Linux-Advocacy Digest #492, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Giving up on NT (Eric Remy)
Re: Giving up on NT (josco)
Re: Bill Gates just cant win (Meethune)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA) ("2 + 2")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[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 20:19:13 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
89otpc$p0q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <89ok4j$5f4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > The criticism regarding Win9x's poor multitasking is met head on
> with
> > > a irrelevant counter charge the Mac's multitasking is worse. That
> >
> > Irrelevant ? The original claim was that Win9x is a poor multimedia OS
> > because apparently when running QT, the downloads seem to suffer,
> implying
> > that it is bad because is multitasking ability was bad and stating
> that
> > MacOS was better at multimedia for that.
>
> Okay, so someone claims a real-life example. They indicate that Win9x
> handled it less ably than MacOS.
This I have nothing against. But it's one real life example, I don't reduce
multimedia to QuickTime.
> > This I disagree because it's one app [I didn't make the test and took
> the
> > original post at face value].
>
> But it is a real world example. Something people would normally do. You
> can disagree with it, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
I don't disagree with it, I just stated that there is more to multimedia
than QT. And my system has no problems with many other multimedia apps.
> > As I said, I don't have those issues with Windows Media Player, I can
> > download stuff, move files, even listen to MP3, encode .MP3/.MPG
> files,
> > while watching TV, and compress/move files and the multimedia is not
> > perturbed.
>
> What dream system do YOU have?
Frankly, nothing special by todays standards, but i tried to get my hands on
as much RAM as I could. :)
Celeron 400, 256 MB, Maxtor UDMA 8.4 GB [soon to be replaced by a 40GB
Maxtor, really, really fast], IBM UDMA 6.4 GB, Pioneer A104 40/10 DVD Rom,
Yamaha 4416 IDE CD-burner, TNT2 M64,Win98SE/2000/FreeBSD3.2...
The processor is not everything, you have to have good peripherals.
> > I can listen to MP3 and burn CDs. I can run media player/winamp while
> > encoding .MPG or .MP3 files, or anything that strikes my fancy, on
> > background/foreground, whatever, it works.
> >
> > System: Celeron 400 / 256MB / Windows98SE.
>
> Oh, well you see most people (ok, at least I do) only have 32 MB in
> their Macs. I suspect that if they bump it up to 256MB, they would also
There are 192 and 128 MB G3 were I work, nope, they're still slow in
multitasking matters IME, even compared to the WinNT PII 400 / 64 megs I use
at work.
> see the same improvements. But I forget, you have to listen to music
> and watch tv at the same time.
Most amusing. I show the moon, you watch the finger. I don't "have to", I
_can_.
> > See, many _different_ multimedia activities against of the one QT
> example,
> > which made me believe that QT wasn't optimised for the Windows
> platform.
> > [You are, of course, aware that even in a PMT OS, you can set
> priorities for
> > apps, maybe QT has a high priority, I don't know, but if degrades
> download
> > performance, it's doing something weird, that's for sure]
>
> Sheesh. QT is sold to commercial software vendors for use in their
> systems. Do you seriously think they would use something that wasn't
> optimized for Windows?
Stranger things have happened.
> > > charge doesn't make win9x a good multimedia OS.
> >
> > Well, IMO, it's better than the MacOS, since the original claim was
> that the
> > MacOS was a better multimedia OS because QT worked better in it than
> in
> > Windows9x. Multimedia doesn't start and stop at QT. Sorry.
>
> Got firewire on your system yet? I'm downloading digital video from my
Nope.
> camcorder, are you? How does it work? Very well. Better than I had
> truly expected (and I expected a lot!).
That's cool.
> > If I want to use many applications [other than QT] at the same time,
> it will
> > be better because Windows has a better multitasking
>
> Actually, so does the MacOS, only it is called COOPERATIVE multitasking
> (CMT). What you MEAN to say is that Win95/98/NT/2000 has PREEMPTIVE
> multitasking (PMT). PMT is not better than CMT. It is merely different.
> Actually, PMT requires a lot more code than CMT (since CMT is in
> essence a single thread, it is virtually impossible to enter a deadlock
> situation).
Maybe. What I see is the final result, the MacOS IME multitasks worse.
> > > I haven't seem anyone claim the Mac is better at multitasking, I
> have
> > > seen people excuse Win9x's poor showing by blaming the applications
> >
> > Poor showing, it's just one example !
> >
> > > while crediting what the Mac can accomplish by praising the
> > > applications. A good pre-emtive multitasking OS would preempt a
> > > poorly coded application and So the excuses people offer for
> Windows9x
> >
> > Even if the application is given ultra high priority ? You are sure
> that
> > poorly coded application won't degrade the performance of an
> NT/Linux/UNIX
> > system ? Really, really sure ?
