Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: C# is a copy of java (mlw)
Re: C# is a copy of java ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Karri Kalpio)
Re: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux (Doc Shipley)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows98 (Paul Colclough)
Re: Windows98 (Paul Colclough)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:27:05 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Well Pete has said in several posts he pays per minute charges to
> >access the net. So it's clear his web server is sitting there doing
> >nothing.
>
> At work. In any case it was an experimental web server, and it's not being
> used. But, it's still running after over a month.
>
and GM, Ford, and Chrysler all sell cars that won't rust if you keep
them in the garage.
So, like, what's your point?
--
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"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:29:15 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I agree, I see C++ as with just C with a few nice addons. But knowing the
> difference is handy when you have program in an environment that support C
> but not C++ or if you have to port to one of them.
Obviously, one should end the source module with .cpp or .cc. Are there
any environments in which if C is available, C++ is not?
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Nitpicking time. That sample is not C it is C++. ;-)
> > >
> >
> > While there is religious debate on each side, I don't really care to
> > make a distinction. People will flame about this, but seriously, who
> > cares. C++ is just C with some more features like classes and templates,
> > and that's how I use it. I am more productive than the C purists that
> > have to re-invent the object/class wheel for each project (think GTK),
> > and my code is more efficient than the C++ purists that objectify
> > everything regardless if a modular approach makes more sense.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:29:04 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On 4 Jul 2000 13:03:22 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>You mean you don't like:
> >> >>
> >> >> char *foo="abcd"; foo[2];
> >> >>and
> >> >> "abcd"[2];
> >> >>and
> >> >> 2["abcd"];
> >> >>
> >> >>to all mean the same thing?
> >> >
> >> >They don't all mean the same thing. Two of them mean 'c', while
> >> >the other means "Crash, burn, and dump core, *right* *now*".
> >>
> >> A long time ago, back in the K&R days, I fuzzily recall someone
> >> who should have known explaining why a C compiler had to
> >> treat them all the same. I can't do the argument justice
> >> myself, but it involved the steps of turning the string
> >> into a pointer, then turning the subscript operation into
> >> an addition, and it doesn't matter which direction
> >> you add - you end up adding an integer to a pointer either
> >> way and the result is the same.
> >
> >Um... doesn't work on 2["abcd"]
> >
> >because that translates into 2 + 0x41424344 = *(0x41424346.)
> >which ONLY works if "abcd" is stored at 0x41424345 (thats rigth,
> >last two digits are 45, not 44)
>
> I think you have forgotten that the compiler will turn the
> double quoted string into a pointer to the contents
> which are stored in an array somewhere. Which brings
Ah yes.
> it back to the addition of an integer and pointer just
> like the other examples. Has anyone found a compiler
correct. My mistake.
> that doesn't return the same character for each
> expression?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 14:36:10 +0300
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <8kird4$chj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
>
> > Right. You say this when this case is clearly isolated for you, but
> most
> > of your claims against the Linux desktop boil down to "it's different
> from
> > Windows."
>
> Different? If it was different, I'd be happy.
> However...
> SB16 doesn't work I have to massage the configuration files to make it
> work.
> AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
> Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
> These are all examples of the way Linux lags behind Windows.
> Windows installed all these products without batting an eyelid.
If SB16 works when it is correctly configured I wouldn't think saying
"doesn't work" holds much truth in it. On the other hand, win98 did
find my cheapo-SB16 but still could not use it. I had to add the
driver configuration manually afterwards. Which was PITA because
there's near zero documentation about how to do it (the intructions
that came with the card were win95 only). And after updating win98
(SP1 I think) it was misconfigured again. That card has always worked
with Linux.
NT4 could detect the Adaptec AHA-294X SCSI card but could not make
it work reliable in our CEO's machine. In a similar machine on my
desk it worked immediately - although IIRC there was a patch
afterwards that made it slightly faster.
I hear that the Voodoo 5 support is not yet complete but that doesn't
really matter that too much for me because I use linux for work, not for
playing games. (Linux lags behind Windows as a game OS?)
<OFFTOPIC>
Heck, even our NT admins are now trying to learn linux so that more
and more services could be moved from NTs to linux and Solaris boxes.
*NO* Windows suits well into a heterogenous network - and it is even
worse when one is forced to use it remotely over slow network link
over VPN. Solaris, linux and *BSD beat them hands down.
</OFFTOPIC>
--karri
--
You have moved your mouse, for these : Karri Kalpio
changes to take effect you must shut : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
down and restart your computer. Do you : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
want to restart your computer now? : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.os.linux.dailup,alt.os.linux.mandrake,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:57:02 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> CyberSurfer wrote:
> >
> > The one and only Multitool for Linux.
