Linux-Advocacy Digest #719, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (OSguy)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but... (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:06:35 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> In short, Kulkis's exclusionist vision has an agenda of hiding the less
> able from the statistics, rather than actually improving the quality of
> education.
Not to dispute that private schools can pick and choose, because they can if
they so want, but the private schools that I went to had plenty of students
who didn't choose to be there. They were there because mom and dad made them
go.
Of course, this number was likely lower then it is in public schools, and it
also shows that the parents are involved in _some_ level with their children
(then again, there were a lot of parents that clearly felt signing the check
was enough involvment).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
..I'm sure that if I were wandering naked across the Serengeti Plain and
happened to come across a pride of lions who were feeling peckish, they'd
show me the same f'g courtesy. Come on, in less time than it takes to say
"Two all-Miller patties" I'd be chili con carnage. -- Dennis Miller on
Vegetarianism.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:09:00 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> It is a funny segment, but I hope you don't take it seriously. It is
> obviously staged.
I wouldn't say it's staged. Heavily edited to mostly show the moronic
answers, since they get the laughs... but not staged per se.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
The Matrix is going down for reboot now!
Stopping reality: ....OK
The system is halted. -- yet another sig stolen from /.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:35:34 -0500
Glitch wrote:
> OSguy wrote:
> >
> > Glitch, you just lost all credibility in quoting prices. Anything to
> > make your $170 Win2K upgrade look cheap huh?
>
> I like Linux. Billy says b/c some CDs of Linux cost $2 that they are
> cheap in quality as well as price. To counter that I said that *a*
> version of RH is $180.
OK, you were being sarcastic (or whatever). One of the major problems I have with
the MS mindset is the attitude that things have to have a hefty price tag to be
good. I hate seeing that attitude even in joke form simply because it comes from
misguided and clueless people. I'm really glad Linux goes contrary to this
attitude.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:43:48 GMT
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:28:10 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You've got it exactly backwards. Raw storage is just numbered blocks
>> on the disk. Filesystems are an abstraction created by the OS.
>No, you have it backwards. Where is the OS when your computer is off?
In a pile of bits on the hard disk.
>You turn your computer on. Where does the OS come from?
The boot loader reads it from the disk. The boot loader does not
necessarily know anything about the filesystem on the disk, although
some do. It just needs to know what block to start reading at, how
many blocks to read, and what address to jump to after the OS kernel is
loaded.
>In fact, given the same file system (no matter how it was
>constructed), you get the same behavior once the computer is turned on.
Which may or may not be what you want, since the identical disk could
be installed in a completely different computer. So now your tool has
to probe for hardware and the like too, unless the human tells it that
information.
Why are we building this again, instead of letting the OS do the work
for us?
>That is because your file system is nothing more than a persistent data
>structure. Nothing more. No magic.
It is nothing but a pile of bits until some software interprets it.
The persistent data structures are just patterns of bits that only have
meaning in the context of some software interpreting them. The boot
process is called "bootstrapping" for a reason.
On reset, the CPU hardware jumps to a reset vector in ROM and starts
executing what it finds as instructions. The ROM code causes the
hardware to read a boot block from disk. The boot block loads a kernel
from a known location (block) of the disk. The kernel loads drivers
and so forth and the system is running. I've simplfied and left many
details out out, but the point is that the software leverages it's way
step-by-step from a very simple understanding of what the bits on the
disk are (numbered blocks or similar that contain code to run) to a
state where they can be interpreted as files and directories. There is
no "chicken and egg" problem, just one piece of code loading another in
a carefully-orchestrated sequence. And the supposed data structures on
the disk do not drive the process until it is well along.
>But your file system is also the data structure that defines your OS
>and its applications. All the abstractions come into existence only
>after your software is loaded into memory from these data structures,
>and your software begins to run.
There *are no* data structures on a disk. There are blocks of bits.
Data structures are an abstraction created by software. Filesystems
are data structures. Different software (BIOS, boot loader, OS) can
and do treat the same data in different ways.
Filesystems as they live on disk are not self-describing. Sure, tools
besides operating system utilities can create filesystems and even read
and write them, but there is nothing there but patterns of bits until
some software somewhere interprets the bits.
This is why tools like Ghost can typically only be used to create exact
copies of a system. The tools don't know anything about the logical
structure of the data they manipulate. Don't get me wrong here, they
*could* know, and be able to manipulate the files "behind the back" of
the OS. That's been done. For example, you can take a DOS disk image,
mount it under Linux using the loopback device, edit it, and then write
it to a real disk. I can see that as something useful if you do mass
rollouts of identical systems, which is why people buy tools like
Ghost, but it seems cumbersome as a standard way to install software.
