Linux-Advocacy Digest #275, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (John Sevey)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (abraxas)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (abraxas)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Charles Kooy)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Processing data is bad! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows, Easy to Use? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Secretly Cruel)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Craig Kelley)
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Craig Kelley)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Secretly Cruel)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh
Re: Processing data is bad! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! (2:1)
Re: DirectX equivalent
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (mark)
Re: Linux app spec... (mark)
Re: Linux? The Kings New Clothes!!! (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 14:58:06 GMT
In article <zcB45.261874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
>
> I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
> everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
>
<snip>
Then try Plan/9, Hurd, or BeOS.
Talking about the 'ideal' OS is something like arguing about
how tall a building could be made built (except more subjective).
There are so many practical considerations that the whole
discussion is relegated to an argument about how impractical
you're willing to be for sake of the discussion. And because
an 'OS' is such a big thing, it's probably more productive to
talk about changes to something that already exists (even if
that's throwing out the Linux kernel but supporting the new
one with gnu utilities, as several groups are doing).
As for whether your post was flamebait - anything else would
probably be off topic here.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:10:16 GMT
In article <8ivt57$qs4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you even understand how business works? ...
Anything goes when running a business, right?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:13:25 GMT
In article <8isj4j$8db$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A properly pre-configured Windows, Linux/*BSD with a GNOME/KDE or MacOS
> operate undr the same basics. It's when you try to do things less mundane
> than opening files/apps/shutting down the computer that things may get more
> hairy on one platform than another, IMO.
Definitely true. And different platforms focus on different aspects.
(I think I'll stop there while it still looks like I'm marginally
unbiased... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Sevey)
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 23 Jun 2000 10:11:07 -0500
z ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: But no Ford dealers also sell GM cars. Chrysler dealers
: don't sell Fords or GM. Exclusive dealer contracts DO
: exist and are old hat. MicroSoft didn't do anything that
: was so unusual.
I hate to nitpick, but there are some car dealers that DO sell many various
makes and models on the same lot.
Take a gander at:
http://www.carmax.com
Examine the CarMax store in Kenosha, WI.
They sell: BMW, Chevy, Ford, Jeep, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and Toyota
Hmmm, Ford and GM...
Or take a look at:
http://www.palmenmotors.com
They sell: Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, Dodge Truck and Oldsmobile all on the
same lot.
Hmmm, Chrysler and GM...
That's two dealers in my local area that sell products from multiple auto
manufacturers on the same lots.
While exclusive dealer contracts can exist and may be old hat, saying that
auto dealers never sell competing brands is just plain wrong.
Regards,
-John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:19:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My productivity is just fine, thank you. Your productivity would
> probably be brought to nil, because you probably took five years
> to get your MCSE. MCSE is a course to learn how to move your
> mouse to exactly the right spot and click, nothing more. You
> probably need followup-courses to learn how to use the other
> mouse button, too. I've seen one of the involved books from a
> family member. It's really a joke, ok?
>
Actually, in order to get an MCSE, one must not only know all about
how to point and click, but one must learn the specifics of how
microsoft broke every networking protocol they could. Remember kids,
on all those microsoft tests: Never put down the right answer. Put
down what microsoft tells you to.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:22:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Or do people like Simon777 really feel threatened by the Linux
>>advance?
>
> What advance?
>
> It's like the Polish army riding over the hill on horses while the
> Germans had tanks..
>
> I'll bet the Germans were howling with laughter, just like Winvocates
> do every time Linux and how it's taking over the market is discussed.
>
Aaaahhh...Comparing winvocates to the german army during WWII.
Apropos, tek.
Dresden? Care to comment?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:29:18 +0100
Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2000, Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy) writes:
> >
> > > What if you are being obtuse and name it Z - how does it handle any
> > > other partitions then - does it cycle back to C:/?
> >
> > By default, it uses the first alphabetical letter below B that isn't
> > in use.
>
> Just as a curiosity,
> DOS 2.x actually has 63 drive "letters",
> A-Z and then just continue the ASCII table : [\]^_`ab...z{|}~ DEL
That's quite funky. Is that still implemented in Windows?
