Linux-Advocacy Digest #788, Volume #26 Wed, 31 May 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Yarick Rastrigin)
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ("Drestin Black")
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ("Drestin Black")
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ("Drestin Black")
Re: VB suck and Java rules (was: Re: Is Java 'larger' than VB ?) ("Ermine Todd")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux kernal - mode GUI? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Rhinebeck HS LUG ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: 31 May 2000 19:24:45 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (aleander) writes:
| Dnia 30 May 2000 12:00:19 -0500 niejaki
| Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wypstrykal:
| >Try it this way: NO code is perfect, or at least there is
| >never any reason to assume that it is.
| Hey! I've got perfect code...
|
| #include <stdio.h>
|
| int main()
| {
| printf("Hello world!\n");
|
| return 0;
| }
|
| Simple but functional... perfect...
but you don't check the return value from printf...
And since you dnt use any format strings you should probably use puts
anyway.
Lgb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 17:18:53 GMT
On Wed, 31 May 2000 16:45:55 GMT, Eric J Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> The relevant Motorola here would be the 68000. With the exception
>> of some VM related features (and perhaps speed), it was comparable
>> to the 386 & it came out in 1979.
>
>...and...
>
>>
>> The 68000 was a 32bit CPU with a 16bit data bus, a 24bit PC and
>> 32bit address registers.
>
>Those statements are simply not correct. While the Motorola 68000
>*SERIES* does now contain 32-bit chips, the original 68000 that was
>released in 1979 was a 16-bit processor. It is pointless to argue...
BULLSHIT.
It was a 32bit processor, with 32bit registers and a 16 bit ALU.
>Just search Alta Vista for something like "motorola 68000 released"
>(without the quotes) and you will find many different and independent
>sources that will back me up. Like these, for example, which I found in
>just the first 10 search hits...
No, you are simply full of shit.
>
>http://physics.cataegu.ac.kr/~wphong/linuxtk/comhis1/Workst.html
A one line description.
>
>http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/
Another one line description.
>
>http://www.heimcomputer.de/english/comp/atari260st.html
That page is just plain WRONG.
>
>> No they weren't. Now you're just plain lying.
>
>*PLEASE* check your facts before calling me a liar. In fact, don't call
I've done MC68000 assembly programming. My facts are not the
problem. I can even quote out of a 10 year old copy of the
microprocessor reference if you'd like.
It is YOUR "checking of facts" that leaves much to be desired.
[deletia]
You are spreading misinformation based on the most superficial
understanding of the topic at hand possible.
The MC68000 had a 16bit external data bus. However, that has no
bearing on the CPU's address range, addressing modes or the width
of it's registers.
All of these are much more relevant to the topic at hand.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:46:45 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > and your proof? Because W95 was definately faster than 3.1 and 98 was
> > > definately faster than
> > > 95
> > >
> > > NT4 smokes W98's ass in every test I can think of and W2K is faster
than
> > > NT4 on most tests.
> > >
> > Are you $#$#@#$& insane? I really hope your kidding. Please tell me you
are.
> > I mean come on, your talking out of your bunghole.
> > I guess this is just a trolls bait, and I took it... but anyway if you
really beleive that
> > you are a complete ignoramous.
> > Come on, I dare you to say it, Windows 2000 is faster than Windows 95.
Do you
> > have half a brain in your head?
>
>
> Here is a statement which can not be challenged by anybody.
>
> "W2K is the slowest operating system of them all."
>
> It's a fact, now live with it.
Prove it.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:47:32 -0400
"Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NeXY4.1007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > and your proof? Because W95 was definately faster than 3.1 and 98 was
> > definately faster than
> > 95
> >
> > NT4 smokes W98's ass in every test I can think of and W2K is faster than
> > NT4 on most tests.
> >
> Are you $#$#@#$& insane? I really hope your kidding. Please tell me you
are.
> I mean come on, your talking out of your bunghole.
> I guess this is just a trolls bait, and I took it... but anyway if you
really beleive that
> you are a complete ignoramous.
> Come on, I dare you to say it, Windows 2000 is faster than Windows 95. Do
you
> have half a brain in your head?
>
there is no question that NT is faster than W95 and W2K is faster too. Try
running some business benchmarks and others and see for yourself.
