Linux-Advocacy Digest #592, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: ext2 file size limit? (Andreas Jaeger)
Re: PRE-RELEASE/PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT: NDOS Technical Library Available (Tyler Larson)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Frédéric G. MARAND")
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Nick Condon)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Nick Condon)
Re: I'd rather switch than fight. (2:1)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Mike Connell)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 07:24:18 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
> > > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
> > > two).
> >
> > Are you saying that you would expect a good Windows programmer to take a
> > week or two to implement Notepad? Is that a reasonable estimate of the
> > time it would take for a program like that?
>
> Actually, Notepad is an app that should only take any decent developer a
few
> hours to write.
>
> The vast majority of notepad's functionality is provided by the windows
edit
> control. The rest is just writing the text to disk, Searching in the
text,
> and adding a help box.
Help box -- an about Dialog (CreateDialogIndirect), help file (call to the
WinHelp API), searching text -- FindText(). Saving... well, heck, just use
straight ANSI C calls for that (about 5 minutes, depending on how much error
checking you throw in).
And then there's printing, which takes the other 3 days (most people [99%]
haven't done printing support, and it'll take them that long to get it
right).
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:31:59 +0000
In article <8r41q6$ua0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." wrote:
>
>>> > Again, I belive NT does that. Every process is a thread,
and every process
>>> > can be multithreaded.
>>>
>>> Every application isnt multithreaded...
>>>
>>> > I don't see how an OS could force every process to multithread.. you have to
>>> > program threads into your code.
>>>
>>> Exactly; BeOS demands it.
>
>> So if I write a simple app that wouldn't benefit from being multithreaded.. I
>> still have to code for it? If so, that's freaking lame. Noone should ever
>> have to put in code that's not useful.
>
>BeOS is unlike any operating system youve ever seen, apparantly...:)
And unlike one you have ever programmed it seems.
================================= test.c
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(void)
{
printf("BeOS program without threads...\n");
return 0;
}
=================================
That seems to compile just fine... :)
BeOS programs are only threaded if you ask for it. I think if you want
to run in the environment you are only required, at most, to be part of
a team. Once you have done the basic init stuff, you are free to
proceed on your single-threaded merry way.
For many applications, threading is not efficient. You may not want or
need the overhead. If you want a program that can respond while busy,
handle multiple tasks... that sort of thing, then certainly it should
be threaded. You are trading CPU power for responsiveness. You might
also have an algorithm that can be parallelized for multiple CPUs.
Otherwise, why do threading? Luckily you are not forced to or BeOS
would be impossible to deal with.
The only OS I have every used that forced threading was VxWorks, and
you can argue that point easily. Basically everything you run is a
thread. It had no process model like UNIX. You started execution at a
function, which basically became a thread in the whole system, but
beyond that you were not forced to write threaded code.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
______________________/ armchairrocketscientistgraffitiexenstentialist
"And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh
unite! Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:47:46 +0000
In article <8r2jk6$5ii$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Following quotes are from two different posters.
>
>So what?. Were the Linux window managers developed in a vacuum?
>Besides, the Be developers flat out admit they took what they thought
>were the best elements of other interfaces, including Amiga OS.
True enough. Microsoft spends millions on a UI lab and copying ideas
ia a mission goal there. I doubt anyone who works there would deny
they take input from all sources. But don't expect their marketing to
do anything but claim it as their own, original idea.
>IRIX was the only one I had heard of that was 64 bit before Solaris 7.
Actually, boring as it is, IBM AS/400 probably did it some time before
UNIX.
>>>Beos crashes PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a
>>>sustained amount of time.
>
>Now you're just making crap up. I have seen it go into the kernel
>debugger during installation, but then I've seen just about every other
>OS fail at some point during installation as well. Never have I seen
>it crash *after* successful installation.
I don't know if he made that up or not, but I can confirm that BeOS is
still somewhat unstable. I know that straight off the CD, version 5
will go into the debugger during intensive networking, or if I'm
accessing foreign filesystems. The patches to 5.03 seem to clear that
up.
Just now, editing this message, telnet segfaulted. That's never
happened before of course, but just the fact that it did bothers me.
