Linux-Advocacy Digest #689, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 ("Slava Pestov")
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (Andy Newman)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Student run Linux server. (James deBoer)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Pipes (Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop (Jacques
Guy)
Re: Linux code going down hill ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jeff Szarka)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:10:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>But the purpose of applying these licenses is to apply certain
>>>>restrictions - in perl's case it is to avoid them.
>>>
>>>I was hoping for a response that would give some comparison to the two
>>>license dichotomy, not a value judgement on the motivations of the
>>>authors in choosing their license strategy.
>>
>>So read them. [...]
>
>Did you notice where I said I was hoping for a comparison to the two
>license dichotomy? Apparently you didn't realize that you were supposed
>to be the one to provide that, in your response, according to my wishes.
>I'm not interested in knowing what the licenses say. I want to know
>what you think they say, and what impact that has on their use and the
>marketing of software. If you have nothing to contribute, though...
If you want my opinion, I think it is very good that Larry Wall is
an expert linguist as well as coder and did not allow his code
to be either trapped or excluded by the semantics of the GPL
restrictions.
If you want facts, just read the originals. If you want to know
what I think it says, I think it says that Perl can be used
in combination with really free, commercial, and GPL components
because you are allowed to redistribute under either license.
Which is good, because otherwise someone would probably attempt to
make a compatible re-implementation to apply the alternate
license for the disallowed uses and would be unlikely to
get it exactly right.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:13:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >No. First, as has been said many times, it is impossible to make a CMT
> >app that behaves as it should. Moreover, in most cases it is simply
> >insane to thing a user can just abandon a particular app and switch to
> >another.
>
> I think you're blowing smoke. In the first case, Mac may have had lots
> of apps that you say don't behave "as it should", but it was a
> successful platform.
What's your point?
> In the second case, I 'abandon' one app and switch
> to another on a dime, a thousand times a day.
Let's try to live in the real world, shall we?
Most people need to use specific apps, like Microsoft Word or Adobe
Photoshop. Something like Photoshop is essentially one of a kind.
There's nothing to switch to.
> But maybe you're just saying "you need all your apps to be working
> all the time", though CMT doesn't prevent that any more effectively
> than PMT does,
Yes it does.
> outside the horror-story case of an app that doesn't yield.
This is a constant issue. Every app yields essentially according to the
whims of whoever designed it (one of those clueless engineers you seem
to hate so much), with no regard for whatever other processes might be
running. A CMT system making efficient use of CPU time is the exception,
not the norm.
> >> and with PMT, it was the engineer
> >> who insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that
> >> tenet.
> >
> >Obviously it is the engineer who decides which system is superior. The
> >end user isn't qualified.
> [snip]
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:11:57 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
I was having no end of trouble with win98 until I discovered the ECC switch in
the bios. So makes you wonder just what and how many bugs the error
correction code in the cpu has to deal with running windoze 98. I don't
recall Linux having the same problem.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:43:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <bVub5.36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>> > 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?
>> >
>>
>> Illogical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
>
> What alleged "the"?
>
Reading comprehension problems, eh tinman? The question was:
"On what basis do you make that claim?"
>> >>
>> >> > And why else would I post?
>> >>
>> >> Don't you know?
>> >
>> > Why do you ask?
>> >
>>
>> Don't you know?
>
> Illogical.
What you think is illogical is irrelevant. What you can prove is
relevant.
> Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
On the contrary, you simply failed to locate the response.
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > > 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.
>> >
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary.
How are the daisies on irrelevancy lane, tinman?
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
>> >
>> > <*tink* *tink*> This one.
>> >
>>
>> Evidence, please.
>
> Reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>
Obviously not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 11:06:16 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sadly, there's a horrifying impetus in my home state that favors dumping
>the traditional educational operating systems in favor of a closed
>Microsoft-only campus.
Horrid. Maybe they could dump mechanical engineering too and just
read workshop service manuals. Or replace medical degrees with a
drug shop checkout operations course.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:50:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8knruu$tpr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ahh.. yet another linux user skirting the REAL issue by attacking my
> spelling..
> my post is not documentation therefore is
> not subject to scrutiny.
