Linux-Advocacy Digest #3, Volume #28 Wed, 26 Jul 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux User Groups - What is going on? (Christopher Browne)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux User Groups - What is going on? (OSguy)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Andres Soolo)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:40:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:16:38 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:46:02 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:11:26 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Chris Wenham wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > If in 3 years NET is a big deal and users find it very useful GNU NET
> >> >> >> > will suddenly pop up in Linux distributions.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> By Magic!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I hope the source of inspiration for free software in the future will
> >> >> >> not come from the Copy Microsoft (tm)* crowd.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Chris Wenham
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> * - "Lets Copy Microsoft", "Copy Windows" and "Just Like Windows" are
> >> >> >> registered trademarks of the Linux Movement (tm).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ya know, you're right on!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I've really been getting nauseated with Linux ever since I first
> >> >> >laid eyes on fvwm95. I ran Slackware a while back and I thought
> >> >> >it was pretty keen. But
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? It's mostly slightly dressed up Motif interfaces from 5 or
> >> >> more years before Microsoft finally decided to get desktop
> >> >> religion.
> >> >
> >> >The whole concept of trying to immitate Win32 on a Unix platform was
> >> >unappealing at best.
> >>
> >> What kind of crack are you on?
> >
> >Not the kind that makes one unnecessarily aggressive, like you are.
>
> If you view that behavior as agressive then you need to get out
> of daddy's house once and while and leave you excessively sheltered
> existence for awhile.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
> >> It's Win32 that immitates X/Motif. (along with OS/2, Next and MacOS)
> >
> >Now who's on crack? Win32 and OS/2's windowing mechanisms are close to each
> >other, but they are both extremely far removed from X. The entire
>
> Howso? WIMP is pretty much WIMP all over. Even DnD and to some
> extend object and applications imbedding aren't that different
> from implementation to implementation.
How are Win32's and OS/2's message processing for windows even vaguely similar
to X's handling of input and drawing windows?
> What Fvwm95 does reflects interface elements present in X since 1990
> and a little bit of dressup to make it look more superficially like
> explorer.
And it's that precise "dressing up" that nauseates me so. Why bother trying
to look like Explorer when it can have its own unique and respectable
interface?
> >architecture is completely different.
> >
> >> If fvwm2 can manage to look 'too much like windows',
> >
> >fvwm95. The one with the freakin "Start" menu. Puke!
>
> ...rather like root menu's that have been in X forever.
>
> Except for a few entirely cosmetic changes.
You're missing my point. I'm not at all saying that technology has been
copied.
> >> it's due to fvmw2's inherent flexbility and the truth regarding
> >> who is stealing widgets from whom.
> >
> >I'm not knocking Feeble Virtual Window Manager's flexibility. I am knocking
> >the alarming tendancy of Linux programs to want to look like Windows programs.
>
> Just how do you propose to distinguish them without that
> distinctiveness being entirely gratuitive? Besides, there
> are plenty of applications and window managers that chose
> to follow some other path.
And I applaud those. But there has been an undeniable trend in a lot of Linux
software to recreate Windows on the Linux kernel, and that makes me want to
vomit.
> So your whole premise is really just an excessively lame
> troll, the rantings of someone unwilling to scratch the
> surface or go beyond someone else's bad rumours.
I'm starting to reconsider if you're even worth my time.
[pure bullshit snipped (among other things)]
> >Did I mention already that I had the EXACT same hardware setup running
> >Slackware a while ago with NO difficulties?
> >
> >And don't even get me started on the disturbingly Explorer-like file browser
> >stuff.
>
> If you can't take the initiative yourself, you don't need
> Slackware, you need an iOpener or a Dreamcast.
Does anything get through your "Linux is perfect" wall to your brain? I've
taken the initiative myself. I've run Linux the whole time I was going
through college and it was an invaluable tool before XFree86 was ported to
OS/2. My first kernel was in the 1.0 series. I used to download them right
off of ftp.helsinki.fi from the Tourvalds directory. I put a bug fix into the
SB16 sound driver because it increased my gain to 4x on bootup and made
horrible noise. Telling me that I need a Dreamcast is just you being an
asshole.
