Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #32 Mon, 26 Feb 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: State of linux distros (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: State of linux distros (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jon Johanson")
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Richard Heathfield)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Bos)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Business ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("David Brown")
Re: State of linux distros (moooo)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Ayende Rahien")
Who writes open source software? ("suppose")
Re: why open source software is better (Ernest Schaal)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Bos)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: why open source software is better ("Spam.be.damn")
Re: why open source software is better (Andreas Spengler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:44:13 -0500
Reefer wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Not even....plus it STILL has all of that baggage from DOS.
>
> 'Ya talking about Win9X/ME?
>
> NT/2k has no DOS "baggage"...and that is the OS that Linux should be
> compared with...
You should quit smoking your nickname...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:44:40 -0500
Reefer wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You really are on a reefer, aren't you
>
> >Hence his nickname.
>
> Said from a man that manages to get people to start 3-4 hate threads about
> him, just in the last couple of days...
Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 26 Feb 2001 07:50:02 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:35:46
>
> [...]
>
> Amazing how much you can dominate an industry if you monopolize it for
> more than ten years from the very start, eh?
Amazing how you ignore the monopolies IBM help, and Sun held. Until their
monopolies were overrun the the form of monopoly MS has... and still you act
as if MS is the only one doing anything like this???
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:47:42 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Peter Pichler wrote:
> >
> > >> and as such has a God-given Right to do whatever the
> > >> hell he likes (e.g. appending 1708 bytes of yahoo rant to all
> > >> his Usenet postings), however annoying and inconvenient it may
> > >> be for the rest of us.
> > >
> > >And not only that, but I serve in the military to defend
> > >that right.
> >
> > You must be /realy/ proud.
>
> Are you trying to imply that defending your country is somehow
> an ignoble thing to do?
No, he's trying to imply that being a complete bozo is an ignoble thing
to do. Learn to read for comprehension.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 26 Feb 2001 07:57:04 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> [snip]
>
> TPC benchmarks are of a database environment, not of operating systems.
Anyone
> who ties OS performance to TPC benchmarking is an idiot. They are
completely
> tied to hardware, infrastructure, and database environments, both "as
built"
> and core technology. Very little has to do with the actual OS.
Oh really? So, the db just suspends the OS while it's running eh? And I
supposed that the DB also handles ALL the networking code and has it's own
TCP/IP stacks and Pipes and tunnels. I supose the DB handles the virtual
memory and physical memory managment for the entire box. I suposed the db
also manages the multiprocessor support and handles the file system (not the
two files making up the data and trans logs but all the logs and supporting
files like for DTC and replication and backups). And I suppose
authentication has nothing to do with the OS (yes, you could use DB based
authentication but why make your users "log in" twice when using a unified
login is faster and more user friendly and easier to setup and manage). Oh
yes, an OS is soooooo unimportant to a DB - excepting of course in every way
that a DB operates. Did we mention the hard disk controller drivers and the
disk caching functions? Not too many database I know of that have HD
controller drivers on their CDs.
To ignore the performance of an OS underlying a database indicates your
complete lack of how software works as well as your ignorance of the real
world interaction between hardware/software/users.
>
> That being said, there is one thing that is not reflected in TPC
benchmarks,
> which IS OS related, is stability. NT is no match for any UNIX for
stability.
Oh really - and you seem to forget that these tests are running the
machines, by definition, at their very utmost limits for hours on end. And
they are run time and time again. And if the system should crash they have
to report this and you'll see there are no such reports. If NT were so
unstable, how is it possible for these runs to be successful let alone world
record setting? It's been oft said that a typical 2 day TPC run is the
equivilent of 2 years of average user activity and a medium sized business.
>
> Lastly, TPC results are a members-only set of numbers. Many systems do not
run
> TPC benchmarks, nor need be able.
But, just like testing a car's top speed or how quickly it can brake are
things that most people do not need to be able to do or will commonly use -
but you use these to find out who's the best at the limits.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Bos)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:05:35 GMT
Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Radians are more natural than degrees. Radians are based on a
> fundamental measurement of all circles ever (ie. the constant pi), but
> degrees are based on an entirely arbitrary human-specified number (360).
