Linux-Advocacy Digest #811, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Slashdot on AvantGo (Richard Lawrence)
Re: Maximum Linux (Mikey)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Mike")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("David Brown")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("David Brown")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("David Brown")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Maximum Linux
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.geek,microsoft.public.windowsce,comp.sys.palmtops.pilot
Subject: Slashdot on AvantGo
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:01:17 GMT
Hi,
Quick posting to let you know that if you read Slashdot and have
AvantGo on your Palm or WinCE PDA then you can now read it on the move
(Slashdot that is).
For more information see:
http://www.custard.org/~richard/avantslash/
And before you ask, yes you could just create a custom channel pointing
to the slashdot website but do you really want to have to set aside
900k for it?
Rich
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:17:26 -0400
Thus Sprake Nathaniel Jay Lee:
> capitalized along with it. So, what do you say? Is it 'window
> managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
AFAIK, from MetroX to Enlightenment, I've heard it called "window
manager"
> Does anyone here get the Maximum Linux magazine?
I get it at the news-stand. For the most part, it's pretty kewl. IMHO,
they need to cut down on the "fanboy" factor and chill on the M$
bashing. I really dig that they have a distro with each issue.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Linux- Because an OS shouldn't have to depend on a web browser
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:10:38 -0500
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l6a6j$goa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Did you not hear of the first large ship the US Navy ran on NT? There
> were
> > several hundred NT machines running everything on board, all networked
> > together. Shortly after leaving harbour, the network crashed and brought
> > every single computer on board to a standstill. The ship was dead in the
> > water for over two hours before they got essential services back online.
> And
> > the cause? It was traced back to someone entering a "0" in the wrong
> place
> > in a PC in the stores - the resulting "divide by zero" error killed the
> > ship.
>
> So do explain to us all how a poor app is NT's fault?
Do you really think that a divide by zero error should bring down an
entire network? I don't see how that is feasible (and if it wasn't for
this previous story, which I heard much about wouldn't even know it is
possible). Do you really think that is just one application error? And
if it is, shouldn't the OS have a little better protection?
BTW. I think this is ridiculous. They got burned once, why do they want
to do it again? I would think even the government (and the military)
wouldn't be stupid enough to fall for it again. Fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:14:44 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l66cb$3m6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Now I don't believe Linux is ready be used in such situations either.
But to
> : trust such an important function to a closed source and potentially not
100%
> : reliable operating system seems remarkable (do BSOD ever occur on HCL
> : hardware?). Also, I thought Windows 2000 only runs on Intel hardware
(and
> : aren't there potentially more reliable hardware solutions?)
...
> As far as more reliable platforms, oh _GOD_ yes. There are
> many archtectures much more suited for serious life/death
> purposes. PC hardware, in such circumstances is very
> unsettling, IMHO.
It's unlikely that they're using the kind of PC hardware you're thinking of.
There are companies that produce low cost PC servers today with expected
downtimes of a couple minutes per year. Stratus (for one) is able to supply
systems with availability of 99.9999%. They don't look anything like the PC
that you or I would buy, nor do they cost the same. But they are extremely
reliable Pentium based machines, rivaling the best performance of other high
availability hardware.
Stratus web page also has some discussion of their Windows 2000 systems, and
the things they offer to improve reliability over the standard OS.
http://www.stratus.com/products/nt/index.htm
The Navy may not use Stratus computers, but they probably use similar
approaches to achieving reliability.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 15:08:39 GMT
In article <8l6kqn$cp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Taking the mickey" is like "taking the piss" or "pulling your leg".
Google gives a helpful reference:
http://www.shu.ac.uk/web-admin/phrases/bulletin_board/messages/2402.html
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:18:18 -0500
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l6m0a$l5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Stuart Fox wrote in message <8l6j3t$jfr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >
> > >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8l6a6j$goa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> Did you not hear of the first large ship the US Navy ran on NT? There
> > >were
> > >> several hundred NT machines running everything on board, all networked
> > >> together. Shortly after leaving harbour, the network crashed and
> brought
> > >> every single computer on board to a standstill. The ship was dead in
> the
> > >> water for over two hours before they got essential services back
> online.
> > >And
> > >> the cause? It was traced back to someone entering a "0" in the wrong
> > >place
> > >> in a PC in the stores - the resulting "divide by zero" error killed the
> > >> ship.
