Linux-Advocacy Digest #859, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (abraxas)
Re: windows annoyances (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: windows annoyances (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (franks)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: I just don't buy it (sandrews)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Adam Warner")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Adam Warner")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: 21 Jul 2000 21:42:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:B31e5.3256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Adam:
>>
>> I wonder - has ANY naval ship EVER had ANY malfuction of a computer system
>> that was running an OS other than Windows that caused it to have an
>> equivelent type of failure (not necessarily "lost control of it's
> propulsion
>> system" but equal in criticality).
>>
>> Considering the US and Soviet militaries rely far more on the Unix
> operating
>> system than any other OS - does anyone suggest that Unix has NEVER EVER
>> failed not a single time to crash and take the system down around it?
>
> Until this thread, I never thought the military used conventional PCs,
> especially at sea. I wonder, with nuclear powered ships, how the effect of
> radiation would have on a computer's processor.
>
Great measures are taken to insure that circuitry all over the ship remain
unaffected. And this doesnt just go for ships and nuclear radiation, most
of the research in the area has been for the purpose of guarding against
EM pulse attacks on airplanes. The sheilding required is pretty
straightforward and can take the shape of a simple case.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:47:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
I've installed Windows many times and very rarely do I get the problems
that you do.
I've installend Linux about a dozen times and I regularly find little
differences between each install.
So what? My experiences differ from yours, that's all.
>> 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$.
I'm not sure what you mean.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 21:48:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Noone should take your bug reports seriously.
Why ever not?
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:45:49 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
( deletia...)
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
( more deletia...)
Aaron,
Why don't you give up your RIDICULOUS sig? Or at least,
truncate it, or change it every other posting. It's even
longer than your postings! Do you realize how foolish
that makes you look? Get a life, sheesh!
--
Ed Franks | Contracted to :
SysAdmin - Solaris/SunOS/Linux | CIO Office
UNISYS Federal Systems | Air Force Research Lab
Albuquerque, NM | Kirtland AFB
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:00:05 GMT
... I find it hard to believe that any company in this galaxy or any
other would sell several megadollars worth of browsers and e-mail
programs with a common single point of failuer. People that stupid
would never have gathered enough power or money to build such a monopoly
in the first place.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 16:15:02 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Chris, you should win award for "intentionally missing the point".
Why? He answered your question.
> The
> ironic part is, you are making my point in doing so.
Hmm . . . no, he isn't. Your lack of clarity has been repeatedly
commented on in this thread. Why don't you try to change that?
> This is why I
> wondered whether it might be possible that the problem with CMT is
> implementation, not architecture.
No. The problem here is that you don't understand that CMT is
inherently synchronous.
> Some of the supposed benefits of PMT
> are generally mere accommodation for badly implemented application
> processes which fail for no reason if they don't get enough CPU time,
No. You were the one who suggested that systems be designed to be
tolerant of unreliable applications . . . now here you go back.
> since there are some processes which do require regular attention, such
> as drivers.
Drivers are not processes.
--
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 16:17:23 -0600
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I did. What's wrong with you? Why does the rendering job die? Can't
> > > you answer?
> >
> > The rendering job dying is irrelevant. Software crashes, and that's a
> > fact... and, you still haven't given *one* valid reason why CMT is
> > better than PMT.
>
> What does crashing software have to do with CMT vs. PMT?
The scope of the crash.
CMT is usually implemented in a way that requires limited process
protection (though not always, of course), so the end result is that CMT
systems are more likely to crash when a process goes down.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:14:34 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > '
> > GAG! I remember when Sun tried that 10 years ago, and that was
> > with only ONE segment of ethernet between the workstation and the
> > server.
>
> Imagine that through the internet with millions or even billions of users
> all connecting to the same set of servers!
To prove .NET worth look at the internet model and compare it to m$
domain model.
.NOT looks simular to the domain model and we all know that doesn`t
scale. That is
why I think m$ has backed away from NT domains and into the AD model.
They don`t
have the balls to go to a peer to peer model, they lose their control
that way.
All networks will scale if you keep them peer to peer, the internet is a
great example.
