Linux-Advocacy Digest #874, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) ("2 + 2")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Jacques Guy)
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of (Gary
Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Marty)
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Jim Richardson)
Re: I just don't buy it (Jim Richardson)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Jim Richardson)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Web Browsers? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: windows annoyances (again) (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:48:09 -0400
The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the IBM
computers.
2 + 2
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote in message <8l9lpp$k9e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>: "Sunk by Windows NT"
>: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,13987,00.html
>: Contains advocacy paragraph:
>: "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise would be
a
>: topic appropriate for an investigative report in the field of psychology
or
>: marketing, not an article on information technology," said John Kirch, a
>: networking consultant and Microsoft certified professional, in his white
>: paper, Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 versus Unix. "Technically, Windows
NT
>: Server 4.0 is no match for any Unix operating system."
>
>: (The paper referred to is here: http://unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/)
>
>First of all, you must know several things:
>
>1.) That paper was originally written back in the days of WindowsNT
> v3.51. Apparently, Kirch has (sloppily) updated it since then.
>2.) That paper has been debunked, and disproved to death, countless
> times, by people on USENET, and in the industry.
>3.) Kirch is nothing but yet another UNIX-elitist twit, who has
> absolutely no insight into operating systems design, or
> implementation.
>
>8<SNIP>8
>
>: 1. We really can't tell whether the underlying NT OS did in fact crash,
but
>: on the balance of probabilities I'd guess it eventually did and had to be
at
>: least rebooted given the length of time it took to get the vessel
>: operational again.
>
>Considering that most of the data we can get has gone through several
>politicians, it's likely we'll never truly know. But my guess is that
>WindowsNT didn't fail, as I've never seen any Win32 app take NT down.
>
>: 2. Regardless, the application clearly did not contain enough error
checking
>: and was primarily at fault.
>
>Given the available data, I agree.
>
>: 3. If it contains substance, the issue raised of political pressure to
use
>: NT is probably the most damning. There's little point in us arguing
>: technical merits if the decision to use NT on the USS Yorktown wasn't
>: primarily a technical decision.
>
>Again, I agree. I like WindowsNT, but it doesn't belong in situations
>where people's lives depend upon it. If this country insists on using PC
>technology to power its military, then I think we can all say howdy to
>communism in the coming years.
>
>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.
>--
>.-----.
>|[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>| = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
>| | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
>|_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:17:20 +1000
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> >
> > Traditionally, most UNIX programmers do take up a project with
> > portability/POSIX compliance in mind. But most Windows programmers
> > do not concern themselves with anything outside of Win32, because
> > in most cases, they do not need to.
> >
>
> And it is quite unfortunate that those people can't see beyond the one
platform
> Windows mentality. I didn't say it doesn't happen. I said decent
programmers
> don't make that mistake. Don't take this the wrong way. In my youth I
used to be
> one of those single platform programmers. In my case it was VM/CMS, not
Windows.
> But I am older and a bit wiser now and I have had to port many of my old
programs
> as well as programs written by many others. Many times I have found it
easier to
> just scrap the old code and start from scratch. Times change, machines
change,
> operating systems change. A good programer plans for change.
It *is* rather hard to write a really cross platform app that is anything
more than mediocre on all platforms. Things like following UI guidelines
(if they exist) are quite difficult (or, at the very least, extremely time
consuming) if you're going to be writing to multiple OSes and UIs.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:18:41 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Slava Pestov wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > there is a series of algorithms, published in Russia in the
> > 1960-70s, and only the simplest ones were implemented on computers
> > -- a BESM... forgot the number. The more complex ones
> > were checked... by hand!)
> Incorrect. Your lack of culture is showing, Jacques.
BESM-2. See B.V. Sukhotin's "Eksperimental'noe vydelenie klassov
bukv s pomoshchju elektronnoj vychislitel'noj mashiny", in: Problemy
strukturnoj lingvistiki, Moscow 1962. Playing at being a
bot is fun, to a certain extent, but it should not completely
exonerate from a bit of factual accuracy (except in the
case of Tim Palmer, but old Tim is exceptional: he has a
riotous sense of humour). Another algorithm, the one I was
referring to as "checked by hand", was by the same fellow,
and was the automatic segmentation of continuous text into
its component morphemes, but I don't have the Russian
original with me, only a French translation, with just
a title: "Algoritmy lingvisticheskoj deshifrovki", again
in "Problemy", 1963 (hey, same year Dresden Black claims
to have become a computer guru!)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:15:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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
2 + 2 wrote:
> The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
> several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
>
> An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the IBM
> computers.