Show me a benchmark running W95 faster than w2k?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:48:16 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 15:21:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 30 May 2000 17:52:10 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Given sufficiently larger RAM for each new version, I'd agree. Run
> >> >each on the bare minimum for the previous version and you'll wish
> >> >you hadn't.
> >>
> >> Or if you run them with *only* 4 times what microsoft says is the
minimum.
> >
> >You can think of an equivalent OS this doesn't apply to ?
>
> Any non-microsoft OS.
Bull.
There, simple and to the point. You are wrong.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 31 May 2000 17:54:58 GMT
On Wed, 31 May 2000 13:48:16 -0400, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 31 May 2000 15:21:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On 30 May 2000 17:52:10 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Given sufficiently larger RAM for each new version, I'd agree. Run
>> >> >each on the bare minimum for the previous version and you'll wish
>> >> >you hadn't.
>> >>
>> >> Or if you run them with *only* 4 times what microsoft says is the
>minimum.
>> >
>> >You can think of an equivalent OS this doesn't apply to ?
>>
>> Any non-microsoft OS.
>
>Bull.
>
Prove it.
------------------------------
From: Yarick Rastrigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:52:40 +0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello !
> >
> >Seems like something a sh script can do.
>
> Certainly. Just rebuild the db at 3am when the system is idle
> and the end user is asleep...
I for myself always hate this behavior. It's not uncommon in our company
to work through
the night, and updatedb slowing things down usually in the middle of
hard debugging session
pisses me off. And when it runs throuhg network mounts with 20 to 100
Gb's SMB-mounted disks
all across our local network - it's waay too long to complete, so it's
better to
killall find. Or servers, running database speed test (1 million of
insert/select) show strange and different results, especially if all
session uses 10-12 hours - depending of when it was started...
>
> I was also thinking that this could be added to the filesystem
> in some way. Applications could create a sort of hard link to
Certainly, could be. I think some unused bits in filedescriptor could
hold at least major
info about filetype. But it would add an unneeded complicacy to fsck ,
and in case of
fs corruption this could create a mess.
> any file that was dependent on. Of course that 'hard link' would
> go away with the file that owned it. This could serve as a reference
> counter exposed to the OS at the lowest level possible.
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
With all the best, [EMAIL PROTECTED] AKA 2:5025/17
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:00:02 -0400
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Outlook...
> > >
> > > I'll say it for everyone else: Open Source isn't perfect.
> > >
> > > There. Are you happy now? Will you please go away?
> >
> > Of course it isn't, almost no code is perfect.
> >
> > Why are you so afraid of hearing opposing points of view?
>
> Fear?
>
> It's more of boredom with you than anything. Your nit-picking is
> annoying, because you do not advocate anything, you only anti-advocate
> Linux.
untrue - I advocate W2K usage. I fight the lies and FUD spread by anti_MS
crusaders.
>In this instance you don't advance the idea that closed-source
> (or Windows) has superior security than open-source;
I have advanced that idea and given examples of my ideas. I have debated it.
that's the purpose of forums, instead of automatically assuming anything MS
is evil and wrong.
>you just jump up
> and down on a bug in PGP.
as do anti-MS types about every misfortune might suffer or any bug no matter
how insignificant The Register brings to light. I mention this bug because
it is newsworthy and clearly illustrates that being open sourced for a year,
a product that should have had the closest of scrutiny failed to detect this
vulnerability. had this happened in a MS implemntationg imagine the outroar
and rage against MS/closed source. It's hypocracy.
>Indeed, it would be laughable to advance
> the notion that Windows has fewer (ahem, 64000) bugs than Linux (or
> *BSD or whatever).
Windows 2000 does not have 64000 bugs; care to document this claim? Care to
disprove it? What basis do you have to claim Linux or *BSD has fewer bugs
than Windows 2000? Are all the bugs in W2K counted and all the bugs in Linux
counted and has someone made a tally of the two columns? My bug count in W2K
is pretty damned low, not even 4 (let alone 5) digits. And that's on a .0
released of a totally rewritten OS. How do you think linux 3.0 will fair in
bug counts?
>
> Basically: What's your point? Why do you even mention this silly PGP
> thing? What is your motivation?
My motivation is just to remind open sores advocates that their assumtion
that JUST because software might be open source that someone else has
examined the code and even if they have that they've found every weakness.
