Linux-Advocacy Digest #401, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft MCSE (Albert Ulmer)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: I'm curious ("Drestin Black")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Drestin Black")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Drestin Black")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Drestin Black")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) ("Joey Le")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:53:04 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:08:13 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, I haven't looked at pthreads in quite a while. It used to be a
> >library that you could link with to give you thread support, at the cost
> >of controlling your own scheduling.
>
> You're thinking of "MIT Pthreads", which was the standard thread
> library on Linux before kernel threads were implemented (what used to
> be called "LinuxThreads" before being integrated into libc).
>
> But even with pthreads you didn't need to "do your own scheduling", it
> was just that the library was implemented in user space and did not
> provide preemptive scheduling. I believe it did include wrappers
> around IO functions though. A thread had to make an IO call or call a
> yield function to give up it's time.
>
> There is an advantage to this model, that being less overhead on
> single-cpu systems. The advantage of kernel threads is that threaded
> programs can take advantage of SMP.
>
> IIRC, kernel threads have been in Linux since the 2.2 kernel series
> started, and were integrated into libc during the switch from libc5 to
> libc6 (aka glibc).
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:54:43 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IIRC, kernel threads have been in Linux since the 2.2 kernel series
> started, and were integrated into libc during the switch from libc5 to
> libc6 (aka glibc).
Yes, I'm aware that linux has kernel threads. I wasn't talking about them.
My understanding is that the Linux kernel is inherantly a threaded kernel,
and that the only difference between a thread and a process is that a
process is a thread with a unique memory context.
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:42:59 +0200
Stuart Fox wrote:
> > Just wait for the next fixpack to cure
> > the memory leak or page fault in our application. Better go call our
> > resident mcse so that they can tell you that rebooting will "fix" the
> > problem.
> As a developer you need to make
> certain assumptions and one of them is that the OS is going to provide
> certain functions for you, and you won't have to fix them.
The trouble here is that the Windows-inherent "ease-of-use" gets in the
way when the developer needs (or rather wants) to know how to comply to
industry standards. As long as you stay in the MS universe and its
available "OS functions", you will hardly have problems. As soon,
however, as you intend to cover new ground, you'll find yourself with a
number of good questions (where did that memory leak come from? how do
valid TCP/IP headers look like? etc.) and very few answers from MS.
Just as an example, I had to develop a remote monitoring system for my
company and had to choose between Windows and Linux as a platform. I
dumped Windows the minute I found out how complicated it was to read
SNMP-values into a database and do various computations on the values,
let alone get reasonable performance out of the system. With Linux, on
the other hand, I had $0 investment to make in licenses and was all set
with tools like snmpget, mySQL and a few shell scripts running on Debian
GNU/Linux.
Our main admin is a NT-addict and his advice was to go with HP OpenView
and MS SQL Server. I don't think I'll have to point out the licensing
costs involved with this solution.
Bottom line: If you want to develop some serious database/networking
applications, you're plain lost with tools from MS. Linux or FreeBSD are
the only sensible solution here.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:53:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Use of goto statements, especially calculated goto statements,
>is also a bit "unkosher". Again, these are bad habits that must
>be later unlearned when supporting mulitple users, multiple windows,
>and multiple threads.
But what if there is no later? An end user wants simple customization,
automation, *control* of interface processing mechanisms. If there
requirements extend to supporting other users than themselves, multiple
windows, or threading, then obviously they should learn a "real"
programming language. I'm just interested in how *accessible* it is,
not how *capable* it might be.
[...]
>Microsoft has pretty much tried to "Un-BASIC BASIC" for years. While
>this has made their implementation more useful as a tool, it begins
>to blurr the distinctions between Visual BASIC and C. Unfortunately,
>Visual Basic is only implemented on Microsoft platforms, while C and
>PERL are implemented on BOTH Windows and UNIX/Linux.
Microsoft has a vested in interest in ensuring that end users cannot
access empowering technologies; it would make them less dependant on the
myth that Windows/DOS/MS-BASIC supplies some irreplaceable
functionality, without which they would be at the mercy of Unix wizards.
