Linux-Advocacy Digest #756, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (Graeme Mathieson)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (Salvador Peralta)
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. ("Boris")
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4Olafur?= Gunnlaugsson)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4Olafur?= Gunnlaugsson)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Joe Ragosta)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4Olafur?= Gunnlaugsson)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Damien)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Bob Hauck)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Piers B.")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (Byron A Jeff)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Graeme Mathieson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: 30 May 2000 00:58:32 +0100
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm running Suse 6.4 and there is NOTHING windows can do better than
> this system.
The predictable response from the peanut gallery: Of course there is ...
Windows can crash _much_ better. :)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
- --
Graeme.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Life's not fair," I reply. "But the root password helps." - BOFH
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
iD8DBQE5MwQoPjGH3lNt65URAk4aAKDVGiflmH9ZEcyeTKV5/etntfXDEQCgi4RU
OmwXkp5h8kexQtoA24TiEOw=
=gr2C
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:46:27 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> If you read the article as you have asked US to do, you would find that
> Linux care had MANY management problems. Lack of commitment to OSS was
> just one of the MANAGEMENT problems and does NOT reflect on Linux as a
> whole. The same is true foe MS, which uses Unix in it manufacturing
> process!
... and in production systems like hotmail. Hell, Drestin couldn't even
troll cola without the unix machine that posts his messages to usenet.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:46:40 -0700
Charlie's brain must run on linux. lol.
Boris
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4Olafur?= Gunnlaugsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:55:51 +0000
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> [crossposted, just to see what folks from the different OS camps might
> have to say about this...]
>
> Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Is this it?? They [Micro~1] must have innovated something?
> : Come on boys , THINK!
>
> Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of computing
> power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides, Commodore,
> Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this?
Osbourne, Sinclair, (Intergalactic)Digital Research, Newbrain, Acorn, BBC,
Sord, Epson, Rising Star, DRI (holland not that other one :), Dragon, Tandy
Radio Shack, Tatung, A, Atlantis, Victor, Apricot, Sharp, Randofin, Tangerine,
Amstrad, Kuma, Adobe, etc etc etc the list is endless
Well you asked..........
I am going to include Memotech and NeXT cause those computers looked so damn
cool, and sported the correct colour for computers..
And interestingly enough all those more innovative than microsoft to boot.
But the poster compleatly misses the point, Microsoft like most computer
companies make most of their income suppying company's, consumeres are a minor
issue
--
'Olafur Gunnlaugsson
http://olafur.net
"Interpol und deutche bank fbi und scotland yard, finanzamt und das bka haben
unsere daten da"
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4Olafur?= Gunnlaugsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:02:51 +0000
>
>
> UNIX weenies were interested in a different functionality at the time, and
> one that could not be created at a PC price point. We could count a
> smaller number of people who tried to bring such systems down to the PC
> price point (Fortune, Radio Shack Model 16(*)), but it didn't really work.
>
Ohhhh. this has nothing to do with the original post, but the Model 16 actually
worked rather well, and was not pricy compared to an IBM PC, but it was so high
tech that RS salespepole where not really qualifided to sell it....... a
hardware classic up there with the Atari Falcon, original Amiga and the NeXT
Cube.
--
'Olafur Gunnlaugsson
http://olafur.net
"Interpol und deutche bank fbi und scotland yard, finanzamt und das bka haben
unsere daten da"
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:00:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Spelling Camp. ;)
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote:
> > > "Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> >
> > "puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
>
> Incorrect, as it has been used as a joke outside of CSMA.
Really? Where?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free -- no strings attached. Just sign up.
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web:
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:02:28 GMT
In article <8gufnb$533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of computing
> power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides, Commodore,
> Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX weenies
> at
> Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah... _right_.
>
Maybe IBM? HP? Compaq? Dell? Packard Hell?
Heck, Microsoft never put ANY computer power in the hands of consumers.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free -- no strings attached. Just sign up.
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web:
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4Olafur?= Gunnlaugsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:07:07 +0000
SG wrote:
> It reminds me a lot of the "set top box" today, nobody I know is
> remotely interested in one, yet its supposedly been all the rage for
> a few years now.
