Linux-Advocacy Digest #602, Volume #33 Sat, 14 Apr 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windoze is dying.... ("Todd")
Re: Something cool in gcc (mlw)
Re: Something cool in gcc (mlw)
Re: Something cool in gcc (mlw)
Re: Linux.org, gnome.org and linux.com (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Nigel Feltham)
Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer. (mlw)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (jack horsfield)
Re: Impact of Internet (Ian Kemmish)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Nomen Nescio)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze is dying....
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:14:41 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/13/1236215&mode=thread
>
> Well, well, well. It seems the almighty Redmond Empire can't get
> its Xbox out on time.
Did you bother reading the article?? There was *nothing* from any official
sources (not even unofficial for that matter) that claimed XBOX would be
late.
Here is a quote from the article:
"As with most rumors, there is little hard evidence backing up the theory
that Microsoft will miss it's fall launch, and Microsoft itself has said
that the Xbox is right on schedule if not slightly ahead of production
goals. "
> Guess Windoze must be dying.
Dream on.
-Todd
>
>
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray
Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:19:15 -0400
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> Or it was actually compiled as C code and gcc is trying to support C99
> features. Note the OP said "C/C++" - some mythical language nobody's ever
> heard of - but it sure as hell _looks_ like C code, not C++ code.
It amazes me that people draw such a distinction between C++ from C.
function(char *str)
{
printf("%s\n", str);
}
The above function is perfectly valid C++ code. It is also perfectly valid C
code.
typedef struct _stuff
{
int a;
int b;
char datum[1];
}STUFF, *PSTUFF;
The above structure definition is perfectly valid in C and C++.
Aside from some very obscure differences, C++ is a superset of C. So the
statement, saying "C/C++" is perfectly valid when discussing features common to
both. One would not use "C/C++" when discussing classes.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:21:07 -0400
Bob Tennent wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:56:51 -0400, mlw wrote:
> >> > 4 void function(char *str1, char *str2)
> >> > 5 {
> >> > 6 int cb = strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+1;
> >> > 7 char str[cb];
> >> >
> >> >It isn't standard C/C++ but it could certainly save a malloc or two here and
> >> >there.
> >>
> >, the neat feature was the ability to create an
> >automatic variable based on another automatic variable. It is NOT standard.
>
> Dynamic arrays have been around since Algol 60. I believe that the new
> C standard now in the works includes this feature.
Being an assembly hacker, I knew it could be done, I am now pleased that it can
be done.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 07:24:20 -0400
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > why it isn't standard c++?
>
> Several reasons:
>
> > > 1 #include <unistd.h>
> > > 2 #include <string.h>
> > > 3 #include <stdio.h>
>
> Not a one of those is a standard C++ header, and only two of them are
> standard C headers. (Before someone goes weenie about "My compiler supports
> those!" the standard headers are <cstring> (for C-style strings; use
> <string> for C++-style strings) and <cstdio> - the unistd.h thing is totally
> non-standard.)
The example code was just a hack. The headers are not important. Jeez.
>
> > > 6 int cb = strlen(str1)+strlen(str2)+1;
> > > 7 char str[cb];
>
> Using a non-constant for an array size like that is neither C89/90 nor C++
> compliant; it is, however, available in C99.
Yes, the point being made (or trying to be made) is that this feature of GCC is
cool. It can be used properly by surrounding it with an "#ifdef / #endif" or a
macro.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux.org, gnome.org and linux.com
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:24:36 +1200
Nope, its the fucking fisherman constantly cutting the bloody cable.
Example of this stupidity was experienced a few months ago, which bought
the international connectivity in Aussie and Asia to a crawl. A company
currently laying what it calls, "the ring of fire", which will be a
fibre optic, intellegent network that will provide realible access to
the internet for local ISP's.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:44:01 +1200
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Since there is no junior-high-designed "registry" to get corrupted,
> > there is ZERO need to shut down other programs to install a new app.
>
> Umm... the registry is not the reason apps require reboots. Generally
> speaking, there are three reasons an install wants to reboot:
>
> 1) It has attempted to update a locked file, such as a system file.
