Linux-Advocacy Digest #761, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Winmodems )Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. (abraxas)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ("Drestin Black")
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example (abraxas)
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. ("Bracy")
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ("Drestin Black")
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (Bob Hoye)
Re: Corel lusing with Linux also. ("Bracy")
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (Bob Hoye)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Robert Fovell)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Perry Pip)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Karl Thomas")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Winmodems )Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:06:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner) writes:
[using internal power supply connectors to drive external devices]
> But you have various connectors inside case - for hard disks and so on.
> Have ever seen how indicators on front panel or 486's coolers are
> connected to them? Solder a long cable to such a device (female and
> male connectors connected with 5cm of cable) and you only need to find a
> hole in case to lead this cable outside.
In so doing, of course, you run the risk of introducing unpleasant
interference from the external world. And you also drive the PS
harder, which makes it heat up faster and last longer.
Maybe I'm a special case, but I already ruined a motherboard by
driving it from an inadequate PS. And I burn through roughly one
PS per year. Bear in mind that, with that one exception, all the PSes
have been at or above the rated level. I don't want to think how fast
I'd be flying through 'em if I started hooking in all the other crap
I've got.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Date: 30 May 2000 04:06:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dell PowerEdge 6450
> Quad Processor III Xeon 550MHz/2M Cache
> 8Gb RAM
> Perc2-QC Raid Controller, 128Mb
> 5 x 18Gb 10K RPM HDs in RAID 5 Congiruation
> Two Intel Pro 100+ NICs w/Adaptive Load Balancing and Adapter
> Fault Tolerance
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server
> External 35/70Gb DLT-7000 Autoloader Rack Mount
> Veritas Enterprise Software for Dell Power Suite
> 3.5", 1.44Mb Floppy Drive
> 17/40X EDI CD-ROM
> Standard Windows Keyboard
> Dell 17" Monitor
> No Mouse
> Electronic CD-ROM Documentation
> Rack Rails w/Inside and Outside
> Wang Svr & NOS Instl
> Same Day 4-Hour/7x24 Parts and Labor On-Site Service, 2 Year
> Extended, IBM
> Dell Remote Assistant Card 2.0
> Price = $79,947 -- and that's before including client licenses f
> or 500 clients.
I can get the same price for an e420r (with approximately the
same config) and a site license for trusted solaris. (which really
actually is certified, btw.)
Actually, it might come in a bit cheaper, and with a 21" monitor.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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 00:06:56 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gveeh$1lhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8guun4$24kl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >What do you expect?
> >> >
> >> >With Linux:
> >> >
> >> >"You get what you don't pay for"
> >>
> >> This has nothing to do with Linux - it is entirely a coding
> >> error in PGP, found by public review that would not
> >> be possible if the source were not open.
>
> > bug only exists in the linux and bsd version. that's what.
> > it was equally possible that it could have been found by internal review
as
> > external. also/hence, were it closed source it's equally possible
internal
> > review would have found it before the exploit was known and
irresponsibility
> > announced to the public instead of sending it privately to the authors.
>
> Just like microsoft's internal review finds all of ITS bugs before someone
> exploits them and sends the report to the authors, eh?
>
I never made that claim nor comparison. It's the
we're-perfect-cause-we're-open-source nose in the air attitude that needs
readjustment to reality. as the subject line reads: Open-source!=Security.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: 30 May 2000 04:13:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never made that claim nor comparison. It's the
> we're-perfect-cause-we're-open-source
No one has said that. Theyve merely pointed out the benefits as
opposed to closed source.
You're seeing monsters, drestin.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:16:12 GMT
Yep, and I didn't even choose the top-of-the-line server. And if
I were to include PowerVault storage (not unreasonable considering
the hardware we're comparing it to) the price goes up quite a bit higher.
Bracy
In article <8gvep3$1lhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(abraxas) wrote:
> I can get the same price for an e420r (with approximately the same
> config) and a site license for trusted solaris. (which really actually
> is certified, btw.)
>
> Actually, it might come in a bit cheaper, and with a 21" monitor.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:16:23 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gvebn$1lhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I dont hate OS/2 at all, in fact I used to be quite a dedicated user.
>
> > so far your track record for picking OSes is pretty bad...
>
> You have no idea what my trackrecord is, so here is my list of computers
> I have ever owned:
>
> Commodore PET
> Commodore Vic20
> Commodore64
> Mac (classic)
> Commodore Amiga500
> Commodore Amiga2000
> Compaq presario DX-66
> Mac Quadra
> Next color slab
> Powermac7200
> Sparc IPX
> Sparc 5
> IBM thinkpad
> Powermac7500
> Powermac9500
> Dell PIII-450
>
> On these machines I have run:
>
> Amigados, Workbench, macos (6.*, 7.*, 8.*, 9.*), dos, win3.1, 3.11 [sic],
> win95, win98, winNT 3.5.1, winNT 4.0, winNT 5.0, W2K professional, W2K
> server, NeXTStep, OpenStep, Solaris2.5.1, Solaris2.6, FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
> Linux. There may have been the random MINIX or something thrown in
> there too at some point.
