Linux-Advocacy Digest #908, Volume #25 Sun, 2 Apr 00 03:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's settlement offer : publish ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL ("Jim Ross")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Perry Pip")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Perry Pip")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ("Austy Garhi (n. d'e-pl.)")
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) (Andy Newman)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Perry Pip")
Re: Corel Linux
Re: M$, IBM & *nix (was I WAS WRONG)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 06:13:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:25:22 +1000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>My main problem right now is that higher-level directories have
>>to be built in a certain order, as opposed to letting them build
>>via $(wildcard *) or something.
>
>So what's the problem. Use the shell as make was intended to...
>
> SUBDIRS = build-me-first build-me-second and-me-third
> all:
> @for i in $(SUBDIRS); do\
> cd $$i && $(MAKE);\
> done
>
>There are some other things you need to do to make it more
>correct (setting -e in the shell to catch errors in the
>sub-directory makes, but not if the -k switch has been
>passed to make). I.e.,
>
> all:
> @set -e;\
> for flg in $(MAKEFLAGS) '';\
> do\
> case $$flg in\
> *=*) ;;\
> *k*) set +e;;\
> esac;\
> done;\
> for i in $(SUBDIRS); do\
> cd $$i && $(MAKE);\
> done
>
>
>>it has the bad habit of building the things it wants, rather than
>>the things I want; 'make blah.o' might make foo.o if foo.o's
>>dependencies are out of date. But I can live with that. :-) )
>
>Well make is just doing its job there. The problem is in the
>input to it, i.e., don't use wildcard.
True, these are very minor nits, as things now stand.
(Although thanks for the -e suggestion. Might be helpful,
if ugly. :-) )
>
>
>--
>Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's settlement offer : publish ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:59:07 -0500
Walter-is-my-fake-name-because-walters-are-always-dumb
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 1 Apr 2000 12:34:09 -0600, Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:43:59 GMT,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walter) wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:23:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> >>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In comp.lang.java.advocacy, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote on Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:52:55 GMT
> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Walter wrote:
> >> ALL must be published, included timely updates,
> >>else it's useless
> >>and POINTLESS.
> >>
> >>
> >>ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL.
> >
> >Only if you apply that to every other software company in the world
> >too. I'm sure Oracle and IBM would love that.
>
> They should forced to when they constitute MONOPOLIES.
>
> IBM: IBM is moving rapidly toward Linux.
> (A smart move by IBM would be to free and open OS/2,
> so that parts of it could be cannibalized and melted into
> GNU projects).
>
I get the impression that IBM is unwilling/unabilities to clean out and
replace OS/2 code they don't own to release it.
Maybe IBM could ask Linux users to vote on which parts are most highly
needed and then just fix and release that to open source/GPL.
Maybe the Object Desktop code would be a good place to start (can't remember
the correct name, but it makes sure the program shortcuts stay valid.)
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 01:17:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting R.E.Ballard from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:59:00 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>> Devlin wrote:
[...]
>(the safest after-market
>video card you can buy is an S3 Trio64 or an S3 Virge for PCI bus.
Hey, Rex. Thanks for the tip, BTW; I am absolutely dedicated to finding the
*safest* PC hardware these days. Faster, cheaper, and better all suck in
comparison to safer when it comes to video hardware.
>But when they did this, OEMs suddenly switched to other chips.
And thanks also for once again proving that knowledge and wisdom are not
valueless in the face of mindless neigh-saying like Roger repetitively
practices upon us.
[...]
>Linus knows how to speak USB, and he even knows that there are
>people who have cracked the protocol. Unfortunately, he can't
>put the complex peripheral protocol code into Linux because it's
>protected by Microsoft agreements.
>
>As usual, even if I had the agreements in front of me, I couldn't
>tell you what's in them. That could only be revealed under a court
>order. I wouldn't be the one to ask, but the membership of the USB
>standards committee would be a good starting point.