Several apps are crash-happy with BeOS. I'm not sure, but I believe
this actually _increased_ with the move to 4.5. It might be that some
apps just need to be rebuilt for version 5, but that's a problem when
so many apps are no longer supported, or only sporadically so.
>>>beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you
>>>know that!
>
>There are over 2000 apps available on bebits alone. Where do you get
>this crap?
2000 usable apps? No. Lot's of good ones, sure. I spent some
time there today myself. I think you'll have to admit there is
nowhere near the application development on BeOS that there is for
UNIX systems. I have a hard time creating a workable environment
in BeOS myself, while it is trivial in Linux/UNIX/BSD.
I find it annoying that so many things which just come with UNIX must
be purchased for BeOS. Printer driver support is terrible, and you
don't get much choice for SCSI either. I have a wonderful DPT SCSI
controller than there is no driver for in BeOS. Even if I buy the
overpriced BinkJet software, it doesn't support my printer. Bummer
that. It's compatible with an HP Deskjet 500, and every OS out there
supports this base model because most new printers will work with a
dj500 driver. It's a great fallback, and should definitely be
supported.
I have high hopes for BeOS 6, but I'm starting to wonder if they'll
ever pick up. Doesn't matter to me if they become a Windows killer, I
just want the obvious shortcomings fixed. It's too good a thing to
watch die.
Damn... NetPostive has done something bad... some windows are running,
others are dead and the OS is telling me to quit. If I do, I'll lose
my downloads, for the third time today. So I sit there waiting for the
download thread to competely, and then do the vulcan nerve pinch, on
the RIGHT side of the keyboard, to kill NetPostiive.
Stable? No way. Lot's of fun, and very promising, but it still isn't
ready for prime time.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
______________________/ armchairrocketscientistgraffitiexenstentialist
"And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh
unite! Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:08:42 +0000
In article <8r2rp9$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As an excercise (and for the experience to back up your arguments),
>your assignment is to go grab a copy of WinLinux2000 and install it
>on a fat32 filesystem.
>
>Then shut down the system suddenly and with no warning to anything
>running on it at all...pulling the power plug is just fine for that.
Here's one for you:
Go to your exotic car dealership, and buy a Ferrari 550. Head down the
local interstate, and about when you get up to 150, slam into the
nearest concrete pole.
If the car doesn't survive, it must be junk.
Seriously, what is the point here? He was talking about _running_
reliably. How does a stupid act like you suggest prove anything?
He asked you how FAT32 affects the stability of the running operating
system. Your reply is totally out of context.
>> Due to lack of hardware support primarily.
>
>Thus generating alot of the reasoning behind the arguments of some of
>the most illogical and vehement anti-linux people on COLA. Try it,
>you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>many others have ever seen.
It's a nice fs, but hardly remarkable. In fact, it is actually
pretty primitive compared to other journaled filesystems. It's
all you need for a desktop machine of course. I think even Be will
tell you simplicity was a goal, not bleeding or even leading edge
feature sets. In fact, Be backed way down from their original concepts
for the filesystem, a fact documented on their own web site.
It's OK to be a fan, but don't hype it beyond what it can support.
BTW... "Due to lack of hardware support primarily." is a perfectly
logical criticism. BeOS has been in development for many years,
and still has horrible driver support, does not have active software
development (when compared to Linux for example), and the pace of
development seems very slow. Sometimes it appears that Be is dead,
there are such long periods of time between news from them. They
have left dead links on their web site for months, just for example.
The UI is very nice, and I enjoy using it, but really lacks a lot
of things I use every day on my UNIX systems. Some of this is hard
to quantify, other things are glaringly obvious. Some of this is due
to its inherent simplicity, which I like. But it is very immature in
some ways too, and that needs to be fixed.
The whole idea of how you store so much in $HOME/config, and a great
many other things, are going to break when BeOS becomes multi-user.
I hope there is a plan for all this. They should have at least made a
rudinetary login that gave you a proper username instead of defaulting
to "baron". After this many years, I think that's a reasonable idea.
