Linux-Advocacy Digest #819, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Richard)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (Eric Bennett)
Re: what's up with Sun? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (Eric Bennett)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Darin Johnson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:18:32 GMT
It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:38:43 +1000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:55:29 -0500,
>> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8on2n3$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
>> >software
>> >> > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash
>the
>> >> > computer.
>> >>
>> >> Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing
>> >the
>> >> entire system.
>> >
>> >No. I will repeat this again. *ANY* OS that allows direct hardware
>> >manipulation from a given process (user or kernel) can crash the machine.
>> >All I have to do is set the video hardware to an invalid state which
>faults
>> >the bus and the system is toast, user mode or not.
>> >
>> >In fact, this is why Netscape can often crash systems running X.
>>
>> Are you confusing crashing the X server with the OS <again> ?
>
>I doubt it, I've seen Netscape hang up the entire machine (I assumed it was
>Netscpae, since the problem only ever occurred running it).
Netscape is usually to blame when a workstation appears to hang up,
but that's still supposition, not proof. What did you do to
troubleshoot it?
I've honestly never seen this happen. I've seen it *claimed* that it
had happened, but in every case where I've had the opportunity to
confirm the case myself, it was just a hung X server, and restarting X
solved the problem - i.e. the OS itself continued running without a
glitch the entire time.
>
>Of course, for most people on workstations, locking up the X server is just
>as bad as locking up the entire machine.
Not at all, that's totally crazy. Just shut down X and restart it -
the kernel and other services should be unaffected
>> I have had netscape bomb, I have (once or twice in 4 years) had netscape
>> kill the xserver, I have never had netscape take down the whole system.
>
>It happens. The X server is quite capable of hanging the entire machine,
>and Netscape is quite capable of initiating that hang.
Which X server are you using?
>I'm surprised you've only had Netscape bomb the X server once or twice in
>four years. It happens quite regularly to me.
>
The only problem I've seen at all frequently with Netscape is a memory
leak condition that manifests on pages with a ton of data in an entry
form. If you don't kill it before it gets out of hand, it can be
annoying, but it certainly does NOT take down the OS, or even the X
server - if you leave it alone and don't kill it yourself it
eventually slows the machine to a crawl (churning the swap drive like
it thinks it's windows, quite funny to watch actually) until you run
out of swap space and the system terminates Netscape. It's annoying,
yes, but it's a far cry from the results of the same error on a
windows machine, where it can take down the whole OS, and if it
doesn't it probably has at least destabilised it so you need to reboot
anyway.
I haven't seen this problem once with the newest version of Netscape
btw, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's completely fixed.
At any rate none of this is at all relevant to the original thread,
because we were talking about servers. X and Netscape are workstation
programs, you shouldn't even install those on a normal server, let
alone execute them.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:26:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> The difference in behaviour between a psychopath with a long view
> >> and a normal person is minimal.
> >
> >Criminal psychopaths
>
> Changing the subject again are we?
If you think that being a criminal isn't fully consistent with
taking a "long view" then you need your head examined. Ever heard
of "organized crime"? The FBI used (?) to say it doesn't exist ...
> >The only good corporations are cooperatives
>
> And your proof of this is? Oh yes, by your definition of what
> a "good" corporation is combined with anecdotal evidence.
By the accepted definition of what psychopathy is and the evidence
available to me. One doesn't need to be a clinical psychologist
to suspect psychopathy in Jeffrey Dahmer's case. The same applies
to corporations. But I'll tell you what; if you dispute or even
doubt the meaning of any of the items on the list in respect to
corporations, or the rating I gave on that item then I'll explain
my reasoning in detail (assuming I believe you're serious and not
merely running me around). I think this would be a worthwhile
exercise, on top of the wholesome fun of corporation bashing.
> Sorry, while I heartily approve of cooperatives and would be most
> interested in seeing a small-medium country going to a free-market
> communist model (loosely, all capital must be owned by the workers
> but market forces are allowed to determine sales of products)
> there are many corporations that provide value to the consumer
> while not screwing over their workers.
Happenstance, they would screw their workers if they could only
figure out a way to do it without suffering terribly for it.
> Depending on your definitions and whether you allow the occasional
> mistake (people are usually allowed to make mistakes) the majority
> of corporations may or may not make that grade.
Occasional mistakes do not count. And that includes positive mistakes.
Neither do pathetic rationalizations or protestations of benevolence.
Human psychopaths tend to stick to a script they've developed just as
much as corporations stick to their line of PR bull.
> I suggest that you consider that many people who are happy with their
> lot in life are not brainwashed but rather don't care enough about
> what you percieve as grave injustices to let it get in the way
> of being generally happy.
