Linux-Advocacy Digest #615, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why use Linux? (abraxas)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (abraxas)
Re: Windows98 (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (abraxas)
Re: Why use Linux? (abraxas)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (abraxas)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Windows98 (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Growing dependence on Java (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:27:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >
> >> >More or less. You can keep it fairly portable by being careful
> >>
> >> Also, having one codebase deployed on multiple platforms can
> >> be very useful in QA. Bugs that show up in subsequent ports
> >> tend to reflect problems in the original sourcecode base. I
> >> have seen this occur firsthand in a multi-unix shop and
> >> several game developers have claimed this to be the case for
> >> various cross platform projects.
> >>
> >> Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
> >> money for years to little ill effect.
> >
> >That doesn't matter at all.
>
> Sure it does.
It's stupid to suggest that just because a company has lots of money,
they shouldn't care about losing some in a project they calculate will
not recover the costs.
> That's how we have Internet Exploder and MonopolySoft Money.
> Both are projects that MS can simply throw money at without
> the need to be immediately profitable.
I never said "immediately". What if they calculate that porting to MIPS
will NEVER recover the costs?
> Get in the ring with Mike Tyson and we would all see just how
> irrelevant physical endurance or relative abilities to bleed
> are...
Save the silly analogies for yourself.
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> The excuse of "it costs too much" simply doesn't wash for
> >> MonopolySoft. It works for Be, but is simply absurd for
> >> the market's 800lb gorilla.
> >
> >But that is not the excuse. Microsoft, as any publicly traded
company,
>
> So? All they have to do is be profitable on the macroscopic
> scale. As long as their balance sheets show a positive result
> the plantiffs lawyers and stockholders aren't going to notice
> a damn thing.
Yeah, sure. So, if they have a billion profit, they can spend half a
billion in porting to every architecture?
> This is what distinguishes a Microsoft or Intel from a Be. Even
> a large loss can be made to look infinitesimal given large enough
> numbers to average against.
>
> >has a duty to make as much money as possible. If the analysis they
> >make says porting to MIPS will lose money, then they won't port,
> >end of the story.
> >
> >That's the only reasonable thing for them to do.
>
> No, you simply don't understand the mathematics of the situation.
Pfft. I'd say it's that you are making up the maths as you go.
Neither of us knows the maths of the situation.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:40:13 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>> See, Trolls like Pete avoid the questions. I just don't believe
> anything
>> he says.
>> It is clear that he either has had a very good (unusual) Win32
>> experience or he
>> is telling us tails. Former may be true, but as I said before, a
>> computer just
>> sitting there doing file serving just should NOT crash. Linux doesn't,
>> even WinNT
>> is a happy bunny for longer, but Win9x is simply not designed to be
>> reliable and those
>> who state that it is are by definition suspicious.
>
> Rubbish! The web server running on the machine indicates it was started
> on the 17th May.
>
Why are you still here?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:40:59 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So which version of Windows has eight desktops out of the box?
>> In KDE, just set the number of desktops to 8 in kwmrc.
>
> Two nearly there desktops and six minimalist desktops?
>
You dont know what youre talking about. It really is amazing,
you seem to have a complete inability to learn anything at all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:36:04 -0500
Paul Colclough wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>KDE/Gnome/or whatever window manager) and other programs you install.
> >>You don't
> >> see many Windows programs installing themselves into c:\windows\system
> >> now do you? They all install neatly into c:\program files\ and you can
> >> pretty much find an installed program living in there in some
> >> sub-directory.
> >
> >Would this be why so many computers have about four copies of MS Office
> >on the hard drive? They started with Office 95 (installed to
>
> Well, at least there are in three seperate directories, rather than all
> being placed in /usr/bin with three slightly different executables that
> would be a nightmare to remove without the help of RPM.
>
> Also so my other reply to this group.
I guess I don't see the point in having all of those directories there.
The only one that will actually run is the latest version you
installed. And what is the point of having it scattered all over the
place? When you upgrade a program, don't you want just the new copy?
Also, in your other post you make it sound like you really want every
program installing into its own directory. I know it's really difficult
to understand at first, but the Unix way is not the same as the Windows
way. All binaries are installed in the same places (one I forgot in the
previous post was /usr/X11R6/bin) and I don't see how scattering them
everywhere will help with your other request of easily finding the
programs once installed. If you are looking for a binary just list the
bin directories and do a find or locate or which or whatever on the one
you are looking for. BTW if you know the name of the program you are
looking for just typing in "which *progname*" will show you where it is.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:41:36 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, 8 desktops within KDE, selectable at the click of a button.
