Linux-Advocacy Digest #486, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 06:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Takeyasu Wakabayashi)
Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE? ("Kyo-Bang Chung")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Darren
Winsper)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Truckasaurus)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (5X3)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (5X3)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Anders Larsen)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Anders Larsen)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Darwin Ou-Yang)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Darwin Ou-Yang)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Donn Miller)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Edward
Rosten)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (David Misner)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE? (mlw)
Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace" ("Neil")
Re: Giving up on NT (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Edward Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Takeyasu Wakabayashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 03 Mar 2000 15:11:07 +0900
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards) writes:
> Everybody I've talked to with an Alpha runs Unix.
And not OpenVMS?
(I'm a Linux/Alpha user, though. :-)
--
Takeyasu Wakabayashi
Faculty of Economics, Toyama University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kyo-Bang Chung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE?
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:32:58 +0900
Hi,
I report that kernel-2.2.12smp and kernel-2.2.15smp is unstable
for some programs, very unfortunately, such as mine.
My program runs well on kernel-2.2.12 and kernel-2.2.15, and
crashes on the smp versions of both.
I tested with three compilers (PGI, Fujitsu, Absoft)
on both single- and dual-CPU (Intel PIII). The result are the same.
The reason I use Linux is the support of muliti-processor.
Does anyone have any idea of what is going on the smp kernel development?
Thanks in advance.
Kyo-Bang Chung
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 3 Mar 2000 15:09:48 GMT
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:05:11 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally... what will you be left to say when hotmail does run under w2k...
"Damn, my Hotmail account's been screwed up again" ;)
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
"Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
problems [in Windows2000]."
-http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 07:14:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:39:54 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>
>>You mean "Chad Mulligan" actually called your house?? What'd you do,
>>mention the word TCO? ;-) That was a sure fire way to piss off
>
>MSB said that he (CM) was being paid by Microsoft.
Actually, based on DN searches, I don't believe I made that
unqualified statement, but rather said that I thought he was,
etc.
You can search DN for my posts containing mulligan & microsoft,
up to 6/17/99, when he made the call.
>CM then called. It was
>established that CM's call was rude, obnoxious, and harrassing. Unprecedented,
>even in this group ( at least IME )
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 07:22:56 GMT
In article <88rtp8$od3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >You can use LDAP for authentication. I think it can also be used
> > >for name services (i.e. host name lookups and stuff like that),
> > >but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "integrated with DNS".
> >
> > The idea of "DNS integration with Directory" was vaguely described
> > in a memo written by a Microsoft employee before the release of W2K:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html
> >
> > It was supposed to be part of a Microsoft strategy to rid the
> > Internet of free software.
>
> As opposed to the Linux-types' strategy to rid the Internet of
> useful software?
Hehe! Good one! Now please join the rest of us in the real world, Chad..
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
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: 3 Mar 2000 07:52:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I can't make Win2k crash,
> I know, many other people have a hard time doing it too!
>> all I have to do is install a NT4 driver for
>> my cd burner!
> Ah, amazing! A driver takes down an OS. And remind me
> which (non-mainframe) OS won't go down by installing
> a buggy driver?
Ahh..so now its non-mainframe.
Inferno (Purgatory) springs immediately to mind.
Wrong again, MS boy.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: 3 Mar 2000 07:53:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5X3 wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Yup, cause Linux is so much better at 3D, Graphics, Multimeda and productivity
>apps then say Irix
>> > or Solaris. Oh wait.....
>>
>> You're pretty uppity for someone who cant wrap lines with netscape
>> under windowsNT.
>>
>> p0ok
> Yea, sucks I know. But its what I use at work. Cant be bothered to install a news
>reader on the Indu or
> Ultra 5 at my desk.
Ultra 5? Solaris? You can find and install tin in about 60 seconds.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 08:04:19 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 04:59:40 GMT, Mike Kenzie wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>This may have been true back when card readers were hard to come by but
>these days most people have a terminal on their desktop. If Joe doesn't
>wish to take control of his own destiny, then a developer can fill the
>void and make a living. If the developer does a good job then Joe will
>call again when something coms up.
Unfortunately, developers are expensive. Joe cannot afford to pay the
developer a year's salary ( or even a week's salary ) to get the application
written. This is why Joe would prefer to use a scheme which allows him to
share costs with others with common interests. Rather than waiting for
an OpenSource developer to write the software he wants ( and he'd still be
waiting today if he wanted the kind of word processor that was available
in proprietary form 15years ago ), he can go buy a license.
> Of course if the Developer has a
>monopoly of the code then Joe will have no choice but to contact the
>particular developer to get what he wants, and pay for it.
Or Joe could choose to contact some other developer and use the code the
other guy wrote instead. All commercial licensing says is "my code, my terms".
Interestingly enough, the GPL also has restrictions, and abolishing copyright
would make it easy to violate the GPL ( and distribute binary only derivatives
of GPL software ). It's kind of funny that some of the GPL crowd throw tantrums
when their copyright is violated, but at the same time speak out against
copyright.