IOW, they're selfish or deeply self-deluded. Believe it or not, this
does not come as a surprise to me. In fact, my propaganda model is
that propaganda only provides people with the rationalization to do
what they want to do anyways. I don't know of anything else that
would explain why I was immune to pre-propaganda during my childhood
and why my mental immune system is so powerful now (saying that I'm
a fanatic is a description, not an explanation).
As for happiness, that isn't a motivation in my case. If all injustice
were wiped from the face of the universe then I would be less miserable
but I still wouldn't be "happy". I am gratified to be free from the
handicap of trying to achieve, or even believing in, happiness.
> Are they still being exploited? No doubt, but if the exploitee doesn't
> care much and is living a decent life ...
Then it still matters because there are side-effects like unsustainable
exploitation of the environment. And more importantly, the vast majority
of the people on this planet do *not* have a decent existence.
If the majority want to be exploited and a minority unwillingly suffers
atrociously for it, then this is a grave injustice.
> Get rid of the absolutes and the rhetoric and you might be surprised
> by how much I agree with the substance of your views of businesses.
I wouldn't be surprised.
> But I rather doubt you are interested in that.
You're right, I have no interest in abrogating my opinions just to
get agreement from other people. You say you would "like" to see a
small-medium country go the anarcho-syndicalist route, well I'm
*desperate* for the entire planet to go that route. I don't see any
other reasonable options and the status quo is intolerable to me.
Going that route is also one of the few sure ways to survive future
prosperity without offing our species as a consequence.
> >On the contrary, one could easily argue that it is in people's
> >self-interest to /become/ Spock ...
>
> One could easily argue that it is people's self-interest to be
> immune to all diseases.
Yes. This should be achievable shortly. :-)
If people did all become like Spock and remained self-interested
then civilization would collapse. But I don't think that would
happen, I think people would just admit that they aren't motivated
by self-interest once their fundamental needs are met.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:35:32 -0400
In article <8oolhi$282k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Bennett
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >In article <8olr1v$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public
> >> debt
> >> to be out
> >> there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all the debt.
> >
> >
> >I understand that. I also understand that some 15% of my federal tax
> >dollars are paying interest on this stuff, and I'm getting more or less
> >nothing in return for that expenditure every year.
>
> sure you are. you're enjoying stable financial markets. if you don't
> think that's
> important just skip over to any number of foreign countries :)
I have not run across anyone who thinks that our current level of debt
is either healthy or necessary to the stability of the financial
markets. Mr. Greenspan, who is the one person both Republicans and
Democrats are willing to credit for the economy, is a strong supporter
of debt reduction, and believes it should take precedence over both tax
cuts and more government spending. I agree with him. Fortunately
neither major party agrees with him.
> and the people getting that interest are spending it in our economy.
> that's also a good
> thing.
It would be more efficient, don't you think, to simply let the American
taxpayer spend it directly in our economy?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:39:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when David Steuber would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin) writes:
>
>' One important difference between Sun and M$ is that Sun make hardware.
>' They have less to lose in a world where software if Free.
>
>But they have a lot to loose where hardware becomes a commodity.
>However, I think Sun, SGI, et al, can beat Intel for bang for the buck
>if they continue to make servers that can beat large clusters of IA32
>machines in terms of raw performance.
>
>Also, not all servers are doling out web pages.
>
>AMD and Intel are heading upmarket, and they have a lot of money and
>a huge legacy hardware base to get them there.
I _suppose_ that I2O _arguably_ represents the way for Intel to head
"upmarket" by introducing functionality traditionally associated with
mainframes to "Pee-Cee" hardware.
It's "arguable" because it doesn't seem to have taken the world by
storm.
--> "Pee Cee hardware" is associated with being "cheap;" that
generally leads to things like using enormous but slow IDE drives,
and trying to share RAM with the video board.
--> Drivers are needed, and the purported merit of I2O was that it
would make for "portable, tuned" device drivers.
Unfortunately, NDAs discourage participation amongst the free
software community, and the "deaths" of so many Unixes in the wake
of the oncoming IA-64 "train wreck" has not led to there being a
"juggernaut" of I2O drivers demolishing all alternatives.
There's a _potential_ for Intel to do very well on this, but it looks
like they've squandered a whole lot of potential.
Maybe there is a vast IA-64 juggernaut about to hit us; with the
reports of upcoming "Pentium 4's" with _HUGE_ heat sinks and of IA-64
boxes with immense heating capabilities, this does not appear to bode
very well.
It just doesn't look like Intel has stuff that is as readily scaled
for Heavy Duty Processing as the stuff that Sun sells.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
<http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Perhaps there should be a new 'quantum' datatype; you would be able to
take its address or value, but not both simultaneously.
