Linux-Advocacy Digest #24, Volume #27 Sun, 11 Jun 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux in the Reject Bin at CompUSA (WhyteWolf)
Re: Tholen semi-digest, volume 2451707.1^-.01 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451706.8501^-.0000000000000066 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ("Joe Malloy")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Game Available ("James")
Re: Linux Game Available ("James")
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Debian (Paul Kimoto)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box ("Raymond Swaim")
Re: No need to take sides ("Otto")
Re: No need to take sides (mlw)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: No need to take sides (Matt Templeton)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Rich C")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: Linux in the Reject Bin at CompUSA
Date: 11 Jun 2000 13:04:38 GMT
I could have sworn I saw this post before ... only under a
diffrent address. {course it wasn't really worth responding
to then ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote nothing of importance
[sniped the drival of a echo]
--
-=-=-=-=-
Nietzsche is pietzsche.
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
Subject: Re: Tholen semi-digest, volume 2451707.1^-.01
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:30:26 -0400
Today's Tholen digest is pitiful, just pitiful. Gone (hooray!) is the
feisty Tholen of yesteryear, the Tholen that tholenated a digestification at
great length. Instead we have, in its entirety:
> Today's Haakmat digest:
>
> 1> Why do you think I asked?
>
> Entertainment purposes?
The answer, dear Tholen, is that we're not here to entertain you. [chortle!]
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451706.8501^-.0000000000000066
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:30:29 -0400
Here's today's Tholen digest. Note how he continues to avoid the matter of
some alleged reciprocating deal when in fact it is he who completely
misinterpreted my intentions. Yes, he's too embarrassed to admit that he,
in fact, did not establish the parameters of my offer and he tries to
obfuscate this fact in poor style.
To wit, here's a summary of everything he said of value:
[0]
Ooops, that's it! Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:30:31 -0400
Tholen tholes:
> Tinman writes:
>
> > [oh well, it's hot out there anyway]
>
> Irrelevant.
Typical pontification.
> >> Tinman writes:
>
> > Typical inaccuracy,
>
> Incorrect.
Typical pontification.
> > It's tinman.
>
> Which is how I spelled it to begin with.
I suggest you actually *read* how you typed the word.
> >>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>
> >> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
Typical stupidity. It figures.
> > The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>
> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
> started it.
Typical pontification and typically wrong-headed: tinman defined the
spiral -- the dance of boredom -- you two are in: a typically tholenesque
downward spiral.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[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: 11 Jun 2000 10:39:20 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2 Jun 2000 08:17:10 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Tim Palmer schreef:
>>>>
>>>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>>>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Windos blos UNIX aways. Windos is a compleat systum. UNIX is only haff-built
>and still neads DOS
>>>> >> command mode to do things.
>[deletia]
>>>Are you even aware of the fact that Unix and DOS are two
>>>different things entirely? It's like comparing a bicycle to the
>>>space shuttle!
>>
>>Yes. UNIX is the bycicle, and Windows is the space shuttle.
>
> Then that is why Windows is still only being used by
> the 'bicycle' crowd whereas for real work more mature
> systems (like Unix even) are used instead.
>
What maiks you think that? Windows is everywhere. Version's of it run on home PC's and
on large
corparate networks. The fastest sistem on the TPC/C list (the space shuttal) runs
Windows 2000.
UNIX is used by a bunch of wining geeks on there old 386's (bycicals) because they
do'nt think Bill
Gaits desserves the money they woud halve to spend on a computer that can run Windos.
> Stupid Shell tricks may seem 'cryptic' or 'primitive' to
> you but they allow me to do things with my desktop
> enviroment that just leave Windows users like you drooling
> and stupified.
>
Oh, you mean shit like:
finger -s $(cat /etc/passwd|awk -F: '{ print $1 }')
<sarcrasm>
Wow! Those Stoopid Shell Tricks are life-savers! What wood I ever do without them?