Not _entirely_ arbitrary; it was chosen because it is so easily
divisible, and was therefore natural to the number systems used by the
Babylonians and their neighbours.
Richard
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 26 Feb 2001 08:12:07 -0600
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What makes this article particularely amusing is that they are touting
> the superiourity
> of IIS on NT 4.0 over a bunch of no-name web servers on UNIX systems.
> Microsoft even admits that it lost the performance race and tried to
> make Windows 2000 much faster
> and more reliable to make "real-world" performance 10% faster than Linux
> 2.2.17-21.
Really? Publish proof of this admission or withdraw your wild claim.
>
> Microsoft will not publish industry standard benchmarks between
> comparably equipped
> Microsoft Windows systems and Linux systems.
Perhaps because there are none And why hasn't any linux distributor ever
done the same? Hmmm? You'd think Red Hat would send their systems out to be
independantly tested and then tout these impressive wins to everyone. If
linux really WAS that much better, why hasn't some of these rich linux
companies performed the same tests MS has and then "proved" it to the world.
Amazing how ALL these claims and yet nothing to back it up...
>Furthermore, even though
> IBM has now
> sanctioned an official Linux product, there is still no TPC benchmark.
Gee, and IBM has the money and has done TPC before and yet they don't have a
benchmark using linux. In fact, they use windows 2K even when running their
own database.
> Unofficial
> numbers place the Linux numbers at 1/3 of Microsoft's "agressive"
> estimates of
> $9-13/TPM.
Unofficial sounds like crap. AND especially when you consider that the cost
of the OS is LESS than 1% of the total cost of a TPC run we all know you are
full of it to suggest that using "free" linux would have a 66% impact on the
price of a TPC run. ha!
>Microsoft has had to withdraw several results when it became
> obvious that
> they understated 5-year system costs.
I say you are lying - prove me wrong.
> Furthermore, most of Microsoft's
> benchmarks
> were conducted under unrealistic configurations (using Raid 0,
> nonpersistent messages,
> and COM+ as the transaction monitor).
Oh really? COM+ as the monitor is perfectly ordinary. Did you not notice
that just about everyone uses RAID 0 for benchmarking? Nonpersistent
messages is essential to the running of the test. You are really
underinformed aren't you?
>
> This was compared to more consistent real-world reliable systems. To
> put it simply,
> in real-world environments, Microsoft isn't more expensive. Microsoft's
> costs do
> increase linearly, while UNIX costs/tpm actually drop as performance
> increases.
Amazing how NOTHING in the real world proves a single word of that
paragraph. IN fact, you'll notice that ALL 50 of the top 50 ranks in the
best $/TPM are MS solutions. The VERY best _performance_ figure is also the
2nd best price/performance figure - I don't see unix solutions ANYWHERE near
close.
<snip>
> Windows 2000 offers several improvements (many of which I proposed on
> this newsgroup),
didn't know you helped develop the OS you hate so much too...
<snip paranoid delusions of fantasy>
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Business
Date: 26 Feb 2001 08:17:09 -0600
Hey Aaron,
Are you still beating your wife and molesting your children?
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Hey, Drestin
>
>
> Still pimping out your wife?
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
>
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:11:43 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message <9_qm6.98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > There is usually some, but the releases are years apart versus
>> > the months apart of hardware items.
>>
>> Which is why Linux is blowing by Windoze in features and performance,
>> even with the kernel delays.
>
>The linux releases are also years apart.
They are often more regular than that, especially if you want to follow the
cutting edge. With Linux, you have the choice of how often you want to
upgrade.
>> How many CDs does it come on? Same number as Windows 95, or not?
>> (I don't know, because there's no way in hell I'm wasting my money on
>> ME... I learned my lesson with 98.)
>
>Windows 95 (original version) took about 20 megs for the entire set of cabs
>and setup files. Windows ME takes over 120 Megs.
>
>> Standard RedHat comes on four CDs now. (2 binaries, 1 document CD, and
>> 1 source-code CD). That's one more than the previous version came on.