Your idea as I understand it is that one could have "generic" code to
do this manipulation of filesystems. You would describe the various
filesystem structures and things like the registry with XML-based
databases. You would have other databases that describe installation
requirements of your software, and a generic installer that does the
right thing based on these databases. All that is surely possible,
with a lot of effort, but I fail to see how the problem is simplfied by
doing that. You are essentially creating a specialized programming
language, but you seem to want to get away from programming.
On top of that, from a practical perspective, managing software from
outside the OS would seem to require rebooting the computer every time
you wanted to make a change. That is a step backwards for nearly all
server operating systems.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:43:51 GMT
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:06:33 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My response is in the other part of the thread. I'm not going to
>> repeat it here. Basically, it sounds like you want some sort of
>> meta-language to define installation procedures. This meta-language
>> would generate install programs for each supported platform, or perhaps
>> a database of some kind that could be used by the universal installer
>> to actually do the install.
>>
>> You are aware that this is sort of how Installshield and RPM work,
>> right? The developer creates scripts that describe his installation
>> and the tool makes some assumptions, and everything usually works. You
>> just want to make these scripts more abstract so that they'll work on
>> different platforms, and make them editable so you can pre-configure
>> your local setup.
>>
>> Is that about right?
>
>Yes, I am quite aware that this is how Installshield and RPM work. That is
>why I claim that all the information needed to re-factor the problem is
>right there in our hands already.
>
>Just stop for a moment and focus on the problem. Forget the execution
>environment.
But 'correctness' of a software installation is in reference to a
particular execution environment.
>From a data structure point of view, who really cares if one file is a
>font file, one is executable, another is an initial database, a
>library,
Existing installation tools don't care. I agree that it doesn't matter
from the point of view of the installation. It might be helpful when
you are trying to troubleshoot to know what files are for though.
>So of course I don't want to generate install programs. Why would I?
So you can write one generic one and apply it to many different
platforms. I thought that's what you were after.
>Take the XML descriptions of what structures are required for each
>software component. Take any set of options that are givens for this
>configuration. Evaluate what should then be done to construct each
>software component into this data structure that happens to be a file
>system. Then just render the proper structures into storage, and keep
>track of what structures are being modified, and why.
Ok, you're glossing over a *lot* here, but let's go with that. You're
talking about modifying the existing data structures in order to
"render" your application into the proper places. Which means that
your tool has to know what the structures are and how to manipulate
them in ways that the OS will treat as valid (your program does, after
all, have to run). Which means you need some language for describing
the structures, which you will presumably build using XML. This sounds
a lot like writing install programs to me. You're just moving the
complexity from code to data.
>If this is being done outside the OS (logically or even literally)
>then there is really no reason the same facility can't manage
>different platforms (like Solaris, Windows, Palm pilots, Linux, etc.).
Well, on NT, Solaris and Linux it would _have_ to be done literally
outside the OS, as those don't take too kindly to changing the
structures out from underneath the OS while it is running. Bad things
happen when you do that.
>Do I get some advantages? You bet. I can manage an OS even if the
>OS isn't functional.
Yes, but on the flip side it _can't_ be functional while you are
managing it. That's a step backwards.
>I can detect if structures that should be locked down have been
>changed.
You mean, your existing tools can't tell you this? Mine can.
>If I involve the various Operating Systems in this process, and all
>the abstractions they define, then I complicate the process.
Only because you have glossed over a huge number of implementation
details by simply assuming that "data structures" are simpler than
"code". You can move the complexity back and forth between the two,
but that does not make it go away.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but...
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:35:28 GMT
In article <8oeufu$h35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry, this is probably geared more towards the programmers in this
> newsgroup, but I have a question:
>
> They're making me take VB 6 as part of my studies at school.
> Me and one of the instructors were a little bored so we
> downloaded some sample VB code that sets up a server and
> client chat program.
>
> Took us about 15 minutes to get it working,
> and there was probably less
> than 100 lines of code (error handling included),
No special trick here. The registry stores the defaults and
the chat program uses those defaults. As a result, your connect
calls gethostbyname invisably, bind uses defaults (hostname, anyport),
and you set properties.
I've written a chat in perl that's pretty compact too.