It doesn't really take much to become a Unix wizard capable of putting
some shell scripts together; we know this to be true. So why does it
seem so scary to the end user?
>A developer who wanted to hedge his bets, cash in on a fast-growing
>new market, and still have easy access to the existing Windows markets
>would be very wise to consider using a portable language such as C,
>PERL, TCL, or Java. Is there a Python for Windows? These are
>languages that are "complile-and-run". It takes so little time to
>compile them (often less than 100 milliseconds per thousand lines)
>that it's faster and easier to just compile them once and run them
>in a tight loop.
>
>PERL got a bad reputation because the generic CGI/PERL interface
>cause CGI to exec a new PERL image with each incoming message. This
>meant that each message caused a load, compile, link and
>initialization, before it parsed the 1 line of HTTP request and
>generated the output. Apache/Mod_PERL used a server which let the
>perl module run continuously and the Apache server would simply pass
>the message and wait for a response.
>
>PERL is still a bit crippled in the NT Resource kit, but it's
>quite functional. If BASIC wasn't too much of a struggle,
>PERL should be quite easy.[...]
I'm a huge fan of PERL. I don't know how to use it very well, and I
don't blame the language for that. But I don't blame myself, either.
I'm looking for answers, not blame, and I haven't seen what I am
actually hoping for, or any sign that it might appear. Which is a way
of making it easy to learn PERL for someone who didn't learn it (or at
least two other languages) before they were 35 to the point where they
can *use* it. I don't have much trouble *understanding* basic
programming structures, and even some rudimentary algorithms. But it
never seems trivial to me to actually put together a script to do
something I might consider wanting to automate on my desktop. But, of
course, maybe that's just 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: "Drestin Black" <[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: 14 Aug 2000 13:55:42 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It's fucking trivial with Unix, however.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > question is what possible motivation could you have for
> > > > informing the world that you're using Win98 if you're not???
> > >
> > > System security.
> >
> > Hmm. Unix security is *so* pathetic that the only viable option is to
make
> > the world think it's really Win98, thereby causing only Win98 attacks?
> >
> > Majorly weenie.
>
> No, it's called operational security. All military organizations
> practice such techniques...
>
> If you don't know which flavor of Unix I'm running, then you'll
> spend far more time beating your head in vain.
>
AHHHHH - Aaron explains something to us all!!
I should have guessed! Now, when I use netcraft to check and see what OS a
site is running (assuming the site cares about security at all) we can
assume that it's really running some version of Windows instead of the Unix
it reports - all as a clevel way of deceiving hackers!! (Who are so stupid
that they are fooled by the most obvious of ways to pretend to be another
OS.)
So, hence forth, when aaron points us to a unix site we must remember that
it's operation security is reporting *nix to the outside world but really
it's running something else inside...
hahahahahahahaaaaaaaa
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:53:47 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Hmmm... I was raised on quite a bit of PBS... I suppose
> that explains why I look at "professional" wrestling, and
> sneer in disbelief.
"Professional" wrestling on TV is not 'real' wrestling. You have to
remember that they are there to entertain. As such, they are actors.
And if you happen to catch any of the WWF shows in the last year or two
you would see that the acting far outweighs any sort of physical
abilities these 'wrestlers' have. True, some of them are great physical
specimens, but they are not on TV to wrestle. They are on TV to act out
a seriously complicated play, with a lot of physical interpretive dance
(and I won't get into the entire psychology of the acting of violence
and the psychological state of the audience that wishes to see the
violence).
Real wrestling has its place, just realize that TV wrestling (WWF, WCW,
ECW, etc) has nothing to do with real wrestling. It makes the watching
much more enjoyable. And I should know. My wife started me watching
wrestling when we started dating. Once you get past the lack of 'sport'
in wrestling, it really is quite entertaining.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I'm curious
Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:01:38 -0500
Owning the company helps ...
