Linux-Advocacy Digest #170, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Processing data is bad! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Synthetic Speach on Linux (Daniel Mendyke)
Re: One problem with Linux (Ray Chason)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Ray Chason)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One problem with Linux (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 11:20:05 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> There is a reason why the rest of the world has moved mostly to GUI.
Yeah, because DOS stinks so bad, and NT doesn't even have a
command-line (unless you go out and buy one from a third party -- and
even then it is still the aforementioned stinky DOS-like shell).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 11:21:18 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:10 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >you see...unix's 'file' command actuall OPENS THE FILE AND READS IT to
> >determine what kind of file it actually is
>
> Why not just name your text files .txt and avoid all that trouble? I
> can hardly believe a quick file search is faster than opening each and
> every file on your hard drive to see if it's a text file or not.
Name your files with .txt? That's so backwards... ask a user of
*any* other operating system about file extensions.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 11:24:30 -0600
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [Snip]
> > The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
> > Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
> > speed? ;-)
>
> I hope this never will!
They already have!
fbconsole + fb X11
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 11:27:19 -0600
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Haven't been following the press lately have you?
>
> > They "lost" 2 highly classified hard drives at Los Alamos, containing
> > all kinds of nuclear secrets.
>
> > Sorry but I can't have faith in a department like that.
>
> And which department exactly CAN you have faith in?
>
> > Figures they run Linsux...
>
> And btw, Fermilab also uses linux in a very large capacity.
As does CERN, Nasa, Lockheed, Raytheon, and many many many others.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:35:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in
> Linux
>>>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
>>>Perth Western Australia.
>>>
>>>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>>>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>>>Kit" priced at $299!
>>>
>>>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
>
>>>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>>>
>>
>>Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>>book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where? The same printed Linux
>>manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
>
> Being bound into a physical book is an artificial constraint.
>
That is one.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 11:36:10 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >1. It scails down
> >
> >Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
> >RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run
> >on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit.
>
> Actually I means I could hang onto my older PC and use it as a Samba file
> server. Windows works on it, but see later.
And with Microsoft's new "No Windows CD" policy, they will need to
purchase a new license for Windows every time they get a new hard
drive or motherboard/processor/BIOS.
Somehow, I think Linux is going to be become much more attractive once
people figure out they can't do *anything* with their "setup" CD other
than re-format (and lose) all their work when they need to reinstall.
OEMs can no longer use the %SYSTEM ROOT%\OPTIONS\CABS setup anymore;
and the copy of "Windows" the user recieves only works on that machine
(unless you go out and pay up to hundreds of dollars for the retail
version).
[snippage]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:33:31 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:27:26 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:10 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >you see...unix's 'file' command actuall OPENS THE FILE AND READS IT to
> >determine what kind of file it actually is
>
> Why not just name your text files .txt and avoid all that trouble? I
> can hardly believe a quick file search is faster than opening each and
> every file on your hard drive to see if it's a text file or not.
So you have renamed your system logs (.log), your configuration files
(.ini) and such all to have the .txt extension?
mawa
--
His cracking impulses seemed putely explotatory, and I've begun to
wonder if we wouldn't also regard spelunkers as desperate criminals if
AT&T owned all the caves.
-- John Perry Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:38:10 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
> >be beautiful or ugly.
>
> KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
> Mac.
How pathetic... Is that the best you can do? Complain about fonts?
This seems to be the last straw you're all clasping.
mawa
--
Think!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:46:07 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:38:10 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400...
>...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
>> >be beautiful or ugly.
>>
>> KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
>> Mac.
>
>How pathetic... Is that the best you can do? Complain about fonts?
>
>This seems to be the last straw you're all clasping.
...in some cases, it's not even true either.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:50:49 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400...
> ...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
> > >be beautiful or ugly.
> >
> > KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
> > Mac.
>
> How pathetic... Is that the best you can do? Complain about fonts?
>
> This seems to be the last straw you're all clasping.
>
> mawa
> --
> Think!
Especially when it took me all of about 3 minutes to install true-type
fonts and now KDE can use them.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:47:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger
<roger@.> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:40:38 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
> wrote:
>
> >> > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such
> >> > dramatically
> >> > higher productivity level?
