Linux-Advocacy Digest #728, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
Re: How can use linux? debates ("fysg")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Producing Quality Code (Gary Hallock)
Re: linux statistics. ("fysg")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Producing Quality Code (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:41:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/20/2000 at 04:42 PM,
Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Your post which appear to have come directly from Redmond has been refuted
time and again. You qualify as a lying pile of pondscum.
> IBM charged an arm and a leg to get an OS/2 devlopment kit while
> Microsoft gave them away free at schools.
When MS and IBM worked together the Developers kit was around $3,000. When
they broke off joint development, the IBM kit dropped to $200 a year for
constant upgrades. IBM provided support to schools long before there WAS a
Microsoft.
Thus you are proven a liar.
> IBM didn't embrace the concept of CD's and multimedia untell way late in
> the game, forcing users to install 50+ 1.44meg disks.
Another blatent lie. From OS/2 version 2, OS/2 was available on CD. The
last version on diskette was Warp 3.0. It contained a total of 28
diskettes. No version was ever 50+ diskettes.
Again you are proven a worthless liar.
> OS/2 refused to support an easy install method, forcing users to edit a
> 200+ line CONFIG.SYS file to add a CD-ROM driver.
Once more you are a proven liar. I have Warp 4.0 installed on several
machines here. The LONGEST config.sys file is 184 lines of which 16 are
blank, 18 are remmed out. And this machine loads Voice Type, full
debugging, the network, sound, gradd drivers, CDRW drivers, scanner
driver, fax drivers, scsi tape backup drivers, screen saver, DOS support,
Win 3.1 support, etc.
The maintenance partition which provides DOS support but no voice,
network, scsi tape, or CDRW support is only 87 lines long. Another machine
has 125 lines and offers full support for DOS, Windows, Multimedia, Fax,
SCSI tape, network, etc. Yet another, our Notes Domino Server which also
has multimedia, DOS, and Windows support installed as well as the network
has a config.sys file of 120 lines. And every command, etc. in those files
is documented on-line if one installs the help files.
Contast that to Win.ini for Win 98 with over 400 lines, most of which are
archaic to say the least and most of which are not documented in the help
files.
So, again, you are proven a liar of the worst sort for claiming a
config.sys file of 200+ lines.
And more to the point, you fail to understand that to get CD-ROM support
for Windows 3.1, one had to edit his or her config.sys file to install
from a CD-ROM, Moreover, Windows 3.1 did not support CD's at all. If one
purchased a CD-ROM drive before Win95 was released, one had to install the
support via vendor supplied software. I have over 80 diskettes for various
CD-ROM drives in our software library.
Long before Windows 95 came along, Warp 2.1 supported some CD drives out
of the box. The list was short, only about 12 drives several of which were
IBM products, but the support was there as well as cogent, clear
instructions in printed manuals for installing support for other CD
drives.
> IBM droped all consumer level support for OS/2 forcing users to pay up
> to 200$ an hour for help installing the thing.
Again you are proven a worthless lying pile of pondscum. If one buys the
retail version of Warp, one still gets installation support as part of the
package. Moreover, one can purchase support contracts for far less than
$200 per hour directly from IBM.
Moreover, MS doesn't even print manuals for Windows 98. Nor does it
provide ANY support for OEM installations of WIndows 95, 98, NT 4.0, or
Windows 2000. Only an insane idiot would prefer to buy a product with NO
available Manufacturer support for the OS over the ability to get support
even if slightly costly.
So, you have been absolutely and without a shadow of doubt proven to be a
worthless lying pile of pondscum. If you post any further messages, Mr.
Fizer, the subject and attribution lines will be altered to make the
reader aware of what a stinking louse you are.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How can use linux? debates
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:11:43 GMT
> If our only intention is to copy windows or the mac, then we are going
> to inherit all the problems those platforms currently have (and there
> is some evidence that this problem is happening already).
Sure, I hate being unable to type $HOME at Netscape :-)
> But even if we accept that the WIMP interface is the best way to do
things,
> we sacrifice a lot in the name of "compatibility" with Windows. For
example,
> consider the key bindings -- Windows users are used to using CTRL-C to
copy
> and CTRL-V (or SHIFT-INSERT) to paste. Now, there is nothing fundamental
> about these key combinations; in fact they are counterintuitive to someone
> who uses Emacs all the time. But since Windows does it that way, both
GNOME
> and KDE feel compelled to do it too. (Yes, I know the bindings can be
changed,
> but I'm trying to make a point here.)
I totally agree with this.
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:33:18 +0000
> Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
>
which is the point of it. (root is all-powerful, so if the all-powerful
can't do it, then no one else can either)
> He seemed to be indicating otherwise.