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tell me something, because the curiosity is killing me... I, and all the
> people I know (at least the ones that are really good at what they do)
> are so in demand that none of us have time to follow many threads on a
> regular basis, let alone for posting on a regular basis. For instance,
> I'm taking a break from building some machines to start whistler beta
> testing (I'm in the official program, so I don't want to hear about
> piracy, and no, you can't have a copy) to post this. I'll probably
> follow it for about a week or so, then I won't have time to hunt for it,
> so unless it gets interesting, I won't even mark it for watching and
> I'll lose the thread. Yet, there are a number of people within these
> groups that claim to be highly in-demand, very knowledgable
> professionals in the computer industry and who post here at all hours.
> In fact, you can see a few of them posting for literally hours at a
> time, if you bother looking at the times between their posts. I'm just
> wondering how these people find the time. So, without naming names, are
> you all screwing off all day in the news groups instead of working?
> (On going to war over religion:)
> "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary
friend."
> - Rich Jeni
>
>
> -----= 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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:01:42 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ms4do$8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Meanwhile, we have the WinTrolls, who seem to offer pseudonyms,
> > > hide behind 5 layers of anonymous e-mail, and provide links
> > > to the Microsoft websites as their primary source of information.
> >
> > Examples being ?
>
> drestin black, "s", roger. Many of whom don't even include real
> e-mail addresses (i've tried responding privately and the mail
> bounced).
My e-mail address is legit and always has been. Simply remove the ".nospam"
portion.
<snip>
> I have a particular admiration for Drestin Black. He is very
> articulate, and is very good at providing references that appear
> to be verifiable - and usually disclose details at the bottom of
> the article that effectively refute the claims he was trying to make.
Thanks.
But, i think what you are refering to is something like where the article
goes exactly as I said it would but in the copyright there is some mention
of Microsoft or some MS related corporation. AND you instantly conclude that
it must be a lie or that MS wrote it or that it's bought and paid for by MS
without doing any further research. THAT is the flaw in your research, not
mine.
>
> When I do post a reference, I've usually read the entire article
> to make sure I didn't miss anything important.
>
As do I.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:01:41 -0500
I am not now nor ever was paid by MS. Period. This is the only NG I post to
using this handle. Why? Because it's fun and soaks up some dead time when
I'm just too lazy to work. Which I can do cause I own the company. I am not
currently active in the "porn" website business, that's a venture long past.
I write from my own (and my companies) collective experiences working with
companies large and small. It's not linux I hate as much as the
stereotypical linux booster.
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> would say:
> >How much does Microsoft pay these guys? Dresting Black has posted
> >over 1559 articles to COLA, and an additional 892 articles to COMNA.
>
> The motivation behind this all is _quite_ confusing.
>
> On the one hand, it is quite evident that with the _HUGE_ amounts that
> get written, these guys have _got_ to have some sigificant motivation,
> or a _serious_ case of "nothing _better_ to do."
>
> In the case of "Tim Palmer" aka "all sorts of aliases," it would be
> unsurprising if he's a high school student who gets his jollies out
> of ripping virtual raspberries at Linux. It's quite a bit sad if he
> had nothing more meaningful to do with his time than that.
>
> Drestin Black is a bit confusing in motivation; he writes a better
> "spun" story which would make it not unbelievable that he might be
> a "Microsoft contractor," paid to spin anti-Linux stories.
>
> While it's not greatly related to COLA, John Dyson's periodic
> "anti-FSF harangues" on gnu.misc.discuss are a bit bewildering to me.
> Perhaps he has some contracting work that periodically pays _very_
> well, and then leaves him free to spend a couple months posting flames
> on gnu.misc.discuss. I would think that there is some FreeBSD coding
> work he could do that would be of greater benefit to him and the world
> at large than the "driveby-flamings" on the newsgroup.
>
> On the other hand, I have a difficult time believing that Microsoft
> would _want_ to have any kind of association with these people.
>
> Some [Toilet Paper, I mean Tim Palmer, and "Stinky Boris"] write _such_
> worthless rubbish as to be an outright embarassment to have associated
> with Microsoft. As a result, I can't believe that Microsoft would be
> anywhere near to paying them.
