Linux-Advocacy Digest #241, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Feb 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Interesting article ("Se�n � Donnchadha")
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Interesting article
[Q] newbie about TELNET into LINUX problem? (MCC)
Re: KDE Whiners
Re: Interesting article (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Interesting article ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Interesting article (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Peformance Test (Bob Hauck)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:00:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:11:33 GMT
<p%%i6.24868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT
>> <brRi6.38966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
>> >>
>> >> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
>> >>
>> >> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
>> >> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
>> >> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
>> >>
>> >> > It's an old
>> >> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
>> >> rallies there bubba -
>> >
>> >No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
>> >last 10 years?
>> >
>> >We still use telnet
>>
>> I use ssh. I also note that "crappy old telnet" has an SSL option
>> on Debian, although I haven't tried to use it. My main worry is
>> whether "crappy old" (i.e., "non-encrypted") telnet sessions can
>> be disabled therein.
>
>So basically, all you've done in 20 years or so is make telnet
>with encryption. SSH is still telnet, just with a harder casing.
>
>SSH isn't a real improvement, it's just making the original crap
>more resilient.
Try to sniff a password with "crappy old telnet". It's almost trivial;
the main problem is reassembling the packets.
Now try to sniff a password with "ssh". (No fair enabling a test mode
such as "no encryption". :-) )
But you're right; the ideal system would have remote *graphical* login.
(X does do this, with a little work with xdm; however, I don't know how
secure it is at this time. Windows security is built-into such
tools as pcAnywhere, a third-party offering; Windows clearly wins here
(ssh is also third-party).)
>
>> >We still use crappy old XWindows
>>
>> It's more intelligent than Win32 at the protocol level!
>> Consumes less bandwidth, too.
>
>Not RDP, though. X Windows is crap. Whether or not it is
>fast over the net or not is irrelevant. Besides, it's a dog
>compared to RDP.
I can't comment on RDP at this time, as this is the first I've
heard of it.
As for being crap, perhaps you can be more specific? I can point out
some of X's deficiences if you like -- and they are true deficiencies
in either X or X's client programs; the most glaring one is the
selection "token" which has been repeatedly misinterpreted by many
programs (most text apps, if they don't own the token, it will not
highlight a selected area, and will DEhighlight their selected area
if they lose the token; this misbehavior makes the traditional Windows
replace mechanism of Control-X or Control-C, moving over to another
window, and pasting it over an already-selected area almost impossible).
>
>> It was designed at the outset way back in '84 or thereabouts to
>> allow for remote window display; most of the bugs are now gone.
>> (If there were any -- I don't know admittedly.)
>
>But it's still crappy. I could write five lines of code that
>do nothing, and have no bugs, but it still does nothing.
The traditional "hello world" benchmark in X would actually take
about 60-70. Throw in such things as responding to resize, map,
unmap, and client-requested close, and it could take 50 to 100 more.
However, Windows doesn't do very well here, either, unless one
cheats and uses a label. It would take 100 lines or so, too;
remember that one has to register a class prior to creating
the window proper. (A HelloWin program I have takes 136 lines,
not counting resource declarations -- however, it also implements
pulldown menus; adding that to the X version would take 50 lines easily,
possibly 100; one has to create a new shell window with transient
attributes and draw the menu entries and respond to mouse moves and clicks.)
It's clear that "hello world" puts X in a bad light.
>Saying
>that XWin doesn't have any bugs (which doesn't seem to be the
>case since it crashes all the time-- on Linux at least) is
>irrelevant.
X *does* crash. There are specific circumstances -- the simplest one
being bad hardware, of course -- where it can be forced down.
It can also hang, generate weird-looking output, or blank the screen
unpredictably -- there's even a case where it can render a console
totally useless (if one's using SVGATextMode, an older version of X
didn't restore the VGA registers correctly).
This is not to say Windows doesn't crash, of course. X also has the
advantage that, when it crashes, the OS is still up -- small consolation,
perhaps, for the poor user now deprived of his video, perhaps --
and can be interacted with from another terminal, if the user
has one (many do not).
>
>> >Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
>>
>> As opposed to DACLs, I guess. I don't know DACLs from cackles
>> (although I did once work for a time on Apollo DOMAIN Aegis, which
>> had access control lists), so dunno if this is an issue, or not.
>
>Um, it's a huge issue. By the way, it's not DACLs. There's
>Discretionary Access Control, which is the industry standard way
>of handling security CORRECTLY and PROFESSIONALLy, and then there's
>ACLs, which is part of the whole DAC scheme. Permission bits is
>kindergarten stuff with no flexibility, huge limitations, and
>is unacceptable in secure installations.
Which makes one wonder why NT isn't used in more such installations.