> > >
> > >So do explain to us all how a poor app is NT's fault?
> > >
> > A poor app is not NT's fault - that a poor app is able to crash the
> machine
> > it is running on, never mind the whole network, is NT's fault.
>
> It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter what OS
> it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the ship is
> uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this stage. And there
> was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure. It was always an app
> failure.
I hadn't heard any of this. While I'm willing to believe it, if proven,
I would wonder where you got this bit of evidence?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:30:49 +1000
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> > It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter what
OS
> > it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the ship is
> > uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this stage. And
there
> > was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure. It was always an app
> > failure.
>
>
> I hadn't heard any of this. While I'm willing to believe it, if proven,
> I would wonder where you got this bit of evidence?
Where's the evidence for *your* position ?
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:25:31 +0100
"Mikey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>
> Actually, it could be NT's fault. I've had people run programs off of
> my NT server and when the program crashes, the server dies and needs a
> three finger salute. On my Linux/FreeBSD boxen, I've had user apps
> crash, but, because Unix/Linux is a *TRUE* multi-user system, the apps
> had no effect on the server performing it's task. The user just had to
> run their programs again, and the rest of the network goes on working.
So you are saying that you are unable to run a NT system?
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:24:21 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> >Can't you people read? We're talking desktop, not servers. Don't
> >you
>
> So then why bring Linux into the picture? Desktops...not servers...
*I* DIDN'T "bring Linux into the picture" at all. In fact, I challenge
you to research this thread and point out where I ever even *mention*
Linux.
> >understand who Joe and Jane Average Consumer are? And of course you
> >will find non-Windows OSes available on servers, since Windows (apart
> >from NT) makes a shitty server OS.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 15:18:49 GMT
In article <8l6p2l$c2o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter
> what OS it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the
> ship is uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this
> stage. And there was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure.
> It was always an app failure.
Then surely the OS should just restart the application after it
crashed? Unix systems have been able to do *that* sort of thing
reliably for years...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:27:12 +0200
Donal K. Fellows wrote in message <8l73ka$qrj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <8l6k7f$kge$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OOP is not normally suitable for a teaching language - you must
>> learn to walk before you can run.
>
>I'd disagree at least partially. You definitely don't want to go
>round teaching people bad habits, and you can teach practically with
>an OO language as a first (imperative) language provided you do not
>jump straight in at the deep end, but introduce other features
>(notably arithmetic, variables and structured programming) first.
>
Any half-decent Basic has enough control structures (while-do, repeat-until,
procedures, functions) to teach reasonable programming habits. I always
feel that the key thing when teaching programming, it is vitally important
to limit the scope of the language you are working with so that you do not
overwhelm the student. That is why something like VB is useless for
learning programming. With an OOP language, you can always use it like a
procedural language but I think it is often better if the language simply
does not have these features.
Although I have said Basic is suitable as a teaching language, there are
others that are often more suitable. Pascal is always a favourite - it is
simple enough to learn as a first language, yet powerful enough to use as a
main development language.
I also think you can come a long way working with much smaller systems. I
have heard people recommending Lego Mindstorms as a teaching tool for
programming. You have a limited programming environment, and have very
direct feedback of the results. It is also very easy to motivate the
student. Any opinions on this?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:32:44 +0200
Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6uk0$k81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>> No, but I have heard of people who have... Ok, I happily admit that I
>have
>> not seen any Windows source code, and have no basis for commenting on it
>> other than common sense (writing code that is easily readable and
>> maintainable by others is a substantial extra burden in development - MS
>> seldom releases any of their source code, so why would they pay this
extra
>> cost?),
>
>As I understand it the programming staff turnover at Microsoft is quite
>high.
I'm not surprised - they probably go mad or get burned out from overwork. I
have heard a lot of the coders spend almost all their waking hours on the
code. I can't say whether this is the cause or effect of the MS coding
style.
>That's reason enough to make their code as maintainable as possible
>(before you even get into the other stuff like ease of debugging,
>portability etc).
MS never get round to other stuff like debugging, portability, etc. - more
circumstantial evidence for poor programming style.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:44:35 +1000
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l758p$s1p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l6p2l$c2o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter
> > what OS it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the
> > ship is uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this
> > stage. And there was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure.
