Linux-Advocacy Digest #850, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 07:13:08 EST
Contents:
It figures... (Donn Miller)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jack Troughton)
Re: Giving up on Tholen (George Marengo)
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers (Donal K. Fellows)
47DAE63A You know nothing about Linux. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Strange idea ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (Paul Jakma)
Re: It figures... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Jim Stuyck)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 01:25:43 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: It figures...
http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gates.html
Need I say anything more? LOL!
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:41:18 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Joseph T. Adams would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Face it, there's a prejudice in favor of C. It can't be considered
>: anything other than prejudice, because logical arguments in favor of
>: other languages fail regularly.
>
>This is not prejudice. I don't especially like C, and I wish there
>were something better that could replace it, but as yet nothing has
>proven to be even as good as C, much less better, for what C is mainly
>used for: development of compact and portable systems software.
>
>Anything that replaces C would have to be almost as fast, and would
>have to offer advantages that C doesn't. The only language AFAIK that
>meets both criteria is C++. C++ is being adopted only very slowly in
>the Linux world, for reasons I consider quite understandable.
>
>The main problem with C++ IMO is that pre-Standard C++ is not even
>close to being portable, and Standard C++ is very complex and
>therefore very difficult to implement correctly.
This isn't the *main* problem.
The *main* problem is that by adopting C++, you adopt the binary
representations of its object model. For which there are *no* standards
defined.
In order to link outside code to C++ code, you pretty much need to
define C bindings for all the bits you'd like to "publish" for public
use.
>For large, monolithic projects such as KDE and Mozilla, C++ is great,
>because it can work at high and low levels of abstraction
>simultaneously, and it is unique among widely-used languages in that
>regard.
>
>But for a system like Unix or Linux which is based on small, fast,
>robust components that are glued together by higher level scripting
>languages (most of which support OOP), C++ has relatively little to
>offer.
At least in theory, there should be no reason why you could not
construct small, fast robust components written in C++ that would
be linked together via shell scripts.
>As time goes on, C++ implementations will improve, and it is possible
>that the Standard will evolve to support subsets of the language that
>are smaller and easier to implement. (Embedded systems need a smaller
>C++ far more than Linux does.) I would assume that at that point, we
>will see more large pieces of open-source software switching to C++.
The problem that needs to be "solved" in order to increase the
adoption of C++ is that of library interoperability. The lack of
standardization, and the continuing evolution of implementations,
has prevented there being stable ways to combine libs from disparate
places without pretty much compiling it all yourself at one time.
Consider: Qt compiled using EGCS may not interoperate with Qt apps
compiled using GCC < 2.95 or with Qt components compiled with GCC version
>= 2.95.
And this sort of problem is likely to persist for some time to come,
and is really only resolved by some body coming up with a standard,
whether formal or informal.
--
"Oh, I've seen copies [of Linux Journal] around the terminal room at
The Labs." -- Dennis Ritchie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:38:43 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:59:37, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>>
>> Joe, Esther has been covering IT for many years; I think that when
>> she says "bottom line" she knows exactly what she's talking about. I
>> think it's safe to say that IBM profited to the tune of around 92
>> million last year from sales of OS/2 warp.
>
>Just to put that figure into perspective, IBM profitted to the tune of 2
>*billion* from "wired technologies" and servers. That's 2000 : 0092.
Oh, I know that IBM is huge, and that warp is only a small part of
what they do.
The main thing that irked me is that Joe Ragosta was calling Esther's
professionalism into question. Do you think Esther knows what "bottom
line" means? I think she does.
Like I said when I entered this thread (albeit not in so many words;),
this is just more noise to add to the mix. Anything other than the 92
million quoted from Esther is pure speculation on my part.
What the hell? It's fun.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:38:00 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:18:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>> Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>> George Marengo wrote:
>>>> I didn't evade it. Jeff Glatt lied.
>
>>> Incorrect. Tholen is one lying.
>
>> Hey, whatever... you two boys can fight it out.
>
>Afraid to request evidence, the way you did when the 92 million was
>mentioned, George?
Unless there is some reason that I should believe that you have lied
to me, there is no need for evidence from Glatt.
>You've suddenly stopped following-up after I pointed out that
>inconsistency of yours.
