Linux-Advocacy Digest #615, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Poor Linux (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (J Sloan)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: 20 Jan 2001 19:43:20 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Everyone goes on about how Linux offers me the 'choice' of which desktop I
>> can use, unlike Windows. However, choice here does not equate to consistant
>> style.
>>
>> If I want all my file save/open dialogs to all look the same - like the KDE
>> style, or MOTIF or Gtk, can I do that with the Linux desktop? No I can't -
>> my choice is restricted here to whatever toolktip the application is
>> created with.
> There is no operating system that can force 100% consistent application
> behavior, else every application would look like a notepad.
Actually, NeXTStep/OpenStep did just this. And it was brilliant too.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:43:53 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:53:43 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't recall saying that Fortune 500 = top web site. Nor do I see
> that anywhere in my previous post. Please show us where you see this.
You seem fascinated with the Fortune 500, presumably because that's the
only group in which IIS leads.
> It's my contention that Fortune 500 sites receive MORE hits and visits
> than does your average non-profit or personal site. Wouldn't you
> agree?
I don't know. Have _you_ been to Lockeed's web site? General Dynamics?
Boeing? General Electric? Dow Chemical? Exxon? I suspect that many
of them do in fact get fewer hits than, say, Eric Raymond's personal
site.
I have never been to most of the F-500 sites. I have been to numerous
personal sites. Do you have statistics, or is this one of those "common
sense" things that you just pulled out of your ass?
> Also, Fortune 500 customers are finicky and typically demand the best.
No, they demand what will impress their golf buddies the most, which may
or may not be the objective "best". They can afford to throw money at
problems and the people making the decisions are further removed from
the day-to-day than at smaller companies.
> Many of them conduct business or customer service on-line, so a stable
> web platform is critical.
More supposition without evidence. Name a F-500 company that gets more
than a small part of their revenue from a web site. Among that group,
of those who aren't PC vendors beholden to Redmond, how many run IIS?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:48:29 +0000
Larry R wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
I've always _hated_ machines switching themselves off at shutdown. I'd
rather do it. My PC166 is non-ACPI so displays the message "Your machine
has shutdown", so I don't see this problem with Windows ME.
My Linux box does do the shutdown - so how does it prevent disk caches from
not being written out completely?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:49:39 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> aparently the drive doesn't do this.
Shouldn't the OS wait until the drive signals it's written it's cache?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:02 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said SomeoneElse in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:47:06
> >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:29:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> >>Thanks, Gary. I still hope to avoid having to use gcc or any other
> >>compiler, but I appreciate the conversation.
> >You may not want to write any programs, but...
> >
> >sometimes the cutting edge stuff only comes in source and you have to
> >build it yourself. Typically that is very simple:
> >./configure
> >make
> >make install.
> >
> >But you will need gcc.
>
> Thanks, 'someoneelse'. I still hope to avoid having to use gcc or any
> other compiler, but I appreciate the chance to repeat myself. ;-)
The simplest workaround is to avoid using gcc, and using kgcc instead.
Reason is that kgcc is the previous version of gcc, which will work
correctly, unlike the gcc that you'll have with RH.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:46 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
> > wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
> > He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
>
> Or make a Linux boot file using the dd command, and putting on a floppy,
> installing windows, then putting the linux bootfile somewhere and adding
> it to the list in boot.ini.
>
Thanks, I remembered that this can be done, but not how.
However, wouldn't this work on NT only?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:25:40 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8oic49.pkk.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <94c6mh$6h2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
> >
> > This is *very* accurate.
> > If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
> > wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
> > He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
>
> Your reply is inaccurate and confusing. A boot disk with his linux
> kernel is all that is required although a disk with lilo will boot
> faster. He will not have to reinstall lilo if he has a boot disk
> although it makes sense to do so. Please try and be accurate and not
> make a big issue out of such a trivial matter.
It's not a trivial matter to most people.