Just the simple things like having a mode where Tracker uses a single
window to browse the filesystem, or being able to remap my control and
caps lock keys is missing. It's terribly annoying. I can't get a mail
program that has good PGP support. NetPositive, I like a lot, but
it still crashes as much as Netscape, and doesn't have some important
features. I think it must just be a given with web browsers that they
are going to crash. They all do that, and I don't really like any of
them.
BeOS is a wonderful OS, but pretending it's faults are not there
doesn't help at all. I am using it, but I would have to be completely
blind to not see it's obvious shortcomings. Same for Linux and
BSD, at least for desktop use.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
______________________/ armchairrocketscientistgraffitiexenstentialist
"And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh
unite! Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:28:54 +0000
In article <8rakvl$14af$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Except if you pull the plug on solaris it will by default
>> not protect you either.
>
>I dont think ive *ever* used a 'default' solaris installation (which by the way,
>also drops swap in /tmp; a security hole you can drive a spaceshuttle through)
Your supply of drugs must be better than mine... :)
swap defaults to a slice, usually the second one, never a filesystem.
You can mount /tmp in swap if you want, in case that is what you really
meant to say.
>BeOS actually is *perfect* for pulling betacam signal, dumping it to a small
>drive array, compressing it into mpg, rv, AND avi on the fly and subsequently
>pushing it to a huge solaris streaming video server cluster with a total from-
>live buffer of about 6 seconds.
How fast were the samples, and what was the resolution? For what I
would call a production setup, even a fairly top-of-the line Athlon
system would struggle. PC motherboards just don't have the bandwidth
for this. You would really need a high-end PC motherboard (I mean
something like a $1200+ Mylex or something) with 64-bit PCI and maybe
even a pseudo-crossbar to keep the data moving.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
______________________/ armchairrocketscientistgraffitiexenstentialist
"And in billows of might swell the Saxons before her,-- Unite, oh
unite! Or the billows burst o'er her!" -- Downfall of the Gael
------------------------------
From: Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: ext2 file size limit?
Date: 11 Oct 2000 09:36:40 +0200
>>>>> jdavida writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>> jdavida writes:
>>
>> > I am runnign Linux 2.4 and it supports
>> > files > 2GB. See /usr/include/bits/stat.h
>> > and look at struct stat64, which supports file size
>> > up to 1 TB (always half of max filesystem size), because
>> > file size is a signed data type.
>> > You will have to define
>> > __USE_LARGEFILE64 when you create the file with
>> Check <features.h> - __USE_LARGEFILE64 cannot be defined by user
>> space
> Correct. You should define
> #define _LARGEFILE64_SOURCE 1
> instead. This define should come before
> including the header files. This will
> enable the use of large files greater than
> 2 Gig. Unfortunately, user commands and utils
> like ls(1) and stat(1) will not work: See the
> following:
> # ls -l
> /bin/ls: BIG4GIG: Value too large for defined data type
> /bin/ls: BIG4GIG2: Value too large for defined data type
> total 0
> Both of these files are 4gigabytes large!!
> I created them by a simple program that
> wrote a large buffer to the file in a loop
> that brought the size to 4 gig, and exited
> normally.
Recompile those tools after you installed a glibc that understands LFS
- it works fine for me with fileutils 4.0.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
private [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.suse.de/~aj
------------------------------
From: Tyler Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PRE-RELEASE/PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT: NDOS Technical Library Available
Date: 11 Oct 2000 07:27:20 GMT
ASTI Software & Consulting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is NDOS?
> A new operating system which will support OS/2, DOS, Win16, Win32,
> and Linux natively without the fallacies of it's predecessors.
DOS support without the fallacies of Linux, eh? Sounds like a real
winner. This just may be the wave of the future.
--
-Tyler
------------------------------
From: "Frédéric G. MARAND" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:23:37 +0200
www.ptc.com
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
wZIE5.163773$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Frédéric G. MARAND" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rv1g4$59b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Quite simple. Install PTC ProductView. Use a VGA driver, an MS mouse.
Then
> > start the Engineering Data Server service. BSOD. And it's not a driver,
> just
> > a very "applicative" application.
> ... and one that I've never heard of. Links?
