Linux-Advocacy Digest #176, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 10:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (Michael Marschall)
Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bennett digest, volume 1 (Tholen) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (jim dutton)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Michael")
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Christopher Browne)
C# is a copy of java (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: trying to break a patent (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Marschall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:32:12 -0700
apollo:~$ w
1:34am up 81 days, 12:48, 1 user, load average: 0.40,
0.25, 0.20
Pentium 75Mhz, 32 MB of RAM, NFS server, Ethernet to Token
Ring router, ISDN to offsite network router
ares:~$ w
1:34am up 105 days, 8:18, 1 user, load average: 0.42,
0.30, 0.22
Pentium 75Mhz, 32 MB of RAM, Sendmail Router for an office
of 50 people.
morpheus:~$ w
1:35am up 75 days, 16:02, 1 user, load average: 0.00,
0.00, 0.00
Pentuim 3 500Mhz, 192MB of RAM, SQUID Proxy, IPMASQ,
IPCHAINS, VPN.
This last box was last rebooted by an inexperienced user (I
was on vacation) who thought he needed to reboot the machine
in order for a change in the SQUID proxy configuration to
take place. It was rebooted with an 80+ day uptime. I had
another box that was up for 204 days when I was editing the
/etc/passwd file and managed to wipe it out essentially
locking everybody out of the box until it was replaced
(needed to go into single user mode, then rebooted for good
measure).
Uptimes are very important to me and is a recorded testimate
to my choice of using Linux. The above uptimes are not even
that impressive if you ask me. What they are though is proof
that I have time to do something else other than worry about
stability.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web
Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:38:42 GMT
Slava Pestov writes:
> I see you failed to address my point about posts from Eric Bennett
> emplying tholen emulation tacticts. For shame, Eric.
Eric doesn't know what it means to emulate.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bennett digest, volume 1 (Tholen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:39:43 GMT
Slava Pestov writes:
> On the contrary, Eric Bennett was posting as tholenbot, given the
> clearly recognizable Dave Tholen emulation present in those posts.
What alleged "Dave Tholen emulation", Slava?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:39:55 GMT
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 22:56:31 -0500, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Windows 2000 is a stable, practical, user-friendly operating system that
>scales from the desktop to the datacenter. The consistant user interface
>allows for rapid adoption and training of new IS staff.
Wow, so much market-speak in only two sentences! If you aren't a
Microsoft salesman, you should send in your application *today*.
>In addition, the consistancy as a platform allows near drop-in replacement
>of new-hire staff whereas the balkanization of the nix world often requires
>retraining of admin staff accustomed to another "flavor" of nix.
That would be an advantage of sticking to a single vendor for all of
your computing needs. Even if that vendor is a "nix" vendor. At least
it would be if the vendor didn't make gratuitous changes between versions.
OTOH, there do seem to be substantial differences between the various
"flavors" of Windows. Our IT person is telling us that she needs to go
for training on W2K and Exchange 2K because they are substantially
different from their predecessors. Even Microsoft is telling MCSEs
that they need to be retrained for the new system.
Since we cannot switch everything over to W2K in one fell swoop, it
seems that as a practical matter Windows is just as "balkanized" as
Unix, admin-wise, while Unix has the advantage of being available from
multiple vendors, thus providing choices to the customer.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:53:15 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:31:41 -0600, John W. Stevens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Companies such as those that sell "Internet-wide accessible file
>storage" services would go out of business in a year, if everybody had a
>Linux box attached to an always-on network.
I don't think that this is the case. I am more than willing to pay
$9.95 a month to someone in order to have _them_ keep up with the
latest security patches, while I live a comfortable worry-free life
beind a firewall.
I've administered public Internet servers, and I've had enough fun for
now, thanks.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 2 Aug 2000 13:01:12 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:02:10 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>How are the "the rich" getting a "free ride" when they are paying
>just as much in taxes?
It is easier for a rich person to pay $1000 than a poor person. The poor
person has to sacrifice the next months food, the rich person has to delay
the repayment of their countryside mansion by two weeks.
