Linux-Advocacy Digest #744, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:49:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:22:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>>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.
>
>>I see what you mean, but I again don't think there are any efficiencies
>>in over-complicating these devices.
>
>No, but then again having network interfaces and the like sort of sets
>a floor on complexity. Even networks optimized for such devices have a
>certain amount of overhead and there are good cost reasons to stick with
>standard hardware as much as possible.
Yes, but I think the floor on complexity for a network interface is far
below that required to make the devices seriously programmable. You
don't need a computer-style operating system just to support a host
address and a software protocol.
>>>I think the manufacturers would like to sell a special "home
>>>entertainment computer" with some kind of realtime OS.
>
>>Didn't I just say, and you agree, that this is a dumb idea?
>
>I agree that PC operating systems shouldn't become realtime DVD
>players. I do think that there is in fact a market for something
>somewhat less functional for entertainment purposes only. The
>continued success of game consoles seems to imply that there's more to
>it than just manufacturer greed.
Yes, quite the opposite, I think. It is the "convergence/integration"
mirage which is driven by manufacturer greed. I don't see it as you
need something less functional than a PC to be a DVD player. I see it
as you need something more functional - at being a DVD player. Just a
regular old DVD player. I just don't want to complicate things by
trying to simplify them. You see what I mean?
>I can envision some sort of home entertainment appliance that controls
>the audio and video gadgets and integrates with an HDTV display. This
>is one of the applications of Bluetooth networking, to enable this kind
>of thing to be done in a way that allows multi-vendor interoperability
>in a way similar to existing component stereos and the like.
Yea! Yea! Yea!
Any hints on where to find good info on Bluetooth?
>There's no need to have vendor lock-in for this type of equipment any
>more than there is for current A-V components. It is just a matter of
>standards, as existing RCA jacks, standard signal levels, and such were.
Well, I would have to say its a *bit* more complicated. Modern A-V
equipment might be improving, but standardizing control I/O is the
tricky part. My friend Kyle has a home theater setup, and he uses
something he calls "The Remote of the Gods". Its this major unit from
Mirantz (sp?) that he can program with multiple 'menu' layouts and
macros and everything. Its "self configuring", in that you point your
old remotes at it, hit the buttons on each unit, and viola. But
centralizing control through such a method just seems non-sensical. We
need "back door" control panels; signaling is just the start of the
issue. I think whole "interface negotiation methods" must be developed.
And there's no sign of any interest in the industry on that, AFAIK,
though that isn't an industry I'm current in, ever.
[...]
>>Why not just customization of the application that controls them? They
>>are appliances, after all. A decisive difference, I think.
>
>In an appliance it's all one thing to the user. To the engineer it
>isn't, but to the user it is what it is since he can't replace
>individual parts. The engineer will want to customize the OS to
>eliminate parts he doesn't need and enhance parts that influence his
>application. The user doesn't need to care about this, only about the
>external interfaces.
I don't really care if the engineers want to think of the software as
having a system level and a service level; an OS and an app. To me, the
difference between OS and app is no longer an engineering issue,
directly. It is a necessary paradigm for end-user general purpose
computing. If the user doesn't need to care, then there's not really an
OS there, in my mind. But I guess that is only yet more proof that I am
not, in fact, an engineer, and don't see things from the same
perspective. If you customize the OS for the application, its not an
OS, and its not an application; they're just two parts of the a single
thing, of arbitrary distinction.
>>Thus my concern about continuing the progression by thinking that
>>integration is better than interoperability between autonomous systems.
>
>I have not been following develpments all that closely, but I am aware
>of some standards efforts in the areas under discussion. The important
>players seem to be involved, so it is not clear to me that we are
>heading down the "all in one" road. If there is a standard way for the
>computer to talk to the TV and the DVD and so on, then you can mix and
>match as you can with existing systems. I agree with you that we don't
>want to be on the "all in one" road.
>
>I think consumers will demand that of future home entertainment
>systems, since they are used to it in existing ones. There's also a
>big hobbyist base that will complain loudly if things aren't done
>"right".