>
> Simon
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:57:59 +0100
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s0kaa$9tq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8rupti$rmi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rtr5m$1bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, the MPAA is doing everything
> > > they can to prevent this
> > > thing from coming to market.
>
> Here is a bit more information:
>
> Visit:
> http://www.dvdcca.org/
>
> http://www.dvdcca.org/dvdcca/data/pres/cptwg_20000615.pdf
>
> Not exactly a democratic origanization:
>
> The governing board with the authority to enforce all DVD-CSS licenses
> and all claims against DVD-CSS infringment is actually the license
> management corporation (LLC). Not publicly held, not subject to
> stockholder review.
>
> The entire governing body consists of 6 voting members:
>
> Two content owners - (MPAA?).
> Two Software companies (Microsoft and ?).
> Two from the Consumer electroncs Industry (Sony and ?).
<Snip the rest>
Nowhere on the website, or on any of those links could I find reference to
MS being a member. Is there somewhere which actually states the members?
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:17:01 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8s01hj$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Your point? I didn't even look to see if there were but... so? Would you
> > prefer putting all your eggs in one basket or, as most do, enjoy the
safety
> > of clusters?
> Oh I see. It doesnt MATTER that ibm kicks compaq's ass in this arena,
You're absolutely right, it doesn't matter for the question at hand, sionce
the origibnal poster, in his haste to bash Microsoft and Compaq, said that
"in any way, shape or form" they cannot match IBM.
> because no one would want to buy ibm machines in the first place because
> they all fit in one basket.
>
> Or something.
>
> I'm not entirely sure that even dresden understands what his last point
was.
The point some seem to miss here is that the original poster said that
"Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching IBM in any
way, shape or form." Do I have to capitalize it so people see it ?
Is clustering a way, shape or form of computing ? No handwaving, no
wriggling, no squirming, no goalpost moving, a simple yes or no answer.
If yes, the original poster has been proven wrong and Drestin is right.
> (and btw, he would have known that 160K TPMs can be sourced in clustered
> environments if he knew anything at all about ibm's product line; this is
> proof positive that hes been lying; he indeed does not)
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:23:07 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
> >
> > This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux, and the
> > Linux people say it about Windows.
<irrelevancies snipped>
> Linux, however, is almost entirely based on it's Unix predecessors (which isn't
> necessarily a bad thing).
> Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has
> none of the features of a modern OS. Linux should just be called the Unix
> modernization project.
Perhaps I should point out that your post makes use of "writing" - a 10,000 year
old archaic technology. Sure, you're using a keyboard and electrons now, but its
hack upon hack upon a hack upon a stylus and a clay tablet. Fundamentally you're
doing the same thing. Usenet should be called the writing modernization project.
> > But unless you're talking about the wheel or fire, all technology is based on
> > older technology.
>
> But how deeply is it rooted? That's the question.
What the hell does that mean? Is it some sort of Zen?
Perhaps I should change it to: "Unless you're talking about the wheel or fire or
NT, all technology is based on older technology."
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:22:56 +0200
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
39e38818$0$1180$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
>
> AND AGAIN - who cares? What's the point? That's like saying: "I've got a
Besides, it was not the point. The original poster boasted that Compaq/MS
can't touch IBM "in any way, shape, or form". You proved him wrong,
regardless of the sore backs of those goal posts movers. :)
And to add insult to injury, IBM had to run Win2K to secure a temporary 1st
place in TPC-C.
> soccer player who can KICK ANYONE'S ASS, including EVERYONE on your team
> individually" - then we play and my team of "inferiour" players kicks your
> single players ass. Are you still going to be whining? Where is that
single
> player that can beat my single player? No, we'll all be laughing that you
> only fielded one player while we put on the proper team.
>
> uni-server solutions are old-school ... time to graduate
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:37:11 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
> > I guess the people who did all of the digital renderings for "Titanic"
> > were just reading E-mail on Linux.
>
> Actually, they use Outlook for that...
LOL! I don't think anyone here would doubt it for a second.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight.