He who lives in a glass house should not cast stones.
>The Linux Documentation Project on the other
> hand is representative of the operating system itself.
No, it is only representative of the effort the individual authors have put
into providing you and others a gift in the form of documentating their
knowledge and experiences to provide you and the rest of us with the
information that we would otherwise have to develop from scratch.
I applaude their efforts on our behalf, so long as the information is
accurate I am not too worried in how it is presented. As long as it is
written in a language that I can read, I am happy. If you find the errors
to be such a problem as you seem to and you have not taken any action to
help improve it, then YOU are the problem.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
> THAT is the
> issue, not my spelling.
You have made it the issue. When you start chiding other for their spelling
and other error you are honor bound to be as accurate as you would have them
be.
I am now reminded of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
> If Document I cited is representative of the
> OS, then whoooo whoooo....no wonder it's so lame.
"If Document I cited" <-- that won't earn you and prize in an english
contest.
"whoooo whoooo" <<-- now what is this, are you playing choo choo train?
It appears as though you come here with the preconcieved notion that Linux
is "lame" and you have tried to use this artificial issue to prove the
point. Since the documentation you refer to is a sepperate effort by
individuals, the only thing you have proven is your own ignorance.
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:51:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Restructuring critical code sections to be guarded with "lock" flags
>> > normally takes all of a couple minutes for most algorithms.
>> > | <http://znu.dhs.org>
>> >
>>
>> I imagine in some situations, multiple toolbox calls must be executed
>> 'atomically', without intervention from other apps. Eg:
>>
>> DoSomething(&some_struct); DoSomethingElse(&some_struct);
>> DoMoreStuff(&some_struct);
>>
>> Where 'some_struct' is something that would be left in an incosistent
>> state if another app begins executing before the code block is done.
>> Fixing it would require apps to be rewritten to put locks around all
>> such code.
>
> So be it.
>
> You simply grep for them, and place the locking code.
I imagine this is what the Carbon developers are doing right now :-)
Slava
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James deBoer)
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:51:03 GMT
Koules was a great game... It was a SVGALib game that was bundled with
Slackware 4. You were a ball and the point of the game was to bounce the
other balls off the screen.
> Speaking of the females of the Human species. Are there any
>non-violent games for us that work under Linux? I am not interested in
>blood, guts and gore (doom) or quake. As for your "care bears" quip. I
>don't think That exsists in linux anyway. Some girls like romance or
>mystery games.
>
>--
>
> B'ichela
>
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:53:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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.
Why?
Slava
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:16:25 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "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?
That would be fine, its 4 lines long, which is acceptable by
netiquette standards. The problem is Nathaniel, this is only a
*fraction* of his normal sig. The above is only the first
*paragraph*. His normal sig is *29* lines long, *29*, look around,
you can easily find a post from him with the full sig. You can also
find posts which have the full sig, sent *after* his response above,
so maybe we should ask him why he cut his sig down, just for this
response in this thread?
The full sig reads like a continuation of old arguments he's had with
other folks in other groups (maybe here as well, I don't know), which
makes it utterly pointless to every one else, *besides* the people he
mentions in the sig. That's why I suggested earlier that Aaron send
this to the people mentioned in the sig, and stop spamming the rest of
us.
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Ed C.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:16:17 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> No, you won't friggen' start with any friggen' reading list. You'll
> explain it, or you won't. Sounds like you won't. I don't need to
> become an expert; I need some dweeb with an IQ better than his gas
> mileage to explain it quickly and efficiently so that I might continue
> the discussion. If it is a project for more than twenty or thirty
> minutes, you're just not able to handle it, and you should admit it.
>
> No, nothing is simple. Until you understand it, and I thought you
> understood it. I'm willing to take your word for it; I'm not some
> engineer who's going to insist that every individual thing you say is
> not only wrong but ludicrously wrong until you can convince me
> otherwise. Just choke it out, for Christ's sake.
>
> Geez.
>
You have been going on for days about how great CMT is and how bad PMT is,
yet you openly admit that you don't understand them nor are you willing to
pick up a book a read about them. Ok, let's turn the tables, Please
explain how CMT is more responsive to user interface requests than PMT. No
reading lists. No long winded jaunts into fantasy land. Nice and simple.
