Linux-Advocacy Digest #853, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Roberto Alsina)
Re: I just don't buy it (Craig Kelley)
Re: I just don't buy it (Craig Kelley)
Re: Some REAL fun before weekend (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Open letter to T. Max Devlin. TMD's Reply (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Arthur Frain)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Robert Moir")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: windows annoyances (again) (Tim Kelley)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:21:34 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:36:27 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> >>
> >> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> >> > >
> >> > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> > "to invalidate the rule, you must demonstrate that the rule is incorrect
> >> > in the MAJORITY of cases", it's valid.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think that rule is valid.
> >>
> >> Your being pedantic to the point of silliness.
> >
> >And you are being fuzzy to the point of meaninglessness.
>
> Even the universe is not governed by the simplistic mathematical
> models you are intent on applying. In the real world, things are
> simply more complicated, or perhaps just grey.
I recognize the greyness of things, so much that whenever I notice it,
I acknowledge it, instead of using meaningless generalizations as
rules.
In what ways are things like "women are worse engineers" supposed
to be more acknowledging of the compexity of the universe than
saying "don't make up silly rules like that"?
IMHO: being fuzzy is often the opposite of caring about complexity.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jul 2000 11:18:52 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:15:24 -0500, WesTralia
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Within 2-3 years there will suddenly be GNU .NET. Everyone saying what
> >> a bad idea it is now will be praising GNU .NET and proclaiming it the
> >> Microsoft killer.
> >
> >
> >It will be 2-3 years before .NET steps out from the vapor. By
> >that time most chip manufacturers will have chips on the market
> >which translate Java byte-code.
>
> We'll see I guess. Java's whole life seems to be summed up by "wait
> till next year"
And ActiveX has yet to even say that.
(.NET is simply ActiveX version 2.0)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jul 2000 11:20:43 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:58:33 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Just when you thought it was safe to enter that credit card
> >> number into the web browser... :-)
> >>
> >
> >When your are using a diskless "thin client", and all your software is
> >supplied over the net from the servers public key cryptography is no
> >protection. That is the vision of .NET.
>
> I've not seen a single instance of Microsoft suggesting NET is
> exclusvily (or ideally) to provide software in a thin client maner.
Read Ballmer's interview in last week's PC (er, I mean *E*) Week.
> I believe the basic idea is that software licenses are verified via
> online NET license server. A user (or a business) that rents say... MS
> Office would install the software normally and users would login, be
> verified by a NET server (possibly run internally) and would be
> granted or denied access based on this. It would also make it very
> easy for this user or business to purchase the software outright.
>
> It makes a lot of sense, given the state of piracy Microsoft is
> subject to.
It would also be the death of Microsoft and commercial software.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Some REAL fun before weekend
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jul 2000 11:27:56 -0600
"Krondor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> from the "whitepaper"
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/net/whitepaper.asp
>
> About .NET
>
> "Ten years ago Microsoft set out a vision of a world with Information at
> Your Fingertips. "
"Five years ago, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates promptly forgot about
this when he wrote his book 'The Road Ahead'."
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:29:51 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:08:48 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Note, however, that even the Mac is going to PMT. Or, in short, the
> >difference is so decisive that the Mac is *BECOMING* Linux.
>
> Interesting word choice. :)
MkLinux == Linux on Mach
Mac OS X == BSD on Mach
So, the obvious-obligatory-conspiracy-theory is that Apple supported the
development of MkLinux in order to get a free pilot project done by
volunteers that would prove/disprove the MacOS X architechture. ;-)
No, re: UI, Linux + GNUstep == Mac OS X - Aqua.
So, a little bit farther apart, but I will bring to your attention the
fact that the GNUstep developers have been bending their efforts towards
compliance with the Apple changes to the spec. . . and Aqua is, in the
end, a sub-system that could probably be pretty easily coded.
So, I stretched the point a little, but when you look under the hood,
not all that much.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:06:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The question remains: is the US Government prepared to endanger lives and
loose
> millions of dollars of equipment in the event of a system failure in the
heat
> of combat?
>
> I am not American, but I do respect human life and I think it is not fair
at
> this stage to put human life on the line of systems that are not proven
combat
> ready. I was in the army a long time. Our golden rule (with regards to
> technology) was to always have backup systems, and always train just as
hard on
> "conventional" systems as on high tech systems.
