Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Connors)
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (Mark
S. Bilk)
A contrived strstream performance test. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? ("Chris Harshman")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:05:17 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>*EVERY* operating system does this! (For God's sake, no OS will
>>schedule a process to run when it is sleeping on a resource!)
>
>If you are doing non-blocking I/O on Linux, the process will not go to
>sleep even if the resource it needs is not available. Other systems have
>more sophisticated means of dealing with this (such as asynch), but Linux
>is so primitive that it likes to hog the CPU excessively. Does Linux
>support non-busywaiting barriers yet or is it still playing catchup?
Non-blocking i/o is defined not to wait, so what you are describing
is the correct behaviour. If that isn't what the programmer intended
he should use normal blocking i/o (if only one descriptor is being
watched), or select() or poll() for many or to return after
a specified interval so the program can have a small timeslice in
a loop even with no i/o, or fork off a process that can do
blocking i/o for this resource, perhaps multiplexing it through
a FIFO for the master process.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:10:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
abraxas wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
> > won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
> >
>
> "Half the hardware", eh simon?
>
> Tell me, which half would that be?
>
> And what, specifically?
>
> Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
> is, eh?
>
> -----yttrx
I suppose tek (aka simon) wants to connect his card reader and 1403 printer
to Linux. Of course, for someone so knowledgeable with this ancient
hardware, he should be able to write the necessary drivers in a couple of
hours :-). After all, I managed to boot up Linux for S/390 on my PC
running the hercules S/390 emulator with virtual 3505 card reader, 3525
card punch, and 1403 printer.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 19:02:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
<snip a bunch of text that is in previous post, all of it mine>
>
> So what youre saying is that the average person who uses KDE because its
> 'easier than the command line' when it comes to XML parsing.
>
> I see.
Man, your strawman is getting ugly. No. XML was an EXAMPLE. KDE is
easier to use than a command line because, in theory anyhow, a user won't
need to learn how to use it. That is why GUI's are used (that and
Photohsop without a GUI would require a LOT of training to use)
>
> What im saying is that KDE is one of dozens of choices. Some are better
> than others. None of them are LINUX; rather, they are all program/script
> combinations that run UNDER linux. So if you're going to bash linux for
> being slow/difficult to understand by only using KDE as an example, you're
> not actually bashing linux, but KDE specifically.
Never claimed "Linux is slow/difficlt to understand by only using KDE as
example". The claim is 1) Gui is easier to understand than CGI, which I
used KDE as a demonstration point. (this is uncontestable) and 2) Most
people refer to Linux as being the entire contents of the CD they can get
at the store, GUI, Tools, Kernel and scripts. (this is also uncontestable)
and 3) By the very fact that this is a LINUX.adv group and the merits of
KDE and Gnome are discussed when discussing the merits of Linux, many
people unofficially recgnize that Linux is more than a Kernel.
>
> If you cannot understand this, you really should probably give up now.
Strawman. Watch it fall.
> >
> >> Youve missed the point. The point is that since
> >> KDE *isnt* linux, if you dont like it you can use something
> >> else without tossing the entire operating system.
> >
> > KDE isn't that much different from Gnome,
>
> KDE isnt much different from gnome for the end user, but it is ENTIRELY
> different 'under the hood'. COMPLETELY different.
End user is all that matters when you want to advocate the use of Linux.
>
> > which are the main GUI's for
> > Linux distrib.
>
> Oh really? What the hell am I doing with windowmaker?
>
Cause you're an idiot. Oh wait that fact has nothing to do with it.
Notice, you add exclusivity to my arguement, which it did not origionally
have. You read "main" as being "only".
Die Strawman Die.
> > Most of the changes are cosmetic.
>
> Wrong, most of the difference is between QT and GTK, and one only allowing
> C++ development and the other letting you do whatever the hell you want.
>
> These are *amazingly* large differences. If you cannot understand this,
> you have no point to make at all.
What the end user sees makes this irrelevent.
>
> > It's like replacing one
> > WinClone for another WinClone. Personally, on an astetic level I like
> > Gnome more for some reason.
>
> Its probably the widgets. Its usually the widgets.
I don't know, maybe its that little footprint it uses for the main menu.