>> The copyright model has produced a lot of good software,
>
>and a lot of bad software
OpenSource has also produced a lot of bad software. Hell, I wrote some
bad OpenSource software myself. This is relevant or important because ... ?
>> infringe on anyone's freedom. Therefore, I believe that it should certainly
>> not be dismantled. Rather, it should be left to coexist/compete with
>> OpenSource on its merits. This way, users can reap the benefits of both
>> OpenSource and proprietary software development models.
>
>It certainly shouldn't be strengthened as that would further limit the
>sharing of ideas needed for development.
What do you mean by "strengthened" ? I don't see why it needs to be -- the
current form serves its purpose quite well.
However, I disagree that copyrights 'limit sharing of ideas'. There is nothing
in copyrights that prevents two developers who want to share their code
from doing so. All they dictate is that no one is forced to share. ( You
can't force someone to share source code anyway -- they can release binary
only. )
Patents certainly present an obstruction, but I don't see
how copyrights do the same.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 08:14:16 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:16:11 GMT, Christopher Browne wrote:
>Alternatively, they may just have far too much time on their hands,
>and a whole lot of anger over some perceived slight.
I vote for this one. There's no shortage of people with two much time
on their hands. In many cases, I'd put the abusive, malicious manner down to
the following:
There are those who
enjoy playing "kick the underdog". This is some form of defense against
inferiority complexes. There's a desire to side with that which is
perceived as stronger ( in this case, Microsoft ). This is the reason
why far-right wing groups are good at drawing hardcore losers.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:44:40 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > Wait, wait! There are other scary items forthcoming:
> >> >
> >> > 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.
>
> [snip]
>
> >It might be true that in 2038 most people don't care about what happened
> >before 2000-01-01, but the *transition* would be tough anyway.
> >
> >One could, however, perhaps consider changing time_t from signed to
> >unsigned - that would add another 68 years to the life-time of the
> >32-bit time_t.
>
> However, it would no longer be possible for time_t-returning functions
> to return -1 in the event of an error.
True, but one could test agains ~0 instead.
I know, I know, returning -1 in case of failure is *standard*; but do we
really have to sacrifice 50% of the possible range of values because of
*one single* return value?
> Another way to expand the lifetime of the 32-bit time_t is to make it
> 64-bits long by declaring it as 'long long'.
This would break a heckuva lot of applications which stores time_t in
disk files (as others have already commented).
--
Anders Larsen
------------------------------
From: Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:58:00 +0100
Mr Foo Bar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Well, I really don't care that much, however - I believe 64+ bit
> > machines will be the norm before 2038 (and I'll be eighty by then ;-)
>
> Yes and drawing a pension ? Into which you made contributions ? Starting
> before 2000 ? :-)
The managing of pension funds and the like is a task that traditionally
is carried out on some big iron by a program written by - quote Edward
Yordan - "...brain-dead COBOL programmers..." ;-)
The Y2038 problem is a non-issue there (but they are the ones who had the
bulk of the Y2K problems).
Anyway, we are not in a hurry solving the Y2038 problem - most Y2K
problems were actually solved in time, even though quite a number of
companies did not start working on it until less than one year before the
deadline!
Having 37 years to think up a bright solution really is comforting,
considering that the problem might simply vanish due to hardware changes.
--
Anders Larsen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darwin Ou-Yang)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 3 Mar 2000 08:35:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > What's crashing the system is 'two X's' trying to bit bang the
>> > same hardware at once. That's a considerable difference.
>>
>> So Linux can't handle switching between video modes very well ?
>
>Come back after you've run 2 Direct3D games at the same time.
I've done that...
...under Win2k. :-)
Direct3D on Win2K virtualizes the 3D accelerator state properly.
You can have two windowed D3D apps going at once too. (But the state
changes will KILL your performance. :-( )
Obviously this is partially dependent on getting the drivers right...
Darwin Ouyang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darwin Ou-Yang)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 3 Mar 2000 08:31:27 GMT
In article <89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>>> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>>> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>>> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>>> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>>> Protection" does for me.
>
>> Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
>> as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
>> there's no system files to protect.
>
>Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
>system?
Because it installs drivers, security DLLs, and all sorts of other
sensitive stuff in order to be able to do things like mirror the display,
circumvent Ctrl-Alt-Del and all sorts of other evil stuff.
In some respects, PC Anywhere is no different from BackOrfice. :-)
Windows 2000 System File Protection will protect you from an application
overwriting or replacing system files, but SFP can do nothing if the
application legitimately installs a driver, or registers a security
extension DLL, or a GINA authentication interface -- all of which require
administrator rights, and none of which involves overwriting a system
file.
Darwin Ouyang
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 04:47:28 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
mlw wrote:
> The god thing is, eventually NT will be UNIX. It may take Microsoft a
> decade or two more to re-invent it, however. I can read it now:
I've heard that the TCP/IP stack for Windows 2000 was derived from
FreeBSD 3.2's stack. I've also noticed that the "Task Scheduler" in
Win 98 looked an awful lot like unix's `cron'. Yes, I also think it's
'god' that NT will become more and more like unix. I also worship the
god that is unix.
