Linux-Advocacy Digest #857, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Which Linux should I try? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Robert Moir")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: Web Browsers? (Kris Gonzalez)
Re: which OS is best? (Kris Gonzalez)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Windows98 (Ash Bowers)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (abraxas)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 13:27:01 -0600
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
> > > was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
> > > "experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
> > >
> >
> > You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since the
> > Mac did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be good. That
> > is not a logical conclusion.
>
> At worst, it says that CMT
> most users most of the time.
Nope. At best, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for
most *Mac* users, as they've been *TAUGHT* to use a computer, most of
the time.
--
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 13:28:47 -0600
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Steve Hix escribió:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since
> > > > the Mac did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be
> > > > good. That is not a logical conclusion.
> > >
> > > At worst, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for
> > > most users most of the time.
> >
> > Actually, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for most
> > Mac users most of the time.
>
> 14% of iMac buyers switched from PC. Unless they used Win 3.1 or older,
> they swirched from PMT to CMT. That's from 3.7 million units sold.
> That's half a million people who switched from PMT to CMT just for the
> pretty case (or the ease of use). Can't be that important to them.
>
> Lars T.
Which is why Roberto is almost right . . . add in the constraint of how
the average user was taught to use a computer, and you've got it.
Most people are taught to use a computer in exactly the same way as they
use a typewriter. They totally fail to ever learn to use a computer to
automate their information processing.
--
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 13:32:29 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Bullshit. The onus of learning is on the student, not the teacher.
>
> That is not the issue. The onus of teaching is on the teacher.
Wrong. As a cooperative system: the onus lies with both.
You haven't been keeping up your end here, Max. In short, you are the
badly written app. . .
Have you read my simplified explanation of how PMT works, yet?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:29:29 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Which proves that an idiot with a computer is still an idiot.
<rant>
It's truly amazing when you think about it. With all the advances in
technology, and all the huge medical advances we have accomplished over
the last couple of centuries, we still haven't found a way to cure
stupidity. And the truly scary part about it is that as we gain more
"knowledge" about the universe around us the average human being is
becoming more and more stupid. Common sense is out (people use gasoline
as a solvent, and then light a lighter to see if they 'got it all off',
they don't realize gasoline is flammable), intelligence is based on book
knowledge (you can show people all the books and TV shows in the world
on farming, yet they still believe that 'meat' comes from some magical
factory), people are rated with "standardized" tests, instead of on the
knowledge they do posses (MCSE's, and now Red Hat Certified Engineers?
Oh please), and stupidity is rewarded as long as you have the right
level of luck. You don't need to know things, you just need to prove
you can memorize things. Of course, applying those memorized things to
the real world isn't something that is necissary. After all, once
you've proven you 'know' it, you already have that cushy job. Why
bother actually doing something with your knowledge?
I pity my children for the world they will grow up in. Homogenized,
stupid, semi-literate, and single-minded individuals with no concept of
"reality" as it existed such a short time ago. Take away the
electricity for 24 hours and you have riots. Why? Because people are
too stupid to realize that we survived without it for thousands of
years. They can survive without it for a few days can't they? Of
course not, they might be forced to think. Or even worse, they might
have to *gasp* work at something. At least I had the benifit of a few
years on a farm. At least I know how some of nature exists. Will my
children? I don't know.
</rant>
Sorry, I guess I'm feeling a little philosophical today. :(
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:41:16 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:24:38 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l79io$s8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8l6kc3$l8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Since when have managing e-mail and web browsing been "OS"
> >> functions?!!?!
> >
> >Since around the same time a shell (of any description) became standard
> >issue with an "Operating System" distribution. Indeed, since around the
> >same time an "Operating System" contained anything except a bare kernel
and
> >some device drivers.
> >
> >The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in the
>
> It's not moot at all.
It is moot in anything except computer science. Ie, most of the world.
> It defines an industry standard and allows a reasonable
> start for a definition of what does and doesn't constitute
> tying for an OS vendor.
Then by the computer science definition, anything that isn't a kernel
constitutes tying.
> >> an OS function (bye-bye photoshop et al)? Howzabout Point Of Sale?
Word
> >> Processing? Spreadsheeting? Databasing? Video editing? Streaming
> >> media?
> >
> >As long as it doesn't cost any extra, I'm all for it. I'm sure you can
see
> >the likelihood of that.
> >
> >> Where does it end?
> >
> >Linux distros ship with multiple developer tools, web browsers, image
>
> Notice the plural: "distros". That is something quite
> lacking in the WinDOS equivalent. A single entity gets
> to dictate to a captive market pretty much who can or
> can't do business.
It is not Microsoft's fault that no-one else can develop a viable
alternative.
> >editors, networking programs, office apps etc etc. Presumably you also
> >advocate that these should all be wiped from the market and everyone
should
> >have to build their Linux machine from scratch ?
