Linux-Advocacy Digest #703, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Is RedTyrel an illiterate moron? (was: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?)
Re: Microsoft PalmPcs/Transmeta ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Jim Broughton)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Jimmy Navarro)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Is RedTyrel an illiterate moron? (was: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?)
Date: 15 Jul 2000 18:34:01 -0400
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:47:38 GMT, in the thread "Whites who love
niggers are phonies", [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>They just go along with so called "Politically Correct" genre. What a
>bunch of cowards! No one likes niggers except niggers. Any non-nigger
>who claims to like them is full of shit --- Lying to themselves and to
>others.
>Amusing White Fuckwits; get with the program. Realize that niggers
>hate you and will kill you if they get the chance.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:08:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ahh.. yet another linux user skirting the REAL issue by attacking my
>spelling.. Look PimpleDick..my post is not documentation therefore is
>not subject to scrutiny. The Linux Documentation Project on the other
>hand is representative of the operating system itself. THAT is the
>issue, not my spelling. If Document I cited is representative of the
>OS, then whoooo whoooo....no wonder it's so lame.
>
>Phhht.
>
Is there a link between Windows advocacy and idiocy, or is it just
in this newsgroup? If the above Documents I cited are representative
of Red Tyrel, then whoo-hoo.... No wonder he's so lame.
--
"When are you nigger-loving white folks going to wake the fuck up?"
-- Red Tyrel
Microsoft Windows. The joke that kills.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft PalmPcs/Transmeta
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:49:54 -0400
bigbinc wrote:
>
> I was seaching the net, just browsing like any normal man and I found
> saw all these new handheld pcs and a most of them are sporty
> microsoft's new os. Has microsoft tapped another consumer element. Do
> you think these little pcs will take off anywhere and if they do, will
> this send Microsoft up again? And dont forget the Xbox. I dont really
> know if I like that they have a corner on the computer industry, but I
> must say the people in that organization are good! I use Linux
> everyday for hobby coding and stuff, windows for surfing, and I just
> have to say that linux and microsoft are used with different goals in
> mind by the user. With that in mind, I dont think linux will ever
> compete with Microsoft in the consumer Market, but in the professional
> world it is wide open for linux. And do you think transmeta will have
> any effect on the linux user base. I hear good things.
If Linux captures the business desktop, then Linux will capture the
home market, or force Microsoft to provide interoperability.
Why?
because managers who bring their work home want to have compatibility
with what they use at work.
heh heh
>
> Berlin Brown
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> "...yes darling, computers are people too..."
> http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/lights/5679
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:57:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
(big huge snip)
> LoseDOS doesn't understand the the FIRST problem is to keep a rogue
> program from trashing the system.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You know.... kind of like you make sure that the fuel system doesn't
> catch on fire before worrying about air conditioning and a sunroof.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
(signature sniped)
The first problem is to keep the OS from trashing itself then you move
onto controlling the other problems. M$ programmers seem to break good
OS programming rules at every release.
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
--
If Sense where common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:56:59 GMT
On 15 Jul 2000 16:20:24 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>I would point out that its up to you to provide reason to believe it is
>>>>a practical issue. You have attempted to do so and have found fault
>>>>with your reasoning because of your assumptions that one must be free to
>>>>profiteer in order to earn profit.
>>>
>>>I've said no such thing. I've said you can't give away GPL'd
>>>code in many contexts.
>>
>>Which?
>
>If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>available or the recipient already has it.
...those being "commercial" and pseudo-PD.
[deletia]
Commercial assimilation of free software is why the GPL
got written in the first place and pseudo-PD developers
could solve the issue by merely dropping any pretense.
--
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: Jimmy Navarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:05:23 GMT
Gary Morris wrote:
> > Suck my dick!
>
> As we rapidly advance the theory of civil discussion. Sounds like
> someone's awfully insecure...
Awfully insucure? Why insecure? Insecure from your sucking dooming M$?
> > Your Microsoft has been nipping their competitors in the bud,
> > consumers need a better product that just what is available that
> > sucks. Of course it look good, but do you know how inconvenience
> > you're working a M$ Excel file or a Word file for more than 2 hours
> > then suddenly you get BSOD you don't even have chance to save
> > the file?
