Linux-Advocacy Digest #370, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Tim
Palmer)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451719.328^-.00000000000006 (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: slashdot (Tim Palmer)
How fast is your text? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux is junk (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux is junk ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Linux is junk ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How fast is your text? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mac OS X gonna have a CLI! ("Alistair Mann")
Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux? (OSguy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:04:20 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:25:47 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:05:39 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Time to eat another WinTroll :-) (yum yum).
>> >
>> >I've taken the liberty of correcting some of the
>> >spelling and grammer of the original post.
>
>> >> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>> >>
>> >> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS.
>> >
>> >It always amused me how people would claim that MS-DOS didn't need
>> >multitasking, but would then insist that they had to have support
>> >for their favorite TSRs such as Borland Sidekick. A TSR is
>> >essentially multitasking. You have lousy memory management, rotten
>> >scheduling, and you have to compete with peripherals for interrupts,
>> >but it's still multitasking.
>>
>> Come back to the '00s. With Windows,
>> there's no use for DOS multitasking.
>
>But you still need Windows multitasking.
>You can't manage all the various servers without going to the GUI.
>This makes scripted administration nearly impossible. That raises the cost of the
>administration crew, and increases difficulty of proper maintainance.
>
>> >> Multitasking is only usefull to normal
>> >> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>
>Which now means that I must have qualified people physically present
>to access and manage the system. This is a big problem if the user
>needs real help.
>
>> >> 7. It gives you "choice"
>> >> ...between one crappy program and 50 others just like it.
>> >
>> >You might have a bit of a case here. One could argue that some
>> >of the programs are just a bit too trivial. On the other hand,
>> >when you want to make the same change to 5000 files, an "ed script"
>> >can really fit the bill and do the job in about 2 minutes (compared
>> >to about 2 months with notepad, wordpad, or word).
>
>
>> >Linux has 4 office suites (5 if you count Andrew UIS), in addition
>> >to 5 spreadsheets, 10 frame oriented WYSIWYG word processors, 4
>> >photograph editors, 7 drawing toolkits, 4 presentation packages,
>>
>> ...and 0 applications as good as there Microsoft equivillants
>
>You are still trying to live in the Microsoft paradigm. With Linux,
>each application is modular and can be combined with numerous other
>modules. This is due to the way Linux effectively manages multiple
>processes (eliminating the need for a Monolithic Link).
In other words, you can RTFM and Bild As You Go. No wonder it's free.
>
>With Microsoft, there is too much performance overhead to using
>multiple processes, which means that you have to hard link every
>component into a single monolithic application.
There is a preformmence hit on UNIX too, thats' why UNIX is slower.
>Even when you use
>DCOM, you still have to invoke the DCOM objects using COM references to
>the library module.
>
>Those "dirty little scripting languages" give you some amazing
>power when managing large quantities of information.
So does MSSQL.
>
>Sure, Microsoft Office is great if your primary goal is to
>print the document, fax it to the recipient, and hope it get's
>lost before the lawyers try to bring it up in court.
If your braking the law you disserve what you get.
>
>But when you are trying to manage the work of 100,000 document
>creators, manage documents to cover 7-10 year statute of limititions
>requirements, you have a little problem. Microsoft doesn't design
>their applications to manage that kind of archive.
They dont disine there applications to braik the law.
>
>UNIX and Linux on the other hand were used as typesetting systems
>starting in the early 1980s, and were used for archiving research
>papers as early as 1978.
Lie-nux was hear in 1978? You prooved you are a Lie-nux liar.
>The search engines used by the web were
>originally developed by Brewster Kahle, Paul Duehring, and the
>others at Thinking Machines - developers of the first massively
>parallel computers with over 1000 processors. Microsoft is bragging
>that it can limp along with 8 SMP processors, while UNIX and Linux
>have MPI and PVM capaabilities that can exploit thousands of concurrent
>processors.
In a singal machine? Didn't think so.
>
>> >> They would never give up all that
>> >
>> >They will use what comes with the computer. If the OEMs came out
>> >with a machine that booted Linux, came with a full suite of
>> >preconfigured Linux applications, and published documents that could
>> >be read and generated by either Microsoft Office or a low-cost
>> >application, there would be a percentage of the market that would
>> >choose Linux over Windows. The question is merely what percentage?