>
> "I don't want HIGH priority for this task, I want ULTRA HIGH!" What the
> hell is ULTRA HIGH? Sadly, Windows doesn't let you specify absolutes,
You're being funny again ?
I remark that you didn't answer my question about poorly coded application
able to degrade the performance of OSes like NT/Linux/UNIX.
> just "relatives". Setting priorities in Windows is a crock.
Sure whatever rocks your boat.
> > > shows even it's advocates recognize (if not admit) Win9x is
> seriously
> > > flawed.
> >
> > Windows is not as bad as people claim it to be, well, not IME, anyway.
>
> Nor is the MacOS.
This we agree on. Heh, i like the Mac, it's refreshing change from Windows,
but IME it sure doesn't multitask better than Windows9x.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 19:10:25 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:16:11 GMT, Christopher Browne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I suspect that some sort of benefit flows from MSFT to some of these
>guys; I have *no* expectation that there will ever be anything anyone
>would reasonably consider proof.
Perhaps they work for / own / are otherwise associated with one of the
myriad of companies that are "Microsoft Solution Providers" and "Microsoft
Partners" and "Microsoft MVP's" and so on and so forth. IOW, they get
much of their income from selling and supporting MS products. I'm pretty
sure this is true of that which calls itself "Drestin Black" and it
explains a lot of the behavior without requiring any conspiracy.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Loose Cannon
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[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, 03 Mar 2000 14:31:50 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, let's try it again.
>>
>> MacOS 8.6, G3-233, latest version of client.
>>
>> In foreground. 783kkey/sec (lintilla core- Damn that's good programming)
>> In background, light use (reading news) 780 kkey/sec. Looks good.
>> In background, downloading 100 MB of files from NT server through Fetch:
>> 421 kkey/sec. Whoops
>>
>> So we lose roughly 40% of the speed as soon as we put a trivial load on
>> the machine. There's no way an FTP connection should take 40% of the
>> CPU of this machine.
>
>You're right... it shouldn't.
>
>When I ran the same test with Anarchie (grabbing files from a remote Web
>site at 100+ kB/sec) instead of Fetch, my Mac dropped from 768 kkeys/sec
>to 740 kkeys/sec, a drop of about 4%. On a second run, the drop was
>only to 746 kkeys/sec.
>
>The lesson? Fetch is a CPU hog. Use Anarchie.
Ok, let's do it with a file copy in the foreground.
How interesting: the dnetc client lies. It says it did 720kkey/sec. It
also says it took 16 seconds, yet the wall clock time stamp says 1
minute 18 seconds.
Let's try a crude stopwatch: I don't trust dnetc's timekeeping. I'll run
the benchmark and time it from start to finish with my watch. (all
times +- 1 second)
In foreground: 29 seconds
In background, no foreground activity: 34 seconds.
In background, with file copy in foreground: 70 seconds.
(All benchmarks testing only the lintilla code.)
So in other words, the dnetc client is lying to us. A simple file copy
doubles the time to complete a block. Even putting the client in the
background without foreground actions like a file copy noticeably slows
it, even though dnetc reports it doesn't.
Got a replacement for the Finder, which is obviously a CPU hog?
As a side note, copying those same files only drops the CPU time for the
client under NT from 99% to 95%. And no, my NT box is a lowly K6/2-300,
so it's not a monster machine- it's roughly equivalent to my G3-233,
although it's slower on RC5 and clearly much, much better at
multitasking RC5 and "normal operations", if you consider massive file
copies normal. (Massive FTPs are normal for me though.)
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: josco <[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 11:51:12 -0800
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> 89otpc$p0q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Irrelevant ? The original claim was that Win9x is a poor multimedia OS
> > > because apparently when running QT, the downloads seem to suffer,
> > implying
> > > that it is bad because is multitasking ability was bad and stating
> > that
> > > MacOS was better at multimedia for that.
> >
> > Okay, so someone claims a real-life example. They indicate that Win9x
> > handled it less ably than MacOS.
>
> This I have nothing against. But it's one real life example, I don't reduce
> multimedia to QuickTime.
How about being proactive.
Explain why MS is NOT using Win9x as a multimedia OS. It's a mature,
stable codebase is it not and it's good for multimedia so why not use what
is already has developed and established in the marketplace?
I can tell you why - so can the CEO of BeOS who said it far funnier than
I. Win9x is a crummy OS for multimedia. He said it's akin to putting a
tight dress and lipstick on a grandma and sending her to a disco to "get
lucky". When people blame QT they implicitly recognize that Win9x isn't
preempting QT and copeing with the network download. Showing the Mac to
be worse doesn't fix Win95 and we all know OS X is a BSD based OS which
does have great multitaksing.