>
then you didn't read his read his point, or else deliberately
misinterpreted it.
> Typical attitude. Blame the user.
but the user is not root!!! root is not a normal user!!!
we are talking about root.. and it's a given on (standard) unix that
root is all-powerful, all-seeing.
> Nevermind that the tools don't give you
> the ability prevent problems.
what problem? You're talking about how administrator on NT is/can be
hamstrung, and you therefore conclude root on unix has a problem?
fsck off...
> rm -i is a pain in the ass. I would much
> rather remove access to files I don't want to accidentally touch. I don't
> know about you, but I make mistakes when I type.
then use rm -i... the i does stand for "interactive" and is designed
exactly for /interactive/ use of rm. I have rm aliased to -i when i log
in as root.
Unix is not NT, thanks be to god, so don't try to claim that because
Unix lacks idiocy ABC that therefore NT must be superior because it does
have idiocy ABC.
> I'm glad you're perfect.
i'm glad i don't have to spout rubbish on newsgroups in other to justify
my pay packet.
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:59:35 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > They *said* they would, some time ago, did they not?
> >
> > If so, then I see only two possibilities:
> >
> > (a) They tried and failed; or
> >
> > (b) They didn't try, when they said they would (meaning they lied).
>
> or (c) They are waiting for Windows 2000 Data Center 64 bit.
>
hahahahahahahahhaaa...
they'll be waiting a long time then, won't they?
But surely though, if NT4 is such a great, reliable and scaleable OS as
MS have always claimed it to be, they could have migrated to it? Why
didn't they migrate to NT4, erik?
When hotmail originally started up they didn't say, "golly, we'd better
for wait for Solaris 7 which will be released next year" did they?
> They gave no timetable for such a migration, and it's not something that
> happens overnight.
>
they stated that they would move Hotmail to NT when they bought it. Now
over 2 years later, and still absolutely no sign of migration. In fact
weren't hotmail advertising for Unix developers/admins not so long ago?
> > : systems. For pure I/O, you'd want 64 bit processing.
just to point to whoever said that: hotmail currently runs on /32 bit/
platforms!
Solaris isn't 64bit (yet, only the kernel is 64bit) even though the
hardware is, and the FreeBSD web frontend servers have no chance of
being 64 bit.
So if hotmail runs fine now on unix on 32 bit, then you can't use a "NT
needs 64bit because of the I/O" type arguments...
> Considering that MS hasn't owned hotmail for 3 years, that would be kind of
> difficult, would it not?
They bought it when? December 1997? That smells like close to 2.5 years,
which certainly smells long enough to have ported hotmail over...
(it's such a fast-moving industry isn't it? Are you saying MS are slow?)
> ... They never
> said they would be moving it to NT,
yes they did. They said as much on the "about" type pages on hotmail,
but that is conveniently absent now.
> and they have been slowly introducing NT
> into the system.
have they? where? on the desktops of Hotmail staff no doubt..
Show proof (as you love saying) that NT is used /anywhere/ on hotmail.
-paul jakma
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:17:13 GMT
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:52 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:10:16 GMT
>
>>>On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>
>>>>When MS pressures Intel and Compaq NOT to even pursue software development,
>>>>or to put any kind of software on top of windows, what do you call that?
>
>>>I certainly don't call that proof that MS pressures hardware
>>>manufacturers not to support any other OS, which is the claim in this
>>>thread.
>>>
>>>Care to address that topic? Without the ad hominem this time?
>
>>No, the ad hominem stays; you're an idiot, Roger.
>
>Try to imagine how much that hurts me, coming from you, Max.
Imagine how little I care.
>>The particular refute for
>>your particular pedantic idiocy is the neo-per-processor-licensing. This is
>>what 'pressures' MS applies to manufacturers to prevent them from supporting
>>any other OS. It is public record that this exists; the proof will
>>nevertheless skitter out from under your hawkish gaze, as always.
>
>Ah, so * that's * why, ATI and certain other video card manufacturers
>don't release the info required for the creation of Linux drivers --
>because of licensing of MS's OSes.
Need I bother disagreeing with such a ludicrous answer? No, but I will
anyway, since its you, Roger. I assume they don't release their proprietary
information because they are in business and are not stupid. The reason they
only bother developing Windows drivers themselves to begin with is because of
licensing of MS's OSes. Dummy.
>Or did you miss the fact that the discussion was hardware
>manufacturers in general?
The discussion is Microsoft, specifically, and how they've fucked over the
hardware manufacturers in general, I would suspect.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:15:09 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Says nothing about the OS or hardware it runs on. She's talking about the
> architecture of the application.
>
Ah... so its just an application then? So there shouldn't be too much
problem porting over to NT then, should there? Hell, you can get Unix
porting kits for NT.
