Linux-Advocacy Digest #107, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Grant Fischer)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Michael Born)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Michael Born)
Re: G4 in space! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Christopher Browne)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
(JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:16:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
> >>>>>>>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
> >>>>>>>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
> >>>>>>>>>are supported by Linux..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal
>to scan something
> >>>>>>>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and
>cibvert it to
> >>>>>>>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
> >>>>>>> peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
> >>>>>>> trivial.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So why doesn't Linux?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Repeating lies won't make them any more true, regardless of
> >>>>> how many times you repeat the lies.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>But you still haven't answered the original question.
> >>>>
> >>>>So why doesn't Linux......?
> >>>>>>It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
> >>>>>>Wordperfect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Neither can Windows, if you didn't manage to hire a reasonably
> >>>>> intellegent student intern this quarter.
> >>>>
> >>>>Every Windows program that I have installed has put an icon either on
> >>>>the desktop or in the Starup->program menu and that includes the
> >>>>README and other information.
> >>>
> >>> That must get pretty cluttered after awhile.
> >>You can easily erase or move them unlike Linux....
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
> >>>>does not?
> >>>
> >>> Crystal Reports.
> >>
> >>
> >>Never heard of it.
> >>
> >>Some sort of Physic program or something?
> >>>[deletia]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
> >>>
> >>> Then someone can encapsulate it in a button, menu or
> >>> an entire pointless little shiny little applet.
> >>
> >>
> >>No that's a demonstration of the ease of Windows and the archaicness
> >>of Linux.
> >
> > As arcana goes, it's actually not bad.
> >
> > "scanimage" ...oooh, whatever could that be.
> >
> > "/dev/scanner" ...now that's a non-descript name if there ever
> > was one.
>
> You left out the switch you used. And scanimage sends its output to stdout. What
>formatt is it in
> and how much of the MAN page do you half to read to get to that part? How many
>filters to you half
> to pipe it thruogh before its' readabal by GIMP?
>
> Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather
>it's "scanimage"
> or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to
>go in front of
> the word "scanner"?
Then he's a dumbshit, just like you, isn't he?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:17:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
> >>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
> >>>>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
> >>>>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
> >>>>>>are supported by Linux..
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to
>scan something
> >>>>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and
>cibvert it to
> >>>>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
> >>>> peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
> >>>> trivial.
> >>>
> >>>So why doesn't Linux?
> >>
> >> Repeating lies won't make them any more true, regardless of
> >> how many times you repeat the lies.
> >
> >
> >But you still haven't answered the original question.
> >
> >So why doesn't Linux......?
>
> Go easy on Linux. Your asking for to much from it. You get what you pay for.
>
> >>>It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
> >>>Wordperfect.
> >>
> >> Neither can Windows, if you didn't manage to hire a reasonably
> >> intellegent student intern this quarter.
> >
> >Every Windows program that I have installed has put an icon either on
> >the desktop or in the Starup->program menu and that includes the
> >README and other information.
> >
> >Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
> >does not?
> >
> >
>
> The Windows port of The LimpGIMP.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>> Any "necessary intermediate steps" can quite easily me made transparent
> >>>> to the end user quite without the necessity of some Win-style developer
> >>>> needed to dedicate time to the problem.
> >>>
> >>>Yawnnn..... A twist on words.
> >>>
> >>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
> >>
> >> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
> >
> >
> >Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
> >
> >You prove my point all the time....
> >
> >I prefer clicking on the icon that says "Scan image"
>
> ..from within any program that can handal images. It's stuff like this that makes me
>glad I
> don't run UNIX, whear, even if you dident half to wright a shell script just to scan
>an immage,
> the immage scanner would still be a completely separete programe burried deep in the
>"K" menu.
> There'd be no way to put it in the "Edit" menu of every program that can paste
>pictures into. You
> would half to scan to a file and then you would half to read the fiel into you'r
>program.
Tell us again how well your Mickey-soft based spell-checker is working.
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
> >>>> machine or copier trick".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sane is a bare bones abortion.
> >>
> >> How do the Windows variants "best it" exactly?
> >
> >
> >Try them and you will see. I have used both Linux deviants and Windows
> >versions and it ain't even close in terms of easÿóÿýÿóÿýÿóÿýÿóÿý use and
> >comparability between programs.
> >>[deletia]
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:18:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > >
> > > >Yawnnn..... A twist on words.
> > > >
> > > >So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
> > >
> > > scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
> >
> >
> > he'll never be able to use that. This should do the job:
> >
> > #!/bin/wish
> > button .b -text "photocopy" -command exec "scanimage -d /dev/scanner |
> > lpr"
> > pack .b
> >
> > now, he can click on the button as many times as he wants to get lots of
> > pretty photocopies!