The odd thing is that these are staring to sell, not as a computer replacement but
rather as the second or third terminal in the house, also email appliances are
becoming hot property, the average PC user is not much interested in those, but
how big a part of the world population is that ?
--
'Olafur Gunnlaugsson
http://olafur.net
"Interpol und deutche bank fbi und scotland yard, finanzamt und das bka haben
unsere daten da"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 30 May 2000 01:04:37 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 21:20:03 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| On Sun, 28 May 2000 21:54:52 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
| Devlin wrote:
|
| >Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:07:03 GMT
|
| >>On Thu, 25 May 2000 03:32:21 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
| >>Colla wrote:
|
| >>>Roger wrote:
|
| >>>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:22:50 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
| >>>> Colla wrote:
|
| >>>> >Roger wrote:
|
| >>>> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
| >>>> >> Colla wrote:
|
| >>>> >> >There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97
|because it was
| >>>> >> >too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
|
| >>>> >> Bugs such as ... ?
|
| >>>> >Crashing daily.
|
| >>>> Not a bug, since it does not generically do so. Must have been
| >>>> something in the environment.
|
| >See there, you should have given up post haste, Giuliano. There's no
| >way you're going to win if you let Roger get away with such blatant
| >troll fallacies. The diagnosis of a bug is not whether it "generically
| >does so", but whether the replacement does so. Otherwise, you're
| >attributing bugs to specific flaws in programmatic behavior. That would
| >be a "feature", in many cases.
|
| What replacement are you referring to, Max? And a bug, by Earth
| definition, * is* a flaw in programmatic behaviour.
A bug is a flaw in a program's implementation. A flaw in programmatic
behavior is equally likely to produce design flaws.
| >Consider this; you have two pieces of software, which have to "talk" to
| >each other using a code. One is expecting a "7", the other is
| >presenting an "8". Which is a "bug"?
Depends on the specification.
[huge snip]
You two have a tendency to ramble.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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, 30 May 2000 01:08:08 GMT
In article <s2BY4.5071$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MS's profit margins are so large for one reason only: Volume.
> >
> > Monopoly.
>
> You can have volume without Monopoly. If MS had 20% of the market, they
> would still make obscene profits that 50 other competitors with a
> compbined
> 80% of the market wouldn't have.
Perhaps.
But that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft _does_ have a monopoly
and charges monopoly prices.
>
> > > You can't have it both ways Joseph. If MS lowers their prices to
> > > keep
> their
> > > profits "in check", something that no company would do, then they'd
> > > be
> > > accused of dumping to drive their competitors out of the market (as
> > > they
> > > have been with IE).
> >
> > Monopoly 101.
> > In markets where MS hasn't aquired monopoly peower they cut prices. In
> > markets MS has aquired monopoly power they raise prices.
>
> MS has not raised the price of consumer Windows in the last 5 years,
> despite
> their supposed monopoly.
Wrong. OEM prices have nearly doubled in the past 5 years.
Furthermore, compare list prices for various OSs:
Win98 $169 (or something like that)
BeOS $69
MacOS $89
Hmmm. Win98 is the most expensive consumer OS by far. What happened to
your volume argument?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free -- no strings attached. Just sign up.
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web:
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:10:47 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 23:59:23 +0200, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Damien wrote:
>>
>>
>> Maybe others accept Windows because they think it's the only option.
>> Maybe it's because they think it's flaws are inherent with computers
>> and unsolvable. Or maybe they just to justify paying what they did
>> for it. Or maybe they believe the FUD. Or maybe a combination of all
>> of the above.
>
>There are more reasons.
>
>Just suppose a small company which has bought an expensive (but
>necessary) administration, and production management program, which
>works with a Novell Netware server and Dos stations. Then the program is
>"upgraded" (the previous version being not supported anymore) to Windows
>environment.
>
>The same small company needs affordable CAD workstation, for hardware
>and PCB design, FPGA design, etc. Just try to bet for which platform
>those tools are available.