> 2) It has installed something expected to run during the startup phase of
> operations
> 3) It is installing a service (not in the NT sense, but in the sense of a
> background application or library) which needs to be launched in order to
> work
>
> One might suggest that in the case of #3, a better approach could be used.
> I agree. In the cases of #2 and #1, I'm not sure how, given such an
> application being installed, Linux would handle this any better; how exactly
> does Linux handle live patching of the kernel, for example, without
> rebooting?
>
Just in regards to:
1. Linux has most, if not all libraries installed required for most
software, however, when more libraries need to be installed, no reboot
is required. Under O/S 2 Warp 4, you had to reboot after applying a
service pack (because it included low-level drivers, kernel updates
etc), however, in an application sense, it should not be required.
2. Can be started then and there. Just like if I want to add support for
a USB Zip drive, I simply drop into shell and type: insmod usb-storage,
and voila, instant access to my hardware. I have installed Solaris
patches and the only time you need to reboot is when the kernel has been
updated, however, it is not forced, unlike Microsoft Windows.
3. Services, yet another thing that can be started on the fly. For
example, I could start up Apache without needing to reboot. I could
start Squid proxy with out a reboot.
What I am pointing out is that, if you take a kernel upgrade out of the
equation, a OS should never need to be rebooted, and hopefully once
hot-plug PCI becomes more mainstream, even needing to shut down the
computer to install hardware will become a thing of the past.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:01:57 +0100
> 1) It has attempted to update a locked file, such as a system file.
> 2) It has installed something expected to run during the startup phase of
> operations
> 3) It is installing a service (not in the NT sense, but in the sense of a
> background application or library) which needs to be launched in order to
> work
>
> One might suggest that in the case of #3, a better approach could be used.
> I agree. In the cases of #2 and #1, I'm not sure how, given such an
> application being installed, Linux would handle this any better; how
> exactly does Linux handle live patching of the kernel, for example,
> without rebooting?
>
Case #1: It is very rare for any application install under linux to need to
replace a system file - if it does need a newer system file it usually adds
another version (different versions have different filenames) then changes
standard symbolic link (with no version num in name) to point to new
version - any apps still running can continue to run with existing system
file until they need to restart and then they use new version.
Case #2: The only reason any app install needs to reboot the machine is
because it needs to load something before a specific system service starts
- why can't it just stop the service, load it's code then restart the
service or are MS programmers too stupid to think of this?
As for kernel patches, many parts which may need patching are installed as
loadable modules - just unload module and load patched version. Other
kernel patches do need a reboot but this is like patching code inside
windows KERNEL32.DLL - how many windows users can do this even if they
wanted to? Why quote something which linux users can do but windows users
can't as an example of a need to reboot the system or were you desparate to
find one of the few instances where Linux needs rebooting as there are so
few of them?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A mentality problem of linux programmer.
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 08:01:09 -0400
JLI wrote:
>
> When someone complained in this group that something is too
> difficult to do in Unix, the answer is mostly like "you are too dump",
> or "this guy is paid by Microsoft". This indicates a foundament
> mentality problem of linux programmer. Here is another example
> I encountered recently in our company.
This is not true, while it can't be said it doesn't happen, occasionally people
come up with what seem to be manufactured scenarios which if someone had the
ability to discover, one would presume they could figure it out.
Take the notion of upgrading "KDE" on your machine. rpm is not easy to use, but
it is efficient. If one says I upgraded kde with the RPM files and got no
errors and now it doesn't work. He is obviously making it up, because there are
always conflicts when upgrading KDE with RPMs.
>
> We have just finished a commercial product (a C/C++ SDK) and the
> setup procedure went through quite smoothly. The only thing we don't
> like is that you have to set two or three environment variables
> manually after the setup procedure. So we asked our unix programmer
> whether we can set the environment variables automatically during the
> setup procedure. The answer we got is "if someone doesn't know how
> to set an environment variable on unix, he should not program on
> unix, do they?". I didn't respond directly, but my response would be "if we
> don't know or want to do such simple work for our client, we should not
> sell software, do we?".