I suspected that USB was a monopoly move, but was never sure how. Are you
saying that the USB standard is unavailable to anyone but Microsoft and their
victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpartners?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 01:17:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:49:02 GMT
>>Microtrash forces HW
>>makers to sign non-compete agreements (whatever that means) and
>>non-disclose agreements (apparently they cannot disclose the
>>source code of the driver).
>
>This is what you are supposed to be supporting -- not just spinning
>more fables about.
No, there is no argumentative support required for this statement; they are
accepted (by the overwhelming consensus of research and analysis) and known
facts. If you wish to contradict these historical truths or existent
circumstances, you're going to have to support that hypothesis, not just spew
"says you" all over the groups.
>And if they cannot disclose it, how do you know this?
If they could disclose it, how would we know this?
>>Then it locks them into very long
>>agreements, say 10 years. I know some people who work for HW
>>companies and they have told me that these agreements are what
>>keep them from writing drivers for other OS's.
>
>So, you have a name for this mythical company being so pressured?
All major (and most other) PC manufacturers. Pick one. If you can contradict
the fact that these contracts exist, please do so. Otherwise, stop trolling.
(Yea, right, like that's gonna happen.)
>Didn't think so.
Didn't think at all, you mean. Why is it you are so convinced these things
don't exist. I mean, it isn't like you've seen every document signed by every
company in the world. A small child first learning to grasp the concept of
logic might question whether it is necessary to see every document to know
that one doesn't exist, but us adults generally realize that to assume a
document doesn't exist because you haven't seen it is a silly thing to do.
I'm thinking you're going past any reasonable idea of skepticism, Roger, and
are definitely within the realm of delusion.
>>They are
>>uncertain that the driver they produce will be different enough
>>from the Windows driver.
>
>Well, since MS doesn't do anything but the most basic, it's not hard
>to offer a compelling update if you hardware does anything out of the
>ordinary (acceleration, etc.)
If they don't do anything but the most basic, how come they get credit for all
"Windows" software? It's not hard to pass the buck when you're made of teflon
licensing, but your assumption that Microsoft cannot be held responsible for
all the code they take credit for is pretty pointless in light of the
discussion.
>>M$ lawyers wear *big* glasses and they
>>might get sued. A number of these companies would love to
>>produce drivers for other OS's.
>
>But if they did, Guido might come over and conduct another
>"negotiation" ...
I'm assuming that was simply a dumb-ass comment, and you don't personally know
of anyone working for Microsoft named Guido?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 01:17:13 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting R.E.Ballard from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:37:41 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:
>
>> > 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.
>
>Max, I had to ask you to mind you manners :-).
>But you do catch more flies with honey. While you write
>to Roger, there are others lurking.
Sorry, Rex; late night, rising frustration...
>Try to be a representative of Linux, not a marauding teen-ager.
Sorry, Rex. I'm a representative of T. Max Devlin and nothing else. I
support Linux as well as any open source product, but I'm not trying to be a
model for anything except reasonable clarity. I wouldn't consider beating
Roger off the thread with a thick stick to be unreasonable, so a few 'ad
hominids'(sic) are going to creep in there as long as he's still here.
>> The particular refute for your particular pedantic idiocy
>> is the neo-per-processor-licensing.
>
>Actually, the most dramatic examples of this behavior - as disclosed
>in Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" include Microsoft's specific
>targeting of IBM - the only OEM that did not have a license until
>15 minutes before the release of Windows 95.
[...]
>Max,
>What I have noticed in my dialogues with Roger is than when I have
>provided new information, within a matter of days, the DOJ is acting
>on that information. I don't know if Roger works for the DOJ, but
>he is a good investigator rather than the usual "Microsoft lackie".
You Are Kidding Me, Right?
>Roger.
So now I'm supposed to think after all this time and all the personal
harassment he has levied at me in the group that he is really a crafty
investigator putting together a case against Microsoft? Puh-Leeze.
>I'm asking these as questions - that Roger might want to have his
>people ask - not as questions I expect anyone to answer.
