Linux-Advocacy Digest #259, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux app spec...
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Re: A contrived strstream performance test. (Andy Newman)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (zerr)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Doc Shipley)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Robie Basak)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: X can't be that slow
Re: Linux internal books (Steven Smolinski)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 21:53:42 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Liberty requires freedom from the initiation of force and fraud.
> It seems very clear that Microsoft has committed fraud against
> competitors, customers, and end users alike. (Examples abound in the
I know you think this an obvious fact, but I have yet to see anything
that MS did that differs significantly from what every other
successful business in the US does. Feel free to 'rehash' this
issue, since it has never been 'hashed' in the first place.
> compatible with the notion of free markets, which require the freedom
> on the part of both buyer and seller to give *informed* consent and to
> enter into transactions that each side reasonably believes to be to
> its benefit.
This is a new claim. Are you saying that Dell didn't know what
Microsoft was offering? That their lawyers couldn't figure out
the terms of the deal? Do you have evidence of this?
> In light of this, it is hard to see why so many alleged libertarians
> are willing to exonerate Microsoft. If you're willing to let a
> Microsoft, or any other entity, initiate fraud against other persons
> or entities with impunity, you can't pretend to be a supporter of free
> markets or of freedom in general. It's a self-contradictory position.
Because it's not fraud. MS customer's knew exactly what they were
getting. That's not fraud.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:54:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martijn Bruns) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What i think he means, is that you can leave all your old
>programs open if you want to do something else, and then you can
>go back to your old programs directly afterwards.
...and I can do the same on Windows...
>Also, you can have processes running in the background, without
>ever being bothered by them, like httpd, ftpd, telnetd and such.
>The amount of background processes can really grow large, but
>still you won't be bothered. Try looking at the process status
>and see how many processes you are running right now (if you have
>Linux, that is). It can easily grow up to 20 or 30 processes at a
>time.
Let me see, what background processes do I have running on my Windows 98 SE
PC right now. Task Scheduler, Volume control, Winamp agent, Toshiba "Cool
Little tool", PGP, Disc Detector, Palm Pilot Sync, Dial up Networking,
Cookie pal. Let's see that's 9 processes so far. That's not counting the
foreground processes, XNews and Netscape.
>I like good, complete information on what my computer is doing.
>Don't you?
Press CTRL-ALT-DELETE and you get a cryptic list of most of the processes
running on Windows 98 SE. On Windows 2000 you get a real process list.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:00:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
>>vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
>>operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
>>of free trade.
>
> Hmm ... you know, I don't recall any Ford dealer
> that sells new Chevys too. Could it be that MS
> was simply following a common business practice ?
These are computer *hardware* vendors being coerced, not
Microsoft Software stores.
That's illegal, and with good reason.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:00:09 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
abraxas wrote:
> Id actually be interested in hearing more about this; we're about to run
> an s/390 test environment under linux (running linux--%)) to see what
> happens to some strange java stuff...
>
> If all goes well, we'll be purchasing one of the low end dual G6s...
>
> How does your s/390 emulator manage your linux install? Is VM functionality
> or real live VM?
>
> And do you have a url? :)
>
> -----yttrx
No VM involved. Hercules emulates an S/390 with a virtual card reader. You
just set up some config files so when you IPL from the reader it actually reads
from the Linux boot file. I did it just for fun, but it's no too practical.
It took about half and hour to boot and trivial response time for commands such
as ls is about 2 seconds. This was using a 400MHZ Pentitum II with 128MB of
ram. Unfortunately, Hercules doesn't support any kind of network connection,
so you can't do much with it. And the base install only included a handful of
functions in /bin such as ls and cat. But it was fun to try. If you really
want to try Linux for S/390, you would be better off seeing if you can borrow a
VM id from someone. A full Linux install including much of KDE and Gnome fits
in about 1000 cylinders of 3390 disk space. But you can install a subset of
packages in a lot less space. My first install was just on a temp disk on VM
using a spare VM id of mine.
So far, I've installed Linux on a 12-way G6 running under VM. But I'm hoping
to get a low end G6 for my office soon. I may decide to try a native install
without VM on that.
Unfortunately, you just missed the deadline for registering for the install
fest, but you might still find this interesting:
http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/installfest/
Gary
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:32:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Agreed, you never do know, I was just playing with the name. I was just
playing with the names.
