Linux-Advocacy Digest #711, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Can the long sigline, please (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451742 (EdWIN)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Paul Wilson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:38:26 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
> >[snip]
> >> Obviously not a defense of the Microsoft troll who posted that this
case
> >> concerns whether you can or "can't have a Internet browsing in a
> >> sufficiently popular desktop OS?" But hopefully it was educational and
> >> interesting to those with more than one tenth of a brain.
> >
> >Or at least for lawyers. You appear to feel that what matters is not
> >whether it is a good or a bad idea for the DoJ, or Congress, or
> >Judge Jackson to go around designing OSes, but whether
> >*that is what the law mandates*.
> >
> >This suggests to me that you may be a lawyer.
> >
> >Is that so?
>
> Not at all. I agree most heartily that it is a bad idea for the DOJ,
> Congress, or Judge Jackson to design OSes. We merely disagree in the
> fact that I don't believe that has anything to do with Microsoft's
> conviction on anti-trust grounds.
>
> >If so, I can understand why you can't accept my squealing about
> >being reamed in the name of anti-trust. If law says I should
> >be, then what could I possibly be complaining about? Is the
> >law, after all!
> >
> >If you aren't a lawyer, then I guess I don't understand why this
> >is mysterious to you.
>
> It is mysterious to me because whether or not bundling IE with Windows
> to kill Netscape by trying to "cut off their air supply" is not a
> question of designing an OS, but of building and selling a product. It
> is, indeed, incredibly lousy OS design, IMHO, but that is, indeed,
> beside the point. Microsoft is free to make stupid design decisions.
> They are not free to force them on the market through monopolization or
> tying.
Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software (*including
a ham sandwich), and it is their right to have their product distributed in
a un altered state. Every software maker has the right to insist that 2nd
party distributors not re-write the software before distribution.
It is ludicrous to assert that OEM's should be allowed to delete MSIE before
distribution or remove the Microsoft Windows start up splash screen as some
wanted to do a few years back.
Netscape didn't have any supposed "air supply" cut off by Microsoft
including a browser with the OS. Netscape was included on nearly every OEM
master restore disk anyway, and they had deals with many major software
makers to be included on many install disks. And Netscape was always freely
downloadable! It was basically free even before they officially gave it
away. Free in the sense that they was an unspecified "trial period" with
absolutely no nag screen or reminder- ever.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:00:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>It was a "Unix world" and we still don't have an answer as to the
>who, what and where, even though we gave the network sniffer results
>to the IT professionals running the show.
It was the Microsoft world that had, and caused, the problem. In the
Unix world, you'd already know which UTP port had the conflict.
>It takes two to tango. Here it took three. This is *NOT* a mass
>market software product. It is used in one application by one user
>(in multiple locations). The application involves 11 networked
>computers passing real time data back and forth (at each location).
>The restriction of a private, disconnected sub-net wasn't hidden, it
>was an up-front requirement and agreed to by the cost-conscious client.
Sorry, I don't think it matters. As you can see, it is important for
even software which is not a "mass market product" to properly implement
port usage.
>So it took...
>1. The Windows application to react badly to an unexpected UDP message.
>
>2. The Unix System to network *broadcast* to an unassigned port.
There's no such thing. Ports don't exist until they are assigned;
before that, they're just integers. Port mapping is an *autonomous*
behavior, by design.
>3. The user to mistakenly think his IT professionals put in the
>isolation router as they said they would.
There's only one error here. A Windows application that GPF'd because
it was badly written. I had thought this error was limited to
hard-coding the port. Apparently handling unknown messages badly was a
problem as well, and that's a separate, though related, mistake. A
properly written application should be able to handle an unrecognizable
datagram without bombing completely.
>As to the Dr. Watson. In a way, I am glad it happened. Yes, it would
>have been more professional for a "UDP message from unknown origin"
>message box appear, but the user would have probably ignored that.
>(That ended up being part of the bug fix).
You mean ignoring an error, or having the program handle it correctly?
Having it cause a pop-up message box is a bad move, as well; it should
be logged, and otherwise ignored.
>As to the "hard-coded UDP port". Please note, in a system of many
>executables on many systems, only one executable needed to be changed.
>The UDP port was dynamically negotiated across the network. There
>was one parameter that needed to be changed. Could that parameter
>have been stored in the Windows registry or a *.cfg file? I
>understand you opinion but, in this case, a hard coded port is
>defendable under the KISS principle.
A hard coded port is never defendable under the KISS principle, not if
the person writing the software deserves the moniker "professional".
>No, I suspect it was the Unix programmers that hard coded their UPD
>port in multiple boxes. At least they claimed it would have taken
>a massive number man-hours to change it.
