Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 05:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (GreyCloud)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:57:23 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> >> And they're in the majority, are they?
> >
> > Sounds like you're suggesting "majority rules" as the
> > best way of making technical decisions.
> >
> > Fascinating.
> >
> > Let's get one thing straight. The power users use
> > supercomputers, not pissy little Intel boxes. And
> > the supercomputers don't run Windows. Maybe some
> > run Linux, but more likely some proprietary version
> > of UNIX.
>
> Yet these pissy little Intel boxes together in their millions makes a
> machine that is ten times bigger than the biggest supercomputer (except for
> IBM's one).
>
> --
> Pete
You should substitute "pissy little Intel boxes" with "PeeCees". It's
shorter!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 00:59:36 -0700
Snaggler wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 19:21:39 GMT, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> >>> For anyone who wants stoneage computing maybe.
> >>
> >> Or a great compiler, superior networking, reliability,
> >> and much better security. Or a heritage of modular
> >> tools to which Microsoft can only aspire to.
> >
> >Superior networking? Ah yes, that makes sense. Linux can't handle two
> >network cards and DHCP on my machine.
> >
> >As for a heritage of tools... tried Delphi or Kylix yet? Oh, they're not
> >Microsoft tools by the way.
> Works on my server perfectly fine. You don't know how to configure it
> and haven't bothered to research the subject. Where, by the way, did
> TCP/IP stem from? Answer: the UNIX world. Another question: where did
> the IOS on Cisco's networking products come from? Answer: the UNIX
> world. Microsoft would still be using Netbeui if it weren't for their
> piss-poor implementation of TCP/IP.
Pete probably means "Linux install can't do it for me automatically".
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:07:35 -0700
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
> > It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
> > copper wire.
>
> Radio waves are light. The speed of light, including radio waves,
> varies depending on the medium. However, usually when one refers to the
> speed of light without specifying the medium, the speed of light in a
> vacuum is assumed. The speed of radio waves in a vacuum is the same as
> light. Perhaps the the 88% of c is the speed of radio waves in the
> earth's atmosphere. However, since interstellor space is very close to
> a vacuum, the speed of radio waves coming from a distant star would be
> traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum (until, of
> course, it hits the earth's atmosphere).
>
> Gary
Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
88%.
The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
gravitational disturbances.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:08:28 -0700
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gary Hallock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
> >> It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
> >> copper wire.
> >
> > Radio waves are light. The speed of light, including radio waves,
> > varies depending on the medium. However, usually when one refers to the
> > speed of light without specifying the medium, the speed of light in a
> > vacuum is assumed. The speed of radio waves in a vacuum is the same as
> > light. Perhaps the the 88% of c is the speed of radio waves in the
> > earth's atmosphere. However, since interstellor space is very close to
> > a vacuum, the speed of radio waves coming from a distant star would be
> > traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum (until, of
> > course, it hits the earth's atmosphere).
> >
> > Gary
>
> You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
> at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
> well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
> originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple Newtonian
> physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly right,
> but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
>
> Mart
>
> --
> Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
> Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
> For that icy feel when you start to swerve
>
> John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
You are very correct in this! Very astute thinking!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:10:16 -0700
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> On Sat 19 May 2001 05:03, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >
> > You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
> > at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
> > well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
> > originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple Newtonian
> > physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly right,
> > but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
> >
> > Mart
> >
>
> Individual photons always travel exactly at c, no matter what medium they
> are traversing. However, in a non-vacuum medium, the photons will be
> constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons of atoms that lie in
> their path. This process slows the collective wave of light down. Of
> course, this is just the common sense explanation and doesn't really touch
> on quantum physics.
