Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 19:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box? (john)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ (Peter Ammon)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Leslie Mikesell)
DOSEMU (Bob Hauck)
Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: who is linux really hurting the most ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:49:19 -0500
user wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, john
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have been in the market recently for a computer. Should I get one
> > with rdram it I want to run Linux? Will it be worth the extra cost?
> >
> RDRAM is to SDRAM what a private airplane is to an automobile: In theory
> the airplane is faster, but in day to day use most people have cars. While
> the bandwidth of RDRAM is higher the latency is longer than SDRAM.
> Mailing you a stack of CDROMs has got a higher bandwidth than using a
> 56K modem to send you some data - but the latency of the CDROMs in
> the mail is a lot worse.
>
> If you are doing computation that requires a high bandwidth the RDRAM
> is better. If you are doing the usual sort of tasks that most people perform
> on their machines SDRAM will work better. Would you want to use an airplane
> to commute to work every day? Would you get there any faster?
How can the latency be longer if the bus now has a faster clock? I dont
understand this. It seems to me that the bandwidth should stay the same but
that the latency should be better on the i820 chipset.
I read the website posted on this board but it talked about overclocking an
sdram chipset to compete with rdram. BUt then he says that this is not a viable
option for a casual user.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 23 May 2000 16:57:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The current system seems to work well.
>>
>> How do you know? How many useful bug reports are not being filed?
>
>Would you care to point us in the direction of any major bugs in the
>stable kernels that have survived several revisions?
There have been NFS bugs in all of the 2.2.x versions - ufs bugs
from somewhere around 2.2.6 to 2.2.10. Things like that are
almost certain to cause data loss to people that don't know
about them, so it would be extremely nice to have a central
repository for bug tracking, Even if it has nothing to do with
actually getting them fixed, the rest of us could use it for
the workarounds and to know which versions to avoid.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux!
Date: 23 May 2000 16:51:34 -0500
In article <ODBW4.958$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> We need to bring the familiarity of windows to linux... lets have a
>> daemon that automatically crashes linux every 10-15 minutes!! Then it
>> will be more familiar for all you ex-windowers, so you won't get scared
>> when you linux box stays online for weeks, even months! I'm sure this
>> will go along well with all you ex-microsoft dron^H^H^H^H^H users.
>Yeah, I've got this one.
>It's called httpd.
>
>Just make an infinite PHP loop. If you make it right, you can,
>not only simulate, but really obtain, out-of-memory conditions,
>CPU saturation, etc...
But only if you go out of your way to give the httpd user
unlimited resources. If you set appropriate limits for
your hardware it won't crash.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:04:28 -0400
Edwin wrote:
> Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> [snip]>
> > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
>
> According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move along
> folks. No thread to see here.
>
And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep posting to
this thread?
>
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:05:40 -0400
Bill Altenberger wrote:
> In article <8gd076$2kf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I wouldn't liken MS to the Nazi era of Germany. I think a more appropriate
> > >example would be a state univerisity directly east of Illinois in Elam's
> > >territory..
> >
> > I'm totally lost.
> >
> > --
> > Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> > My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
>
> You have to be basketball fan to get it..
>
> Bill
Does this involve Bobby Knight?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:13:38 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]>
> > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
> >
> > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move along
> > folks. No thread to see here.
> >
>
> And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep posting to
> this thread?
>
We take you to alt.cybercop.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:19:57 -0700
On 23 May 2000, R. Tang wrote:
> In article <FvBW4.3950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I agree that MS put up a very weak defense, and in fact dropped the ball on
> >things they should have prevailed on. One reason might be that MS
> >intentionally set it up to be overturned.
>
> Which is a bullshit reason. Newsgroup.lawyers might think that's a
> reason; folks in the legal profession know it's a rather stupid reason to
> run a case. For one, it's a hell of a lot more expensive that way, both in
> money and reseources. Second, it's extremely dumb to go to the appeals
> process for a decision that's more widely applicable and more
> generalizable at the trial level. As pointed out, the appeals court
> generally [and you had better read for that almost always] decides on the
> legal aspects; you're an idiot to run your defense in such a way as to
> lose on the FACTUAL basis.
>
> I think it possible to have run the Microsoft legal defense and
> win on the factual basis; do that and you don't have to go any further.