Makes one go "hmmm....". To be fair, NT has the majority of
https-aware websites, it turns out. It's a slim majority, but it
is a majority, and it's increasing at a slow but steady pace, as
I understand it.
Microsoft just might have a winner, here. (But one must ask if
those webservers are running Exchange...)
>
>> One worry, of course -- how long does it take to process the list,
>> and is it dependent on the length of the list? One could do some
>> extremely stupid things with DACLs (i.e., specifying each user individually)
>> which might be better handled by a group ID check.
>
>It seems to take no time in Windows. Windows is able to process files
>as fast or faster than Linux according to some benchmarks.
The Mindcraft benchmark states that NT can process files
up to 2.7x faster, under very heavy load conditions.
Unfortunately, a c't benchmark suggests the exact opposite.
>
>Some Unix systems have DAC and ACLs and it doesn't seem to slow them
>down much.
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:06h:09m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: "Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:00:22 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> The emergence of Microsoft and their hype-and-advertising practices did
> *not* suddenly make developers base their plans on advertisements. OS/2
> was, and still is, the superior product, in so many ways that it is
> ludicrous to suggest that it cannot compete. Yet it doesn't. This
> isn't due to any failure of IBM marketing, or even caused by the hype
> that MS spews.
>
Ah, nice to see that you're still a bullshit-spewing ankle-biting
trollpuppy, Max. OS/2 1.x was a great product, but versions 2.0 and up were
utter shit, and they died precisely because IBM couldn't get their story
straight. Microsoft was focused like a laser to promote Windows while IBM
couldn't figure out whether they were trying to sell OS/2, Workplace OS,
Taligent, NeXTSTEP, or AIX. Their OS strategy at the time was as clear as
mud and and as effective as that canned "monopoly crapware" horseshit you
regurgitate every fucking three minutes.
>
> The hype is simply a smoke-screen for the raising and
> maintaining of the various barriers which have earned them a conviction
> in federal court.
>
Yeah, from an admittedly biased judge who ignored evidence, blew off
procedure and precedent, and still managed to sleep through most of the
trial. You're really amusing, Troll M. Devlin, but your two-bit schtick is
getting really old.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:01:26 GMT
JamesW wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > Microsoft has already started promoting the next
> > one (Whistler, or PX or whatever) with the promise that it
> > will be better. They're copying Linux KDE login screen and
> > Desktop, in order to make it at least *look* better.
>
> Have you seen a screenshot? XP is truly hideous.
I fully agree, it appears intended for retarded children.
Maybe they're wise, they're addressing the right target for
MS products.
However a number of things have been taken from KDE desktop,
and adapted to retarded children.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:03:50 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:12:08 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > We still use telnet
>>
>> What's with the "we" business?
>>
>> perhaps you use telnet, I can't remember when I last used telnet.
>
>You use SSH, I'm sure, which is the same thing, with sugar coating.
>It's still the same 70's technology.
So? You've not demonstrated why that is a "bad" thing.
[deletia]
>> Sorry to hear of your woes - yes I know your pc X-windows
>> emulators are expensive and lack some neat features.
>>
>> I'm very happy with my 3D accelerated, OpenGL X.
>
>Which crashes constantly...
...as if you would be in any position to know.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: MCC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: [Q] newbie about TELNET into LINUX problem?
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:08:50 +0000 (UTC)
We just installed RedHat 6.1on DELL PC. Every time while we "telnet"
from other computer into this LINUX server, we have following proble:
%telnet 192.9.204.201
Trying 192.9.204.201...
Connected to 192.9.204.201.
Escape character is '^]'.
User Access Verification
Password:
Password:
Password:
% Bad passwords
Connection closed by foreign host.
No matter which password I type, it make NO difference and their has NO userID
for me to type. Sometime the following screen will come out(don't know why) and
I can login without problem:
Red Hat Linux release 6.1 (Cartman)
Kernel 2.2.12-20 on an i686
login:
Their also have another problem. If I lucky "telnet" into this server and did not
touch this "telnet" session for 5 minutes, it will automatic disconnect. Does
their has way to fix?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:13:53 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:57:22 +0000, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the 15 Feb 2001 20:48:37 GMT...
>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > At the heyday of baroque absolutism, the nobility didn't bathe at all
>> > because it was supposed to be unhealthy. It's also noteworthy that
>> > most trailers feature better sanitation that your typical 17th century
>> > castle. Versailles, for example, had zero toilets, for lack of a moat
>> > <g>. The usual way of dealing with your bodily functions was just
>> > sitting down somewhere in a corner and letting the personnel take care
>> > of the residue.
>>
>> Not for the royal and rich, actually. At versailles (as with almost every
>> other really big house built all over the world in those days) there were
>> indoor-ish facilities which amounted to a narrow room,
>
>[etc. etc.]
