Linux-Advocacy Digest #31, Volume #27 Sun, 11 Jun 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Where are all the astroturfers? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linux JDK 1.3.0 Updated (Darren Winsper)
Re: Canada invites Tholen north (tholenbot)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? ("Wouter Verhelst")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tholenbot)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tinman)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (tinman)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (peter444@-)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Bart Oldeman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Where are all the astroturfers?
Date: 11 Jun 2000 16:53:50 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:23:29 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, probably, by midweek, next week, we will see some "Justice will
> prevail on appeal" posts.
I just want to see what they say if it doesn't get thrown out on
appeal.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux JDK 1.3.0 Updated
Date: 11 Jun 2000 21:39:09 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:06:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The IBM Developer Kit for Linux(R), Java(TM) 2 Technology
> Edition, Version 1.3.0 Early Release (Early Release Developer
> Kit) is a software development kit that can be used to build
> Java applications on Linux. The Early Release Developer Kit
> includes development tools, the IBM Java Runtime Environment
> for Linux, sample code and Java source files.
A question for the Java gurus here; is it OJI compliant? You can make
Java work under Mozilla using OJI but Sun haven't released anything for
Linux using it and I don't know if the IBM JRE works with it.
Anybody care to let me know either way?
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Tholen north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:09:16 -0400
In article <zQQ05.32764$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But we're talking about the irrelevance of your statement, not
> about USENET posts in general.
What alleged "statement"?
> Classic evasion.
Evidence, please.
> > I spell it correctly with a lower case "t."
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> Incorrect, given that both spellings are the same.
Of what relevance is that remark?
> Illogical, given that you are the one engaging in it, thus it would be
> a "tinmanesque" mode of discourse.
Get a life, Dave.
--
On what basis do you claim that many facts about the square of the
hypotenuse are "cheerful"?
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:18:46 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >Actually,, one can use a console without X at all.
>
> Migte as well. In "X" Windos, you spend so much time in DOS box you mite as weal run
>the DOS box
> fullscrene.
But then I could only have one terminal window. Some of us want more than that.
> And that's another thing. In the _real_ Windows, you can make the DOS boxes
>fullscrean,
> but in "X" Windows, you haff to leave them in an "X" Windo or go to UNIX's DOS moad.
>Not that you
> ever nead to use a DOS box from Microsoft Windows.
>
Your flames would be more credible if your spelling were better.
>
> >Even in console mode,
> >one can have virtual displays, so that one can multitask. Also, you can
> >invoke xterms without leaving X. In fact, at four xterms a desktop (at
> >1024 x 768) and eight desktops, you could have 32 xterms.
> >
> >Also, can one resize DOS boxes, or scroll along them, or have color
> >text?
> >
>
> Yes. You can even have graffics inside them! Lets' see an "X" DOS box do that!
>
> >>
> >> >[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.
>
> >The X Windows System predates Microsoft Windows.
>
> I doute that.
Does anyone know the dates?
>
>
> >Also, when did MS
> >Windows support multiple desktops? And can you activate icons on your
> >desktop by a single left click on a two-button mouse as you can on KDE?
>
> >
> >
> >> Old versions of X even looked just like
> >> Windows 3.1. Today's X looks like Windows 95. It's a bad immitation.
> >
> >X doesn't look like anything. It's KDE, GNOME, fvwm, Afterstep, etc,
> >that looks like something.
> >
> >Colin Day
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:22:31 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> 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.
As Windows is not on my computer, it is not everywhere. Please be more careful
in your use of the universal quantifier.
> Version's of it run on home PC's and on large
> corparate networks.
So do versions of Linux.
> 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.
He doesn't deserve it.
>
>
> > 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.
>
Given your typing, I would agree, but the rest of us can handle it.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:30:40 +1000
"tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>
> > > Illogical, given that the posting is in this newsgroup, not your
> > > garden.