I meant that he will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR, not reinstall LILO
as a whole.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:29:18 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:36:07
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, JS PL <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> JS PL wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux
plays
> >> >exactly
> >> >> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get
to
> >> >only
> >> >> > play one until I reboot though.
> >> >>
> >> >> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
> >> >> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
> >> >
> >> >What do you want me to do, film it happening?
> >>
> >> ...something this odd, HELL YES.
> >>
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> I wouldn't even take a claim like this about the Win95
> >> retail version at face value...
> >
> >But then, Linux + sound (usually)= nightmare that is,
> >if you manage to get it working in the first place.
> >
> >OTOH, Sound + Win95 was a no brainer and always seemed to
> >work, even with odd-ball sound cards.
>
> Guffaw. Getting sound to work on Windows, any flavor, has always been
> one nightmare after another, all the way back to DOS days. Not
> surprising that you would talk about Win95, rather than NT, even though
> the 'official line' is typically to say Win9x sucks and trumpet NT or
> 2K. I suppose this means that W2K still has that horrible stuttering
> problem?
Regarding hardware, NT can be a nightmare.
9x, up until 2K, was much better than NT in this matter (and in this matter
alone, I might add).
2K is a breeze to install hardware.
What stuttering problem?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:32:26 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:18:21
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >I've DX-Ball, and I've Getright open here, happily downloading several
demos
> >of games with obsene size.
> >I opened it, no stuttering whatsoever.
>
> Perhaps you've a better graphics card than my last two (the current ones
> a laptop).
An obsenely large Voodoo 5.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:42:01 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Let me just add, I reflect the positive comments about Debian 100%.
>
> Debian has the largest package pool.
> It IS the largest Linux distribution.
> It IS the most stable Linux distribution.
> It IS the distribution which molds the LSB.
> It IS the distribution of Linus Torvalds as well as Richard Stallman.
>
> Debian is the LINUX COMMUNITY distribution.
I heard somewhere (this newsgroup?) that they might go over to HURD when
it's released.
Any truth in this?
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:49:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And the card still doesn't function properly.
Ah, but it does - this from you who claim to have used linux?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:53:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can't say I've ever seen that one before. I do find the players
> pathetic looking though compared to Windows players.
This comment seems to indicate that you've never even
seen the players you speak of - how about specifics?
I've seen winamp, and I can't say it's any improvement
over xmms - and that's being generous.
<nonsensical rant snipped>
jjs
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:57:18 +0000
mlw wrote:
> > "Due to loose interpretations and vendor uniqueness in the ATA Standard,
> > there is no defined way that a driver can be assured that the disk's
> > cache has been flushed. "
Then there is no way to safely switch off a drive. That doesn't make sense.
> But you missed this:
>
> "One way of handling this is to issue a Standby or Sleep
> command to the drive when you want to flush the cache.
> This works because the drive must flush the cache before
> spinning down. These commands may complete before the
> drive completely spins down, but they do not complete
> before the cache is flushed."
Now that makes sense. Does Linux does this?
> This, by the way, is documented behavior.
> And, how about this paragraph:
>
> "Not all drive vendors implement commands the same way.
> Therefore, it is the responsibility of the driver writer to
> understand the specific workings and implementations of
> the commands unique to a vendor's disk drive."
Hmmm.... what about generic drivers that handle multiple drives, I wonder?
I mean, I work with AC'97 audio drivers and they're pretty generic - with
some documented manufacturer specific differences.
I would find it hard to work with hardware where something as major as
flushing caches was "undefined" and there was no way to detect or force it
to be done!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:59:49 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It's supposed to WAIT on the fucking interrupt you god damn idiot!
>
> This is a general problem these days. Most software engineers just don't
> know how the hardware works. In the old days we learnt what the hardware
> could do because we were coding in assembler (even toggling in machine on
> occasions:-). Now software engineers are so isolated from the hardware
> they resort to adding delay loops in their software instead of finding out
> how the hardware works. It is clear that Erik is of this sad generation.
> He might know how windows works but hasn't a clue how it interacts with
> the hardware. It appears that most Microsoft developers don't know how it
> interacts with hardware.