>
> --
> Chronos Tachyon
> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
Possibly... but in a nuclear reactor there is a phenomena known as the
"Blue Light" effect. The gov. has concluded that the blue light are
photons travelling faster than the speed of light... sort of a doppler
effect.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:12:25 -0700
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:51:47 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
> >Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
> >> at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
> >> well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
> >> originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple Newtonian
> >> physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly right,
> >> but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
> >
> >Yep, deceptively logical. Of course, it is also deceptively logical,
> >using Newtonian physics, that If you shine a flashlight in front of you
> >and travel at near the speed of light that the light from the flashlight
> >will travel at 2xc. But experiment shows otherwise. Which is what
> >caused the upheaval in physics near the turn of the 20th century and led
> >to the theory of relativity.
> >
>
> It's been 20 years since I did VHF design, but I think .88c is the
> speed of radio waves in a coaxial cable.
Yes, it is true. So many times I had to correct many a network engineer
on this mistake. The bottom line... if an electron were to travel at
the speed of light that electrons' size would be infinite!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:13:41 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gary Hallock"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
> > >> It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
> > >> copper wire.
> > >
> > > Radio waves are light. The speed of light, including radio waves,
> > > varies depending on the medium. However, usually when one refers to the
> > > speed of light without specifying the medium, the speed of light in a
> > > vacuum is assumed. The speed of radio waves in a vacuum is the same as
> > > light. Perhaps the the 88% of c is the speed of radio waves in the
> > > earth's atmosphere. However, since interstellor space is very close to
> > > a vacuum, the speed of radio waves coming from a distant star would be
> > > traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum (until, of
> > > course, it hits the earth's atmosphere).
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
> > at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
> > well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
> > originate from a planetary surface).
>
> That is not true.
> First, C (speed of light in vacuum) is the top limit of speed.
> The speed of light in any medium is a different matter, there has been
> experiments where "Light stopped on its tracks".
> I suggest that you would ask in rec.arts.sf.science, should be able to get a
> more coherent answer. My physics are in a different language, and probably
> in another measurement scale as well, so I don't think that I'll be able to
> explain well.
>
> >I am applying simple Newtonian
> > physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly right,
> > but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
>
> No, Newtonian physics don't apply here.
Incorrect! The Bureau of Standards has already determined this!
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:16:08 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95EN6.1191$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e6r4u$3ul$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:1%yN6.917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > I don't think you've looked at PostgreSQL recently. It is too bad
> that
> > > MS and other commercial DB vendors prohibit publishing benchmarks
> > > that they don't control or you would probably know how well it
compares.
> >
> > Do you've any idea how *easy* it is to cheat in such a benchmark?
> > Twist one parameter, see how performance drop.
>
> Of course. That's why the vendors insist that they are the only
> ones allowed to do the cheating. However, what the customers
> want to know is how it will work when they run it themselves.
I think that you can download (for free) all major commercial DBs and try
them.
I know that you can do that with Oralce, MS-SQL & DB2.
Nothing prevents you from comparing them, only from publishing the results.
> > The only way you could have anything close to a fair benchmark is when
> each
> > DB company sumbit their highest results.
> > Something like TPC does.
>
> The TPC was really designed for commercial vendors and has requirements
> that are unfair to free programs.
What are those requirements?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:19:03 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Again, that is now how you would do it in Windows.
> > The usual thing to do is to register an extention and put the
> > \path\to\interpreter args_to_interpreter as the openner of this file.
>
> I have Perl for windows too as well as for Sun. Under windows the
> #!/bin/sh/perl line isn't needed... the file extension of .pl is all
> that is needed. However, the Perl binary needs to be in the execution
> path. Not much difference.
No, it doesn't need to be on the execution path, only if you do stuff like:
perl hello.pl
from the command line.
If you registered .pl files correctly, you could do this:
hello.pl, and it will run the perl's binary on its own.
I can post an explanation on how to do this, if you are interested.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:15:43 -0700
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> >
> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> > than the speed of light. And if the radio waves are coming from many
> > million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would be
> > receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they advertise
> > they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block of
> > data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
> > entirely something else?