That depends on what you think a programmer should/could do. One of my old
computer science teachers used to take us to task if we did not understand our
platform. We had better understand how and why it works the way it does.
These days, people try to cheapen knowledge, as if understanding what you are
doing and how the platform works is now not important or even obsolete. An
environment variable is the simplest part of it. Even Oracle DBAs need to be
able to set environment variables.
You can just create a couple scripts which a developer can run which will set
the environment, or at least show an example.
>
> Many Linux programmers are hoppyiest not professionals. They program
> for themself and for fun. There is nothing wrong with that. But if you
> want to do business with software, that won't work.
This opinion is almost completely false. There are some hobbyists, just as
there are for Windows, but for the most part Linux developers are professional
developers.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:01:39 +1200
Well, KDE was the first GUI I used when I got Redhat 5.2 and I have
stuck with it for the mear fact that it is stable, reliable, fast and
has a good track record. Say what you want about KDE, but when it is
configured correctly, like how SuSE has done in their latest release, it
is a great GUI, esp for newbies and oldbies (like me :) ).
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1 Pro w/ Kernel 2.4.2
SuSE, the best of German engineering, now in software form :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jack horsfield)
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,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: 14 Apr 2001 11:59:36 GMT
>EMACS is a monster. It takes over 20 MB memory and starts very
>slowly (>10sec).
>It tries to do everything, but is short at most thing. I know many
>people love
>it after they have mastered it, but it takes time.
>Most modern software packages have nowdays their own IDEs which
>are mostly more appropriate choices as primary tool.
>
gosh, does it really. i use a completely different emacs:
http://www.scottb.demon.co.uk/emacs/emacs7.html
and for a bit of history:
http://www.finseth.com/~fin/emacs.html#20
it uses nothing like 20MB and starts up very quickly.
futher, it defaults to a (no flames please) Windows key map. so ^X ^C
^V do the Windows stuff. but you can, of course, turn that off.
jack
This is a REPEATABLE error situation
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Impact of Internet
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Kemmish)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:11:05 GMT
In article <9b8m9s$2bi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In particular, how should the value of the web be analyzed in terms of
>technology, societal impact, etc.?
I get accosted by criminals addressing me as `friend' ten times a day. That
never used to happen.
My credit card number popped up on a generator site, and it took months to sort
out the mess and get my money back.
I can order computer parts via Internet and it's nearly as fast as ordering
them by fax used to be.
Can't think of much else, though;-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +44 1767 601 361
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:30:05 +0200 (CEST)
aaron wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> > aaron wrote:
> > > Chad Everett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 13 Apr 2001 21:21:02 -0500, Michel Catudal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >"pete_answers@x" a �crit :
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I really have no idea what people see in all these Unix variations
> > > > >> of operating systems. They are good for servers, in the back room
> > > > >> for geek to use. The rest of the world uses windows becuase it juts
> > > > >> works!
> > > > >
> > > > >At work a collegue just got himself a new PC to replace the his old one after
>the last
> > > > >crash (from about 3.5 feet). Pentium IV running at 1.3GHz. He tried to install
> > > > >Star Office forgetting that Office 2000 and Visio were running in the
>background.
> > > > >A page fault on the install occured. He then closed the offending programs,
>one of them
> > > > >had to be flushed with the ctrl alt del command. After the programs all
>closed he
> > > > >proceeded on installing Star Office which succeeded.
> > > > >He then rebooted the PC and the message "no operating system present" appears.
> > > > >I boot on a windblows 98 diskette and the drive seems there. I run partition
>magic
> > > > >and the partition is still active. It seemed that Windblows 98 committed
>suicide.
> > > > >It's boot was shot. The recovery was to put a recovery CD in the drive and
>reinstall
> > > > >winblows. The PC was bought last week.
> > > > >
> > > > >And you say : "It just works" with a straight face.
> > > > >
> > > > >Ya been sniffing flour?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is easily explained by the fact that the guy had the audacity to install
> > > > a non-Microsoft office package. Everyone knows Microsoft software is
> > > > specifically designed to self destruct when confronted by a traitor user.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to see that again.