</sarcrasm>
>>
>>>[Raise clue-stick]
>>
>>>First of all, Unix does not have a "DOS command mode". It has a
>>>variety of text-based shells with their respective command-lines.
>>>DOS is derived from CP/M, with its' own command line, which is
>>>said to have been derived from Unix. Unix had a command-line more
>>>than TEN YEARS before DOS even existed!
>>>Maybe you should say the DOS has a Unix-lookalike command line
>>>instead of the other way around!
>>
>>UNIX does have a DOS command mode i've sean it! It looks just like
>>a DOS box and you half to leave "X" Windows alone and just tipe
>>commands into the DOS box.
>
> No, Unix has a variety of shell interpreters that can be
> interchanged (something DOS can't do) and they may or
> may not be text based. All features of the OS besides the
There all text-baised, it doess'nt matter wether its' BASH or TCSH or ASH or KSH or
anything-SH.
> shiny happy desktop are available from the 'text shell'
> whereas a Win9x DOS instance by itself is nearly totally
> crippled (no devices, no networking, no multitasking).
>
>>
>>>[Thack!]
>>
>>>The "imitation [sp corrected] Windows" as you call it is actually
>>>MUCH older than Windows. Windows stole the idea from Apple, which
>>>in turn stole it from Xerox. Windows is the VERY LAST company to
>>>have implemented a GUI!
>>
>>They sad themselves that X Windows is supposed to make UNIX look
>>like Microsoft Windows. Old versions of X even looked just like
>>Windows 3.1. Today's X looks like Windows 95. It's a bad immitation.
>
> Anything that seeks to be like Windows 95 which is itself
> a poor copy of other interfaces, is a 'bad immitation' by
> simple inheritance.
>
> Fortunately, Unix is not limited solely to such GUIs.
>
>--
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:49:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:14:11
>Keith T Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[...]
>Of course. But NT security ownership is closer to the notion of who is responsible
>for those files towards the company. And, as I said earlier, the sysadmin can take
>control
>of the files at any moment, even for files he doesn't own hand has not been granted
>direct
>access to. Only it requires him to take ownership of the files, maybe for the two
>following reasons :
>1. Remininding him he's not responsible for those files (he's responsible for the
>systems
>and its apps, not for the data processed by them, except in keeping the data safe
>(backup
>policies)).
>2. Acknowledging this taking of ownership because he cannot give the ownership back
>himself, he has to ask the former owner to.
Yet Another Silly Idea from Microsoft that sounds good to people who
don't actually have to (nor have the time to) implement such a silly
idea for whatever pie-in-the-sky fantasy about software functionality,
which might sound like a good idea but falls apart in the real world,
that they have in mind.
Having the operating system attempt to implement a security model based
on the notion of who "is responsible to the company" is relatively
ludicrous, given the typical implementation of software in a modern
company. Note 1: the sysadmin is responsible to the company for all
files on a system, as that is what a sysadmin is; no-one but the
sysadmin is responsible for any files but end-user generated documents.
Note 2: application of this Silly Idea, on the rare occasion it is
feasible in real life, is not hampered by not gratuitously bolting it on
to the bog-standard OS.
--
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: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Game Available
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:52:38 +0200
Apologies. Should have said "spambag".
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i04af$tqr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3942a2af$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bugger off, scumbag!!!!!!!!!
>
> "James", this nastiness is totally unwarranted. Michael
> Simms has posted only *twice* before, and makes a good case
> for this particular commercial announcement. The avail-
> ability of games for Linux is an important factor for its
> acceptance, and the number of games won't increase unless
> some people buy them.
>
> >"Michael Simms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> This is moderately advocacy-related so I am posting here
> >>
> >> Phantom EFX has produced a new game for Linux. This is their first
game,
> >> and they are producing it in the same box for Linux and Windows.
> >>
> >> If they get a decent sales-level for it, then maybe their next game
will
> >> be available for Linux also, but if it gets few sales, well, the
chances
> >> are lower.