> and after a few
> minutes, we were already playing around with the data we were sending
> back and worth (not just text messages but modifications and function
> outputs using the text messages as input, etc.). Real easy stuff. The
> basis for the chat program is the use of the Microsoft Winsock
> control,
> which probably has its limitations etc. etc. but I had to say I was
> impressed with how quickly we could have started something big based
> on this one control.
>
> In my spare time I'm trying to learn GTK+ programming, and I was
> wondering if there was anything comparable to this sort of control
> available for Linux programmers?
There are "cheap chats" in PERL, Python, and Java. Because they
are primarily used as tutorials on TCP/IP objects, they are commented
extremely well. If you delete the comments, limit the options
(as Microsoft does), and consolidate declarations, you can do
chat in 25 to 75 lines of code (depending on your coding style).
> A bonobo component, maybe?
Actually, this wouldn't even be a gtk issue. the primitives are
implemented directly in C, and objects are implemented by writing
wrapper methods that call the C functions. Pick the language
you want to play with (TCL, PERL, JAVA, Python, Xlisp), and look
for the socket object. In some cases, you may need to specify
which type of socket (you had a tcpSocket, but UNIX supports udpSockets,
unixStreamSockets, and unixDatagramSockets as well.
> Methods were: Accept, Bind, Close, Connect, GetData, Listen, PeekData,
> SendData
>
> Properties were: BytesReceived, Index, LocalHostName, LocalIP,
> LocalPort, Name, Object, Parent, Protocol, RemoteHostName, RemoteIP,
> RemotePort, SocketHandle, State, Tag
>
> Don't know if it inherits from a different
> class or anything like that.
>
> (ps: I know some of those properties wouldn't be present in a linux
> implementation, I just included them for the hell of it...)
Actually, all of them would be in a Linux implementation, along with
errno. UNIX uses an extern, errno to return the descriptive error
code. Winsock was designed to support threads, which meant that
errno had to be returned through the stack.
The one hidden routine was the "gethostbyname" call. In berkely
sockets, you use different routines to convert IP host addresses
to the socket IP addresses (mostly about portability), and you use
gethostbyname to convert DNS/hosts hostnames to an IP address using
the resolver scheme. Winsock allows the user to provide a dotted
decimal IP string which winsock internally converts to the binary
IP address. You can do it the old fashioned way, but why bother.
You have additional options under Berkley Sockets that you neither
need nor care about under NT, because they aren't available (kernel
in-memory sockets). NT provides something comparable via the localhost
interface, and Microsoft considers COM the preferred IPC interface.
Generally, in the UNIX world it's so much easier to go to higher level
abstractions such as remote streams, message queues, RPC, Corba, or
URLs, that most people don't even bother with low-level socket coding
anymore.
Still, it's good to learn.
> -ws
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:26:45 -0500
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The MS supporters prefer to keep handing over their $$$
> to get their hands on "the only(sic) operating system
> designed just for you and your home PC."
>
> http://shop.microsoft.com/product/windows/msline.htm
>
> $289 for Windows ME...
That's $2*0*9, not $289. Which is the same price that Win95 sold for in
1995.
> ...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
http://shop.microsoft.com/store/products/ProductOverview.asp?strOvType=prici
ng&intProductIID=76026
Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Professional English North America - $289.00, $319
if you need the media (ie, you can buy one copy of the media for $319 and
and any number of additional liscense only versions)
> I don't want to get overly cynical here[1] but it seems to
> me like this is a marketing excercise to find out just how
> ignorant/gullible the "buying public" really is.
Or perhaps how illiterate Linux advocates are.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:30:23 -0500
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vYyq5.5158$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Its $209. Not that it makes much difference. ;)
>
> Thats over double the price of Mac OS 9 at $99.
Why do we always go through this?
The $99 price of MacOS 9 is an upgrade price. Since you cannot buy a
Macintosh without buying a liscense for MacOS (even used, the OS liscense
must be transfered with the machine). MacOS X will most certainly *NOT*
cost $99 though.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:37:30 -0500
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That depends on what you mean by market share. When I say market share,
I
> > mean the number of servers that have IIS on them, versus the number of
> > servers that have Apache on them. Not the number of domains that are
> hosted
> > by each server application.
>
> Typical wintroll crap. "Market Share" _by definition_ means a percentage
of
> total sales for the market:
>
> "Ratio of sales of company's product or product line to the total market
> sales for that product or product line. "
>
> "Expressed as a percentage. "
>
> (source: http://www.rpi.edu/~holmec/ms.html)
>
> Thus if Apache's sever count is growing faster than IIS's server count,
MS's
> market share is _dwindling_, because the MS's ratio of servers to the
total
> is getting smaller. (Basic 7th grade math.)
