Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
Re: A tale of 2 installs part IVVXIV
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Chad Irby)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C# is a copy of java (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (tinman)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Web Browsers? ("Christopher S. Arndt")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:03:06 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:12:55 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You really are TOTALLY ARROGANT. You conclude "Linux lags behind
>> Windows" becuase of features that are important to YOU only and thus
>> it's YOUR OPINION. Then you push your OPINION on us as fact, as if the
>> things that important to others simply aren't important. In other
>> words, you make yourself more important than others. That by
>> definition is arrogance.
>
>You have a peculiar definition of arrogance then. If it is arrogant to
>point out areas where Linux does not work as well as Windows, then I
>have to conclude you do not want to hear about such things as they show
>the wonderful world of Linux is not as good as you'd like it to be.
>
It wouldn't be arrogant for you to tell us that Linux does not work as
well as Windows for you. But you seem to be implying that Linux does
not work as well as Windows period. For many of us, with differing
needs, Linux works better than Windows in meeting our needs. You are
arrogant when you downplay our personal needs and experiences.
On the desktop, Linux works better than Windows for me because of
features that I have grown accustomed to that Windows does not
have. On hardware support, Linux works better than Windows for me
becuase I have deterministic control over how hardware is recognized
and configured, instead of what seems to me to be "Plug and Pray". For
software development, Linux works better than Windows for me because
it provides half decent portability with other Unices, and because I
don't need to worry about my application code crashing the OS. These
are my experiences based on my needs and personal tastes. They are no
less valid than your experiences, needs and tastes.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: A tale of 2 installs part IVVXIV
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:10:30 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:51:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>So now my 3 kids are fighting like the hammers of hell over the iMac
>and none of them will go near the Windows machine except for running
>Catz 3, so they can care for their virtual pets :)
Get them VPC or SoftWindows...
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:04:37 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:18:40 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Why don't you just say what you mean: Linux doesn't have the things
>> _you_ want in a desktop right now. Everyone here will agree with you
>> and say "Cool. Wait a while." When you continue to throw out
>> duragatory terms like 'lacking' or 'lagging' or 'inferior', you just
>> piss people off. Most people use and develop for Linux because they
>> _want_ to, not because they want to make a buck, although some do.
>> When you disparage a labor of love, people take offense.
>
>Because Linux is supposed to be better than Windows,
And under many circumstances it is. But no OS is best for every
circumstance everyhere. And where user interface comes into play
"circumstances" includes the subjectivity of the user. Do you
understand the meaning of the word "subjective"??
>yet I find areas
>that definately need improvement.
And there are. There are also many areas where Windows needs
improvement as well.
>It's got nothing to do with what I
>want, but with what I find on Linux.
And has it ever occured to you that maybe what you find on Linux
depends directly on what you are looking for, which depends directly
on what you want? That's what the concept of subjectivety is all
about. We all see the world thru our own minds and mental filters. And
as long as you don't understand that, you'll never understand what I
mean when I say you are being arrogant.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:06:00 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:09:47 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>
>Since I've never used a Mac, I couldn't really comment. I have heard its
>interface is better than Windows, though.
I'll bet if you tried a Mac, you wouldn't like it, simply because it
isn't exactly like Windows.
>> 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.
And most linux users think that's a good thing, as thay want to have
flexibility and deterministic control over their computers. If you
don't, than linux is probably not for you.
>I want a machine that "just works".
Then use Win98 and pray to your diety daily. That's about the closest
you're going to come to what you want.
>I'll admit I never liked UNIX.
>
We've already figured that out. I never liked DOS.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:08:14 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:34:50 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think I was reacting to the lack of qualifiers on Windows, so I
>stopped qualifying Linux. If others could lump Windows together in one
>breath, why shouldn't I?
"stopped qualifying"??? That's funny. A review of your posting history at
www.deja.com indicates you have been generalizing "Linux" and
"Windows" all along.
>
>You put people with diametrically opposed views in the same area, you
>can expect a shouting match, I guess.
>
Mature people can respect one another's differences. I am willing to
accept that Windows_lags_behind_Linux_for_Pete if you can openly
accept that Linux_lags_behind_Windows_for_Perry.
>I do think Windows needs improvement, I just think Linux needs more.
For your needs perhaps. But for my needs Windows need more improvement.
>"Tactical" mistakes! Sounds like I'm fighting a war here, doesn't it?
>8).
No, just politics:-)
Perry
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 20:51:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Preemptive multitasking can, if decently implemented, do everything
> CMT does, and it is more stable because it protects you from buggy
> programs.
Not by itself it can't.
You left out the other half of the PM/PM duo: protected memory.
The Amiga, for example, had preemptive multitasking without protected
memory.
The Mac even has preemptive multitasking in some situations (Thread
Manager), but no classic protected memory.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [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 16:18:17 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:24:46 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> > [...]
>> >>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
>> >>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
>> >>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
>> >
>> >You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
>> >slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND.
>>
>> So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
>> of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
>
>That's a good one.
