Linux-Advocacy Digest #743, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Arclight)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Don't run Windows. (Salvador Peralta)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (rj friedman)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (rj friedman)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 29 May 2000 13:57:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc lis@ec wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:
:>
:>And if we were talking about just one project you might have a point.
: he was. It was the kernel.
Unfortiunately, "the kernel" is not one project, but many. There is the
USB projects, the sound project(s), the IR projects, the scsi
subsystem, the pci system. Even the inner kernel itself has various
distinct subsystems and mailing lists. The MM list, for example.
: We know you are stupid, now we know you can not read also.
: Each large software project will have its own bug tracking system.
Apparently not.
: Go learn something about software engineering first.
Try learning to see facts and then form theories to explain them and
then test the theories against new sets of facts. Not the other way
round.
The kernel list is a remarkably efficient bug tracker. A couple of
hours ago someone pointed out a problem with udma66 detection on ALI
chipsets. Within half an hour the situation had been clarified and
various trial solutions proposed. The definitive patch came from
someone who picked up on a post from an engineer apparently within the
ALI design group in taiwan. He had sketched a pseudo code solution
using his special knowledge of the chipset.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 29 May 2000 14:02:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 29 May 2000 08:06:08 +0200 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Please try to get this into your head:
>> > If an application, however buggy it is, can crash an OS, it is the
>> > OSes fault.
>>
>> I don't think anyone argues that having the ability to crash the OS is a
>> fault of the OS.
>
>If I parse that sentence correctly, you agree with me?
>
>I will even swallow part of what I said:
>If an application _running with User Privileges_ can crash an OS, the
>OS is buggy.
>
>However, the quotes from the MS site you snipped seem to be not that
>clear. Let me requote from their Website at
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP?\
>LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
>
> CAUSE
>
> This problem occurs when an application opens a lot of handles but
> never closes them. This has been seen when an application
> continually opens a registry key but never closes it. When the
> application is closed the system attempts to close all of the keys
> but runs out of system resources while doing it.
How the hell does a system run out of system resources while
*closing* a key, handle, or file descriptor?
I could see an operating system being busy for awhile (i.e., closing
a file forces some sort of write flush), or even pausing indefinitely
("please insert volume SO_AND_SO somewhere"), as the Amiga linked
to do (and I suspect the Mac likes to do, as well); not a problem as
long as someone has volume SO_AND_SO handy... :-) [*]
However, see also
http://www.iarchitect.com/stupid.htm#STUPID23
and then wonder...(to be fair, this is a Win95 problem).
>
>
> RESOLUTION
>
> To resolve this problem, the application has to be modified to
> close the registry key when it is done with it.
>
>Nowhere do they say the OS has to be modified, although by our common
>definition it is buggy.
>
>Looks like spindoctoring to me.
>
>BTW, is there something like crashme for Windows?
Well, there's an old trick of running Debug in a DOS box, writing
to a certain memory application, then running away as the operating
system crashes and burns... :-) but I don't remember the memory location.
It may not be an issue for Windows NT, though. (Then again...)
>
>--
>MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
[*] on the Amiga, one could also fire up a CLI, type in
ASSIGN SO_AND_SO: path_to_somewhere
and then hit OK on the requester. However, it's not clear to
me (since I've never tried it) that one should do this when
a file is being closed. Opened, yes, but not closed.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:13:08 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> Well, I presume you're talking about lost opportunities for financial
> gain. Yeah, sure, sleeping hurts my pockets a lot!
It doesn't hurt my pockets. :) I've finally come to realise that, at my
age, getting to bed at a reasonable hour, instead of coding the night
away, makes me more productive the next day.
> My loss or my gain? For the kernel contributors, the kudos counts a lot.
Sure. But opportunity cost could include lost kudos. My point is that
even OS development has a cost.
> Besides, [two people fixing the same bug] is the normal "scientific"
> problem.
That's true. But if it's counterproductive, it doesn't have to be that
way. If, as you say, it's not counterproductive, fine.