>
> > Usually Gnome/KDE replacements are little more than Gnome/KDE with
> > different colors and buttons or a copy of the GUI of someone elses OS's.
> > I've personally never really been impressed.
>
> You have no idea what youre talking about. None at all. Just stick with
> windows, friend...its intellectually suited to you.
Okay, Graphically speaking, that is what the end user sees, how exact is
this wrong Oh wise one.
>
> >
> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
> > its absolutely useless.
>
> Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important
> news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding
> to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine.
AMAZING!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!...So they have taken the Linux Kernel and added
Database ability to it, an HTTP server, and other stuff need to run a
search engine. OR, did they create "TOOLS" (see above) that run on top of
the kernel that does that. If they did, my point still stands.
> It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK?????
>
Never said that. Watch the stawman die.
> > A kernel without init, cp, mv, ls...you get the
> > point...is usless (unless you put kernel level firewall on it, then it
> > might be the best firewall in the whole world). Most people, including
> > those who respond to drool like "Linux blows cause i can't use office on
> > it" (when in fact you can with Wine) still call the combination of kernel
> > (aka Linux) with its tools and a GUI...well Linux.
>
> Theyre incorrect.
They are the majority. Language is not something created by the 'elite
minority', it is something that evolves to suit the times and the masses.
If the majority refer to Linux as being more than a Kernel, then
eventually the dictionary definition will change to that.
> >> system as to be impossibleto replace.
> >
> > I'm not a Windows users. In fact I have NEVER used Office (any version,
> > which is the main app for windows). I'm not a "Linux User" either. I do
> > have a old P100 sitting around that I turned into a mp3 streamer for my
> > home network. In fact if you want to be technical, Im a "Unix User",
> > since I sit in front of Unix Boxes all day at work.
> >
>
> If you were a 'unix user' you would understand that the bits and pieces
> of the GUIs that are layed atop X11 have nothing at all to do with the
> usefulness or stability of the system in question, since they are
> utterly configurable.
>
What part of "GUI AND TOOLS" dont you understand? What part of
"A kernel without init, cp, mv, ls" do you not understand? You are
placing an artificial constrain on my words that was never there. Watch
that strawman fall.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1
GAT d? s: a- C UI+$ U- P+ L- E- W+ N++ o++ K w--- O- M+$ V V-- !PS Y+ PGP
t+ 5 X+ R- tv b+ DI+++ D G e++ h-- r++ z+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:28:15 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You've proved that two distributions of Linux simply don't work. Are
>you sure you're a Linux advocate? Isn't Mandrake 7.1 a popular enough
>release? I tried to install it on a system with 1 NIC and 1 video
>card. That's it. It crashed and burned on the SCSI probe. It doesn't
>get much more stock than this system... BX board, Celeron, 64MB, 1
>generic ne2000 NIC. That's it. Linux couldn't do it.
Which video card?
>What distro must I try next? Should we believe the average consumer is
>going to buy 5 distributions to find one that actually installs? I
>tried just about every different way to install Linux as successfully
>as Windows and it has yet to happen.
The average consumer doesn't have your particular hardware. One
in a million might have this problem. I've had machines where
windows wouldn't install too.
>So in summary, these are the distributions I've tried:
>
>Slackware 3 (or so) - Installed after many hours of tweaking and
>getting drivers. No sound, no modem, no printer, etc.
This might be the best for a problem system since it doesn't
perform the unsafe port probes. You can set up the devices
yourself if you are so inclined.
>Redhat 5.x - Installed but never detected my sound. It also didn't
>correctly detect my monitor so I spent my time with it looking at half
>a screen.
The 6.x series will probably get everything right.
>Phat Linux - Worked quite well until I tried to setup video drivers.
I have a feeling that your video card is the cause of this problem.
>Mandrake 7.x - Died probing for SCSI.
>
>None of the installs worked correctly. NONE. This is all on fairly
>popular hardware... Sb Live, TNT, ISA hardware modem, HP Laser 3, etc.
>Very basic stuff.
ISA anything is generally risky to autodetect, expecially if
you have a mix of PNP and non PNP cards. Note that the
detection step has next-to-nothing to do with being able
to use the device correctly.