>
> >> I don't even try to. Then again I never experienced first hand a
> >> _dramatically_ higher productivity level.
>
> >Perhaps you haven't. But every published study says it's real. Too bad
> >your little theory isn't consistent with that fact.
>
> And too bad Joe neglects to mention that none of these studies
> compares Mac OS with a * current * version of Windows.
>
> Wonder why that is?
Probably because the people who do the studies gave up.
They did mountains of studies when Win3.1 was current. Same result. The
press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
They did mountains of studies when Win95 was current. Same result. The
press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
They did mountains of studies when WinNT 4.0 was current. Same result.
The press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
They apparently got tired of casting pearls before swine.
But I notice that you STILL haven't provided a single study from any
time frame that supports your position.
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:51:46 +0100
> > Hardly. I am still unable to read multiple partitions on removable
drives.
>
> Eh ? Far as I know you can do this now since NT treats things like a Jaz
as
> a removable hard disk - ie you can partition it. I don't personally own
one
> though, so I could be wrong.
>
> I also can't think of any reason why you *couldn't* have multiple
partitions
> on removable drives.
Perhaps I have misunderstood somewhere back there: Lets say that I have a
Zip disk with two partitions. The zip drive has the drive letter Z:. So, Z:
lets me get to one of the partitions on the disk (apparantly the primary
one). But which letter do I use to get to the other partition?
> > Whenever I try to install a driver using the Hardware Wizard the default
> > setting is still for the floppy on A: and, since I didn't want to waste
a
> > tenner on an FDD, I still have to wait thirty seconds for Windows to
> realise
> > that the floppy it tries to read from doesn't exist.
>
> 30 seconds ? Try about 5, if that. If you don't have a floppy drive
> installed it won't even look at the floppy at _all_ since it doesn't know
> it's there.
For some reason Windows assumes that I have a floppy. I have told the BIOS
that I don't have one, but I still see a generic removeable drive icon in My
Computer, and get an enormous and annoying delay whenever anything tries to
access it. Does anyone know what I can do about this? :)
> If you do have a floppy drive installed and just don't have one plugged
in,
> well, you deserve anything you get.
:)
> > And unless I
> > specifically spread all the drives out amongst the letters of the
alphabet
> > before I install anything then adding a new drive will still screw all
my
> > shortcuts and programs up.
>
> No, because in NT you can set any drive to any letter you want (except, I
> believe, floppies).
That's mighty nice for those able to run NT. :)
> > (Just out of interest, what do you do under
> > Windows if you need access to more than 26 drives? Unlikely I know, but
> > anyway?)
>
> Your computer disappears in a puff of smoke :D.
Hell, the next time my computer dies and I have to reinstall Windows (I
guess in about 2-3 months going on previous data) I am going to partition my
main drive into 26 partitions, just to try it. I wonder whether I can claim
on the insurance? :)
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...7/6/00: 3rd installation of Windows since March took 6h30m, and that's
without a working modem...
...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
------------------------------
From: Daniel Mendyke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Synthetic Speach on Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:07:25 -0700
Several years ago a friend showed me an application
running on his Amiga that would read a standard
text file and 'attempt' to read it over the systems
speakers. (Naturally it sounded like a mechanical
computer)
Is there such a program for Linux?
-Daniel
-- Remove the 'nospam.' from my email address.
My correct address is 'daniel AT clacknet dot com'
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One problem with Linux
Date: 18 Jun 2000 18:08:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Get Mandrake 7.x from CheapBytes.com at $1.99 USD.
Probably not a good idea for a newbie. You WinTrolls are right on one
point: Linux can be a pain to install, especially if you want to
continue using Windows on the same computer. You really want to have
a good book at your side when you try it the first time.
Even I got my first distro with a book, and I've been cranking out code
since I was twelve years old.
>Sams Books are not what they used to be when they had repair manuals
>and diagrams for televisions, radios and such.
I consider myself warned.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 17:58:06 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First of all, if Windoze is so wonderful, then why does EVERY SINGLE ONE
OF YOUR POSTS appear twice? And even if your newsreader doesn't break
lines correctly, can't you at least do it yourself? Just copy this line
into your window:
0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012
>1. It scails down
>
>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
>computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer
>from 1991
>doessn't mean shit.
