Linux-Advocacy Digest #655, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (mlw)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Mark Robinson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (CAguy)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Stephen S.
Edwards II")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (John Hasler)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 19:00:21 -0400
Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> 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?
(The following applies to Win9x, not NT!!!, so no flames about how this
does not happen on NT)
Actually, all 16 bit code runs in the same address space, and there is a
limit on selectors. 8192 per descriptor table. 1 local and 1 global
descriptor table. Given how MS allocates huge pointers, as a series of
tiled 64K, 16 bit selectors, (The first selector is a 32 bit selector),
it is not hard to imagine this limit running out.
Since a lot of Win9x is implemented, still, as 16 bit code, these
limitations affect it.
Any 16 bit application can look at your whole 32 bit application space,
with an easy segment override op because segments work in the virtual
address space, and there is no real protection from 16 bit apps changing
selectors. (DS or CS). A 16 bit application can set its ES register to
your 32 bit segment, call into assembler disable interrupts, and look
at, and change, anything it wants.
Win9x still uses DOS (as does Millennium, it is just that Millennium
hides it better.) Under this model, DOS runs in the system VM and
handles the dos compatibility.
All Windows 9x processes have a DOS psp associated with them.
In short, Windows 9x is a disaster.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 23:04:10 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 16:20:23 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Common communications standards should be free to propagate
on their own onto any and every platform that has users that
care to communicate.
Also, a 'compatibility standard' becomes more valuable the more
people that use it. I've always thought that Troll would be
better served with a lib that was given away to all but devtools
that EVERYONE would be willing to pay for.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Mark Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 23:09:11 GMT
In article <392a61d6$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In <KnnW4.37627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/23/00 Mark
> Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>> Appeal courts should not be looking at past decisions of
>>>> judges to decide whether to overturn.
>>>
>>> Yeah. We wouldn't want them setting a "prescedent" for such actions
>>> of looking back on former cases, now would we?
>
>>No, they should evaluate based on merit decided on a case-by-case basis.
>
> If this is what you want, you shouldn't be living here. Law doesn't work
> this way, never has, never will.
>
That's why I don't. Using a decision made a judge in the past to decide
on a different decision is is very stupid. Luckily the real world doesn't
look like that.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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 19:12:06 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
>It could be, you know, that they put up a weak defense because that's all
>they had. Just maybe.
>
In my mind there's absolutely no doubt about that. Microsoft put up a
very weak defense. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't come up
with a better one the next time around.
Microsoft has a history of screwing up early on, then miraculously
pulling decisive victory out of the jaws of seemingly inevitable
defeat. Count them out prematurely, and more often than not your days
are numbered.
One thing I've never understood is why they didn't put former
antitrust chief Charles Rule up on the stand. Of all the pro-Microsoft
arguments, as a layman I've always found his the most convincing.
Hopefully they'll consider it for the appeal.
By the way, just to stir the pot:
"Gates is an icon for innovators, not just capitalists. He is the
greatest innovator of my lifetime, the first person in the computer
industry to understand the importance of building a technological
system -- by hook or by crook. While other computer pioneers sneer
that Gates copied this or that, they fail to see that the greatest
innovations of all are those that mesh discrete inventions of others
in order to launch society-wide transformations. Gates did that. Not
Gary Kildall or Alan Kay or Tim Berners-Lee."
-- G. Pascal Zachary
_Technology_Review_
"MIT's Magazine of Innovation"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 23:12:16 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 00:49:43 +0200, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
It is also a net PR gain for "unix in general". Sun becomes
more viable because of the success of Linux. Sun,IBM and HP/UX
become and easy step up from any Linux or BSD installation.
This can be a natural, relatively painless progression versus
moving between completely discrete platforms.
Sun is being pushed at from the bottom by Moore's law and would
be in a predicament with or without an over-hyped x86 Unix.
Sun (and friends) are in a much better position to stage a comeback
of some kind if the transition would be from one Unix to another
rather than from MS -> Unix.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
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 23:15:01 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:37 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[SNIP]
>Microsoft was able to divert attention from this tragic farce
>by leaking information about the Lewinski scandal, and then
>giving it top priority coverage on both MSNBC.com and MSNBC TV.
