Linux-Advocacy Digest #502, Volume #25 Sat, 4 Mar 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: Linux is a lamer (Kelechi Odu)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? (Kelechi Odu)
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (BSD Bob)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace" ("Chad Myers")
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Drafting a brochure ("Greg Cope")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (George Marengo)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Mark Hamstra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 4 Mar 2000 14:43:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The W2K show is over. Put a fork in W2K, it's done. Adios
> Mr. Gates, it was fun while it lasted. Your closed source
> OS model is outdated. No one wants a nosey noo-noo snooping
> through their setup while online.
> http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/03/linux.win2k.idg/index.html
I wasnt going to post that article, but I did think it was suitably
amusing.
In all seriousness for once, flames aside:
WindowsNT is a viable operating system for business workstations.
It's stable (even if a little bloated) and theres alot of software
floating around for it---and its interface is understood by millions.
WindowsNT is *not* a viable operating system for medium to large
scale webhosting. Its far too expensive, IIS is *awful*, and
java is broken.
WindowsNT is a viable operating system for medium scale ftp hosting.
Even though its pretty expensive, if you can afford it, anyone
in your office can read a few bits of documentation and set it up.
Linux is NOT a viable operating system for business workstations.
Theres not alot of interpolable software floating around for it
and its arcane nature is not for the meek.
Linux is a viable operating system for small to medium scale
webhosting. Its free, its unixy, its stable, it scales fairly
well.
Linux is a viable operating system for medium scale FTP hosting.
(see above)
Now, we're left with a couple of large holes: Large scale FTP
hosting and webhosting. Linux cannot compete in this area, and
neither can NT. The unices that CAN compete in this area (and
also do) are:
FreeBSD
Solaris
The windows that CAN compete in this area are:
.
I'd mention windows2000, but its trackrecord is nonexistant.
The best thing IMHO to do at this point would be to wait about
six months and see which ones of the over-zeolous w2K buying
business break and exactly how they do. Theres no doubt in
my mind that w2K (all flavors) will fail to meet BG's and
microsofts promises (their software always does), but the
important questions at this point are HOW and WHY.
> The next thing I know the bums on the corner handing out
> newspapers will be trying to hand me a W2K CD.
Hell ive got about 3 dozen you can have. Theyre mostly betas
though.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 4 Mar 2000 14:47:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:89pd5p$mlb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >Windows 2000 System File Protection will protect you from an application
>>> >overwriting or replacing system files
>>>
>>> WOW - is it that advanced ? I've never sen a version of UNIX that didn't...
>> I hope you're not being sarcastic, because I don't believe that any
>> UN*X variant has any protection from root installing a corrupt or bad version
>> of lib-foo.1.2 over lib-foo.1.2.
>> <non-confrontational, sincere>
>> Of course, I could be wrong... if I am, would you mind telling me how it works?
>> </non-confrontational, sincere>
> Not a problem:
> The person at the root prompt simply engages /bin/brian.
Woohoo! Thats the best typo ive ever seen. I of course meant
/bin/brain.
Flame away, I deserve it.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: Kelechi Odu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 15:56:50 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> After a week of playing around with this Corel Linux shit I have gotten my money
>back at
> the local computer shop. I can't believe that they are trying to sell shit like this.
>
> i agree with others in this club that Linux is really a total waste of time.
>
> My suggestion is save your money, buy Windows and live your life instead of
>dedicating it
> to trying to make a system run.
>
> What a piece of junk this Linux is.
>
> BOOOOOOBBAAAAAAAAA
You must be an absolute greenhorn not to be able to get Corel linux to
work. My suggestion: Quit using computers completely until your
faculties develop well enough. One more thing, if you hate Linux, then
kindly keep away from Linux newsgroups. You will only be wasting your
time and those of others.
------------------------------
From: Kelechi Odu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:02:16 +0100
Simon Buehring wrote:
>
> As someone who has never used Linux, but am interested in installing it at
> home, I am a bit perplexed as to all the different flavours of Linux out
> there.
>
> Can someone tell me what the difference is between the various versions of
> Linux - i.e. what are the major differences in the applications which come
> packaged on the CD's?