>
Not the only resort. A friend who is a self-employed developer uses a
networked mix of DOS and Windoze workstations where each platform is
set up for the app(s) therein installed. Not elegant, but it enables
him to run the app of choice in a number of fields including PCB
design.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:10:22 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 20:59:17 GMT, Robert Heininger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ease of use that compromises security (as explained above) is a BIG no-no
[on the other hand]
>stand alone desktop doesn't need tight security,
Yes, it does. The luser will take that "stand alone" system, add a modem,
and hook it up to the Internet. Now it isn't standalone any more, but the
luser things "well, it's only a desktop, who'd hack that?" The answer is
of course "every script kiddie with a port scanner" and another hacker
haven is created.
This is why "desktop" installs should have all services turned off by
default, because the dumb user will hook it up to his cable modem and
create a security problem for everyone else.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:20:58 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 10:37:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
If you believe that microshaft worked independently from intel then
you are either ill-informed or downright silly.
>>> 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
No gaff whatsoever. that is only your view.
>. Perhaps you're
>still under the impression that DOS's "success" was due to market
>choice, rather than per-processor licensing agreements?
Prior to entering the PC-owner arena, I purchased an eight-bit
machine. This purchase came after about six months of deliberation.
I set out to NOT buy a C64 quite consciously. In the end that is what
I bought because it had market share. Market share attracts software
developers. Availability of a larger range of software attracts
buyers, which improves market share. Vicious circle. Whether
MicroShit attained market share through per-processor licensing
agreements. bribery or simply appeal by volume of available apps isn't
really the crux of the matter, unless you want to drive the discussion
in that direction to suit your ends and arguments.
>>>>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?
Well, I did. Were you trying to make a point?
>>Go on. Really? I would never have guessed ;-)
>
>Pardon me, am I boring you?
No, but you seem to think I know nothing of the evolution of PC's as
we know them, and treat me accordingly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 01:06:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was nice of those hackers to post how they did it, so that
particular hole
> can
> be repaired. Obviously, giving someone the source code makes it
easier to find
> flaws in your code. Nothing really wrong with that.
>
> Of course, as Microsoft proved, you don't need open-source to be left
wide
> open to a simple attack based on a single mouse click.
Kind of humorous, isn't it? All those security experts looking
for buffer overflows and the like that may give a malicious
user the ability to run code on a system, and it turns out
that all one has to do is send out a .vbs attachment and hope
that some small segment of the receipiants won't notice. I
suspect that if the average computer security expert were a
burgular, he'd spend weeks tunneling through a basement wall
instead of climbing through the open bathroom window.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Piers B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:08:31 +1000
You ignoramus,
Who do you think helped IBM and Apple in the eighties ( re 80's for those
who have literacy problems)???? IBM and Apple wouldn't have been the
companies they were if it wasn't for Microsoft. Not to mention at how IBM
treated the desktop user space when they and Microsoft split their
co-designed OS efforts. OS2 desktop users have been consistantly shafted by
IBM even if it was a superior product to Microsofts offerings of the day.
MS has pushed personal computing further than Apple and IBM have anyday,
sure they haven't been at the for-front like Amiga was but look at Amiga
now, just dust. I also don't condone MS's market strongman tactics but I
can tell you I'd take Win2K over any for of Unix for the desktop anyday.
BeOS is the only real contender and they are a few years behind in features
and applications. Mac OSX, please give me a break, Unix (FreeBSD) with a
pretty Xwindow manager tacked on to try and hide it but with all the
inherrent problems Unix has like their antiquated File naming system. As
for Sun, screw them cause they don't give a toss about the desktop and are
only getting at MS cause they see a real percieved threat to their
Workstation and Server markets.
Anyway, my rant and my OS's of choice are Win2K and BeOS
ones usefull and the other an elegant new OS with little functionability.
Sorry to say this to fellow BeOS users and I still love using this OS but it
still can't allow me to do professional 2D work or play games that I want
(sims and FPS like SS2) or watch DVD's or run Java (but I really can live
without that one).
It's still in it's infancy but one to watch over the comming year especially
with OpenGL hardware support and BONE networking which will give Sun and
other Unixies a real headach if implemented well (BeOS has the potential to
blow them away).