>
>So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
>others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
Well, "archaic", actually. Yes, it is. There shouldn't be any
difference between the fg and bg tasks out of necessity (necessity
being oh...CMT).
>So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
>same time?
If you want to, why shouldn't you be able to? Why limit yourself to
one?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:49 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
mlw wrote:
> Obviously, one should end the source module with .cpp or .cc. Are there
> any environments in which if C is available, C++ is not?
>
Yes, unfortunately, VM/CMS does not support C++. One of many reasons why I am
moving from CMS to Linux on S/390.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 21:32:11 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:24:46 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> >> > [...]
> >> >>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
> >> >>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
> >> >>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network
> >> >>bound).
> >> >
> >> >You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
> >> >slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND.
> >>
> >> So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
> >> of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
> >
> >That's a good one.
> >
> >So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
> >others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
>
> Well, "archaic", actually. Yes, it is. There shouldn't be any
> difference between the fg and bg tasks out of necessity (necessity
> being oh...CMT).
>
> >So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
> >same time?
>
> If you want to, why shouldn't you be able to? Why limit yourself to
> one?
Because it doesn't matter what computer you're using. Even if you have a
mythical computer than can handle 15,000 CPU-intensive tasks all at once
without slowing down, there's STILL a difference between foreground and
background apps.
It's not an archaic concept. It's very, very real.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:36:07 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> 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.
>
In other words SB16 works on Linux
>
> AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
>
In other words, AHA152x works on Linux
>
> Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
>
In other words Voodoo 5 works on Linux
Gary
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 13 Jul 2000 21:42:34 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
: > of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
: That's a good one.
: So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
: others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
: So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
: same time?
I think he was talking about computers. There, it might be easier just to
think of many programs, all concurrent, with various levels of priority
and activity.
I've tried to do the same thing myself with my "physical work", but the
5ms interrupt was very irritating, and the wire was uncomfortable.
John
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 21:50:51 GMT
In article <8kld4a$5es$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In article
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : > So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
> : > of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
>
> : That's a good one.
>
> : So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
> : others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
>
> : So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
> : same time?
>
> I think he was talking about computers. There, it might be easier just to
> think of many programs, all concurrent, with various levels of priority
> and activity.
That's fine.
But that's not what he said.
What he said was that the concept of background vs. foreground apps was
"archaic and old-time thinking".
That's absurd. Foreground means you're working on it at that time.
Background means you're not.
No matter how the computer deals with it, it's a useful concept.
------------------------------
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 18:11:40 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tinman wrote:
>
> 1> That's tinman. ('
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who is also Tinman.
Nope, that's not me.
> 1> And why else would I post?
>
> I prefer not to presume.
Then why do you presume?
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Having trouble completing a sentence Tinman?
On the contrary.
> 1> My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
>
> Incorrect. Witness the fact that you have been digestified.
Not yet. ("
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:14:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"stopped qualifying"??? That's funny. A review of your posting history at
>www.deja.com indicates you have been generalizing "Linux" and
>"Windows" all along.
No I started by specifying which Linux (Mandrake 7.1) and Windows 98 SE.
>Mature people can respect one another's differences. I am willing to
>accept that Windows_lags_behind_Linux_for_Pete if you can openly
>accept that Linux_lags_behind_Windows_for_Perry.
I'm trying to see if its more than just personal preferences. I mean, it
can't be personal preference if one thing works better than another?
>No, just politics:-)
Politics! Dirty word!
Pete
------------------------------
From: [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 17:24:34 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:32:11 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:24:46 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
>> >> >>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
>> >> >>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network
>> >> >>bound).
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
>> >> >slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND.
>> >>
>> >> So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
>> >> of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
>> >
>> >That's a good one.
>> >
>> >So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
>> >others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
>>
>> Well, "archaic", actually. Yes, it is. There shouldn't be any
>> difference between the fg and bg tasks out of necessity (necessity
>> being oh...CMT).
>>
>> >So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
>> >same time?
>>
>> If you want to, why shouldn't you be able to? Why limit yourself to
>> one?
>
>Because it doesn't matter what computer you're using. Even if you have a
>mythical computer than can handle 15,000 CPU-intensive tasks all at once
>without slowing down, there's STILL a difference between foreground and
>background apps.
In that one's in front and others aren't. But that shouldn't impact
the amount of CPU time it gets as it does in MacOS, where if it isn't
in the fg, it can easily be CPU-starved (and if it's in the bg and
somehow grabs CPU time, look out!)
>It's not an archaic concept. It's very, very real.
Real is the world I live in, where heavily-CPU-bound tasks are put in
the background to "think" and crunch, and normal non-CPU bound tasks
(like, say, this newsreader) spend a lot of time 'up front' in front
of me, getting direct interaction.