Hoorah. Encouraging words.
>>>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
>
>>I don't think finite-element analysis is part of the desktop market. I
>>do still distinguish between a workstation and a desktop,
>
>Ok, whatever. The fact is that PC's are often used in both roles.
>Microsoft for instance sells two different lines of operating systems
>to the two markets.
Resulting, I think, in insufficient specialization for both desktop and
workstation. I'd like to see Linux deal with the issue more
functionally. Granted, its mostly a hardware difference, these days.
But I think we've still got a lot to learn about how to make a personal
computer, and innovation breads divergence. At least I hope it does.
--
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: Chad Irby <[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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:51:38 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well we could start a large circular argument in which we both
> eventually waste 8 hours of our lives comparing and quoting
> "documents" I really don't wish to do this.
You misspelled "that you really don't understand..."
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:54:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Slava Pestov in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who, in each and every one of his
>posts, rehashes the same invalid argument ("CMT gives me more control"),
>makes snide remarks about certain unspecified "engineers" (whoever
>they may be), routinely makes illogical remarks with little or no
>relevance to the argument ("I don't want algorithms running my life")
>and refuses to read papers and actually learn something about
>the basics of multitasking, even when given URLs and references.
What the hell are you talking about? I read every accessible reference
provided to me. All three of them. I'd appreciate it, too, if you
would only use quote marks when you're quoting me. I understand what
you're saying, and I can't rightly disagree, as in some respects you've
very adroitly captured my original comments on that matter.
Nevertheless, you are not quoting me.
--
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:00:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>And generalists are, when it comes to making decisions that lie within
>the domains of specialists, just as clueless.
Quite true.
>Which, in a nut shell, is how I view you: intelligent, but clueless.
Quite true.
>> No, CMT has capitulated, as its not worth arguing about. ;-)
>
>Because a lost cause . . . is a lost cause.
>
>Same thing, different phrasing.
Quite true.
>> If it was a market decision thing, it wouldn't have been around for a
>> decade.
>
>Yes it would. As a generalist, you should be well aware of the simple
>fact that most decisions are multi-variate.
>
>The inferiority of CMT to PMT is not a fact that stands alone. It is a
>fact that is tied to other facts, some of which, in the minds of some
>users, far outweigh the issue of CMT vs. PMT. Ask any Mac user, and
>they will sing the praises of an interface that, to me, is almost
>indistinguishable from any other GUI as an example.
Quite true.
>> I am completely blind, that's how.
>
>No, you are clueless. Here's a clue:
>
>PMT systems maintain a centralized store of information re: tasks, their
>states, and their priority settings. CMT systems do this as well, but
>in the case of PMT, PMT also has the *power* to enforce a scheduling
>policy based on this information, while CMT cannot.
I've just gotten too used to working, in networking, with systems that
deal with the requirement for control in a cooperative, rather than a
centralized, fashion. I thought perhaps the idea might benefit a
desktop OS in dealing with multi-tasking as well. But I suppose, as
others have noted, the CPU is so uncommon a bottleneck as to make the
issue quite trivial.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 06:04:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when KLH would say:
>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> While I agree with the rest of your posting, I have to take issue with:
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:56:41 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Even without Linux's input, UNIX is still the
>> >only viable solution for mission critical applications.
>>
>> There are many other solutions out there even more suited for
>> mission-critical work than Unix, even though they're out of hacker favor:
>> OS/390, VMS, NonStop Kernel... The kinds of things hackers don't like
>> playing with, but that can run for literally years without ever having to
>> come down for any reason at all, *including* hardware failure.
>>
>> Unix is certainly more suited for mission-critical work than Windows of
>any
>> stripe, but that doesn't make it necessarily the best.
>
>Sometimes I don't understand how anything as complex as UNIX can be as
>stable.
>
>It's complexity is one reason I think it should be killed. Not that I know
>of any suitable replacement for a general-purpose operating system, but I
>don't think it is the OS I want the future to use.