>
Are you sure about that? The first shuttle was launched in April 1981. Did
laptops exist back then?
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 14:18:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> I've just gotten too used to working, in networking, with systems that
>> deal with the requirement for control in a cooperative, rather than a
>> centralized, fashion.
>
>Ya know, I've heard our network admins called many things . . .
>cooperative not being one of 'em.
>
>;-)
>
>> I thought perhaps the idea might benefit a
>> desktop OS in dealing with multi-tasking as well.
>
>Consider the effects of the speed differential, and chaos, on the
>system.
Actually, it was the possibilities of tolerating, and even using
"chaos", in a way similar to Ethernet and the Internet. Modern
engineering seems to have shown that rigorous control is often inferior
to autonomous authority, despite the apparent dangers of
non-deterministic behavior. Just because a system is not prevented from
acting chaotically doesn't mean it will. And if you pick the right
'strange attractors', quite the opposite effect can be perceived;
whatever would allow the system to break may actually enable it to work.
You follow me?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:18:10 GMT
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Slava Pestov wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > there is a series of algorithms, published in Russia in the
> > > 1960-70s, and only the simplest ones were implemented on computers
> > > -- a BESM... forgot the number. The more complex ones
> > > were checked... by hand!)
>
> > Incorrect. Your lack of culture is showing, Jacques.
>
> BESM-2. See B.V. Sukhotin's "Eksperimental'noe vydelenie klassov
> bukv s pomoshchju elektronnoj vychislitel'noj mashiny", in: Problemy
> strukturnoj lingvistiki, Moscow 1962.
"I can't read your crazy moon language!!"
- The Tick
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:34:53 +1000
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 2 + 2 wrote:
>
> > The first space shuttle went up with 6 redundant IBM computers that were
> > several generations outdated, due to government contracting leadtimes.
> >
> > An astronaut had a laptop with him that was immensely superior to the
IBM
> > computers.
> >
>
> Are you sure about that? The first shuttle was launched in April 1981.
Did
> laptops exist back then?
You needed a big lap ;).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:14:56 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Jul 2000 13:17:33 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"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.
>
It might be fine for you that VB is windows only, but not for everyone. There's
a lot of non-windows platforms out there, and their market share is increasing.
(Not to mention that windows makes a lousy embedded system, and that's where
most of the programming goes to anyway, but that same argument hits the
other languages that compete with VB as well.)
When I write a tcltk program, or a python one, (I am not much for perl) I know
that the app can run on a myriad of machines, most of which have no hope (or
risk if you prefer) of seeing VB ported to them. There are some shennanigans
you have to pull with the windows platforms to get good portability, but it's
doable.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:22:10 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 06:37:20 -0400,
Jeff Szarka, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:13:26 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:49:02 -0400,
>> Jeff Szarka, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:40:42 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Would you want to maintain your financial records on the server?
>>>
>>>Encryption.
>>
>>But will you be using the closed source encryption provided by the ASP
>>"for your convenience"? Or will you be using the ASP provided S/W to manipulate
>>the unencrypted data?
>
>I'm not sure yet... I doubt Microsoft is either. The basic idea though
>could work very well for them if they manage to execute it well.
If you are not using the ASP provided software to manipulate the unencrypted
data, then all the hype on .NET is wrong, .NET is just a remote filesystem.
Are you saying that .NET is only a remote filesystem?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:28:12 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Jul 2000 03:51:35 -0500,
Tim Palmer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>Thats' only because your a FERAK that actually LIKES typing commands. all the
>normall poepal out thear
>hate Lixnu and will never give up Windo's just to use it.
I know I have said this before Tim, but it's blindingly obvious why you
would have difficulty with any command line system, sheesh.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:08:38 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Jul 2000 13:27:07 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[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 ...?
