Linux-Advocacy Digest #53, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 13:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: democracy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Grant Fischer)
Re: democracy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why UNIX Rocks
Re: IE for Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: G4 in space! (2:1)
Re: G4 in space! (2:1)
Re: G4 in space! (Mayor)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (2:1)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (2:1)
Re: Boring (2:1)
Re: democracy? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: G4 in space! (Monkeyboy)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:58:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What gets prepended to -cracy, if not the demos?
In your case, maybe "idio-"...?
If you are really talking about the structure of OUR government (as in
USA), you desperately need to get some valid, useful education.
Or if you're pandering to the sound-bite mentality of the average CNNfn
viewer, maybe you're right.
Either way, go hang out at www.constitution.org for a while.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Date: 13 Jun 2000 16:10:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jun 2000 16:28:29 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Salvador Peralta) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Linux is faster than windows. Unless the micros~1 sponsored benchmark
>>has changed, Linux still serves nt clients faster than nt. Apache is
>>still more stable with lower overhead, higher scalability, and more
>>customizability than iis.
>
>If that were true, then why are the benchmarks I've run slower on Linux
>than Windows? I'm not talking about apache or web servers, I'm talking
>simple applications.
Given the fundamental problems on your Linux installation that
you've been complaining about, I'd hesitate to use it for
performance testing.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:08:17 GMT
In article <1Xt05.50135$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J Carter) wrote:
<snip>
>
> I think it it YOU who are being misinformed. Saying a republic is
> cannot be a democracy is like saying an orange can't be a fruit. They
> are not mutually exclusive.
Lets see... when is an orange not a fruit? When it's a color.
Your metaphors, Just like your political philosophy, seem shallow and
inadequate.
FYI, a republic is a republic, a democracy is a democracy. An orange is
an orange, and an apple is an apple.
You can blend aspects of the two, that's true, but, for the umpteenth
time, WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. And "meaning" .NE. "interpretation". Just
making an assertion doesn't change the definition of a word.
Why is this so hard for public-schooled kids to understand???
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why UNIX Rocks
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:23:13 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > - Excellent documentation
>
> There are some manpages which need improvement. My major gripe with linux'
> documentation is the fact that it's not well-indexed enough. You may spend
> hours watching at a manpage, while the TeX-based documentation in
/usr/doc,
> or the info-pages, contain the relevant information you need. The last
> resort of looking at the kernel/library-sources to figure things out is
not
> one I'd prefer to take, but the possibility to do that does appeal to me.
>
> The documentation
These various documents that are produced by sepperate organizations and
individuals. The troff formatted man pages are unix standard, and all
programs should come with them. The FSF has abandoned them in favor for
their texinfo documentation format. The Tex/LaTeX packages are are written
by its developers with Tex and LaTeX. A software source or most software
sources come with various notes and readme's and other documentation, these
are put into /usr/doc. Much if not most of the software on Linux is not
Linux specific, it is unix software, the programmers of a given package may
not have even had Linux in mind when they wrote it. The guides and how-twos
are developed to provide additional information as well by another set of
authors.
So, the developement of the documentation is not under the authority of one
person or organization. What is you distribution's maintainers to do? They
have no authority over the development of any of Linux's documentation,
other that what they might have written. They provide the existing on-line
documentation to you in the format in which it exists.
To provide you with cross indexing would require them to rewrite the
documentation into a single format. But do they have the legal right to do
so? To take the result of the work of the various documentation authors and
modify them into a single documentation package with a uniform format and
appearance and with full cross indexing could be a legal snakepit. How else
could they proced? They could hire tech authors, write original
documentation from the ground up and then to keep them on staff to maintain
the currency of the documents as new versions of the software are released.
The cost for this effort would be passed on to you, the users of the
distribution; as well as requiring a delay in their support for new versions
of the software until their own documentation is written. If the version of
a piece of software that is important to you has a problem that is bothering
you and a new version has been released by the developers, do you want to
wait for you distributions document writers to do their thing before you can
have access to the new release to relieve your problem?
Besides all this, what would you want them to do with the existing
documentation that was developed outside of their authority structure? The
could toss it aside or they could still put it into the various directories
as they are doing now. If they toss it aside, then you would be not see the
original documentation which coud be more accurate and precise than their
own efforts. If they include it as they now do, you would be in the same
situation you are now without a valid cross referencing of all documents.