>>
>> Not a large one.
>
>That remains to be seen. In the Server environment, where the
>administrator has to configure either machine, Linux and UNIX
>are the top choices. Linux and BSD make up over half the server
>market and about 65% of the Internet Server market.
>
>How many people would choose a system that's faster, more reliable,
>more flexible, has more applications, comes with it's own support
>system, and can be FIXED by a guy you can call over the telephone
>(or in a chat room).
People already choose such a sistam: Windos.
>
>> >One thing is for sure, the percentage would be higher than it would
>> >be in a market in which Microsoft is allowed to exclude Linux and
>> >UNIX variants through the use of exclusive clauses forbidding the
>> >alteration of the boot sequence, forbidding ports of USB, DVD-CSS,
>> >and PCI PnP to Linux, and forbidding the inclusion of Linux on
>> >a separate partition.
>> >
>> >The percentage would certainly be higher if people could walk
>> >into Sears, K-mart, Radio Shack, Circuit City, or CompUSA and
>> >have a hands-on experience with a fully functional, fully configured
>> >Linux system.
>> >
>> >What is truly astonishing is that nearly 5% of the user base has
>> >not only obtained copies of Linux CD-ROMs, installed them on their
>> >machines with minimal assistance (typically one 10 minute phone
>call),
>> >configured dual-boot environments, and routinely boot Linux as their
>> >operating system of choice.
>> >
>> >What is more amazing is that nearly 1% have reached the point where
>> >Linux is their PRIMARY operating system, either not using Windows at
>> >all or using WINE to provide windows emulation required for older
>> >windows-only programs.
>> >
>> >What makes the latter particularly funny is that Linux does a better
>> >job of emulating MS-DOS, Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 than
>> >Windows NT 4.0 does. Furthermore, Linux can read NTFS, FAT32, E2FS,
>> >and FAT, as well as NFS, IPX, and SMB remote filesystems from a
>> >single operating system. I don't think even Windows 2000 can do
>> >that out of the box.
>> >
>> >> just to run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
>> >
>> >Some of the apps really are pretty rough. Most however are actually
>> >remarkably high quality and simply lack the multimillion-dollar
>budgets
>> >required to advertize, market, and finance inventory and flooring
>for
>> >hundreds of itty-bitty-little 8"x10"x2" boxes. After all, there are
>> >about 1600 packages with an average of 20 programs per package. If
>> >you tried to floor all 30,000 of them, you'd need about $60 billion
>> >dollars.
>
>[snip]
>I can't believe reposted my 10 page document with only about
>20 lines of original input.
>
>Thanks for the extra "air time". :-)
>
>> >--
>> >Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>> >I/T Architect, MIS Director
>> >http://www.open4success.com
>> >Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
>> >and growing at over 5%/month!
>> >
>> >
>> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> >Before you buy.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 5%/month!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:04:30 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:27:37 -0700, salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:27:58 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to
>run there Windows app?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Because Linux is more stable.
>>
>> Lie-nux still crashes you LIE-NUX LIAR!
>
>lol... I'd like to thank you. Tim, for doing so much to support linux advocacy. Your
>posts will, I am sure, move people on the fence towards linux. Kudos. Keep u the
>good work!
>
>> Most people use Microsoft Office even though StarOfice is avalaball.
>
>StarOffice sucks. You're comparing the flagship office product for windows with the
>#2 or #3 office suite for linux.
Most peopal use Microsoft Ofice iven thow Applix and WordPerfect are alvalaibble.
>
>> >Aren't VB scripts just text files? Besides, VB doesn't work in Linux.
>>
>> One more reasin not to run Lie-nux.
>
>VB sucks when compared to the native scripting langauages on linux. Perl is better.
>Python is better. Of course, unlike VB, both come distributed for free with the OS.
>Compare
>language support. $1100 for micros~1 visual studio, which comes with vj++, vb, and
>vc++ or linux which comes free with perl, python, 4 or 5 shells, c. c++, java, basic,
>pascal,
>fortran, etc. etc. etc. Even after paying the $1100, you don't get as good a
>tool-set.
>
>
>> >It's not the absolute number of CPU cycles, but a winmodem has to hit the CPU
>> >in real time.