Only when you go to the "domain/server" model does it not scale.
------------------------------
From: [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: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:24:19 GMT
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:41:16 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[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.
<sarcasm>
...yes, we all know that computer science has nothing
to do with actual computing...
</sarcasm>
Next you'll be telling us that Civil Engineering has
nothing to do with bridge building.
>
>> 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.
Pretty much.
Although, some of it is tolerated more than others. This is
typically the sort of stuff that tends not to wipe out
aftermarket products or is necessary to be able to use that
kernel at all (shells, text editors, core APIs).
>
>> >> 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.
Of course it is.
They own the interfaces.
The whole reason that there are multiple Unixen and Multiple
Linux is is that the interfaces aren't owned by anyone and
in the case of Linux, neither is the OS itself.
Furthermore, Microsoft specifically undermines attempts by third
parties to provide the equivalent of alternate distributions. This
was one of the issues in the anti-trust case.
>
>> >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 ?
Caldera, TurboLinux, Bastile, Slackware, Debian, Storm,
Corel & Mandrake for a start...
>
>> 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.
This is the 'pseudo-capitalists' cop out.
>
>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.
Sure it is. They actively seek to put barriers in place to
prevent this sort of thing. A great historic example of this
was DR-DOS. Caldera recently won a big settlement over this.
>
>> 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.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:26:13 +1200
Hi Mjcr,
> 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.
No. It's generally a beautiful country with quite a lot of forest (or what
we also call "bush").
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:24:15 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 22:00:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... I find it hard to believe that any company in this galaxy or any
>other would sell several megadollars worth of browsers and e-mail
>programs with a common single point of failuer. People that stupid
>would never have gathered enough power or money to build such a monopoly
>in the first place.
Technical savvy
versus
Business savvy...
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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 16:22:41 -0600
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if Sun has USB on their boxes soon.. but
> only if they see a benefit from it. I know many new HP unix
> workstations use USB already
Yep.
> (which kinda sucks because they changed
> without warning so parts aren't interchangeable).
??? What parts aren't interchangeable?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:28:02 +1200
> Good old iHug...
:-)
------------------------------
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: 21 Jul 2000 22:28:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:18:56 -0500,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> Well if it weren't for the Government and Military:
>>
>> 1) There would be no computers as we know today. They pioneered them.
>>
>> 2) There would be no Internet as we know today. They pioneered it.
>>
>> 3) There would no reliable electricity, as the power monopolies would
>> be to busy playing cut throating their customers.
>>
>> 4) Doezens and dozens of additional benifits that you take for granted
>> would be lost, such as safe food and water and police protection.
>>
>> And if you don't like all the good things the Government is doing for
>> you, you can petition it with your grievences. You can also assemble
>> with your friends and protest it. You can also vote. You and your
>> freinds can also run for office, and if you get get enough people to
>> back you up, you can become the government.
>>
>> So what's your problem?? Are you a sociopath??
>
>How does disliking the government make you a sociopath? I also dislike
>the government and the military AS THEY STAND TODAY. That does not mean
>that I don't appreciate all that they have done in the past. Believe
>me, there is a big difference between say, George Washington and Bill
>Clinton. The government today sucks,
How do you know people in the government were any less corrupt in the
past than they are today?? In the past you didn't get all the media
hype you get today, trying to expose every little thing.
>and no, no matter how many times
>you say it, I can't change it. We always hear how we are "supposed" to
>matter, but what matters is money. If I can make enough money, then I
>can get the politicians to listen, not before. As for voting: given
>two choices, both of which are hand picked by big business and both of
>which are in the pocket of said big business is not really getting much
>of a choice. Call me paranoid, but that's what I see.
Either you are part of the solution, or part of the problem. Which is
it?? Of course the Government is not perfect, they are human. Of
course you can't change it all by yourself, but enough people can. 3/4
of Americans don't even vote. How can they complain about things when
they don't get involved? There are many more than two choices on the
ballot. Furthermore those two choices you are talking are voted onto
the ballot by people in primaries, as the others are on the ballot by
petitions, signed by the people. No matter how big Big Money is, money
can't vote and people can. A democracy is only as good as the people
who participate in it. You are either part of the solution, or part of
the problem. Which is it??