And a program as popular as PGP, which demands closer than usual scruitiny,
has failed this test of security.
I'm trying to identify some hype and hypocracy in the open sores community's
claims and ravings.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:04:01 -0400
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aleander) writes:
> >
> > > Dnia 30 May 2000 12:00:19 -0500 niejaki
> > > Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wypstrykal:
> > > >Try it this way: NO code is perfect, or at least there is
> > > >never any reason to assume that it is.
> > > Hey! I've got perfect code...
> > >
> > > #include <stdio.h>
> > >
> > > int main()
> > > {
> > > printf("Hello world!\n");
> > >
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Simple but functional... perfect...
> >
> > You're still linking to the C library with it, which hooks into the
> > operating system...
>
>
> Here's a perfect bit of code on an old computer (in assembler)
> LDA #72 load an 'H'
> STA 31744 store it in the 1st byte of screen memory
> LDA etc for the rest of Hello, world
>
> No OS, no bugs, no use.
and nicely machine dependent...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:03:10 -0400
still 60 million? but it said 60 million several weeks ago - what happened
to the 1% per week, where are the 600,000 weekly new users from weeks ago?
and how do you determine that these claimed 60 million are satisifed? What
is your criteria for satisfied? Are they STILL statisfied or have they
returned to using Windows (dual boot or entirely) when they couldn't find
the applications, driver support or user friendlyness they need to be
productive.
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8h1jaq$491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip crap>
--
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 1%/week!
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VB suck and Java rules (was: Re: Is Java 'larger' than VB ?)
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 11:08:56 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Just for the record ... neither the organization (DocuLabs) nor the
benchmark nor the magazine are connected or sponsored by MS.
Also for the record, Compaq actually has previously submitted to these types
of benchmarks using other than NT for the OS. In the past year however, the
best performance has been obtained with Win2K so that has been the OS of
choice.
Your paranoia is showing because at the least, you have to accept that
Compaq yanking Alpha from the Win2K development effort shows that Compaq is
NOT in MS's pocket.
--ET--
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
<snip>
>
> Still, it's a pity that they didn't try running a
> decent operating system on this beast of a machine.
> Then again, what do you expect in a Microsoft-sponsored
> benchmork, running on Microsoft-sponsored hardware,
> in a Microsoft-sponsored magazine. Somehow I suspect
> that COMPAQs agreement with Bill forbids them from
> ever performing a benchmark using Linux or Solaris
> on this setup.
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 14:07:26 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 13:48:16 -0400, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 31 May 2000 15:21:24 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On 30 May 2000 17:52:10 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Given sufficiently larger RAM for each new version, I'd agree. Run
> >> >> >each on the bare minimum for the previous version and you'll wish
> >> >> >you hadn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or if you run them with *only* 4 times what microsoft says is the
> >minimum.
> >> >
> >> >You can think of an equivalent OS this doesn't apply to ?
> >>
> >> Any non-microsoft OS.
> >
> >Bull.
> >
>
> Prove it.
hey, you made the claims - you prove them.
show me where 4x times the memory is the *only* time a MS OS improves
performance and where 4x times the memory in a non-MS OS does NOT make an
improvment.
Examining another statement of yours from above:
> >> >> >Given sufficiently larger RAM for each new version, I'd agree. Run
> >> >> >each on the bare minimum for the previous version and you'll wish
> >> >> >you hadn't.
give me a break: Sure, run with the bare minimum [system requirements] for
the **PREVIOUS** version and you'll wish you hadn't.
Well, DUH! Are you stupid or purposely this way? I mean if you intentially
do something wrong and it doesn't work right, do you still blame it?
Here is a copy of Linux for Intel x86 ... what do you mean it's doesn't run
right on my Alpha? Stupid Linux. yea right...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Linux kernal - mode GUI?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:31:07 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 30 May 2000 07:10:13 -0400,
mlw, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Michael Mamone wrote:
>>
>> > Windows NT, on its first release, was unstable because the bugs in the
>> > core needed to be shaken out. Around 3.51, it was almost stable. Then in
>> > 4.0 they torpedoed it by putting the GUI in kernel space. Yuck, more and
>> > more serious bugs. I used to be on all the NT beta programs. Now, I
>> > simply don't care. NT is irrelevant. If you want a server, use Linux or
>> > FreeBSD. If you want a desktop use Linux. If you want to run games, buy
>> > a toy: Nintendo, PlayStation or Windows 9x.