>
> I would like to add one of my experiences as a after thought. On a
military
> exercise somewhere in Africa we had a very nasty problem. We were getting
very
> used to GPS systems. One practice mission was in a area full of Iron
Mountains
> (literally), so not even a normal compass worked. Naturally the GPS
systems
> could on one particular day (D day -1) only get at best one satellite. If
it
> weren't for our good training, we would not have being able to mark
targets for
> bombardments (artillery) or plan air strikes. We used very old (and maybe
> forgotten) methods of navigation and chart plotting to do all
calculations.
> But, in the end, the job could be done.
>
> Now, with that said, I do not say Technology should not be used, but the
> military must always train people to perform their functions as if
technology
> was not available. In the ships example - what if a guided missile takes
out
> the Server room? The personnel must still be able to continue with their
tasks
> in such a situation.
>
> In the article, the Navy spokes person mentioned that engineers was
trained to
> work around these problems in future. I hope he was telling the truth...
>
> As far as the OS is concerned - My opinion is that military systems should
be
> developed in house.
You are right, the fighting force that can take advantage of technology, and
still function without it is the most adaptable one which has the best
chances of remaining an effective fighting force when things get going.
In combat nasty thing happen to equipment. In addition to normal
breakdowns, there are environmental factors, and the ever present attempts
of the enemy to nutrallize your equiment and your forces by whatever means
possible. If technology give your forces a fighting edge, that is good.
But your forces have to be able to continue the fight even with the loss of
the technology. In the heat of combat, here is confusion, uncertain
intelligence, split second decision making. That is not a good time for a
coffee break during a system reboot!
This incident of the U.S.S. Yorktown combined with the Pentagon computer
failures caused by email macro virius; could lead to an incident worse than
what the Japaneese did on December 7, 1941. Imagine a virus attacks a
single navel ship that it is transmitted to the battle group, to fleet, to
the Pentagon, and filters back down to the rest of the U.S. forces and at a
given time they shutdown the bulk of entire U.S. military's ability to
defend itself and citizens of our nation. Then hostile force then moves in
a blitzkrieg style attack, that is a scenerio that I never want to see
become reality.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:36:55 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l9lpp$k9e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> BTW, does anyone know exactly what "Smart Ship" connotates? I'd hope that
> if the military is intending on implementing AI technology, that they'd
> have the insight to use a better suited CPU. CPUs are a vastly inferior
> solution for AI anyway, but _Intel_ for complex AI? Sorry, but I just
> can't buy that.
Your mention of AI controlling our warships reminds me of the Star Trek
episode "The Ultimate Computer". The one in which Dr. Daystrom's
Multitronics Unit five (M5) was being tested on board the Enterprise. If it
has worked, it would have reduced the ship's personnel to less than five
percent of what it was before the installation of M5. Personnel reductions
is a stated goal of smart ships, according to the press releases.
As I recall the four ship task force that engaged the M5 controlled
Enterprise for a suprise wargame was comprised of the Lexington, the
Excaliber, the Potemkin, and the Yorktown. All the ships in the task force
were badly damaged with heavy loss of life by the malfunctioning M5 using
real weapons and one ship along with its crew was lost.
This seems to ba a case of reality imitating art.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:13:06 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l996e$mbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I enjoyed the observations Nico,
>
> And I agree about keeping up the skills of military personnel in
> conventional/"old fashioned" methods.
>
> It probably explains how our New Zealand defence forces are (sometimes)
able
> to beat other countries, including the US, in training exercises even
though
> our forces have no other choice but to use antiquated equipment.
Do you have many swamps down in Nw Zealand? I am asking because it sounds
like the Swamp Fox, a famous american warrior of the American Revolution
would fit right in with your defence forces.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:36:51 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> One can do anything in CMT one can do in PMT, if one designs a suitable
> CMT system.
Wrong. CMT is a proper subset of PMT.
Want CMT on a PMT system? Turn off the timer interrupt.
Now, how do you get pre-emption in a CMT system? Answer: you don't.
> I do indeed like the potential for elegance and flexibility
> in leaving CPU use to a daisy-chain system of autonomous processes using
> an explicit and minimal set of rule mechanisms, rather than an external
> scheduler.
Why do you like it?
> Yes, but the nice value, it turns out, doesn't have anywhere near the
> impact as the other components of the algorithmic scheduling.
Correct. Operators set policy, they do not exercise control.