> No, that's not the question. It's not even relevant. You are missing
> a point here and making one for your opponents:
I have _opponents_? :)
> if you don't even know how to measure if linux is a success or not
I think there's some point-missing on both sides. :) I was saying that
there's no such thing as an absolute value of 'success'--only a relative
one. And unless you think that Linux is perfect, it's not unreasonable
to suggest that whatever success it has achieved, it might achieve even
more.
> how can you possibly
> suggest that something will "Improve" it? By what criteria?
I already gave one: beating Windows.
> If you say that it would be better off with a formal bug tracking
> system instead of the kernel list and archives, plus maintainers
> buglists, then you had better first explain why it is a success without
> it.
Not in the least, as I'll try to show.
> Because according to your theory, a formal bug tracking system is
> important to success, and that seems not to be the case here.
This isn't any theory of mine. I'm not talking about black/white,
success/failure. I'm talking about improving the process. You surely
can't be saying there are no improvements to be made in the Linux
development process? If not, then let's say you (who would know far
better than I) have an idea for an improvement, called X. Now, explain
to yourself why Linux is a success without X.
> I contend that the reasons for that are socio-economic. _My_ theory
> says that anything that makes the actual kernel sources and development
> (and possibly development processes) more open and accessible to
> everybody will help linux occupy more niches.
That makes sense. I wouldn't argue in favour of any bug-tracking system
that would make Linux more closed or less accessible.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:37:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 10:58:19 GMT
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 23:06:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>>>I couldn't agree more, but the artificial 640K barrier was one of the
>>>worst pieces of anticipation the Wintel industry has seen.
>>
>>That's almost redirection, there. The argument that the 640K barrier
>>was a bad idea is scarcely support for the argument that the decision in
>>the 80s to implement a bad idea (the Wintel system incompatibility which
>>could be considered the root of most backward compatibility problems,
>>namely the 640K barrier). It was apparently a Microsoft lack of
>>anticipation.
>
>That is what I said.
No, you said it was a "Wintel industry" lack of anticipation. I was
clarifying: it was specifically and singularly Microsoft's lack of
anticipation. I don't believe Microsoft should get credit nor blame for
what "Wintel" means to you or anyone else, or vice versa.
>> A flat memory model could have been used, and was
>>available in competing products (which didn't, alas, use per-processor
>>licensing to secure a monopoly). While these would still have been
>>limited by the original PC's 1Meg memory support, they wouldn't have
>>imposed a barrier like DOS did when the 386 became available.
>
>I think we all know that.
I doubt it rather thoroughly. It surprised me that you knew it, since
you made that gaff about the "Wintel industry" earlier. Perhaps you're
still under the impression that DOS's "success" was due to market
choice, rather than per-processor licensing agreements?
>>>And its
>>>limitation haunted us through LIM-EMS and extended memory managers.
>>>(I still use some legacy apps which require EMS.)
>>>Something that we could have done far better without.
>>
>>Apparently not in your case, eh? I don't know of anyone else who uses
>>any apps which require EMS. What are they?
>
>I could have done without that sort of headache, but because LIM-EMS
>was all the flavour of the month (once) writers used that model
>presumably in the expectation that it would last.
The extended memory model hadn't been developed, yet. Expanded memory
(EMS) was the only thing that could break the 640K barrier for quite a
few months, and months can be forever in the software business. But I
guess we all knew that, eh?
[...]
>which was what i was trying to point out
[...]
>Go on. Really? I would never have guessed ;-)
Pardon me, am I boring you?
--
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.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:37:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 11:02:53 GMT
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 23:10:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>I may have. The assertion/question/challenge/query was:
>..Do you think that Epson Computers delivers faulty pre-installed
>.. systems? And so does Fujitsu-Siemens?
Forgive me, but that was a rhetorical question. If you answered it,
then you misunderstood it.
>My reply was:
>..Yes, fujitsu have and so have Compaq. But what does that prove?
It proves you didn't read any of the earlier posts in the thread.
>>I believe it was replacing Office which proved it was bugs in the
>>software, not re-installing it, but maybe I'm the one who came in late,
>>eh?
