Linux-Advocacy Digest #672, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C# is a copy of java ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Rob Hughes")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Passenger Pigeon)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: C# is a copy of java (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Truckasaurus)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Bob Hauck)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Bob Hauck)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:04:23 -0400
mlw wrote:
>
> Iko wrote:
> > A linux server is made in about 3 hours...even my girlfriend can
> > do the job..
>
> Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn. Either you think poorly of your
> girlfriend or women generally. Either way, someone's sex has no bearing
Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
using linquistic skills)
> on their ability to do anything. I know some women software engineers
> that will put anyone to shame. (And yes, they can install Linux)
the exception does not make the rule.
>
> How about: "...even a politician can do the job." or "... even a G.W.
> Bush could do it." (Well, actually that's probably blatantly false)
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> 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.
--
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]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:05:13 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:01 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8kn2kt$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> : >
>> : > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> : > wrote:
>> : >
>> : > >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>> : > >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>> : > >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
>> : >
>> : > The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
>> : > bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>>
>> : But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>>
>> We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
>> itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
>>
>> As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
>> resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
>> memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
>> have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
>> valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
>>
>> When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
>> was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
>
>I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with the
>amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
>have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
>
Not at all, as the first Amigas proved. They wiped the floor with the
slow Macs - it wasn't until years later that Apple had a Mac system
that could even begin to compete with the current Amiga systems.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:06:10 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:21:46 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8kn61l$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> : Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : : I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do
>with the
>> : : amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT
>scheduler
>> : : have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
>>
>> I should have said, as someone who had been assembly programming 8080s
>> running a 1 MHz, a 8 MHz 68000 did not seem remotely slow ;-).
>
>But to run a GUI system like the Mac ?
The Amiga did a full PMT system with an even slower (7.14 mhz) 68000 -
and did so quickly (for that time period) and efficiently.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:05:35 -0400
mlw wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > I used to hand-assemble C-code, so I know what you mean.
> > >
> > > A simple hi-res screen-fill took about 3 seconds in machine language,
> > > but over a minute in Microsoft BASIC.
> >
> > Translating assembler into machine code. In the early day of home
> > computing, I used to do that myself, until I wrote my own editor, assembler,
> > and monitors in assembler and hand translated it into machine code and
> > entered it a byte at a time into the computer. How many of the new people
> > entering the field would still be willing to do that the way we used to?
>
> Most couldn't
And with todays public education the way it is, most of them don't have
the critical thinking abilities to grasp the material even if they
were lead through it by the hand.
--
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: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:08:51 -0500
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:W3qb5.3702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Which is better:
> > a) server that run MULTIPLE functions and can stay up for a year or more
>
> wow, like our NT4 servers!
A game of Solitaire while running as a WINS (yeech... NetBIOS) server
doesn't count.
>
> > b) a server that can only do ONE thing (mail, webserving, file serving)
> > and even then crashes every 45 days or less.
>
> like the sun boxes we replace often!
Why are you replacing them? Because you've mucked them up because you
couldn't figure them out?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:08:43 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:07:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You people are as concise as your friggen' operating system. Could you
>give me some more *information*, please?
The renice command changes the scheduling priority of a process. If,
for example, you are running a long simulation job and don't want it to
slow down your desktop, you can renice it to a lower priority. That
way, your foreground apps get to be "first in line" to get cpu cycles
when you do finally click on something.
OTOH, if you go to lunch for an hour, your foreground apps will be
blocked waiting for IO and so won't take cycles away from your
background job, which will now automatically get nearly 100% of the
cpu.
This is the fundamental reason why pretty much everyone here agrees
that PMT is superior for general purpose computers. You can prioritize
based on things besides a simple "who has focus" criteria.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:09:12 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8kn2kt$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > : >
> > : > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : > wrote:
> > : >
> > : > >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
> > : > >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
> > : > >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
> > : >
> > : > The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
> > : > bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
> >
> > : But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
> >
> > We did it with 64k of total memory on a 2 Mhz Intel 8085. The executive
> > itself (implementing the PMT) occupied 1k.
> >
> > As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
> > resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
> > memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
> > have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
> > valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
> >
> > When they wanted to add MT, they were in a hard place. I remember that it
> > was considered "impossible" for a time, until the CMT hack appeared.
>
> I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with the
> amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
> have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
You've not experienced slow until you've been on a 1-MHz, 1-MB Vax-11
with 15 other people doing edit/compile/test-run cycles.
--
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: Passenger Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:11:25 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Poor Mac. When did the Mac get 256k or 512k?
Now, I know this is a difficult logical leap, but somehow I just assumed
that the Mac 512k had, oh, somewhere in the ballpark of 512k of memory.