>
> Instead, the Microsoft defense almost mandated a finding of fact
> against them.
Likewise MS defense and refusal to come to terms with the merits of the
trial's finding of fact will mandate a remedy that is structural, not
behavior. In the meanwhile, they will suffer a loss of stock value, moral
and talent as this case goes to appeal.
I propose when they MS is split into an OS and Apps company that many of
those who argued for MS will proclaim that MS won. MS always indented to
be split into two companies, each with its own monopoly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: 23 May 2000 17:14:35 -0500
In article <LRBW4.975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> | In particular, there is the possibility to set in a directory which
>> | the exact permissions of the new files should be, whatever the owner
>> | of the file is, and wether or not those permissions should be
>> | inherited or not.
Without acl's no. The unix way is to base this on the umask of
the process creating the file and anything specified explicitly.
Application level processes like samba can and do add their
own concepts of access control, though.
>> The easiest way is to create a group for each resource. Then you
>> could modify your new user scripts to add all new users to all the
>> groups. Then if you want to deny a paticular user a paticular
>> resource, just remove them from that group.
>>
>Which means the system does nothing and the admin everything
>(writing scripts).
>I don't find this to be a good idea. The _concept_ of having one
>user group per resource is stupid. (I don't say your solution is
>stupid, because it seems as if it's the only one). But the concept
>itself is just plain stupid.
In practice you don't create a group for each resource, you
create a group for each group and apply it to the appropriate
resources. In the odd case that none of your resource sharing
had anything in common, this would work out to a group per
resource, but ACLs wouldn't simplify it much either. And
again, samba shares get their own access control in addition
to the native unix ones.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: DOSEMU
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:30:50 GMT
On 23 May 2000 15:15:11 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dos things usually work perfectly under DOSEMU unless they...
This made me think of something.
Been doing some development lately for DSP chips. The tools are DOS
(circa 1994) and use the Rational DOS extender. Under DOSEMU 1.0 with
MS-DOS 5.0 everything works perfectly with the make from DJGPP, which has
it's own DOS extender. Under NT, the same make can't seem to launch the
compiler or assembler. No errors, just doesn't work. Using the make from
cygwin (which is a Windows console app) does work under NT.
All I can figure is some weird DOS extender conflict. Just thought I'd
throw that out to see if anyone had any ideas.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:33:11 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 20:13:34 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just make an infinite PHP loop. If you make it right, you can,
>not only simulate, but really obtain, out-of-memory conditions,
>CPU saturation, etc...
PHP as a module allows you to limit memory and loops in httpd.conf. See
the docs. You could also launch apache from a script that sets ulimits.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:37:57 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 15:14:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree that MS put up a very weak defense, and in fact dropped the ball on
>things they should have prevailed on. One reason might be that MS
>intentionally set it up to be overturned.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just win in the first place? It would
certainly be a lot less expensive.
It could be, you know, that they put up a weak defense because that's all
they had. Just maybe.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:31:02 -0700
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 23 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > For someone so hung up on the correct spelling of things, you can't even
> > > bother to spell someones name correctly.
^^^^^^^^ ???
> > > I think that about sums it up.
> >
> > Are you NOW telling me your use of OLE1 and OLE2 were mistakes and
> > misspellings?
>
> Does it matter how they're spelled?
Oh, yes. Changing the spelling was your way to explain one of your lies.
Your nonsense use of OLE2 and OLE1 assert these are different APIs, not
different vesions of the same API, OLE.
> You seem to have the hangup about it, yet when you can't even bother to
> spell a persons name right, it just makes you a hipocrite.
No more than your misspelling "someone's" in your complaint makes you a
hipocrite.
I'm correcting your chronic misuse and abuse of the OLE acronymn to
justify a lie about OLE's origin. I think I made my point and won because
you're on a new track - Erik.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:23:54 +0200
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Actually, there are still segment limitations in Win32.
> >> Banging up against them while doing QA against Win95
> >> was what finally got me to dump Windows entirely.
> >>
> >
> >Well, from a programmers perspective, win32 uses a flat 32 bit
> >protected virtual memory model with no segment/offsets to
> >worry about. Just like most modern OSes. So, I don't know
> >what segment limitations you're refering to.