Next up for Microsoft -- assigning process id's to individual apps,
and calling apps 'processes' instead of 'apps'. Yes, folks, it will
be a great day in the world of technology when Microsoft 'invents'
these things.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:30:37 +0000
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
> > > > absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> > > >
> > > > That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
> > >
> > > Actually a better reply to you "Mr. Rupert"
> > >
> > > When hotmail.com runs on W2K later this year, I'll be expecting to hear
> you
> > > say: "MS is running W2K at their hotmail site. Solaris/BSD couldn't
> handle
> > > it and sucks - W2K is king" You'll be expected to lower your head and
> scurry
> > > away from any comparision threads because all we have to do is say;
> "Yea,
> > > but MS runs hotmail on W2K so... nah nah nah nah naaaaaaaah nah" and
> we'll
> > > win! yipee!! (I'm hoping everyone recognizes the sarcasm dripping here)
> >
> > But how will *vocates know how many (if any) extra computers will be
> > being used. If MS migrate to Win* and need twice the number of
> > processors (but migrate non-the-less) does that still mean that you win?
>
> What if they use the same or less? Does that mean you "lose" twice as bad?
I was simply saying it can't be judged. We won't know. They may use
fewer processors, but faster ones. They ought to change to save face.
Either way, I don't think we can judge one system against the other,
without MS releassing the precise details of the installation before and
after, without any imiginative figures. i.e., not the inhouse
benchmarks.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: David Misner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 02:38:47 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edward Rosten wrote:
> David Misner wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
> > > against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are people in
> > > NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie to ms.
> > >
> > > Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can change as
> > > they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but instills
> > > more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
> > >
> > > Let's see now:
> > >
> > > -windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly resistant to
> > > working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
> > >
> > > -linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time before
> > > an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably make
> > > use of it.
> >
> > But it is like impossible to install
> >
> > David
>
> Have you ever installed RH5.2? It booted, detected my cdrom, let me choose what I
> wanted installed, installed it, rebooted and ran without a hitch. On 5 different
> machines.
I am happy for you then. I have that it it did not work for me. It
kept asking me
questions.
Stuff I really did not know and it would not install until I did know.
This is not
good. I have 2 Linux boxes
just sitting here collecting dust because I could not figure our what it
was asking me or
wanted from me
It should not be this complicated. I should just put the CD in and it
install. I
should not have to read a stack of books
and have a Computer Science degree to figure out how to install the darn
thing
David
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:42:57 +0000
Michael Gu wrote:
>
> if Steve Jobs think Microsoft Windows is 'absolutely tastless' , i
> really would like to know what kind of words will he be using regarding
> X windows, Motif or CDE.
I don't think he would mind it much... you ccould make a wm / widgit set
so it looks like win95, win311, macos, RiscOS, NextSTEP...
With X, the choice is yours.
My choice is windowmaker, because it looks fantastic on a 21' moniter
with that seanight picture as the background.
-Ed
> -- this is purely fiction:
> What do you want a big screen(more pixels) for?
> X windows: Bigger letters, of course!
> Windows: So you can see more letters at once.
Command line: so you can see the letters from 100 paces.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 05:44:45 -0500
Kyo-Bang Chung wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I report that kernel-2.2.12smp and kernel-2.2.15smp is unstable
> for some programs, very unfortunately, such as mine.
>
> My program runs well on kernel-2.2.12 and kernel-2.2.15, and
> crashes on the smp versions of both.
>
> I tested with three compilers (PGI, Fujitsu, Absoft)
> on both single- and dual-CPU (Intel PIII). The result are the same.
>
> The reason I use Linux is the support of muliti-processor.
>
> Does anyone have any idea of what is going on the smp kernel development?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Kyo-Bang Chung
What do you mean, "unstable?" I have not seen any reports of
instability. Plus this is an advocacy group, not development.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace"
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:47 -0000
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89miqc$rnn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The "truth" from Microsoft, posted very quickly by its
> faithful and diligent servant, Chad Myers.
>
> On the other hand...
My understanding of the Kerberos situation, is that Microsoft have made use
of a current aspect of "whitespace" in the spec, to add security
information, pertinent to the W2K environment to the ticket.
Not fundamentally changing the manner in which Kerberos authenticates, per
se, but adding info to an current undefined portion of the ticket, in a
similar method to that which they did to "tokens" in the previous NT domain
model.
Neil
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[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: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:52:55 +0100
"Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
Nope, you said and I quote:
"Ahu. So Quicktime for Windows is programmed badly, and it's the app's
fault. Toast on the Mac however is programmed perfectly and it's the OS'
fault. Yup, that must be it."
> Lars T.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:00:29 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> 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.
Wooooh Hoooo! Backups!!!!
Hello???????
-Ed
> 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
> >
> >
> >
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