>
> Heres is how I would rate the hardware, worst to best:
>
> CommodorePET
> Compaq Presario DX-66
> CommodoreVic-20
> Commodore64
> Mac Classic
> Commodore Amiga500
> Mac Quadra
> SparcIPX
> Sparc 5
> IBM Thinkpad
> Commodore Amiga2000
> Dell PIII 450
> Powermac7200
> Powermac9500
> Powermac7500
> NeXT color slab
>
> Here is how I would rate the OSes, worst to best:
>
> dos
> win3.1 (3.11)
> win95
> Amigados
> Workbench
> winNT3.5.1
> win98
> MacOS
> winNT4.0
> winNT5.0
> W2K professional
> W2K server
> Solaris2.5.1
> Solaris2.6
> Linux
> OpenBSD
> FreeBSD
> NeXTStep
> OpenStep
>
I rather enjoy how you list NT5 seperately from W2K ... your ignorance of
the topic is again revealed.
Are you the kind that thinks "size matters?"
Even were I to believe your list, would you believe mine which started way
before yours? And who really cares anyway?
and, whenever someone lists as much as you have I always ask myself: user of
many, master of none? probably.
While I could write a list slightly longer than yours, I won't pretend to
know (remember) much of past OS and hardware ventures - especially those
that don't matter anymore. I am focused on NT technology and am a master of
it. That's why I post in this forum, I've tried the rest and have now
settled on what I see as equal or better than them. NT just gets better all
the time, I bet on the underdog with NT4 and W2K showed me I was write.
Let me leave you with something to keep your eye out for, cause it's the
next better thing: Blackcomb
Don't tell me you're still whistling?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:20:09 -0400
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gveiq$1lhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8gvd00$1lhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > do you suggest that the "AI community" uses MacOS?
> >>
> >> Indeed they do, as well as the many and varied flavors of UNIX,
> >> windows, and operating systems I guarantee youve never heard of.
> >>
>
> > guarantee? really? in writing or ?
> > now, ask, which OS do they use more? I can "guarantee" it's not MacOS.
> > hahahahaha
>
> And I guarantee its not windows. Or linux for that matter. :)
>
nor OS/2
the point of this thread, remember?
------------------------------
From: Bob Hoye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:21:46 -0400
In article <dN8Y4.15486$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Hoye writes [to Eric Bennett]:
>
> > Don't you know? How ironic coming from the most prodigious Tholen
> > emulator.
>
> What makes you think that Eric Bennett is emulating me at all?
Posting for entertainment purposes again, Tholen?
Bob Hoye
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel lusing with Linux also.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:27:25 GMT
Btw, is this as if Lotus, Borland, Corel, Wordperfect, Novell (and numerous
others) haven't struggled in the Windows market?
Bracy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> LinuxCare goes under. Redhat can't figure out what it wants to do in the
> Linux world. IBM dumps Linux shares. And now Corel, betting all their
> chips on Linux, posts a loss.
>
> Who will be next?
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/ec/xml/00/03/20/000320eccorelloss.xml
>
------------------------------
From: Bob Hoye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:28:48 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hoye
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Don't you know?
>
> Don't I know what, Bob?
>
Argument by repetition? How typical.
> > How ironic coming from the most prodigious Tholen
> > emulator.
>
> What is allegedly "ironic"?
Try opening your eyes, tholenbot.
>
> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> How ironic.
Reading comprehesion makes a cameo appearance in tholenbot's replies.
Bob Hoye
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Robert Fovell <[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: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:32:55 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Fovell wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > > Witness his recent use of it in the cross-posting to COOA and various
> > > other
> > > groups
> >
> > I was asked to relay the following from CSMA's legal department:
> >
> > The verb "to puck (blood)" is a registered trademark of the Church of
> > Kong,
> > Inc., the holder of all property and patents pertaining and relating to
> > Mr. Ho
> > You Kong, a former resident of Singapore. Astute students of the heirs
> > of L.
> > Ron Hubbard, the Kongites very aggressively employ legal avenues in
> > protecting
> > and furthering their interests.
<my original post was snipped at this point>
> Translation: How much libel do you think you can get away with?
Ask yourself this question, and then answer it yourself, grasshopper. After
all, you're the one poaching on the protected preserves of the One and True
Kong. <Dirty Harry mode ON> Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you? <Dirty
Harry mode OFF> ;-)
--
Robert Fovell, Los Angeles, CA
Parodies of Mac bashers: http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell
New desktop pictures page: http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~rfovell/dpic.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 04:31:16 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 16:28:04 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>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... :-) [*]
>
>It's called error checking. You need to allocation memory sometimes in
>order to deal with variations in conditions.