--
¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre! - Ernesto "Che" Guevara.
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:23:19 -0400
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since Windows has such large market share. You're going to see
>all walks of people using it. Unlike Linux where you just see mentally
>derranged socially illadjusted paranoid dellusionaries with some
>sort of unfounded hatred for Microsoft for some reason or another.
Thanks for branding all Linux users as nutbars. *I* use Linux on my home
machine because I like its stability, flexibility, and the fact that 95%
of the software for it is free.
Your blanket statement shows some sort of unfounded hatred for Linux, to
paraphrase your statement above. :-/
---
Secretly Cruel (note antispam string in email address)
Your motherboard wears combat reboots
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:24:48 GMT
MSOffice doesn't take over your desktop, all it does it put a toolbar
up which you can choose to eliminate.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 10:30:13 -0500, aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> StarOffice? Bloat to the extreme....
>
>Hmmm, just took a look at the network install of StarOffice on my
>machine at home /usr/local/Office51 is 155mb and about 9Mb in ~/home
>
>On my NT machine at the office there is 17M in \MSOffice and 131 MB in
>\Program Files\Microsoft Office
>
>Staroffice = 165Mb
>MS Office = 148Mb
>
>For a difference of 17Mb, hardly what I would consider "Bloat to the
>extreme" especially since I belive that SO is statically linked (due
>to the installer not being able to predict what a user's libs will
>be), which would lead to a larger size (a win98 install of SO is only
>131Mb). This size also would not include whatever dll's that MS Office
>probably barfed into \winnt\system & winnt\system32. Also since SO
>includes a web browser, would it be fair to include IE's size in
>calculation?
>
>Bloated - yes, both are big. Bloated to the extreme, not when compared
>to MS Office, both are fairly close in size.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Easy to Use?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:25:58 GMT
TimL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Ah, another loveley afternoon dealing with a Windows Protection Fault.
<stability problems snipped>
Even if we ignore Windows' lack of robustness, the GUI itself remains
difficult to use on a daily basis for a variety of reasons that are
not easily remedied.
First is the bar. Not only do all iconified windows appear on it
(and *only* on it) - severely limiting the size of each after only a
few windows have been iconified - but the bar is reduced further by
a clock on the right, start bar on the left and even more junk on
either side. The bar can be oriented vertically (making it even more
useless since the window titles become virtually unreadable), or
enlarged (throwing more good screen space after bad), but there's
little to help it.
But wait, it gets worse! Rather than place the start button and
iconified windows flush with the screen's edge, Microsoft has
decided to put a couple of pixels between the edge and the buttons
themselves. It looks pretty, but results in more precision than
should be necessary to un-iconify a window or bring up the
dreadful start menu.
Ahh, the start menu. It seems everything that doesn't have a
place anywhere else winds up on it. But if you'd actually like
to execute an app from it, prepare to navigate several levels
of sub-menus for the privilege. Fortunately there's no
shortage of unpleasant alternatives.
If you'd like Windows to start an app automatically when you
click a file, Microsoft has an unpleasant half-assed implementation
waiting for you. If the *file name's suffix* is something
Windows recognizes, it'll happily send the file to the given
app. Oh, and whether or not you should see the suffix is
something else Windows hasn't quite decided yet - God
forbid you should name your file improperly. And if the
suffix isn't something Windows knows, it'll give you a
list of *every damn app* that you can choose among.
Windows, either give me the burden of picking my apps for my
files or implement it properly. Spare me the "part time idiot,
part time guru" routine.
But that's okay, since Windows seems hell-bent on reducing the
number of tasks a user can perform at a time. If you'd like
point-to-focus, virtual desktops/workspaces or a remote-able
display, you'll have to look to 3rd parties and hope you don't
break Windows too much.
Windows is not popular because of its usability but rather in
spite of it. It is not trivial to learn and using it is even
less so. People follow the apps and support. Remember that.