Perhaps, but none of them were hard-coded. This is why, in fact, it
would have "taken time"; each system is autonomous and the port must be
remapped explicitly. I wouldn't expect it to be "massive", but I'm not
surprised if you were blown off when you suggested they change it
because somebody on a Windows system has a hard-coded port.
>I understand your violent reaction to unprofessional programmers
>in the Microsoft world. And, yes, there are more of them in the
>Microsoft world. And, yes, the Microsoft world makes it easier
>for people to pretend to be knowledgeable.
None of those are what I have a reaction to. It is the environment they
are in and its encouragement of both their and others' cluelessness
which I abhor.
>But...
>
>The market wants the Microsoft world. Companies don't want to have
>systems that require on-staff system engineers to support them.
I think we've been through this, Dave. The market has been trained to
accept the Microsoft world. What they want is PCs. There is no Unix
arrogance in my position. And I don't understand why "on-staff system
engineers" are so horrible, in comparison to "on-staff MCSEs",
particularly when the latter are generally more clueless than the
former.
>Clueless programmers are cheaper and more productive. The fact
>they produce junk is of little consequence in "look at the next
>quarter's profit margin" world. Does it work, today? Good enough.
So apparently you see my point. Acceptance of this kind of attitude is
tacit advocation of it, in my opinion.
[...]
>We are the middle-men. We get overly-aggressive, under-funded
>projects from our clients and junk from vendors and make it all
>come out in the end. It involves assisting and educating both
>parties. We are constantly sending unacceptable hardware and
>software back to vendors with suggested fixes. We are also
>explaining cost and schedule trade-offs to our customers which
>includes overt discussions about compromised quality and stability.
Good for you. Tell your programmers not to hard code ports.
>I'll be curious if you see us as being part of the problem or part
>of the cure.
A little of both, like most everybody else. I'm not a fan of false
dichotomies. People and attitudes, not companies and markets, are what
make the difference between the two.
>Without hesitation we will take the more stable product
>if the cost and availability are even close to a less stable product.
Well, who wouldn't? The question is how much "even close" means.
>Personally and professionally I want Linux to be successful, but
>a recent conversation with a vendor would illustrate the current
>problem.
>Me: "Your product caused a BSOD on our client's computer"
>Vendor: "Windows NT does that all the time, use should use Linux"
>Me: "Do you have a Linux driver for this hardware?"
>Vender: "No"
Me: "Why not, and how long do you expect us to continue supporting a
product which fails for our customer's?"
>I eventually tracked down the problem, and the fix (more waving of
>dead chickens). Again, our clients were delighted because they were
>afraid they were just going to have to live with it (the alternative
>would have cost millions of dollars).
>
>As I have hinted, this month we are actively pursuing a Linux
>opportunity. So do you curse us for covering up Microsoft's
>mistakes, or praise us for our efforts to promote the use of
>Linux?
Both, of course. I also pity you for being forced to make up for
Microsoft's mistakes, as I do the rest of the industry, as well.
I said your story was a perfect illustration of my point, not of an
unethical organization duping people for profit. I apologize if I
didn't make that clear. Everyone in the illustration was an unwitting
victim, in my book, not a villain. It is the vague unseen forces we
allow to control us which are the villains. Encouragement of
cluelessness is rarely an intentional practice; it happens accidentally
when we're paying attention to something else.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Can the long sigline, please
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:01:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Lyday in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>>
>> A good OS should NEVER need to be reinstalled.
>
>Linux needs to be reinstalled on rare occasions. Therefore it is not a
>good OS?
Linux never needs to be reinstalled. It is sometimes merely the easiest
way to reset the entire configuration, when figuring out or modifying
all the individual changes is not efficient.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451742
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 23:01:21 -0700
The Tholy Thole Tholenated:
>Today's Tholenfication:
>
>1> I have it on good authority that the president reciprocates
for Dave
>1> Tholen pre-emptively.
>
>And who might that "good authority" be, Thorne?
Sorry, I can't reveal my sources.
>1> [snip]
>
>2> The Tholy One Tholenfied:
>2>
>2> Have mercy, O Great Thole! Spare me the fury of your
>2> assteriods! Teach me the way of true Tholenment.
>
>You still haven't learned, Thorne.
What haven't I learned?
>
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:19:11 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Max, you're trying to argue about the pros and cons of CPU scheduling
after
> >admitting (and demonstrating) you don't know even the basic concepts
> >involved. If that isn't arguing from a position of complete and utter
> >ignorance (especially given how many people have explained, calmy and
> >rationally, *why* you're wrong) I don't know what is.