>
> Your false strawman conveniently ignores the fact that quite
> a few entities do infact do just this.
Do what ?
> Some people do it in
> a different style and others and thus differentiate themselves.
> You can take someone else's distro and freely build on it or
> just start over. Anyone is free to join in and join the market.
Anyone is free to join in the Winows market as well, if you can male a
compelling alternative.
That it is so easy to make a compelling alternative in the Linux market and
not in the Windows market is not Microsoft's fault.
> Someone's Linux collection isn't going to necessarily decrease
> diversity in the market or make it unecessarily difficult for
> someone to start a new business selling some widget.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:46:03 +1000
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l98on$nss$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith wrote in message <8l957r$3ek$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l91r5$hmd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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. 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.
> >
> >How would a user space app cause stack corruption that would affect the
> >entire system, just out of interest ?
>
> The suggested stack corruption was in the user space program, and it is
the
> user space program that would then issue incorrect system calls.
One would certainly be hoping such "incorrect" system calls wouldn't be
crashing the OS.
> >> Especially if
> >> the code is running with administrator priviledges.
> >
> >No. Administrator is not the same as root. It would be have to running
in
> >kernel mode (ie a driver) to do the sorts of things your describing
(AFAIK,
> >anyway).
>
> Programs running as administrator have plenty of power.
Nowhere near as much as programs running under root do (which just bypass
everything, AFAIK). About the only real differences I can think of off the
top of my head is the one you mention below - writing to all parts of the
Registry and resetting priorities.
> An easy example is
> that they can mess up most parts of the Registry.
Yes, but writing to the registry isn't something that just happens
accidentally, or randomly - you have to pass a specific key and data. It's
not like an application can just accidentally scribble data into some random
part.
> There are also lots of
> user access Registry entries that can be used to bring Windows to its
knees.
Such as ?
> There are also plenty of easy-to-imagine knock-on effects. The user-mode
> app goes haywire, and uses all available memory, CPU time (a program with
> Administrator priviledges could give itself real-time (sic.) priority and
> run at 100%, effectively stopping the whole machine), or some other
> resource. A kernel mode program might try to get some resources, and not
> handle the failure well - boom!
Again, setting the priority that high, AFAIK, is not something you can just
do "accidentally".
------------------------------
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 13:36:00 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> >which, by definition, is not CMT.
> >>
> >> No, I am trying to suggest that a CMT system which does not need to
> >> "forcibly move things around" might be possible. A CMT with a more
> >> comprehensive mechanism for allowing non-active processes to effectively
> >> pre-empt the active process without requiring an external scheduler.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Wouldn't that make it PMT?
>
> The use of "effectively" to modify the verb would make it more akin to
> "virtual PMT", I would think.
Hmm . . . so you are suggesting a system that simply looks like it is
pre-emptive, but is in fact, not pre-emptive?
Which brings us back to CMT . . . which brings us back to the same set
of limitations and problems.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:39:41 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:15:23 GMT, cpliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >With all the hype about Linux, I'd like to give it a try.
>
> You'll find that hipe is just about all thear is to LIE-nux.
>
> >There are so
> >many vendors on Linux, red hat, mandrake, caldera, TurboLinux, etc. Which
> >one should I try? Are there any major differences? interface? How about
> >compatibility between different venders?
>
> Nonexistant. You cant' run a programmm from one distrobutian on another one.
Bull. Ever tried running a simple command from one minor revision
of windows on another, say from win95a to win95b, or from Win98
to Win98SE? They don't run. The error's really fun too:
"Wrong DOS version"
------------------------------
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: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:40:23 +0100
"Mikey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> Whatever... (I'm in not in the mood for poxy ego bollox) Try running
> applications from an NT server and and *Nix server and you'll find out
> yourself when/if the apps crash.
Make your mind up. You said the server was crashing a moment ago. If you
can't tell the difference between a server crashing and an application
crashing then how are we supposed to take anything you say seriously?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 21 Jul 2000 19:50:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l7rmf$2dcj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Drestin Black wrote:
>> >> Don't invoke it in the first place.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Just don't log into the server at the console.
>> >>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Choose not to log in at the console. Telnet in and use the CMD CLI.
>> >
>> > None of these suggestions "disable" the GUI. It's still up, it's just
>> > running on the login screen. How do you bring up NT in text mode?
>> > That's what we're asking. I can bring up any *nix or clone in text
>> > mode, with no GUI, or I can bring it up with XDM/KDM/GDM running and
>> > leave it at the login screen as you say to do with NT, but I have the
>> > choice of bringing up the GUI or not bringing up the GUI. As far as I
>> > know, with Windows this is not an option. So, do you know some little
>> > secret the rest of us don't? This is a serious question. I really
>> > would like to know how to get a fully running NT server without running
>> > the GUI. Is it possible?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, actually it is possible, though its hairy and you *will* lose quite
>> alot of functionality.