>
> Drestin Black is coherent enough that it would be faintly believable,
> although _were_ it the case, I'd expect any sort of payment to be
> made quite indirectly. (His "porn" connections would be a bit of bad
> publicity, irrespective of whether anyone feels that is "puritanical
> moralism.") Directly giving these folk stock options in return for each
> "Linux Bash" would not be good business, as since MSFT is a publicly
> traded company, it has to be audited, and that would represent a way that
> information would have a way to leak out to make MSFT look bad/stupid.
>
> The point is that if Microsoft was hiring AntiLinux Evangelists, I'd
> expect them to hire more competent evangelists, or ones that _sound_
> more competent. [An associate who is a near-namesake of mine actually
> got a call from Microsoft for this very "position;" they have indeed
> recruited amongst _QUITE COMPETENT_ people for this purpose.]
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> "Applicants must have *at least* five years experience with Windows
> XCVIII..."
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:03:02 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Funny how the little retard hasn't been seen since he fucked up the
> big-endian/little-endian conversion program.
Funny how you didn't show at Michigan and Central...
I have been on a vacation in Canada... you've heard of this right? it's
called having a life outside of computers?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:55:03 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Hmmm... I was raised on quite a bit of PBS... I suppose
> that explains why I look at "professional" wrestling, and
> sneer in disbelief.
"Professional" wrestling on TV is not 'real' wrestling. You have to
remember that they are there to entertain. As such, they are actors.
And if you happen to catch any of the WWF shows in the last year or two
you would see that the acting far outweighs any sort of physical
abilities these 'wrestlers' have. True, some of them are great physical
specimens, but they are not on TV to wrestle. They are on TV to act out
a seriously complicated play, with a lot of physical interpretive dance
(and I won't get into the entire psychology of the acting of violence
and the psychological state of the audience that wishes to see the
violence).
Real wrestling has its place, just realize that TV wrestling (WWF, WCW,
ECW, etc) has nothing to do with real wrestling. It makes the watching
much more enjoyable. And I should know. My wife started me watching
wrestling when we started dating. Once you get past the lack of 'sport'
in wrestling, it really is quite entertaining.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:04:01 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n83ee$b4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've also had fun with style & diction analysis (the unix predecessors
> to Microsoft's style checker). You find a great deal of similarity
> between the writing style of Drestin Black and the person who writes
> Microsoft's formal press releases for PR NewsWire. In one case,
> he even quoted a large section and I didn't realize that it was
> a quote until I started the reply.
I would love to see some samples.... this could be entertaining "They" say
everyone has their "twin" out there somewhere... eerie
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:59:59 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> > John Mogensen wrote:
> > [snip nice points]
> >
> > I think the only thing you forgot is that Linux is slowly alienating
> > some of the very people that were initially attracted to it because it
> > is *computer literate* friendly. And as it tries harder and harder to
> > emulate Windows, it will alienate more and more of its developers and
> > users.
>
> I'm not sure Linux itself is really changing in that direction. After all,
> the GUI is still optional. And if you do want a GUI, you don't have to
> pick one that reminds you of Windows.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
I'm speaking of far more than just the GUI. I know that's the number
one focus of a lot of people here, but that's not what I'm talking
about. I'm talking about the systems that implement PNP in ways that
create a nightmare every time you boot your machine, let alone change
any hardware, and similar 'Windowsisms' that have crept into some
people's minds as good ideas. Look to Corel to see what I mean. And
many people are saying these are good ideas. I don't think so.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Joey Le" <NoNeed>
From: "Joey Le" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.windows2000,alt.linux,alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:08:03 -0700
linux is better at that, hehe, but remember that it does not have much hard
and software compatibilities.
IBM is making linux alittle more happy these days.
"N_User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was doing so well with computers, I had a BBS going, I was
> programming, etc...
>
> Then Windows came out and turned me into a point and click idiot.
>
> I had a bright future in the IT industry, but Windows has turned me
> into a win-idiot.
>
> I'm hoping Linux can rehabilitate me. Make my brain work again.
>
>
> Thanks for nothing windows.
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