-- Michael Shields
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:40:49 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <8olr1v$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public
> >> debt
> >> to be out
> >> there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all the debt.
> >
> >
> >I understand that. I also understand that some 15% of my federal tax
> >dollars are paying interest on this stuff, and I'm getting more or less
> >nothing in return for that expenditure every year. It needs to be
> >seriously cut back. And we can still have bond obligations even if, on
> >the whole, we have no *net* debt.
>
> So you're talking about a balanced budget, not debt reduction.
No.
If I owe $10,000 in obligations but other people owe me $20,000, then on
net I am at +$10,000. The U.S. could still have some debt in the form
of issued bonds, but be owed money on the whole.
> You
> are getting so much in return for that expenditure every year, by way of
> a stable nation in which to live, that the fact that it is diffuse
> certainly seems to make the proportion that we each shoulder as a
> personal burden to be huge. And I'm for reducing the over-all level of
> *all* of it, seriously. But only seriously; 'no debt' is not a serious
> proposal, yet. And if you want to make it one, its probably going to
> cost you much more than 15%. What you want is a balanced budget, so the
> debt doesn't keep growing out from under us.
No, I want debt reduction. I realize some people in this country don't
see anything wrong with throwing away 15% of your income every year on
interest payments. I'm sure a lot of people in debt to credit card
companies come close to that. But I think it's ridiculous, *especially*
when we have a surplus we could be using to pay it off.
> >If you cut it back to where we only pay 5% a year, the Republicans could
> >give an additional 10% of the annual budget back to us in tax cuts and
> >it wouldn't require cutting anything the Democrats currently spend money
> >on, nor would it require permanently dipping into the surplus. It seems
> >so blindly obvious, yet Bush says he has no specific timetable for debt
> >reduction.
>
> Well, wouldn't that make it take dozens of more years to pay it off?
> It's kind of like making minimum payments on a credit card, isn't it?
Which is certainly not what I would call fiscal responsibility,
Republican claims that they are the fiscally responsible party
notwithstanding.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:41:57 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It might make me sound patronizing, but I don't care; I'm on a crusade
> to destroy 'popular wisdom', and replace it with the real stuff. Think
> harder.
Let lawyers define what things mean. "Monopolize" is an active verb,
"have a monopoly" is a passive verb. Not the same thing, it's not
clear cut and dried, and that's why there are two VALID sides to the
argument. Thus the legal community relies upon precedent.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 06:52:25 -0400
Se=DFn Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>For the record, the part that you trimmed is where Max claimed that he =
>>didn't need any facts or details. After all, facts and details are
>>unimportant to him. He seems to think that he can understand everything=
>>at some esoteric level without having any facts or details to back it
>>up. That's ridiculous and I was merely pointing that out.
>>
>Yep, that would explain his comments about Windows and IE integration. W=
hat I
>find remarkable is Max's ability to muddle things up by
>spending paragraph after eloquent paragraph saying absolutely nothing.
>Debating with him is like trying to do the butterfly stroke in a pool of=
>quick-dry cement.
>I stopped trying to reason with him when, after dozens of posts
>regarding antitrust law, he attempted to wiggle out of embarrassing defe=
at by
>proclaiming that he'd been using his own definition of "monopoly" that b=
ears
>little resemblance to the common one.
And I bet your little picture of the world thinks M$ is going to wiggle o=
ut of
the anti-trust action. -- They are going down and it you who needs to l=
earn
that not everyone is an asshole who can't understand anti-trust law or et=
hics.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:11:30 -0400
Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Chad Irby wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It's funny how many people forget *why* things were so bad during
>> > > Carter's Presidency.
>> > >
>> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
>> >
>> > ...Democrat...
>>
>> Democrat and Republican. Five years of Johnson, five years of Nixon.
>>
>Johnson got us IN
>Nixon got us OUT.
>Spot the difference.
The Eisenhower - Nixon administration got us in. -- To say otherwise, is to
say that King George didn't have anything to do with the American revolution.
Nixon didn't end the war and didn't intend to. -- We left when the congress
cut off funds to continue the war -- and we have nixons tapes to prove the
point.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:21:17 -0400
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you indicate.
>> Every citizen has the right to have children if they desire, and a
>> society which prevents them from doing so economically is no less
>> unsatisfactory than one that does so through any other means.
>"Society" is prevents them from nothing. Rather, in our
>current context, We, The People, have decided that we
>will perchance bankroll their efforts to have children.
>If we decided not to, we would not be taking away; we
>would simply not be offering our *charity*.
>If you'd like to argue inaction as grounds for immorality,
>feel free, but I should warn you that it's a lost cause.
>I have not yet in my life, not even once, seen someone
>able to argue this position without crumbling like so
>much feta cheese. The position is indefensible, IMO.