>
> If you have that many objections to Windows and Office, use something
> else. On the OS side, there's Linux, Apple, etc. For office suites,
> you have Corel, Lotus or Sun StarOffice on Linux. Whose stopping you?
Verify my message header, I am using non Windows! However, I wish I can
use this robust hybrid enviironment in my workplace who are mostly
clueless MC$Es.
> > How about companies like Sun Microsystem,
> > Silicon Graphics and IBM, these companies makes supercomputers with
> > their own UNIX flavor running in it. Can these companies will get
> > chance to market in the desktops?
>
> None of these companies has ever really tried, to my knowledge.
Sun Microsystem use Window emulator, but very expensive.
> >
> > As a computer end user I want more variety of desktop OS in the ?
> > marketplace not such one you don't have any other choice.
>
> See my previous comments.
I don't waste my time reading your f*cking previous comments.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 19:02:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ray Chason in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Such a person is running what I would call a "workstation", not a
>>desktop client. They *might* benefit from PMT; they would definitely
>>benefit from better design of applications to remove unnecessary
>>responsiveness requirements (responsive to what, if not the user?)
>
>How fast might a professional secretary type? 75 words per minute? Let's
>assume 4.5 characters per word at 75 wpm. That's about 5.6 characters per
>second.
>
>Now consider the humble 56K modem, running flat out at 56,000 bits per
>second. At ten bits per byte (eight data bits, one start bit, one stop
>bit) the modem is "typing" 5600 bytes per second -- *one thousand times*
>as fast as the secretary!
Apparently, in my very rough handling of the discussion on this issue,
I've left some with the impression that I am indeed *deeply* clueless
about the technical issues of PMT and CMT. I guess it is a problem of
my assumption, as I had assumed that those who understood PMT would
understand that CMT is not really that different. The slicing of time
and the cycling of the CPU through all necessary tasks is *always* under
the direct control of the OS; that's what an OS is.
The distinction that I am trying to draw, and use as an illustration of
the potential for gedanken reasoning to result in assumptions rather
than understanding, is between how priorities are determined, in order
to most effectively meet out these atofortnights. (You can tell I've
been browsing the Jargon File again, can't you?) I am the purest of
wannabes when it comes to actually designing such systems, to be sure.
But on making incisive observations on the issues of such intricate
design, and even more complex systems, I have the edge of experience.
Aside from the matter of *control*, which can lead towards many
difficulties when left undefined, as in CMT, and seems to mandate PMT in
the opinion of so many, the only difference in effect, if not operation,
between cooperative multi-tasking and pre-emptive multi-tasking. In
fact, both implement mutli-tasking, the cycling of CPU resources between
all the apps, between all the apps, including kernel and OS utilities,
such as shells, which include "the GUI", in the operating system. And
both allow for programs to demand more resources, and yield their
demand.
In a PMT system, the OS has "the last word", and that is the matter of
control. But cooperative multi-tasking isn't about control; it is about
functionality. The fact that it is a trade-off is obvious; PMT is
superior in providing a stable system. But it seems sadly lacking, to
me, for even being able to suppose that removing the requirement for
control, by encouraging applications which can both flexibly *and*
reasonably handle providing that control, is ultimately a superior
approach.
IF: CMT systems require less memory for a given set of tasks
AND: The failure of CMT is applications which can maintain control
counter-productively
THEN: The optimal system is one in which CMT is used and no applications
maintain control counter-productively
Now down to brass tacks; you can illustrate how this doesn't play out in
real life, or you can argue whether its true. But you can't say it
doesn't make sense to begin with to wonder if it isn't true, and how it
would best be played out in real life.
Consider the possibility, for instance, that *obviously* PMT is far
superior for the design of the OS. But several arguments have led to
the possibility that the shell needs to be very integral to the process.
I'm not really sure why CMT is described as "requiring fewer resources".
I think it is possible that some of the greater flexibility of less
algorithmic control of multi-tasking at the CPU level is really what I'm
arguing for, rather than CMT itself. Could the stability of PMT be
implemented without sacrificing all of the efficiencies of CMT if the
shell acted as a "controlling resource" in scheduling CPU tasks based on
cooperative information compiled from both software and user? Or would
this simply counter-mand the robust nature of PMT, and end up with a
broken shell, like Windows?