>>
>> Its unnoticable unless your on a 386.
>
>Liar. I've got a 600mhz PIII with 128mb ram and a 133 mhz bus. It came with a
>winModem which I got rid of within 3 days because it kept hanging my system and was
>too unstable to
>reliably maintain a ppp connection.
>
huh?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451719.328^-.00000000000006
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:04:40 -0500
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 16:36:33 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>for $DEITY's sake, can't you guys just:
syntax error near unexpected token `you'
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:04:51 -0500
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:21:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:04:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>One example...Big deal..
>>
>>I'd rather have decent looking video and sound and be able to use ANY
>>scanner, ANY printer, ANY modem and virtually ANY device my little
>>heart desires, under Win98 without looking at HCL lists like I have to
>
> Except you don't need to use "ANY" scanner. Unless you are more
> of a moron than we think you are then you don't pick your hardware
> at random anyways. Even under "it runs everything", some options
> are better than others. The overhead of that complexity is no less
> than needing to deal with the question of compatibility.
I'd rather go into a computer store, pick up the first kind of what I need that I see,
and bye it insted of worrying wether its on the HCL or not.
>
> I've got a scanner, dvdrom, cdrw, video overlay board, 3d acclerator,
> multiple NICs, modem, printer, and SCSI cards all working just fine
> under Linux.
>
> One does not use the whole hardware or software catalog.
>
>>with Linsux.
>>
>>
>>On 22 Jun 2000 18:14:19 GMT,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
>>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.
>>
>
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:05:01 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:33:46 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> I just think it's funny. The point is supposed to be Linux is so much
>> better than NT right? I remember when the Win2k test site was DoS-ed.
>> The suggestion at the time was that Win2k sucked because of it.. I
>> don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
>> enjoy.
>
>Every time you are tempted to post this sort of flamebait, you
>really should go check out the OS statistics for hacked web
>servers at attrition.org. NT/IIS is not looking very good, what
>with 20% of "market share" and 90% of the defacements.
Shut up you COMMY LIAR!
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: How fast is your text?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:10:55 GMT
I'm sure everyone knows this already, but here's Yet Another
Contrived BenchMark That Shows Linux Is Faster Than Windows. :-)
First, an example Perl program. I chose Perl because it's
common to both systems.
-cut here-
#!/usr/bin/perl
$line='';
for($i=32;$i<127;$i++)
{
$line .= chr($i);
}
for($i=0;;$i++)
{
print $i," ",$line,"\n";
$line = substr($line, 1) . substr($line, 0, 1);
}
-cut here-
The astute will recognize that this is a variant of an old
"marching characters" program.
Second, have two systems handy, next to each other; or, you can
use a stopwatch. (It's fairly obvious, anyway.)
The above Perl program can be run in an xterm on the Linux system,
or the console, and in NT's Command Prompt. Then have two
hands ready on Control-C. Both programs will spit to their
respective displays (no file redirection, here).
The results are interesting, to say the least!
Note that the NT machine is a 550 Mhz; the Linux machine is a 450.
NT: 2366, although it takes awhile to recognize the control C, which
I pressed around 2000. Yes, I can see it counting....
Linux xterm: 21686.
This is almost a 10x difference. In fact, it might be more than a
10x difference.
The second run:
NT: 2292, but again, it took several seconds to respond
Linux console: 132608
This makes NT look sick -- an over 50x speedup. To be fair, of
course, I should run NT in text mode for this benchmark. That is,
if there is one.
Perhaps when I get home I can try this on my old Win95 machine.
I'll have to install Active Perl.
Third and final try. I have a machine at home
that I can access through a 56k link.
NT: 2919, for some reason.
Linux 56klink: A precise reading is not available, but it was
at about 450 or so.
Unfortunately, the ^C didn't stop until 2630.
Let's try that again...
NT: 2362
Linux 56klink: Again, about 450. Or maybe 350.
OK, so I've established that NT is faster than a 56k line.... :-)
that should make the Winvocates happy. And this test is slightly
ambiguous anyway -- am I testing inter-process communication
packet throughput (Perl => Console)? Scrolling performance?
Text drawing speed? Perl VM interpretation rate?