> >
> > the real reason is right in there - the idiot ignored the message you get
> > with every installer telling you to shut down all other programs before
> > continuing with the install.
>
> What part of LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS do you not understand?
when did i ever say it was?
> REAL operating systems don't make such ludicrous demands.
next you'll be telling me my newsreader is broken.
> > if you think that guy would have got any further with linux you're living
> > in a fucking fantasy world.
>
> Jackie just proved that he doesn't know fuck about Unix/Linux.
no, you just proved your reading comprehension approaches the chaney
threshold.
> Since there is no junior-high-designed "registry" to get corrupted,
> there is ZERO need to shut down other programs to install a new app.
yes, and?
> On REAL operating systems, you can have 500 programs (or thousands, even),
> and install a new app....WITH NO FEAR of anything bad happening.
what does that have to do with my point?
> Hope that helps, jackie
i never claimed the guy would have the same problem installing a program
using linux, i said he would get no further if he had linux.
since you insist on being a retard i shall spell it out for you:
a person who cannot follow simple instructions like 'shut down all other
applications and click ok to continue' presented in large friendly letters
will have no better luck dealing with a hobbyist/sysadmin oriented os
whose documentation is more akin to war and peace than dick and jane.
hth
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 14:50:01 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Since there is no junior-high-designed "registry" to get corrupted,
> > > there is ZERO need to shut down other programs to install a new app.
> >
> > Umm... the registry is not the reason apps require reboots. Generally
> > speaking, there are three reasons an install wants to reboot:
> >
> > 1) It has attempted to update a locked file, such as a system file.
> > 2) It has installed something expected to run during the startup phase
of
> > operations
> > 3) It is installing a service (not in the NT sense, but in the sense of
a
> > background application or library) which needs to be launched in order
to
> > work
> >
> > One might suggest that in the case of #3, a better approach could be
used.
> > I agree. In the cases of #2 and #1, I'm not sure how, given such an
> > application being installed, Linux would handle this any better; how
exactly
> > does Linux handle live patching of the kernel, for example, without
> > rebooting?
> >
> Just in regards to:
>
> 1. Linux has most, if not all libraries installed required for most
> software, however, when more libraries need to be installed, no reboot
> is required. Under O/S 2 Warp 4, you had to reboot after applying a
> service pack (because it included low-level drivers, kernel updates
> etc), however, in an application sense, it should not be required.
What about needing to update those libraries?
> 2. Can be started then and there. Just like if I want to add support for
> a USB Zip drive, I simply drop into shell and type: insmod usb-storage,
> and voila, instant access to my hardware. I have installed Solaris
> patches and the only time you need to reboot is when the kernel has been
> updated, however, it is not forced, unlike Microsoft Windows.
I don't think he meant this, there are several stuff that *need* reboot,
because they can't be done when the computer is running.
Converting the FS type of the system partition, or making changes to it,
frex.
I don't think that you can do that in linux without reboot either.
> 3. Services, yet another thing that can be started on the fly. For
> example, I could start up Apache without needing to reboot. I could
> start Squid proxy with out a reboot.
Dito for NT. There is nothing to prevent you from starting & shutting down
services whenever you like it.
>
> What I am pointing out is that, if you take a kernel upgrade out of the
> equation, a OS should never need to be rebooted, and hopefully once
> hot-plug PCI becomes more mainstream, even needing to shut down the
> computer to install hardware will become a thing of the past.
I fully agree.
Something to point out, though. Ninety nine precent of the applications that
want reboot, don't need it. It's something that had been there because of
9x. And I certnaily close none of my applications to install new ones.
(Well, I log in as another user via TS, but that is another matter.)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 12:36:10 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> Case #2: The only reason any app install needs to reboot the machine is
> because it needs to load something before a specific system service starts
> - why can't it just stop the service, load it's code then restart the
> service or are MS programmers too stupid to think of this?
