Linux-Advocacy Digest #478, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Jon)
"Think Different" mascots: why not Wendy Carlos? :) (WaD)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users (Mig Mig)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Stanislav Kogan)
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Stanislav Kogan)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Casper H.S. Dik -
Network Security Engineer)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Koan Kid)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Stanislav Kogan)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:41:25 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 19:53:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:52:16 GMT,
> Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> [2038]
> > > I am not sure that I care about this one, it is 37 years away. In 37
> > > years, 64 bit computers will be obsolete.
>
> > This is precisely the logic that *created* the Y2k problem.
>
> Yep, but it's not applicable ...
>
> > Thinking that the problem will go away by itself due to software
> > or hardware obsolesence is a huge mistake.
>
> How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
> *and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
2 that I've worked with personally. There are thousands of
others... witness the demand for Cobol programmers that occured
in 1999.
> Also the 2038-problem differs because it is Not There on 64bit
> machines with any semi-well written software (which uses the time
> struct). Thus, repair means just a recompile on a 64bit machine.
> Since you'll have to recompile anyway, there's no problem.
This assumes the hardware will be replaced. This is not always
true. Take XYZ Corp. who just invested $UmpteenMillion in their
new WhizBang5000 Unix-based computer system. There's a *very*
good chance that system will still be there in 2038, operating
all of XYZ Corp.'s critical accounting and MRP functions. Why
replace it? It cost a whole lotta cash and it still works just
fine. Beside that, how would XYZ explain to their investors that
they need to spend $UmpteenMillions times 2 to buy an all new
system, just because their old multimillion dollar machine can't
figure out what year it is?
Jon
------------------------------
From: WaD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Think Different" mascots: why not Wendy Carlos? :)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:42:56 GMT
I just wanted to point out that this legendary pioneer of synthesized
music is an *extremely* avid Mac user, and you can read about it on
her webpage, http://www.wendycarlos.com ... :)
-W
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:41:42 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:24:03 GMT, Michael Totschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
[deletia]
>>
>> > commercial ones have been developped for
>> >business settings for decades, open source word processing has concentrated
>> >on academic document preparation, and just starts to go in this direction,
>> >so wait for some years, and we will see.
>>
>> Well there you have it. Sure, we can wait and see. In the meantime, there
>> are those who need to use these applications now, and they don't have time
>> to wait. The nice thing about the copyright model of development and payment
>> is that it has served needs which OpenSource has not even come close to
>> addressing. My point is not that OpenSource developers will never write an
>> office suite. My point is that no one should be forced to wait until the
>> OpenSource model can cough up package (X) when another development model
>> can do it today.
>
>I agree with you that no one should be forced to wait for performing
>OpenSource programs, but I think every one should be encouraged to consider
>his reponsability when communicating data in closed formats to others, and to
>look for alternatives. And I believe that OpenSource projects will come up
>with programs, which permit high quality work in document preparation in
>academia and business, and implement this responsability.
Quite often, in practice, communications that seem to require
msoffice infact do not. However, it would not be in Microsoft's
(or Corel's either) best interests to make it simple and easy
for any old novice to be able to save and transfer their documents
in the lowest-common-denominator format.
Quite often, the full potential of things like msoffice are simply
wasted with the end result being a magnification of the msword
net effect. The customer pays more, oftentimes spending merely to
ensure their 'compatibility' with 'everyone else'. Business wastes
money, consumer choice is iterfered with and the possibility of
viable competition is lessened.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:43:17 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:52:16 GMT, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> > > a) Resolution of the 2038 problem. 2^31-1 seconds from Jan 1, 1970
>> > > happens to be in 2038. Stuff Will Break Then.
>> > >
>> > > This is the end-of-epoch that is the UNIX equivalent to the "Year 2000
>> > > cliff" that everyone worried last year about.
>>
>> I am not sure that I care about this one, it is 37 years away. In 37
>> years, 64 bit computers will be obsolete.
>
>This is precisely the logic that *created* the Y2k problem.
Not exactly. We have the abstract time_t type which can be widened and
code can be recompiled. Correctly written programs don't depend on the
specific representation of time_t. They use abstract functions for manipulating
it, such as difftime(), and use robust time representations for communicating
across a network or storing time into files.
Those programs have a Y2037 problem today which will go away when they are
recompiled.
On the other hand, the COBOL spewing mainframe nutbags, and other programmer
types, that used two digit fields created a problem by not *abstracting* time
related code. The two digit representation was explicitly woven into the
program logic. Recompiling the software doesn't help, because there is no
straightforward way to fix the time abstraction in one place.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 21:50:15 +0100
John Culleton wrote:
> In article <89k1ek$erv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This is nonsens.....
