...remarking on W2K compatibility, I believe...]
> >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
> >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
> >There are ways to make them work, but I usually dump those that force me
to
> >mess around with the registery security settings.
>
> And I'll bet it never occurs to you to blame Microsoft for all that time
> you have to spend sorting this out.
Huh? That's like blaming the Linux kernel developers for Linux applications
that assume you're running as root.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:25:25 -0600
> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
> >Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
> >in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
> >a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
> >instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
> >binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
> >not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
That's not the case. NT's tick counter is not in 10ms units, it's in 1ms
units, though it increments it 55ms at a time (the system tick minimum
resolution)
It does roll over to 0 after filling up with all 1's.
Here's a little exercise. Calculate the largest number of days a 32 bit
value can hold if it holds 1ms units. The answer, 49.7 or so days.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:33:01 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
> >You are misinterpreting both what I say, and what the Fallacy is. I'm
not
> >saying that neither position is or isn't correct. I'm saying that the
> >ARGUMENT isn't valid.
>
> I thought for a moment your first sentence might be correct, and was
> fully prepared to consider how it might be so. And then I read your
> second and third sentence, and realized you're full of it. Argument
> from ignorance, that is. To say an *argument* isn't "valid" is, indeed,
> an argument from ignorance, the classic fallacy, albeit in a slightly
> different form. An argument is as valid as its reasoning, and nothing
> more. Stating that there isn't evidence to support it in some way, and
> therefore the argument has no validity, is an argument from ignorance.
> The reasoning of the argument is what is to be considered, not whether
> or not it is already known to be true.
That's just it. The evidence doesn't exist. Neither side has any evidence
to support a reasoned argument. It is a known and admitted fact by both
sides that neither of us have the evidence to draw a reasoned conclusion.
Since it is known that the evidence doesn't exist, it's not an argument from
ignorance to state that arguments based on the lack of facts is invalid.
The definition of the fallacy itself is based on this same logic.
> As I've already explained (but will again, because apparently you missed
> it), this results in an inability to know. If an argument is not valid
> if it is not known to be true, then an argument cannot be known to be
> valid until it is known to be valid, and therefore cannot ever be either
> known or valid, capiche?
Except we do, in fact, know that this argument is true and valid (the
argument about the argument, not the argument about the topic). We know
there is no evidence known to either of us, thus neither side argument is
valid. Reason can only be drawn from evidence. Without evidence, such an
argument cannot be reasoned.
> >Occam's razor is largely irrelevant in situations like this. There isn't
> >enough evidence to even support Occam in making a judgement about
> >likelihood.
>
> Apparently, you aren't very familiar with Occam's razor, either. It is
> in situations where there isn't enough evidence that it is employed.
Isn't enough, versus lacking any.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:37:47 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Are you being deliberately stupid, or is a serious mental condition?
> >
> > Here's a clue: Uptime reported via the network is not accurate, so the
> > uptimes reported are wrong. Incorrect uptime does not mean the machine
> > does not stay up.
>
> Yes, but the experience of real-life NT admins DOES mean that
> the machines don't stay up.
Your experience differs from mine.
> A fellow contractor told of helping with an inventory...
> there was a Sun box which had been overlooked in the last
> inventory, and had gone 13 months without any sort of
> maintenance.....everyone had completely FORGOTTEN about
> this machine's existance....because it was performing
> ALL of its functions flawlessly.
And a similar situation happened at one of my clients. They had an NT box
sitting in a network closet for 2 years acting as a time-clock system. One
day someone goes into the closet and discovers the box, and nobody could
figure out what it was for, since the people that had installed it had left
the company a year earlier. So they just shut it down. 10 minutes later,
they started getting calls from HR about not having access to the time
tracking server.
The thing ran for 2 years without anyone noticing.
> If this were, instead, a LoseNT machine, would such a situation
> even be possible?
>
> for 5 weeks...maybe. 13 months? Not on your life.
Think again. It's possible.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:41:18 +1300
When I mean first, the applications like Wordperfect and Lotus took too
long to get ported to Windows, and when they did, they were not as great
as the dos counterparts. Also Microsoft gives incredible offers to
large corp's and government departments, as in the case of the New
Zealande Army, where by, they allow employees of the army to load Office
and Windows on their home machines for work purposes.
kiwiunixman
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi kiwiunixman,
>
>
>> The reason why big corps and people have stuck with Office is that
>> during the development of Office, it was one of the first to be built to
>> run on top of Windows, unfortunately by the time some of the other
>> companys got around to porting to Windows, Office already had a strangle
>> hold in the market, now that these competitive products have come up to
>> speed, and in some cases exceeding Office, companies find it hard to
>> justify changing, as the costs associated with moving say from MSOffice
>> to Wordperfect to expensive and time consuming. About the only way a
>> company could break the monopoly would be to give away their Office
>> suite and absorb the costs of moving a company from one Office suite to
>> another.