> Then again, I guess I'm still not sure how much impact algorithmic
> scheduling has overall on the handling of bottlenecks, or where those
> bottlenecks are. So I'm obviously floundering at this point. But I'm
> told that some of these assumptions may not have been questioned in more
> than twenty years,
Is there any reason to believe that they should be questioned?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:45:07 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> The fundamental different between PMT and CMT is that while that process is
> waiting for the printer (or some other device), on a PMT system the rest of
> the processes on the system can potentially do useful work (assuming they
> have some to do).
I have to disagree with this. CMT is a proper subset of PMT. Want CMT
on your PMT system? Turn off the timer interrupt (and, for those
systems that are designed with the expectation of PMT in mind, be
prepared for crash).
See, even in a CMT system, when a process is waiting on an I/O channel,
it is possible to let background processes run. In a CMT system, of
course, the process waiting on an I/O channel only gets to run again
after the I/O channel has delivered its data, *AND* the currently
running task elects to either surrender the CPU, or itself goes on a
wait queue.
PMT has cooperative aspects, as illustrated by sleep/wake. CMT has no
pre-emptive aspects, though of course nearly every *processor* in
existence supports very basic PMT at the hardware level in terms of
prioritized hardware interrupts . . . which the MacOS engineers have
used, very carefully and over time, to introduce a very small set of
pre-emptive capabilities into the MacOS.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open letter to T. Max Devlin. TMD's Reply
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 12:50:21 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip umpteen lines of unread crap]
>
> E-mail is private.
>
> Keep it that way.
I believe mjcr had a point. That point is, if you are going to act the
part of an asshole on usenet, why not explain yourself on usenet. We
have invited T. Max to do so, and he emails us and tells us to post it
to usenet ourselves. My thinking is that this is so he can deny having
anything to do with creating it if he later decides it makes him "look
bad," but I doubt his ego will allow him to admit he made a mistake.
T. Max had plenty of chances to say he didn't want it posted (if you
read it you would have seen that) and instead he replied, "go ahead, and
thanks for asking first." Why badger a person for following through on
what they said they would do?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[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 10:42:39 -0700
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <8l7teg$mep$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's trivial to prove that a user space application doing an x/0
> > operation won't crash NT,
>
> Is it? OK, it is trivial enough to prove that there are some user
> space applications that do not crash NT when they perform a divide by
> zero, but extending that to all is non-trivial.
I'm not really arguing anything here, just making
an observation: On the original x86 architecture,
the processor faults on DivZero to what's supposed
to be a reserved interrupt. Unfortunately MS, as
part of trying to retain CP/M compatibility or
just general stupidity/arrogance, ignored all of
the Intel reserved INTs in MS-DOS, and by extension
all Win versions based on DOS. You can do this if the
code, besides performing the new functions you've
given this INT, also handles DivZero. If you screw
up this code (or write a bad DivZero handler to
begin with), you can hose the system.
The interesting thing to know would be what NT and
Linux do with those reserved INTs and how they
handle DivZero in general. There should be a
deterministic, reliable way to handle this IMHO,
just like there is for, say, page faults. It's
not like this is a new problem in computing.
> Suppose an x/0 caused
> stack corruption (it could happen,) this could then lead to a series
> of pretty-much random system calls (believable) and demonstrating that
> that sort of thing would cause no problems is not easy.
I believe this is essentially the Halting Problem??
> Especially if
> the code is running with administrator priviledges. If, for example,
> the bug caused dud packets to be put onto the ship's network, the
> routers might have got confused and turned the servers into (the
> network equivalent of) a black hole. Stranger things have happened...
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:09:25 +0100
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> Or did it flop because the becuase the underlying OS flopped, due to a
> DB client process on the same machine?? This sounds most likely.
>
> And where was the manual overide?? Another mistake.
>
> The Navy is obviously not telling us something.
>
> Perry
I think whats more likely, Perry, is that whatever they wanted to tell us
has been through so many layers of politicians, people with careers to
protect, and ambulance chasing tabloid journos who between them have
probably changed 80% of the original "news" by the time the likes of us got
to read it, I think the most actual facts we can glean from the report,
rather than spin control or someone editing down language so that the
average 'man in the street' could understand it and chuckle about the
dumbass US Navy over their morning breakfast and paper is - "Something bad
happened, we dunno what"
Rob Moir
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 13:17:33 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l7404$qvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ attributions trimmed ]
> >>> But there are a great many tasks for which it is not really
> >>> suitable.
> >> Outside of a few performance critical areas, these would be ?
> > Anything on a larger scale than "quick & dirty". Or anything
> > interfacing with hardware (i.e. drivers).