>
>> >>Roger wrote:
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 01:17:15 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:11:16 GMT
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:37:41 GMT, someone claiming to be R.E.Ballard
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:
>
>>> > 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.
>
>>Actually, the most dramatic examples of this behavior - as disclosed
>>in Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" include Microsoft's specific
>>targeting of IBM - the only OEM that did not have a license until
>>15 minutes before the release of Windows 95.
>>
>>Microsoft demanded that IBM stop shipping machines with OS/2, and
>>even insisted that unless IBM agreed, that Microsoft would insist
>>on a license audit (extortion) which it threatened to disclose to
>>the public (blackmail). Eventually, to get the license, IBM paid
>>nearly $30 million - for nearly 4 million licenses - machines sold
>>with OS/2 instead of Windows.
>
>Nice revision of history there. [...]
According to you and Microsoft, maybe. Might we see your documentation?
>And I find nothing to suggest that MS would make the results of such
>an audit public.
Well, I doubt a judge would consider you to represent the standards of the
community in such a thing, because just about everyone here knows enough to
suggest that MS would threaten blackmail.
[...]
>>Microsoft also used it's pricing and discount structure to make it
>>more cost-effective to purchase more licenses than you needed than
>>to buy too few.
>
>Most volume discounts work this way.
No, they don't, Roger. They aren't necessarily designed to, nor is that a
common result. In MS cases, it is purposeful intent. Ask Rex, he'll tell
you. If he's allowed by restrictive Microsoft licensing contracts.
>>At the same time, this obligated the OEM to use
>>the licenses that were purchased - especially if they wanted a rebate
>>in the event of a sales short-fall.
>
>Nope -- MS had their money, they could care less if the software
>actually shipped.
Says you. MS might say that in public, but their record of deceit stands on
its own. MS is quite concerned that their "shovelware" get in front of a user
(or at least between them and anyone else's software.)
>>According to Judge Jackson, and Microsoft's testimony in both the
>>Java and the Novell case, Microsofts primary purpose for many of
>>it's tactics was to protect it's market share from unnamed competitors.
>
>How dastardly! To try to succeed? How * dare * they?
>
>Free hint -- * any * commercial venture will try to protect its market
>share.
And they're allowed to, too. Unless, of course, they already have a 95%
market share, and their actions show the intent, capability, and reasonable
chance of monopolization. Then, its illegal. Next silly thought escaping
from your empty head?
>>This was stated in the Sunsoft vs Microsoft Java case in so many words.
>>Microsoft even stated that it had to protect it's market share from
>>all sorts of competitors.
>
>The ones Jackson claims don't exist?
The ones that don't exist. Only MS claims they exist.
>>Microsoft's market share at the time
>>this testimony was given was nearly 95% of the market. Microsoft
>>specifically named OS/2 and Linux as competitors.
>
>But of course, Jackson knows better than MS what their market is, and
>the possible competition.
Why wouldn't he? MS gets to make it up themselves without any support from
market data? You need a new diaper, Roger. The baby shit is leaking from
your mouth again.
(I'm sorry, Rex. I KNOW this has already pissed you off. I am NOT normally a
flamethrower. But there's just something about the way he mindless repeats
the same transparently ludicrous rhetoric.... Anyway, that's enough for me
for now. I just can't take it anymore. I'll check back in later. But take
my word for it, you're wasting your time with Roger. He isn't the
investigator, though I'd be more than willing to believe that there are some
within the DOJ which have read your posts with as much interest as I do and
much more ability to benefit from them.)
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:25:44 -0600
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Hardly. WinCE mightn't be as popular as PalmOS, but devices using it are
> >certainly selling well. WinCE hasn't been around for that long either,
> >whereas NT was around on several platforms for many years.
>
> Selling so well, that IBM just stopped making Wince boxes. Still making
their
> palm clone though.
IBM just came out with a new Workpad that is CE based. The Workpad z50.
This thing sells faster than IBM can produce it.