I really want to know.
Gary
------------------------------
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 23:21:12 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:35:20 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
> >>>The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
> >>>(PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
> >>
> >>Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
> >>scheduling. My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
> >>end result is valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
> >>insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
> >
> >What is your fixation with "the engineer" (who is this guy?) anyway?
>
> Specialists of all types and varieties, who view things from a
> specialists' perspective. I'm a generalist, and to me they look
> clueless, because they are, outside their specialties, for the most
> part.
>
> >The market has decided, and we've basically shown CMT the door.
>
> No, CMT has capitulated, as its not worth arguing about. ;-)
> If it was a market decision thing, it wouldn't have been around for a
> decade.
With all sincerity, Max, I've NEVER seen a CMT system that provided
decent user response. The problem is, NO programmer wants to make
his application volountarily give up the CPU without an explicit
signal from the user.
This translates into ungodly huge amounts of wasted clock cycles
waiting on I/O which could be used for processing background jobs
with little or no difference in the of the process which is currently
in-focus in the gui.
Conversely, CMT systems are notorious for incredibly sucky response
to user's request to change focus from one process to another.
For this reason, I rate it right up there with coal-dust diesel
engines for automobiles: Yes, it *does* work....but just barely,
and not nearly as well as liquid fuel engines.
--
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: "Colin R. Day" <[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 23:56:41 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" 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. I don't *need* it right
> >> now.
> >
> >Just because a job doesn't need your direct attention doesn't mean that
> >the computer your take its sweet time with it. After all, you may have a
> >client waiting.
>
> What part of "desktop platform" didn't you understand?
Sorry, I meant clients as customers, not machines. A customer pays
you to run a complex simulation. The simulation does not require your
attention after you start it, but it does require the lion's share of the
CPU. If the customer pays enough, I will put up unresponsive apps
to run the simulation.
>
>
> (Sorry, I'm just teasing. Yes, it is an assumption that the desktop OS
> won't be responsible for serving remote clients.)
>
> >> down the *foreground* netscape from rendering.
> >
> >How many people really need this?
>
> I would LOVE to have more control over my computer, it whatever useful
> ways that can be provided.
> One of the coolest utilities I've seen for
> handling Internet stuff is a download app called GoZilla. This handy
> little database inserts itself in the way whenever I click a link in a
> browser that would start a download. It keeps track of my downloads and
> makes managing them in all sorts of ways much easier. But that's not
> why I got it. The thing I love is that each download window for each
> separate file has a little slider in it, which enables me to
> individually and directly control (as well as set defaults and policies
> with download categories) how much of my available throughput that one
> particular download is allowed to take.
But how does this relate to CMT? This seems to be network bound
rather than CPU bound. Can one do this in CMT? One can do this
with CPU time in Linux, at least if one is root (shouldn't be a problem
on a personal desktop machine), although I don't know if there is a
nice GUI front end.
> Sometimes I just move them
> around to play, but often I am optimizing and balancing my resources.
> No algorithm could possibly produce or mimic the benefits of this
> mechanism. Most of the time I don't use it, so its automatically
> handled. But when I find it useful, it is because it is useful, not
> because the alternative is wasteful of resources; it just can't know
> what "waste" means, because it can't make value judgements. It can make
> trade-offs, sure but only based on math, not knowledge or reasoning.
>
That's why there is nice/renice.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 04:04:49 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pipes (Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I bow to your superior knowledge.
Yoo ort 2 bo two mie soupeerier speallignk!
(I'm only doing a stand-in for Tim--eye sore toe
missed him)
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:03:59 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:11:34 -0400, Colin R. Day wrote:
>
> >Damn. I must have missed it, sorry.
>
> I think this one is fairly new ( rpm >= 3 ).
Well, I have 3.03.
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:05:48 -0400
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:46:19 GMT, "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking at
>the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
Just curious... How do you "tweak it at the command line level" ?
Shoulda booted the CD and not run WINNT.EXE from DOS. If it took you
anywhere near 5.5 hours that's probably what you did.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