Your defense of CMT is so outdated, old, trite, and contrived that I
really can't see how you can claim to defend it in any sort of a
credible manner. The benefits of PMT are well established and well
know; the problems with the Mac multitasking model are also well
known. Are you _really_ still defending CMT, or perhaps have I
misinterpreted your posting?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:59:58 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:10:08 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>
>
>From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
>
>"The bilt in Linux firewall..."
>
>"...new firewall utility with more feachers"
>
>How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
>
>http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-6.html
>
>"Because most distributions don't dome with a kernel usefull to your
>perpose."
>
>Or this;
>
>"You need to turning off any unneeded services."
>
>"This script will count ever packet"
>
>And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has typos..
>
>Check page 47, "If this is the cas, it should be explicity stated on
>the package"
>
>--- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much time
>geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
>rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
>
^^^^^ Typo or misspelling?
Does this mean you are a retard? (By your own definition of course.)
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:42:39 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:48:09 -0400,
Colin R. Day, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:57:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>> >Ick, platform specific packaging utilities always suck. If anything,
>> >they eliminate your control, and you often have to put the software
>> >where whoever packaged it thought it should go.
>>
>> In the case of say RPM, the above statement is just plain wrong.
>
>Not in all cases. I once tried to install KDE somewhere else besides
>/opt, and RPM would not do it. Some packages are not relocatable.
>
><snip>
>
>From the RPM manpage ...
--badreloc
To be used in conjunction with --relocate, this
forces the relocation even if the package isn't
relocatable.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [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 17:26:14 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:50:51 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <8kld4a$5es$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : In article
>> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> : > So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
>> : > of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
>>
>> : That's a good one.
>>
>> : So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
>> : others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
>>
>> : So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
>> : same time?
>>
>> I think he was talking about computers. There, it might be easier just to
>> think of many programs, all concurrent, with various levels of priority
>> and activity.
>
>That's fine.
>
>But that's not what he said.
>
>What he said was that the concept of background vs. foreground apps was
>"archaic and old-time thinking".
It is. Having an artificial distinction between them, and starving
apps that don't happen to be in the fg is a very bad (and
characteristic trait) of CMT.
>That's absurd. Foreground means you're working on it at that time.
>Background means you're not.
Not in the -slightest-. That's absolutely wrong. bg means it's not
the frontmost app - that's IT.
>No matter how the computer deals with it, it's a useful concept.
If you don't multitask, perhaps. For those of us that do, the
differentiation has no meaning WRT scheduling priorities except in
unusual circumstances.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:28:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It wouldn't be arrogant for you to tell us that Linux does not work as
>well as Windows for you. But you seem to be implying that Linux does
>not work as well as Windows period. For many of us, with differing
>needs, Linux works better than Windows in meeting our needs. You are
>arrogant when you downplay our personal needs and experiences.
Ok, I begin to see where you are coming from.
I still have this nagging thought that somehow Linux is less than Windows,
but I'll leave that for now. I can see where I'm being subjective or just
plain blind (as in, "See! It doesn't work properly on Linux! Therefore
nothing works! It works alright on Windows 98!").
>On the desktop, Linux works better than Windows for me because of
>features that I have grown accustomed to that Windows does not
>have. On hardware support, Linux works better than Windows for me
>becuase I have deterministic control over how hardware is recognized
>and configured, instead of what seems to me to be "Plug and Pray". For
>software development, Linux works better than Windows for me because
>it provides half decent portability with other Unices, and because I
>don't need to worry about my application code crashing the OS. These
>are my experiences based on my needs and personal tastes. They are no
>less valid than your experiences, needs and tastes.
I think I can vouch for the instability of Windows 98 SE in terms of
software development. I was recently creating a GUI and everytime I tried
to debug it, Windows 98 SE died. I switched to Windows 2000 and I got an
address exception instead, but no BSOD. I eventually realised what I was
doing wrong (not releasing a Windows Hook) and the crashing went away.
The only reason I don't switch to Windows 2000 is that some things still
work better on Windows 98 SE. A lot of the games I used to test the device
driver(s) I'm working on still seem to require Windows 98, though that is
changing.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Christopher S. Arndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Web Browsers?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:24:22 -0500
I'm a linux newbie, and am looking for a good browser for my linux laptop.
I have tried mozilla, but it really take a lot of memory, and is always
crashing, as does netscape 4.x and 6.x. I would really appreciate it if
someone could give me some suggestions to try.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 22:32:03 GMT
Tinman wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tinman wrote:
> >
> > 1> That's tinman. ('
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who is also Tinman.
>
> Nope, that's not me.
Incorrect. Witness the fact that you responded as if it were you when I
addressed you as Tinman.
> > 1> And why else would I post?
> >
> > I prefer not to presume.
>
> Then why do you presume?
You are presupposing that I presume. How ironic.
> > 1> On the contrary.
> >
> > Having trouble completing a sentence Tinman?
>
> On the contrary.
See what I mean?
> > 1> My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
> >
> > Incorrect. Witness the fact that you have been digestified.
>
> Not yet.
Liar. I see you failed to examine the evidence again.
> ("
Taking made-up word lessons from Joe Malloy?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