--
William Burke, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you must state the obvious, state it rudely.
Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/
------------------------------
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: 14 Jul 2000 15:15:11 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8kn8ip$bk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > You loose some CPU utilization under PMT due to the time-slice ISR and the
: > should-I-task-switch decision, but you gain back the time under CMT when
: > the appliation calls the OS to explicitly yield for the
: > should-I-task-switch decision.
: However, back then (personal) computers weren't really used for multitasking
: much, if at all, so a CMT system only running one process at a time would
: *appear* to be more respnosive, would it not, since that process could grab
: as much CPU time as it needed whilst a PMT system would always be switching
: between running processes.
: With such a limited amount of CPU time, would an application which only gave
: up the CPU when it wanted to not appear faster than one which was constantly
: giving it up ?
: I'm pretty young, so I don't have much experience I can remember (in
: context) with really slow machines.
I'm older, so I'm still amazed at how people use up the cycles on 500 MHz
machines. (Not really amazed, we do it after all by pusing around a lot
of extra pixels. Screen candy rules.)
I guess the amazing thing to remember is that CPUs were "mostly idle" even
then. The Macs were only black and white, and 512 by 386(?). There
weren't many pixels to push. (It would be interesting if anyone had idle
statistics for the early Mac and PC.)
Responsiveness is really like, how long after I click does the menu
appear? In the Mac CMT system that was determined by the length of the
application's event loop. An application with nothing to do would appear
very responsive, as it was just repeatedly polling for events. The
responsiveness of an application doing some work (like file compression)
would depend on how much work the programmer decided to do on each loop
(between polling for events). You, as the programmer, would decide "ok,
I'll compress 500 bytes and then check back for a new event". That means
your compression code needs extra logic to compress in 500 byte chunks.
That logic is itself a runtime overhead ...
For those kind of reasons, I still lean towards PMT being more
CPU-efficient than a CMT system that yields frequently (and if you don't
yield frequently, there goes your responsiveness).
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:16:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:22:49 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
I'm mildly surprised no one's ported GAS and GCC/G++ to VM/CMS.
(Mind you, with Linux on an S/390, why bother? :-) )
>
>Gary
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "LOAD program (START" -- is it intuitive? :-)
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:18:22 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:11:25 GMT, Passenger Pigeon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Poor Mac. When did the Mac get 256k or 512k?
>
>Now, I know this is a difficult logical leap, but somehow I just assumed
>that the Mac 512k had, oh, somewhere in the ballpark of 512k of memory.
No shit. But when?
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:07:23 GMT
In article <8kmnac$gq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Truckasaurus wrote in message <8kmjo3$vjr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >In article <2Apa5.1507$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > that their products work only to suck money
> >> It's an american company...
> >
> >Oy, Nationalism... Nice going!
> >
>
> Yannick is not American - I believe he was implying that it was
typical for
> an American company to make products whose only use is to suck money.
Exactly!
I do not distinguish a nationalist that says "your country is bad" from
one who says "my country is better".
> Were he American, however (and there are a lot of Americans who think
that
> ms represents the ideal company - it is American and it makes a lot of
> money, therefore it should be encouraged no matter how it is making
that
> money), then condescending sarcasm would definitely be the correct
reponse.
No sarcasm, just pure irony.
By the way:
US drug barons make a lot of money too.
They do it by breaking the law too.
Are there Americans who think that drugdealers represent an ideal
company?
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:21:36 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:06:38 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because there are too many engineers who get too wacked out at the idea
>of supporting *cooperative* application implementations on a user's
>desktop system and can't figure out how to provide the necessary
>functionality without going to PMT.
There are applications where CMT is the right thing. For example, some
real-time systems use CMT in order to improve determinism (at the cost
of more complex software designs). Systems where you mainly only need
task switching rather than true multitasking and have limited system
resources (like the Palm). And so on.
But for general desktop use, PMT is more robust, easier to program for,
and with modern CPU's and schedulers there is no significant downside
to PMT systems.
The reason Win9x sometimes has lousy responsiveness is not because it
is has PMT, but because it has bad PMT. There are a number of design
flaws in Win9x that cause this. A major one is that there is non
reentrant 16-bit legacy code in the critical path for many user-
interface functions. Another is that Win9x's thread support isn't very
good, but the UI model pretty much requires the use of threads to keep
the UI responsive. NT is far superior on both counts, if you must use
a Windows OS.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:23:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:45:25 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
[snip Drestin Black's stuff]
>VB is ONLY available on LoseDOS systems and is ONLY understoond my M$
>droids.