QT is one example - IMHO a leading example but let's just call it one
example that is better in size and quality than streaming video which such
crap that it's often untolerable. Disagree - show us a few examples of
streaming content that rival Apple's QT trailers.
> I don't disagree with it, I just stated that there is more to multimedia
> than QT. And my system has no problems with many other multimedia apps.
> Frankly, nothing special by todays standards, but i tried to get my hands on
> as much RAM as I could. :)
>
> Celeron 400, 256 MB, Maxtor UDMA 8.4 GB [soon to be replaced by a 40GB
> Maxtor, really, really fast], IBM UDMA 6.4 GB, Pioneer A104 40/10 DVD Rom,
> Yamaha 4416 IDE CD-burner, TNT2 M64,Win98SE/2000/FreeBSD3.2...
>
> The processor is not everything, you have to have good peripherals.
In the case of multitasking the processor seems to be the difference. My
system struggles with QT and downlaoding and it has a 200 mhz P Pro and
128 RAM andon a boxe designed as a server with high end SCSI disks and an
excellet network connection.
If the problem were QT then the OS would still preempt QT, the app, and
maintian a fast download, the QT video would suffer.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates just cant win
From: Meethune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:59:56 -0800
did you even read my post? It had nothing to do with how much
money bill makes or the fact that he's on top. IT WAS A JOKE.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:20:47 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > If, however, you make thousands fo identical files for the hell of it,
> > > you deserve to run out of disk space.
> >
> > Let's see you prevent 10,000 users from putting duplicate files in their
> > home directories.
>
> Why do I see winamp.exe all of the sudden? :)
Exactly. Not to mention 500 users being sent a 5Mb mpg or avi file they
think is cute and save it in their directories..
> Last week I got fed up with running out of space (we have some more
> 36GB cheetah's in the bid process -- that's another rant all together)
> so I mandated quotas on the file server (Linux/Samba). Now, when UNIX
> applications run out of space they'll spew messages like "Unable to
> write /some/file" or "Permission Denied while writing /some/file".
That depends entirely on the program. If the program checks for errors on
write, it can give you an error. If it doesn't, then it won't.
> When Windows (NT4 on the desktop here) applications can't write to a
> file they do bizzare things. Word will truncate the document and then
> puke on writing it (thereby erasing any work you had done).
Since Word stores data in a binary structure, an incomplete file becomes
meaningless anyways. Simply put, if you save over a document, it erases the
original file (on just about any OS), thus when you rewrite it, if you run
out space, you're going to lose information.
> Netscape
> pretty much does the same thing with prefs.js. If the profiles
> directory fills up (ie, you're out of quotas) then the *real* fun
> begins; the client refuses to send your profile off to the server and
> anything in your "Personal" folder is then locked on that
> workstation. Then the users ignore the warning and wonder why the
> next time they log on all their data is gone (but of course,
> winamp.exe is still there along with the ubiquitous mp3/ folder).
These sorts of conditions are not something most application developers
really think about. To them, it's a non-issue (you shouldn't be running so
low on disk space)
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:25:18 -0500
Jaro Larnos wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>John Jensen wrote:
>
>> Looking back at my point a day later, I don't think that I properly
>> descended to the Wintroll level. What they typically say, is that they
>> met a Linux user who said such and such, therefore all Linux users are
the
>
> Yes I get a feeling sometimes that someone sees me as some
> kind of a communist-hippie type of person who sings Imagine
> and 8 Miles High, smokes pot and wears a peace sign. There's
> been those who think I worship the guy who invented Linux, or
> that he's a leader of a communist group called Linvocates. These
> Linvocates are all long haired pot smoking hippie-coders driving
> VW-beetles and writing "crappy" code. And yet the truth is so
> far from that it sometimes make me sick even.
>
> Many of the people I know using Linux and/or choosing Linux
> are working nowadays, getting decent salary go to the barbers
> for a haircut, do not smoke pot nor drive VW-beetles. We
> surely are not hippies, actually some Linux users are really
> far from being hippies, they seem like some kinds of neo-yuppies
> today. But the majority, as I like to count me in, holds mostly
> us normal types of guys and girls who enjoy life and live it
> happily with all those normal cash-flow problems and such
> that make our everyday-lives worth or not worth living. We
> are quite pleased with our success at work. Nor do we have
> extra expences resulting from software buys like OS'es or
> other programs. The Internet has became relatively cheap
> and it makes it possible for us to exchange knowledge and
> programs to and for over the net.
Sure, but do they sing "Imagine and Eight Miles High?"
Perhaps you could give us the "code" for these.
2 + 2
>
> So I must conclude these stereotypes might sound funny
> to some, but there are people that can consider them
> offensive. I for one don't like being called a communist
> for which there is no credit for after all. I do admit I am
> to some extent an idealist and revolutionalist but it doesn't
> give anyone an excuse to say I am something I'm not.