>>
>> I beg to differ. There's a difference between integrating a GUI into a kernel
>> and using kernel modules to assist in 3d acceleration. You can use X 4.0
>> without any assistance from the kernel (yet it is still amazingly fast).
>
>There is no difference between moving something in to the kernel and
>using kernel modules. Both require that code be run in ring 0 protected
>space. A failure in GUI code will still cause a kernel fault. Is that
>where we want Linux to go?
>
There is one big difference, with Linux, you have the choice. If you want to
sacrifice stability for speed then you can use the DRI thingy, if
stability is more important, then don't. A linux playstation clone might well
benefit from kernel level GUI. I don't recommend your beowulf cluster or
your apache server do it however. :)
This assumes of course that you do get a benefit in speed.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:23:20 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Wrong. C++ isn't restricted to be implemented in C. Just as a Java
> application can often be faster than an equal C++ program so can C++ be
> faster than an equal C program.
That's highly dishonest Joseph. You deliberatly cut out the portion of my
message which stated that most compilers today aren't translated to C.
The point is that the language has to be translateable to C, that doesn't
mean it has to be translated.
> And you cannot talk about C++ without mentioning its benfits over C.
> Engineering OO benefits in C is less efficient, not using OO benefits is
> playing cards without a full deck. Windows 2000 didn't get to be 30+
> million plus lines of code in ASM and C Junior.
This is entirely contradictory. Your argument is that C++ makes coding
easier, and thus requires fewer lines. Then you argue that Windows 2000
wouldn't be as large as it is if it was C. Windows 2000 would be *FEWER*
lines if it were written in C++, not the other way around.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 31 May 2000 13:30:22 -0500
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong. The MacOS license is a full license--not an upgrade
> license. If you buy a CHRP box and install MacOS on it, that license
> would be legal.
Apple once liscensed clone vendors. Those clone vendors also liscensed
MacOS with those machines.
I don't recall any CHRP boxes existing with Mac ROMS.
> But let's assume for a moment that you're correct. Let's say that the
> Mac price is an upgrade and is comparable to the Win9x upgrade price.
> What happened to your argument that Windows was far less expensive than
> any other OS out there due to volume sold?
I didn't say that. I said their *PROFITS* were more because of volume. I
said that *IF* they reduced their price because their profits were too high,
then competitors would not be able to compete.
> > > Hmmm. Win98 is the most expensive consumer OS by far. What happened to
> > > your volume argument?
> >
> > You forgot OS/2, (MSRP is $259).
>
> Which isn't a consumer OS.
Funny, it's still sold at CompUSA. And that's the MSRP it's always been.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rhinebeck HS LUG
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 18:27:52 GMT
You sound like quite an ambitious young person!
Best of luck to you and your friends.
Knowledge is power.
On Wed, 31 May 2000 09:52:58 -0400, Dave Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi everybody!
>I have taken the plunge and started a LUG at the local high school. We
>have met a couple times and the kids are getting linux installed on
>their home machines and we have linux running on a machine at school.
>The guy that is responsible for computers at the school has been helpful
>and given us a machine to work with at school.
>Right now things are going along well and the kids are excited about
>getting stuff working. Their eyes lit up when I started X for the first
>time and the KDE came up. After we get our dialup networking running
>(they are supposed to be working on this, this week) I guess I will go
>over printers, postscript and ghostview. My big idea is to "aquire" a
>couple more machines at the school and network them on an ethernet. Then
>if I can get a modem and a phone line, we can dial up the cluster and
>start some programming projects. These kids already have taken a course
>in C++ and I thought we could install the MPICH and develop some
>parallel apps (try doing that on windoze). I was wondering if anyone has
>any other project ideas? Also I have not written much "windows" related
>stuff and I also know that writting to X directly can be .... not so
>much fun. I know there are a number of libraries one can use to pop
>windows and turn on pixels .... any recommendations on which ones are
>good?
>
>Thanks for any ideas,
>
>Dave Rolfe
>
>PS ... Anybody know of a job for a C language programmer with in depth
>experience dealing with parallel systems, please send me a note.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