>
>Those CD's aren't full, they're packaged so they can easily split the
>distributions for different price levels.
>
>The binary CD's also contain source code.
>
So you are talking about maybe 1.2 GB with software and documentation,
excluding the sources. Only ten times as much as Windmill, rather than
twenty times as much. And some distributiongs have significantly more than
Red Hat.
Anyway, what is new with Windmill? I have Win98SE and Win95OSR2 on two
machines at home, and there is not really all that much difference between
them.
------------------------------
From: moooo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:23:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
> Reefer wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You really are on a reefer, aren't you
> >
> > >Hence his nickname.
> >
> > Said from a man that manages to get people to start 3-4 hate threads about
> > him, just in the last couple of days...
>
> Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
>
>
>
You annoy the fuck out of me i know that much
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:22:11 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97do6o$b3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message <9_qm6.98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> > There is usually some, but the releases are years apart versus
> >> > the months apart of hardware items.
> >>
> >> Which is why Linux is blowing by Windoze in features and performance,
> >> even with the kernel delays.
> >
> >The linux releases are also years apart.
>
> They are often more regular than that, especially if you want to follow
the
> cutting edge. With Linux, you have the choice of how often you want to
> upgrade.
And you don't have this choice with windows? How come?
------------------------------
From: "suppose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Who writes open source software?
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:41:26 -0500
Just curious. I'm in the commercial software development business and wonder
who writes open source? Is it students? Professors? Hobbyists? Who is
supporting their efforts? How do they find the time? How do the pay the
rent?
I'm not trying to be a wise ass or anything - this is a serious question on
my part.
Stu
------------------------------
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
From: Ernest Schaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:42:05 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Per Abrahamsen at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/26/01 3:56 AM:
> Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Personally, I am in favour of open source Beatles music.
>
> There are lots of free music, get it legally from www.mp3.com. I
> presume there are some in the same genre as Beatles.
This implies that musicians are a commodity, and that there is nothing
special about certain artists that make them a much more valuable product
than other artists. This is not the case.
I know that this is a sore point with some frustrated musicians on the
misc.int-property newsgroup, but some artists have a better draw than other
artists. Compared to engineers, lawyers, and software developers, there is a
much greater income disparity between the generic musician and the
superstar. Part of this is because of branding and marketing, and part of
this is because, often times, the product is better.
For those who love to rant and rave against the star system, remember that
this system was created by the public. In the early days of the movies, the
movie trust refused to give out the names of its players, partly because it
wished to standardized the business, and partly because they feared that
stars could be more costly. (To meet public demand in England, nickelodeon
operators made up names for American actors.) This policy was reversed only
when the independents started publicizing the names of their stars.
>> Too bad Paul, George, Ringo and the demon lady want to get paid and
>> increasingly so.
>
> Yes, if copyright for pop music expired 5 years after publication,
> that would still leave plenty of time to cash in on the music. And
> neither Paul, George or Ringo would be starving.
The same argument could be made that if they gave away 95% of their money to
the poor they still wouldn't be starving. Whether or not they would be
starving is not the point.
BACK ON TOPIC:
While I would agree that there are advantages to open source software if you
are a programmer, those advantages don't apply for the computer user.
When I started using computers (1962), computer programmers and computer
users were synonymous because we had to write the programs we ran. For
instance, I started out with Fortran, and later moved to BASIC, Pascal, etc.
Nowadays, it doesn't make sense to write all your programs, or to spend time
modifying them.
For instance, I use Microsoft Word a lot. When I started with the earlier
versions of Word (late 1080s), I also needed PageMaker in order to do
newsletters and brochures. Since that time, Word has improved to the point
that I do significant desktop publishing with it.
I have seen Word grow in size and features, from a simple program that
allowed be to do simple word processing to a complex program that allows be
to do so much more. While I don't like complexity for its own sake, I do
enjoy the ability to do my work more productively by using full-featured
software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Bos)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:43:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
> Dan Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Degrees are a meaningless unit in trigonometry, which is not exactly
> : high end math. I've learned most of it in junior high school.
>
> Trig is not high-end math at all. You're right. But when it is taught, it is
> taught using degrees for the angles, never radians.