>You can pretend this didn't happen... I'm sure that will be easier for
>you. You can search news groups and find tons of other people having
>the same exact problems I did. How many posts are there during a month
>in Linux help groups about people trying to setup a modem? Yea...
>LOTS.
The people that really want help post a question in the help
groups, follow the advice, and have a working system. I'm
always curious about what the people want who just keep
posting about problems and never follow the steps to
get their system to work.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 19:36:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't disagree on the 30 percent number if it is applied to servers.
>Mark said 30 percent of all BUISNESS'S. In that statement he said
>nothing of servers.
>
>My points (sblive, crappy fonts etc) are directed at desktop. I have
>no problems with Linux as a server and in fact think it is a great way
>to save a lot of money.
>
>Same for a development platform for those not fortunate enough to fork
>over ridiculous prices for those vertical applications.
>
>However if you take the entire picture, desktop and server as a whole
>Linux use is so minuscule compared to Windows it can barely be
>measured.
http://www.infotechtrends.com/freedemo.htm
99Q2 - Percent of information technology managers using
or planning to use Linux as a general purpose desktop
or workstation operating system. ^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Currently Use 10% <<<
Use Within 12 Months 20% <<<
No Plans 68%
Don't Know 1%
JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE
VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 54 InformationWeek/
*GENERATION LINUX - NEXT STOP: DESKTOP
One year ago, when KDE and Gnome, along with hardware and
installation support, were much less developed than they
are now, Linux was already in use on the desktop/workstation
computers of 10% of all businesses. The figure may now
be 30%, if the managers planning to switch to Linux have
followed through.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: A contrived strstream performance test.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:36:41 GMT
#include <strstream.h> // strstrea.h on NT
int main()
{
ostrstream ostr;
for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
ostr << "Hello, world!\n";
ostr << ends;
char * p = ostr.str();
return 0;
}
On Linux, this takes 6 seconds with 1 million iterations.
With 10,000, the time is immeasurable. This on a
PP200 with 64 megs.
On NT, on a 550 Mhz 128 meg ix86 powerhouse machine,
it took 116 seconds for the 10000 iterations.
I'm not going to spend over 3 hours for 1 million iterations.
It might take even longer than that if the problem's
quadratic; a naive implementation of a buffer-grower
would in fact have quadratic time.
It's possible somebody in Redmond needs to reimplement
strstreambuf.
This is also reminiscent of that other benchmark posted some
time back, with one difference -- the benchmark is entirely
in memory, and never written out. It's possible somebody
merely needs to reimplement the strstreambuf class (it's not
difficult) on NT.
In the words of the immmortal JTK (he of comp.lang.java.advocacy):
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
There, I feel better now. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and yes, this *did* bite me during testing
of a crossplatform coding project
------------------------------
From: "Chris Harshman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:44:58 -0700
For that kind of hardware, take a look at the Soft Landing System (SLS)
distribution, as that hardware will be more than enough to accomodate that
distro with plenty of room to grow. We've been running SLS on an AMD
386sx/40 with 4MB RAM and an 80MB hard drive, and we're only using 17MB of
space on the drive (not including swap)!
;-)
"DeAnn Iwan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> peter wrote:
> >
> > I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
> > firewall, and ip masq.
> >
> > The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
> >
> > I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
> > is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
> > ???
> >
>
>
> Any major distribution will probably work. Note that how much
> memory you have and whether or not you have a CDROM drive enter into
> play here. The latest RH, SUSE, and other graphical interfaces like
> lots of RAM (RH 6.2 will complain about 32 MB RAM, but will install,
> etc.). I have been unable to get SUSE 6.1 or 6.4 to do an NFS install
> from machines even with 32 MB RAM; they seem to get caught thrashing
> between trying to load appriate parts of YAST, the install packages and
> so forth and eventually freeze up. After 2 weeks, I've given up. (I
> had done NFS installs with RH 5.0 very smoothly. I suspect it has to do
> with distros taking advantage of the new kernels ability to preload one
> kernel/OS and then finalize with another. If they are finalizing across
> NFS and do not have enough local RAM/storage, then they tangle.)
>
> Unless you have lots of RAM and a local cdrom, moving to Debian or
> Slackware can be good. Both distributions allow you to install a small
> Linux system from around a dozen floppies. You can then download the
> rest of what you want via ftp, NFS, etc.