So therefore, from what you say, the only variable left is the quality
of the low-level OS. And MS themselves would therefore be saying that NT
is not up to it...
> > 1) Go to http://linux.3dfx.com/open_source/download/voodoo3_banshee.htm
> > 2) Download the four files for my system
> > 3) Install the X server, and two glide components (rpm -Uvh)
> > 4) rpm --rebuild then install the device driver module
> > This one gets built from source because it has kernel dependencies.
> >
> > It's STILL easier.
>
> You're glossing over a few details.
>
no he's not. It really is that easy.
download
rpm -U
rpm --rebuild
hey presto...
> Except when the vendor supplied driver is no longer current, as is the case
> with Windows 2000.
Well there's another benefit of Opensource for you...
(notice that the 3Dfx kernel module is built from source in the above
steps.)
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:28:28 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 20 Mar 2000 15:51:24 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 17:52:56 GMT
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
>>>
>>>> Yes I did.
>>>
>>>You know, you swear up and down that you dont know anything about
>>>computers, that youre not a system installer person, etc. and then you
>>>have the bollocks to disagree with someone who actually knows what
>>>theyre talking about. I'm beginning to understand exactly why the
>>>tech support person on the other end of the phone gave you the
>>>instructions they did. I probably would have told you to throw in
>>>a little chant and a coupla hail marys in there too.
>
>> They do. You haven't any idea what you're talking about, sorry. You may feel
>> like the "King of all PCs", but yes, he did. Gateway knows he did, I know he
>> did, he knows he did, MICROSOFT knows he did. Why are you so sure he didn't?
>
>Because ive done it, and my experience is very different.
Well, see, an experience of *not* having a problem is really pretty worthless
when contrasted to actually *experiencing* the problem. To insist that
somebody else *shouldn't* be having a problem because you *didn't* have the
problem is pretty silly.
>> One doesn't re-install Windows on a Gateway 2600 without getting experience
>> with that specific task. When that knowledge conflicts with your generic
>> knowledge of this "sort of thing", you would be wise to bow to the expertise
>> of the one with the particular experience.
>
>Ive had experience with this sort of thing. Alot of it. You are WRONG.
The very little experience I have had with THIS THING (re-installing Windows
on my Gateway 2600 over forty times (including over thirty botched installs
because I missed a step in the "magic install procedure") contradicts your
statement irrefutably.
>Nice sig though. Must get you lots of jobs.
I only need one, and it pays pretty good, so it ain't an issue.
>> One of my pet peeves with One Microsoft Way is how it convinces people that
>> they know how computers work because they think they know how Windows works.
>> Nothing personal, pook, but the value of having "installed Windows on hundreds
>> of PCs" isn't really a lot when it comes to knowing what you're talking about.
>
>Thats not all ive done, brainiac. Installing windows on hundreds of PCs is
>incedental. I do much, much more impressive things to actually earn money.
But do they have any bearing on the specific discussion?
>>>> Even installing them separately gets Windows confused about where the
>>>> drivers are, which you can see with a bunch of error messages that must
>>>> be ignored and the correct driver location provided multiple times.
>>>
>>>Because you dont know what youre doing. Stop pretending that you do.
>
>> No, you don't know what you're talking about. Call Gateway. And believe me,
>> NOBODY grills a tech support jockey like I do;
>
>This explains quite alot, and the funniest bit of it is that I know damn well
>that you have no idea what im talking about. You are doomed to a long and
>difficult time with computers forever.
Ha. Not just cryptic, but senseless. What's your point?
>> much of this procedure *sounds*
>> like voodoo, I know. But that's the point, dammit.
>
>No, it doesnt sound like voodoo. It sounds entirely unessesary and stupid.
Uh... the vernacular for a procedural or troubleshooting step which sounds
unnecessary and stupid but is executed based on a *potential* belief of what
*might* be a problem is "voodoo" (especially when any logical/technical
grounding for the silly step is not forthcoming, because it is easier to
continue to practice the voodoo than it is to figure out if it makes any
sense).
>> When all else fails, blame the guy for having the problem. Typically MS
>> quackery. This is the kind of bullshit that enables MS to do such a piss-poor
>> job for so much money and still blame all the problems on somebody else.
>
>Uhhmmm...Just so you know, I really actually dont like windows, and I really
>actually despise microsoft quite passionately. You would realize this if you
>had read any of my other posts under this moniker before responding to this
>one.
I respond only to your statements; sorry, I don't plan on researching the
background of people I'm replying to. You don't *sound* like someone who
despises Microsoft; you sound like someone who despises people who are
frustrating to tech support jockeys.
I guess that means your posting from comp.os.linux.advocacy, huh? :-) (JOKE!