>
> Of course, the corresponding Win32 program takes up 5 pages of
^^^^^
Lose32
> "easy-to-use" COM objects.
>
> Just trying to access a SCSI tape by itself under Win32 is a
^^^^^
Lose32
> nightmare, I can't imagine copying from one type of device to another!
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:20:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You had better post that ditty to the setup groups because you would
> not believe how many people ask the question:
>
> I just installed Wordperfect, now how do I start it?
So, what you are saying is, a lot of people are asking this:
"I just installed a program, what is the name of the command?"
Yeah, right. Try again liar.
>
> What a joke this Linshit is.....
The joke is your post and your belief that anyone would believe your
lie.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:24:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 13 Jun 2000 14:28:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
> >>>are supported by Linux..
> >>
> >>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to
>scan something
> >>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and
>cibvert it to
> >>postscrit, and thats' just to print.
> >
> >Heh... Is it so slow and difficult for you to work with files under your
> >favorite OS that you have to have special programs to avoid them?
>
> Don't have to under Windows or Macintosh for that matter.
> That's the problem with Linux, you guys always ASSUME others are as fond of
> playing with files as you are.
Yes, it's the peculiar attraction to actually KEEPING a copy of your
work around.
You know...like, if you scan something, KEEP THE ORIGINAL DATA.
What a freaking revolutionary idea!
>
> For me, I want to fax a document I had to sign by hand.
Scary!
>
> Windows makes it a one stop operation and I have a Hewlett Packard scanner and
> HP printer.
Same can be done in Linux. What's your point?
>
> >>FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
> >
> >Of course they do.
>
> Not to the level that they do under Windows.
Comparing 1985 Unix with 1998 Losedows is not a fair comparison,
shitforbrains.
>
> Bare bones under linux.
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:27:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8hp4k7$la6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > > A quick question: I'm thinking of trying
> > > > out Linux (probably SuSE), but
> > > > I have a US Robotics Winmodem.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if US Robotics is, but many of the Lucent Technologies
> > > based "Win"Modems are now supported by Linux.
> > >
> > > The good news, you don't have to buy a new modem.
> > >
> > > The bad news, performance on both Linux and Windows NT
> > > gets really slow if you try to put too much traffic on the modem.
> >
> > But with Linux, it's ONLY the apps that are relying on the PPP
> > connection.
> > :-)
>
> Actually, it's everybody. The winmodem has no DSP chip, which means
> that the OS must feeds the codec chip 8000 bytes/second in a specific
> pattern. When there is no signal, a set pattern can be sent that takes
> only a few microseconds to load and only needs to be reloaded every few
> hundred milliseconds.
>
> Unfortuanately, when you have real data to put on the modem, you must
> calculate the values required for each bit and place those bits on the
> codec, then you have to calculate where on the wave form you should be,
> copy the rest of the wave form, and then let that play before returning
> to the "pointer load".
>
> Because even a 100 microsecond delay can result in a lost carrier or
> false bits, this handler process must run at extremely high priority.
> as a result, it affects all programs since it steals a greater portion
> of the available bandwidth for itself.
And Microsoft is PROUD of this shit?
[Why else would they call it a "win(sic)modem"
Let's start a trend.
When referring to Microsoft products and paraphernelia, ALWAYS
replace the syllable "Win" with "Lose"...hence "LoseModem"
LoseNT, Lose98, etc.
>
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
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: 16 Jun 2000 01:29:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:15:16 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Grant Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Try RFC1073.
>
>Ah, so there it is. So MS Telnet doesn't implement this option?
>Well, it just goes to show that they got it out of
>crackerjack box...
Yes. It is a very common, very useful option.
>
>> >I'm afraid in practice it isn't. Most people find it very
>> >difficult to deal with the level of abstraction Unix
>> >asks for.
>>
>> You don't need to be dealing with UNIX internals or
>> command line commands to get good use out of telnet.
>> There are such things as captive logins that run simple
>> menu systems (useful for operations control, for example.)
>
>You've stitched two things together I had intended
>to be separate; I was trying to say why Unix's
>'elegant simplicity' didn't make it easier to use.
Sorry if I picked the wrong quote; I was just
trying to point out that the telnet client has
a lot more applicability than just to hard-core
UNIX types. It is also useful for delivering simple
apps to novice users, where it is even more important
to have a well functioning client.
>> A lot of UNIX users use Windows desktops. Why? MS Office.
>
>If they can get MS Office, can they not also get a good
>telnet client?
Of course. But they could also get a web browser.