>
[chomp]
> Arguing from a position of ignorance is when you say just because
> something isn't known it is true. Questioning whether something is true
> is not arguing from ignorance. I've never assumed something isn't true
> because you can't explain it to me. But I won't assume that your
> explanation of something makes it true. If I can question your answer,
> I've a right to do so, and free from ridicule, if you will pardon my
> pointing it out.
The fact that my explanations agree with the half-dozen others here that are
being posted, and that they all disagree with you, should give you some clue
as to whether or not my explanation is, at the least, marginally accurate.
You might have been "questioning whether something was true" initially, but
since you have continued with that question, despite being told many times
how and why it is wrong, puts you in a position of deliberate ignorance.
> So I'll ask again. Is it true that a scheduler is necessary to provide
> robust and reliable multi-tasking?
A scheduler of some description is required to provide *any* multitasking.
A CMT scheduler is sufficient when the developers of OS and applications can
collaborate to tune their applications and OS to work together. In practice
it won't work very well for anything except very simple (a couple of tasks)
multitasking. Not because of any assumptions made by "engineers", as you
seem to think, but because of the inherent flaws in its design. In a CMT
system, the applications are in control and determine how well the
multitasking works. A CMT system increases code complexity and hence, the
number of bugs and time to market.
A PMT scheduler is far superior when response time is considered to be very
important. Also when many processes will be running which have originated
from different developers. By only allocating CPU time to processes that
need it, and *guranteeing* all processes will get at least some minimum
amount of CPU time, if they need any at all, respnosiveness and efficiency
are _vastly_ improved. This also removes the ability of a single process to
hanf the entire system by refusing to yield. In a PMT system, the Operating
System is in control. A PMT system decreases code complexity because
application developers no longer have to be concerned with CPU scheduling,
just with the functional code.
Both have their uses, and places. Common sense (and experience) dictates
CMT is in no way a better solution for a general purpose desktop system.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:22:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Oh, sure, I can agree with that. A computer, which we can take to mean
>a desktop workstation that can run user-installed mass-market software,
>should probably not run a realtime OS. It might be appropriate to make
>sure that the OS does not make things unnecessarily bad for multimedia
>by, for example, minimizing kernel latencies. But a full realtime OS
>might bring more disadvantages than advantages for general use.
>
>On the other hand, it would be appropriate to have such for the DVD
>player and the TV set themselves, environments where the designer can
>control what software will be running. More and more embedded devices
>actually do have operating systems these days you know. And many of
>them are sprouting computer-like interfaces such as on-screen menus.
Certainly; I assume that they are all real-time. You may develop the
software for such a system in a modular "common set"/"application", but
the whole thing is the "operating system" of the device, as far as I'm
concerned.
>If you want to be able to talk on the network and have some sort of user
>interface beyond pushing some buttons on the remote, having an OS makes
>the product much easier to design and debug. The fact that 32-bit
>chips and memory are getting really cheap makes the additional overhead
>negligible compared to the benefits.
I see what you mean, but I again don't think there are any efficiencies
in over-complicating these devices. I'm not necessarily considering a
standard network setup, though I suppose that is the most probable
scenario. Even still, they are special purpose devices, and don't
benefit from being dealt with as hosts in their own right, IMHO. It
makes much more sense to use, ironically, I think, a special hardware
interface. A card in the PC, and standard cabling directly to the
multi-media equipment.
[...]
>I think the manufacturers would like to sell a special "home
>entertainment computer" with some kind of realtime OS. This might
>actually make sense for the consumer too. The interface could be
>specialized for multimedia and the device would not need to run
>off-the-shelf software, minimizing administration. I visualize a sort
>of "multimedia appliance".
Didn't I just say, and you agree, that this is a dumb idea? If it
doesn't run off-the-shelf software, it isn't a computer by my
definition. You've visualized the kind of "its better if we sell them
one big thing so that nobody can sell them other little things and steal
our market with interoperability" nightmare I'd like to avoid. No,
integration in place of interoperability does *not* make sense for the
consumer. Most especially because it weakens the demand for
interoperability, and is thus short-sighted.
>I'm not competent to comment on the legal issues you raise. It does
>seem though, that there is a developing market for specialized
>computing devices that deal with the problems of a particular niche.
>Email appliances, entertainment, internet gateways, and so on. Each of
>these could benefit from some amount of customization of the OS that
>controls them.
Why not just customization of the application that controls them? They
are appliances, after all. A decisive difference, I think.
>>There's a difference between "I want my MTV", and "I want my MTV along
>>with 14 other channels in a package with bloated a la carte pricing, if
>>any at all is available to begin with".