>
While closing a key, handle, or file descriptor, you need to allocate
enough mememory to give you a BSOD?? Oh...please.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:40:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Greg Cox from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 18:57:01
>IBM's hardware on the cards was physically wired to respond to specific
>addresses, the BIOS had no way to change it. For instance, video memory
>on the IBM Monocrome Card started at 0xB0000 and started at 0xB8000
>on the IBM Color Card. Video memory was just standard memory installed
>on the video card hooked up to the ISA address/data bus. What happened
>was that accessing the hardware through the BIOS or through DOS (which
>accessed it through the BIOS) was deemed too slow (and it really was
>slow!) so software designers bypassed DOS and the BIOS to directly access
>video memory and other hardware related addresses. This created all
>kinds of problems in the long run because apps were directly accessing
>the hardware instead of going through the OS or the BIOS.
So this was physically wired on the cards. The cards were supposedly
built for the PC, but the specification seems to have been for DOS.
Might we have uncovered some latent planning by Microsoft? I'd want to
look at the emails, to be honest. Software designers didn't "bypass
DOS", DOS had no support for accessing video memory, is all. Video,
(beyond ANSI graphics) sound, printers; none of these had anything to do
with the OS until Bill Gates stole the Mac interface. It didn't create
problems in the long run, the 640K barrier caused problems in the long
run, of which this is part.
[...]
>> Which is why I didn't mention the 286. Certainly such craziness
>> wouldn't have been a problem by the time the 386 was available, but for
>> the need for backwards compatibility in both the customer and Microsoft.
>
>You have part of the truth. The customers demanded backwards
>compatability because of their legacy apps.
Forgive me for seeming like a fanatic, but I'm trying to be purely
analytical here. Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust crimes, and
we have every reason to believe they have committed many over more than
a decade which were not prosecuted. I see no reason to believe that
they did anything because of customer demand. Obviously, customers
demand backwards compatibility to increase their benefits, but
monopolies also demand backwards compatibility to defend their installed
base. One of the tell-tale signs I would use, by the way, to
distinguish these forces is that while customer demand for BC (I'm sick
of writing out "backwards compatibility", OK?) promotes the longest
duration of coexistence, barriers to entry require the shortest time
frame for the transition.
The sheer brevity of the life of the 286 (in my perspective, sufficient
to give the boost necessary to get Windows 3.0 accepted, but
insufficient to support 3.1, though I may be cross-assigning the cause
and effect, to be honest) makes such analysis difficult.
> This is one of the reasons
>that OS/2 1.0 failed - very few legacy DOS apps ran correctly. One of
>the reasons NT sold so slowly at first was the same thing - non-support
>of many legacy DOS apps.
I would have imagined OS/2 1.0 "failed" because it was a version 1.0.
Version 3.0 of Windows ran "very few legacy DOS apps correctly", as
well. In 3.1, they short-cutted the problem by simply disallowing real
mode. It still supported more legacy DOS apps than NT, though, that's
for sure. No successor ever had less backwards compatibility than NT.
>> Had DOS not had a per-processor based monopoly and aggressively defended
>> it, there seems little doubt that this type of limited thinking would
>> have been the death of MS-DOS, even before Windows.
>
>The customers demanded backwards compatability with DOS apps. If the OS
>didn't run their legacy apps well they didn't buy it. You don't seem to
>understand the amount of gyrations and hoops the OS devs at Microsoft had
>to jump through to maintain the DOS backwards compatability...
Nobody bought DOS. They had it foisted upon them. You don't seem to
understand that the gyration and hoops aren't the issue; it is the per
processor licensing which "sold" DOS, not it's backwards compatibility.
Sure, they had to support it, but the greater or lesser extent is
academic. *Could* Microsoft have done so badly as to lose their
illegally gained monopoly? Sure. But that's not the question. The
question is "how badly, and is it more than any other vendor in the
market who just happens to have their market share?"
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.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 00:08:14 -0500
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
And that is irrelevant.
> > 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.
And you know this how? The retail price has not changed in 5 years. The
OEM price is based on volume sold.
> Furthermore, compare list prices for various OSs:
>
> Win98 $169 (or something like that)
Actually $209 (though it's street price is $189)
> BeOS $69
$99 actually, though they had a 'special introductory' price of $69.
> MacOS $89
All retail copies of MacOS are upgrades by definition, since you cannot buy
a Mac without a liscense for the OS, and the liscense goes with the machine.
We don't know the the retail price of the MacOS is, since that price is
bundled into the cost of a Mac.
> Hmmm. Win98 is the most expensive consumer OS by far. What happened to
> your volume argument?
You forgot OS/2, (MSRP is $259).
------------------------------
From: "Karl Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:38:28 -0400
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.sys.amiga.advocacy
Christopher Smith wrote in message <8gvavr$8bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>That's right, computers would be just as useful if you had to flip switches
>to use them.....
>
You haven't been around c.s.a.a. have you? According to one of the posters
a flip-switch (or at least a light-switch) is a processor.
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 30 May 2000 00:10:14 -0500
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >It's called error checking. You need to allocation memory sometimes in
> >order to deal with variations in conditions.
>
> While closing a key, handle, or file descriptor, you need to allocate
> enough mememory to give you a BSOD?? Oh...please.
I/O under NT is asynchronous, which means that multiple I/O requests can be
processed simultaneously. Similar to a fork bomb.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