I've grown weary of playing your game, so you can play on without
me. Yes, I know that's inconsistent, since I've replied to you after
acknowledging it -- most of us mere mortals aren't nearly as
consistent as you are.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:42:23 GMT
On 27 Mar 2000 23:59:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> : HFS and HFS+, since the invention of the dynamically updated desktop file.
>
>> "Dynamically updated desktop file" has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with
>> filesystem journaling.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> : It is a journaled filesystem in the strictest sense of the term.
>
>> No, it is not.
>
>Yes, it is.
Do you have a reference for this? I searched the Apple website
and I could find no reference to HFS being a journaled file system.
>> http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n8647
>
>Been there, done that.
I'm guessing that's not the reference for whether HFS supports
journaling. What are you using as a source?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 10:43:43 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>> Jeff Glatt wrote:
>>>> George Marengo wrote:
>>>>> I didn't evade it. Jeff Glatt lied.
>>>> Incorrect. Tholen is one lying.
>>> Hey, whatever... you two boys can fight it out.
>> Afraid to request evidence, the way you did when the 92 million was
>> mentioned, George?
> Unless there is some reason that I should believe that you have lied
> to me, there is no need for evidence from Glatt.
Yes there is a reason for evidence from Glatt, George. He made the
claim, thus the burden of proof falls on his shoulders.
>> You've suddenly stopped following-up after I pointed out that
>> inconsistency of yours.
> I've grown weary of playing your game,
What alleged game of mine, George?
> so you can play on without me.
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing some sort of game,
George.
> Yes, I know that's inconsistent, since I've replied to you after
> acknowledging it -- most of us mere mortals aren't nearly as
> consistent as you are.
All of us are mortals, George. Obviously there's some other reason
for your inconsistency that your own mere mortality.
Here are the facts:
David Sutherland sent a complaint to the University of Hawaii. Indeed,
he sent it to at least ten different people, which provides an indication
of his true motivation. His complaint was forwarded to me. I demonstrated
that the text about which Sutherland was complaining had in fact been
written by someone else, not me. I also demonstrated that the posting of
mine in which I quoted that text did not involve any University facilities
(that is, I was using cable modem service *before* Sutherland complained).
The person who forwarded the complaint to me recommended that Sutherland
be ignored. I pointed to a particular statement in Sutherland's complaint
in which he was lamenting the lack of action by the University, and noted
that if the University ignored him, he would likely persist with his
complaints until he got some sort of response, thus I recommended that a
a response be sent to him, such as a statement that it wasn't a University
matter, given that no University facilities were involved.
Note that Sutherland was lamenting the *lack* of action by the University,
while Glatt is claiming that action was taken. Interesting, no?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers
Date: 28 Mar 2000 10:44:38 GMT
In article <8bidpe$bdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
gcaldwel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to install multiple OSs on my computer, so I nailed it down to
> uses Partition Magic and Boot magic or VMware.
> Are any of you using VMware for Linux? How does the virtual platforms
> perform. Is there any problems with performance do to running in a virtual
> window. Can files be shared between the installed platforms.
I know people who are using VMWare under Linux to run NT and who seem
to be happy with it, and I believe that the sharing files depends on
exactly how you set it up. However, I have not tried this myself, so
I cannot comment further in anything other than a prejudiced fashion.
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>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 47DAE63A You know nothing about Linux.
Date: Tue,28 Mar 2000 04:46:48+2000
Embrace the new Standard in Computer Aided design - LinuxCAD !
LinuxCAD is an original independently designed program runs on new
advanced Linux Operating system.
Complex design and graphics are created with ease and elegance.
LinuxCAD erases difficulties of Microsoft Visio and goes head to
head with AutoCAD.
Our improved introductory packageis only $99.00 and we provide
and custom design symbol libraries appropriate for your projects.
www.linuxcad.com
www.softwareforge.com
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Strange idea
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:00:14 GMT
Thanks for your complete answer, I appreciate it.
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 28 Mar 2000 12:22:43 +0100
> Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : gftp. I can't get it to run on Red Hat 5.2, because it requires a
> : version of gtk+ that refuses to compile with my current glibc
> : version. A real PITA, as this is a very nice FTP client which can run
> : transparently over SSH.
>
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was able to build gftp-2.0.7pre3-1 from the SRPM on Mandrake 7.0.
> (Binary RPMs usually work on Mandrake, but I prefer to build from
> source wherever possible.)