>
>Maybe :-)>
>
>These systems i refferd to were reinstalled from the companion sources
>as per the instructions, and the problems went away. As I commented,
>this only proves that people can and do stuff up. No more, no less.
If you aren't willing to engage in either deduction or induction, you're
doing little more than wasting time, here. Receiving systems which
exhibit crashes from an OEM can be considered an indication that the OEM
screwed up. Repeatedly receiving systems from many OEMS which exhibit
crashes due to the same software problems can be considered an
indication that the OS is a piece of crap, and is not adequately doing a
fairly simple job of keeping the computer operating.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:38:00 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:28:40 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Did it not occur to you that Microsoft could have added the patches to
>the CD in a later issue? Please see my prior response to your similar
>posting.
Well they must have added the patches within two months of releasing
office, because I got it two months after it was released.
>2. Just because you have a GCSE and and a A-level and can write software
>doesn't mean you have a clue.
Actually you'll find that it does mean I have a clue.
>3. I just looked at your web pages. You don't have a clue (IMHO).
and your HO is wrong, plain and simple.
>"Arclight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> you can say that but it doesn't make it true,
>> I have a GCSE in Computer Science,
>> I have an A-Level in Computer Science,
>> and I'm doing a degree in applied computer technology so I must know a
>> thing or two about software, and if you don't believe me, go check out
>> my website, and try explaining how I could write the software I have
>> if I'm as clueless as you are accusing me of being.
>>
>> TTFN
>> Arclight
>>
>> Web Site:
>> http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
>
TTFN
Arclight
Web Site:
http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:40:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:25:15 GMT
>
>And you question * my * English skills?
He dropped an 'is'. Couldn't you figure it out, Roger?
>Case and statutory law
>maintains that a copyright, once declared, to be valid except in the
>cases where it can be proved the work had previously been copyrighted,
>or in the case where the holder does not aggressively defend the
>copyright.
I would disagree; copyright case law indicates that a copyright need not
be declared, and need not be defended. In fact, the courts don't really
care if you *have* a copyright, until you try to stop someone else from
publishing something by way of "defending" your authorship or ownership.
Aggressive defense is not as necessary as it once was, either. I
believe some landmark ruling in the late 80s, which also did away with
the requirement to declare the copyright to begin with, changed most of
these outdated guidelines you seem to be concerned with.
--
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: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 29 May 2000 14:44:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> If you say that it would be better off with a formal bug tracking
:> system instead of the kernel list and archives, plus maintainers
:> buglists, then you had better first explain why it is a success without
:> it.
: Not in the least, as I'll try to show.
:> Because according to your theory, a formal bug tracking system is
:> important to success, and that seems not to be the case here.
: This isn't any theory of mine. I'm not talking about black/white,
: success/failure. I'm talking about improving the process. You surely
: can't be saying there are no improvements to be made in the Linux
: development process? If not, then let's say you (who would know far
No. I am questioning your basic tenets. One of those tenets is that
linux development is an engineering process, with objectives, plans,
milestones, problem tracking and so on. I have likened it instead
to an evolutionary process. I also think that it is a social process,
though I'll not go into that.
Once you accept that it is possibly not what you think it is, then
you will have to start rethinking your assumptions about how to
"improve" it. Or whether improvement is good. For example, once
you think of it as an evolutionary process, then you should see that
"waste is good". The more duplicated effort the better. That's
redundancy and exploration of all possible code avenues.
I could go on, but I won't ...
: better than I) have an idea for an improvement, called X. Now, explain
: to yourself why Linux is a success without X.
Indeed, one has to, when the improvement one is proposing is
organizational. These are insubstantial things, and one can't
"just try" them to see how it goes.
:> I contend that the reasons for that are socio-economic. _My_ theory
:> says that anything that makes the actual kernel sources and development
:> (and possibly development processes) more open and accessible to
:> everybody will help linux occupy more niches.
: That makes sense. I wouldn't argue in favour of any bug-tracking system
: that would make Linux more closed or less accessible.
Irrespective of even whether it would do that or not, one has to
consider its social acceptability. It's pointless to say that it's
better or not until you propose a mechanism that ensures its accetance
and use. That mechanism would be something like "linus only takes
changes proposed via the bugtrack system". Once you put it like
that, it rapidly begins to seem unlikely!