>> Multiple desktops seems to be a concept Windows users have a hard
>> time grasping.
>> It is something I could not live without and is one reason why
>> Windows lags behind Linux.
>
> I don't have a hard time grasping the idea of a multiple desktops;
Apparantly you do. Stop kidding yourself.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:39:33 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT) wrote:
>
>> That's right. It was release last June, so "the last one and a half
> years" is
>> just a make up.
>
> So it was running Windows 98 before Windows 98 SE. Doesn't matter. It's
> been up since the 17th May, that's over a month ago.
>
Why are you still here?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:43:41 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Now as for the Linux desktop! The linux desktop is about personal
>> CHOICE.
>> I run windows 98 in a dual boot system. I use it for what its good at.
>>
>> GAMES
>
> Choice of two unfinished desktops or six minimalist ones. Some choice.
>
Each time you say this, you make a complete fool out of yourself. You
cannot comprehend the notion of 'multiple virtual desktops' or 'pages'
as they were once called.
Why are you still here?
> And there are so many more games for Windows than there are for
> Linux, aren't there?
Admitted. Windows is the best gaming platform there is.
> I use Delphi on Windows. I also use Visual C++ but I prefer Delphi. I
> don't think anything even comes close to Delphi on Linux (though it will
> this year, as Delphi is being ported to Linux!).
>
Thats because people who write things for linux generally know how to
program.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:44:12 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And Windows lags behind Linux in some hardware products.
>
> But Windows has more hardware support than Linux (I'm thinking desktop
> PC's).
>
>> Totally subjective. Most people are just used to one desktop or
> another.
>
> Have you seen the desktops on Linux? Two unfinished ones, and six
> minimalist!
>
Again you are a fool. You do not understand the concept of virtual
desktops.
Why are you still here?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Jul 2000 08:59:47 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> The reason that theyve had zero downtime since their linux cluster
> approach is because of "redundancy". I dont expect you to know what
> that means.
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20000227&mode=classic
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:00:55 -0500
Greg Yantz wrote:
> You might have screwed up the wording elsewhere, but the part that I
> quoted directly seems pretty much on target.
>
> -Greg
Thanks for backing me up on my statement, but I truly believe that only
a total admission of guilt will do for this individual. Until I admit
that my entire reasoning/thought/wording/and everything to do with my
statement is incorrect, this person is going to insist that I am backing
up MS. That's OK though. I know what I said, I restated it a bit more
clear, and still in his mind I'm wrong. So, life goes on. I don't have
to impress everybody. As long as I can live with myself.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:04:26 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Paul Colclough wrote:
> >KDE/Gnome/or whatever window manager) and other programs you install. You don't
> > see many Windows programs installing themselves into c:\windows\system now do
> > you? They all install neatly into c:\program files\ and you can pretty much
> > find an installed program living in there in some sub-directory.
>
> Would this be why so many computers have about four copies of MS Office
> on the hard drive? They started with Office 95 (installed to
> c:\msoffice) went to office 97 (early version installed to c:\program
> files\msoffice) then went to Office 2000 (installs to c:\program
> files\Microsoft Office) and this is just for one set of programs made by
> the actual OS vendor. Frankly I don't see Windows programs all
> installing into the c:\program files directory. Many of them still make
> thier own subdirectory off of the root of c:. For instance, Adobe
> Acrobat (c:\adobe or c:\reader), Corel WordPerfect (last version I
> installed on Windows was c:\corel\wordperfect), Lotus and others. I
> know, in some cases you can tell it you want the program installed in
> the proper directory, but by default this doesn't *always* happen.
I NEVER accept the default install directory. The default is to
install to a completely braindamaged configuration: One partition
for the entire drive (given LoseDOS's propensity to suffer from
epiliptic fits and crash, how fucking stupid do you have to be to allow
the swap file to share a partition with critical data or the operating
system?)
One: never install to C: if you have ANY other partitions available.
When windows dies (and IT WILL), you aren't stuck with having to do
ALL of your re-installs all at once .... some of the apps will work
if you, say, make a habit of always installing to E:\apps\whatever.