------------------------------
From: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:35:35 -0800
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rmZE4.1243$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Read Inside Windows NT. MIPS used to advertise that they were the ones
that
> NT was developed on. But since you're incapable of doing any research
> yourself, here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/fromms/kanoarchitect.asp
>
> "We tested ourselves by not doing the x86 version first. We did the RISC
> (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) stuff first. "
Fair enough. However this has little pertinence to the fact that the current
version of NT, i.e. Win2K, is not supported on any architecture other than
IA-32. Has it ever ocurred to you that portability has been lost due to new
features added.
> > >NT4 runs on PPC,
> >
> > Proof please. Provide URL's to resellers for NT4 on PPC.
>
> My NT 4.0 CD has 4 directories. I386, PPC, MIPS, and Alpha, with
> executables for each.
So you would recommend to your client or boss or whoever you work for to run
NT on PPC or MIPS?? If not, it is rather misleading as an adovacte to say
"runs on". The reality is their are no service packs, security updates, etc.
for these architectures. No resellers are selling PPC or MIPS systems with
NT installed. It is more accurate to say "used to run on".
>
> > >Alpha
> >
> > Only as 32 bit. Running NT on Alpha is as effective as running
> > Win311/Dos622 on a Pentium III.
>
> And your point is? How does it's speed relate to the fact that it exists?
>
My point is if you are running a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit chip you're not even
close to using the full capability of the chip.
> > and x86.
> >
> > Yeah sure, untill it crashes.
>
> Every OS crashes. Every OS.
Yes, Every OS crashes. Some OS's crash very very rarely. Other OS's are
almost guaranteed to crash after a certain period of time under heavy
workload due to memory leaks.
> Even a theoretically bug-free OS can crash due
> to things like radiation effects on transistors.
>
I Guess you've never heard of radiation hardening, or of parallel fault
tolerance. I am currently doing development work on a VxWorks embedded
system that is using radiation hardened parallel fault tolerant hardware.
------------------------------
From: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:40:11 -0800
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rmZE4.1243$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Read Inside Windows NT. MIPS used to advertise that they were the ones
that
> NT was developed on. But since you're incapable of doing any research
> yourself, here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/fromms/kanoarchitect.asp
>
> "We tested ourselves by not doing the x86 version first. We did the RISC
> (Reduced Instruction Set Computing) stuff first. "
Fair enough. However this has little pertinence to the fact that the current
version of NT, i.e. Win2K, is not supported on any architecture other than
IA-32. Has it ever ocurred to you that portability has been lost due to new
features added.
> > >NT4 runs on PPC,
> >
> > Proof please. Provide URL's to resellers for NT4 on PPC.
>
> My NT 4.0 CD has 4 directories. I386, PPC, MIPS, and Alpha, with
> executables for each.
So you would recommend to your client or boss or whoever you work for to run
NT on PPC or MIPS?? If not, it is rather misleading as an adovacte to say
"runs on". The reality is their are no service packs, security updates, etc.
for these architectures. No resellers are selling PPC or MIPS systems with
NT installed. It is more accurate to say "used to run on".
>
> > >Alpha
> >
> > Only as 32 bit. Running NT on Alpha is as effective as running
> > Win311/Dos622 on a Pentium III.
>
> And your point is? How does it's speed relate to the fact that it exists?
>
My point is if you are running a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit chip you're not even
close to using the full capability of the chip.
> > and x86.
> >
> > Yeah sure, untill it crashes.
>
> Every OS crashes. Every OS.
Yes, Every OS crashes. Some OS's crash very very rarely. Other OS's are
almost guaranteed to crash after a certain period of time under heavy
workload due to memory leaks.
> Even a theoretically bug-free OS can crash due
> to things like radiation effects on transistors.
>
I Guess you've never heard of radiation hardening, or of parallel fault
tolerance. I am currently doing development work on a VxWorks embedded
system that is using radiation hardened parallel fault tolerant hardware.
Perry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 22:39:13 -0800
From: "Austy Garhi (n. d'e-pl.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can we say "shrinkwarp?"
HUH??