>While no respectable press would have leaked the story, and
>no respectable prosecutor would have wanted the nature of the
>tapes and the interrogation made public and would have buried
>the case, Microsoft's priority coverage in it's controlled media
>almost lead to the overthrow of the government. They were hoping
>that they could humiliate Clinton into resigning, the way Hillary
>and her democratic henchmen tried to humiliate Nixon into resigning.
>
>Now, another diversionary tactic was to divert attention to Elian
>Gonzales, and the Jon Bonet Ramsey cases. Elian is cute, but not
>8 hours/day worth of Cute (the amount of time MSNBC spent covering
>this 5 minute/week human interest story).
[SNIP]
Also, Microsoft has a fleet of specially equiped black helecopters
that they use to do covert night flights over their competitors in
Silicon Value. These helecopters have the ability to read source
code when loaded into an editor from the EMF the computer
produces. They have been known to hoover over Sun and
Oracle for long periods of time. Up until recently they've been
spying of Netscape...until NS finaly put up a banner saying
"We're open source, get it on the web!".
James
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[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: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:12:09 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perry Pip wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:31:18 -0500,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
>>> over-run to get out the door.
>>
>>Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
>
>Could you provide me some documention that 2.4 is a year overdue. That
>would mean is was due last May.
>
>>> Also reported goals were to eliminate the
>>> problem of blue screening as well as
>>> maintain performance levels in multitasking.
>>
>>No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
>>eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
>>wouldn't need to be there.
>>
>>Things like faulty hardware and to some extent background radiation *WILL*
>>cause glitches on non-military spec systems.
>
>This is an evasion, Eric. Yes, faulty hardware and background
>radiation can crash an OS. However I don't live across the street from
>Three Mile Island and faulty hardware can always be replaced. There
>there are other ways an OS can crash.
>
>Here is an example where W2K can BSOD by allowing an application to
>misuse resources:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&F
>R=0
>
>Note in the above URL under resolution it says: "To resolve this
>problem, the application has to be modified to ..." So MS is clearly
>blaming the problem on the Application, not the OS . Here is another
>example:
It is an application problem. An application needs to have
the authority to open and close registry keys. In the case
above, the system's memory is being used up because of an
infinite number of requests are being created. The application
is doing this, and therefore, it is the application that
is causing the problem. If the application were written to
properly handle the opening and closing of keys, there would
be no problems.
It would be similar to an application under Linux opening an
*.rc configuration file in an infinite number of spawned vi
processes (if I understand that article correctly). Using up
every single bit of RAM on _any_ system can render it useless.
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q245/1/12.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&F
>R=0
>
>Agian, MS blames the problem on the application vendor. In the
>following example, a bad network application can BSOD W2K, but
>at least MS takes responsibility:
Is is the application vendor's fault here too. The
application in question, when run as a service (which
has system permissions that can harm the system if it
decides to go awry), is given access to vital areas of
the system. If it hogs the CPU, it can halt the machine
in its tracks.
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q260/9/56.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&F
>R=0
This is a kernel mode driver. Yes, it is a bug... it's a
pre-Service Pack 1 bug, that has already been fixed. I
guess Linux never had any bugs, right?
[rest of Perry's post snipped]
Perry, exactly what are you trying to prove here? Exactly
how long did you spend digging up this information?
In every case, there is an explanation for these occurrences.
But you and others seem to claim that WindowsNT BSODs for no
reason whatsoever. So, how can you say that, and then post
these explainations of said BSODs? I really don't understand
what your point is. Would you like me to dig up Linux's bug
history, so that I can claim that it crashes too? I won't
because again, that would prove nothing.
Any time anything that is executed with system priveleges, there
is a danger it can screw up the system. This is true of _any_ OS.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 23:21:21 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 19:12:06 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
>>
>>It could be, you know, that they put up a weak defense because that's all
>>they had. Just maybe.
>>
>
>In my mind there's absolutely no doubt about that. Microsoft put up a
>very weak defense. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't come up
>with a better one the next time around.
>
>Microsoft has a history of screwing up early on, then miraculously
>pulling decisive victory out of the jaws of seemingly inevitable
>defeat. Count them out prematurely, and more often than not your days
>are numbered.
