Linux-Advocacy Digest #468, Volume #33 Mon, 9 Apr 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant ("Ben L. Titzer")
Another Newbie Here (wolfhound)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Chad Everett)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Del Cecchi)
Re: Another Newbie Here (raf)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Dan Miller")
Re: Q:Windows NT scripting? (LShaping)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Dave Martel)
Re: Another Newbie Here (GreyCloud)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ben L. Titzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:54:47 -0500
> |> Regardless, it's my opinion that somewhere along the line it's a pain in
> |> the ass for either the hardware, the compiler, the OS, or the application
> |> programmer. There's a much simpler and more straight-forward solution:
> |> simply extend the address space. Sadly, back in the DOS days, the software
> |> people didn't quite catch on...It took Microsoft 10 years to develop a
> |> 32 bit consumer OS (1985: 386 introed, 1995: Windows 95). 16-bit code is
> |> still somewhere hiding in Windows ME.
>
> Yes, but don't assume that everyone needs make that much of a mess of
> it. The point about the 'partially extended' solution is that it gives
> a way for many of the bleeding users to access more than 4 GB without
> impacting the others. But it is, at best, a temporary expedient.
>
Agreed.
> |> Software has long been the downfall
> |> of clever hardware engineers.
>
> And vice versa :-(
>
> |> The question is, Will IA-64 suffer like many
> |> other ill-fated architectures? It's new and innovative, but perhaps too
> |> new, too innovative?
>
> No - definitely not. If it fails, it will fail because it is an old
> mistake being repeated. I am not joking when I say that too much of
> modern computer design is reinventing the wheel, but with a different
> number of sides each time ....
>
Well there certainly are concepts in there that really haven't been put
through the crucible, so they might be considered "sufficiently" new.
Branch predication (kind of a rehashed 68000 (?) PPC (?) conditional
instruction execution), VLIW which has seen few serious efforts (that I
can recall) by top players, and other wing-dings that the Intel engineers
dreamed up. Of course there are things that are new, but aren't new, but
what do you expect them to do? Trinary? :-P
> If the IA-64 line succeeds, it will either be in spite of its design
> (i.e. due to marketing etc.) or because of innovative work by the
> compiler people. I have my doubts that the latter are good enough!
>
I think both of those, along with a marketing bonanza are the only reasons
that might drive its success. They definately have a very skilled team of
compiler engineers (albeit with a narrow focus) that do an excellent job
producing compilers targetted for their architectures. HP is a mess but
they have invested their engineers in the compiler technology as well. I
think Intel realized long ago that compilers would make or break this
chip, and invested considerable capital bringing them to life. The truth
is that HP doesn't want Intel to release the compiler technology to the
masses, which would fsck HP out of their cut. The irony is that if they
don't, no one is going to have access to it, or be willing to use a
proprietary compiler. HP is screwed either way, and that was probably part
of Intel's Master Plan (TM).
IIRC, the spec scores for the Itanium on floating point (if true) were
outstanding. Maybe they really are on the right track?
_________________________________________________
Close Windows and Open Doors - www.redpants.org
------------------------------
From: wolfhound <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Another Newbie Here
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:51:52 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,people. I just installed Redhat 7.0 on my machine as dual boot.
I got everything up just fine but I need alot of basics. ( See Linux.
See Linux run. Run run Linux.) That type thing.
Does anyone know of a source for Linux with training wheels?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:03:14 GMT
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:17:23 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > So the short but non-buzzword-compliant answer is "not with the tools
> > they give the end user". You have to go get some utilities from MS,
> > and they work on the new format but not the old.
>
> There is no "the" old format; there's a whole collection of them, from a
> whole collection of vendors. Are apt, rpm, and the other Linux installation
> packages interchangeable?
Do you usually use apt and rpm on the same machine? No. Do you usually
use the whole collection of old formats on the same machine? Yes. Do
both apt and rpm give you tools to find out what is installed and where
it is? Yes. Do the Windows installers give you these tools? No (the
excuse that they aren't needed is weak at best).
However, to answer your other questions, you can in fact install both
apt and rpm on the same machine if you want to. They will get along
fine as long as you don't do something dumb like install the same
program with both.
> them? MSI not only brings a whole host of new functionality, it also brings
> a standardized file format, viewable and editable with readily available
> tools.
It is nice that MS is catching up.