JOKE! {but its true, isn't it?})
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:32:14 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>
> One word: semaphores. :-)
>
> (Or maybe mutexes. I'll have to research it; on MS, at least,
> there's a CSemaphore class. But in Linux, there's no such animal,
> at least not on a stock RedHat system. Of course, IMO they're not
> that hard to implement using mutexes, although I haven't tried
> to do so yet...)
>
Linux has semaphores and mutexs. semop(), semctl(), semget(),
pthread_mutex_*.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux statistics.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:48:57 GMT
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:53:26 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b7g9k$uqt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And anyway it doesn't invalifdate my original
> > (which you seem to have snipped) that spread
> > the FUD about needing CALs for
> > an NT webserver which is BS.
>
> The entire definition of Client Access License has been a
> feature Microsoft has played many interesting games with.
> For example, the definition that was used prior to Back-Office
> and Enterprise edition specified no duration. Typically, the
> CALs were estimated based on concurrent connections.
>
Still doesn't change the point that CALS are not needed for web access, why
not just admit it instead trying to move the goalposts.
> > > > NT boxes can also do their own DNS, so the same rather crude DNS
> load
> > > > balancing is possible.
> > > > However CISCO local director and similar solutions
> > > > are much more popular at web sites because they
> > > > give finer granularity.
> > > And CISCO runs BSD UNIX as it's core operating system.
> >
> > So what, a router is a blackbox.
> > The main reason they run things like a BSD
> > kernel is hsitorical, CISCO has been developing
> > routing code on top of BSD
> > kernels since the mid-80s why would they change.
>
> They've changed quite a bit since 1980.
Certainly have CISCO didn't exist in 1980.
> Even the types of
> UNIX being used, the user interfaces, and the management
> functionality has changed radically, even the scheduling
> has become more sophisticated - supporting multilevel cache,
> SCSI multi-spindle scheduling, and RAM.
Of course there has been evolution in the platform, but they've built on
foundations they created in the 80s it doesn't make sense to rip everything
out and start anew on top of a heavily customsied kernel.
>
> > However, a BSD kernel is
> > not a requirement for Local Director like functionality,
>
> > WLBS is a "shim"
> > driver in the network stack on NT and does just the same.
>
> Perhaps, if Win2K is sufficiently reliable, we may see the the
> use of W2K based Local Director like functionality. I don't see
> Cisco replacing millions of routers with NT or Win2K any time
> soon.
I don't see anybody (least of all me) saying that Cisco should or could
replace the core routing code in their product line with NT. My point was
that UNIX is not a requirement for Local Director like functionality. In
fact a IP stack based approach on the web servers rather thin a single point
of failure like local director has somehting to be said for it regardless of
what OS the web servers are running.
>
> That's very interesting since PCI was first used on the MAC and
> the MicroVAX - neither of which were Intel based.
That's just complete rubbish, the first implementations of PCI came with the
release of the Pentium processor. PCI based MACs came a lot later, and PCI
slots in MicroVAX are figment of your imagination.
>
> Half true. The vendors decide what the consumers will buy,
> and Microsoft decides what the vendors will sell. SCSI
> makes Linux run faster with multiple drives while Windows NT 4.0
> runs slower. Win2K has a multithreaded disk driver that will
> be capable of managing multiple outstanding drive requests.
NT 4.0 has always had multithreaded disk drivers and responds very well to
multiple disks, what is you assertion based upon.
<rest of Rex's delusions snipped for brevity.>
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 21 Mar 2000 13:45:55 GMT
In article <8b77as$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <n@-> wrote:
> Asking some very specific questions like these do not make sense.
> After all, 99% of programmers these days use re-usable library
> components where all of these algorithms are allready written.
That's probably true. Who wants to write hashtable or balanced tree
code anyway? It's tricky enough to get right at the best of times...
> How many of you actually write a linked list from scratch any more?
> how may write hash tables? etc.. if you do, and unless you have a
> very good reason to do that, then you are wasting the employer time
> and money, becuase instead you should be simply using a library of
> those routines.
I've only written a linked list algorithm once in the last five years
(though I've implemented the algorithm a few times for various
reasons) and that was because no conventional algorithm supported the
set of operations I wanted to perform in an efficient manner (well,
time-ordered queues are not a very common structure, and I got
everything except removal of a single element to be constant time. :^)
But usually I'll leave that sort of thing to others and concentrate on
the more complex higher-level optimisations.
I suppose the mark of a good programmer/designer is knowing (usually
by means of a hunch, as that is much faster than calculating) what
optimisations do best when looked at through bounded cost/benefit
analysis. Those who are good at this will tend to make the most
beneficial technical choices given the general constraints on time,
cost and raw ability...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
