Linux-Advocacy Digest #844, Volume #29 Tue, 24 Oct 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
back-up for linux workstation.. ("Rajendra Jadhav")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: KDE2.0 released! ("Agent J")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (.)
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (JoeX1029)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (Jim Lewis)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing (Michael Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[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: 24 Oct 2000 14:22:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8t3a1n$feb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Some API functions were not compatible (like CreateSemaphore, etc).
Don't known about other API function but I've checked CreateSemaphore and it
seems to work with TS in Windows 2000.
> There weren't disk quotas which is pathetic for multiuser (I assume 2K
> now has them)
Sure. It'a a feature of NTFS 5.
> There weren't any memory or process limits.
That was added too. More info here
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/periodic/period99
/jobkernelobj.htm
------------------------------
From: "Rajendra Jadhav" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: back-up for linux workstation..
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:35:06 -0500
Hi,
I wanted to know what type of backing-up system can I use for my Linux
workstation..like can I use a cd writer..or a jazz drive..or something like
that.
Thanks,
--
Rajendra Jadhav
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[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: 24 Oct 2000 14:29:31 -0500
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Relax
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> >So, actually, there IS a graphic
> >subsystem on the server in your example. The only problem is that it is
> >pixel based and completely device dependant, GDI is not.
>
> It might be pixel based at that, how is it device dependent?
> After all, I can direct the graphics from that system onto an X terminal,
> a workstation running X/Unix (or Linux), a workstation running NT
> with an X server package such as Hummingbird's eXceed package,
> or Mi/X (from microimages, IIRC), or XWin32, or any of a number
> of such things, permissions and resolutions permitting.
So you can draw an 1 inch circle in the middle of the surface that will
display as a 1 inch circle in the middle of the rendering surface on all
rendering devices? terminal or paper? If it's pixel based, "1 inch" and
"middle" are device-dependent things.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:23:58 -0700
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> But they aren't lies; they're supported by evidence proven in federal
> >> court. On the same note, I am not now nor have I ever been, nor
claimed
> >> to be, a Linux admin. Even your supposedly biting comments are nothing
> >> more than attempts at straw-men and redirection of the argument. Why
> >> don't you join your pal Simon, and give it up, already. The only
'fear'
> >> that motivates posting anti-MS information is fear that the illegal
> >> activity will continue to be defended by morons, or that MS will
> >> continue to rip off millions of people for billions of dollars.
> >
> >You know... I agree with Max. You'll have a much happier, fruitful life
if
> >you don't argue against people who it's impossible to have a structured,
> >logical debate with, Mike.
>
> Said the guy who just lost the debate.
Personally, I won by leaving it. And as long as I stay out of debates with
Max, I'll have a happier life.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Agent J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2.0 released!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:32:12 -0700
what?
you have never heard of litestep then, it let's you replace the window decor
in windows, you can also replace the explorer too!
sfcybear wrote in message <8t2paf$2nm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>And looking good! Another advantage for the opensource incramental
>upgreads! Despite the fact that the Linux2.4 kernel is not ready, I have
>upgraded the windows manager. With MS, I just can not do that!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:11:17 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > speaks volumes doesn't it...
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like just the kind of post Ebert would use to support his lies.
> > > >
> > > > "neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> > > > >
> > > > > The above story has been *unposted*??? What's the deal??
> > >
> > > What!
> > >
> > > http://counter.li.org/
> >
> > How scientific is this? We know that Penguinistas are known for their
> > grossly skewing of web statistics with scripting repeated entries
> > of whatever they want to foil.
> >
> > > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
> >
> > JOOC, what magazine did this come from?
> >
> > -Chad
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/21/1644248&mode=thread
Slashdot isn't a print magazine. Which print magazine printed
this ad?
> Don't know why linuxtoday pulled the web page.
How ironic. Probably because it's false or unverifiable?
linuxtoday: The Linux version of journalism: broken and
ass backwards-- just like linux!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: 24 Oct 2000 20:07:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:22:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>
>>I wouldn't mind variou various benchmark information on this as well.
>>The FreeBSD community isn't as visible as the Linux one, but it's clear
>>that, if there's an advantage to FreeBSD, it should be touted.
>>
>>And this looks like an advantage. :-)
> I was simply asking him to prove his statement, I don't know if it is
> true or not.
You wouldnt understand the proof even if it did exist. Ive explained the
quality of its existance in two other posts. Read them.
>>
>>You could be nicer about it, you know. :-)
> He chose to BS ( in another thread) and unfortunately he got caught
> tossing around terms he knows nothing about.
Actually, you tossed them around first and then some guy came to
your rescue and started writing your posts for you so that you didnt
look like a TOTAL retard, but merely a moronic fool.
> I don't try to argue programming, or network servers, because "hello.c
> was as far as I got.