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, Nathenial, I don't think Simon and Mingus correlate, unless he
forgot
> > how to spell his name. The person you are thinking of is Simon Magus
(Simon
> > the Magician), for whom the sin of simmony was named. This name Mingus
> > sounds more like a Romanized version of Emperor Ming of The Planet Mongo
who
> > was played in the serials by Charles Middleton.
> >
> > Either way, nice free association.
> >
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon????????????
> > >
> > >
> > > Mingus wrote:
>
> Well, you never know.
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:34:16 -0500
On 22 Jun 2000 15:27:19 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Snip]
> Of course to say that he has been influenced by "leftist
>Anarchism" but "not at all by communism" is rather naive. Leftist
>Anarchism and Communism have been intertwined through out their
>existence. Sometimes happily so, and sometimes much less so. Still
>they have influenced each other heavily, and if you are influenced by
>one, then you are by the other as it were.
I should jump in here and note that although leftist anarchism and
communism have some things in common they are not based on a similar set
of principles at all. Leftist anarchism holds independent action of the
individual in great esteem, but communism does not. Leftist anarchism
is based on the cooperative, voluntary participation of the individual,
communism has the dictatorship of the proletariat as one of its steps.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.tranquility.net/~kturvey/resume/resume.html
========================================================
In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
of the risks he takes.
-- Adlai Stevenson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:10:19 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip a bunch of great info*
> Unfortunately, you just missed the deadline for registering for the install
> fest, but you might still find this interesting:
>
> http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/installfest/
>
Thanks!
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:18:09 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:08:03 -0400, z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
>>vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
>>operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
>>of free trade.
>
> Hmm ... you know, I don't recall any Ford dealer
> that sells new Chevys too. Could it be that MS
> was simply following a common business practice ?
If you've never seen such a thing, you don't get around much.
Even in the frame of reference of car dealerships, where the
relationship is much closer than the relatively casual relation-
ship between Microsoft and OEMs (as mere customers), you see
single dealers selling multiple brands of cars.
Ford's largest dealership sells 9 other brands of car/truck/RV.
When did one of Microsoft's large OEMs ever manage that without
the threat of immedaate federal retribution hanging over M$?
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:21:07 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 18:14:19 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:14:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The point is NOT the card, it is that the LinoNuts are always claiming
>> support from this manufacturer or that vendor, I am only exposing the
>> fact that Win2k drivers were out, full function Livewire drivers, long
>> before Linux ones (which don't even exist yet) and therefore showing
>> that Win2k is a money maker for vendors and Linux is, as always taking
>> a backseat.
>
>Then explain how Linux got ATA-100 drivers *before* Windows.
Perhaps the owner of that spec isn't quite so beholden to
Microsoft as others are...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: A contrived strstream performance test.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:31:06 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>It's possible somebody in Redmond needs to reimplement
>strstreambuf.
Don't MS use PJ.Plauger's C++ run-time? You know, the guy
who wrote Software Tool with Brian Kernighan and probably
the first commercial C compiler and Unix clone.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: zerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:00:50 GMT
Oliver Baker wrote:
>
> O.K., I know this is probably an impossible question to answer, but what
> the hay.
>
> Would anyone care to compare--either quantitatively or
> qualitatively--the number of mind hours that have gone into developing
> Linux as an OS verus what has gone into developing Windows as an OS?
>
> I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know much
> about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
> Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because a) Linux is
> better designed b)it attempts to do less, c) more people have invested
> time in making it work and/or c)smarter people (and, hey, let's say
> better looking while we're at it) have invested time in making it work
> (I guess there's some overlap with "a)" here).
>
> I thought I'd make a meager attempt to evaluate the possibility of
> "c"--although if anybody wants to cast a vote or express a thought as to
> the other options (or to propose alternatives), I'd be interested to
> read. Thanks for any thoughts.
>
> Oliver Baker
>
> .
You sound and even said that you know about nothing about linux. How do
you suspect to write a good article if you know nothing about the
subject matter. If I were you I would read a thick book on linux install
it, play around with it for 3 months then you might be able to write a
well informed article about it. But until you know your subject matter
the article will basically suck.
------------------------------
From: Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:00:28 GMT
Robie Basak wrote:
>
> Also, would someone please tell me where the equivalents of cron and
> at are in NT? Or do I have to upgrade to 2000 as well?
>
There is an "at" function in NT 4.0, that also allows a limited
cron-style scheduling by means of batch files. Look up "at" in the Help
index. To call it equivalent, though, would be a travesty.