>
>I feel enlightened... and it's pretty sad that, when I went to
>Versailles in 1996, I've been misinformed about this topic by an
>officially appointed guide.
How do you think one of those tourguides would react to
being asked to see that indoor outhouse?
[deletia]
That reminds me... the loo at Versailles was a payware loo too.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:15:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:56:18 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> Not RDP, though. X Windows is crap. Whether or not it is
>> fast over the net or not is irrelevant. Besides, it's a dog
>> compared to RDP.
>
>Sorry to break this to you, but it works fine here.
Just out of curiosity -- how much bandwidth do you have?
*I* can use X over a 56k modem connection! Fire up xeyes, xload,
or oclock using ssh (which has an X proxy, encrypted of course) and go.
Granted, one must be very careful here -- a bitmap-intensive app may
not fare well, on either platform. (A game such as xsoldier or xkoules
would be pretty darned crappy over such a link. :-) )
I'm also curious whether Chad has tried pcAnywhere (does it use RDP?)
over such a link, as well.
>
>> But it's still crappy. I could write five lines of code that
>> do nothing, and have no bugs, but it still does nothing. Saying
>> that XWin doesn't have any bugs (which doesn't seem to be the
>> case since it crashes all the time-- on Linux at least) is
>> irrelevant.
>
>This is all nonsense, of course -
>
>I can leave my 3d screensavers running at work,
>go on vacation for 2 weeks, come back and they
>are still cycling - I type my password and there's
>my desktop - I have no idea what crashes you're
>talking about, but then again, you don't either.
>
>> Um, it's a huge issue.
>
>If it were a huge issue, or even a small issue,
>it would have been changed - but the fact is,
>it's basically a non issue.
>
>> It seems to take no time in Windows. Windows is able to process files
>> as fast or faster than Linux according to some benchmarks.
>
>That's why windows programs running under Linux
>have faster disk access than in native windows?
I'm curious as to whether one has developed an ext2 "driver" for NT,
and how well NT fares with such a driver. I know the possibility
is there -- fsdext2 is a rather buggy but dynamically-usable driver
for Win95 -- so is the protocol sufficiently documented to
do this? ext2's "protocol" is fairly well-documented -- pull up a
kernel and it's pretty much there.
>
>jjs
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:07h:32m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:12:05 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> >SSH isn't a real improvement, it's just making the original crap
> >more resilient.
>
> Try to sniff a password with "crappy old telnet". It's almost trivial;
> the main problem is reassembling the packets.
>
> Now try to sniff a password with "ssh". (No fair enabling a test mode
> such as "no encryption". :-) )
>
> But you're right; the ideal system would have remote *graphical* login.
> (X does do this, with a little work with xdm; however, I don't know how
> secure it is at this time. Windows security is built-into such
> tools as pcAnywhere, a third-party offering; Windows clearly wins here
> (ssh is also third-party).)
Terminal Services allows you a graphical login, it comes with 2000 & XP.
It has security and the protocol is more efficent than X.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:16:10 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > We still use telnet
> >
> > What's with the "we" business?
> >
> > perhaps you use telnet, I can't remember when I last used telnet.
>
> You use SSH, I'm sure, which is the same thing, with sugar coating.
> It's still the same 70's technology.
>
Which was used, at least up to last year by Microsoft.
Whenever you install TCP/IP protocol, Telnet gets installed,
usually among Accessories. I don't know if it has
disappeared from Win2k, and I don't give a damn, but I bet
it's still there.
> > >
> > > We still use crappy old XWindows
> >
> > Sorry to hear of your woes - yes I know your pc X-windows
> > emulators are expensive and lack some neat features.
> >
> > I'm very happy with my 3D accelerated, OpenGL X.
>
> Which crashes constantly...
>
Maybe you're mixing up with Windows, because of name
similarity.
I've never seen a crash, neither heard of any, except if
you're playing with beta test versions. Both the Open source
and the commercial versions of XWindows are widely used for
big advanced CAD stations (the sort of thing nobody would
dare to do with Windows), and should they experience
problems, you'd hear yelling from across the ocean.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:22:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Feb 2001
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> [...]
> >> By your ignoring the post, I assume you are in complete agreement.
> >>
> >
> >By your being a stupid Wintroll, your assumptions have
> >nothing to do with reality.
>
> Wow, Giuliano. I don't think I've ever seen you so abrupt and angry.
> Chad sure is a frustratingly dishonest person, isn't he?
>
Yeah!
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:29:50 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:54:03 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:00:09 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>>
>>>Perhaps, although humankind existed for 100,000 years without
>>>formal science... 3 or 4 hundred years is probably not enough time
>
>> So. That doesn't have any relevance to your own existence.
>
>I'm sure that ethics had a part to play in my eventual existence.