Having a searchable master index for all your on-line documentation is valid
expectation and it is viable to setup and maintain. But not by your
distribution's maintainers, that index is your responsibility to create and
maintain. Only you, as the administrator of your host and/or network, will
be in the position to know what on-line documentation you have installed at
your site(s). If you relied on an index generated by the maintainer of your
distribution, it could be out of date unless you get an update every time
you upgrade a software package. But there is another problem as well, they
don't know which packages you have on your host(s), they don't know the
versions of those packages either. The result of this is that the index
would be valid once you first install the distribution, but as new packages
are released, patches upgrades, whatever there will be an ever growing
disjunction between what you have installed and what they may assume that
you may have installed. For example you may upgrade package x once, package
y twice, but but you may have not upgraded package z through the last
several releases. How coud they know which version of the documentation
they should index for you? There are some possible solutions for them in
this case, but what about software you get from outside of your
distribution. And what about when you mature to the point that you nolonger
rely on ANY distribution and start running Linux rather than Redhat Linux or
Slackware Linux or etc? What would you do for a workable master index then?
That is why that if you want a master searchable index for your on-line
documentation, it is your responsibility to build it and maintain it. There
is various software that can assist you in doing this tasks. One software
package for example is wais. Wais can provide you with your index, and
whenever you add or remove documentation from you host or hosts, you just
rerun the wais indexer to rebuild the index. You can access the resulting
index on yor local host, or through your net or even through the internet.
There are wais clients and many web browsers, as well gopher clients, have
the ability to access wais indexes and retrieve the document or documents
that you are searching for. Or you could run a html server with the needed
CGI to provide a gateway.
The choice and responsibility is yours.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: 13 Jun 2000 16:37:45 GMT
I don't think it will come out for Linux but hey, it could happen. As reported
on slashdot though, it is coming out for FreeBSD
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:37:54 +0100
mlw wrote:
>
> 2:1 wrote:
> >
> > Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> > >
> > > Just saw this item <http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/11a.html> about a
> > > company that wants to put the first satellite into orbit containing a
> > > Web server--and they're going to use a Mac G4!
> >
> > That's a bit dim witted. They should have used several StrongARMS (up to
> > 400 MHZ now?) since they use less than 1W each (the 200 MHZ versions).
>
> Actually space based computers are very scary technology. There are a
> lot of factors with space, radiation, temperature ranges, power
> consumption (of course), and more. There may be a rad-hard G4 chip
> available where as a rad-hard StrongARM may not be.
I suppose if the idea of putting serious iron in space (Hactar, anyone?)
then a rad-hard version of the StrongArm would be an attractive
alternative. I coulnn't see it being that hard to adapt the StrongARM,
considering how few transistors it has.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:43:21 +0100
Jim wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> > >
> > > Just saw this item <http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/11a.html> about a
> > > company that wants to put the first satellite into orbit containing a
> > > Web server--and they're going to use a Mac G4!
> >
> > That's a bit dim witted. They should have used several StrongARMS (up to
> > 400 MHZ now?) since they use less than 1W each (the 200 MHZ versions).
>
> I love it when someone has the actual chutzpah to second guess folks who
> have obviously _done the research_ and _know what they are doing_ and
> are _backing it with their bucks_ to the point of calling it "a bit dim
> witted!" Nothing dim witted about that, is there, either as a response
> or as what must surely be the oxymoron of the day?
Researchers do not always know best. I go to a university (look at my
e-mail address, it ends in .ac.uk), and some researchers do some pretty
dim things once in a while. One department `expert' on transmission
lines (this was a long time ago) accidently made one with suppressor
inductors (very lossy) instead of decent hf coils. It was a very time
consuming and costly (mainly because of the time involved) mistake.
Secondly, people do not always back well thought out plans with bucks.
There are many examples where you can look at them and say `did they
_really_ think it would work?'
And thirdly, if people don't question other peoples actions then who the
hell will?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 09:48:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mayor
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <jrnaylor-
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>> >
>> >What's this? An actual reasoned response? Well, I
>> _never_... ;-)
>>
>> I've noticed that about you.
>
>Touche! That'll teach me to show my age by using a cliche you
>impressionable young kids never heard before.
Heh! If I'm a kid to you then you must be a fossil...or
petrified! :)
--
Come and see my new website!
http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell/tireburn2.html
Generously donated and maintained by
THE Robert Fovell of CSMA fame.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:52:32 +0100
> >
> >Many, many people still care about C. I'd like to see an OS written in
> >Java. Besides, I was in a bad mood at the time.