> >
> > Usenet posts need not be solely self-referential.
>
> I see that, having found it hot "out there", you have taken over the
> tending of Chris Pott's balderdash garden. How predictable.
Is a balderdash what grows if you bury a Tholen ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:33:17 +1000
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i15m4$dl6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> 8i0o5b$73f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
> > > > Only wintrolls have trouble understanding this, and only they defend
> it.
> > >
> > > Well, obviously. The short definition of "wintroll" is "defends
> > Microsoft".
> >
> > No, that's wrong. The short (and long, ie only) definition of
"wintroll"
> is
> > "doesn't hate Microsoft". :D
>
> AKA "paid M$ shill".
Nonono. They're only a subset. "Paid M$ shills" are the ones whose
arguments you can't refute :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:33:49 GMT
On 11 Jun 2000 10:09:16 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Migte as well. In "X" Windos, you spend so much time in DOS box you
>mite as weal run the DOS box fullscrene. And that's another thing. In
>the _real_ Windows, you can make the DOS boxes fullscrean, but in "X"
>Windows, you haff to leave them in an "X" Windo or go to UNIX's DOS
>moad. Not that you ever nead to use a DOS box from Microsoft Windows.
mite? moad? haff? windo? nead? WTF?
>>The X Windows System predates Microsoft Windows.
>
>I doute that.
Are you really a complete idiot, or do you just play one on Usenet?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:34:30 GMT
I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 11 Jun 2000 13:48:02 -0700,
> peter44@- <peter44@->, in
> <8i0tu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> + Knowing apple is anti-command line company, this means OSX will likely
> + come with no or crippled command line just like their previouse pathatic
> + OS's.
>
> Do you even know the roots of MacOS X? one of its ancestors is NeXTStep,
> a BSD-based OS.
Yup. That's right. The _GUI_ of MacOS is based on NeXTStep. That's it -- no
other comparisions here...
Certainly not the shell...
--
Greetings,
Wouter
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:45:05 -0400
In article <8i17dp$hll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >
> > > > Illogical, given that the posting is in this newsgroup, not your
> > > > garden.
> > >
> > > Usenet posts need not be solely self-referential.
> >
> > I see that, having found it hot "out there", you have taken over the
> > tending of Chris Pott's balderdash garden. How predictable.
>
> Is a balderdash what grows if you bury a Tholen ?
>
Ask Chris Pott, it's his balderdash garden.
--
On what basis do you claim that many facts about the square of the
hypotenuse are "cheerful"?
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:28:16 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Gary Hallock wrote:
> Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I thought I saw six zeros in your number (meaning I read "five
> > million", not seven. Sorry if I misread it. The fact that it came out
> > to a nice round number and the Linux one didn't seemed suspicious too.
> >
>
> There were only size zeros. You didn't misread. Was it a typo or did he
> really only run only 5 million iterations? 5 million would explain why
> Windows came out with such a nice even number..
The other numbers he gave are also nicer than they seem to be:
909,090 = 100,000,000 / 110
877,192 = 100,000,000 / 114
(he swapped two digits here)
I wonder how many iterations he used; mostly CLOCKS_PER_SEC = 100: this
could mean only 1,000,000 or even 500,000 iterations, corresponding to
an execution time of about 1 or 0.5 second, respectively.
I've got a version of dhryston around that refuses to give an answer if it
runs in less than two seconds.
His point was that Linux programs do not run faster than Windows
programs; of course such a program only tests the CPU and the
compiler: the OS does not make any difference at all. A SMP test would be
more interesting.
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:49:43 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:55:24 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yet *still* the open source folks can't seem to handle the Word format.
Actually, the closed source folks haven't done all that well either.
Most commercial WP's read Word files, most also lose information in the
process. And if you start embedding things, well, that sure doesn't
make the import work any better.
>
>I really don't think it's Microsoft's fault.
>
>Maybe the format it just too hard. Heaven knows it is complex.