> >As long as you have the necessary data you can connect to
> anything with
> >Linux/FreeBSD/Whatever.
> >Find the necessary info on the CD if techsupport does not want
> to help you
> >- its certainly there
> >
> >Greetings
>
> Its not that simple. First you have to get online with the vendor
> from their software. Then you have to select a local phone number
> for access. Then you have to establish a user name and password.
> None of this info is on the cdrom as such. What you have is a few
> gifs and icons, MS Internet Explorer, and a setup.exe one can't
> execute without Win 9x.
Ahh... that puts it in another light...
OK l have an idea :-) I have seen this kind before.
My guess is that its probably a IE based onlineregistration where the CD
program makes a call to a certain phonenumber wiht a common username and
password that all must use in order to make a onlineregistration. After the
call IE takes over (you can use netscape or something else... maybe kfm
from KDE where you can fool the server that youre using IE)
So you just need 1) the phonenumber 2) The common username 3) The
common password.
The best you could do is to post a message in a forum that users if that
ISP frequent. A better idea is to have a friend with Windows to do the
registratiion for you wth your data.
Are you sure there there is only a setup.exe.? What about in the IE
directory?
My company made some access stuff just like that and the necessary usrname
and password could be found somewhere on the CD.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:52:31 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 20:40:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:45:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 2 Mar 2000 15:28:04 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>The main problem with Linux apps is that you either can't (easily) add new
>>>fonts, or it doesn't print the right fonts reliably. Try adding some TrueType
>>>fonts and get them to display and print with Ted. This is not a problem
>>>with each and every app, it's a problem with the way UNIX works.
>>
>> Actually this IS a problem with each and every app.
>
>No, it is not. You don't even understand the problem, yet you argue. This is
>the kind of thing that should be implemented only once, not once in every
>application, but once, period. The reason is that I only want to install fonts
>once, not once into every application.
Shared code is certainly preferable but not necessary.
It's not like we're talking about reimplementing OpenGL from
scratch here. Compared to the rest of the coding going on in
some of the larger everything-and-the-kitchen-sink apps, a
font print renderer is not such a huge burden.
>
>> As monsterous
>> as some apps are, a decent font rendering subsystem wouldn't be
>> that much more of a burden.
>
>It has nothing to do with "font rendering subsystems". It's about matching
>printer fonts to screen fonts. The main problem is that each application
>has to do its own X11 font <-> outline/metric file mapping. Having every
>application do this is hardly an acceptable answer.
Whynot? There are certain classes of applications, even on
Win32 or MacOS that constantly re-invent things that would
typically be considered bits of the core API.
>The users do not want to have to reinstall[1] all of their fonts every
>time they install a new application. One would hope for some kind of
>infrastructure to handle this sort of thing.
That's more an application issue. The font paths and the fonts
themselves are available to any application that cares to use
them.
>
>The font rendering issue is another problem in itself. Freetype renders
>fonts just fine, the problem is in X. But I don't feel like explaining it
>to you now.
So? Until you have a 300dpi or 1200dpi display, it's all going to
be just an approximation anyways. This is true even with the Win32
truetype renderer.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: 2 Mar 2000 21:08:48 GMT
In article <89micv$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As far as stability, on the x86, the only thing that
>> rivals Win2K's stability is *BSD. Linux is a joke
>> compared to it.
>
>You certianly do not have enough intelligence nor experience
>with linux to make this statement.
>
>p0ok
One thing he doesn't have enough of, to make any believable
statement about Linux, is honesty. He's been caught lying
about it hundreds of times, on behalf of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Stanislav Kogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:16:57 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reading between the lines you
> can read anything you want to.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> No? You're denying that "reading between the lines" is an entirely
> subjective interpretation?
In the modern world, reading between the lines is sometimes the only
source of reliable information. Good example is this artivle on MS site.
If you just read it and beleive it, then you don't get anything. Now if
you look between the lines then the article looks roughly like this:
Some people are saying that NT didn't work for Hotmail, it's a lie. NT
is the bes OS, and Microsoft is .... etc. If what they say is true, why
not give some objective information? why do they, instead, give out this
propaganda crap?
> Most sites of any size on the net require cookies to track information
> entered from page to page, where you are in the site, and what your settings
> are.
That's bulllshit. In my browser I have a warning about incoming cookie
enabled. If what you say is true, then I would receive this warning
constantly, but I don't.
> > > All it takes is some common sense.
> >
> > Common sense dictates that "nobody gets fired for choosing IBM".
> > Common sense tells you that there's no speed of light.
> > Common sense would have everyone running from|to Microsoft.