I've been watching Linux over a long time and I find the recent trend it has
been taking to be disturbing (to say nothing of some of its new gung-ho users,
such as yourself). Software developers are cowtowing to many users who,
truthfully, have no business running any kind of Unix variant. When you write
software that conforms to the lowest common demoninator, it becomes unwieldy
for those who operate at a higher level. Is it just as capable as it was
before? Sure. Is it more of a pain in the ass for someone who knows what
they are doing to figure out what is actually going on with all this extra
"stuff" piled on top of it? Definitely.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:44:12 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:35:41 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I suppose commands like PS and top don't need to know how BIG the
>[process] table is.
Not really. On Linux they read the info about running processes from
the /proc filesystem.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:52:31 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
>
> "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:00:22 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >So what's the excuse for Win9x?
> >
> > There is no excuse for Win9x. It is poorly engineered, period.
>
> No, it's quite well engineered. You have to think about the design
> considerations and restrictions when making such a statement, not how well
> it might compare to a product which had an entirely *different* set of
> design restrictions and considerations.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:59:46 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Wrong again. Ever heard of Xenix? Written by Microsoft in the early
80's?
>
> Xenix == Unix for the purposes of this discussion. MS == Windows.
> Which you knew, of course.
No. He was talking about Microsoft itself, not Windows in particular.
> > Ever heard of OS/2, written by Microsoft in the late 80's?
>
> OS/2 was co-written. MS did not write OS/2 all by it's self.
No, but it certainly wrote most of it (pre 2.0)
> > Ever heard of Windows NT, released by MS in 1993 (which did both
> > multi-processors and multitasking)?
>
> But didn't do multi-processing.
Even by your definition it did. It had multiple processes. Hell, the DOS
compatibility box alone would meet that definition.
> Note: there certainly are things that you can only modify by rebooting,
> but most of the kinds of changes that NT requires rebooting after, do
> not require rebooting on Unix systems. And that was the original
> contention, Erik.
Some. For instance, changing your video driver requires a reboot, while
shutting down and restarting X doesn't require that. However, most things
people reboot NT for do not require a reboot. For instance, changing the IP
address does not require a reboot, even though NT tells you to.
> > Uh huh.
>
> So, is that your fall back position? When you are proven wrong, you
> simply refuse to admit it, by implying that Aaron is lying?
No, I'm saying that Aaron's concept of "production" is severely limited.
> There goes your credibility . . .
Aaron's credibility left in his first message, in which every statement he
made was wrong.
> > > in other words, you win ONE POINT out of what...35?
> >
> > Forgetting already that you said Windows didn't have full multi-user
> > capabilities
>
> Considering what Aaron meant by "full multi-user capabilities", he was
> correct.
And, as I pointed out. Windows 2000 has full multiuser capabilities, even
considering what he meant.
> > Again, no answer.
>
> Neither GCC nor GDB run on NT.
Tell that to Cygnus.
> They run on a POSIX compatibility layer . . . in essence, they don't run
> on NT.
They most certainly do run on NT. That's like saying Windows doesn't run on
NT because Win32 isn't the native API either.
> X + WM + GUI Apps == a GUI.
No, the subsystem which provides the Graphical services is the GUI.
> > > You're the one claiming that DirectX is superior. Make your case.
> > > Burden of proof is upon you, not me.
> >
> > I made no such claim. I simply said they were doing it first, not that
it
> > was superior to anything.
>
> By definition, of *COURSE* they were doing it first! DirectX is a MS
> product. However, the engineering pattern that DirectX is but a single
> implementation of, was implemented in Unix X servers before Windows
> added DirectX.
Really? Since when were Unix X servers providing direct frame buffer access
to X apps?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Linux User Groups - What is going on?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:47:45 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when OSguy would say:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> Here in the DFW area, we have both an active LUG and an active UNIX
>> Users Group. Both groups commonly tell their respective memberships
>> of major activities that the other organization organizes.
>
>You have at least 2 active LUGs in the DFW area...North Texas Linux User's
>Group (NTLUG) and Fort Worth Linux User's Group (FWLUG). Is there a reason
>that NTLUG keeps pretending FWLUG doesn't exist? (And doing their best to
>make sure nobody hears of FWLUG?)
Right... The Conspiracy Theorists would think that NTLUG's _Minister
of Disinformation_ uses his hefty budget to pay people to Not Talk
About FWLUG. Everyone feel free to assess how likely _THAT_ scenario
is.