Piers Bray
"Little Piggy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm confused. I hope you realise that Microsoft isn't a hardware
> company. They have nothing to do with putting cheap computing power
> into the hands of consumers. If anything they are responsible for
> jacked up computer prices because of their OS tax. You DARE put MS in
> the same category as Apple, IBM, etc?? Companies which actually BUILT
> this industry rather than just led a parasitic and unproductive
> existance?
>
> Go ahead, support Microsoft. Who cares... they are going DOWN and the
> computing industry will be the better for it.
>
> sidebar: I find it really funny that Gates started donating
> bucketloads of money to charities (mainly his, even when the man gives
> he can't let go completely) as soon as the shit started to hit the fan
> with the DOJ.
>
------------------------------
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 21:29:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:51:55 GMT
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 01:38:44 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 03:35:00 GMT
>
>>>On Fri, 26 May 2000 11:50:02 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>>Devlin wrote:
>
>>>This would be the case if the BIOS presented a standard interface for
>>>all of it's functions. It doesn't. Things like plug and play and
>>>power management vary non-trivially from one BIOS to the next.
>
>>No they don't. They use roughly the same hardware components, and are
>>supported by roughly the same software OSes, so my statement that it is
>>the BIOS's responsibility to provide an interface between the
>>motherboard, hard drive, and OS is roughly correct, to say the least.
>
>I never said that this was not the BIOS's job.
I never said you did. I'm trying to have a conversation, here. Why
must it always be an argument with you? It gets boring after a while,
you know.
--
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] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: 29 May 2000 21:25:01 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-> John Gluck wrote:
->>
->> Tom wrote:
->> >
->> [snip]
->> >
->> > I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
->> > it.
->> >
->> [snip]
->>
->> By default most linux distributions don't see more than 64 Megs of RAM.
->> You need to tell the kernel at boot time that you have more.
->> I have 256Megs so in /etc/lilo/conf i added a line that says: append
->> "mem=256M" (if i remember the syntax correctly)
->>
->> There are several ways to check if you are using all your ram.
->> One is in the KDE control center, choose information memory
->> Second is do a top command. That will show you all processes but will
->> also give you info about memory usage.
->> --
->> John Gluck (Passport Kernel Design Group)
->>
->
-> Actually John it`s a BIOS problem, the BIOS under reports the amount of
-> RAM.
-> It doesn`t happen on all PC motherboards, some will report it correctly
-> some won`t. That is why on some Intel systems you have to put the
-> append line in lilo.conf.
-
-Hmm. I was under the impression that this was a kernel issue, although I
-have seen it pop up in Red Hat 6.x, for some odd reason. Debian 2.2 (frozen)
-is reporting the memory fine, however.
It's both. Old BIOSes could only report 64MB. Old Linux kernels used the
older call and thus was limited to 64MB reported. Newer BIOSes added another
memory reporting interface that pre 2.2 kernels didn't use. from 2.2 kernels
on generally the memory is reported correctly.
BTW the original author is probably correct about the speed the GIMP handles
that particular operation. But there are a couple of observations:
1) It probably isn't kernel related, but a process bottlenect in the GIMP
itself.
2) The source for the GIMP is readily available, so both profiling that
particular operation and fixing it may be possible.
3) A question: How likely or prolific is that particular operation in
graphics work? Just curious. I'm not really a graphics guy.
BAJ
------------------------------
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 21:31:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:53:56 GMT
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 11:12:00 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>Colla wrote:
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>>> This would be the case if the BIOS presented a standard interface for
>>> all of it's functions. It doesn't. Things like plug and play and
>>> power management vary non-trivially from one BIOS to the next.
>
>>Then a non-trivial OS should be able to cope with it.
>
>Which Windows does, by customizing its setting on install to the
>specific BIOS detected. Which is why there are problems making
>changes to such components without reinstalling.
Snooze. You don't seem to grasp the distinction between an interface,
and an interface *layer*. The BIOS isn't simply a boot eprom; it is
supposed to allow an abstraction which would enable a non-broken OS to
avoid the equivalent of a kernel rebuild when the motherboard details
change. Using the generic term "components" would be a mistake, or a
tired attempt at redirection. You decide.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