Given that perl python and java are note compiled to machine executable code
until they hit the interpreter (or JVM) how in heavens name would you write
an OS Kernel in one?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Web Browsers?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:02:45 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:13:29 +0000,
Luke Th. Bullock, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>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
Galeon is available from www.gnome.org, it's GTK+ based, on mozilla's Gecko
engine, I have found it to be fast and fairly light in resource needs, but it's
still slightly buggy.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 04:42:56 +1000
"Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:37:06 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> >> So you think the removal of IE and Outlook from windows would make it
less
> >> safe?
> >
> >I think it would make it less functional.
>
> Most windows desktop users also use office on their computers. Would it
not
> be more functional for them if office was tied to windows?
Definitely.
> Why do you think
> that microsoft made windows with ie tied in, in a no-removal attempt and
not
> office?
Because, to compete with "the browser" (primarily Netscape) which
threaten[ed,s] to make the OS obselete, Microsoft have turned Windows into a
delivery system for Internet Explorer.
They don't need to compete in office suites, because no other office suite
can compete.
> Can it be that office is a big revenue for microsoft while nobody wanted
> ie/outlook?
Office us a big revenue stream for Microsoft, and people most certainly *do*
want IE and Outlook, because they are pretty much the best programs at what
they do (do you mean Outlook, or Outlook Express ?)
> I mean, if ie/outlook are products wanted by consumers, why doesn't
microsoft
> sell them like office and make a profit?
Because:
a) it suits better to give them away and get their marketshare up.
b) even a better product (which IE wasn't initially) would never be able to
make a dent in the entrenched monopoly Netscape already had.
c) they already get enough money from Windows and Office not to care.
d) they'd make money from the "kits" featuring IE that get charged for.
> Can it be that microsoft decided to tie ie to windows and claim it was
free
> of charge and not possible to remove for the main reason to kill Netscape?
The main reason, no. *A* reason, certainly.
> Is it legal for a US company who has monopole on a product to use that
> monopole to crush competitors who make other products?
Probably not, but it should in no way be illegal for a company with a
superior product (IE) to oust an inferior product (Netscape), which is what
happened.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:49:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Cihl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:30:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tim Kelley wrote:
>>
>> People complain about setup of linux distros?
>>
>> Today I was installing NT server, and required ethernet card
>> drivers on a separate cd.
>>
>> After installing the drivers from the cd and placing the NT
>> server cd in the drive again when prompted, the OS locked up.
>> This happened twice, which was satisfactory for me to decide it
>> was a confirmed NT fuck up.
>>
>> I wound up having to add a second CD rom to the machine to
>> complete the install.
>
>A second CD-ROM? How did you come up with that? Doesn't Windows
>support all CD-ROM players, like Linux?
I think he was referring to a second CD-ROM *reader* unit.
I've had similar issues, in the case of "The Starship Titanic"
(an otherwise entertaining and gorgeously rendered
game narrated out by one of the Monty Pythonites -- John Cleese,
I think).
Fortunately, I had sufficient disk space to install all three
CD disks (and not quite according to Hoyle, either; I had to manually
copy the files) -- otherwise, the game would invariably prompt me
for another disk, and then refuse to acknowledge that I had
in fact put one in, while I was playing.
Now, I'm not sure whom to blame for that -- it's possible
it was a technical problem in the game itself -- but at least
I had an acceptable workaround. I do wonder if Tim would have
been able to do something similar...or not.
I also recently did an install over the network for RedHat 6.2.
That went beautifully, apart from the normal glitches because
of my unfamiliarity with my employer's network at the time,
and a bug in "pump" which gives me headaches on occasion.
Does Windows support network installs? I have my doubts,
although it's theoretically possible (at some point, the
user would have to key in a license number, mind you).
>
>> This is the sort of thing MSCE's think is "normal" but linux
>> users rightly think is absurd.
>>
>> Linux is a joy to install compared to any version of windows.
>
>That's my experience too. The old Windows 3.11 install wasn't bad,
>though.
It was small (3.1 was 6 3 1/2" floppies or so; 3.11 probably wasn't
much larger) and it worked. It was also ugly, but hey, so were
X Athena widgets. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Win95. Beautifully gorgeous. Almost useless.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