>
>Our parent's didn't strangle either of us at birth. I can't imagine
>Science had anything to do with that.
Sure it did.
It avoided the conditions necessary for such issues to
actually exist. You and your ancestors have lead rather
sheltered lives compared to those animals that find the
need to eat their young.
Also, despite your protestations: in more "spiritual"
days you would have been considered the property of
your father to be disposed of accordingly.
>
>
>> That is just empty rhetoric on your part. The fact still
>> remains that you only exist because technology has allowed
>> you and your forebears to live and thrive. Unless you are
>> Amish, just about anything you have is a result of this
>> 'highly questionable' scientific method that is taken on
>> faith.
>
>I agree, so what. I'm saying that Science depends on faith.
That the universe works in a predictable fashion is not
an article of faith. It is an axiom that is time tested.
[deletia]
You can choose to violate the rules and prove us wrong
in the process. Somehow, I suspect that you will choose
not to for your own survival.
If you really believe the blather your spewing, you have
the easy position in terms of proof or disproof.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:32:33 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:45:14 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>> Walt wrote:
>>
>> : In Los Angeles, thousands of illegal immigrants, along with people in
>> : local cemeteries, registered and voted in recent elections. And of
>> : course, they voted overwhelmingly Democratic.
>>
>> And in Florida, the GOP does the same crap. And we all know about
>> the election debacle that ensued.
>
>So why did Gore only challenge the counts in DEMONCROOK-controlled
>counties?
Republican dominated counties probably didn't have hordes
of upset republicans demanding a recount. If there's no
uproar, there really isn't any point to Gore serving as
champion.
>
>Is that a sign that not even a Democrat candidate can trust
>a Democrat election board to do things properly?
[deletia]
No, you just can't see past your GOP reality filters.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:39:05 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:57:50 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's possible that Christ existed, in fact I think there's more evidence than
>> just the bible to suggest that. Nothing though suggests he was anything more
>> than a jewish revolutionary who spoke out against the Romans. In fact there
>> was some more evidence about that discovered recently, the subject of an
>> interesting documentary called "the real jesus christ". It put everything in a
>> historical perspective and made a lot of sense. About how Paul used the death
>> of Jesus to create a religion, and hid the real man behind stories of
>> miracles etc. Very interesting stuff and lots of political intrigue and
>> infighting.
>
>Yes, it is possible to believe a event happened in the past...even
>if the event can't be repeated.
>
>That's why Materialism is hopelessly flawed. We all know that JFK
>was shot, but can't repeat the experiment. How do we go about
>proving a historical event.
Dig up the skeleton.
[deletia]
Then again, you are blathering about an historical even that
was caught on tape and who's firsthand witnesses are still
living.
OTOH, it would not shatter my sanity to find out that it was
all a load of hooey. I'm more worried about whether or not a
CRT will suddenly electrocute me or if the wings of a 727
will rip off.
Here, you are only criticising a field of study (not necessarily
even a science) that most of the hard line materialists here
would themselves call "weak at best" anyways.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:30:09 GMT
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:19:58 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I already told you, it runs off CD-ROM, not flash.
Yes, you did. I realized it a while after I sent the post. Sorry about
that.
> Requirements often mean using 5 year old code that is fully debugged
> and already has test harnesses and test plans written instead of
> writing new code that needs massive amounts of QA to verify.
Yes indeed. Which is the only case I can think of where using NT for an
embedded system makes sense, the case where you have already written
your system for NT (or some close relative) and you are locked in to Win32.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:43:14 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:45:40 GMT, Paul Dossett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Before I spent much time in this NG, I would have agreed with you. But
>> just yesterday I read something that's near and dear to my heart - Linux
>> can play several MP3's at once. I had just assumed that the inability
>> of Windows to output a ding-dong sound when something went wrong while I
>> was listening to a WAV or an MP3 was a hardware limitation. It's not.
>> The OS is simply not flexible enough to handle two inputs to the same
>> piece of hardware simultaneously. Someone then posted a pretty funny
>> question - "Why would you want to run several MP3's at once? The din
>> must be horrible" - and I had to laugh. But, I love to seque songs.
>> One of the main things I do with my Windows OS is compilation
>> recording. To date, all I've used my Linux machine for is server tasks;
>> mail, firewall, gateway, etc. But now I'm going to have to take some
>> time and fool around with the desktop just so I can look into these
>> claims.
>
>Um, my Windows box plays several MP3s at once without any problem. Perhaps
>your hardware is not up to the task? Most modern soundcards will mix up to
>64 streams of audio IN HARDWARE, and yes, Windows does allow it.
Except, mp3 isn't just simply "audio".
You have to decode it first.
This has to be done in realtime or you get skips.
>
>Unless of course my Windows box is MAGICAL.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