Deliver the apps and support and people will trod down any
interface you give them.
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:26:06 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Simon777 is the BEST reason to leave Windows and use Linux as I see
>>it. Why else would somebody post over 200 messages to COLA in less
>>than one month? Why?
>
>It's my entertainment. Some like to compile kernels, others like to
>bang out code, I like to watch ya'll squirm.
If your main source of entertainment is trolling a Linux newsgroup, then
you need a real life, badly. Find yourself a woman, or a man if that's
your preference. Get out of the house more, take up another hobby.
---
Secretly Cruel (note antispam string in email address)
Your motherboard wears combat reboots
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:25:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have 3 partitions on my drive: System, Applications, VM. I create an
> alias for the System and Applications drives and put them in my Apple
> Menu. That allows me to access any file on those partitions with a
> single click.
>
> Now, I change the name of all 3 partitions to: "drive".
>
> Everything still works. VM still works on the partition formerly known
> as VM. The aliases still work.
So MacOS hides the real names of everything from you, and only lets
you look at the happy-happy interface on top? I suppose it is one way
to do it...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:31:04 -0400
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you even understand how business works?
Apparently, MS philosophy is "What the hell, what can they do to us?"
---
Secretly Cruel (note antispam string in email address)
Your motherboard wears combat reboots
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:32:32 -0400
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>So? They can make whatever strategic plans they want for a product
>they created? Or do you think that creating a good product means
>that the public owns it and gets to vote on it's disposition and
>distribution?
The term "strategic plans" does not mean "strong-arm tactics."
---
Secretly Cruel (note antispam string in email address)
Your motherboard wears combat reboots
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Jun 2000 09:30:18 -0600
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tend to wait for "official" releases of Debian. It just seems easier
> to wait for the official release than wait for a three day download. (I
> can't wait for my DSL connection, maybe then I'll change my mind.) As
> it is right now I can order a CD from LSL or Cheapbytes and have it
> shipped faster than I can download the ISO of any distribution.
So you're still running a 2.0 kernel, then? :)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:34:21 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:54:26 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Installed Mandrake 7.1 recently. I got all the
: >partitions for reiserfs.
:
: On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
: year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
Mandrake 7.1 has a very slick installer, and the reiserfs in the
boot kernel kicks butt, but on my notebook, it just won't go..
It's a Toshiba Tecra 730CDT, which runs RHAT or Debian potato just
fine && dandy. Load up Mandrake, and when the pc-card services start
up, whammo! Kernel panic. Debian woody does the same thing, at least.
Come to think of it, Mandrake 7.0 works on that notebook too..
I suspect it's related to the PCMCIA controller that I'm running in
CardBus mode, rather than in PCIC mode.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Jun 2000 09:33:26 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> On 22 Jun 2000 14:05:17 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> You completely missed my point. Of course non-blocking I/O is defined
> not to wait. Duh. My point is that on more advanced systems, you don't
> _do_ non-blocking I/O. Non-blocking I/O is a Unix'ism and isn't done on
> other systems. That's my point. You have to resort to non-blocking I/O on
> Unix for many terribly simple applications, even things such as having
> keyboard interruptible applications. This is because Unix's I/O model is
> absolutely assinine.
*sigh*
Linux has had POSIX ascynch/IO for quite a while now (at least a
year).
--
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: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 11:37:55 -0400
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A true advocate would have to admit:
>
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
>interface
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
>inconveniance to users for years.
Nah. I like having a choice. Plus, I can run applications for both KDE
or Gnome under either environment. No big deal...
---
Secretly Cruel (note antispam string in email address)
Your motherboard wears combat reboots
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:39:16 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 09:21:11 GMT, Daniel Haude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2000 12:27:21 GMT,
> J Bland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in Msg. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>| The minimum install for SuSE 6.4 is ~80MB. Which would easily fit onto the
>| harddrive, and that's with Perl iirc.
>
>Sure, I was just talking about the default assumptions of what the
>customer wants. There, I'd judge Slackware and Debian as "small" and SuSE
>as "big".