>
> The real problems with VB are that it is pretty much Windows specific,
> and many other languages (even other scripting languages) scale better
> to large applications.
why is it that VB being windows specific is a problem?
how many people write applications with portability as their first concern?
(or even 2nd or third). I mean, I've always written specifically to the OS
the project is going to be running on. To be portable, often, means giving
up making OS specific calls and taking advantage of OS specific performance
boosts or functions/abilities. I don't like that.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 13:20:22 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 20 Jul 2000 14:21:32 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
> >
>
> >Writing directly to memory? What BASIC class did YOU take?
>
> I learned it from books a long time ago ( maybe 15 years back or so )
>
> > Not the way I
> >learned it. I NEVER wrote directly to memory from BASIC.
>
> What do "peek" and "poke" do ? On my machine, this was the only way to
> do certain things ( eg graphics ). We're talking a long time ago, of
> course.
Ok, i stand correct, I DO remember using Peek and poke - but it was to read
and set the caps and num lock status. Or to read the Insert/Overwrite value.
Past that, I avoided poking around into live memory :)
> > GOTOs - what's
> >wrong with properly used GOTOs
>
> What do you mean by "properly used" ?
There are times, I feel, when a GOTO can save anything from several lines to
several dozen lines of code written ONLY to avoid using a GOTO. Sometimes
you NEED to tell you code "and now go THERE" I HATE writing huge IF THEN
clauses around huge chunks of code when a simple GOTO would have sufficed.
GOTO has it's place.
>
> > - do you never use a JMP in assembly? Does
> >this make assembly bad?
>
> Assembly is OK for low level programming. It is completely unacceptable
> for high level programming.
Agreed.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 13:21:37 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l8bi9$4sk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ckId5.36583$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > But Perry - in what way? I mean you say it but don't suppor it. How is
VB
> so
> > "weak"? Assuming both a C programmer and VB programmer can reach into
3rd
> > party add-ins to complete his/her toolbox - where is VB's primary
weakness
> > that makes it *unable* (not just difficult, you suggest unable) to
create
> > complex applications. I don't see it.
>
> Care to write a OS kernel in BASIC?
Ok, I wonder... why couldn't one? Forget if it was a good idea or not (as I
wrote above) - but, simply, why not? I mean, you write it, compile it and
then the code runs. Bingo.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 13:24:11 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l8ko3$7hq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l8cmt$bsp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > : Care to write a OS kernel in BASIC?
> >
> > Care to write an OS kernel is perl? What's you point?
> > Why are you harping on this nonsense?
>
> Because it is not nonsense. It is a perfect refutation of the opinion
that
> BASIC is the equal of C. YouR mentioning the use of perl for systems
> programming is the perfect addition to support my point, thank you.
mjcr - I never stated BASIC is the equal of C.
I just think that BASIC (current versions, not the old stuff we learned in
high school) is a perfectly good language that millions use to perform
almost any function I can think of. I do not think it's vastly inferiour to
any langague, C, Perl, Java, any... I think it can stand shoulder to
shoulder with most on many levels - but, BASIC is not perfect and I do not
claim such.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 13:21:27 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This happened twice, which was satisfactory for me to decide it
> > was a confirmed NT fuck up.
>
> > Linux is a joy to install compared to any version of windows.
>
> People have pointed out to me that just _one_ cockup doesn't mean the
> whole thing is a "fuck up" as you put it.
The whole thing is indeed a "fuck up". This experience is
typical for installing windows. I've installed windows thousands
of times and I can't count how many times I've had to do
ridiculous things like swap hardware, remove hardware, add
hardware ad infinitum just to get the install to run. I've never
had any such experience with any distribution of linux. I have
NEVER been just stopped cold at an install like that.
> Since I managed to completely lock up Linux Mandrake 7.1 with
> sndconfig with an SB16 should I then believe Linux is a "confirmed fuck
> up"?
Yet, you could continue the install without loading the driver
and continue. THAT is the difference. Windows works only one
way, and goddamnit, if not the way it was intended then not at
all. Seems to be the guiding philosophy at M$.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 13:27:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l8bi7$4sk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LlId5.36590$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale
that
> is
> > not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no trouble
> > using VB for most anything.
>
> Can you write a an operating system kernel in BASIC. Say a replacement
for
> the Linux kernel?
I imagine you could - I expect there would be many sections that would be
best server by calls to highly optimized assembly (as I often do when using
BASIC).
Can you tell me why you couldn't write an OS kernel in BASIC? Then, why
couldn't you in Perl or Python or Java or ...?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