I know how it works, and I'm a Microsoft developer.
Ah, but then I started as a Electronics Engineer at EMI, then switched to
software. That's one reason in my favour when I took my current job writing
audio device drivers.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:58:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Raymond Mroz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:55:24 -0400
<L%G96.4679$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Linux servers do fail, as do MS servers. Server failure generally == people
>failure, the difference being this: Linux servers (in most cases) fail due
>to sysadmin oversight, mistake or outright incompetance...MS servers fail
>because of people too.....MS staff. While local sysadmin failure can be
>fixed, design engineering failure in MS products cannot be fixed. I'll take
>the local failure anyday because it is something *I* can address.
Servers can also fail because of other reasons. Mine blew a disk
because of a power failure; this in no way reflects on Linux or NT.
Whether hardware failures would be properly accounted for in Netcraft
results is unknown to me; it is possible that, because NT runs on
cheaper, less controlled hardware, that it will have a lower MTBF.
However, IMO it is not probable, for Linux on nearly identical hardware
has a very high MTBF.
At least, that's the picture I'm getting. YMMV and in any event,
I don't have an NT box. :-) (My boxes are dualboot Linux/W95 boxes.
Guess which OS I use more often. :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- mind you, I *did* put W95 on a slower IDE drive :-)
EAC code #191 1d:19h:25m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:02:00 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
> computer when you halt the OS.
More fud from the fudster -
I've noticed that Linux has been shutting down the power
since Red Hat 6.0 -
jjs
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 20 Jan 2001 20:04:45 +0000
> Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 16 Jan 2001 12:58:01
> [...]
> >It makes no economic sense for most companies to put SO on their
> >desktops, knowing that, each time a user is sent a MS Office document,
> >they will waste an hour trying to find a way of reading that document
> >as the author intended.
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A bit of FUD, Stephen?
I hardly think I count as a Microsoft FUDster. Go to DejaNews and
read my posting history.
> "As the author intended" indeed; that smells
> like Microsoft's 'integrity of the presentation' bullshit. You can read
> Office documents in StarOffice. You pretty much just open them up like
> any other file, I believe.
I collaborate with a number of people who use Word. They send me
documents in Word, with figures included. I open them with
Staroffice, and the figures are often completely garbled. The
equations are also often mis-rendered, and of course they can't be
edited.
Don't get me wrong - I think SO does do a remarkably good job, given
how difficult the problem is (it's certainly good enough for me to
try opening a document with SO before trudging down the hall to a
public NT machine). It's just doesn't do it well enough for me to be
able to do my work, without having access to a Windows machine. The
problem must be much more severe for those people for whom the desktop
is little more than a vehicle for an office suite.
Of course, Microsoft's monopoly is at the root of this problem. This
doesn't alter the fact that, if I used MS Office rather than
Staroffice, I would save myself time in dealing with other people's
documents.
> >Ironically, the way that MS established itself as the market leader on
> >the desktop is by producing an operating system that was good enough
> >for most users while being cheaper than the (superior) alternatives.
>
> That isn't so much 'ironic' as it is 'false'. They became a monopoly by
> monopolizing. Its illegal, and its soon going to be remedied. My
> impatience is reflected, obviously, by the frequency with which I have
> the urge to post to knock down fabrications like this.
Well, my understanding is that, before `everyone' used Windows, there
were two alternatives for the desktop: IBM compatible PC and Apple
MAcintosh. The Mac was better designed, but because of Apple's
monopoly on hardware it was more expensive; the PC was good enough for
most people's purposes, and was cheaper because of the availability of
cheap hardware.
That's something I've only gleaned from reading posts on Usenet - at
the time when this battle was being fought, I was happily working in
an environment where every computer ran VMS or Unix.
> >It's well documented that MS's tactic for maintaining its market
> >position is by `embracing and extending' foreign technologies, so that
> >at each step the most economically viable alternative for each user is
> >to stay within the MS fold. It's a *locally* stable strategy (in the
> >game-theoretic sense). This doesn't mean that what results is the
> >best *global* alternative for customers.