> > Which means that the answer is really "not for most current packages".
> > Which explains why there are so many install spy utilities around I
> > guess.
>
> You might be able to get viewers from InstallShield for their packages, from
> Wise for theirs, from MS for their earlier packages, and so on.
As I said, it must not be obvious how, since there are a number of
utilities whose sole purpose is to spy on installs and note down what
was done. On Linux, all of the package managers can give you this
information without the need of add-ons.
I'm sure that if you buy the developer kits from these helpful vendors
that you will get the utilities. However, that does not help end-users
manage their systems. People other than developers do need to know
detailed information about what is installed or going to be installed
on a given machine.
While it is nice that you all think that you can do such a great job
with your installers that nobody would ever need to second-guess them,
bitter experience tells me that is not the case. The fact that there
are third-party utilities to do part of the job testifies to the fact
that Windows admins and users want tools to tell them what's going on.
> > Works great until the network is down or the disk is full. Then you've
> > created a whole new class of errors.
>
> Depends what one means by "error".
And what the meaning of "is" is. If the package needed isn't on the
machine, or can't be installed, then the user will be confronted with an
error that he did not expect. Having been lead to believe that the
package is already "installed" and all, he may be surprised by this.
And he may be annoyed that he cannot use the function that he thought
that he had installed.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:05:49 GMT
On 09 Apr 2001 13:21:04 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> > Works great until the network is down or the disk is full. Then you've
> > created a whole new class of errors.
>
> Or if you have users that aren't on the WAN, in which case they are
> prompted for the "XXXXXX" CD-ROM every time you access some particular
> feature that wasn't explicitly installed (and even then, Microsoft
> Office 2000 won't install everything even if you tell it to).
Oh, great. That would work just _wonderfully_ on my laptop. The CD-ROM
is external, and I usually don't bring it along when I travel.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Apr 2001 14:56:11 -0500
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:48:30 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>WesTralia wrote:
>>
>> Well Aaron, the obvious has become VERY obvious. You my friend, are a
>> Windows 98 only user. There is no camouflage, there is no security through
>> obfuscation, there is no header string being changed, and there is certainly
>> no truth to your shoddy claim.
>
>I don't understand it anyways. How does changing your headers to make
>it look like you're running Windows 98 provide more security? If
>anything, it invites even MORE script kiddies to attack your box,
>because in their minds, you're running an unsecured OS. All they'd have
>to do anyways is telnet into your box, and look at the OS identification
>there to find out what you're REALLY running. Oh wait, don't tell me
>Aaron changed his login message to say "Windows 98 telnet server"? LOL!
>
Aaron Kulkis lives in mortal fear of Bill Gates. He has one of those
'I "heart" Windows' bumper stickers on his car and he won't use anything
except a WinModem. In a manner similar to wearing a necklace of garlic
to ward off vampires, Kulkis uses a newsreader on a Win98 box..and makes
sure the world knows it. The trouble is, he also lives in mortal fear of
being seen as a Windoze user and so he constantly posts as if he's some
sort of Unix type guy. As you can see, this strange combination of
fears is what has led to his schizophrenic personality. Oh yeah, I almost
forgot...he also lives in fear of the US Military, and communists, and
liberals, and homosexuals, and.......
NOW can you see why he has modified his X-mailer header string?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:48:46 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anonymous
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
>> >> is simpler
>> >
>> >i just wanted to see that again
>> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>
>> There are advantages to the command line, but ease of learning
>> is not among them (though it depends in part on the complexity
>> thereof, the design of the GUI, and to a large part on the
>> documentation available using 'man' or 'info').
>>
>> A well-designed GUI can be very easy, especially if it has common
>> elements; this is what makes Windows so powerful. (Mac OS, too,
>> as it turns out, although the details are different, and, to
>> a slightly lesser extent, widget sets on X; the main problem there
>> is cut and paste, and resize feedback.)
>>
>> Everyone understands:
>>
>> - moving the mouse pointer
>> - clicking, dragging, and dropping
>> - double-clicking, dragging, and dropping icons
>> - folder icons as directories, document icons as files
>> - top-mounted window pulldown menus
>> - keyboard shortcuts
>> - buttons with balloon help
>> - text entry controls, both multiline and single-line
>> - Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
>> - scrollbars
>> - scrolling lists (both horizontal and vertical)
>> - drop down comboboxes (which are actually a combination of button,
>> menu, and list)
>>
>> Windows does have advantages. However, MS may be frittering
>> away some of them; the latest Windows appear to have movable
>> menubars. What use is that? Detach a menubar from the window,
>> and it becomes a floating menubar -- um, now what app did
>> that floating menubar correspond to?! (Netscape and GTK have
>> the same capability, so it's not limited to Windows.)