--
Doc Shipley
Network Stuff
Austin, Earth
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robie Basak)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:27:20 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:11:33 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>"but for basic simple administation, you could say NT was easier (an MCSE
> monkey could do it)"
>
>Well, it can be just any monkey :) . Most of the stuff is hidden away in the
>help files!!
Right. This silly NT user has gone and made his/her logon unusable
(say, by messing with resolution settings). Now, an admin can use keys
and fix it blind, but that's not exactly user friendly now, is it? How
else can this problem be fixed?
>Yup : Configuration is through readable text files. Even if all hell breaks
Exactly - so the admin just changes the relevant text file - or, if
he/she doesn't know which one it is, knows to use the 'su' command to
change to the user's permissions and runs the graphical interface.
>loose, if you can boot off an emergency disk, you can run vi ( the unix
>text editor) and change things .Compare that with Windows Registry
>manipulation when the OS does not start.
I've done it in the past (using regedit from DOS, but that only works
for 98), but you have to know exactly which key. Where's the
documentation for the registry?
>> Also, linux installs more easily
>Well, I am not so sure. So far, I've used Redhat's packages, and things are
>quite simple.
>Corel's offering really irritated me because I did not want to edit package
>files . But this is a nitpick on the installer.
>
>> > -Used far and wide.
>> > -Good software and hardware base.
>> > -Eye Candy value(my friend stated that his boss made
>> > them move to win nt a few years back because of the way it
>> > looked not worked.)
>>
>> omigod.
>Well, so long as said person kept backups of critical data on some other
>safe system.
>
>> > NT/2000 CON's
>> > -Not well liked by hackers. (They see this as the man to be
>> > overthrown this is why you have more problems with hackers
>> > virus's and such
>To break into , MS has been great! Guess how long they wait to release a
>patch ?
>
>
>> > -Not as stable as others (linux,beos,free bsd, novel)
>> > -In a year or two you will be facing another expensive upgrade
>> > or be behind in the os war.
>Here , here. W2K Pro takes up 64 MB of ram . I need 128MB just to run the
>monster. And what does it load up ? a lot of fancy crap that I have no easy
>way of disabling ( unless I want to risk trashing the hdd on the next
>reboot )
>In contrast, I could control every service that could be started on Linux.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Linux PRO's
>> > -Very cheap free to about 1/3 to 1/2 of what nt or novel charge
>> Eh? I don't quite understand. It's free (except for a 1 off charge if
>> you choose to buy instead of download a CD).
>
>> > -Runs well on low end system (486 web server)
>> > -Once set up properly will run well (reports of systems running
>> > uninterupted for 300 + days.
>
>> > -At one point there was a rumor that micro$oft ran its hotmail
>> > servers on linux boxes cause NT couldn't handle the load.
>>
>> It wasn't a rumour. IIRC Hotmail runs on FreeBSD, and the attempt to
>> migrate to NT4 was a failure.
>>
>> > -Gaining momentum constant updates with little or no cost.
>> >
>> > Linux CON's
>> > -Not alot shown improvements on high end systems (from
>> > comparisons between linux and NT)
>> Yes. The SMP isn't so great, but this isn't a con compared to NT because
>> it's no worse.
>
>> > -Takes alot of work to get a system setup properly
>> That I disagree with completely. The install is easier and quicker than
>> NT. It install all the H/W drivers for you and you need to reboot once.
>> Things like samba come working out of the box. The additional setup
>> needed for a desktop system is minimal after it's first installed.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
>>
>> > -Lack of Talented people to admin Linux
>
>
>> > -Cost of Talented people to admin Linux
>>
>> But (as pointed out earlier) 2 BOFH ($90,000/annum) types are cheaper
>> than 6 monkey (30,000/annum) types.
>
>
>> > -Not a real strong hardware and software powerbase for linux.
>Well, RH 6.0's X server handles my G200 card perfectly. In fact, I can get
>higher refresh rates from X server than from Windows .
>It picked up my modem ( all 3 as I cycled through them ) . They are ISA, and
>"plug and pray" is disabled.
>It picked up my sound card ( a vibra 16 ) and is in full duplex mode. I have
>to mute the mike to prevent feedback!
>All I used was "sndconfig" that was installed when I did a full install.
>It plays mp3's and audio off the cdrom while I'm writing something, or doing
>my accounts , or browsing.