It's all well and good to think UNIX is not in "your preferred future."
That does little to imply any likelihood that anything that _would_ be
in "your preferred future" could actually represent reality.
The guys that wrote the UNIX Haters Book largely held a big "gripe
session" about the things they hated about UNIX. Unfortunately, there
is very little in that book that could be used to infer the properties
of what the "Haters" might actually _WANT_.
Some of them now work at Microsoft, but I rather think that they could
produce an _even more scathing_ set of criticisms about the "MS Options."
The "X hater" amongst them, Don Hopkins, has recently had things to say
about Gnome that I found remarkably conciliatory.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html>
Why is it that when you're driving and looking for an address, you
turn down the volume on the radio?
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:10:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>>
>> Efficient according to whose definition? If you're going to say 'there
>> is only one', then I'm going to be forced to accuse you of "thinking
>> like an engineer".
>
>I'll accept that accolade with grace and humility. . .
>
>Efficiency is getting more for the same cost, or better yet, less cost.
>
>If the Mac ran exactly the same in all other respects after switching to
>PMT, then PMT would be more efficient than CMT.
Hoisted by my own petard? Are you referring to the end-user price of a
Mac system versus a PC? I've been working on a theory that the
efficiency of a complex system is not affected in a deterministic
fashion by the efficiency of a single component. I usually have the
"benefit to the user" angle on my side by this means, but I suppose I
can't fault your logic. Assuming I've read it correctly. If not, what
cost were you thinking of? Because my statement would still stand:
efficient for the specific needs of the engineer designing the best
scheduling system is not necessarily efficiency for the end-product on
the desktop for the user sitting in front of it doing notoriously
ill-advised things.
>As a generalist, you should know that to prove your point statistically,
>you'd have to provide two versions of the MacOS that are entirely
>identical with the single exception that one implements PMT, while the
>other implements CMT, then show that the market perfered CMT to PMT.
>
>No such experiment was ever conducted, so at best, your statement is
>purely a matter of conjecture.
Not even so much; a mere supposition.
>> There is another, the Mac used it, apps *did*
>> "behave properly", and the system worked.
>
>Fascism "worked". Monarchies "worked". The issue is not whether or not
>something works, the issue is how well (efficiently) something works in
>comparison to the alternatives, judged within a common, shared context.
Yes. Nobody likes CMT. For reasons I now understand, by the way, and
essentially agree with. Still, the issue fascinates me for some
reason....
>The problem with most OS wars is that no attempt is first made to
>establish a shared context.
[...]
>Engineers are not "taught to think something". They are taught to
>think, then set free to do so and come to their own conclusions.
>Engineers react adversely to being told what to think.
I know, I know. I was speaking rhetorically. But I did undervalue the
point. Thanks for pointing it out.
>From a purely mathematical standpoint, it is painfully clear that your
>assertions re: CMT are *EXTREMELY* improbable.
Well, so was the Internet, I figure. But just as limited bandwidth
overcame router protocols as the issue of general concern, so does I/O
and RAM outweigh CPU bottlenecks as the limiting factor on the desktop.
--
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:13:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>You entirely missed his point, which was not about switching from one
>program to another at the click of a mouse, but was in fact about: 1)
>uninstalling app x because it does not properly CMT 2) installing app y
>at random because you believe that it will provide the same
>functionality as app x 3) converting all of your data from format x to
>format y 4) hoping like crazy that app y will magically do CMT "right" .
>. . that last point being extremely unlikely.
Well, I was expecting a bit more knowledgable of a marketplace. But you
case is valid; I did entirely miss his point.
--
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: "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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:17:56 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <UZBc5.213$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>> > In article <9dQb5.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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?"
>> >
>> > What alleged "claim?"
>>
>> "That's tinman. ('" -- Tinman
>
> Exactly, except your attribution is mispelled.
>
Another unsubstantiated 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.
>> >
>> > What I can prove is irrelevent.