>As for running for office myself, only the most corrupt get enough
>"support" to make it far enough to "make a difference". By the time you
>get that far, you no longer care about making a difference, you just
>care about covering your ass after all the shit you pulled to get
>there. Tough to make a difference when you're constantly looking over
>your shoulder, hoping no one catches you with your willie in the
>"government inkwell".
Every single elcected official was voted in by the people. The
ultimate blame rests on the people, i.e. you and me. A democracy is
only as good as the people who participate in it. And what are the
alternatives to democracy?? Fuedalism, Monarchy, facist dictatorship??
Is that what you want??
>And the military is just an extension of the government. As government
>became worse, so did the military. Now, am I really going to get
>labeled as a sociopath just because I dislike the current state of
>affairs? Well, tough. I form my opinion based on what I see. I see
>the mess that is in charge of this country (for me U.S.A.) and I feel
>saddened. Why do we have to continue to put up with leaders that make
>the rest of the world see us as a laughing stock? I sure as hell don't
>know, do you?
I frankly don't give a shit if the rest of the world is laughing at
the U.S. I like living here and a like our system. If we are so bad,
why are so many people risking their lives to get into the U.S. And if
you really think our Government is so corrupt, you should do some
research into some other governments, especially in the Third
World. You'll find the U.S. and other Western style democracies are
way ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to government ethics.
>And that makes me (and the above poster) a sociopath? Yeah, OK.
>Whatever.
Problem is more than half the country is sociopathic just like you and
the other poster are. You don't want to take reponsibility. You just
want to blame it all on someone else. The last thing you want to do is
actually work with your fellow men and women to make a better world.
------------------------------
From: [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 21:53:43 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:26:11 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> You've misunderstood the question, apparently. No bother; I'll rephrase
>> it: "Is there some reason that the renderer fails under load?" Suppose
>> it was on a PMT system, which simply had many other things with
>> priority. Is it reasonable to tolerate a process which can't deal with
>> multi-tasking well, whether CMT or PMT?
>
>No.
...creation of 'liberty' through the enforcement of a common
set of restrictions...
An outside force gaurantees that in the likely even that one
entity of the system tries to abuse all the others, that the
offensive entity will be dealt with for the benefit of all
other entities present.
>
>Hence: PMT. PMT doesn't *LET* processes *NOT* deal with multi-tasking
>well . . . that's what pre-emption means in this context.
A renderer shouldn't 'fail' under load: just be subject to
partial or full starvation. This is what keeps my mp3
encoder, or compiler chugging along regardless of what else
I am doing on my system. It's also what allows those batch
process to take advantage of cycles I'm not using. It's also
what allows processes that actually require some processor
time every so often (like downloads, or mp3 decode) to actually
avoid 'failing'.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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 22:04:47 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:26:11 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> You've misunderstood the question, apparently. No bother; I'll rephrase
>> it: "Is there some reason that the renderer fails under load?" Suppose
>> it was on a PMT system, which simply had many other things with
>> priority. Is it reasonable to tolerate a process which can't deal with
>> multi-tasking well, whether CMT or PMT?
>
>No.
...creation of 'liberty' through the enforcement of a common
set of restrictions...
An outside force gaurantees that in the likely even that one
entity of the system tries to abuse all the others, that the
offensive entity will be dealt with for the benefit of all
other entities present.
>
>Hence: PMT. PMT doesn't *LET* processes *NOT* deal with multi-tasking
>well . . . that's what pre-emption means in this context.
A renderer shouldn't 'fail' under load: just be subject to
partial or full starvation. This is what keeps my mp3
encoder, or compiler chugging along regardless of what else
I am doing on my system. It's also what allows those batch
process to take advantage of cycles I'm not using. It's also
what allows processes that actually require some processor
time every so often (like downloads, or mp3 decode) to actually
avoid 'failing'.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:03:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jB0e5.3053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l8bi7$4sk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> 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 ...?
The comparison was between BASIC and C. The citation of Perl, Python, or
Java is a strawman or support for my point, take your choice.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