I always make a small partition "D:" for the sole purpose of holding
D:\win386.swp
D:\TEMP
D:\NetscapeCache
(or an "apps" or "games" directory to whatever drive you choose..)
> In Linux, unless the package makes up a directory structure (which is
> extremely rare, I've only seen it once) the binary will be in /bin,
> /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin or some sub-directory of /opt (if the program
> needs a full directory of other files to make it run, like Star
> Office). This isn't set in stone of course, but for the most part it is
> one of these places.
>
> And BTW, when I install a Windows program it does install crap all over
> the hard drive, not just into its pre-decided folder. I'm not saying by
> default that there is anything wrong with that (have you heard of DLL
> hell?), but it could be argued this is one of the stability issues with
> Windows. I know it isn't the same in Linux. It works on a different
> principle, but once you get used to the way it works, it isn't any
> worse/better. It's just a different way to do it. Until some
> government agency comes along and says "If you are a programmer you have
> to install to (name your directory) and nowhere else on the system or we
> will throw you in the slammer" I don't think we will ever end the "where
> did it go?" question. Frankly, that's something I think I can live
> with.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 10:05:53 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unix vendors are rapidly learning that they have no need to keep their
>source code secret.
Learning? Is there any evidence that releasing source has
helped them? I thought it was just a last desperate attempt
at survival that hasn't paid off and may not.
> Again, you argue historical reality, which was
>valid at the time. To suggest that vendors both don't use reference
>implementations, and would find a GPL reference implementation to make
>the protocol unacceptable, doesn't make sense. If vendors don't use
>reference implementations, but re-implement the protocol, then it
>wouldn't make any difference if the reference implementation is GPL.
There is no reason to think all vendors are the same. A large
one may not have a problem with the cost of re-writing some
code. A small one may not be able to do it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:04:07 -0500
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Thu, 06 Jul 2000 23:34:51 +0800...
> ...and Aravind Sadagopan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Offlate I have seen a number of application written in Java
>
> > Starwriter
>
> In this gibberish of incomprehensibly overlapping sentences, are you
> trying to imply that StarOffice is written in Java?
It seems funny to me that so many people insist that StarOffice is
written in Java. I think what happened is some ill-informed reviewer
saw that StarOffice asks where your Java run-time is installed (for java
in web viewing) and decided that this meant it needed Java to run. "If
it needs Java to run it must be Java...." and the rumor got started and
spread from there. I have seen it repeated all over the place.
Note: StarOffice will run even if you tell it you have no Java installed
on your system. It depends on Java only for Java in it's web browser
app. It doesn't depend on Java to run at all.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:59:49 GMT
In article <8khn6p$d08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, 8 desktops within KDE, selectable at the click of a button.
> > Multiple desktops seems to be a concept Windows users have a hard
> > time grasping.
> > It is something I could not live without and is one reason why
> > Windows lags behind Linux.
>
> I don't have a hard time grasping the idea of a multiple desktops;
it's
> just that having six very weak desktops and two desktops that are
> nearly there hardly constitutes 'choice'.
>
Gary's right. You can't grasp the concept.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:17:28 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
>
> Yes, but you also get PC advocates who claim that Window's proprietary
> version of PnP has trouble with PnP hardware, as well as non-PnP
> hardware.
Please detail how Windows' PnP is "proprietry".
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:12:29 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So which version of Windows has eight desktops out of the box?
> > In KDE, just set the number of desktops to 8 in kwmrc.
>
> Two nearly there desktops and six minimalist desktops?
No. 8 FULL desktops. HP introduced it in the early 1990s
(LoseDOS 3._ era), and it was adopted by everyone else quite quickly.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:15:52 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
>> Because the protocol itself was left for vendor specification, it would
>> not have mattered at all that the protocol's reference implementation
>> was -- except that the few Unix vendors who have expressed any support
>> for it at all wouldn't have bothered to express the minimal support
>> that they have. I don't think they would have bothered doing a clean
>> room implementation.
> Unix vendors are rapidly learning that they have no need to keep their
> source code secret. Again, you argue historical reality, which was
> valid at the time.
It's still valid. If the choice for an unproven technology is (a)
incorporate code that will force you to reveal everything about your
own competitive advantage, (b) do a clean room implementation, or (c)
don't bother -- vendors, by and large, will choose (c).
