Linux-Advocacy Digest #769, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Leonardo")
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
("Christopher Smith")
Re: democracy? ("Andrew N. McGuire")
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(Woofbert)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(Trevor Zion Bauknight)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:31:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> 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 a combination.
The "standard" PC BIOS has a routine that reports the size of RAM in
kilobytes, and does so using a 16 bit word. So the highest possible
value is 65535, or 64M (minus 1k, to be precise).
In recent years, when having more than 64M became more common, motherboards
started to ship with BIOSes that contained additional calls, allowing them
to report the actual, larger memory size. However, it seems these additional
calls weren't exactly standardized, and there also was a bit of a problem
finding out whether they are supported by the BIOS at all.
For that reason, getting the kernel to use these extended calls, and to do
so in a way that would not cause instability on motherboards that don't
support them, was quite a task. Getting it right took a while, so for some
time, linux' memory detection lagged user's memory amounts.
Modern kernels should correctly detect memory on modern motherboards. Make
one of the ingredients a couple of years old, and you *may* have to provide
the mem= line.
Bernie
--
The main advantage of being famous is that when you bore people
at dinner parties they think it is their fault
Henry Kissinger
American politician
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:31:52 GMT
Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Actually, I was asking about sending PCL5 data to a PCL5 printer.
>One easy way to do it is to create a batch file with the following line:
>copy /b %1 lpt1
>And put a shortcut to that file on your desktop. Then you can
>drag-n-drop a PCL5 file to it and it will copy the PCL5 directly to the
>printer.
Yep.
However, one has to question the "user-friendliness" of Windows when
such a seemingly trivial task not only requires the user to write a
batch file (uh-oh, evil command line!), but *also* to realize that
"copy" needs that "/b" switch, even though
copy in.pc5 out.pc5
will happily copy the whole file.
Bernie "And where in the Windows Help System is any of this described" Meyer
--
True eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and nothing
but what is necessary
La Rochefoucauld
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:33:20 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It's amazing how twisted the folks around here are. Linux is a stone
> age system
What, precisely, is stone aged about Linux?
> that quite frankly the public at large, at least in the
> USA, has ignored and continues to ignore.
Hmm. 40 to 80 million . . . yep, that's "ignoring" all right.
> Think about it. Person goes into CompUSA with $100 and is confronted
> with Windows for $89.00 and Linux for $29.00 or better yet for free.
> Yet they go for Windows every time based on market share.
EVERY time? Nope. To disprove that, you only need one exception . . .
an voila! I'm it.
Your statement is in error. Try again.
> They can't even GIVE LINUX AWAY!!!!
And yet, the servers that do give away complete Linux distributions are
so heavily loaded that they keep fissioning . . . like bacteria.
> Linux is for lusers. It best serves folks who like to fiddle and fuss
> with their computers.
The only thing wrong with that picture is: My seven year old uses
Linux. "USES", not "FUSS" or "FIDDLE". Simply uses. Though if he
forgets his password again, I'm a gonna start making him use biometrics
. . . :-)
Try again. . .
> I stopped that routine 10 years ago.
Stop fiddling, stop learning. 10 years ago . . . Yep, seems about
right.
> When the Linux zealots start listening to what REAL people want(hint
> compilers and editor wars need not apply) maybe, just maybe they will
> gain market share, until then forget it
1) Market share is meaningless.
2) Linux is gaining market share at an astounding rate.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:05:52 +0300
Reply-To: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are either very young, been living in a barrel for the last 20 years or
just very stupid.
Ask someone what TPC stands for and what they do :-)
--
L
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff / newsgroups </SNIP>
>
> > Microsoft's Windows 2000 is the slowest operating system known to
> > mankind.
> >
> > No-one can challenge this statement.
>
> Sure. Now, could you please, explain away this:
>
> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
>
> Here I see Win2K kicking some UNIX' behind and taking names. Cheaper too,
> BTW.
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande awaiting for some interesting acrobatics.
>
> > Charlie
Okay I clicked on it.
They have Wk2 running on one computer and different unix's all running
on
different boxes with no speed comparisons between them.
What you NEED to do here is get a comparison from a reputable magazine
who's
willing to test SEVERAL operating systems on ONE MACHINE!
This is a worthless pile of crap. It says nothing about anything.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Wed, 31 May 2000 02:56:17 +1000
"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8h0nhk$7ef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8gvavr$8bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"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.....
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> As if Microsoft were responsible for the current state of affairs.
> >> Please.
> >
> >I'm sure some other company would be in the position Microsoft was in
> >today
> >if they "lucked out", but that's entirely irrelevant to who actually
*is*.
> >
> >>
> >> They lucked into a contract with IBM and bought someone else's work to
> >> fulfill it.
> >
> >And ?
> >
> >> Then they copied the Mac. Then, after they failed to create
> >> their new technology OS (and after using IBM's money to pay for their
> >> own research) they hired the guy who did VMS to do them a version of it
.
> >
> >And ?
> >
> >> Any positive effects that all this has had are purely accidental.
> >
> >By what definition of "accidental" ?
>
> By the definition that it took factors totally outside their influence
> in order for it to have happened.