Their HTML help system doesn't justify the expense
put into IE.
>MS telnet is certainly half-assed but I don't see MS support
>for "open standards" to be obligatory unless those
>standards are useful, and telnet is marginal at best for
>an NT system.
Hey, we're users too. Telnet is marginal for talking to
an NT system, but very useful for talking to a lot of other
devices on a corporate WAN.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:35:50 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
>
> 1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
> Please, don't tell me that it's superior because "Microsoft is
> buggy and bloated, because we've heard that tripe far too often
> to take it seriously anymore.
My post was in response to the original post in the thread which asked "Is
Linux taking over?" IMO, the second half of my statement is more important
than the first. I will therefore revise it to "In the area I believe to be
the strength of Linux, functioning as a server operating system, it is in
fact taking over."
>
> 2.) You have absolutely zero figures present to back up that silly
> statement with. What is the basis of your claim?
Again, my focus was intended to be on the fact (and yes, it is a fact),
that Linux is on its way to becoming the leading server OS. The technial
merits I will leave to those who think they are relevant to how the maket
will evolve (go Beta, kick some VHS ass!).
Regards,
Mike
------------------------------
From: Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:41:54 GMT
> Again, my focus was intended to be on the fact (and yes, it is a fact),
> that Linux is on its way to becoming the leading server OS. The technial
> merits I will leave to those who think they are relevant to how the maket
> will evolve (go Beta, kick some VHS ass!).
>
technial? maket?
Mised my caling as a typest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:43:09 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when void would say:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:06:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>What have you got against me saying a bit dim witted. To put an i86 in
>>space would be very dim witted. You can have degrees of dimwittedness.
>
>An Intel chip would be a bad idea, but a Crusoe might work well.
On the other hand, Intel may well have a Space Systems division that
produces radiation-hardened products, as described at
<http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1999/February22/33a.htm>.
It is not all that likely that Crusoe has yet established a group with
the bureaucracy required to deal with NASA...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #212. "I will not send out battalions
composed wholly of robots or skeletons against heroes who have qualms
about killing living beings. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:43:22 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Pete Goodwin would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I'm guessing here, but I assume POVRay is a CPU bound process and does
>>little in the way of system calls. If this is the case, then it is the
>>compiler, not linux that is at fault. If it is important ot you then go
>>and buy a commercial compiler for linux, if it has better benchmarks.
>
>But, silly boy, Linux is built with (gasp) the GNU C compiler, the one I
>did my benchmarks with. That says that Linux might run a bit faster if the
>compiler were a bit better.
That is possible, although there are few guarantees, after all,
a) It is _vastly_ more common for processes to be I/O bound than for
them to be CPU bound.
If the system is waiting around for the disk to spin to the right
spot, it is hardly suffering from the code not being optimized well
enough.
b) The sorts of programs that _do_ get run a lot, like the kernel, and
LIBC, and XFree86, which consume lots of CPU, occasionally get looked
at for bottlenecks.
On occasion, kernel hackers have been rumored to tweak the code a bit
to get the compiler to generate different assembly language code.
This tends to be of limited _overall_ usefulness, as the set of
platforms grows. But the set of optimizations available in GCC grows
too, so things don't seem to be getting worse over time.
Benchmark-happy people _are_ getting into the game, as some people
think that how many frames of Quake can be displayed per second, or
how many RC5 keys can be examined, is of some importance.
But in any case, the _major_ issues when systems are running too slow
are not the piddly little things like which compiler optimizations
were in use; the _big_ issues are whether or not you picked good
algorithms to implement whatever is being executed repeatedly.
Bad algorithms result in the system being slow, regardless of what
compiler gets used.
>>The other thing may be that you have loads of processess running in the
>>background.
>>ps aux
>>and
>>kill -9
>>should sort that out ;-)
>
>Ah I see, I must kill all extraneous daemons, that sounds like a recipe for
>disaster. Shall I kill the NULL process? 8)
That sounds like a neat idea...
Hmm...
% killall -9 null
++++.% CARRIER LOST
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Being really good at C++ is like being really good at using rocks to
sharpen sticks.
-- Thant Tessman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:43:59 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:07:16 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Jun 2000 19:46:26 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
>>>think of Linux.
>
>>Digging up this minority of services that all require their own
>>special software doesn't change this fact. It is painfully easy to find
>>an ISP that uses standard protocols such as PPP.
>
>I believe Earthlink, Worldnet and Freeweb do use PPP. They give you
>neato software, but you don't have to use it.
Worldnet even has a nice Linux PPP documentation page.
The notion that they are AltOS hostile is just assinine.
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.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
******************************