-- =
---
e-mail: =3D=3D=3D> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9=
-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9-=A9
Hand in hand with OS/2. Hell with NT.
___________________________________________________
((( BOXER ))) fassst, 32-bit character mode editor
http://www.boxersoftware.com/
___________________________________________________
((( InJOY ))) DIALER apparatus EXTRAORDINAIRE!
http://www.fx.dk/injoy
=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=
=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=A9=
=A9=A9=A9=A9
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 16:29:56 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I wrote:
> @for i in $(SUBDIRS); do\
> cd $$i && $(MAKE);\
> done
The cd $$i && $(MAKE) should be in a sub-shell of course.
------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:50:02 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Douglas E. Mitton" wrote:
>
> > Yes, I agree with some things on your list ...
> >
> > - Windows users never have to deal with partitioning. That is one of
> > the toughest concepts the new Linux installer has to contend with.
> > Now, buy it pre-installed and its as easy as buying a computer with
> > Windows pre-installed! :-)
> >
>
> Partitioning is only necessary if you are installing Linux along side
> Windows. While there certainly are advantages to creating multiple
> partitions for a Linux install, the simplest thing is to just wipe the
disk
> clean and install in one big partition. Of course simpler yet is buying
a
> computer with Linux pre-installed.
>
> Gary
>
Even IF you do a "Stupid" Linux install, you need 2 partitions: one for swap
and one for your files.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:46:13 -0800
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0E2F4.1162$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >MIPS,
> >
> > Proof please. Provide URL's to resellers for NT4 on MIPS. MIPS is
> > currently 64 bit BTW.
> > NT4 on MIPS was never 64 bit.
>
> Nor was it on Alpha. Neither is Linux on Alpha.
>
That's a lie. Others have already pointed that out.
> > >I've heard that a SPARC port was
> > >done, but never marketed.
> >
> > Proof please. Provide URL
>
> Well, so far, everything he said has been 100% true, why would he
> need to keep proving things to an ignorant overly-biased fanatic like you?
>
And that's an insult.
So "Chad", Nothing has changed since the last time you responded to one of
my posts several months...lies and insults.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 21:45:48 -0800
piddy wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Corel Linux comes in a perttier blue box than other brands of
>Linus(tm).
>
>Comments?
Corel Linux the Microsoft Windows of the Linux world.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$, IBM & *nix (was I WAS WRONG)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 22:53:51 -0800
>All true, I agree entirely with you but sometimes you do need to
>understand timings etc... Architecturally the 808[86] are the same
>but their implementations do introduce some differences that certain
>programs care about. Not many though. These days the 80x86 family
>and clones make it a lot harder to produce fast code. All the micro-
>architectures are different and that messes up trying to produce
>fast implementations of certain things (pixel bashing loops are one
>common example) for the mass-market. You need to code in N times
>and select at install-/run- time.
Yes, that is true. I have counted cycles to optimize for such reasons.
I was just referring to the fact that barring bugs in the silicon, running a
program on a different processor that the one for which it was optimized
for should not break the program, just not optimally.
What I meant about not using relying on instruction timing is to not
use software timing loops and the such. How many times I wish
that IBM had included a couple of additional services in the PC
bios. One interrupt would have provided time delays in units of
one second. The other interrupt would have provided time delays
in units of microseconds. That way any programs that needed time
delays would have used those interrupts and would have been portable
to any latter generation PC's.
>>Self modifiying code is also quite risky and is considered a bad style of
>>programming.
>
>Of course and most modern architectures make it silly and/or difficult
>to do (the 6502 forced it on you!)
Now there is a reminder of an old assembler nightmare.
>Did they make him/her pay?
We never did learn who put that deck into the students's job queue rack.
But the new replacement mini, didn't have a punch card reader. The
administration replaced the keypunch machines with key to tape
terminals. The administration thought the problem was with the punch
card job queues. After a month the key to tape system proved to be
unworkable for the lab's enviroment. Of course tape reel queues were
no more secure than punch card queues. So the key to tape units were
replaced with terminals.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