>Are you saying that someone should be PUNISHED merely for
>having more?
You are the one who is sounding "punitive". Making someone who earns $10,000
pay $20,000 in taxes -- *THAT* is punitive. I suppose we'd need to reinstante
some form of indentured servitude for those whose income is exceeded by the
income tax.
>Why do you insist upon punishing achievement?
>
>>
>> >The only thing that is ethical is a "head tax" That is, your
>> >family pays, say, $10,000 / head, or whatever.
>>
>> Under your scheme, I would have owed the government $2500 per year.
>
>I paid 10x that amount last year, and I'm hardly "rich"
>I'm driving a 1989 Geo Spectrum.
Yes, but at least your after tax dollars are a positive some of money.
Under your scheme, I would have *OWED* money after tax, and that is *BEFORE*
paying any living expenses. Under your system, some kind of indentured
servitude would be necessary, because some people would not be able to
earn more than the tax.
>But if they had more money in their bank accounts, people could
>afford to pay for these things directly,
If low income earners had less than zero after tax dollars, under your
proposed "everyone pays the same amount" system, they would not have
"more money in their bank accounts". The truth is that you only want the
wealthy to have more money in their bank accounts.
>> People starving and dyiong because they can't afford health
>> care or food.
>
>If you can't afford food, then you are a useless parasite who
>deserves to die.
I suggest you spend a year in rural China, and then try repeating
those words. Whether or not you can afford food depends on your
circumstances. If the government takes all your income and $3000 more,
under your proposed system, than you can't afford food.
> Food is incredibly cheap, and not only that,
>you can even GROW YOUR OWN!
You need land to grow it on. And you can't buy land if you don't have any
income because the government taxed you at 150% under your proposed tax
system.
You'd need to rent the land from someone and pay for the right to grow food
their .. wait, you can't afford anything because you already owe. So we
go back to indentured servitude ...
>> Hospitals refusing
>> treatment to people who can't pay in advance.
>
>Don't be absurd, it's unbecoming.
Who'd fund the people who cannot pay up ? I guess the alternative would be
that the hospitals go bankrupt .
>> lower income families unable to get an education simply because they
>> were born into the wrong family.
>
>If they can't afford to support kids, then maybe they shouldn't
>be breeding like rabbits.
Well you can tell them that all you like, but it's not really the kids
fault if their parents make a bad choice.
>right-wingers are socialists. I am completely opposed to socialism
>in all forms. What I advocate is a *STRICT* meritocracy.
That's not what you'[re advocating here. Your advocating a complete
absence of social mobility. Your system would not be vastly different
to China in terms of wealth distribution and social mobility.
>> The leftists want everyone equal regardless of merit, and
>> the wealthy rightists want their kids to land on top of the heirarchy
>> regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are.
>
>I'm not wealthy, so you just blew your argument.
Oh, so you admit that you want your kids to land on top of the social
heirarchy regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are ?
>> Most 6 year olds cannot afford to pay for their education or health. So
>> you are advocating their parents pay for it.
>
>Absolutely. If they parents were signing the checks themselves, they
>would pay more attention to what the schools are teaching, and whether
>they are effective, and DEMAND that miscreants be punished and, if
>need be, expelled.
Yes... if they could afford to pay in the first place.
>> you have an anti-meritocracy -- old money stamps all over young genius.
>
>You've never heard of charities and scholarships? They're not only
>for college students, you know.
They are limited. There are not enough scholarships for everyone. There
are not even enough scholarships to educate the majority. Again, you
are trying to excuse your system with an argument that it's only an
old-money system "most of the time".
>> Yes, but their kids don't have much say in the matter.
>
>THE PARENTS are responsible for their kids, not you, and not me.
There we have it. Mr Kulkis's dream society is one where he drives past
starving children in his BMW, feeling self assured that it's their "parents
fault", because their parents were earning less than the annual tax amount.
>If someone is so poor that they can't raise their children, then
>maybe they shouldn't be breeding, should they?