Slack and Debian also have different assumptions about their
target customers (or rather should).
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:42:57 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 09:13:45 -0400, z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>Maybe because they are selling Toyotas and Hondas instead? You must not
>>be paying attention if you think most dealers have only one line.
>
> But no Ford dealers also sell GM cars. Chrysler dealers
> don't sell Fords or GM. Exclusive dealer contracts DO
Nope. The self-proclaimed largest Ford dealership also
sell chryslers and in general has on his lot (which is
the size of a small city) at least 3 compeititor alternatives
to anything Ford he has in stock.
> exist and are old hat. MicroSoft didn't do anything that
> was so unusual.
What was so unusual is that they had the "essential facility"
power to bully the biggest dealers in the market. Whereas car
manufacturers have to contend with near perfect replaceability.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:33:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .z didn't come around until 1982 with pack (Huffman coding), and
> .Z didn't come around until 1985 with compress (Lempel-Ziv).
I didn't know that. Cheers!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 23 Jun 2000 15:31:38 GMT
In article <8il1sm$hv2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you use
>
> find / -name \*.ext -print | wc -l
>
> then you only ever look at the directories, and thus things run a
> whole lot faster. And it also takes care of cases where the
> extension you are looking for occurs somewhere else in the filename
> --- e.g. you are looking for "txt", and have "mytxt.ps" or even
> "thesis.txt.dvi".
But find can only avoid looking at inodes in leaf directories; if
there are any subdirs then it needs to examine the inodes to find
which dir-entries are directories... :^)
(A smart person would use locate of course, and avoid looking at any
inodes at all... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:45:22 +0100
> It's like the Polish army riding over the hill on horses while the
> Germans had tanks..
>
> I'll bet the Germans were howling with laughter, just like Winvocates
> do every time Linux and how it's taking over the market is discussed.
You assume that because they had a bad leader the Germans weren't
human???
Would you be howling with laughter if you had to slaughter a hopelessly
under armed army?
It was a fairly sick chioce for a figure of speech.
-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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: DirectX equivalent
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:46:23 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:30:12 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:59:39 GMT...
>...and Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Francis Van Aeken would say:
>> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:39:09 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[deletia]
>> >A real equivalent of DirectX should not only allow access to the hardware,
>> >but should follow a component model.
>>
>> CORBA corresponds, most nearly, to COM; both represent the
>> "underpinnings" that you'd use to _construct_ a component model.
>>
>> DirectX is probably most nearly equivalent to KDE's "KParts," or
>> GNOME's "Bonobo."
>
>You mean ActiveX. DirectX does sound, 3D acceleration, drawing and
>such.
DirectX is most analogous to DRI or DGA in that it provides
not only an abstraction interface to game relevant hardware
but methods to avoid those abstractions for the sake of
performance. IOW: forget about this COM gibberish, game
developers like DirectX because it allows them to bit bang.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:06:17 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I said what I run and why I have many proceses, but you've ignored it.
>>Your comment `nothing useful' is short sighted.
>
>I'm sorry, I missed what you said - could you repeat it? Of course, you
>don't have to, but then my comment "nothing useful" stands.
I guess if you've never experienced it, then you would find it hard to
understand.
I run lots of processes because I can; as has been said above, it's
useful to have lots of man pages, browsers etc., open, as well as
name servers, http servers, ftp servers etc., etc.
Just 'cos you can't do this doesn't mean it isn't useful, it just means
that you can't do it.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:21:23 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mingus wrote:
>I don't use Linux and I don't know anyone who does. My limited
>experience with it makes me think there should be application
>standards.
Err, do you or do you not use Linux?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux? The Kings New Clothes!!!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:12:28 +0100
In article <8hn7nf$2f0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Smith wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Try Linux for yourself, $1.99 at Cheapbytes.com will get it to you
>> pronto.
>
>You blew it. If you'd left this sentence out you would have achieved
>the holy grail of trolling -- a 100% fact-free post.
>
Wow - well spotted - I hadn't noticed that :)
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