I imagine there are many extremely intelligent people at Microsoft,
probably many that are more intelligent than anyone writing to this
news list, for example. However, it takes just one dumbass, with the
implicit consent of management, to promulgate some incredibly stupid
technical decisions. (I worked on a project where the technical lead
was learning C++ by coding for the project. It took years for him to
fuck himself out of the project.)
Chris
--
This application has crashed unexpectedly.
Hit OK to terminate, or Cancel to debug it.
Doh!
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:39:09 +1200
I updated my glibc from 2.1 to 2.2 and did not require a reboot.
Matthew Gardiner
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > >
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Since there is no junior-high-designed "registry" to get corrupted,
> > > > there is ZERO need to shut down other programs to install a new app.
> > >
> > > Umm... the registry is not the reason apps require reboots. Generally
> > > speaking, there are three reasons an install wants to reboot:
> > >
> > > 1) It has attempted to update a locked file, such as a system file.
> > > 2) It has installed something expected to run during the startup phase
> of
> > > operations
> > > 3) It is installing a service (not in the NT sense, but in the sense of
> a
> > > background application or library) which needs to be launched in order
> to
> > > work
> > >
> > > One might suggest that in the case of #3, a better approach could be
> used.
> > > I agree. In the cases of #2 and #1, I'm not sure how, given such an
> > > application being installed, Linux would handle this any better; how
> exactly
> > > does Linux handle live patching of the kernel, for example, without
> > > rebooting?
> > >
> > Just in regards to:
> >
> > 1. Linux has most, if not all libraries installed required for most
> > software, however, when more libraries need to be installed, no reboot
> > is required. Under O/S 2 Warp 4, you had to reboot after applying a
> > service pack (because it included low-level drivers, kernel updates
> > etc), however, in an application sense, it should not be required.
>
> What about needing to update those libraries?
>
> > 2. Can be started then and there. Just like if I want to add support for
> > a USB Zip drive, I simply drop into shell and type: insmod usb-storage,
> > and voila, instant access to my hardware. I have installed Solaris
> > patches and the only time you need to reboot is when the kernel has been
> > updated, however, it is not forced, unlike Microsoft Windows.
>
> I don't think he meant this, there are several stuff that *need* reboot,
> because they can't be done when the computer is running.
> Converting the FS type of the system partition, or making changes to it,
> frex.
> I don't think that you can do that in linux without reboot either.
>
> > 3. Services, yet another thing that can be started on the fly. For
> > example, I could start up Apache without needing to reboot. I could
> > start Squid proxy with out a reboot.
>
> Dito for NT. There is nothing to prevent you from starting & shutting down
> services whenever you like it.
>
> >
> > What I am pointing out is that, if you take a kernel upgrade out of the
> > equation, a OS should never need to be rebooted, and hopefully once
> > hot-plug PCI becomes more mainstream, even needing to shut down the
> > computer to install hardware will become a thing of the past.
>
> I fully agree.
> Something to point out, though. Ninety nine precent of the applications that
> want reboot, don't need it. It's something that had been there because of
> 9x. And I certnaily close none of my applications to install new ones.
> (Well, I log in as another user via TS, but that is another matter.)
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1 Pro w/ Kernel 2.4.2
SuSE, the best of German engineering, now in software form :)
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 00:41:48 +1200
Here is my little theory on the economic downturn.
For the last 10 years the US has enjoyed excellent growth. However,
this growth has been mainly fueled by internal demand. Consumers have
now larger debts, consumers also are donot have the great demand for
goods are there was 10 years ago. Now that demand has decreased,
companies must export there goods overseas to maintain their growth
targets. However, no one wants to buy US made goods overseas because
they are too expensive due to the high dollar and as a result, many of
these companies can't sell there goods overseas in a sufficient number
thus, the lower profits forcasts.
The two things that need to happen, first, drastically devalue the
dollar to increase returns to US companies when exporting, thus fueling
growth and more jobs. Second, maintain the official cash rate at around
5.5% With those two in place, the end result should be a robust, export
lead recovery ensuring that real growth is achieved that can be
maintained.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1 Pro w/ Kernel 2.4.2
SuSE, the best of German engineering, now in software form :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