>
> Win9x still retains some of the old Win3x-isms.
what specifically are you talking about? what segment limitations are
there in win32?
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:37:58 +0200
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >from http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
> I think you (and netcraft) are oversimplifying the situation. Just a few
> years ago the conventional wisdom said that Unix=legacy and that everyone
> was or soon would "standardize on NT". The real questions are:
other commercial wisdom spread by McNealy and others was that you should
hate microsoft. however, that hate was chanelled more into linux and java
than to preserving Sun's expensive hardware. such is a nature of being
agains something. you can change what you are for, and still be agains the
same thing. in other words, it is hard to control.
> 1. How many of those legacy Unix boxes that have been replaced by Linux
> would have become NT if Linux hadn't existed?
you are claiming that linux is hurting microsoft by taking NT's market
share that NT never had, but not hurting Sun by actually attacking Sun's
market share? i don't follow your logic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:20:23 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 23 May 2000 08:59:59 GMT...
...and David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
> here.
Exactly that is which is bad IMHO. Real software freedom has always
been the freedom to fork.
mawa
--
The utility of a fancy Web browser is damn near zero compared with the
utility of a really good text editor.
-- mawa
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:44:39 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Drestin Black wrote:
> Datacenter exists today.
>
>
If that's so, then Microsoft really should update their Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/server/features/choosing.asp
o *Estimated to be available within 120
days of the Feb. 17
release of Windows
2000.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:43:34 -0500
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8geggv$1mci$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8geca6$jb8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hrmm.. nope. Sounds good, but nope. I've installed RH Linux (yes, I know
> >RH != (necessarily) Linux, but it uses X11R6 XFree86) on several machines
> >and have seen X puke on all of them. They all have varying display hardware
> >from Matrox, to Cirrus Logic, to Chips and Technologies, etc. The odd thing
> >is, it crashes seemingly unprovoked. I will start X, be browsing the file
> >system, fire up an xterm (note that Netscape has not be allowed to defile
> >the system at this point), and boom, locks up. Numlock works, mouse moves,
> >but nothing else. I attempt to switch terminals using the CTRL+ALT+F(x)
> >to no avail.
>
> Can you reproduce this with RH 6.2? I've seen it too, but not for
> a long time and not on anything since upgrading to 6.2. I've usually
> blamed it on having gpm running (even after they claimed the
> contention bug was fixed) but it didn't happen often enough to tell
> for sure that removing gpm eliminated it.
No I haven't. Unfortuneately, with Win2K out, I don't have any machines
left to play with this kind of stuff on. I have this 233 Alpha box here,
but damned if Red Hat 6.2 will install on it (starts booting the setup
kernel and locks at the CD ROM driver, NT 4 installs fine on it).
Next time I'm in the mood, I'll give it a shot.
> >Holding down the power button for ~5 seconds seems to be the only way to
> >regain control. Of course, then you must endure the 1-3hour fsck that
> >is required because of ext2's crappy crash recovery, only to find out
> >some critical system file was hosed and I have to reinstall from scratch.
>
> I had about 75% success telneting in to do a graceful reboot. And if
> you ever need to fix something by hand you can boot the install
> CDROM, tell it you want to upgrade, then ctl-alt-f2 while it is scanning
> for packages. This puts you in a root shell with your partitions
> mounted under /tmp.
Problem is, this was a laptop and I happened to not have had the NIC plugged
in, or be near a jack. I didn't feel like walking over near my hub, plugging
in the NIC, hopping Linux PnP's it (in it's current state), and then telnetting
into it, etc, etc just to save a porked x session.
> >In the X case I mentioned above, it sure sounds like a video driver bug,
> >but also, I've seen similar behavior in every default-install RH Linux 6.0
> >and 6.1 install I've ever done (which is around a dozen or so). I find it
> >hard to believe that with all those different cards, the drivers were buggy.
>
> When I've seen it, it always had something to do with switching from
> one window to another. Either something in the mouse handler and
> gpm gets locked up, or the pallete switch to the new foreground window
> is doing something wrong, or something like that.
This sounds correct, or very similar to my case.
> Regardless, I
> haven't seen it happen in months and I assume it is fixed.