>It even contains a X version of winamp.
>The only thing I don't do is play games. The ones I play are rather a
>"niche" thing ( hardcore combat sims), and I don't expect them to be ported
>to other OS'es from win95.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:28:35 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 18:10:17 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Okay. Lets say you wanted, oh I don't know, create an XML document.
>> Now, you have two choices, a command line (that is using your favorite
>> text editor and hard coding it yourself), or using the Graphically based
>> XML editor of your choice. Which is easier? In the MAJORITY of home
>> uses, GUI's are easier to deal with. Command line params are not for home
>> users. I know my Mom can barely use AOL much less parse:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>> let x=0
>> while [ ${x} -le 360 ]; do
>> (
>> cat model.in1
>> echo ' by rotation x ' ${x} ';'
>> cat ./model.in2
>> )>model_temp.in
>> set -e
>> bobscript -r < model_temp.in > ${x}.r3d
>> nawk ' NR == 5 { print "1 1 1 RGB background \
>> colour; black"; next; } { print }'<${x}.r3d>${x}_2.r3d
>> render -tiff < ${x}_2.r3d
>> if [ ${x} -lt 10 ]; then
>> mv render.rgb files/000${x}.tiff
>> elif [ ${x} -gt 9 -a ${x} -lt 100 ]; then\
>> mv render.rgb files/00${x}.tiff
>> elif [ ${x} -gt 99 -a ${x} -lt 1000 ]; then
>> mv render.rgb files/0${x}.tiff
>> else
>> mv render.rgb files/${x}.tiff
>> fi
>> rm -f ${x}.r3d
>> rm -f ${x}_2.r3d
>> let x=x+5
>> done
>>
>>
>> To anyone who uses bash and knows how to use Molscript and Raster3d
>> this is trivial to parse and its obvious why it exists. To someone who
>> doesn't give a poo about shell scripting or programming, this ranges from
>> somewhare parseable to Sanscrit.
>> Power. Sort of.
>> Extendable. Definitely.
>> Easy. No.
>>
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>If you cannot understand this, you really should probably give up now.
>
>>
>>
>>> > Second, Linux may be a kernel, but it is most
>>> > often distributed for use
>>> > at home with a GUI and most people refer to this
>>> > hybrid as still being Linux.
>>
>>> 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.
>
>> which are the main GUI's for
>> Linux distrib.
>
>Oh really? What the hell am I doing with windowmaker?
Comes with Redhat and Mandrake: the current leading ease of
use distributions. Both also come with both KDE and GNOME as
well as other windowmangers. Mandrake also comes with alternates
for much of the niceties associated with KDE (or GNOME).
[deletia]
>> 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.
Those are pretty much the same as they've always been, since
10 years before MS delivered a GUI that most of it's current
end users wouldn't reject.
[deletia]
BTW, WIMP is the important concept. It can be utilized to a
considerable extent even without graphics. The important thing
to bother putting some thought into the design of the interface.
Quite often it seems that this doesn't occur, GUI or not.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:33:24 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:34:55 GMT, Robert L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I never use X as root.
>My user use qvwm, else, it's too slow. ( Do you know some other wm faster
>than that?)
I ran a CL54xx card with X & WindowMaker and a mere 32M on a 486
quite effectively before I finally fell to the temptations of PCI
and AGP upgrades...
[deletia]
I also never had any disatisfaction with my S3V on the P5/200 either.
Despite what might be a lack of raw thruput, X seems to excel in
responsiveness once you start doing interesting things. Just having
a 3rd party process manage the toplevel window mangement seems to
yield considerable percieved improvements in certain situations.
Just try and avoid bloatware.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Smolinski)
Subject: Re: Linux internal books
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:35:34 GMT
bmeson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, I'm interested in Linux and I have certain experience in UNIX (as a
>user, not system administrator). Is there a good book which explains Linux
>internal codes? I have already got the classic 'design of UNIX operating
>system'. Is it good helping reading Linux source code? Thanks.
You're not so clear:
1. Is it good for what purpose? What are you trying to accomplish?
2. What do you mean by 'internal codes?'
If you mean to be a device driver developer, and 'internal codes' means
the kernel structures and exported functions, then *yes*, reading the
source code is invaluable.
If you plan to play tons of Heavy Gear II and by 'internal codes' you mean
knowledge of how to setup the Utah GLX drivers, then *no* reading the kernel
source won't do you very much good.
Steve
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