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:51:13 +0100
Jim Broughton wrote:
>
> I finally could not put up with the quagmire that is
> Redhat linux. After running it for a year it finnaly
> pissed me off with its rewritten init files and scripts
> that led me all over the system trying to get things to
> work the way they should work. So now I am running
> Slackware 7.1. after some initial issues with the
> install program not wanting to install lilo correctly
> the system is up and running rock solid.
Really?
After a bit of playing around in RH, I have the init scripts pretty much
figured out.
Static scripts reside in /etc/rc.d/init.d
If they have the lines:
# chkconfig: 2345 85 15
# description: This is a new init script
They can be managed by tools like chkconfig and ntsysv.
If these scripts need configuration information, the configuration
information lies in a file in /etc/sysconfig. This is usually a file
which is sourced, to set some shell variables.
In general, the scripts must be able to take the arguments start, stop,
reset without complaining.
The script /etc/rc.d/rc is used when switching runlevels. It searches
through the directory rc?.d, where ? is the runlevel. In those
directories, there are filenames of the form (as a regex)
[KS][0-9][0-9]\(.*\)
These are symlinks to scripts in init.d
The K scripts are run first and run with the argument stop.
The S scripts are then run. If the file \1 (from the regex) exists in
/var/lock/subsys/ then the script will not be run, otherwise it will,
with the argument start.
The scripts are run in the order determined by the number in them.
Fortunately, ntsysv and chkconfig will create/remove the symlinks
automatically.
RedHat only overwrites scripts or init files when a control panel or
setup tool is run.
Those are the init scripts used to change runlevel.
There is also /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit which is run once on bootup
There is also /etc/rc.d/rc.local which is run after the other init
scripts, if you don't want the hassle of all the sysv init, then that is
the one to use.
They are the main ones.
HTH
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 11 Oct 2000 12:15:51 +0200
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
[snippage]
> > > But unless you're talking about the wheel or fire, all technology is based on
> > > older technology.
> >
> > But how deeply is it rooted? That's the question.
>
> What the hell does that mean? Is it some sort of Zen?
>
"If a tree falls in the forest, how deeply was it rooted?"
Mike "Not deeply enough" Connell.
--
Mike Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] +46 (0)31 772 8572
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.flat222.org/mac/ icq: 61435756
http://www.flat222.org/Paranoia
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:59:29 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and on
> linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
>
> #include <iostream.h>
> main()
> {
> for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
> cout << i <<endl;
> return 0;
> }
>
> What I get is 5 seconds on Linux 2.2 and it takes 2.30 minutes to show all
> the
> 100000 numbers.
>
So this shows that Windows console scrolling is much slower than Linux
console scrolling. It's a fair enough benchmark to test console
scrolling, so why do you lot keep bashing him?
Personally I use text mode a lot because I prefer the very fast
scrolling even with huge screenfuls of text. Fast scrolling can come in
useful at times, you know...
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 05:09:08 -0500
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s05hl$1vc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:g3ME5.61377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You're referring to the kernel, of course, and you're right. Win32,
> > properly speaking, is only the kernel. But the kernel by itself,
without
> > the accompanying DLL's produced by the OTHER 27 million lines of code,
is
> > pretty useless. Still, you're right --I should have said "Windows", not
> > "Win32".
>
> No, Win32 is NOT the kernel. The kernel is the kernel. Win32 is a system
> that sits on TOP of the kernel.
>
> > At Microsoft, that's *every* department's job. Ever heard that story
> about
> > Microsoft inserting some code into Windows that displayed false error
> > messages if it detected that it was running on any DOS other than their
> own?
> > You do know that it's true, don't you?
>
> Only for the Beta, oh Mr. Magic Munchkin.
>
> Simon
>
The code was still there in the release version, kiddo. It was disabled,
awaiting only the setting of a single bit to enable it at any time in the
future.
The code was encrypted, obfuscated, and self-modifying, and it included
logic that attempted to disable any debugger software that was trying to
step through it. It disabled Microsoft's own debugger, of course, but there
was a superior debugger on the market that was immune from the steps it
took. If not for that fortunate fact, that code would never have been
discovered, and you would have been saying that Microsoft would NEVER have
done something like that. And no one could have proved you wrong. As it
is, you're probably going to say "so what? Ancient history."
So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
jwb
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