Doesn't Microsoft Lookout have a spell checker?
Oh, and to answer this point: Think server. Say you're a small business
and you have some old 486s. You need some basic file and print servers.
You could go out and buy some Pentium IIIs ($$$$$) with Windoze NT
($$$$$$$$$$$ especially if you want more than ten logins at once), or you
could load up Linux and get some use out of those 486s.
>2. It's multi-user
>
>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
>remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
>done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>can't
>even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time somethign
>goes
>wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100 terminals
>can get
>the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail,
>news, bin,
>sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
Suppose Mom sets up Linux on the family computer. She keeps the root
password for herself, and sets up normal logins for Billy and Jenny.
Now Billy is a mischievous sort, and just had to spend fifteen minutes
sitting in a corner for whatever. Now he wants revenge. He logs into
the computer and types:
rm -rf /home/mom
And the computer answers:
Permission denied.
Billy can't delete Mom's files, he can't read Jenny's diary (if she's
set the permissions right), he can't do *anything* with anything but his
own files.
I suppose you could do that with Windoze NT ($$$$$$$$$$) but just try it
with Windoze 98. You can't do it.
>3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
>And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is. There is
>NO REASON
>to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off
>the
>Window manager. These are all useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos
>for halvign
>them. Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>"feature". Now
>THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
Linux DOES TOO have a single user mode. Of course I showed above that
multiuser is in fact useful.
And again, think server. A print server that mostly runs unattended
doesn't really need a GUI.
>4. You can logg in remotely
>
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
>only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
>to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
Like you said: see #2.
>5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
>Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to
>most
>users. Windows still wins.
Then explain the existence of Hummingbird Exceed, a product that accesses
X Windows over a network -- from *Windoze*?
>6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
>usefull to normal
>people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
See #1. See #3. And this means Linux is made to multitask and network
from the get-go, rather than having these features kludged on top of DOS.
Windoze 98 loses, and Windoze NT breaks even.
>7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's "choice" is
>MS Windows
>and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never give up all
>that just to
>run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps except if they were tricked into it.
Tell Melissa I said ILOVEYOU too. And how appropriate that you put
"choice" in scare quotes.
>8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring the
>installation, and
>then more and more time after the installation as one thing after annother goes wrong.
I recently upgraded my sound card. In Linux, the driver installed
smoothly. In Windoze, the old driver refused to leave. I had to keep
pounding on that clumsy GUI because I couldn't go underneath and tweak
whatever needed tweaking.
I got the driver to install -- after about a half dozen tries.
>9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they can just run
>Windos
>like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
World class software that falls over when some l33t h@x0r d00d in the
Phillipines turns loose a virus. Oh, but you do get that damn dancing
paper clip.
>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
>to beagen with.
>
>Yawn.
Again, think server. Think Macintosh, for that matter.
>:
>:post
>The post command is unknown.
>:exit
>The exit command is unknown.
>:close
>The close command is unknown.
>:quit
>File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>:save
>The save command is unknown.
>:s
>No previous regular expression.
>:Oh darnit!
>The Oh command is unknown.
>:?
>No previous regular expression.
>:quit
>File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>:!
>Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
>:! quit
>File modified since last write.
>bash: quit: command not found
>quit: exited with status 127
>:?
>No previous regular expression.
>:DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
>The DIE command is unknown.
Hmmm....you actually spelled these bogus error messages correctly.
So are the double posts, crappy spelling, and 100-character lines being
done on purpose?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jun 2000 13:33:34 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ABJ25.3969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with the old,
> > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying volumes by
> > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the longer
> it's
> > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely more
> modern
> > system.
>
> Because when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one letter
> volume names.
I dare you to change the drive that your system root resides on to a
different letter.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:38:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ihsak$aqa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>And why would *that* be? Do you want to imply that the person who built
>the executable on the Pov site had no clue? I mean, you *were* using the
>same compiler, to compile the same code.
VC++ of itself does not imply instability. I've no idea why the POV team
would say the VC version is more unstable, unless they tried to do what the
Watcom version does, provide a full blown editor and IDE.