>
>Isn't that what we already have?
Yes. Thus my concern about continuing the progression by thinking that
integration is better than interoperability between autonomous systems.
>There is more than one "market" on the desktop. The requirements of an
>engineer doing finite-element analysis are different from those of a
>secretary are different than those of a home user who wants to write a
>letter to grandma. I don't think any one configuration of one OS can
>fulfill them all.
I don't think finite-element analysis is part of the desktop market. I
do still distinguish between a workstation and a desktop, although I
don't differentiate, despite the acknowledged possibility in the
differences in role and use, between a desktop in business and one at
home.
--
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:24:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>A lot of words and no substance,
A lot of words, which went unheeded, it appears.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:29:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Perhaps I should start using the term "Devlin" whenever I
>want to insult someone.
Roger uses "Max", but I'll leave it for you to decide.
>Of course, I doubt that would matter to you since I'm
>sure that's not your real name, and even if it were, you are too pig-headed to
>care.
Were I an unreasonable man I would be concerned.
--
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:35:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> I was under the impression that this is what I had, by way of these
>> advocacy groups, yes. Imagine my surprise when I get ridiculed, not for
>> being so clueless as to ask questions, but for knowing enough to ask
>> them in ways that contradict the easy answers.
>
>You are getting ridiculed for asking questions, receiving answers,
>dismissing the answers on no solid grounds, and then asking the
>questions again.
So you keep saying. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that maybe I did not
understand the answer, or that you did not understand my question.
>It also doesn't help that you continually insist everyone who disagrees
>with you is some kind of narrow-minded specialist who refuses to
>question assumptions. PMT's superiority for general purpose multitasking
>desktop operating systems is not an assumption, it is a logical
>conclusion that anyone who understands the issues will come to, and it
>is one that holds up very well in the real world.
Perhaps but for the fact that "any one who understands the issues", at
least when you've got a cheap client to build, is a slight
over-statement, you are entirely correct.
But I do keep getting dragged back into the same cycle, and will admit
it is my own fault. But my view of specialists is somewhat
well-grounded, in point of fact. And in networking you can earn the
title "engineer" with a two week training course or three. I have been
reminded that this isn't the case in system development has been, to my
embarrassment.
Thanks for the effort. I do appreciate it.
--
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:42:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, I know. But at least it assigns the app, not the scheduler, the
>> ability to make that determination. An app is not aware of what else is
>> running, necessarily. That doesn't mean it has to be ignorant.
>> Something more adaptive than a scheduler, but more controlled than a
>> daisy-chain, might be called for.
>>
>
>WRONG. With CMT, it is not the app that needs the cpu now that determines
>when to get control, it is the OTHER app that currently has control that
>determines when to give up control. In other words, it is the wrong app that
>has the power. Can't you see that? With PMT it is precisely the opposite,
>assuming the app that needs control has a higher prioriy - which it will if it
>is a user interface request that causes to app to need to gain control.
I see your point. It shouldn't be the other app that "determines when
to give up control", though, it should be the common rules which I
assumed are what make up the Cooperative Multi-tasking system as a
whole. I know you realize I don't know the details, but I figured there
must be some maximum quantum which the active process can use until
yielding. Is this incorrect? Considering the true time span of these
quantum, I get the impression that "responsiveness" may be a term with a
slightly unique flavor when discussing multi-tasking, but I can't be
sure.
--
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: Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:41:08 -0500
Ray Chason wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
> >
> >I finally got off my arse and quickly coded up a quick shell script that
> >undoes the "staircase" problem some printers have.
> >
> >It is:
> >
> >---begin---
> >cat > /tmp/temp
> >perl -pi.bak -e 's/\n/\r\n/g' /tmp/temp
> >lpr /tmp/temp
> >rm /tmp/temp
> >---end---
> >
> >Once chmoded executable, to use you simply type this at the command line:
> >
> >lprint <file.txt
>
> There's a script to do this in the Printing-HOWTO:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> # This script must be executable: chmod 755 filter
> while(<STDIN>){chop $_; print "$_\r\n";};
> # You might also want to end with a form feed:
> #print "\f";
>
> Remove the '#' from last line if you need a form feed at the end. Save
> this as /var/spool/lpd/lf-to-crlf.pl, chmod it to 755, and have this entry
> in /etc/printcap:
>
> lp:lp=/dev/lp0:sd=/var/spool/lpd:if=/var/spool/lpd/lf-to-crlf.pl:sh
>
> You can then just say "lpr foo" and your file will print without
> staircasing.
Owch! What if the last character of a line (e.g., before EOF) isn't a
\n? Much safer to use chomp() than chop().
Paul
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