I guess I'd heard rumor a couple times that someone was thinking about
starting a group that would meet in Fort Worth; I wasn't aware that
this had gone anywhere. From the web site, it appears that there is
some sort of activity going on.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:06:46 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> That's called Multitasking.
>
> Wrong. Tasks are not the same as processes.
That depends on your architecture. Linux, for instance, is an entirely task
based OS. The only difference between a task and a process is that a
process has a unique memory address (and usually unique file descriptors and
other system resources).
Be uses a similar approach.
> Aaron is right.
>
> Multi-processing does indeed mean: running multiple processes, it has
> nothing to do with how many processors are in the box.
I guess that's why SMP is called Symetric Multi-Processing then. Wait, that
would invalidate your claims.
Multi-processing has not been used to describe multiple proceses for at
least 2 decades. Jargon evolves and changes.
> > Then why is it that you didn't know that MS wrote most of OS/2? Why do
you
> > consider Multitasking to be Multiprocessing (though I will admit that
the
> > term Multiprocessing was used synonymously with Multitasking
>
> So, you admit you were wrong?
No, I'm admitting that the phrase is incorrect in todays useage.
> Guess what: Multiprocessing is not the same as multitasking. A process
> is a form of VMS-lite, while a task is a separately scheduable entity.
> Processes contain tasks, tasks never contain processes.
Many OS's don't have processes at all. For instance, AmigaOS has no concept
of a process because all apps use the same address context without memory
protection. MacOS doesn't (or at least didn't) have the concept either.
The actual term for running multiple programs for simultaneously is called
Multi-programming.
> > in the old IBM
> > mainframe days, before multiprocessor machines were invented)
>
> Wrong again. You might want to research just when the first MP machine
> was created . . .
>
> Your confusion stems from not knowing that the terms process and task
> refer to two different things.
I know the difference between the terms.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:46:31 -0400
WOW. Multiple responses. Some to the same post. Now I'm torn on how to set a
troll filter for you -- should you go to the moron folder or the dipshit
folder (Do you have a preference?) -- I'd just delete you, but between you
and McCoy and the other trolls here, I figure there is lot of material that
can be used for character sketches and plot lines when I get around to writing
a story about the M$ idiots that live in the OS2 COOA.
BTW, I don't know what you said below, but I'm sure its rich and stupid with
some just right material for presenting trolls like you as keepers of a
psychoses that has to win, and holds grudges until their head steams and the
eyesballs pop at the sight of a given return address.
Bye-bye troll.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 07/26/00
at 06:17 PM, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> You have not only proved you're a troll, but you are one that is too hot
>> headed to make a coherent statement. Rephrased: You are an Now, wsshole.
>> When are you get smart enough to not look for trouble?
> MMUSStttTtt CCOnnnNtTTttorrrOllLLl uuuRRrrgGGggeee ttottotttoo
> SSsassSSsaayy TtTttttRroolll!!! *bzzt!* *short circuit*
> *compulsive-obsessive reactions kicking in*
> "TROLL. TROLL. TROLL. *BZZT* TROLL. *SPARKLE* TROLL..." [clank clack
> clank clank clank.....]
> HEY, THERE's A TROL IN CONTROL!
> NOW YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP CONTROL, ED!!!
> Say, Ed, if I gave you a drug that shut down only the part of your
> brain that comes up with ad-hominem attacks, would you cease to
> function in Usenet?
> Actually, if I sprayed Deja with magic Invective-GoWay 99.9% of your
> posts would vanish!
> Hey kids, tell this one to your classmates!
> Q: What rhymes with "Nbsolutely Aothing" and is also the entire body
> of proof that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" has provided so far to prove
> /anyone/ is a troll, working for Microsoft or even cheerleading
> for them?
> A: DIDDLY SQUAT!!!
> Q: When faced with an unpopular technical assertion that has been
> backed up with published references, what does [EMAIL PROTECTED] do
> nine times out of eight?
> A) Calmly and quietly provide counter-arguments like a gentleman
> B) Sarcastically provide a valid counter-argument
> C) Revert to R-complex grade ad-hominem attacks that include
> compulsively accusing the opponent of working for Microsoft
> and/or being a troll and thus changing the subject and
> completely avoiding the issue altogether because he doesn't
> know any other way how.
> D) CmdrTaco Sucks.