I also did not compensate for the display depths (on Linux, it's a 16-bit;
on NT, it's TrueColor (32-bit?). But even compensating for that, Linux
is stil 5x faster -- assuming NT can be sped up 2x by going to a 16-bit
setting, and I'm not at all sure that it would be.
The real test might be xgc versus NT's equivalent thereof --
whatever it might be. (One crude benchmark -- Quake II frame
rate -- has already been mentioned; Linux wins there, too.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:13:30 -0500
Paul Oliver wrote:
>
> > Actually, that's about the time I discovered LyX and Latex. Thus, my
> > conversion was complete. LyX just rules if you want to write a book
> > without thinking too hard on the formatting.
>
> Yes, KLyX (what I use) blew all my microsoft friends' minds away. Word
> crashed several times during an all-nighter when writing our final project
> report for our senior design course. Everyone was happy with Microsoft,
> because we lost 50 pages of formatting. In addition, our "secretary" spent
> two hours generating a table of contents in Word. This is very funny if
> you use LaTeX, TeX, or LyX: it's a one-line command to do this, and it
> looks much better than what Word can accomplish.
>
> MicroShaft lemmings: open your mind! It'll only help you. 95% of Linux
> users know more about Windows than 95% of Windows users. And yet they use
> Linux . . . hmmmm, that's telltale, isn't it?
>
> Paul
>
> --
> /*\
> \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
> x AGAINST HTML MAIL
> / \
> == P A U L O L I V E R == poliver AT elrancho DOT com ==
The real killer for me is the ability to take that LyX or TeX file after
you are done and spit out PDF or Postscript files without paying any
money to the gods of computers (Adobe and M$). Thus, you are ready to
ship to the publisher, or even to post to "standards" based web sites
(You know, the ones that require you to post files in postscript or PDF,
hoping you will generate some money for Adobe in the process.) Not only
do you get the ability to generate these files for free, but you also
get the ability to work on a huge file without bogging your system into
senseless oblivion. I know it hooked me.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:19:13 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Linux is a stinkin', steamin' pile of shit as far as I am concerned.
>
> I wasted $40 on Corel Office and wish I could get my hard earned money
> back!
Another happy Corel Linux user. And they wonder why people in the Linux
community don't like the Corel offerings to the Linux world?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:42:03 -0400
He sure is a fucking retard, for trying Linux in the first place.
He got what he deserved.
On 27 Jun 2000 20:12:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>*snip*
>
>Jerry, the reason that you are having so many problems with
>linux is because you're a fucking retard. Any five year old can
>understand how to make linux work; why cant you?
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:33:16 +0100
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> Lucky you. I remember doing "Religious Education" and thinking they
> should have renamed it "Christian teachings". I was lucky they even
> skimmed through any other religions.
Wait a moment.. There are *other* religions?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:45:22 -0400
Have you ever considered the fact that maybe for the normal people out there
Linux sucks?
Get your newsreader out of the advocacy groups and into the new user groups and
you will see that many, many, many people are complaining about these very
propblems.
Keeping your head buried in Linux sand is no solution.....
On 27 Jun 2000 20:53:36 GMT, Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
><crap snipped>
>
>Someone could make a perfect template for these sorts of fake
>"complaints" about Linux. Using shell variables, it would look like:
>
>
>Linux is $DEROGATORY_TERM
>
>I wasted $DOLLAR_AMOUNT on $LINUX_DISTRIBUTION and feel totally cheated.
>
>Linux destroyed $SOMETHING_VALUABLE because of $NON_WINDOWS_TRAIT
>
>My $PERIPHERAL1 didn't work.
>My $PERIPHERAL2 didn't work.
>My $PERIPHERAL3 didn't work.
>
>Which makes Linux $DEROGATORY_TERM
>
>Oh, and Linux looks like $ARCHAIC_SYSTEM because it is not Windows
>
>You are all $SYNONYM_FOR_FOOL because you like Linux.
>
>Linux is $DEROGATORY_TERM
>
>
>So, to borrow from the ThinkGeek sticker:
>
>"Go away for I have replaced you with a very small shell script."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How fast is your text?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:45:51 -0400
And how many Windows users are concerned with text?
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:10:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In
The Machine) wrote:
>I'm sure everyone knows this already, but here's Yet Another
>Contrived BenchMark That Shows Linux Is Faster Than Windows. :-)
>
>First, an example Perl program. I chose Perl because it's
>common to both systems.