>
>
> Unfortunately kiwiunixman I think the history is precisely the other way
> around. Microsoft may have been big on bundling but they weren't first with
> the applications. However if you mean *Windows 95* then i'd have to agree.
> I'm pretty sure Microsoft release Office 95 at the same time as they
> released Windows 95. But before Windows 95 they had a lot of catchup and
> bundling to do in order to wipe out/overcome well established Windows
> software markets.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>
>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <8vpp6a$2dl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Adam Warner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me solidify how Windows got into the College's in the
>>> first place. It was business demand which brought it there.
>>>
>>> When I was going thru college, CRT's hadn't even been put to
>>> wide use. Our college was still using card decks as this was
>>> the industry norm for the oil companies. Windows nor Microsoft
>>> nor the PC was invented. It would be a decade later that
>>> PC's were invented and another 5 years before my university
>>> saw them.
>>>
>>> Donations are the name of the game.
>>>
>>> It's TRUE that monopolistic power has come into play here.
>>>
>>> Since we are 5 years behind schedule at all times, such
>>> investments in Windows in the present don't really sway me
>>> that much.
>>>
>>> It's also true that academic functions will receive discounts
>>> that major business's won't.
>>>
>>> What a difference between post Viet Nam colleges and today.
>>> It doesn't seem like we have learned much in 30 years.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>
------------------------------
From: Tom Elam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:56:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:30:51 +0200, Tom Elam wrote this reply to "Ayende
Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be as good
>from win2k as win2k was from NT.
That would make it a pretty impressive piece of software.
=============================================
Tom Elam
http://members.iquest.net/~telam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:56:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw wrote:
>Wow, that was a lot to cope with.
>
>You did touch on a few of my BIG problems with the industry:
>
>VB, crap.
>Java, crap.
>
>Both these are proprietary environments.
>
>Perl, TCL, and other interpreted languages have their place. Little
>skill is required to create a pretty good app.
>
>C/C++/Assembly are fairly low level, standardized languages. Very
>powerful.
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
Windows has made it's fair share of EXPERTS in the fields
of wasting money and pissing people off.
Anybody who spends time developing applications for VB
is an idiot. Hell! The whole crappy Microsoft shitbag
will be gone! Vanished in just 5 years!
But there are a TON of NITWITS out there my friend
who will spend millions proving they are assholes.
Microsoft is a disease my friend! A disease!
It is a cancer upon the world economy!
Microsoft has made a systems developer out of
highschool educated sweat hearts from the bowling
alleys of lesser America. And the magnificient
nitwits our stockholders put in place to run
our companies can't seem to see this difference.
They can't seem to see it until it's TOO LATE!
And this is the shit we are left with.
Tell me. What does it mean to be a systems administrator
in this day and age? What does it mean to be a programmer/
analyst or a systems analyst?
If you have a Microsoft certification you have suddenly
developed an enourmous budget to do WRONG! And executive
management will gleefully stand bent over that ditch
waiting for thier golden bullet to penetrate the backs
of their stupid heads.
Microsoft is exactly like cocain to some people.
They must have it. They just must have it or
they start screaming like little babies.
Simple concepts like "THIN CLIENT" are totally
alien to these people. It's tuff to SELL a large
pile of shit when you have only a thin client involved.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 21:05:57 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Windows has made it's fair share of EXPERTS in the fields
> of wasting money and pissing people off.
>
> Anybody who spends time developing applications for VB
> is an idiot. Hell! The whole crappy Microsoft shitbag
> will be gone! Vanished in just 5 years!
>
It won't be gone in 5 years, but the issue is longevity. VB stuff
written now, will not function in 5 years. It will require a rewrite.
C/C++ code written today may need to be recompiled, but C/C++ are
standards.
We are in a disposable economy. Years of people's lives wasted on silly
things is OK if you can make a profit.
> But there are a TON of NITWITS out there my friend
> who will spend millions proving they are assholes.
I have yet to see a real product made with VB. I have seem lots of
prototypes that have wow-ed management, to just fall flat when a
productization push was made.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