Not quite correct; my understanding is that somebody actually
did bother to port Visual Basic -- aka Active Server Pages --
to a Unix operating system (probably Solaris). Of course this
is only half the story (the other half being COM/ADO/DAO/whatever
they're calling it next week).
>
>Pretty strange definition of "universal" you have there.
>
>Java and Perl are MUCH closer to being available and understood.
I'll admit, I like both of them for specific tasks. I've not
worked with Visual Basic, but I have worked with older variants
of BASIC -- and they're pretty -- um -- basic.
(There are real subroutines in VB, though -- as opposed to GOSUB.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- VD. What you get if you do go outside.
VB. What you get if you don't. :-)
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 15:24:36 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen wrote:
: > As I explained in these groups a couple years ago, it is less the
: > resources than the design orientation. The Original Mac was very tight on
: > memory. If they had given up a few K for a simple PMT system, they would
: > have had the orientation from the start. For whatever reasons (perhaps
: > valid) they felt that other features needed to be there first.
: I implemented PMT on a 6809 system using a only a few hundred bytes of
: overhead, plus a set aside for stack-space for MAX_PROC-1 processes.
Cool. I wish I'd gotten off my butt and written one for my Z80 system
(actually it would have rocked on the Expon QX-10).
We probably shouldn't waste too much time redesigning the 1984 Mac, but I
would want to add semaphores and one method of interprocess communication.
IIRC, the orignial Mac (single tasking, 128K total memory) had 84K left
for application code/heap/stack.
John
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:24:03 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:36:14 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> Thanks for the advice. I installed the user land server. In 24 hours,
> I'll know if it's more reliable than the old one (-;
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
I hope so. I have never had problems with the userland server. It's
very stable (as it is quite a bit more mature, having been around much
longer). Some people point out that the kernel NFSd server is much
faster, but I still say unless you are running some multi-fiber optic
cable machine you will run out of bandwidth before you run out of
"system speed" when it comes to NFS.
Let us know how it turns out.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: 14 Jul 2000 15:15:21 GMT
In article <8keott$g1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why, for example, does the key go into the side of the steering
> wheel? That's not something you'd ever guess if you hadn't seen it
> before.
It doesn't on all cars; on my brother's Saab it goes into a keyswitch
between the driver and front-passenger seats near the handbrake and
gear shift levers...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 14 Jul 2000 15:21:26 GMT
In article <8klo0k$oe3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Translating assembler into machine code. In the early day of home
> computing, I used to do that myself, until I wrote my own editor, assembler,
> and monitors in assembler and hand translated it into machine code and
> entered it a byte at a time into the computer. How many of the new people
> entering the field would still be willing to do that the way we used to?
Speaking as someone who not only wrote his own cross-assembler and
disassembler but also built his own communication hardware and
designed his own asynch comms protocol, I'd say not many of them would
have the sheer stamina to do it. Those that did though, would at
least be the pick of the crop though!
(Thankfully I never properly tried writing my own editor until after
I'd learnt Pascal...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:28:43 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
> signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
> 2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
> far too long, he does nothing!
>
> It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
I've been waiting to see this thread start. It didn't bother me enough
to actually start it myself, but I knew it would get to someone bad
enough to start it.
It isn't something that truly bothers me, but it is something that I
consider a bit rude and obnoxious. But I'm sure I do some things in
here considered rude and obnoxious as well. However, why hog bandwidth
with the same non-sense day in and day out? I guess I'll never know.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:29:45 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> 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"
This right here seems to be a valid and humorous sig. Why not leave it
at that?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:32:04 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:13:47 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So why isn't everyone using a realtime OS on their client desktop PCs?
Because most current desktop systems were not designed for multimedia.
They originated before multimedia became popular. Realtime features
are not easily "tacked on" after the fact, although there are packages
for both NT and Linux that "slide a realtime OS underneath".
There are also disadvantages to realtime systems for desktop use that
are similar to the disadvantages of CMT systems. Realtime systems
allow high-priority tasks to monopolize the system. For many business
applications this is not a good thing. Something like what you call a
"workstation" is in fact more appropriate.
For home entertainment, it certainly would be appropriate to have
realtime features in the OS.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:33:19 -0500
Welcome, welcome, welcome.
I hope you experience a wonderful shift in computer perspectives due to
your new endeavor with Linux. I know I did when I first started using
it.
If you do run into snags, don't hesitate to ask people in the groups
(although this isn't the right group for tech questions, if you ask
politely you will usually get an answer).
Anyway, have fun with your new OS.
Anybody else feel like throwing a Welcome Party?
--
[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
******************************