> >
> > Obviously you have just speculations. Which don't count much as
> > far as facts go ... and I am sure I'd rather have somebody else in
> > the jury, should I ever be accused of something criminal.
>
> Common sense is none of those things. It doesn't take much of a brain to
> figure out that MSN's home page is probably the most trafficed page on the
> net. With Netscapes page second.
to host this page is one thing, but to process enormous amounts of mail
is another.
>
> > > 60% of the internet users use IE, which
> > > defaults to msn.com, which most probably haven't changed.
> >
> > So is msn.com getting more or less traffic than, say, hotmail,
> > altavista, yahoo? That was the question.
>
> Yes, it's probably getting more traffic than hotmail, altavista and yahoo
> combined.
>
> But traffic is only one part of the equation. You also have to look at the
> amount of processing the servers do for things the user can't see.
Oh really, you are saying that to send out a puny page takes more
processing than to search a page in Yahoo or Alatvista? Come on...
BTW, Yahoo also hosts a free webmail, as well as POP3 accounts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:06:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:22:27 +0100, Lars Träger <Fam.Traeger@t-
online.de> wrote:
> >Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> To sum up, with each and any application i've used on the Mac,
I've been
> >> beating with multitasking issues. While, on Windows9x, i
experience none of
> >> these multitasking issues [I don't use QT].
> >>
> >> So IME, I repeat IME, multitasking on the Mac is far from great
with
> >> different sets of applications/tasks.
> >>
> >> If it's not the fault of the OS, then many of the Mac apps are not
so
> >> brilliantly coded. Happy now ?
> >
> >I didn't say that the Mac's multitasking doesn't suck, I said Win
9x's
> >does. Happy now?
>
> Sucks vs. mebbe sucks more, all in the context of users
> that very likely don't care either way. Otherwise, they
> would be running Linux or NT.
GACK! NT also sucks. Try to get an NT to display more than 16 colors
for its icons when it is in 256 color mode. Bottom line is, you can't.
As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95. I
have an NT, 98, and 95 system side-by-side here at work. NT is the
slowest hands down (they are all 400 Mhz systems). Talking to one of
our guru's here, he 'splained that it has to do with the drivers - they
are much more complex on NT than they are on 95. As a result they are
slower.
There are days when my system is literally crawling and all I have open
are 5 apps and several directories. Hell, I've had 10 apps open on my
Mac and have NEVER witnessed the kind of sluggishness I've seen in NT.
My manager is hyped up on W2K based on, literally, the hype. "If they
can do this... if they can do that..." I have something novel to
propose. Why doesn't MS sit down and for ONE year spend all of its time
and effort on fixing the bugs and security leaks in the software they
have already published. It starting to get to the point where you know
they are lying because their mouths are open...
L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stanislav Kogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:27:23 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > As typical with a Un*x based solution. Nothing works end to end, so you
> > > have to mix and match to make up for each components failings.
> >
> > As typical with a Unix-based solution. A good admin will choose not only a
> > good, but the *very best* system for every task. As all Unices have
> > a common base (I don't mean codebase), they are easy to mix.
>
> "common" but dissimilar. Now I have to learn n systems instead of
> one or two systems. That's nice. Just what I need, a bunch of different
> systems all with varrying strenghts and weaknesses and various
> caveats to keep track off.
>
> Why not just go with one "very best" system?
Which is..?
> > > --
> > > Have you recompiled your kernel today?
> >
> > No, but I could do it, which YOU can't do.
>
> I don't NEED to. I don't have the daily root-compromising security
> patches to apply.
Ah... The old propaganda again. "If we choose to ignore the bug then it
will sease to exist" a la M$. Tell me, are you a Microzoft employee? Or
you just freelance?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 2 Mar 2000 21:12:58 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
>Can someone explain how they do this?? I thought that a 32 bit OS on a
>32 bit chip was limited to 32 bit addresses which corresponds to 2^32 =
>4.3 billion bytes, or 4 gigs of RAM. How can Windows 2000 address more
>than this?
That's easy enough; much 32 bit hardware can address more physical memory
than virtual memory. The latest Intel CPU can address 32GB, I believe.
(36 bits effective address).
Sun did something similar with the SuperSPARC based systems (5GB
in a SC2000 in '93(?) and a much higher amount in the Cray 6400);
and more recently 64GB on 64 bit hardware but with a 32 bit OS
(Solaris < 7 on E10K)
You can't have it all in one process at the same time, but you can use
it.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:27:50 -0600
What the press release doesn't quite adequately say is that this is a
transparent process that happens in the background. Links are not created
manually, the OS finds identical duplicate files and coalesces them into a
single file with links without any user interaction.