Irrelevant. The child doesn't have any say in whether or not they are
born.
Why do you advocate that children suffer for their parents mistakes ? Again,
you are an old money advocate. You are saying that how well a kid does
should be causally related to how much money their parents have. This
is a shining example of your survival-of-the-fattest philosophy.
>Absolutely not. Part of being 'fit' is recognizing the necessity
>of making sure that they are educated. Look what we have right now...
>mandatory school attendance for all...including the jackasses,
>thugs, and felons who
>a) don't want to be there
>b) disrupt the learning environment
>c) terrorize the other students.
Yes, but you are advocating that they get educated based on the worthiness
of their parents. Not on their own merits. Inheritence over ability is
starting to sound like your anthem.
Under your system, thugs and delinquents with wealthy parents would still
be free to attend school.
>What part of "volountarily funded charities" do you not understand?
I don't understand the part where they are capable of paying to educate
the majority.
>Besides, in case you haven't notices, the tax-funded schools
>are absolute, complete SHIT right now.
Yes -- in the US. Other countries with leftist governments soundly whip
the USA on international tests.
The reason why the US's tax funded schools are in such a hole is because
the education system in the US has gone too far in the direction of user
pays, not because it hasn't gone far enough.
>> Somewhat. You still don't have a meritocracy. You have something that works
>> like a meritocracy in exceptional cases, but for the most part looks like
>> an old money system.
>
>Ability attracts money. Go figure.
Under your system, money attracts money. That is all.
>Not at all. If we got rid of the income tax, and replaced it with a
>sales tax, the Kennedy dolts would all be in the poorhouse now.
Nonsense.
>The current system encourages the "dominance of old money" even more.
Again, nonsense. Prior implementations of the kind of 19th century
industrial feudalism you champion were dominated by old money. I have
consistently argued that in the US today, there is a lot of social
mobility as opposed to the dominance of old money. You only argue this when
it suits your agenda, but then you do a U-turn and tell us that the system
is badly broken and needs a massive upheaval. You tell us that the system
is unfair to the rich and powerful, and they are not in fact wealthy and
powerful enough. Or maybe it is that the less fortunate are not
uinfortunate enough and your whole theory is based on a sick desire to
see the weak punished.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 2 Aug 2000 13:19:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rauni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:56:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>MH wrote:
>>>
>>> > >The richest 10% of Americans own 90% of the wealth, and thus
>>> > >are 81 times wealthier on the average than the poorest 90%,
>>> > >which collectively owns 10% of the wealth. That's the
>>> >
>>> > You are mixing and matching income with "wealth" or "assets". All
>>> > the assertion above proves is that the richest people tend not to
>>> > spend all of their money.
>>>
>>> That may be for the simple fact that they have a disproportionate amount to
>>> spend?
>>> Sliding ratio \ proportion. Beyond a point the rich have no reason to spend
>>> more money. Unless they just enjoy throwing it away. But they still have it
>>> to spend. At a much lesser point, the average income household in this
>>> country can't spend anymore because they simply don't have it.
>>>
>>> > Now the upper tax brackets are at a marginal tax rate of I'd say at least
>>> > 40%. So if the top 10% make up 90% of the nations income, then 36% of the
>>> > nations income is shared by everyone ( in fact the people on the bottom
>>> > would get a better share of that 36% ).
>>> >
>>> > >Yes, but a 30:1 pay ratio is enough, not 1,000 or 1,000,000:1.
>>> >
>>> > Here, you seem to be outright confusing pay ratios with ownership of
>>> > assets. Don't forget, that the guy who is paid the higher amount gives
>>> > more than 40% of it back to the country in income taxes.
>>>
>>> Please, please, please. Show me someone in the top 10% and I'll show you
>>> someone who NEVER
>>> pays close to the 40% rate. The tax laws are written for the rich. The more
>>> they have, the more they can write off. Of course it takes money to make
>>> money. Tax accountants, lawyers, so on and so on.
>>
>>The top 5% of wage earners pay %50 of all US taxes.