Wrong. I _was_ taught in radians as well as degrees.
> : OTOH, *all* the programming languages that I'm familiar with use radians
> : for the arguments of the trigonometric functions. So, I'm tempted to
> : believe that they're the standard in the computing industry. I'm also
> : tempted to believe that there must be a good reason for that.
>
> Most normal people never take up programming computers. Working-class people
> who programme for amusement are about as rare as humans with full-scale fur
> coats.
Wrong. How do you think I decided to be a programmer in the first place?
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:18:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Mark McIntyre" writes:
...
>>Any compiler that defines that or anything similar in a standard header
>>is in direct violation of the C standard.
>
>I'm not sure that this is strictly true -
Given that "violation" is not a standard defined term probably not.
Still it is somethimes more expressive to use un-strict terms. :-)
>don't you mean "any compiler
>that defines this in the standard header, when compiled in strict ansi
>mode, is violating the standard, What the compiler defines in
>ansi-with-extensions mode is its own business".
Whatever the compile mode a compiler that does this is not strictly
conforming. It is just that in a non "strict ansi" mode it (and
presumably the programmer who selected that mode) doesn't care.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:23:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "mlw" writes:
>Lawrence Kirby wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Richard Heathfield" writes:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >Not just yet! :-)
>> >
>> >There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>> >180.0:
>> >
>> >double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>> >{
>> > return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>>
>> Although I'd prefer to write that as
>>
>> return degrees * (3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0);
>>
>> There's no point in forcing unnecessary runtime divisions.
>
>Actually, you should do it this way:
>
>return (degrees * 3.14159265358979323846) / 180.0;
This is equivalent to the original and forces a multiplication followed
by a division which is what my version is designed to avoid.
>This will preserve more precision.
If you insist on this please justify your claim.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:28:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Clark S. Cox, III" writes:
...
>> Actually, you should do it this way:
>>
>> return (degrees * 3.14159265358979323846) / 180.0;
>>
>> This will preserve more precision.
>
> Not really (unless you are using fixed-point). With a floating-point
>implimentation, it shouldn't matter which order the
>multiplication/division is performed in.
> Plus, any decent optimizing compiler should optomize either into the
>following, so the issue is a moot point:
>
>return degrees * 1.74532925199432970138e-2;
> - or -
>return degrees / 5.72957795130823197419e+1;
It is probably worth repeating the quotation from the standard I posted
earlier in the thread.
"Rearrangement of floating point expressions is often restricted because
of limitations in precision as well as range. The implementation cannot
generally apply the mathematical associative rules for addition or
multiplication, nor the distributive rule, because of roundoff error,
even in the absense of overflow and underflow. Likewise implementations
cannot generally replace decimal constants in order to rearrange
expressions."
The 2 forms you write above cannot be guaranteed to produce the same
result (due to roundoff error) which means they are not equivalent as
far as the standard is concerned. Neither is equvalent to the expression
at the top so no correct optimising compiler can make such a conversion.
Matters of decency (and indecency) are somewhat subjective. :-)
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: "Spam.be.damn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:00:12 GMT
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:46:13 GMT, George of the jungle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in part):
>So, what open source software have you written?
>
>Personally, I am in favor of open source BMWs.
>
>Too bad, BMW is not.
George misses the point as does most of the posters.
Why are u equating open source with a freebie?
Open source is a way of building a program using technique
that is visible. The user will enjoy the programmers
ingenuity and workmanship and will pay for it. Either
directly or indirectly and will be happy to do so.
There is not secret to metallurgy or mechanical engineering
yet someone is ingenious enough to apply these known
principles and create a BMW.
No contriving, not underhandedness, no leveraging; just
plain good workmanship and resultant reputation for it.
Current copyright laws are protection enough.
Open source is the future. Down with Microshit.
------------------------------
From: Andreas Spengler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:00:14 +0100
George of the jungle schrieb:
> So, what open source software have you written?
>
> Personally, I am in favor of open source BMWs.
>
> Too bad, BMW is not.
Why? Does BMW sell cars only with the hood wielded shut?
Andreas
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