Um, hardly. Outside their influence to get their foot in the door ?
Certainly. Outside their influence to ram the door open thereafter ?
Hardly.
> In particular, if Gary Kildall had signed IBM's non-disclosure
> agreement, then Microsoft would never have been given a second chance to
> produce MS-DOS (they'd already said no once) and if the largest and most
> powerful computer company in the world hadn't made either one of _two_
> crucial blunders in producing the PC, MS would never have been able to
> sell their OS on clones.
Then probably DR would be where Microsoft is today.
The point is they're not, Microsoft is.
------------------------------
From: "Andrew N. McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:47:23 -0500
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Mark Wilden wrote:
+ "Andrew N. McGuire" wrote:
+ >
+ > Clever. :-) I guess every year really starts a new millennium,
+ > although this does not directly pertain to the millennium we were
+ > discussing.
+
+ Actually, each second starts a new millenium. :)
I realized this later.
+ > Well, to me the real idiot is one who does not take the time to think
+ > about the truth of the matter, and then refuses to admit when he is
+ > blatently incorrect.
+
+ However, my point was that this issue is simply not important enough for
+ most people to worry about strict accuracy. And why should they? The
+ rollover to 2000 is much more interesting to them.
I suppose, I for the life of me do not see why though.
+ > [ First of all, let me point out that you more than likely do not have
+ > to recompile your kernel to make your sound card work. ]
+
+ I did, although I compiled sound card support as a module.
There are alternative drivers, also if your kernel supports module
loading, you should have just been able to compile the module, I
believe.
+ > Not so, chosen ignorance is not an excuse
+
+ We just disagree. There are more important issues in people's lives than
+ computer OSs. We, as computer people, tend to forget that.
True.
+ > to say that people think that
+ > Windows is better becuase they do not want to try anything else just
+ > points out their stupidity.
+
+ No, it just points out that they've got other things to think about.
It depends, there are many people who will swear up and down that
it (Windows) is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
+ >If this were the case in all aspects of
+ > life, we would not even have electricity for goodness sake.
+
+ It is the case in all aspects of life. It took technologically astute
+ people to make electricity acceptable to non-technologically astute
+ people.
My point is that if people only 'stick to what they know' and do
no investigation on their own as to what is actually best, then
they should not complain if they do not get the best. Complacency
is a hinderance to innovation, ask Bill Gates. :-)
+ > And to say
+ > that the majority of people believe that Windows is best is not idiotic,
+ > it is true, look at the usage percentage!!!
+
+ That percentage arises from the number of computers that come preloaded
+ with Windows, not from the number of people who think Windows is 'the
+ best OS ever', as you averred.
But you put forth the argument that that is all they know, and wish
to know of nothing else. You can't have it both ways.
+ > of the computers on the planet... Are you saying that that many people
+ > would use it even if there were something better?
+
+ If it were _proven_ to be better, yes. There are other issues involved
+ than the technical quality of the OS, such as the availability of
+ software and help.
True, however if you have ever called _any_ major companies support
lines, you know how bad it is.. Although I can honestly say Sun
Microsystems has some very knowledgable people working for them.
I was impressed by them.
+ > Either way you slice it, the majority looks rather dumb.
+
+ Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, because it must make living in this
+ world very unpleasant for you, thinking that most people are 'idiots'. I
+ also question how, without an absolute standard of intelligence (which
+ doesn't exist), the majority of people can be anything other than
+ average.
I do not think individuals are idiots, I think the conglomeration of
them is idiotic. There is a difference, a definite tendency towards
'mob mentality' in many cases. People, left to their own devices are
on average, quite intelligent. People in a crowd, well that is another
matter.
+ > + Of course, there are people who are smarter than average, and I think
+ > + Usenetters in general fall into that category. But just because I
+ > + (err--we) are smarter than average doesn't mean the average is low. It
+ > + just means that we're quite smart. :)
+ >
+ > Why the (err-we), are you directly insulting my intelligence?
+
+ Not to mention the fact that there are lots of other qualities a person
+ can have besides intelligence (which the term 'idiot' ignores). One of
+ them is to be tolerant and with a strong enough ego that one doesn't
+ read insults where they weren't intended. To be crystal clear, the
+ 'err-we' was an acknowledgement of your and other Usenetter's
+ intelligence, not an insult to it.
Your original tone seemed seemed ambiguous, that's why I asked.
It is hard to tell via text, I asked because I was concerned,
not to accuse you of anything.
+ > I made no attempt to insult yours, but if this is your course
+ > of argument, let me know now, so we can either agree to disagree,
+ > or killfile each other ( I would rather not do that ).
+
+ I have never killfiled anyone in 16 years online. If I don't respect
+ someone's opinions, or feel they don't respect mine, I simply ignore
+ their posts, as I ignore the majority of posts for reasons ranging for
+ disinterest to laziness. The average person, as stupid as she may be,
+ does not generally put her fingers in her ears and scream "I can't hear
+ you, I can't hear you!!", which is what the public announcement of
+ killfiling amounts to.