> >
> >
> All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed of
> light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end will
> therefore never be slower than light.
>
False, the National Bureau of Standards has already conceded this.
Even NASA has to correct for timing in transmissions to its far roving
probes.
Electromagnetic waves are slower than light.... very much slower.
> That aside, the goal of SETI is not to get the latest news from Alpha
> Centauri B/3, but to get proof that intelligent life developed on another
> planet.
>
> I don't know the details of the SETI project, but I assume they are looking
> for patterns in radio waves that would indicate that those emissions have
> an artificial rather than a natural source. Since we obviously receive
> quite a lot of radio transmissions from interstellar space (just about
> _anything_ that is warmer than 0K emits electromagnetic waves), that would
> be where the SETI@home crowd comes in.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Karel Jansens
> ===============================================================
> Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
> with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
>
> Oh, wait...
> ===============================================================
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:53:17 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vdFN6.1209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dhtmb$ddf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > You don't have to upgrade. And under windows upgrading is a waste of
> > > money. Very little improvements in upgrading windows compared to
> > > upgrading under RedHat or Others. Win2K would be a different
matter...
> > > XP I don't know about because I can't install it on my current
hardware
> > > anyway.. with Linux I can. Most of the improvements under linux is
the
> > > move to 2.4.x. Others are related to a faster X-server. And the rest
is
> > > whatever someone has contributed. The contribs are interesting to
> > > explore... But the real big thing is that the cost is lower for the
> > > average user than windows. Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K
going
> > > for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was
> > > around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows
compilers
> > > if you want one.
> >
> > lcc is a free windows compiler.
> > There are a couple of others.
> >
> > I don't think that there is much free Unix/Linux software that doesn't
> have
> > a free equilent on Windows.
>
> Yes, but with Windows you have to make the choice between running
> threaded programs for usable speed or separate processes with
> memory protection for stability.
Considering that Apache 2 has been re-wrote to use threads...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 09:56:17 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fTEN6.1201$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e6sbv$568$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:HdAN6.935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > There is that MS commercial on TV about servers that haven't been
> > > touched in 'days' as though that should be a surprisingly long time.
> > > Real OS's run for years without any attention. And they don't
> > > pop up dialog boxes and stop and wait like IIS 5.0 does when
> > > an error occurs.
> >
> > What is this pop-up dialog? What does it says? Who originate it?
>
> It is usually one of those 'Cannot read memory at 0x....' with a
meaningless
> address that are typical of dll errors or thread conflicts. I think
> the usual window title is 'inetinfo.exe' but sometimes it has been
> something else. In all cases, IIS is not answering even though the
> service is set to restart on errors, 'iisreset /restart'
> will claim to work but actually fail whether done remotely or
> locally. You have to actually mouse-click the 'OK' button (and
> it generally reappears 6 or 7 times) or IIS just won't talk
> again. Fortunately, you can use VNC to mouse-click remotely
> (the servers are at a colo site). Unfortunately, if you try to reboot
> with the process hung like that, the shutdown process will disconnect
> VNC before it pops up the dialog about 'program is not responding'
> and waiting for another mouse-click. Great design there...
>
> Trying to run the msxml3.dll in a separate process makes things
> even worse. The xml process hangs more or less the same way
> but then IIS keeps accepting requests so the load balancer doesn't
> notice it is broken, but any pages that need xml are never delivered.
Okay, did you try asking what is wrong in non-advocacy group?
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:17:52 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> > than the speed of light. And if the radio waves are coming from many
> > million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would be
> > receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they advertise
> > they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block of
> > data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
> > entirely something else?
>
> Fair enough. The search for extra terrestrials is either a waste of time or
> valid research. I don't know which. I thought it was a valid comparison.
>
> The Intel one is for Cancer research. I assume you don't think that one is
> farce?