I'm certainly flagging on this issue, but every message that 'takes me
to task' seems to generate another response along the same vein.
Perhaps I am just 'not listening', but I'll say again perhaps we
misunderstand the question as asked. I'm not arguing that CMT is better
than PMT.
I'm arguing against the assumption that PMT is great, and RT is even
better. I don't like the notion that "algorithms should handle
everything", even if the alternative seems to be deeply flawed in some
respects. I'd rather have CMT for all of its faults than a real time
OS, if only because the justification for using it is multimedia. I
want my computer to *interface and control* my media equipment, not *be*
my media equipment. That, to me, is supported by the very arguments
often levied against me; one bad apple can screw up the whole system.
So perhaps I'm linking these two issues inappropriately, but perhaps
they are, in fact, linked inappropriately. But the issue keeps coming
up, and I keep seeing many parallels between this and other technical
issues which require many different things to share resources. And the
parallels are apparently incisive. Before TCP/IP provided a level of
independence between software system networks and communications
transmission channels, networks were very efficient, but very
inflexible. We transcended those limitations by re-thinking the idea
that when a computer needs to transfer, a transceiver needs to transmit.
The same effect is achieved, but they are independent actions, and so
are only indirectly dependant on one another. This revolutionized the
field of computer communications *and* programming, and provided a
framework in which client/server computing became possible, and allowed
the same Internet to be easily accessed through both industrial LANs and
home telephone service.
So the immanent removal of the last CMT desktop solution will soon visit
the market. And good riddance; the MacOS was too simple for what people
need their desktops to do today. Is PMT the best we can come up with,
or have we just given up on the problem? (I use the rhetorical 'we' to
engender a spirit of communication and cooperation, not to in even a
small way posture as an expert on the technology involved.)
Isn't it possible that the best answer lies in the clues before us?
That the software level of what gets the benefit of all that CPU power
should, in fact, be divorced from the scheduling of cycles between
processes? Several comments have been made about "when the CPU is at
100%". I say "why is it ever anything else?" Because the applications
don't need that time. So at that point, it isn't an issue of whether
things run cooperatively or pre-emptively; nobody cares. And CMT is
more efficient in memory, I'm told, so now I need to know why. But
jumping over that point, the "utilization" of a CPU is an average over a
time-span. The nanosecond cycles contain only two potential values;
either the CPU is being used or it is not. The problem lies when it is
100% used too many times in a row; things start getting backed up.
Well, if anything gets backed up, and we've got a lot of processes which
could slow down without slowing down what the user finds important,
might we not increase the *apparent* performance of the computer to a
tremendous degree? Wouldn't this require some "co-operation" *including
the attendant potential conflicts*, between applications and their
processes, without requiring algorithmic PMT to begin with in the first
place? An "on demand multi-tasking", you might call it, where it isn't
the cycle time, but the necessity, which determines which process gets
the next nanomicrofortnight or whatever. Yes, it would be *horribly*
inefficient to the person looking only at the lowest level engineering
problems of CPU scheduling. But that's a solved problem. It might get
the job done a lot better in the end. Because what I would truly love
to see, and the only way I know of to gauge whether a scheduler is doing
its job of managing resources at optimum levels, is my computer being at
100% CPU utilization *all the time*, and still not have things get
slower as far as I could be concerned.
And that requires cooperation between applications, if not cooperative
multi-tasking.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[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 19:09:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>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.
Thank you, Aaron. I consider that a cogent and practical response, and
I appreciate it. Programmers *should* want to make their app
voluntarily give up CPU, on signal form the user or anything else, and
they *could*. They also would, I think, if they had a reasonable
supposition that others would give it back, when appropriate.
>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.
Bad CMT isn't an argument against CMT any more than bad PMT is an
argument for CMT.
>Conversely, CMT systems are notorious for incredibly sucky response
>to user's request to change focus from one process to another.
Because the shell is just another process, I guess. When we're talking
CPU cycles, the time from my mouse down to mouse up should be more than
enough time to shift focus, don't you think?
>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.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree if there were still coal-dust
diesel's on the road.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