>
> E.g. do all linux versions come with the same relational databases, same
> compilers etc ?
>
> Is there anywhere on the Web which reviews all the Linux variants in terms
> of their features and ease of installation ?
>
> Actually, I am not that bothered if I choose a Linux version which is not
> necessarily the easiest to install. I am prepared to spend the time doing
> the nitty gritty of installation as a learning exercise in itself.
>
> Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> thanks
>
> Simon
If you are looking for a huge amount of software, then SuSE Linux is
your best choice. I believe it come with the larget amount of apps. It
also has a graphical installation Wizard (Yast2) with an optional
automatic installation. For an easier install, check out Caldera
OpenLinux or Corel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: 4 Mar 2000 15:03:49 GMT
In article <89po9r$col$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Typical LinoNazi behavior. Shoot the messenger instead of discussing
>the topic.
>
>Looks like we have a left end nut here.
>
>Does Linux attract a lot of homosexuals? Wouldn't surprise me in the
>least. They both suck...
>
>For the latest in deviant homosexual behavior:
>
>http://www.cruisingforsex.com
>
>Find out what the closet queens in your town are up to.
>
>Looks like the dressing room at bloomies is a no go this week.
>
>What a sick minded bunch.
Well! Finally Steve/keymaster, Proctologist Of Borg, posts
something relevant to Linux!
Linkname: cruisingforsex.com
URL: http://www.cruisingforsex.com/
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) (Red Hat/Linux)
And, since he spooged all over his keyboard during his long
and careful examination of the pictures on this website
(since, for religious purposes only, of course, he had to
determine precisely how sick, depraved, and homosexual they
are), we can be sure that Linux and Apache are doing an
excellent job of serving them.
Steve, it's great that you've finally begun to explore your
true sexual desires, and we're delighted that Linux can help!
Y'all come again real soon!
>In article <89plaf$1jm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>> This is just Steve/keymaster the homophobic fundamentalist
>> again, in another of his 1000 disguises. One of his two
>> previous posts complains about "profanity". The headers
>> also confirm it.
>>
>> Steve (or whatever your name is), doesn't "Thou shalt not
>> bear false witness" apply to you?
>>
>> Why don't you buy a couple of gay porno magazines and have
>> a nice time with yourself. You know you want to. It's
>> natural, and fantasies are completely safe.
>>
>> You need to start merging all your different personalities
>> together, and the first step is to admit that they exist,
>> and let them get to know each other. You have to stop
>> spending all your time fighting with other people -- post-
>> ing this crap under so many different names to get attention.
>> Even if you're getting paid to do it, you'd better quit,
>> because it isn't good for you. Your propaganda has no
>> effect anyhow, now that your cover is blown and we know
>> it's coming from one person.
>>
>> If you feel like talking, e-mail me your phone number, and
>> I'll give you a call. I don't have any negative feelings
>> toward you. I'd really like to help.
>>
>> Mark
>>
------------------------------
From: BSD Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 22:38:48 GMT
In comp.unix.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
>> Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
>> throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
>> environments and they will continue to do so.
> Such as? Can you document some of these "single-user assumptions" and some
> of the problems they caused?
> I maintain that NT was written from the ground up to be a multiuser OS.
I feel subjectively otherwise.....
Today I was printing from NT via a unix box to a postscript printer.
Things went relatively well, until NT started passing bogus
postscript files (fonts mucked up in the headers). I thought
I would solve the problem by moving the printer directly to
the NT box. Every time the printer signalled back to the cpu,
NT stalled, to about 10% or less throughput, just like a single
user dos box. IFF that is supposed to be multiuser or multitasking,
it is the pits. My toy 486/33 *nix box handles it in stride.
The 450mhz pentium NT croaks. I have noticed that it fits and starts
jerkily, just like an old dos box. I have a hard time accepting
that is the mark of a good OS. It is better than dos, in many
respects, but it is still short of the working feel of almost any
*nix.
Over the past 8 months or so, the NT box has bluescreened me about
10 times, under almost no load. The *nix boxes have never crashed,
during that same time, unless I really goofed somewhere. NT seems
to hold your hand a little better than sometimes happens as root.
But, it just dies too many ways for it to be quite the epitome OS.