>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:46:51 -0500
I have been reading this thread with interest, but I think that the
WinHardware person has missed some valid points, or at least steered
clear of them.
You mention that you think PCL printers are similar to WinHardware now.
I do agree that in some ways there are similarities, but the point you
seem to completely ignore is that PCL was a fairly open standard. You
could at least find out from HP how to write a driver that correctly
used PCL (hence, ghostscript). The WinHardware people are not creating
open standards. They are completely closing off thier "standards" and
making them Windows only. While you think that those lower prices are
great now, they still make people think that other operating systems are
broken because they don't recognize WinHardware. Even if Win98 does
adress thier need properly, they are probably unaware that there even
are alternatives. If they were sold real hardware, they would be able
to try these alternatives as they are made aware of them. As it sits,
they are locked into Windows unless they want to spend more money.
As far as the argument that states Windows is a monopoly and therefore
must remain a monopoly crap: I don't care. Microsoft is a monopoly,
yes. People are forced (most of them are) to use Microsoft software.
This is not a concious choice as you seem to believe. Some people don't
even realize the alternatives exist. Hardware prices are constantly
lowering. Microsoft software is constantly getting more expensive. In
order to use the WinHardware, you must pay the Microsoft tax. This does
not equal overall lower prices for consumers. If these WinHardware
manufacturers either released drivers for alternate OSes, or released
the specs of thier hardware so others could write the drivers, then it
wouldn't be such a huge loss.
As far as the performance hit. Give me a real modem over a WinModem any
day. Even the ones that now work under Linux offer terrible performance
compared to a real modem. Making people think that systems have to run
poorly is just as bad as making them think that you must worship the
Microsoft money god to use a system at all. It just isn't necissary.
I'm ready with my flame-proof suite. Please, fire when ready.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:57:48 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 16:04:49 GMT, James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> Not for the printer, unless you plan on printing continuously. The
>> modem - maybe. Given the CPU is 99% idle most of the time, using 30%
>> or so for the modem doesn't seem like too bad a tradeoff to me.
>
>The CPU may be 99% idle, but normally when it is printing something,
>that is also the time that you are doing something useful. That is the
>time when the printer takes away the cycle that you want. When you are
>not doing anything useful, the printer is also often not being used,
>unless you press print, and then walk away for coffee.
>
>> What evidence do you have that indicates a Winmodem or Winprinter blow
>> out the CPU ability of your machine?
The immediate CPU or Load Average isn't the real issue.
That is the simplistic approach to the situation. What is
more relevant is how well each part of the system can
adequately provide services.
Simply put: managing a print queue is not a realtime process,
whereas intercommunciation between bits of hardware typically
are.
>
>The winmodem, yes. I don't have a winprinter, so I don't know.
>But under Win98, every time the modem connects, my mouse cursor freeze
>for about 2 seconds before moving. I have a 380MHz processor.
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:42:29 +0100
> I think it more to do with the User, considering I have Voodoo2 and PII
> 400, and Quake 3 is quite playable at 800x600, I get 40+ fps most times,
> and even up to 60+ when there is nobody around.
You know, I'm starting to wonder if there isn't 'something vewy scwewy going
on' with my computer. Could you please possibly post the result you get in a
timedemo for demo1? If you don't know how to do it, you run Quake 3 and
enter the following sequence of commands into the console (access the
console by pressing the tilde, ~, key):
timedemo 1
demo demo001
The demo will then play as fast as your computer possibly can, and you will
be told the mean framerate for the playback.
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:06:36 -0500
2:1 wrote:
>
> > But I really, really would like to know what makes
> > a wintroll a wintroll!
> >
> > Why do they STILL insist on touting Microsoft!
> >
> > What could possibly keep a person going on the Microsoft
> > bandwagon? What could it be?
>
> BECAUSE LINSUX SUXX AND ALL LINSUX CAN DO IS SHUFFAL TEXT FIALS ALL DAY
> AND I CANT EVEN WORK OUT HOW TO USE THE CAPSLOCK KEY NEVER MIND
> SOMETHING AS USEFUL AS A COMMANDLINE
>
> -ED
>
> --
> The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
> http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
> remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
> it.
You spelled way too many word correctly dude.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