What has succeeded in the past is people making "change summaries"
that explain the kernel changes made after the fact. This documentation
is better than none at all. But it's a huge task nowadays.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't run Windows.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:50:14 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw wrote:
> Here is the issue. It is not an "open" vs "closed" source issue. It is
> an open vs closed "standards" issue. It is quite reasonable to buy
> closed source software which follows open standards.
I think that it's usually a mistake for a corporation to buy verticle
applications as closed source. A few weeks ago, I was asked to make a
few minor changes to a closed-source application that the company
purchased several years ago before I was hired.
The application itself was no big deal. It took some web-based user
input, wrote it to a DB, outputted the contents of that DB to an HTML
document for use by EU's, and then ran a timed job to write the contents
of the DB to a DB2 file.
When I asked to see the code, our lead analyst told me that we didn't
have rights to the code. All we had were the compiled binaries and the
cl's that called them. They didn't even use config files for items that
we might have wanted to change!!
> I have no problems, at all!!!, with people writing code and keeping it
> for themselves and making money off it.
Agreed. But buyer beware. If you buy a closed source application, you
might run into problems if your vendor goes out of business, decides
that they no longer want to support the application, etc.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: 29 May 2000 14:53:06 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 17:10:45 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
¯While in the confines of os2.advocacy you might get away with living under
¯the delusion that OS/2 is somehow thriving...
This is one more example of your "full-of-shit" debate
tactics. You take your self-made ridiculous statements;
write them in such a manner as to make it look as if the
person you are responding to actually was defending that
position; and then go on to defeat your self-made strawman.
My position is, and has always been, that for the business
user OS/2 cannot be beaten as the most productive,
efficient, best bang-for-the buck OS/2 out there. OS/2 may
not be "thriving" but it is a LONG way frome dead - or even
dying - as you, in your bitter cup of rejection so often
proclaim.
OS/2 may be dead for Stardock products - not surprising
considering the type of things you are interested in doing.
OS/2 is not a game platform; and the freeware and shareware
of today make your ages old desktop utility bundle look
tired and overpriced.
You want to say that OS/2 is dead as far as Stardock
products are concerned? Fine. You want to say that in order
to make a buck Stardock has to pander to the Windows market?
Fine.
You want to say that OS/2 is dead - in the face of a major
refresh; a new client coming in the fall; and the awarding
of a third party contract to provide a Warp value added
package (the same kind of thing that you were rejected for -
said rejection being your rationale for OS/2 being dead) - I
say in no uncertain terms that you are poisoining the well -
plain and simple - out of your resentment at having been
rejected. The factors mentioned above prove that it was YOU
that IBM turned down - not OS/2.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 29 May 2000 14:56:59 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:30:11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray) wrote:
¯>It has long been a contention of mine that the only people
¯>in the computing world who aren't absolutely repulsed by MS
¯>are the suckers and those who rely on the suckers to earn
¯>their silver. Thanks for helping me bear that out.
¯No, those of us who earn our living supporting both M$ and non-M$ systems
¯are every bit as repulsed by M$ as everyone else.
I understand that - and realize that there are many people
out there that have to go along with the MS "experience" in
spite of the fact that they are repulsed by it. I was
referring to those individuals who not only aren't repulsed,
but actually proactively support the MS agenda.
________________________________________________________
[RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
rj friedman Team ABW
Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
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: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:07:25 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
<snip>
>
> It is often claimed that The Big Browser Company will introduct
> *gratuitous* changes that do *not* represent improvements but
> are mere incompatibilities. This is not a viable strategy, which is
> probably why we don't see it happening. If the changes are just
> useless, they will go unused- why cut yourself off from *any* browser
> if there is no benefit to be gained thereby? If the changes are just
> incompatibilities, then users won't use that browser, because it won't
> read existing web pages.
>
> For the Big Browser Company's strategy to work, they must
> *improve* the 'standards'.
Unfortunately, one of the "standards" is working with Big
Browser's Operating System.
>
<snip>
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