> > It was always an app failure.
>
> Then surely the OS should just restart the application after it
> crashed? Unix systems have been able to do *that* sort of thing
> reliably for years...
It wouldn't restart because of the corrupted data.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:45:40 +1000
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l75no$tjd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6uk0$k81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >As I understand it the programming staff turnover at Microsoft is quite
> >high.
>
> I'm not surprised - they probably go mad or get burned out from overwork.
I
> have heard a lot of the coders spend almost all their waking hours on the
> code. I can't say whether this is the cause or effect of the MS coding
> style.
>
> >That's reason enough to make their code as maintainable as possible
> >(before you even get into the other stuff like ease of debugging,
> >portability etc).
>
>
> MS never get round to other stuff like debugging, portability, etc. - more
> circumstantial evidence for poor programming style.
Presumably you have worked within Microsoft, to know their policies on
debugging and portability ? Was this, perchance, where you saw the NT
source code ?
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:37:38 +0200
Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6un9$vdr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>> There is certainly plenty of evidence that user mode apps can crash NT.
>
>Where ? Examples, preferably reproducable rather than anecdotal, would be
>nice.
>
>> I
>> haven't had it happen for a while on my PC, but it is common enough with
>> supposedly solid, debugged, professional applications that it is quite
>> believable in new software on trial.
>
>I can't say, after using NT since about Feb 1996, that I've ever seen it
>happen.
>
>
It has been several weeks (maybe even months) since I blue-screened my NT
machine. I regularly manage to crash the GUI (i.e., explorer crashes and
restarts itself). It is a hassle, and I loose all these nice little systray
icons, but I can keep working.
The last time I saw a BSOD was while trying to copy a poorly burned CD from
one networked NT machine to another, via a third machine. It was an unusual
situation, but there is no reason for it to fail (the "app" in question was
the copy command). It is fair enough that there were problems copying some
files - the CD was very problematic. But halfway through copying, the
machine with the CD BSOD'ed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 15:47:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:14:44 GMT,
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8l66cb$3m6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
>> : Now I don't believe Linux is ready be used in such situations either.
>But to
>> : trust such an important function to a closed source and potentially not
>100%
>> : reliable operating system seems remarkable (do BSOD ever occur on HCL
>> : hardware?). Also, I thought Windows 2000 only runs on Intel hardware
>(and
>> : aren't there potentially more reliable hardware solutions?)
>
>...
>
>> As far as more reliable platforms, oh _GOD_ yes. There are
>> many archtectures much more suited for serious life/death
>> purposes. PC hardware, in such circumstances is very
>> unsettling, IMHO.
>
>It's unlikely that they're using the kind of PC hardware you're thinking of.
>There are companies that produce low cost PC servers today with expected
>downtimes of a couple minutes per year. Stratus (for one) is able to supply
>systems with availability of 99.9999%. They don't look anything like the PC
>that you or I would buy, nor do they cost the same. But they are extremely
>reliable Pentium based machines, rivaling the best performance of other high
>availability hardware.
That's 99.999% and that's on their systems running HP-UX, not pentium
PC's. And do you really think five minutes downtime per year (99.999%)
would be acceptable for life support systems on the Space Station?
>Stratus web page also has some discussion of their Windows 2000 systems, and
>the things they offer to improve reliability over the standard OS.
>http://www.stratus.com/products/nt/index.htm
It doesn't say 99.999% in regards to their NT solutions.
>The Navy may not use Stratus computers, but they probably use similar
>approaches to achieving reliability.
The basis for this whole thread is a Microsoft claim that the Navy is
using W2k for mission critical systems. It does not say in what
context. NASA Astronauts uses Windows ('95 and NT) based laptops (and
also at times Solaris and Linux laptops) as a termininal interface to
many embedded avionics components, some flight critical and some
not. So you could stretch the truth and say NASA uses NT for critical
systems on the Shuttle. But it's just for a terminal interface to
moniter/command and embedded system, not a critical context in and of
itself. So my point here is that we really don't know how critical of
a context the Navy is using NT in.
Perry
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:38:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My take on it has been that for X that capitalization parrter should be X
Windows, X Windows System. When the word window is not part of the name
then window should not be capitalized as in "a X terminal window".