It could also be that the documentation is incomplete or incorrect. Or
perhaps the format is closely tied to the internal architecture of
Word or Windows, neither of which are available for inspection by third
party implementors of Word file-readers. I haven't read the documents
MS provides, so I have no idea how useful they are. The fact that
nobody seems to have got it 100% right argues in favor of it being
Microsoft's fault, although it doesn't prove such.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
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 19:55:59 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8i17dp$hll$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Illogical, given that the posting is in this newsgroup, not your
> > > > > garden.
> > > >
> > > > Usenet posts need not be solely self-referential.
> > >
> > > I see that, having found it hot "out there", you have taken over the
> > > tending of Chris Pott's balderdash garden. How predictable.
> >
> > Is a balderdash what grows if you bury a Tholen ?
> >
>
> Ask Chris Pott, it's his balderdash garden.
>
No, I think an experiment is in order.....
Muahahhahahhaha! Photoshop Snap Dragon!
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
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: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:58:55 -0400
In article <8i17il$1su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8i15m4$dl6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > 8i0o5b$73f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> > > > > Only wintrolls have trouble understanding this, and only they defend
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > Well, obviously. The short definition of "wintroll" is "defends
> > > Microsoft".
> > >
> > > No, that's wrong. The short (and long, ie only) definition of
> "wintroll"
> > is
> > > "doesn't hate Microsoft". :D
> >
> > AKA "paid M$ shill".
>
> Nonono. They're only a subset. "Paid M$ shills" are the ones whose
> arguments you can't refute :).
Funny, never seen one of those....('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 00:12:48 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:41:36 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[don't use strongly-typed languages if you use certain programming
styles]
>C has few advantages over C++, really. It's not quite a subset
>of C++, but it is close. I was thinking of Java or Eiffel or Smalltalk
>or Lisp or something.
C does have a few advantages over C++ though. Simpler run-time and
startup code. More stable compilers with fewer bugs. Standard is
older and more stable, so compilers are more compatible with each
other.
I do like Java, I just wish Sun would pull their heads out far enough
to see that allowing it to be standardized would be a good thing.
>There are several different styles that call themselves "OO"; some
>are *spectacularly* badly suited for C++. Maybe you are using one
>of them. :D
I don't find myself arguing with C++ much, so I sorta doubt it. I
simply choose to use a subset that I am comfortable with. Since C++ is
such a big language, I suspect most people besides Bjarne do that.
>> On top of that, only a minority of users ever upgrade their OS,
>> so you're letting the needs of a small minority drive the whole
>> design.
>
>Well, it is the minority that buys your product, so that's not
>surprising. :D
No, only a minority of buyers of an OS get it as an upgrade. Most get
it from an OEM as a preinstall.
>More importanlty, you *need* those early adopters; you can't expect
>to get bundling deals and the like if nobody uses your product.
Yeah, like MS has a hard time getting bundling deals. They can simply
discontinue the previous product. What was the OEM going to do,
install OS/2? They couldn't install Linux in 1995, and probably not
today either.
>Visual SourceSafe is included in the more expensive
>versions. The "standard" (ie, suckfull) edition doesn't have it.
>
>Then again, it doesn't have an optimizer either.
Given the history of the VC++ optimizer, that may be a good thing.
>> Can it build multiple targets using different compilers?
>
>No. You are doing cross-development? I shouldn't be surpised;
>you'd expect that with embedded work.
Yes, and for even more fun we sometimes have multiple CPU types in one
project. The current thing has 8 DSP's and a 68360.
>It's not that hard to use a different compilers- such things are sold-
>but if they don't put out error messages in MSVC's form, using MSVC's
>error numbers, it won't 'grok' them properly. It can print them, but
>that's it.
So one of the benefits of an IDE, "click to go to error", no longer
works unless you "do it their way".