>
>-cut here-
>
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>
>$line='';
>
>for($i=32;$i<127;$i++)
>{
> $line .= chr($i);
>}
>
>
>for($i=0;;$i++)
>{
> print $i," ",$line,"\n";
> $line = substr($line, 1) . substr($line, 0, 1);
>}
>
>-cut here-
>
>The astute will recognize that this is a variant of an old
>"marching characters" program.
>
>Second, have two systems handy, next to each other; or, you can
>use a stopwatch. (It's fairly obvious, anyway.)
>
>The above Perl program can be run in an xterm on the Linux system,
>or the console, and in NT's Command Prompt. Then have two
>hands ready on Control-C. Both programs will spit to their
>respective displays (no file redirection, here).
>
>The results are interesting, to say the least!
>Note that the NT machine is a 550 Mhz; the Linux machine is a 450.
>
>NT: 2366, although it takes awhile to recognize the control C, which
> I pressed around 2000. Yes, I can see it counting....
>Linux xterm: 21686.
>
>This is almost a 10x difference. In fact, it might be more than a
>10x difference.
>
>The second run:
>
>NT: 2292, but again, it took several seconds to respond
>Linux console: 132608
>
>This makes NT look sick -- an over 50x speedup. To be fair, of
>course, I should run NT in text mode for this benchmark. That is,
>if there is one.
>
>Perhaps when I get home I can try this on my old Win95 machine.
>I'll have to install Active Perl.
>
>Third and final try. I have a machine at home
>that I can access through a 56k link.
>
>NT: 2919, for some reason.
>Linux 56klink: A precise reading is not available, but it was
> at about 450 or so.
> Unfortunately, the ^C didn't stop until 2630.
>
>Let's try that again...
>
>NT: 2362
>Linux 56klink: Again, about 450. Or maybe 350.
>
>OK, so I've established that NT is faster than a 56k line.... :-)
>that should make the Winvocates happy. And this test is slightly
>ambiguous anyway -- am I testing inter-process communication
>packet throughput (Perl => Console)? Scrolling performance?
>Text drawing speed? Perl VM interpretation rate?
>
>I also did not compensate for the display depths (on Linux, it's a 16-bit;
>on NT, it's TrueColor (32-bit?). But even compensating for that, Linux
>is stil 5x faster -- assuming NT can be sped up 2x by going to a 16-bit
>setting, and I'm not at all sure that it would be.
>
>The real test might be xgc versus NT's equivalent thereof --
>whatever it might be. (One crude benchmark -- Quake II frame
>rate -- has already been mentioned; Linux wins there, too.)
------------------------------
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:17:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:14:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
> Richardson) wrote in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
>
> >Sure, use Siag, you can also embed a netscape navigator in your
spreadsheet,
> >or an xterm, or pretty much any program you want.
>
> Interesting. Is the embedded data (html or whatever) stored inside
> the saved document, or is it just a program running in a subwindow?
Of course the program runs in a subwindow, that's the only reasonable
way to embed something. As for storing the data, it can either be
imported and stored with the main document, or linked and stored
separately.
Ulric
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Alistair Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mac OS X gonna have a CLI!
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 22:45:00 +0100
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Alistair Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Check this out, Mac gonna have a command line interface!
> > >
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2593935,00.html
> > >
> > > The story says they're going to hide it deep so noone but a power user
> > > can find it. Guess they finally figured out that you can't provide a
> > > button for everything.
> >
> > There is a certain irony to this. When Windows95 came out, Macheads did
> > entreat us "Windows is now where the Mac was ten years ago". I guess the
> > announcement above means MacOS is now where Windows was five years
ago...
>
> Cool. I didn't know that you could drag & drop stuff from a DOS window
> to applications.
Absolutely you can, just like you can drag & drop from a FreeBSD terminal
window in MacOS to an application.
--
Alistair Mann
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:16:39 -0500
roger@news wrote:
> any one knows where I can download C# for Linux?
> thanks.
> /roger
You really think M$ will give the D- compiler away for free? You'll be
lucky if they give you a limited time preview.
And why should we care on the LINUX advocacy board anyhow?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