For the window managers for X, unless window manager is being used as part
of the name of the window manager, such as "GWM (Generic Window Manager)".
At the beginning of a sentence "Window manager" is the correct form.
I have checked with documents available from X.org and Xfree86.org, and in
general they do seem to agree with my interpretation of the capitalization
patterns. However there are exceptions such as in this readme file
ftp://ftp.x.org/contrib/window_managers/gwm/gwm.README . The auhor of the
readme in general does follow the patterns I have just mentioned but he has
also used "Window Manager" twice in this document other than as a part of
the name of the software; but then he does use "window manager" thrice.
So I would say that "window manager" is correct and yet "Window Manager"
does happen from time to time. So I suppose that the columnist and the
editor could argue to defend their usage by citing documents such as
gwm.README. Errors can happen but that is no excuse for a publication to
use the consistant capatilization as was used in the article that your cite.
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Does anyone here get the Maximum Linux magazine? I have a question for
> everyone in here, but it is especially applicable to those who read this
> magazine.
>
> I recently finished reading the previous issue and read Mae Ling's
> (spelling?) column on window managers. Now, normally I wouldn't be
> bothered by such a small issue, but this was one that I really have to
> wonder about. I've noticed the magazine leans heavily towards the
> Windows side of things (much like COLA, there is just as much about
> Windows, good and bad, as there is about Linux). Anyway, the main gist
> of the colum was about window managers, but she continously throughout
> the column wrote Windows Managers. Like I said, I nomally wouldn't have
> cared but she repeated it over and over and over and ....
>
> Now, I'm going to pose the question to those of you in here. Which is
> correct? I was always under the impression that it was window manager
> (and plural window managers), but before I write to correct her I
> thought I should see what the concesus is. I'm assuming that her bias
> towards Windows (or the editor's bias towards Windows) made every
> appearance of the window into Windows and the word manager just got
> capitalized along with it. So, what do you say? Is it 'window
> managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:44:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > And I'm willing to wager that, at least in the majority of cases,
> > your local shops will toss in a copy of Windows with your box
> > regardless of what OS is installed on it, and yes, even if it's only
> > ten bucks, you *will* have paid for that Windows license.
>
> That's another issue.
>
> One of the big reasons Microsoft has been behind the Software Piracy
> Association is that the most-pirated software is... Windows.
>
> A lot of those little garage shops *don't* pay for that copy of
> Windows they "sell" you. If someone charged you $10 for Windows 98,
> it was almost certainly pirated.
This doesn't make any sense; who cares about allegedly pirated software
that ***isn't being used?*** That's the point, here, being forced to
buy Windows even though you have no intention of using it. What benefit
does the "garage shop" gain by forcing you to buy a pirated copy at ten
bucks? And why would they care, especially if you are buying, say,
FreeBSD from them for the same price?
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:57:31 +1000
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l760u$tkp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l6un9$vdr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >Where ? Examples, preferably reproducable rather than anecdotal, would
be
> >nice.
> >
> >> I
> >> haven't had it happen for a while on my PC, but it is common enough
with
> >> supposedly solid, debugged, professional applications that it is quite
> >> believable in new software on trial.
> >
> >I can't say, after using NT since about Feb 1996, that I've ever seen it
> >happen.
> >
> >
>
>
> It has been several weeks (maybe even months) since I blue-screened my NT
> machine.
Last time I saw NT BSOD was about 2 days after SP2 was released. I can't
remember when that was, but it was quite a while ago.
> I regularly manage to crash the GUI (i.e., explorer crashes and
> restarts itself). It is a hassle, and I loose all these nice little
systray
> icons, but I can keep working.
It's not like X and/or KDE, GNOME etc is any better, and you lose a lot more
work when they die.
> The last time I saw a BSOD was while trying to copy a poorly burned CD
from
> one networked NT machine to another, via a third machine. It was an
unusual
> situation, but there is no reason for it to fail (the "app" in question
was
> the copy command). It is fair enough that there were problems copying
some
> files - the CD was very problematic. But halfway through copying, the
> machine with the CD BSOD'ed.
Sounds like your bad CD was junking up the disk driver. I've seen it happen
on my Linux machine - SCSI driver locked up the entire machine. Probably
ould have done the same thing under NT, but I never tried.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