>>
>>The top 10% of wage earners pay %90 of all US taxes.
>>
>>[of course, high earnings is not wealth. Trust Fund babies like
>>the Rockefellers and Kennedys hardly pay anything because they
>>don't have much *income*]
>
>What a stupid fuck you are. These people who live off their
>investments...even if it is inherited, have to file their taxes four
>times a year. More proof that Aaron doesn't actually *know* any
>wealthy people.
Thats teacher to you retard.
-Jeem, HTH
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:18:57 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jen wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:27 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Mats Olsson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >THAT was the link I was after...thanks!
> >
> > From the same site that also said this on their home page:
> >
> > "We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
> > centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
> ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Note weasel phrase A : "we believe" (we don't know)
> Note weasel phrase B : "it offers" (it might give, or maybe not...)
>
Ever heard this:
"Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet
engine intakes."
I've met many people that live by that phrase, one way or the other.
(And I must admit that I have occassionally come close to the intake
myself, but somehow, up to this point I've always ended up sliding over
the wing and just getting my tail feathers a little burnt.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 09:18:53 -0400
Ummm...just to remind some people (like the one who wrote the message
below)..
.Microsoft operating systems have their own hardware compatibility
lists!!. Try installing NT using hardware that isn't on their HCL and
see where their tech support will tell you to go.
Michael
<<SNIP>>
>> >>
>> >> Linux will NEVER succeed in the common marketplace until it can
LOSE THE
>> >> HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!! PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!!
THEY JUST
>> >> WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
>> >>
>> >
>> >So buy from a Linux VAR, such as VA Linux.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the
computer
>> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists
rather than
>> >> business people.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
>>
>> Window's 98.
>
>Translation: Mac OS 6 for Intel.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
>C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
>D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
>E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
>G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:30:52 -0500
scaddenp wrote:
>
> >I didn't do so because people involved with GNU and Linux don't need
> >the obvious explained to them. You may find it "controversial" that
> >folks have been getting and enjoying things like Linux, GNU and WinAmp
> >for free for years but it's not hardly "controversial" in the groups
> >to which you fowarded my little essay. If you think you have
> >something to say, say it yourself.
>
> Hmm. These strike me as "free" largely meaning "paid for by someone else".
> With most of these projects, it seems to me the US Tax payer is picking up
> the tag. (Thank goodness
> I am not in the US). How much of the development do you suppose was done by
> people
> who took salary for the time they spent on the project but where their job
> description doesnt
> include "making free software"? Perhaps a lot of it was encompassed in terms
> of "doing
> research for the public good" and getting free software IS the public good.
> However I suspect
> a great many of those $$$ came one way or another from tax.
>
> However, I do agree that those of us who download and use the products are
> indeed enjoying
> a largely free lunch (particularly those of us outside the US).
A huge part of "FREE" software is made by hobbyists, not people working
for the government, and not people shirking their duties at a job. And
no one is really paying for the development other than the people that
are taking some of the time that they would use to watch TV, read a
book, listen to music, etc. and that is the payment that is made to
create the software.
While some do create free software as part of a job, it is usual working
for a distributor of the software, so it is no through shirking their
duties, but through following through on their duties. The point is,
while it isn't completely 'free' altogether, it is free other than the
time that is spent by the developers when they could be doing other
things (see above).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:29:07 GMT
>>>>> MH writes:
>> >The richest 10% of Americans own 90% of the wealth, and thus
>> >are 81 times wealthier on the average than the poorest 90%,
>> >which collectively owns 10% of the wealth. That's the
>>
>> You are mixing and matching income with "wealth" or "assets". All
>> the assertion above proves is that the richest people tend not to
>> spend all of their money.
MH> That may be for the simple fact that they have a disproportionate amount to
MH> spend?
MH> Sliding ratio \ proportion. Beyond a point the rich have no reason to spend
MH> more money. Unless they just enjoy throwing it away. But they still have it
MH> to spend. At a much lesser point, the average income household in this
MH> country can't spend anymore because they simply don't have it.