But that's just it. Apache's server count may *NOT* be growing faster (and
probably isn't). The Apache *HOSTED DOMAIN* count is growing faster. That
does not equote to the number of server installations (which would be the
most equivelant "Ratio of sales of company product or product line to the
total market sales for that product or product line."
> > Only when you define "market share" as "percentage of hosted domains".
>
> That's what it is. Unless you want to redefine _IS_.
No. Market share is the number of installed servers. NOT the number of
hosted domains.
If I go out and register 1000 domains and point them all to the same site,
that's not 1000 installations of Apache. That's one installation with 999
aliases.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:39:36 -0500
I'm sorry. I simply do not believe you that A system with X, KDE, and
several other major services only takes 35MB. X with KDE alone will take up
at least that much (KDE buffers consume huge amounts of memory in fact).
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:n2uq5.2107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hey Erik.... please *READ* what i wrote, i do take X windows AND! KDE in
the
> comparison;-
> and what what about workstation...?
> same thing there.. Win2k hogs on a lot more memory than Linux, doesnt
matter
> how you twist it.
> Indexing? well i havent activate that one for that matter AND changed some
> other Win2k services to "manually" (thought that would make a difference
in
> win2k:s memory hog ;-))
>
> You cant have much experience with Linux if you persist that the two
system
> would be equals in amounts of memory usage.
>
> /IL
>
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Memq5.7916$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Soiq5.2091$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > BULLSHIT!!
> > >
> > > I've have Win2k and SuSE 6.4 on my PC, IIS5 on Win2k(ftp,smtp and www
> > > servers),-
> > > on the Linux part i have Apache, WuFTP and (of course) Sendmail up
and
> > > running + X Windows with KDE.
> > >
> > > At bootup Linux have taken 35 MB, Win2k has taken 75 MB (????)
> >
> > *WORKSTATION*, not server. While technically Gnome and KDE are
> > applications, they provide the desktop environment you get when running
> > Windows, so you need to add that in when comparing similarly configured
> > systems. Additionally, Windows 2000 provides many services running by
> > default that you don't have running, such as an indexing service.
> >
> >
> >
> > > /IL
> > >
> > > > Linux Workstations take up the same amount of memory as Windows does
> if
> > > you
> > > > configure them similarly (running X with applications like Netscape,
> > KDE,
> > > > etc..).
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:45:48 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> That would depend on who made that call, and what the content of the
>> conversation was. If it was me calling 'JS/PL's local police
>> department, I would be right, as I'd have a claim of the sort you speak
>> of (I have evidence he has attempted and possibly succeeded in
>> determining where I live). If its 'JS/PL' making the call, he's going
>> to have to explain why he doesn't post with his real name, and yet is
>> worried I'm out to get him when I have no idea who he is.
>Of course I know where you live, it not a spectacular leap when you post with
>your real name and your sh^tty news server posts your fricking IP address.
>Come on.... that's equal to posting a driving map to your house!
>Do you think I *wouldn't* try and find out where your posting from after you
>send a death threat to me?
He didn't send you death threat. You lost an argument and carried a grudge
into the next set of posts. His post -- in context can be interpreted more
rationally. Of course that is your real problem. No rational thought and a
nose out of joint. Why don't you grow up.
>Most sane people would call that "Identifying the threat".
>I know the exact driving time from your house to mine, and when the time span
>between your posts exceed that time I make a mental note of it. Anyone who
>makes death threats so "off the cuff" MUST be somewhat of a psychopath, am I
>not correct.
>The fact that you are too dim to identify me is quite comforting though,
>especially since you say you want to kill me.
>BTW I never knew exactly who you were until I discretely posted the name
>"Timothy" into that make believe newsgroup name (as bait), and you yourself
>confirmed it! Dumb ass.
>It allowed me to fax totally accurate info along with my complaint to the PA
>Bureau of Criminal Investigation, a division of the Attorney Generals office.
>Im actually pretty surprised you haven't heard from them yet. They seemed
>very interested when they called me, and you are in fact under investigation.
>But then...they tend to swoop down on criminals without much warning, maybe
>they'll come to get you at work while other officers of the law are searching
>and siezing at your house. Are ypu ready for law to come and get you.
>How do the turned tables feel?
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