Me either, I use Windows =)
> This kind of bug does point out the advantage of being about to run
> programs remotely, though. I normally don't run X on production servers,
> but run X programs there from my desktop machine. If there is a problem
> in the video driver I don't have to worry about it bothering the server
> at all.
This wasn't a server, thank god.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:46:55 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Drestin Black wrote:
> and linux smp SUX and everyone knows it (but some won't admit it)
>
So you say. But it works just fine on my S/390 G6. It all depends on
what you want to do.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:49:43 +0200
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200, "Davorin Mestric"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial
unix
> >vendors more than microsoft.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Linux is hurting Unix - but not in the way you indicate.
i did not indicate a way it is damaging other unix vendors, but i'll
gladly do it. :)
each linux box instead of Solaris means less money goes to Sun. this
lowers Sun's profit margins. this hurts the weaker unix vendors the most,
so they go down first. then their customers migrate to the stronger
leaders, so you see a temporary increase in the Sun's market share.
but since the whole market is growing, the effects could be somewhat
hidden. but still the facts is that each linux installed means less money
for other unix vendors.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:50:33 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Drestin Black wrote:
> W2K Datacenter doesn't exist? So, that little CD sitting on my shelf over
> there, just at hands reach... little shiny thing, i'm imagining it? So, the
> copy running at <insert name of large on-line book store> is vaporware?
>
> ahhh yes... I forget how the retail commoner trenches are stocked...
>
> beta 2 is in my hands in the next few weeks... a little late but I'd prefer
> working perfectly rather than "on-time" according to some 2-year old
> schedule. I accepted W2K Pro/Server/Adv.Server "1 year late" (according to
> some schedule) because the improvements to quality and reliability were
> worth it. I'll accept data center being a little late to incorporate the
> latest enhancements due to new hardware and technologies and even greater
> reliability and performance, thank you.
>
> Datacenter is much more real than Linux 2.4 - I've actually got Datacenter
> running...
>
>
So you admit that Datacenter does not yet exist. You are using a beta copy.
So, I have a beta copy of Linux 2.4 running - it just happens to be called 2.3
since that's the way the release numbering works.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:53:42 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Drestin Black wrote:
> I didn't mention big iron - i was refering to the ability to run on 32
> processors. but i'm sure you knew that.
>
But production versions of Linux support 32 processors. You need a beta copy
of Windows to get 32 processors.
Gary
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:59:58 GMT
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' the problem isn't with the install, it's when you go to remove or
' upgrade. sometimes it's hard (or at least tedious) to figure out what
' all things went where. then when you find a random file, you wonder
' where it came from. rpm doesn't really solve the shared config
' tweaks very well (like editing an init script to set something up
' while leaving setup for other stuff). rpm is clunky and sometimes a
' pain in the ass, but it's not completely useless to me.
It should be possible to automate some dependency and file use
information with a script, ldd, and possibly some other utilities that
can figure out what names are passed to a dlopen() call. Basicly,
take a census of all the file information based on the files
themselves rather than relying on some spec file to be set up
correctly.
When you find some random file, you should be able to find out what,
if anything, references it. If nothing references it, then you should
be able to garbage collect it.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:59:29 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 00:37:58 +0200, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >from http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>>
>> I think you (and netcraft) are oversimplifying the situation. Just a few
>> years ago the conventional wisdom said that Unix=legacy and that everyone
>> was or soon would "standardize on NT". The real questions are:
>
> other commercial wisdom spread by McNealy and others was that you should
>hate microsoft. however, that hate was chanelled more into linux and java
>than to preserving Sun's expensive hardware. such is a nature of being
>agains something. you can change what you are for, and still be agains the
>same thing. in other words, it is hard to control.
>
>> 1. How many of those legacy Unix boxes that have been replaced by Linux
>> would have become NT if Linux hadn't existed?
>
> you are claiming that linux is hurting microsoft by taking NT's market
>share that NT never had, but not hurting Sun by actually attacking Sun's
>market share? i don't follow your logic.
That's still money that Bill won't see. That's money that Bill
won't be able to use to bully another competitor with or use to
keep on trying something else year after year while it finally
manages to get something right.
If Linux weren't around, and Sun was still having problems competing
purely based on cost, then that money would have gone to MS.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