> >>
> >> The company is Phantom EFX, http://www.phantomefx.com
> >>
> >> The game is Reel Deal Slots, and is available from July 1st
> >>
> >> You can pre-order the game for $19.99 from
> >> http://www.tuxgames.com/details.cgi?gameref=44&referrer=news
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Tux Games - http://www.tuxgames.com
> >> We supply the games that will distract you from working.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Game Available
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:58:01 +0200
PS: Also check out that these are all gambling games. Next he will post
gambling links.
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i04af$tqr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3942a2af$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bugger off, scumbag!!!!!!!!!
>
> "James", this nastiness is totally unwarranted. Michael
> Simms has posted only *twice* before, and makes a good case
> for this particular commercial announcement. The avail-
> ability of games for Linux is an important factor for its
> acceptance, and the number of games won't increase unless
> some people buy them.
>
> >"Michael Simms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> This is moderately advocacy-related so I am posting here
> >>
> >> Phantom EFX has produced a new game for Linux. This is their first
game,
> >> and they are producing it in the same box for Linux and Windows.
> >>
> >> If they get a decent sales-level for it, then maybe their next game
will
> >> be available for Linux also, but if it gets few sales, well, the
chances
> >> are lower.
> >>
> >> The company is Phantom EFX, http://www.phantomefx.com
> >>
> >> The game is Reel Deal Slots, and is available from July 1st
> >>
> >> You can pre-order the game for $19.99 from
> >> http://www.tuxgames.com/details.cgi?gameref=44&referrer=news
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Tux Games - http://www.tuxgames.com
> >> We supply the games that will distract you from working.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:11:10 -0400
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:38:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> eBay rocks. I didn't get my ext. modem quite as cheaply as you did,
>> but it cost half of retail and was still in the unopened box. I could
>> not believe the difference in speed when running Windoze.
>
>Did you remove the winmodem component and use the external modem for
>both windows and Linux? Or keep both - one for W and one for Linux?
>If so, I assume this wouldn't cause a problem under different operating
>systems....
The internal went on eBay for $10. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Debian
Date: 11 Jun 2000 11:20:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <Dor%4.1775$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pedro Coto wrote:
> I've heard a lot of hype about Debian GNU/Linux being
> better than another ones. Why ? What does it have ?
High standards for release. So high, in fact, that they have trouble
getting releases (e.g., the current 2.2) out the door.
Easy upgradability:
$ apt-get update && apt-get install apt && apt-get dist-upgrade
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:25:38 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:04:34 -0700, Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You are a liar. I _never_ in that post said that closed source was better,
>> or anything even remotely resembling that fact. I was, in fact, very
>> careful not to say that. Please re-read the post, critically this time.
>
>Well, what about the subject line:
>
>
> Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
>
>
>In my books, and within my feeble command of the English language,
>it implies that ...
Obviously you are new to English. "Open Source Programmers Demonstrates
Incompetence" says nothing about the competence of closed source
programmers.
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Swaim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:28:31 -0500
Windows NT had the same problem in its first years. No
driver support, no
software, etc. The Windows advocates act like this was
never the case, but
it most certainly was.
Linux doesn't have all the driver support that Windows has
right now, but it's
getting there very quickly. You may find that one of the
2.3.99 development
kernels has the hardware support you're looking for.
RSS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8htb48$ll2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> I don't claim to be a pro or any kind of guru, but I'll
say my piece
> and be glad to hear opinions on it.
>
> Being a programmer and longtime frustrated user of
Windows, I not too
> long ago decided to venture out into that brave new world
of Linux. I
> set up a linux web server and installed linux on my
personal
> workstation too-- no more windows in my world.
>
> Installation was a breeze, my hardware worked out alright.
I had to
> pay for Open Sound System to get my sound card working
correctly (due
> to my inexperience, I'm sure) but it was well worth it to
me.
>
> However:
> 1.) Multimedia just didn't perform for me on Linux as it
does on
> windows. By this I mean playback of MPEG compressed video
and
> framerates in Quake.