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who claims to have a "polycarbonate
>> exterior".
>
> On the contrary.
>
On what basis do you deny your own written words?
>> > What I can enjoy is relevent.
>>
>> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your illogical claim that what
>> you can "enjoy" is "relevent".
>>
>> >
>> >> > Meanwhile, you still fail to answer the question.
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, you simply failed to locate the response.
>> >
>> > Where is your logical response? Why, no where to be found!
>>
>> It has been there all along. Of course, it takes decent logic and
>> relevancy skills to recognize that fact.
>
> Where?
>
Check the archive, tinman.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > 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?
>> >
>> > Blooming well,
>>
>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> I gaze at the wonderous blossoms fed by Tholen emissions and know it to
> be true.
What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
> ("
What alleged '("'?
>
>> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that he's
>> "back on CSMA".
>
> Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What alleged "polycarbonate exterior"?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > <*tink* *tink*> This one.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Evidence, please.
>> >> >
>> >> > Reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Obviously not.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>> >
>>
>> Bladerdash. Meanwhile, you still haven't provided evidence of this
>> alleged "polycarbonate exterior".
>
> <*tink* *tink*>
>
What alleged '<*'?
> There is your proof.
>
Argument by repetition, eh tinman? Ineffective.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:19:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) writes:
[...]
>Just don't try to print anything and then have your box immediately
>respond; even on our new G4 (which is some seriously cool hardware,
>BTW) the whole machine locks up for a few seconds when you print. Oh,
>and what was that new feature in 9? You could actually use the
>machine while it was copying files? :) Fun stuff.
I thought that was a new feature in System 7. It was, in fact. But
then, Windows uses the same line of bull.
Can anybody tell me where precisely the bottleneck is that makes copying
files slow down the response so badly?
--
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: "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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:23:34 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Slava Pestov in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>How ironic, coming from someone who, in each and every one of his posts,
>>rehashes the same invalid argument ("CMT gives me more control"), makes
>>snide remarks about certain unspecified "engineers" (whoever they may
>>be), routinely makes illogical remarks with little or no relevance to
>>the argument ("I don't want algorithms running my life") and refuses to
>>read papers and actually learn something about the basics of
>>multitasking, even when given URLs and references.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
Don't you know?
> I read every accessible reference
> provided to me. All three of them.
Then why do you continue to insist that CMT is still viable? Of course
with well-written programs, it is usable, but only on a desktop box,
with no background servers. And if your programs aren't well written?
Lockups and hangs are the result. And CMT has no advantage from a
performance standpoint whatsoever. With an 8mhz 68000 Mac Plus, it
might have made sense to allow apps to have complete control over the
CPU, simply on the basis that the CPU was so slow. But with a
500mhz G4, or an 800mhz Athlon, or whatever, users won't notice. The
only thing they will notice is that CMT is prone to hangs and lockups.
> I'd appreciate it, too, if you
> would only use quote marks when you're quoting me. I understand what
> you're saying, and I can't rightly disagree, as in some respects you've
> very adroitly captured my original comments on that matter.
> Nevertheless, you are not quoting me.
My apologies. I put the "CMT gives me more control" argument in quote
marks to emphasise that it is not my opinion. I didn't intend to put
words in your mouth.
Slava
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:24:12 -0400
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Tammy Hahn"...for the clueless and humor impaired, is the unification
> > of "Tammy Fae Baker" and "Jessica Hahn"
>
> Neither of whom I have any recollection of posting at significant
> levels to this newsgroup (unless it was in a killfiled thread. :^)
> Let's face it, nobody round here gives a flying fsck about any of
> these people. As far as we're concerned, *you* are the problem since
> it is *you* that is acting the kook on c.o.l.a and not Tammy or
> Jessica. It is even possible that these people are stirring you up
> precisely because you are so easily stirred.
>
> Cease fulminating or FOAD.
You want an invasion from alt.usenet.kooks, and other unsavory trollers?
>
> 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]>
--
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"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