Moreover, it does this without effecting system performance through a new
method that allows non-important tasks to run without taking any resources
from more important ones (and we're not just talking nice here. Even niced
programs can interfere with interactive tasks. We're talking about the
program really noticing that more system activity is going on and giving up
it's run-time until the system becomes idle again).
Dave Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello:
>
> In a press release from Micro$oft they mentioned that their
> R&D people, at the "Redmond Home for the Addeled" after
> wetting themselves, "Discovered" that disk space can be
> saved through the use of links. Who would have thought?
> Think anybody ought to mention to them that links have
> been around for MANY years in Unix systems? Think that
> they'll try to patent the idea?
>
> The press release URL for your amusment is:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/02-28w2k.asp
>
> --
> Dave Pitts PULLMAN: Travel and sleep in safety and
comfort.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] My other RV IS a Pullman (Colorado Pine).
> http://www.dknsolutions.com
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Koan Kid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:25:18 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:46:17 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:52:34 -0000, "John Hill"
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >>Something that several UNIXes have been doing for years.
> >> >>Still, whilst you MS zealots continue to pay I guess NT might
> >> >>catch up (although its taking its time).
> >> >
> >> >Linux is NOT UNIX...
> >> >
> >> >Linux always seems to be playing catch up in some form or another.
> >>
> >> If I ran 16 CPU's on my home machine I might be worried.
> >>
> >> HOWEVER, when it comes to desktop Unix, the commercial vendors
> >> are the one's playing catchup.
> >
> >Eh ? When it comes to "desktop Unix" what commercial vendors are even
> >bothering ?
>
> Solaris, NeXT and HP did for a time. However it was a rather
> half-assed effort.
Well, Solaris 8, which will be released in three days, is being billed
as "Itanium-Ready". The binary license will be available for US$75 and
may be used on systems with up to 8 processors. Source distributions
are also available for US$75. The listed costs assume that you want the
media kit. According to one source, if you would rather download it,
there is no cost. I haven't been able to confirm this, however.
KK
------------------------------
From: grant@nowhere. (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:25:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
>Linux is fully 64-Bit on systems that are fully 64-Bit. So, on systems
>that are designed for proper performance, it gives proper performance. I
>am not a fan of the i86 and think that it is faintly ridiculous that
>intel are still persuing the 32 bit line, (by jacking up the [MG]Hz) and
>trying to get more performance out of an inherently limited design.
The x86 architecture was lame when it came out 20 years ago,
and its gone down hill ever since. All this pain and agony
based on the theory that if you design the 8086 as a bloated
8080, then a few CP/M programmers can auto-magically translate
8080 assembly language. I'd bet money that the whole automatic
asm translation thing never panned out anyway.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yow! Are we wet yet?
at
visi.com
------------------------------
From: Stanislav Kogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:35:46 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Personally, I'll believe it when I see it. But it would be a
> major coup for Win2K if a stock installation of Win2K on a
> Hotmail x86 cluster can do as well as the old Solaris stuff,
> and the user migration goes so seamlessly nobody notices until
> someone either pokes around, or Microsoft issues a press release.
Just listen to yourself: "...can do as well as the old Solaris stuff."
If Solaris stuff is good, why do they need a new OS?
>
> (Of course, there's also the possibility that they'll move it,
> and then everyone will start complaining when emails get lost,
> connection times increase, and hackers infiltrate and
> ruin data -- I rather doubt MS wants that!)
No, they don't. I don't think they will be doing it. There are bugs
discovered in W2K already. (SP1 is out). So switching to it now will be
suicide. At least 3-4 years.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Mar 2000 14:34:21 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89mgl5$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> That may or may not be. It all depends on how well Windows is
> > >> managing the device access. The problem with X & svgalib is
> > >> that you've got two things that think their are the device
> > >> manager both accessing the hardware.
> > >>
> > >> Considering that the whole point of DirectX for games programmers
> > >> is to allow them to bit bang with reckless abandon, I wouldn't
> > >> necessarily expect two Direct3D games to play nice with each other.
> > >> DirectX trades robustness for speed.
> >
> > > Actually, it handles it very well. If you attempt to grab a lock on
> > > an area of the video memory that another application currently has a lock
> > > on, your program will error.
> >
> > Oh no! You mean two direct X apps trying to access the *same hardware*
> > at the *same time* wont work?
>
>
> First, you said crash, moron, not work. And yes, two apps
> accessing the same hardware at the same time will work.
>
> If they access the same BYTE in the video ram at the same time,
> one has to wait until the other process is done. This wait is
> usually unmeasurable.
>
> What happens when X and svgalib access the same byte in video
> ram at the same time?
>
> *CHOKE*
Try hitting Alt-Tab while playing Rollercoaster Tycoon sometime.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