>And let's be serious here for a second --- how extensively have you
>tested your build? Have you rendered anything other than the chess2
>scene? And what do you think how much rendering the Pov people did
>before they put that paragraph about stability problems in the Readme?
No, I haven't rendered anything else other than chess2. However, see later.
>>>Comparing the official, supported linux version (I downloaded it in
>>>the meantime) to the official, supported Windows version, on my
>>>Celeron400, gives times of 19:20 and 20:58 minutes, respectively, with
>>>linux being the faster one.
>
>>Then please explain why I'm seeing the VC results faster than Linux?
>
>How does one relate to the other?
I tried the official version of Linux and I get very different results from
you. The Windows version, as you correctly stated, takes 22 minutes 29
seconds, not much different from 22 minutes 51 seconds.
However, when you run it on Linux, it takes 19 minutes 20 seconds.
My results on Linux are: 31 Minutes 15 seconds.
That is not very different from the results I got for my initial trial (32
minutes 42 seconds). Now, you say it doesn't change much on Windows, so
please explain how it changes so drastically for you on Linux? Surely, the
results ought to be the same - that is Linux is slower than Windows.
This was done with the official versions supplied by the POVteam, so we can
ignore the allegedly unstable VC version I built (which is even faster).
>>Or could it be VC produces code that is faster than GNU?
>
>Yes, that could be. It could also be that VC produces code that is less
>stable than that produced by gcc.
I've been coding with VC++ since V1.5. I've never seen it produce code that
was unstable.
>I don't know about you, but my priorities for compilers are
>
>1) correctness
>2) correctness
>3) correctness ;-)
If you're talking about ANSI compliance, we all know that VC is not very
ANSI compliant
>4) stability
My long experience with VC tells me it is stable.
>5a) speed of code
I can't really comment about speed of code generated by compilers. For a
while I heard Watcom was best, then Borland. Finally VC came out top.
However Borland's latest offering C++ Builder V5.0 I have some serious
reservations (despite it being more ANSI conpliant than VC) due to some
problems I descovered and reported to Borland.
>5b) diagnostics
VC's debugger is probably the best I've seen on a PC.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:40:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ihth1$asr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Does scheduling occur without the OS knowing or is that another
>>alternate reality.
>
>And where, exactly, does scheduling come into your "test"?
>
>Bernie
It doesn't. The OS does it without my knowledge. It does it automatically.
It may not have anything else to schedule but it's always checking.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:43:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> X
>> Xt
>> Xw
>> Motif
>
>
>It does not really have to go through those layers.
>Xlib, Xt, Motif are just software libraries which compile down in to a
>single layer. If you are not communicating over a network, unix domain
>sockets are used which are iirc faster.
That's true of the X network layer, but not the higher ones. They all make
calls into X (or was it Xt, I forget). You can't be saying they all work
via sockets straight from MOTIF down?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:44:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Kelley) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>And with Microsoft's new "No Windows CD" policy, they will need to
>purchase a new license for Windows every time they get a new hard
>drive or motherboard/processor/BIOS.
>
>Somehow, I think Linux is going to be become much more attractive once
>people figure out they can't do *anything* with their "setup" CD other
>than re-format (and lose) all their work when they need to reinstall.
>OEMs can no longer use the %SYSTEM ROOT%\OPTIONS\CABS setup anymore;
>and the copy of "Windows" the user recieves only works on that machine
>(unless you go out and pay up to hundreds of dollars for the retail
>version).
Any my PC came with the OS install in Windows\Options. What's to stop me
backing this up?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:45:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One problem with Linux
Ray Chason wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Get Mandrake 7.x from CheapBytes.com at $1.99 USD.
>
> Probably not a good idea for a newbie. You WinTrolls are right on one
> point: Linux can be a pain to install, especially if you want to
> continue using Windows on the same computer. You really want to have
> a good book at your side when you try it the first time.
>
> Even I got my first distro with a book, and I've been cranking out code
> since I was twelve years old.
>
> >Sams Books are not what they used to be when they had repair manuals
> >and diagrams for televisions, radios and such.
>
> I consider myself warned.
>
> --
> --------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
And Mandrake only costs $30 anyway. With that you get some good docs.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