Just as a comparison, IBM once sold an IDE called "Workframe" that
allowed user-written DLL's to parse the error messages, thus allowing
it to work with lots of different compilers. The editor was also
pluggable.
Emacs of course lets you change the regex it uses for this, and so do
many other editors.
>I've been search the archive formerly known as DejaNews for this;
>what I find is that C++ isn't used for Linux because C *was*
>and retrofitting support for C++ exceptions would be a large
>task (ie, the C parts of the kernel would have to know how to
>unwind their stacks safely).
There's also the issue of the POSIX API being a C API and thus there's
not much benefit in userland of having a C++ kernel.
>The only solid reason seems to be exception support, and
>NT already has that as an OS thing.
>
>So it would seem like C++ in NT's kernel would not be
>a big problem.
Right. Nothing inherent in C++ prevents it being used in an OS kernel.
But if you are building a POSIX kernel, and especially if that kernel
is already working and in production, then there doesn't seem to be
much benefit to be gained either.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:57:55 -0400
Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > >I dunno. Maybe you should try to get whoever provides your
>> > >word-processor to support Words format better.
>> >
>> > Its an M$ decision to manufacture problems. It is M$ who continues to
>> change
>> > the format for the purpose of forcing upgrades on customers, and to
>> eliminate
>> > competing products.
>>
>> They seem to have stopped. No doubt you can contrive some sort of
>> diabolical reason for that.
>>
>> Yet *still* the open source folks can't seem to handle the Word format.
>>
>> I really don't think it's Microsoft's fault.
>>
>> Maybe the format it just too hard. Heaven knows it is complex.
>>
>> > Only wintrolls have trouble understanding this, and only they defend it.
>>
>> Well, obviously. The short definition of "wintroll" is "defends
>Microsoft".
>No, that's wrong. The short (and long, ie only) definition of "wintroll" is
>"doesn't hate Microsoft". :D
No. I don't hate M$. I just see them for what they are; an organization that
holds back progress in a quest for their own greed. No rational, ethical and
moral person can like or support them.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: peter444@-
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 11 Jun 2000 16:20:51 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>On 11 Jun 2000 13:48:02 -0700,
>peter44@- <peter44@->, in
><8i0tu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>+ Knowing apple is anti-command line company, this means OSX will likely
>+ come with no or crippled command line just like their previouse pathatic
>+ OS's.
>
>Do you even know the roots of MacOS X? one of its ancestors is NeXTStep,
>a BSD-based OS.
>
>James
Yes, I know, I know also that part of its kernel is taken from
freeBSD.
Your point is?
Just becuase the kernel is from another Unix kernel means nothing.
It is only the kernel. The shell is not in the kernel you idiot.
Apple, as moron as they are, can take a Unix kernel and throw
a closed GUI around it with no usable command line interface.
Unless I see full bash and sh available, I will not touch OSX or anything
else from apple. Just another pretty face OS is not good enough for me.
Does OSX come with bash??
Peter
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:59:37 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Bart Oldeman wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought I saw six zeros in your number (meaning I read "five
> > > million", not seven. Sorry if I misread it. The fact that it came out
> > > to a nice round number and the Linux one didn't seemed suspicious too.
> > >
> >
> > There were only size zeros. You didn't misread. Was it a typo or did he
> > really only run only 5 million iterations? 5 million would explain why
> > Windows came out with such a nice even number..
>
> The other numbers he gave are also nicer than they seem to be:
> 909,090 = 100,000,000 / 110
> 877,192 = 100,000,000 / 114
> (he swapped two digits here)
>
> I wonder how many iterations he used; mostly CLOCKS_PER_SEC = 100: this
> could mean only 1,000,000 or even 500,000 iterations, corresponding to
> an execution time of about 1 or 0.5 second, respectively.
I checked a few more messages in which he explained he used 50,000,000
iterations in about 50 seconds, but with a one second resolution these
results are equivalent, given that no other processes disturb the test.
Bart
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