>
> IIRC, RH5.2 is based on glibc 2.0. If that is so, you'll have trouble
> building many current packages. It's possible to upgrade to glibc 2.1
> but the easiest way I've found to do that is simply to upgrade the
> entire distro.
There are several ways of getting the latest gftp to work, but I
either have to update glibc or have private versions of libraries
installed for gftp's use only. If I update glibc, it breaks several
other applications which were released with Red Hat 5.2 in mind. If I
upgrade my distro I lose lots of the nice configuration I did for this
machine. I think this is pretty broken behaviour.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:47:25 +0100
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Reiserfs is done. They're even playing around with ideas of having
> filesystem "plugins" which would allow an arbitrary piece of code to
> have a namespace in the filesystem.
not new by any means. the kernel already provides for userspace
filesystems -> nfs, so if you wanted you could support any kind of
namespace via a custom nfs server, eg an httpd<->nfs server, etc..
there's also something called "podfuk" which is also some kind of user
space fs. (iirc)
> It would be kinda like explorer
> plugins under Windows, but at the filesystem level
filesystem level? in kernel? **shudder**. thanks be to $GOD Linus won't
allow that in his kernel. Hans Reiser has some 'unique' (cough) ideas
about namespaces.
> and not at the file
> manager level.
which is arguably the right place for these kinds of things. possibly
what is needed is a standard lower-level system library to tie the
C-libraries vision of the namespace presented by the kernel together
with arbitrary namespace code.
such a lib would provide a common namespace facility to apps like file
managers (without polluting the kernel)..
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It figures...
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:03:21 -0600
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gates.html
>
> Need I say anything more? LOL!
Yes.
Why are we supposed to care?
You do realize that anyone can be arrested for anything without any reason.
I'm not saying that's the case here, just that the mere fact he was arrested
is meaningless.
------------------------------
From: Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:00:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here are the facts:
>
> David Sutherland sent a complaint to the University of Hawaii. Indeed,
> he sent it to at least ten different people, which provides an indication
> of his true motivation. His complaint was forwarded to me. I demonstrated
> that the text about which Sutherland was complaining had in fact been
> written by someone else, not me. I also demonstrated that the posting of
> mine in which I quoted that text did not involve any University facilities
> (that is, I was using cable modem service *before* Sutherland complained).
Hmmmm....This is from DejaNews:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Jason S. digest, volume 2450863
Date: 19 Feb 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <6ch4ba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
...
Did you try to "get a rise" out of her too, Jason? The reference to "former"
speaks volumes, Jason. Maybe you tried, and she determined that you're a
kook and a queer.
NOT from a "cable modem service": From "hale.ifa.hawaii.edu."
NOT "posted by someone else": Original "Tholen."
NOT "quoted the text": Original "Tholen."
Someone's "demonstration" to his employer was full of lies.
Jim Stuyck
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 06:13:39 -0600
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bpehe$q9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Why is it a problem that it exists if it is not used ?
>
> I'm thinking in terms of malicious intent here. Disgruntled employees,
> etc. It has, and does happen often. I think this was the context of
> Erik's argument as well, but I shouldn't speak for him in that fashion.
No, it's not my argument. If you have malicious intent, you can pretty much
find a way to do anything, on virtually any system. It's like locks, they
keep honest people honest (yeah, it's a silly saying.. it should be more
like "keeps opportunistic criminals clean")
My argument never had anything to do with one model being "better" or
"worse" than the other. Just that they are "different". Which they are.
> : If the systems administrators are "drunk on power", the users are pretty
> : screwed regardless. And as it's already been pointed out, you have the
> : same kind of issues with the Adminstrator account on NT ( take
ownership )
> : The point is that *someone* has to have control over the system.
>
> Right. But there is also the point of making a mistake, which humans are
> known to do from time to time.
Indeed. Placing a restriction, even if you have the ability to easily
override it, on access makes it less likely that you're going to make a
mistake.
In software development, we have what's known as "type safety" which
provides error conditions when you try to use one type as another (except in
very defined situations). You're free to tell the compiler to shove it
where the sun doesn't shine with a type cast, but you must consciously tell
the compiler to do this. This prevents accidental type problems. The same
should be true of the administrator. If the administrator tries to do
something outside of a normal users bounds (excepti n very defined
situations), then the OS should complain, unless specifically instructed not
to.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