>
> 2.) My printer doesn't work! I have a NEC SuperScript 870
(yes, one of
> those not-quite-postscript lasers) but I love it, and
can't afford a
> true PS printer..
>
> 3.) Drivers for tv tuner card, and mp3 player flash media
drive were
> either very difficult to install, faulty, or non-existant.
>
> Now I write from windows 2k. But my webserver is still
running Linux.
> Why?
>
> I love the idea and spirit behind linux, and it is making
a top notch
> server os for me right now! The reliability amazes me,
and the wasted
> resources of running a gui on a server just makes me
cringe to think
> about it now.. :c) I will twist and cavort and work with
the machine
> to be able to walk away with a cheap, stable, and elegant
solution.
>
> But when I sit down to my everyday system, I want the ol'
comforts..
> easy configuration, ready multimedia, and device support.
>
> Understand me--I DON'T want windows! But I DO want to be
able to admit
> to myself that Linux isn't ready for my everyday
workstation needs.
> And if it isn't ready for me, the well-informed,
experimental consumer,
> I don't think it's ready for the average consumer.
>
> I know many of these problems can be attributed to
problems arising
> from issues such as lackluster driver support from device
companies,
> time and $$ it takes to make these things possible. I
know Linux has a
> zealous (but not over-zealous.. :c) and talented following
of
> programmers and advocates.
>
> It just seems like some linux advocates like to sell the
idea that the
> OS is perfect for everyone... But I think the OS is
perfect for a
> great many things, but maybe it doesn't NEED to be perfect
for
> everyone...
>
> I dunno.. Go ahead and hammer me if you think I'm crazy,
but at least
> tell me why.
>
> James Turner
>
> P.S. -- I tried BeOS recently and it impressed the hell
out of me as a
> consumer desktop... If it had more apps and was friendly
with those
> damn .docs all my compadres use, I'd probaby go for it. I
understand
> Be is shifting emphasis toward Internet Appliances though,
and away
> from BeOS. What a shame!
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:32:25 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
: >
: > It's only a computer.
: >
: > That's all I have to say.
:
: That depends. On COLA, whose existence is for the taking of sides for
: Linux, it make sense. Advocating a community developed product, which is
: free, makes sense. Advocating a poorly developed, closed source,
: proprietary set of (and I use this term loosely) operating systems, from
: the largest software company in the world, with billions for marketing,
: on the other hand does not make sense.
:
COLA, or COMNA isn't about advocating either of the OSs, it's about flaming.
The true advocate would list the pros of the particular OS and helps others
with problems. Not the "your OS sucks more, therefore my OS is better",
which are the majority of the postings in these newsgroup. Just like your
posting. For the success of either of the OSs, it makes no difference what a
relatively small number of people are bickering about in these newsgroups.
Matt is right, "It's only a computer".....
Otto
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:37:46 -0400
Otto wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
> : >
> : > It's only a computer.
> : >
> : > That's all I have to say.
> :
> : That depends. On COLA, whose existence is for the taking of sides for
> : Linux, it make sense. Advocating a community developed product, which is
> : free, makes sense. Advocating a poorly developed, closed source,
> : proprietary set of (and I use this term loosely) operating systems, from
> : the largest software company in the world, with billions for marketing,
> : on the other hand does not make sense.
> :
>
> COLA, or COMNA isn't about advocating either of the OSs, it's about flaming.
> The true advocate would list the pros of the particular OS and helps others
> with problems. Not the "your OS sucks more, therefore my OS is better",
> which are the majority of the postings in these newsgroup. Just like your
> posting. For the success of either of the OSs, it makes no difference what a
> relatively small number of people are bickering about in these newsgroups.
> Matt is right, "It's only a computer".....