>> Now the upper tax brackets are at a marginal tax rate of I'd say at least
>> 40%. So if the top 10% make up 90% of the nations income, then 36% of the
>> nations income is shared by everyone ( in fact the people on the bottom
>> would get a better share of that 36% ).
>>
>> >Yes, but a 30:1 pay ratio is enough, not 1,000 or 1,000,000:1.
>>
>> Here, you seem to be outright confusing pay ratios with ownership of
>> assets. Don't forget, that the guy who is paid the higher amount gives
>> more than 40% of it back to the country in income taxes.
MH> Please, please, please. Show me someone in the top 10% and I'll show you
MH> someone who NEVER
MH> pays close to the 40% rate. The tax laws are written for the rich. The more
Wrong. I am in the top 1% in income and most of my income is taxed
at over 40% (not counting state taxes, with them most of my income is
taxed at over 50%).
Most of the old loop holes went away in 1987.
MH> they have, the more they can write off. Of course it takes money to make
MH> money. Tax accountants, lawyers, so on and so on.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:41:09 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Wolfgang Rupprecht
would say:
>(Folks running that popular program loader from that redmond company
>will not notice any difference in power usage running and not
>running.)
Thank you for writing this so that I didn't have coffee in my mouth
as I read this; that would have resulted in coffee everywhere.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #142. "If I have children and subsequently
grandchildren, I will keep my three-year-old granddaughter near me at
all times. When the hero enters to kill me, I will ask him to first
explain to her why it is necessary to kill her beloved grandpa. When
the hero launches into an explanation of morality way over her head,
that will be her cue to pull the lever and send him into the pit of
crocodiles. After all, small children like crocodiles almost as much
as Evil Overlords and it's important to spend quality time with the
grandkids. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 13:41:10 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeffrey B. Siegal would say:
>Wolfgang Rupprecht wrote:
>> The electricity cost of running a program can be measured by anyone
>> with a ammeter. In the case of current-vintage x86 desktop computers
>> thats a delta of very roughly 50 watts between sitting halted and
>> running.
>
>Yeah, that's what I said earlier in this thread. Of course, the amount of CPU
>time required to deliver a reasonbly-sized email is miniscule.
Minscule != zero.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Culus thinks we should go to trade shows and see how many people we
can kill by throwing debian cds at them
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: C# is a copy of java
Date: 2 Aug 2000 13:35:18 GMT
In article <8m731b$lfb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please, enlighten us. How can a reliable and efficient GC prevent
> memory leaks without extra book keeping to determine when a piece of
> dynamic memory is no longer in use and prevent fragmentation of
> memory without runtime overhead?
I don't know how mark-and-sweep GCs work. I don't know how they
perform compaction (except that you are usually not guaranteed to have
the address associated with a reference stay constant throughout the
lifetime of that reference.) It's years since I worked with this sort
of stuff, and I didn't fully understand it then. But I do know that
you can do it without ref-counter management on every pointer twiddle,
since making that right is one of the things that is hard and which GC
systems typically stop you from having to do; it is one of their
touted advantages. (It might have something to do with the fact that
these systems are usually set up so that they know the type of
everything referred to by every reference, and can determine with a
fair degree of accuracy if a random word is actually a ref or not...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: trying to break a patent
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 08:41:55 -0500
Nick wrote:
>
> > Trying to prove you 'own' the intellectual property that founds the
> > basis of the Internet, or networking in general, has not proven easy for
> > anyone. I would say you have a good chance of 'breaking' this patent
> > unless there is some other aspect to the problem.
>
> British Telecom is currently waving their patent about hyperlink technology
> about so this'll be very interesting...
>
> Nick
And that was one of the things I was thinking about when I posted.
There are also the 'one-click' and other cases from Amazon, but that
hyperlink thing just killed me. How can anyone come on the scene after
all this time and just happen to say they own the rights to
hyperlinking. Funny they didn't claim that when the 'web' was just
starting to pick up steam.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