>>
>> And then there's the famous gorgeously slow disappearing and
>> scrolling out menus. Waste of CPU cycles, IMO. What's
>> next, rapidly rotating dialog boxes a la old filmreels and cartoons? :-)
>> At least balloon help serves a purpose, especially since some of
>> those icons aren't exactly intuitive. Even pulldown menus
>> are an aid to documentation; they show the capabilities of the
>> program -- which makes the "hide less recently used" option
>> on pulldown menus in Windows a bit puzzling. Then again,
>> one can make a case either way.
>>
>> The horizontal scrolling file requester is an abomination, but
>> we're used to it now, even to the point of duplicating it,
>> bodge for bodge, in the Wine project -- although that may
>> be because I'm using it with Win95 and the Microsoft DLLs are
>> setting that up.
>>
>> One other advantage with Windows -- IE has instantaneous refresh
>> during resize; Netscape does not. This feedback is very helpful
>> to the user who wants to see the web page just so, and may explain
>> in part why IE is so popular in the first place.
>>
>
>I just tried it under Netscape... works great.
Not sure what version you're using, but under 4.76 Netscape actually
reloads the page from the network whenever you resize the window; this bug
has been in since the early days and they've never wanted/been able to fix
it. If you have a way of fixing it.... ?
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Del Cecchi)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: 9 Apr 2001 18:49:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9asp2r$kfa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Brig Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
snip
|>
|> The ProLiant ML770 is the new 32-processor, industry-standard server from
|> Compaq. This system delivers maximum scale-up (single server) performance in
|> the ProLiant line, with 32 Pentium III Xeon processors, large SDRAM memory
|> capacity and huge I/O expansion. The ProLiant ML770 is based on the Cellular
|> Multi-Processing (CMP) architecture, designed for maximum performance and
|> scalability. Compaq has upgraded the CMP architecture by adding additional
|> high-availability features and Compaq storage and options.
|>
|> http://www.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/description.html#keyfea
|> t
What is CMP? This some sort of NUMA thing? They buy this from someone? NCR,
UniSys? Details were hard to find on the web site.
--
Del Cecchi
cecchi@rchland
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (raf)
Subject: Re: Another Newbie Here
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:14:01 GMT
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:51:52 -0700, wolfhound wrote:
> Hello,people. I just installed Redhat 7.0 on my machine as dual boot.
> I got everything up just fine but I need alot of basics. ( See Linux.
> See Linux run. Run run Linux.) That type thing.
>
> Does anyone know of a source for Linux with training wheels?
http://www.linuxdoc.org
Training wheels? Try Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:29:14 -0700
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Paul Kinnucan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I must throw in my vote for XEmacs/Emacs as well (XEmacs is just
> prettier); although a programmer's editor is much like a choice of
> underware: use what's comfortable for you, and avoid the ones that
> rub you the wrong way.
>
So, you're recommending Brief?? It hasn't been available for awhile...
> --
> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Q:Windows NT scripting?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 21:31:33 GMT
>667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> LShaping wrote:
>> >
>> > Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >On Fri 06 Apr 2001 09:38, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>> >
>> > > [Snip]
>> > >> Of course the system will fail if the display
>> > >> system fails. The GDI is an integrated part of
>> >
>> > >This is a good thing? :-/
>> >
>> > It is a good thing for 99% of users, if it means the whole will run
>> > better. The question is not whether a GUI is necessary (that was
>> > decided long ago), the question is how efficient and stable can it be.
>>
>> No it is not L. The GDI are the video drivers and there is really no
>> sense at all in putting them in the kernel, except to make the system
>> appear faster. OS/2 and Unix do not have the GDI in the kernel.
>> Also, you are confusing the GDI with the GUI, and they are 2 separate
>> things.
The kill-filed author might want to look up in this thread, to the
message I replied to, to which this subthread belongs.
>> > My question is, that why on EARTH does the GUI have
>> > to be integrated to the OS itself?