It is much more than "It's only a computer," It is far more comlicated
than that. That would be like saying "It's just a phone call" or "I's
just gas." It is about how we choose to make a living, it is about who
sets tomorrows standards, it is about who is allowed to be successful.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or kidding themselves.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:40:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:03:10 GMT
<i2y05.221110$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:30:30 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Someone here in this group claimed Linux is three times faster than
>> >Windows. I question this figure so I did my own crude test. Here's the
>> >program I wrote and ran on both Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.0 on
>the
>> >same dual boot system:
>>
>> [rest snipped for brevity]
>>
>> [even more snipped to continue this trend]
>>
>> All the above benchmark does is test sequential disk access speed,
>> at best -- and that's controlled by the head position on the platter
>> (modern drives have more sectors on the outer rings than the inner)
>> and the rotational speed ONLY. Timings the same? Of course they
>> are; the bottleneck is the hardware!
>
>Regarding the number of sectors on the outer tracks: modern disk drives use
>a faster transfer rate on the outer tracks than on the inner tracks. This is
>done to equalize the lineal flux transition density - on the outer tracks,
>the linear speed of the disk surface under the read head is faster, so to
>keep the same flux transition density, the data rate is increased. There are
>two reasons to keep the lineal bit density constant, error rate and
>capacity. Modern disk drive signal detection electronics is highly tuned to
>the bit density. If the bit density changes by a factor of 3, the error rate
>will typically change by a much larger factor (on modern disk drives, there
>is a high error rate reading from the disk, and there is subsequent error
>correction, much like that used on CDs, to correct the data back to a final
>error rate of around 10^12). The second reason is increased capacity. The
>incremental cost to keep the bit density constant is well under $1US per
>drive, but it can increase the capacity really substantially, both by
>storing more data on the outer tracks and allowing tracks to be placed
>closer to the center of the disk. Drive makers love this: big capacity
>increase, for really low cost.
>
>So, all this means that data will be transferred off the disk faster at the
>outer tracks than on the inner tracks. Typically, the data rate ratio from
>outer to inner tracks is around 3 to 1. Switching between adjacent tracks is
>comparatively slow, even ignoring the additional seek time to find the
>sector you're looking for - I think the fastest drives today can make this
>shift in around 0.5usec. Switching over large numbers of tracks takes
>significantly longer.
>
>It's important to realize that the higher transfer rate on the outer tracks
>of a drive _doesn't_ mean that your data will transfer into memory any
>faster. Most disk drives also have full track buffers, and the recovered
>data is stored in a buffer until it can be transferred out onto the PC bus.
>The transfer to the PC bus is at a constant rate, regardless of the disk
>drive transfer rate.
Hmm...I was not aware of this. Thank you for the explanation.
Of course, the OS has very little to do with all this. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:42:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:56 GMT <8hup84$jt5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>> If you're going to do a decent benchmark, then go get a
>> decent benchmark. Dhrystone comes to mind, although that is
>> a CPU benchmark, as opposed to a disk I/O throughput one.
>> But there should be one out there somewhere. I'd have to look.
>
>I will be happy to provide you with the results of VMS and Linux
>benchmarks running on identical hardware. I would provide you with
>Windows vs. Linux (which also demonstrates Linux to be inferior), but I
>don't currently have a dual boot Linux/Windows machine. I have
>Whetstone here. Let's see. The two machines are identical, except that
>the Linux machine has 32 MB more memory.
>
>VMS -> 61.168 MWIPS
>Linux -> 23.973 MWIPS
Not bad, but is this on the same Alpha hardware?
>
>Yep. You read it here first. VMS is over twice as fast as Linux on
>industry standard benchmarks.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Matt Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 08:46:21 -0700
Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
> It's only a computer.
>
> That's all I have to say.
You're right, it is only a computer. But I want _MY_ computer to do what
_I_ want the way _I_ want it to. I can do this with Linux but NOT with
MS software,.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:27:45 -0400
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[stuff pertinent to thread snipped in favor of tangential comments]
> > > ...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
> > >
> >
> > I'd rather bury it with you...........
>
> What's wronk with macs? They're *fine* once you install *nix and put in
> a 3 button mouse ;-)
>
Then it's no longer a "Mac" is it? It's simply a Motorola-based machine with
SCSI at that point ;o)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
> -Ed
>
> --
> The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
>
> http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