NT is getting better, but still is a bit short.....IMHO.
Bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 15:52:11 GMT
SuSe would be best for you. It allows the control over the OS that Corel and Caldera
hide
in favor of super easy installs. SuSE is easy to install as well, but you have more
options during the install process.
Good luck.
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:39:38 -0000, "Simon Buehring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>As someone who has never used Linux, but am interested in installing it at
>home, I am a bit perplexed as to all the different flavours of Linux out
>there.
>
>Can someone tell me what the difference is between the various versions of
>Linux - i.e. what are the major differences in the applications which come
>packaged on the CD's?
>
>E.g. do all linux versions come with the same relational databases, same
>compilers etc ?
>
>Is there anywhere on the Web which reviews all the Linux variants in terms
>of their features and ease of installation ?
>
>Actually, I am not that bothered if I choose a Linux version which is not
>necessarily the easiest to install. I am prepared to spend the time doing
>the nitty gritty of installation as a learning exercise in itself.
>
>Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
>thanks
>
>Simon
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:06:03 GMT
"BSD Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hhpo$cm2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.unix.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
> >> Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
> >> throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
> >> environments and they will continue to do so.
>
> > Such as? Can you document some of these "single-user assumptions" and some
> > of the problems they caused?
>
> > I maintain that NT was written from the ground up to be a multiuser OS.
>
> I feel subjectively otherwise.....
>
> Today I was printing from NT via a unix box to a postscript printer.
> Things went relatively well, until NT started passing bogus
> postscript files (fonts mucked up in the headers). I thought
> I would solve the problem by moving the printer directly to
> the NT box. Every time the printer signalled back to the cpu,
> NT stalled, to about 10% or less throughput, just like a single
> user dos box. IFF that is supposed to be multiuser or multitasking,
> it is the pits. My toy 486/33 *nix box handles it in stride.
> The 450mhz pentium NT croaks. I have noticed that it fits and starts
> jerkily, just like an old dos box. I have a hard time accepting
> that is the mark of a good OS. It is better than dos, in many
> respects, but it is still short of the working feel of almost any
> *nix.
If it's passing gummed up postscript stuff, it could be the driver, or
perhaps the application you're printing from.
At our shop, we have about 35-40 NT boxes and about 15-25 Macs and we
have to all use PostScript to make the macs and the printers happier.
I have never had a problem from the PCs, however Adobe Illustrator on
the Mac seems to like to throw garbage at the printer often.
As far as a slowdown, I have never seen that on an NT box. We print
several hundred pages (several thousand when we have samples going out
to customers) and there is no slowdown. In fact seems that printing
through the NT server for the Macs is quicker than printing directly
to the printer (don't ask me why!).
The NT -> NT Server -> Printer is fast. I click print, and even a 5-10
page document is immediately sucked out of the queue and starts printing.
The only slowdown is if the printer has gone into "sleep" mode and has
to warm up.
> Over the past 8 months or so, the NT box has bluescreened me about
> 10 times, under almost no load.
Bluescreening this often indicates that you either have bad hardware,
bad driver for that hardware, or you just don't know what you're doing
and somehow managed to compromise the stability of the system (yes,
it's possible to do this on UN*X too!).
We have about 12 NT servers for various purposes and various loads and
about 35-40 NT workstations and have only had one bluescreen on one of
the workstations when Adobe Acrobat was doing a large batch of Word -> PDF
conversions. Acrobat installs some worthlessly buggy driver deep in the
system somewhere for some stupid reason and frequently causes problems.
Other than that, it's been almost a year since I"ve worked at this company
with only the single bluescreen.
> The *nix boxes have never crashed, during that same time, unless I really
> goofed somewhere. NT seems to hold your hand a little better than sometimes
> happens as root. But, it just dies too many ways for it to be quite the
> epitome OS. NT is getting better, but still is a bit short.....IMHO.
What Service Pack were you running? What kind of hardware do you have?
What kind of drivers were you using?
I bet you I could take a rock solid Un*x box, install a buggy driver and take
it down just as fast.
The biggest stability problem MS faces is having these worthless hardware
vendors
writing drivers and installing them on systems. A large majority of BSODs are
driver related.