Sometimes they do, but as I said I would rather resolve any
disagreements we have in a more mature manner. To me a killfile
is a last resort. My news server carries way more posts that it
should... As a result I usually end up killing old threads, and trolls.
Thats about it.
Best Wishes,
anm
--
/*-------------------------------------------------------.
| Andrew N. McGuire |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`-------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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 09:44:58 -0700
In article <8h0nhk$7ef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> 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.....
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As if Microsoft were responsible for the current state of affairs.
> > Please.
>
> I'm sure some other company would be in the position Microsoft was in
> today if they "lucked out", but that's entirely irrelevant to who
> actually *is*.
>
> >
> > They lucked into a contract with IBM and bought someone else's work
> > to fulfill it.
>
> And ?
>
> > Then they copied the Mac. Then, after they failed to create their
> > new technology OS (and after using IBM's money to pay for their own
> > research) they hired the guy who did VMS to do them a version of
> > it.
>
> And ?
>
> > Any positive effects that all this has had are purely accidental.
>
> By what definition of "accidental" ?
You guys are arguing at cross-purposes and this argument will never come
to a conclusion. ... which leads me to jump rioght in and add my two
bits... This is basically a classic left-wing/right-wing argument.
The Calvinist right wing argues that a person or entity's worth is
measured by how much money it has accumulated. Thus, since Microsoft has
accumulated more wealth than anyone else, it justifies whatever means
(stealing, copying, bullying, cheating ...) it took to get there.
The Liberal[1] left wing argues that a person's worth is innate,
possibly measured by the good works it has produced. Thus, since
Microsoft lied, stole, and cheated to get where it got, it is not the
greatest thing in the world.
[1] classic capital-L Liberalism, not the thing the right-wing which
lunatics have turned into a swear-word.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: 30 May 2000 11:56:06 -0500
In article <8h0oqb$nrr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Refresh my memory, please. In the past, didn't they only publish
results for existing, ready for sale, systems? I thought the
price information also had to include the service contract with
a certain guaranteed uptime. Is this system selling at the
specified price now?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>You are either very young, been living in a barrel for the last 20 years or
>just very stupid.
>Ask someone what TPC stands for and what they do :-)
>
>--
>L
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> <SNIP> Some stuff / newsgroups </SNIP>
>>
>> > Microsoft's Windows 2000 is the slowest operating system known to
>> > mankind.
>> >
>> > No-one can challenge this statement.
>>
>> Sure. Now, could you please, explain away this:
>>
>> http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
>>
>> Here I see Win2K kicking some UNIX' behind and taking names. Cheaper too,
>> BTW.
>>
>> Paul 'Z' Ewande awaiting for some interesting acrobatics.
>>
>> > Charlie
>
>
>Okay I clicked on it.
>They have Wk2 running on one computer and different unix's all running
>on
>different boxes with no speed comparisons between them.
>
>What you NEED to do here is get a comparison from a reputable magazine
>who's
>willing to test SEVERAL operating systems on ONE MACHINE!
>
>This is a worthless pile of crap. It says nothing about anything.
>
>Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: Trevor Zion Bauknight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:43:39 -0400
In article <8gv4el$r9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Piers B."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Well...I'm glad to see you know what you're talking about.
Trev
--
"I think Trevor is an idot. Just the kind of robot President CLITton likes.
Supid people!" - Husker Kev
------------------------------
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 12:13:06 -0500
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YPMY4.11589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Well MS used C++ in Windows 2000.
> >
> > Not for the OS itself. That's C and ASM.
>
> I wouldn't assume this. The main downside to using C++
> for this stuff is that it tends to produce larger (but faster) code
> due to all the inlining it supports. MS seems unafraid of larger
> code. :D
C++ can never be faster than C, since C++ is defined in terms of C (it has
to be translateable to C for C front ends. Most C++ compilers aren't
front-ends today, but some still exist and the language has to still work
for them).
Inlining is a technique used to remove unneccesary function calls, which
could easily be solved by not having the call in the first place and just
writing the code in the function. Yes, it makes it less readable, but OS's
aren't usually going for readability awards.
C++ also has several other drawbacks. The compiler cannot guarantee
inlining (the inline keyword is a suggestion to the compiler, not a
directive, similar to the register keyword.), explicitly inlining in your
own code solves that problem. C++ has very specific functional linkages
(call stacks are different than C call stacks, and the API is all C based.
Well, technically it's all iterrupt based with C stubs, but that's a
different story).
> Anyway, things like DirectX are built on COM, and doing COM is
> C is way painful; I'd be surprised if MS did not use C++ for those
> bits.
It would seriously surprise me if DirectX was writtin in C++. Yes, it's a
pain to write COM in C, but Microsoft has been doing that for years and
probably has many internal tools to help them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 17:09:11 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:25:57 -0400, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No version of any microsoft software has ever been as fast as the previous
>> version.
>
>
>What?! WHAT?!! are you on drugs??
>
>EVERY version of MS software I can think of is faster than the previous. Can
>you name a specific issue of a new version slower than a previous version? I
>can't think of a single one!
>
windoze 3.1 vs. 95 vs. 98 vs. nt vs. W2K.
All were slower than the prior version.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