>
> --
> Pete
You are comparing two dissimilar research projects. Cancer research is
a noble research project. Looking for alien life that is sentient is a
waste of time. Really, all it will prove that some alien life HAD
existed many millions of years in the past... these aliens are not
accessible!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:23:08 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> > than the speed of light. And if the radio waves are coming from many
> > million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would be
> > receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they advertise
> > they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block of
> > data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
> > entirely something else?
>
> Bah!
> Get some lessons in physics first.
> Radio waves and light are the same thing!
> They travel at the speed of light, and unless some funky think happen, that
> is the fastest thing around.
> Yes, if it reached from any decent distance, then it's old news *where it
> happened*, not here. Time isn't constant, it's flexible.
I did. Time is flexible! Radio waves and light are not the same! There
is a lag and an inherent inertia to radio waves. Academics are not in
touch with the current state of the art. My education was from the very
best in there fields. I also was very lucky to get my education from a
nobel prize physicist! His name is Rodger Packett! He was contracted
to the U.S. gov. to teach to DOD specific candidates.
Most academic physics classes ... well, what can I say?? OLD??
I worked with what I was told to work with.
I heard that Gallileo had the same problems.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:27:10 -0700
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 22:20:39 +1200, "Matthew Gardiner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why even have a registry? by now, with all the money Microsoft has made,
> >they should have already shipped the first, self repairing OS, that repairs
> >the code when the OS crashes, thus ensuring it doesn't happen again. Or,
> >when a file is screwed, it is automatically mended without user
> >intervention. File systems that are immune to fragmentation, corruption,
> >and other problems. Yet, 15 years, and several billion dollars later, the
> >mecca of computing has not been delivered.
>
> You won't get any argument from me. IMO Microsoft has set the computer
> revolution back 10-15 years. With all their money and resources and
> all the years they've been in the OS business, there's really no
> excuse for Windows' continuing problems.
How true! Back in the early 80's I was expecting a multi-tasking O/S.
The closest one could get for a low price was O/S-9 on a COCO.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:24:02 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > DirectX, registry, COM (I know that Solaris has it, how can it compare
to
> > Windows' COM?), DCOM, COM+ (This is equilent to J2EE system + Solaris.
How
> > many KLOC does WebSphere has?).
> > Just a couple of things of the top of my head.
>
> Solaris does not have a registry. COM is in there albeit in a different
> way. DirectX isn't in there. I suspect that directX is another word
> for direct ACCESS to the video hardware.
No, it isn't.
DirectX is an abstraction layer from the hardware. It allows you to write
games without needing to write to a spesific hardware.
It can emulate missing hardware if needed, too.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:26:36 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > No, Newtonian physics don't apply here.
>
> Incorrect! The Bureau of Standards has already determined this!
Newtonian physics applies to mid-size objects, and even then it fail (Mars,
anyone?) sometimes.
For the very large, you need relativety, for the very small, you need
quantom mechanics.
To understand why light move slower than C on a medium, you need to
understand the very small.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:27:17 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
> > > It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
> > > copper wire.
> >
> > Radio waves are light. The speed of light, including radio waves,
> > varies depending on the medium. However, usually when one refers to the
> > speed of light without specifying the medium, the speed of light in a
> > vacuum is assumed. The speed of radio waves in a vacuum is the same as
> > light. Perhaps the the 88% of c is the speed of radio waves in the
> > earth's atmosphere. However, since interstellor space is very close to
> > a vacuum, the speed of radio waves coming from a distant star would be
> > traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum (until, of
> > course, it hits the earth's atmosphere).
> >
> > Gary
>
> Radio waves are not light! Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> 88%.
> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
>
> But this is all irrelavant. Even if the speed of light were 1000 faster
> than what we know... the million light years of distance and time of a
> signal, let alone the attenuation of the inverse square of the distance
> would render any signal unreadable, let alone detectable.
>
> Interstellar space is full of energies... and full of unseen
> gravitational disturbances.
Where do you pull this stuff from?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