If you're careful about the hardware you choose and which drivers you install,
you will never have a problem, like me.
With most un*xes, you have limited hardware choices to begin with, so they
hardware
you DO install it on has been tested thoroughly and all the bugs worked out.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 10:11:30 -0600
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Perhaps you have a different definition of crash from the crew of
> the Yorktown?
> According to http://www.info-sec.com/OSsec/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml
> the problem was a buffer overflow from a badly coded app, and the
> OS crashed. (actually, all the consoles on the lan crashed, quite
> a feat...)
Since the crew of the yorktown isn't quoted anywhere, I find it difficult
for you to know what they think.
The article doesn't say the OS crashed. It also doesn't describe what the
terms "console" means. Most likely (having worked with military hardware
and software) it refers to the custom application console.
It's relatively easy to prove. Write a simple divide by zero app and try to
take down an NT system. I bet you can't do it.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace"
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:14:53 GMT
"Grant Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:47 -0000, Neil
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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
>
> There's some stuff on the NT situation in the Kerberos FAQ for all
> those interested. Section 3.5 in the current version talks about
> the history of what went on.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/kerberos-faq/general/index.html
Unfortunately, that data is mostly outdated (notice it mentions NT 5.0
beta, which would be NT 5 Beta 2 probably. NT 5 B2 was extremely
immature and didn't even have a full implementation of ADS, let alone
a full implementation of a KDC.
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/planning/security/kerbsteps.asp
The following article entitled "Step-by-Step Guide to Kerberos 5 (krb5 1.0)
Interoperability".
It details how to set up Windows2000 Professional to use a non-Windows
KDC, how to link a Windows2000 KDC with a non-Windows KDC (trusts, account
mappings, etc), and how to use non-Windows clients with a Windows KDC.
They appear to have implemented a standard implementation of the MIT Kerberos
5 standard.
Perhaps when it's a Windows box to a Windows KDC, then it uses some proprietary
extensions, but it can use the full standard if it needs to?
-Chad
>
> --
>
> Grant Fischer (gfischer at hub.org)
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:05:50 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:35:10 GMT...
...and proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benchmarks?
>
> Where are they? Not some stupid German Linux magazine that nobody
> reads, but some verafiable benchmarks? Any out there?
That should really be the certificate of ultimate lack of clue... so
now c't is a stupid German Linux magazine that nobody reads. I feel
enlightened.
mawa
--
Zook Spur, Iowa | Bug, Kentucky | Number Nine,
What Cheer, Iowa | OK, Kentucky | Maryland
Rabbit Hash, Kentucky | Bald Friar, Maryland |
-- U.S. placenames
------------------------------
From: "Greg Cope" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Drafting a brochure
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:54:40 -0000
: I'm looking at promoting - and commercially supporting - Linux locally,
: for values of local in the far south-west of England.
:
: I've done some draft scribbling for a brochure, aimed primarily at those
: poor benighted souls caught in the Evil Empire. The purpose of the
: brochure is to explain "why Linux?"
Ah Linux in the South West .... surely a PNG/ GIF with Tux and a pasty may
be required ... :-)
These are equally "rough" comments and are meant in good faith.
As a rough guess you need to persuade the Business IT decision makers and as
such it may appear a little aggressive with lines like "When should we
upgrade?" in bold - why not leave the choice of when / why to the read and
just explain what linux has to offer.
What I mean is I prefer to be sold a good idea, rather than to be told my
thinking is wrong and this is why.....
I like the "Is Linux for me NOW?" section - although could you not make more
of a business case for the office file / print server that most offices
appear to have - i.e compare an "average" office of say 25 users running a
SAMBA set-up with an NT 25 user licence set-up. Or the cost of a linux
gateway / firewall / NAT router compared to a similar comercial set - up ?
"Why is Linux better?" - could you include a section on security - a
favourite among managers - i.e. the best security is open / peer reviewed
platforms - you could draw a parallel with cryptography where things are
only deemed secure if they have been reviewed - which requires openness.
Also perhaps a few links to other (good) online articles that are pro-linux
to support your arguments.
Did you not write a CGI faq? - and if so could this not be included in your
"resume" at the bottom?