> >
> > Download here....
> >
> > http://www.euronet.nl/users/next/tuxlife
>
> I would sooner die than allow a single line of Microsoft Code to
> be installed on a Linux machine....
Well, it looks like you could run this crap all day long without
violating that. I downloaded the "MultiTool" code and looked thru the
source - flag # 1, when did MS EVER release source code?? - and nowhere
in the source does M$ claim ownership. At worst it's a trojan, at best
it's just a troll's joke.
--
Doc Shipley
Network Stuff
Austin, Earth
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 07:58:13 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tinman wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Tinman wrote:
> > >
> > > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
> > >
> > > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
> >
> > That's tinman. ('
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
Jumping into conversations again Slava?
>
> > And why else would I post?
>
> Don't you know?
Why do you ask?
> >
> > > Not surprising,
> > > considering that you are being digestified.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
What I can prove is irrelevent, only what I write is relevent.
>
> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
>
> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
<*tink* *tink*> This one.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:00:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and GM, Ford, and Chrysler all sell cars that won't rust if you keep
> them in the garage.
>
> So, like, what's your point?
Because as well as running a web server, it's acting as a file server
for the rest of the group. You said Windows 98 SE crashes after a month
of use - care to explain why my machine is still running after a month,
or could it be your original statement was _wrong_.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 12:18:30 GMT
Sorry for the subject, I'm just looking for help and expediantly
resorting to a cheap attention grabbing line (-;
I'm having a hard time with an NFS server. It's running:
Kernel 2.2.5
knfsd 1.2 ( IIRC )
Something's definitely wrong with this NFS version -- it crashes frequently,
and since it's not a userland program, when NFS goes out the server needs
a reboot. Needless to say, this is a PITA.
So my question is -- what is the recommended configuration for a Linux box
running NFS ? SHould I upgrade the kernel ?
What is currently the most *reliable* version of NFS ? The
server is not busy enough that I care that much about performance. I just
want it to work, dammit!
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:09:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
> You will never get an proficient Linux user saying that Windows is
"more
> developed" and I suspect that you will not admit that the Mac's
> interface is "superior".
Since I've never used a Mac, I couldn't really comment. I have heard its
interface is better than Windows, though.
> Subjective differences sometimes can't be
> equated to better or worse. Win and Mac are more integrated, but you
can
> do so much more with more with X (the Joy of X) than you can with
> Windows. I feel that you probably have expected Linux to act just as
> windows does and that you are disappointed that it does not. Have you
> taken the time to look at how configurable everything is? Easy: not
most
> of the time... but whenever you add "power" (configurability) it
> normally unmasks the hidden complexities that Windows hides.
I think that's the problem I'm harping on about - Linux seems to expose
its configuration much more so than Windows does. Also, things don't
seem to be so well integrated as Windows.
For instance, I installed XFree86 4.0.1 on top of Linux Mandrake 7.1. I
found after installation a lot of the tools that I would use in 7.1
don't really work too well now.
> The trick
> of course is to obtain both and I feel that Linux distributions are
> being put under great pressure to achieve this in the future.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
> The good
> thing is that you know what's going on, which is not the same for
> Windows. You may be comfortable with not knowing why things happen,
but
> I don't want an irate customer complaining about why my software
> suddenly fails when it turns out that Windows has gone mad and I don't
> know why.
I want a machine that "just works". I'm not terribly interested in all
the nitty gritty (which Linux forces me to look at), I want an easy to
configure, easy to use system. Windows gives me that, Linux doesn't as
yet.
> I'll admit that I never liked Windows too much as I have been forced
to
> use it where I would have liked to use the next generation Amiga OS,
but
> then I discovered Linux and while I still use Windows as it is better
as
> some things (like games, hardware support and netscape news client),
I'll admit I never liked UNIX.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 13 Jul 2000 10:34:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 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.
>
>So what? People who are knowledgeable enough to install and remove
>software without RPM should be able to know which file is what.
>
>Anyway, something as large as an office suite usually installs in
>/opt.
Right, so we are getting back to geek country here where everyone knows
exactly what every file on there system is for and what package it belongs
to? Somehow I doub't that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 13 Jul 2000 10:37:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Not really, I really just wanted to know every program that was
>> installed and where about it was installed. Most dist's install a
>> *LOT* of utilities, most of which I have no idea what they do, and
>> probably will never use them.
>>
>
>But your software may use those utilities, even if you don't. I don't do
>shell programming, but I wouldn't get far without sh.