>
> I don't know anything about it apart from its existence, but there
> is (or was) a beast named JavaOS.
>
> Unknown what it runs on, hardware wise.
I don't disbelieve you, but I'd like to see it (how fast it is, how well
it works, etc)
Anyway, such a far reaching statement as he made is stupid. It's as
lacking in thought as saying windows or linux is dead.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:54:08 +0100
Tim wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > pie@nowhere wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> says...
> >>
> >> >But you don't know the design goal of the program. If the main design
> >> >goal was portability,
> >>
> >> Why do not you guys just use Java and be done with it?
> >>
> >> All this stupid talk about this might be portable and that might not,
> >> is a waste of time. C sucks and so does C++.
> >>
> >> Use Java. Be smart. Who cares about C any more.
> >
> > You are really stupid.
> >
> > -Ed
> >
> >
> Aren't we ready for D yet?
>
> (get it?)
C+=2
or c++++
or ++c++
or ++++c
But you never know, someone (in marketing) who didn't get the joke might
try a C+++ or something.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:55:59 +0100
>
> He's right about that....however he doesn't mention that serious audio work
> is also impossible on ANY Windows OS, none of which are realtime either. The
> ONLY way a windows OS provides ANY kind of decent audio is to throw so much
> hardware at it that you don't have any streaming underflows. Even with a
> fast system, a good sound card, and decent software, you can get the audio
> to hiccup if you do enough other stuff in the background.
>
> Vanilla Linux (and ANY UNIX) is even worse in this regard. It is not meant
> to be a real time system. However, because Linux IS open source, and despite
> Linus' reluctance to incorporate them, there ARE extensions in existence
> that can make Linux truly real-time (at least as real time as any
> interrupt-driven system can be.)
What is used for high horsepower real time audio work?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:54:33 GMT
Is this guy joking? It's hard to tell any more.
> Well, for example you have the majority who believe that as of
> January 1st, we started a new millenium. Then you have those
> of us who are smart enough to realize that there was no year 0.
So if you believe some Pope can create a calendar... Or: Obviously Pope
Greggy was incompetent, because he didn't "create" a year 0... Or: If
you believe in Jesus and the Bible, do you expect Jesus was born on his
first birthday??? Or: Just because some Pope didn't know the meaning of
zero, does that mean I have to screw up all my math too?? Or:
date_routine()
{
if (year == 0) ignore it
else act like everything is okay under God
}
Oh, I get it! You think the Y2K "bug" was a religious experience!
Let me guess... you're a Microsoft programmer.
Sheesh!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Monkeyboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:04:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > 2:1 wrote:
> > >
> > > Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Just saw this item <http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/11a.html>
> > > > about a
> > > > company that wants to put the first satellite into orbit containing
> > > > a
> > > > Web server--and they're going to use a Mac G4!
> > >
> > > That's a bit dim witted. They should have used several StrongARMS (up
> > > to
> > > 400 MHZ now?) since they use less than 1W each (the 200 MHZ
> > > versions).
> >
> > Actually space based computers are very scary technology. There are a
> > lot of factors with space, radiation, temperature ranges, power
> > consumption (of course), and more. There may be a rad-hard G4 chip
> > available where as a rad-hard StrongARM may not be.
>
> I suppose if the idea of putting serious iron in space (Hactar, anyone?)
> then a rad-hard version of the StrongArm would be an attractive
> alternative. I coulnn't see it being that hard to adapt the StrongARM,
> considering how few transistors it has.
Sounds like this StrongARM processor of yours is the right answer,
regardless of the question or if it has already been answered. Coming
from a non-UK address, it would have sparked my interest. From an UK
address, it is perfectly understandable.
M
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:10:11 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Agreed. Micros~1 isn't going anywhere. (Un)fortunately, the micros~1
and aol's of the world have carved a place in american consumer
culture. But most people who are interested in linux are either
uninterested in that sort of consumerist product, or they are
positioning themselves to use linux to exploit it.
Open Source is primarily aimed at developers and provides those
developers with the tools they need to build an enterprise. If a
networked pc on every desk, and a networked device in every hand is the
goal, then linux developers are in a good position to service those
communities.
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> So you predict the demise of Windows do you? We'll see...
> Don't forget to start weeping when it doesn't happen.
>
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