>>
>
> Ahhh, here is your chance to prove you are not a completely computer
> illiterate sketch board for dart players:
>
> How, exactly, do you bring up NT in purely text mode?
>
*sigh*....
Dresden, you are an idiot. If you would like to know all about how to pull
off such a thing, take a look at the source (Alright, I realize what im asking
here, just ask someone who knows what theyre doing to look at it for you and
explain it using very small words) for one of the many explorer replacements
that works under NT4.0 and check out the really neat registry editing they
pull off. Its possible to do this kind of thing and NOT replace explorer---
Ive seen it done first hand. It was an interesting demonstration by an
engineer I knew about a year ago. The machine came up and then immediately
dropped its console---but could be telnetted into and configured appropriately.
Needless to say, every last thing that depended on explorer.exe to function
was absolutely useless.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Kris Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web Browsers?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:30:17 -0500
What about KFM (the KDE File Mgr)? It's very fast in comparison to Netscrape's
behemoth, and it is decently feature-rich for a browser so young. Give it time
and it's the next MSIE (which, flame me if you must, is without doubt the best
browser on the market)...
-kg
"Luke Th. Bullock" wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher S. Arndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm a linux newbie, and am looking for a good browser for my linux
> > laptop. I have tried mozilla, but it really take a lot of memory, and is
> > always crashing, as does netscape 4.x and 6.x. I would really
> > appreciate it if someone could give me some suggestions to try. Chris
> >
>
> There are now several interesting browsers, both for X11 and console.
> My all time favourite is Lynx, the console browser, because it's fast,
> small and "gives me the info", not the crap. It also supports proxy's.
> For X11, Netscape 4.XX works ok, only certain sites crash the browser.
> Mozilla and Netscape 6.X seem ok, but once i downloaded a 56MB
> file, it filled all my RAM and swap, the machine slowed down and I
> barely had time to do a kill -9.
> HotJava 3 seems to be looking ok, but updating the display/scrolling
> is really a pain on the eyes.
> Opera has been mentioned, some like it, I do not.
> XBrowser is a new java-based browser, haven't been able to look at
> it yet, but the URL is: http://www.geocities.com/xa_arnold/XBrowser.html
> There are more browsers, arcane, but they still exist: Mosaic, Arena, Amaya..
>
> So, have fun and good luck.
>
> /Lucc
------------------------------
From: Kris Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:21:33 -0500
or 234G from in vi?
-kg
Lars Träger wrote:
> salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here's one for you. If you are debugging code, and you get an error on line
> > 234, does notepad or wordpad or bbedit have something that gets you to the
> > error quicker than :234 ?
>
> Double-click on the error-message.
>
> Lars T.
-- Kris Gonzalez
-- PC Leasing
-- 972.519.2796
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:50:17 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > Don't invoke it in the first place.
> >
> > >
> > > Just don't log into the server at the console.
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Choose not to log in at the console. Telnet in and use the CMD CLI.
> >
> > None of these suggestions "disable" the GUI. It's still up, it's just
> > running on the login screen.
>
> The resources to bring up the login screen are the not same as the full
> desktop GUI interface. That is the minimum you can reduce the GUI's
> presence.
>
> > How do you bring up NT in text mode?
>
> you cannot run NT in a pure text mode. NT is, after all, Windows NT. It is a
> GUI OS
>
> > That's what we're asking. I can bring up any *nix or clone in text
> > mode, with no GUI, or I can bring it up with XDM/KDM/GDM running and
> > leave it at the login screen as you say to do with NT, but I have the
> > choice of bringing up the GUI or not bringing up the GUI. As far as I
> > know, with Windows this is not an option. So, do you know some little
> > secret the rest of us don't? This is a serious question. I really
> > would like to know how to get a fully running NT server without running
> > the GUI. Is it possible?
>
> You cannot run NT in a pure text mode. The position of NT advocates is: why
> would you want to? Why cripple the interface and return to pre-70's
> computing and little 80x25 monochrome monitors? Again, do you suggest you
> run servers with so little power than cannot spare a few megs of ram and
> some CPU time to draw some graphics on screen?
>
> Anyway, I answered your question.
Thank you for answering honestly. No, you cannot disable the GUI of
Windows. And I will state the *nix advocates position again for your
benefit (since you told me the NT advocate position *again* on this
subject). Why is it that every time someone wants NT to do something we
are told "No, you need to adjust your perspective". In the *nix world,
if we want to do it, we just do it.