And think again about who is confusing things.
LShaping
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:41:21 -0600
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:29:14 -0700, "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Paul Kinnucan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I must throw in my vote for XEmacs/Emacs as well (XEmacs is just
>> prettier); although a programmer's editor is much like a choice of
>> underware: use what's comfortable for you, and avoid the ones that
>> rub you the wrong way.
>>
>So, you're recommending Brief?? It hasn't been available for awhile...
Brief's the best programmer's editor I ever used. Despite
compatability claims I've never found another editor that duplicates
Brief's intuitiveness. Too bad Borland bought it up and then forgot
about it.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Newbie Here
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:59:56 -0700
wolfhound wrote:
>
> Hello,people. I just installed Redhat 7.0 on my machine as dual boot.
> I got everything up just fine but I need alot of basics. ( See Linux.
> See Linux run. Run run Linux.) That type thing.
>
> Does anyone know of a source for Linux with training wheels?
You might try a few websites for starters.
www.linux.org
www.linuxmall.com
and try
www.bn.com
for books on Linux.... suggest also amazon.com as they have reviews on
books.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:08:22 -0700
Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anonymous
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
> >> >> is simpler
> >> >
> >> >i just wanted to see that again
> >> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >>
> >> There are advantages to the command line, but ease of learning
> >> is not among them (though it depends in part on the complexity
> >> thereof, the design of the GUI, and to a large part on the
> >> documentation available using 'man' or 'info').
> >>
> >> A well-designed GUI can be very easy, especially if it has common
> >> elements; this is what makes Windows so powerful. (Mac OS, too,
> >> as it turns out, although the details are different, and, to
> >> a slightly lesser extent, widget sets on X; the main problem there
> >> is cut and paste, and resize feedback.)
> >>
> >> Everyone understands:
> >>
> >> - moving the mouse pointer
> >> - clicking, dragging, and dropping
> >> - double-clicking, dragging, and dropping icons
> >> - folder icons as directories, document icons as files
> >> - top-mounted window pulldown menus
> >> - keyboard shortcuts
> >> - buttons with balloon help
> >> - text entry controls, both multiline and single-line
> >> - Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
> >> - scrollbars
> >> - scrolling lists (both horizontal and vertical)
> >> - drop down comboboxes (which are actually a combination of button,
> >> menu, and list)
> >>
> >> Windows does have advantages. However, MS may be frittering
> >> away some of them; the latest Windows appear to have movable
> >> menubars. What use is that? Detach a menubar from the window,
> >> and it becomes a floating menubar -- um, now what app did
> >> that floating menubar correspond to?! (Netscape and GTK have
> >> the same capability, so it's not limited to Windows.)
> >>
> >> And then there's the famous gorgeously slow disappearing and
> >> scrolling out menus. Waste of CPU cycles, IMO. What's
> >> next, rapidly rotating dialog boxes a la old filmreels and cartoons? :-)
> >> At least balloon help serves a purpose, especially since some of
> >> those icons aren't exactly intuitive. Even pulldown menus
> >> are an aid to documentation; they show the capabilities of the
> >> program -- which makes the "hide less recently used" option
> >> on pulldown menus in Windows a bit puzzling. Then again,
> >> one can make a case either way.
> >>
> >> The horizontal scrolling file requester is an abomination, but
> >> we're used to it now, even to the point of duplicating it,
> >> bodge for bodge, in the Wine project -- although that may
> >> be because I'm using it with Win95 and the Microsoft DLLs are
> >> setting that up.
> >>
> >> One other advantage with Windows -- IE has instantaneous refresh
> >> during resize; Netscape does not. This feedback is very helpful
> >> to the user who wants to see the web page just so, and may explain
> >> in part why IE is so popular in the first place.
> >>
> >
> >I just tried it under Netscape... works great.
> Not sure what version you're using, but under 4.76 Netscape actually
> reloads the page from the network whenever you resize the window; this bug
> has been in since the early days and they've never wanted/been able to fix
> it. If you have a way of fixing it.... ?
>
> Richard
Thats odd... is it in the preferences? I have smart browsing set to
load after first use. History is set to 9 days. I'm using 4.7
currently. Still waiting for Sun to respond about 4.76 installation
errors on their part.
I tried it one more time and I notice that the current web page comes
from disk, not the web. It's so fast I don't notice it.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