All of these ideas, the entire conversation, is baloney -- because it assumes
that each person is able to earn a living based solely on his own initiative
-- and that he can predict the future of his life and thus income as well.
The truth is that major corporations, and government control the economy --
thus forcing others (who are all part of the system) to have some collective
responsibility for others.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:03:12 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/26/00
at 06:48 PM, Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> And the scary thing is...Some people look up to Carter..
>He was an awful President. But he appears to be an utterly
>unreproachable EX President. :)
You mean he was a Democrat -- and they are all awful in your view.
The truth is he didn't start a war, and was smart enough to make sure the
defense measures were taken to end one quickly (the Gulf), he didn't run up
the national debt, and he is the only living President that the world
respects.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 10:58:52 +1000
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:38:43 +1000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Are you confusing crashing the X server with the OS <again> ?
> >
> >I doubt it, I've seen Netscape hang up the entire machine (I assumed it
was
> >Netscpae, since the problem only ever occurred running it).
>
> Netscape is usually to blame when a workstation appears to hang up,
> but that's still supposition, not proof. What did you do to
> troubleshoot it?
Ctrl+Alt+Bkspc to kill the X server. When that didn't work, I tried
telnetting in from another machine to kill it. No go. Couldn't even ping
it. It was _dead_.
> I've honestly never seen this happen. I've seen it *claimed* that it
> had happened, but in every case where I've had the opportunity to
> confirm the case myself, it was just a hung X server, and restarting X
> solved the problem - i.e. the OS itself continued running without a
> glitch the entire time.
Not in this case. Although X is pretty as well.
> >Of course, for most people on workstations, locking up the X server is
just
> >as bad as locking up the entire machine.
>
> Not at all, that's totally crazy. Just shut down X and restart it -
> the kernel and other services should be unaffected
To the end user the effect is the same. They lose all the data in whatever
they were working in. The fact it takes 30 seconds to restart the X server
instead of a minute to reboot is irrelevant - the end result is the same.
> >> I have had netscape bomb, I have (once or twice in 4 years) had
netscape
> >> kill the xserver, I have never had netscape take down the whole system.
> >
> >It happens. The X server is quite capable of hanging the entire machine,
> >and Netscape is quite capable of initiating that hang.
>
> Which X server are you using?
XFree 3.3.6. Also see it with older versions.
> >I'm surprised you've only had Netscape bomb the X server once or twice in
> >four years. It happens quite regularly to me.
> >
>
> The only problem I've seen at all frequently with Netscape is a memory
> leak condition that manifests on pages with a ton of data in an entry
> form. If you don't kill it before it gets out of hand, it can be
> annoying, but it certainly does NOT take down the OS, or even the X
> server - if you leave it alone and don't kill it yourself it
> eventually slows the machine to a crawl (churning the swap drive like
> it thinks it's windows, quite funny to watch actually) until you run
> out of swap space and the system terminates Netscape. It's annoying,
> yes, but it's a far cry from the results of the same error on a
> windows machine, where it can take down the whole OS, and if it
> doesn't it probably has at least destabilised it so you need to reboot
> anyway.
Netscape does the same thing on Windows, with exactly the same effects.
Churn and churn until it runs out of RAM. Kill it and move on. Problem
solved.
Mozilla is even worse, it has huge memory leaks just downloading things (M8,
at least).
> I haven't seen this problem once with the newest version of Netscape
> btw, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's completely fixed.
Netscape is just crap. It's only redeeming feature is it's availability on
a number of platforms.
> At any rate none of this is at all relevant to the original thread,
> because we were talking about servers. X and Netscape are workstation
> programs, you shouldn't even install those on a normal server, let
> alone execute them.
Then why do you say an NT mahcine sitting at a login prompt is going to be
noticably effected ? How is the GUI going to crash the machine if it's not
doing anything ?
------------------------------
From: [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: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:58:20 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:06:48 -0700, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 2000 23:08:13 GMT,
> Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:53:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
[deletia]
>>>Ever hear of AIDS?
>>
>>(a) Ever hear of condoms ?
>>(b) Ever hear of a heterosexual with AIDS ?
>>(c) I still don't see how AIDs would be considered a problem under your
>> ideology. It seems to be the perfect way of cleansing the world of
>> the sexually immoral and their "genetically inferior" offspring.
>>
>>--
>
>What I don't understand re: aids, is if aids is not a "homosexual disease"
>(whatever that's supposed to mean) why is it that people who advocate
>containment or quarantine are called homophobes?
...differences in who believes what and how it is presumed
that certain people or groups of people fit in with these
differences.
BTW, what other blood borne or venereal diseases have prompted
quarantines either now or in the past before they were treatable?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