>
> Economics isn't game theory.
Actually, a great deal of economic theory is based on game theory
(that's why Nash invented it). In this sense, a `locally stable
strategy' means that eveyone is trying to do what is in their best
interests, and the result of any one changing their strategy is that
they lose out. Of course, theory and reality aren't the same thing
> There is no "best global alternative" for customers.
> Misrepresentations of "the network effect" aside, the real world
> truth is that the best strategy for customers is a non-global one.
We're using `global' in a different sense - I'm talking about global
(or local) in strategy-space, rather than space-space. What I mean is
`the combination of players' strategies that proves the most fruitful
for the players out of all of possible strategy combinations'.
> And there needs to be alternatives (commercially available substitutes,
> ie, not a monopoly) for even that to be possible.
Go back and read my post again. At no point did I advocate a monopoly
as being in the consumers' best interest. I was merely arguing that
MS can engineer the market so that a MS solution *is* the most viable
for many customers, and this is a major contribution to the
perpetuation of Microsoft's monopoly.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:07:38 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is the crux of the matter. The people who write the drivers for Linux
> know exactly how the hardware works at the lowest programmable level. It
> is clear that Microsoft, and most of the hardware companies producing
> drivers for Windows, don't know how the hardware works at a low level.
> They probably only know C / C++ and can't develop software at the
> assembler level when required (or do so very badly when they have to as
> they aren't assembler programmers).
As an aside, I got all the specs I could on the AC'97 chipset when I
started working on audio drivers for it. Both the hub controller and the
AC'97 standard itself. So, I think I know pretty much how it works at the
lowest programmable level.
The driver itself is written in C++, with some parts in assembler for
speed. I have done assembler on a variety of other machines, so I'm no
stranger to it. Also, I started life as a hardware engineer, then switched
to software, so I have right background.
Please don't think that _all_ drivers for Windows are written by people who
don't know what they're doing!
In the context of the disk driver problem, I can't believe there isn't some
way to detect if a cache has been written. It would be bad design if that
was to be the case. Anyway, somewhere else in this discussion someone has
mentioned how it is done from the spec.
So in this case, I'd have to agree with the general consensus - Microsoft
have got this one wrong!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:06:36 GMT
SoneoneElse wrote:
> Actually I think Mandrake is starting to take over.
> It tends to be solid, and to have an easier install.
Mandrake is pretty, and has a nice looking install.
But I've seen some flakiness on mandrake that I
don't see on old dependable red hat.
> >gcc in Red Hat 7 works just fine, thank you.
> >
> There is a patch for gcc on the RedHat site.
No patch, just new gcc packages -
and a lot of other updated packages as well.
I keep my systems updated.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:10:03 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
> A lot of companies will advertise: "position available, 3+ years of C+
> required". Of course, since they've done the required no. of years of
> work doing C++, they get the job. Most interviews are conducted by
> human resources, who look for the typical interview crap like eye
> contact, poise, as well as meeting the requisite time doing C++ on some
> software engineering job somplace. With open source, it's pretty much a
> voluntary effort, so it requires more than just passing a job interview
> to do the job.
Interesting, when I took the job of writing audio device drivers for
Windows, I was interview by the engineers themselves. They knew about my
original background in Electronics Engineering and my knowledge of COM and
C++, so they were happy with what I knew.
Every job I've had I've always been interview by the engineers - hell, I've
done interview myself and it's not quite as you portray it. But then maybe
I'm not involved with the kind of companies you mention.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:11:27 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
> > Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> > enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> > aparently the drive doesn't do this.
>
> And yet FreeBSD and Linux don't have this problem.
I'm curious - how do they do it? Do they do what was mentioned in another
post and force a 'sleep' etc. as mentioned in the spec.
Hmmm... since I have the source code on my Linux box, I could go a-hunting
myself... 8)
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:12:07 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
> computer when you halt the OS.
Linux Mandrake certainly does.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