>
>> same. By that Wintroll logic, the fact that I've met people who advocate
>> Windows while stealing their copies makes all Windows advocates a bunch
of
>> hypocritical thieves ... but, as I say, I can't quite sink that low.
>
> I couldn't agree more, I've yet to see someone who actually
> pays for his/hers Windows-based "homeapplications".
>
>> But the piracy angle is interesting. Based on a quick web scan(*), it
>> looks like the global software piracy rate is running somewhere around
>> %38. A little quick, rough, math ... with Windows usage at 90% (a
>> conservative estimate) and a rough assumption that Windows piracy will
>> match the general rate, 0.38 x 90% = 34%. Thirty four percent of the
>> market is comprised with pirated Windows!!!
>
> Pretty much:) I'm glad I'm not one of those 34% because I use
> 100% Linux at home.
>
>> What are Windows advocates doing worrying about Linux! With a market
>> share of somewhere around 1% it is a far smaller problem (I would think)
>> than Windows piracy. Even if I'm off by 100%, and Windows piracy is only
>> at %17, it is still seventeen times more common than Linux usage.
>
> Software prizes do encourage piracy..
>
>> And while you're at it, get a life.
>
> Life is free, the ones who make it expensive are the ones
> to suffer from it.
>
> I have a life, and I like it. :)
>
>-J
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 03 Mar 2000 15:47:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> Here are
> some things that we've yet to see in the opensource world:
>
> * WYSIWYG printing.
All the proprietary "WYSIWYG" word processors I've ever used were not
WYSIWYG w.r.t. tabs. I think you have to be a power user to get WYSIWYG
out of those beasts.
> * A Word Processor that you can embed a spreadsheet into
You could embed all kinds of objects in the Andrew project's ez editor,
but this functionality has never been in big demand in the free software
community. (I don't know what's happening with ez now; I remember using
it in 1987).
> * Any word processor
I really think ez and Lyx count. Do you argue that if it doesn't
(falsely) claim to be WYSIWYG, then it isn't a word processor?
> * A decent web browser ( Mozilla doesn't count until it's out of alpha )
You have it backwards. There would be no decent web browsers today if
not for free software and open standards. IE's temporary lead is not
indicative of how this area moves forward. Time was there were no
proprietary web browsers.
> You get the picture. If we were stuck only with OpenSource software , we'd
> still be living in caves. OpenSource software is wonderful and all that,
> but to suggest that we should desroy the copyright system is simply absurd.
Do you really think there is any serious attempt afoot to destroy the
copyright system? Some people talk about a copyright-free society as
the ideal, but I haven't heard of anyone seriously pursuing it. The
pragmatic idealism of the GPL seems to dominate free software efforts.
--
Bruce R. Lewis <URL:http://web.mit.edu/brlewis/www/>
------------------------------
From: Mike <[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, 03 Mar 2000 20:47:48 GMT
Todd wrote:
> By the way, there is an option for this in Properties-FX.
>
> Also, most people are using True Color or 16-bit color these days as video
> cards can support these modes easily with full acceleration.
>
> So, NT can display more than 16 colors in icons.
>
> > As for speed. Basically there is very little. NT is slower the 95.
>
> Not according to the benchmarks that measure graphics and business
> performance.
>
> Just recently, benchmarks that measured 98/NT and 2000 came out, do you want
> to know what scored highest? 2000.
>
2000 is hardly a fast system though. My Linux system boots in less time
thanks to the modifications I made to my kernel build.
> Second? NT.
>
> Last? 9x.
To be expected
>
> > 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.
>
> That's a load of crap.
>
> NT's drivers *are* more complex than 95, that is true. But if you actually
> measure performance, NT will beat 9x hands down given the proper amount of
> memory... usually 64MB or over.
But Linux will beat NT when running with less than 64mb of ram and *BSD
will beat NT when running with more than 64mb of ram.
>
> How much memory are you using, anyway?
>
> > 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.
>
I experience lag whenever I run AIM.
> Again, how much memory are you using? Did you check the performance monitor
> in NT? Is your system even configured correctly? I doubt it, given your
> "expert's" false information.
NT shouldn't need 64mb of ram to run "properly". No OS can justify such
needs. Linux and BeOS can run in 16mb of ram and comfortably in 32mb.
>
> > 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...
>
> So far, people are quite impressed with 2000... I've been scanning the 2000
> groups, and yes, while there are installation problems with drivers, people
> who have supported systems are quite surprised and happy that 2000 really is
> the OS that they have hoped it would be. Check it out yourself.
>
> -Todd
>
> >
> > L
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
--
Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