I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying it seems silly to me that you
must adjust yourself to the computer. After all, the computer is simply
a tool to accomplish a job. And (as the Windows advocates are
constantly pointing out) isn't it best if the tool you use allows you to
get the job done in the easiest way *for you*? Now, I understand if you
say Windows does do it in the easiest way *for you*, but it doesn't *for
me*. I want a server that doesn't waste the resources on the GUI that
Windows does. It doesn't make sense to me, and to a lot of other *nix
people, to run a GUI on a system that will probably never really be used
(the GUI that is). I have servers that have never been logged into
after installation. What would be the point of having a graphical
interface running on this sort of system? It's just one more possible
point of failure. On a file server, or any other backend system (web
server/mail server/SQL server/etc.) what would be the point?
Now, I know that NT advocates will say you aren't spending wisely if you
can't "afford" the GUI. Well, I have a system upstairs that could
definitely handle the GUI, but why bother? Instead of a single functin
NT box (it's dual PIII 500 with 256 MB of RAM and 2x35GB SCSI disks)
with a GUI, I have a single system performing as a file server, an
intranet/web server (pages for internal viewing only), SQL server,
Appgen server, domain controller (for Win95 virtual machines on the
network), NIS/YP domain controller, DNS domain server, FTP server (for
network updates), script server (also for network updates), and any
other little task I come up with for it during the day. In my mind,
there is no reason to worry about running a GUI on such a system. The
CPU time and hard drive space that would have been used for GUI systems
is instead transfered into the uses I actually *have* for the system.
The whole MS philosophy that you need to conform your ideas to the
machine just never made sense to me. And until MS starts producing
software that allows you to modify the way it runs (doubtfull this will
ever happen) to fit *you* I don't think I ever will use their software
again. Many people out there are in agreement with me. Maybe we aren't
the majority, but we know what we want. Just because BG says we don't
want it, that doesn't make it so. And, if BG and MS really believe that
Windows is capable of supporting systems (and the people that use them)
the way *nix is, then I think it's time BG and MS start thinking of the
things their system cannot do that these people require. If they never
address *my* needs, I will not use their software.f
Note to MS people preparing to tell me I'm wrong here: These are my
*opinions*. While some of them are based on facts (there are others out
there that want a system without a GUI on it), they are still my
opinions. Please do not tell me I *need* a GUI. Please do not tell me
*I* need to change my needs to fit the system. I want a tool that works
the way *I* want it to work. I don't want a tool that is constantly
telling me *no, you need to work this way*. Until MS can provide that,
I'm sticking with *nix. Sorry, that's my point of view.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ash Bowers)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:54:24 GMT
>Don't these apps still need to be reinstalled if something happens
>to the Registry?
After having REinstalled windows numerous times (as opposed to
REstalling linux ZERO times)....it has been my experience that at
least some of them still work :)
Ash Bowers
abowers at email.co.anson.nc.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 21 Jul 2000 19:59:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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 -
No you dont, because youve never programmed a day in your life.
> but it was to read
> and set the caps and num lock status.
Ummm....heh.
> Or to read the Insert/Overwrite value.
> Past that, I avoided poking around into live memory :)
>
Ah, so you never really did anything back in those days, since the only way
to do MOST things was to poke around into live memory.
>> Assembly is OK for low level programming. It is completely unacceptable
>> for high level programming.
>
> Agreed.
>
That looks like it hurt.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 06:07:40 +1000
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:05:24 GMT
> > > Then all
> > > you're doing is implementing CMT.
> >
> > You nearly emulate CMT in almost all PMT systems by upping the process
> > priority as high as it will go. Much like CMT, this tends to lead to
> > undesirable effects.
>
> CMT is a proper subset of PMT.
>
> Want CMT on a PMT machine? Turn off the timer interrupt.
So how then does the app give the CPU back ? I wasn't aware PMT had the
equivalent of a "yield".
> > There is no logic in what you are arguing. Early PC systems used CMT
> > scheduling primarily because of the hardware overhead in anything more
> > complex.
>
> Err . . . no. Early PC systems used CMT because the systems code was
> not written in such a fashion as to allow for pre-emption, and the cost
> of re-engineering the systems code was not only prohibitive, but when
> added to the cost of modifying the existing applications software base,
> was essentially impossible from a marketing/economic/mindshare point of
> view.
Then why was the Mac CMT ? It had no code to be re-engineered (and the
"original", the Lisa, _was_ PMT).
I can see why it would matter in the case of, say, Windows 3.1, running on
DOS, but I fail to see how that would have been relevant to the Mac.
Insufficient hardware resources is, to me, the only logical conclusion.
> I wrote a pre-emptive multi-tasking kernel that ran on the early IBM PC
> compatibles (an XT, to be precise). I ran just fine, with more than
> enough hardware resources, but the applications that it ran had to be
> specially written for it.
>
> Mind you, the "non-reentrant" problem still bit: I had to lock the
> scheduler while a task was running BIOS code. . .
How much RAM ? Did you have GUI running on it as well ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