Once that technology is proven, then they will likely choose (b) or
maybe even (d) license a clean room implementation.
Technologies need critical mass, and if vendors choose (c) en masse,
then the technology will wither on the vine.
> To suggest that vendors both don't use reference
> implementations, and would find a GPL reference implementation to make
> the protocol unacceptable, doesn't make sense. If vendors don't use
> reference implementations, but re-implement the protocol, then it
> wouldn't make any difference if the reference implementation is GPL. If
> vendors won't use GPL reference implementations, then they would
> re-implement the protocol.
I haven't suggested that vendors in general don't use reference
implementations. I have suggested that when a technology is new,
vendors won't do anything but support reusable reference
implementations.
> Would [the GPLing of reference implementations] inhibit development
> of protocols?
Yes, it would -- at least *open* protocols.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:23:02 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 6 Jul 2000
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> So why doesn't Linux have IRQ problems?
> >
> >You're not going to seriously try and claim Linux doesn't have IRQ
problems,
> >are you ? Even most of the more rabid Linux advocates aren't *that*
dumb.
>
> AFAIK, the only problems that Linux has with IRQs is people who don't
> understand them, whereas Windows seems to mostly have problems with
> people who do understand them, as it seems to resist dealing with them
> simply and easily. I'm not saying they are a simple issue; I'm well
> aware of the problems which occur on any OS using the archaic and arcane
> IRQs which are part of that platform.
IRQs are a pretty simple issue. If you have cards that cannot share IRQs,
then they must each have a unique one. If you have more cards than IRQs,
you're stuffed.
The average PC has about 5 free IRQs. The logic behind determining whether
or not a given IRQ is used or free, and thus whether or not it can be
assigned, is not difficult.
> But we have reliable reports of Linux dealing correctly with standard
> plug and play, and reliable reports of Windows dealing incorrectly with
> their own proprietary plug and play.
No, *you* have reliable reports of such happenings. *I* have reliable
reports of IRQ problems with crappy hardware happening in equal amounts
under both OSes, because it is a hardware, not software issue.
ANd Windows' PnP is not "proprietry".
> The relative statement that Linux
> 'doesn't have' IRQ problem obviously refers to whatever prevents Windows
> from working correctly.
The same thing that will stop Linux working correctly.
> I am neither rabid nor dumb, but wouldn't mind hearing some more of the
> details of the difference in Windows and Linux's PnP implementations,
> rather than insults. If insults are all you can muster, than I must
> observe that you could be considered either rabid or dumb, or both.
I can't imagine there are many differences, given that PnP on the PC
platform is an open standard.
Windows is always somewhat keen to search for new hardware, that's about the
only thing I can think of. But then again so are some of the newer Linux
distros.
> The fact is, you cannot explain why Windows has IRQ problems that Linux
> does not, but find it more convenient to insist that this statement of
> fact is not true than to admit that.
It's no more a "statement of fact" than me saying "Linux has more IRQ
problems than Windows".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:18:15 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting John S. Dyson:
>>> You describe the GPV zealot's utopia. To me, it's a nightmare world with
>>> poverty and misery for millions of people, and I want no part of it.
>> Remember, that you are arguing mostly with zealots who are already set
>> up to be 'successful' in the miseryworld of a GPL universe :-).
> You bet your ass, buckaroo. I'm gonna be SWIMMIN' in GRAVY. Woo-hoo!!!
Not likely.
>> (BTW, I don't necessarily
>> agree with you about that miseryworld, but there would be a significant
>> shakeup, and likely a significant decrease in programmers, yet an
>> increase in laywers, doctors and other professions -- be that good
>> or bad.) Techno-emmigration would also come to halt, with expiration
>> of visas.
> Ha. Let's cry for the poor disadvantaged foreign workers who will be
> shipped back to their pathetic little countries; aren't they poor
> downtrodden people yearning to be free?
> Of course, they'd have all the source code to all the software, so I'd
> guess they've been well compensated.
That's a wonderful fantasy when it comes to actually putting food on the
table and a roof over one's head.
> And I'm always for hiring more
> doctors and others with real expertise, instead of program jockeys
> working in cubicles, so I guess that's no problem. In fact, it will
> make doctors lower their fees in the face of greater competition, and
> hey, that's always a good thing.
Are you *really* that stupid, or are you just paid to pretend to be so?
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