Greg Cope
:
: I'm looking for comments on what I've written. I'm not going to post
: a machine-readable URL (I don't want to encourage it to get spidered)
: but it's at http://www.webthing.com and its name is /tux.html .
:
: Note followups.
:
: --
: Nick Kew
:
: We're so advanced here ... our nearest main road is called the A 386
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:55:15 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:06:03 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>If you're careful about the hardware you choose and which drivers you install,
>you will never have a problem, like me.
Drivers certainly help, but to say that if you're careful about the
hardware and the drivers and you'll never have a problem is
complete and utter horse-shit.
Machine config: Dell machine, Intel CPU, Adaptec 2940UW,
STB video card. All hardware is on the HCL, all drivers are WHQ Labs
qualified. SP5
Did it BSOD'd often? No. Can I say that I never had a problem? No.
I had 2 crashes in 6 months or so. I couldn't get SP6a working well
(crash after crash after crash) so I reinstalled NT clean (formatted)
and then installed SP6a. It's been working great ever since, but it's
only been about 1 month since I did that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:56:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:56:44 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
As another poster pointed out, X windows is a foundation, and
a fairly solid one, although it is lacking some stuff -- some
of it intentional (X, for example, doesn't need widgets; these
are the "walls" in this metaphorical house/GUI, and are provided
by other libraries).
Motif is more or less dead, though http://www.lesstif.org will
no doubt function for a long time. I don't know about CDE, but
am not all that concerned with it.
I do have some comments regarding X itself; at present, there's
no elegant window manager that allows for a quick repainting
after a resize (try playing with Internet Explorer on a Win NT 4.0
machine, and you'll see the behavior I mean; most X window managers
do rubberbanding). Of course, part of that reasoning is simple:
the resize refreshing would kill bandwidth. (Not that it's much
of an issue on one's local machine, but one of X's main features
is remote display, something Windows still doesn't really have yet).
There's also something that feels an awful lot like a bug; if
one implements a simple drawing system which looks at Expose,
GraphicsExpose, and NoExpose events, and uses XCopyArea() to
scroll around as much as possible, then, when one covers up the
window with lots of icons from other programs and uses auto-repeat,
one will get holes in the display; this is apparently because the
X system likes to buffer things, which isn't bad, but naive programs
can't necessarily know when the drawing actually occurs prior
to a request to XCopyArea(), which does the actual scrolling.
(Obviously, if it hasn't drawn yet, it can't scroll it
to somewhere else.)
More sophisticated programming might take care of this, but it
would probably take a bit of work.
The source code for the "simple" case is about 275 lines, BTW.
It also has a rather silly backing bitmap, which means I could
have used that everywhere anyway, but I wrote this code to
illustrate a point, not to get anything useful done :-) .
I'm going to have to continue researching this, as this problem
might get in the way of implementing the "IE refresh metaphor"
in a (currently hypothetical) window manager. I do note that
the window *will* receive GraphicsExpose events (well, it's a
Drawable, after all); it might be a synchronization problem fixed
with appropriate XFlush() or XSync() calls. Unfortunately, my
naive attempt thereat (I put in an XFlush() prior to the XCopyArea())
didn't do much.
Code available on request. (Is there a good X scrolling code example
out there?)
>
>-- 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.
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 04 Mar 2000 11:05:12 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
[...deletion of mostly correct observations...]
> Now, we're left with a couple of large holes: Large scale FTP
> hosting and webhosting. Linux cannot compete in this area
That's not very accurate, particularly for web hosting. If you
insist on running your large scale site from a single box, then
there are better options than Linux for your OS; but the fact of
the matter is that such large scale sites generally are easily
partitioned, and thus lend themselves very well to parallel,
load-balanced servers. Combine that with the high availability
that you can realize from multiple servers, and load-balancing
becomes the preferred approach.
For such an approach, Linux works very well.
If you really want to push the extremes of an n-tier solution,
then running Linux on some or all of the virtual machines in an
IBM S/390 will give you an extremely flexible, extremely reliable,
and extremely high-performance site implemented in a system that
is relatively easy to maintain and administer.
That's enough to handle the demands of any large scale site.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