> The answer is: TROLL! MICROSOFT WHORE! WHY ARE YOU HERE??? YOU'VE
> JUST PROVED THAT YOU'RE A TROLL!*
>Regards,
>Chris Wenham
>* "You've just proved that you're a troll" (tm) is a registered
> trademark of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patend pending. Void where
> prohibited. All rights reserved. Not valid where inapplicable**.
>** - Inapplicable everywhere. Use Denial (tm) instead***.
>*** - Denial (tm) available in mass quantities. See your bulk
> purchasing agent for details. Available only in astronomical
> units. Coming soon: New 32-oz size!
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux User Groups - What is going on?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:05:17 -0500
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Right... The Conspiracy Theorists would think that NTLUG's _Minister
> of Disinformation_ uses his hefty budget to pay people to Not Talk
> About FWLUG.
Who holds that position on the NTLUG board?
> I guess I'd heard rumor a couple times that someone was thinking about
> starting a group that would meet in Fort Worth; I wasn't aware that
> this had gone anywhere. From the web site, it appears that there is
> some sort of activity going on.
It turns out that FWLUG has been meeting long before someone was starting the
group. The people trying to start up the group found out about FWLUG in
existence and promptly joined.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:15:31 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > First GUI 1984 1990
> >
> > Windows 1.0 was in 1985.
>
> I thought Windows 1.0 was character based, not a GUI . . . ?
It was Graphical, it didn't have overlapping windows and most interfaces
used characters, but it was not a character mode interface. See:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSCorp/Museum/exhibits/pastpresent/technology/1985.
asp
> > > Full networking support 1984 1995
> >
> > Windows for Workgroups was released in 93.
>
> Considering that the term was "full", I suspect that your use of WfWG is
> still debatable.
How so?
> > Likewise, we could add:
> >
> > When did Unix start getting direct video support for local users instead
of
> > forcing all UI data to go through sockets?
>
> Shared Memory support. 1985, I think.
Ahh.. about the same time as Windows 1.0.
> > > Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
> >
> > Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without
rebooting.
>
> That's ambiguos . . . Ok, I modified my kernel, and didn't have to
> reboot.
>
> They're called: modules.
Modules do not modify your kernel image.
> > > full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
> > > including O/S install
> >
> > NT has always had remote administration.
>
> The phrase was "full remote administration", and no, NT has not always
> had full remote administration . . . or even partial remote
> administration.
I can't think of anything you can't do from a command line in NT, and you've
always been able to telnet in if you install a telnet server.
> > > GUI's available 10 1
> >
> > X is the GUI,
>
> Wrong. X is not a GUI. It is a network transparent graphical windowing
> system.
Also known as a GUI. What exactly are windows if not User Interfaces?
> > A window manager is not a GUI.
>
> Yes it is.
No, it's not. If you're going to call that a GUI, then Windows has an
infinite number of them when using programs like Window Shades.
> It's graphical, it's a user interface, it's a Graphical User Interface.
It USES the GUI.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 02:02:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Simple; write it out in an endian-neutal format, and have your
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> There is no such thing.
> A number is either stored in Big-Endian, or Little-Endian format.
> There are no other practical alternative.
Well, there are formats that do not depend on the current machine's
endianity. For example, if you store your numbers always in big-endian,
your file format (or protocol) is endian-neutral though it uses a specific
endianity.
>> conversion routines convert to whatever's native. I've done lots of
>> this sort of thing, the mechanics are pretty basic.
> Translation: one MUST do a Big-Endian => Little Endian *or*
> a Little-Endian => Big-Endian conversion if the platforms
> differ in this respect.
Exactly. Still, it does matter when the conversion is done.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom.
Don't ever count on having both at once.
-- Lazarus Long
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 27 Jul 2000 02:07:05 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:07:16 -0500, John Sanders wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> Exactly. This is precisely the one legit use of goto I've seen in high
>> level code. For example, you use on error goto in basic as a way of
>> handling exceptions.
> Doesn't this reduce your interrupt to essentially a
> polled interrupt? I mean, doesn't the "on error goto"
> line have to be reached befor the interrupt is serviced?
No, IIRC. You can make an on error goto statement at the start of
your sub, and then if there's an error later on, it jumps. So
it goes like this:
on error goto foo
...
rem doing this will cause a jump to label foo
very-bad-thing-that-causes-an-error
of course, all disclaimers regarding me not having touched that
god forsaken language for over 10 years apply ...
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