>
>One thing I've never understood is why they didn't put former
>antitrust chief Charles Rule up on the stand. Of all the pro-Microsoft
>arguments, as a layman I've always found his the most convincing.
>Hopefully they'll consider it for the appeal.
>
>By the way, just to stir the pot:
>
>"Gates is an icon for innovators, not just capitalists. He is the
> greatest innovator of my lifetime, the first person in the computer
> industry to understand the importance of building a technological
> system -- by hook or by crook. While other computer pioneers sneer
So Billy is supposed to be a better systems integrator than
any of the rest? What sort of joke is this supposed to be?
What Bill achieved with his deal with IBM is a stamp of
legitimacy that covered up a lot of technological warts and
gave his system the appearance of predominance.
He's a great businessman, when compared to the geeks that
were his contemporary. He had half more fin than anyone
else. In other industries, his skills would be considered
mundane.
> that Gates copied this or that, they fail to see that the greatest
> innovations of all are those that mesh discrete inventions of others
> in order to launch society-wide transformations. Gates did that. Not
> Gary Kildall or Alan Kay or Tim Berners-Lee."
> -- G. Pascal Zachary
> _Technology_Review_
> "MIT's Magazine of Innovation"
The rise of the Kludge Klone is a far more interesting study
in sociology and economics than of technology or innovation.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 23:41:01 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 23:15:01 GMT, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:37 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>Microsoft was able to divert attention from this tragic farce
>>by leaking information about the Lewinski scandal, and then
>>giving it top priority coverage on both MSNBC.com and MSNBC TV.
>>While no respectable press would have leaked the story, and
>>no respectable prosecutor would have wanted the nature of the
>>tapes and the interrogation made public and would have buried
>>the case, Microsoft's priority coverage in it's controlled media
>>almost lead to the overthrow of the government. They were hoping
>>that they could humiliate Clinton into resigning, the way Hillary
>>and her democratic henchmen tried to humiliate Nixon into resigning.
>>
>>Now, another diversionary tactic was to divert attention to Elian
>>Gonzales, and the Jon Bonet Ramsey cases. Elian is cute, but not
>>8 hours/day worth of Cute (the amount of time MSNBC spent covering
>>this 5 minute/week human interest story).
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>Also, Microsoft has a fleet of specially equiped black helecopters
>that they use to do covert night flights over their competitors in
IOW, you can't really address the assertion. The fact
remains that Microsoft has ownership in news outlets
that give them the opportunity to maninpulate information.
It would not be the first time that a corporation was
accused of abusing such control.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 23:07:50 GMT
Darren Winsper writes:
> Would you care to point us in the direction of any major bugs in the
> stable kernels that have survived several revisions?
No.
How much sooner might those bugs have been fixed given a decent bug
tracking system?
I'm running 2.3.99 on dual PIII's with an Adaptec 7896 and having trouble
with sound: sending anything to /dev/dsp hangs the SCSI driver. If there
was a kernel BTS I'd research the problem there and either test any fix I
found or, in the unlikely case that it is not a known problem, make a stab
at fixing it myself. I'm not interested in spending hours rooting around
in a mailing list archive, though. I can do without sound: to me it's just
a curiosity anyway.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 23:52:16 GMT
And if you read the post, Linux CAN run 32 processors. See ch2 of the
link that was posted. Twit.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:19:53 -0400,
> > Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >Just like W2K Datacenter...
> > >
> > >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > WindowsNT Datacenter Server can recognize up to 16 processors.
> > >> >
> > >> > Exactly how many can Linux handle? The most I've ever heard
> > >> > of was 16, and that was with a major kernel renovation.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Linux for S/390 handles up to 32 processors. See Chapter 2 of:
> > >>
> > >> http://linux390.marist.edu/download/inst.pdf
> > >>
> > >> Gary
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > No Drestin, W2K doesn't run on big iron :)
> >
> > (since you can run 41,000 + instances of linux S/390 on a single
machine,
> > does that mean that linux scales down to 1/41,000 of a processor
also :)
> >
> > (Linux S/390 is to a server wwww, what ArcherDanielsMidland is to a
garden
> > plot.)
> >
> > --
> > Jim Richardson
> > Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> > WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> > Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