Very true, but I very much doubt every executable installed is used, and
RPM gives the ability to see a description of each file which is exactly
what most people want.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:17:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proof that David James was correct when he said that all
> of the intelligent people have left the UK.
Still practicing your peppergun style of posting I see.
So I made a mistake. I thought we were talking about desktops (KDE et
al), when the conversation switched to virtual desktops.
----
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:20:06 GMT
In article <8ki06t$paj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> 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.
So I made a mistake.
> Why are you still here?
Why do you feel it is necessary to "get a rise" out of me?
> Admitted. Windows is the best gaming platform there is.
Cor blimey guv'nor! Something we agree on.
> Thats because people who write things for linux generally know how to
> program.
Ah, the Linux Advocate style is starting to creep back in. Keep the
insults coming!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:15:56 GMT
In article <8ki01r$paj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> You dont know what youre talking about. It really is amazing,
> you seem to have a complete inability to learn anything at all.
So I made a mistake - I was talking about desktops (i.e. Gnome, KDE
etc.) and then someone starts talking about virtual desktops.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:00:42 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Well then how is Pete creating balance when he has repeatedly made the
> > statement "Linux lags behind Windows" like a broken record, many times
> > without any qualification, and many times in regards to things that
> > are subjective, such as user interface? If Pete were to say "Linux
> > lags behind Windows in terms of meeting my personal needs", that would
> > be reasonable and I could respond with something like "In terms of my
> > needs Windows lags behind Linux, but our needs are probably
> > different". Then there would be some balance. But Pete is not doing
> > that. He is instead defining reality in terms of his needs, without
> > regard for the needs of others. Under those circumstances, there
> > can't be any balance.
>
> This all started because I got fed up with the rather obvious problem in
> COLA. Everyone seemed to refer to Windows, but nobody referred to
> Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000. Problems with Windows 98 were referred to
> as Windows problems, tarring Windows 2000 with the same brush.
>
> Also, I did not think people had a problem comprehending me with I said
> "Linux", instead "KDE desktop on Linux" because I thought the context of
> a sentance/paragraph ought to inform a reader of that.
I hope you don't take this the wrong way Pete, but I believe that this
is exactly why so many people jump on the "you're an idiot" bandwagon.
When it comes to Windows you want people to add the qualifiers, but when
it comes to Linux you expect people to figure out the qualifiers on
their own. This shows an apparent bias (whether intentional or not)
towards Windows. Re-read your first two sentences here from the
perspective of a Linux user and it would bother you a bit. You want
people to qualify statements about Windows, yet you feel it is fine to
not qualify statements about Linux. Doesn't piss me off, because I
understand your general idea, but you will impress people more if you
actually use the same tactics for both platforms. Perhaps you will see
a few more real conversations that way.
As for the rude ones, don't let them overly discourage you. Everybody
has a particular subject that they have a sort of "hair trigger"
reaction to and you just happen to hit on a lot of people's subject of
intense interest. Although the appearance at times is that you are
looking for a fight, I'm sure that's just a result of the Winvocate in a
Linux group perspective.
> I figured out most of my problems myself, thank you very much. I'm
> coming to COLA because I thought this was a Linux Advocacy group - I'm
> asking why they are advocates of something that needs improving!
This question could very easily be turned around on you Pete. Why do
you feel you need to advocate for a multi-billion dollar company that
(quite obviously) can afford to pay for their own advertising? Also,
this statement could be taken to mean that you feel Windows doesn't need
improvement (Why advocate for something that needs improving? implies
that you are advocating for something that doesn't need improving).
Overall I think you tend to fall for a lot of the "TROLL TRAPS" that
some of the more vocal and obnoxious people in here set up and it makes
you look kind of bad a times. Especially the things done by Charlie.
You keep restating that "Linux is three times faster than Windows" thing
like it was some sort of gospel truth according to all Linux people.
Yet there were plenty of people in that thread (other than Charlie) that
said you can make either system perform faster or slower than the other
if you know what you are doing with each. In some cases the best
performance of each outweighs the other. Stating things that the
Lintrolls post (and I consider Charlie a Lintroll) as if they are the
belief of every Linux advocate isn't a very compelling tactic. And it
is also one that makes you again appear biased (whether intentional or
not).
I realize some of this could be taken personally, but that's not my
intention. In reality I agree with the person above that said you seem
to be a reasonable person that has some legitimate information. Just
don't let people push you into making "tactical" mistakes and you should
be OK.
I'm just trying to help out. Hopefully I do.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