And since a soundblaster is as far as youve gotten with hardware, perhaps
you should leave its discussion to qualified people.
> yttrx lies, lies and lies again. He gets caught all the time.
Name some.
Go on, claire. Put em up.
Heres some things that are apparantly true:
1. you have no linux experience
2. you have no bsd experience
3. you have no UNIX experience
4. you are a moron
5. people type for you so that you appear to be more intelligent than a devilled egg.
6. your opinions are useless
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: 24 Oct 2000 20:11:54 GMT
>> I really do want to run Linux but I can't find any viable reason to
>> switch from Windows ME to Linux?
>[snip Dells preload stuff]
>> Why should I switch to Linux?
>
>
It's like it says in the complie your own kernel docs, "if you dont why you
want to do it, you proably dont." If you dont know why you want to run Linux
you probaly dont
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:13:55 +0100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:03:21 +0200
> <8t41b4$hvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ><SNIP> Some stuff <SNIP>
> >
> >> > Wouldn't it be nice to be able to telnet/ssh into the box and remotely
> >work
> >> > on it to restart/fix the webserver ? After all, I've constantly heard
> >people
> >> > boasting about this capability for Linux boxen. With a tanked Tux box,
> >> > well... :)
> >>
> >> Use a watchdog card and telnet in to it when it reboots itself.
> >
> >What are those ?
>
> I don't know the specific card/device/etc., but a watchdog timer has
> been an idea that's been around for awhile; basically, the OS (or
> perhaps a designated representative thereof, e.g. a daemon) pings
> something every few seconds, and, if the device detects a problem
> ("no pings in the last X seconds"), it initiates a hard reboot
> by pulling a reset line.
>
> It's a hardware device so that it can be guaranteed to work;
> obviously, a software daemon could be pressed into service, but
> that isn't guaranteed.
>
> >
> >> No real problem---you only have to wait a couple of minutes.
>
> What if it plays "reboot...reboot...reboot"? One hopes for
> an emergency rescue disk in that case (and good luck inserting
> said disk if the node is in remote Siberia, and you're not :-) ).
That's a problem with any server.
-Ed
>
> >
> >> -Ed
> >
> >Paul 'Z' Ewande
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:15:20 GMT
"Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8t23rm$14a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a simple
> > fact, check it.
>
> I think you need to prove it.
Ask several frequent posters of your own COLA group, they admitted it
earlier that Linux uses a broken BIOS call that only returns the
first 64MB of RAM. Their words, not mine. If you don't believe them,
well...
> In the past, Linux used PC/Microsoft methods of checking memory. Just
> like with Microsoft Windows, it could fail. This was not a bug in
> Linux: it used BIOS when booting. Even today, some PC motherboards
> and BIOS are broken. The worst problem is the stupid hard drive
> geometry and booting "standards" for PC BIOS.
Sounds like a cop-out. Windows does it perfectly every time broken
BIOS or not.
> It has been quite some time since this problem was fixed in Linux. It
> no longer uses BIOS to check RAM as far as I know. I never had a
> motherboard which had this problem myself, so even Windows worked.
Really? I've installed Linux now on about 8 or 9 different, unique
systems. I've used RH 6, 6.1 and now 6.2 and, with none of those
versions, and on none of those machines did it every once detect
the ram correctly. These systems ranged from Pentium 233's, to PII's
to PIII 850's.
> How about this: try booting Windows on a system that doesn't support
> the DOS 640K/high memory/A20 crutches.
Show me a system that doesn't support these.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:16:39 GMT
"Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8t2458$15a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <WGgI5.32396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux does detect the memory correctly, although it uses only the first 64
> > MB of it until you change some configuration files. Chad might've meant
> > that. The only distro I've seen which detects and uses all of the memory was
> > Caldera 2.4.
>
> This is not true. Sigh...
>
> The problem is that when Linux is being loaded, a check was made,
> basically a BIOS call for memory (can't remember which one), and it
> often returned 64M at the most. If you knew you had 128MB of RAM then
> you added a boot parameter to Linux to tell it how much RAM you had
> since your BIOS/motherboard combination couldn't get it right.
>
> This is a PC/BIOS bug, not a Linux bug.
No, it's a linux bug. Windows detected it just fine. In fact, I've
installed BeOS on a couple of my systems and BeOS detected it just
fine as well.
It's most certainly a Linux bug, or rather, like everything else
in linux, a major design flaw.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:19:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP: more ignorant childish Charlie Ebert ass-spewings>
> I can't believe I'm jumping into this...must be feeling completely idiotic
> today, as I open myself up to attack.
>
> In all fairness to Chad, Linux does not detect RAM correctly on certain
> computers. For instance, the Thinkpad that I use...Linux will only detect
> the first 64MB.
Certain? How about the majority.
> Now, fixing that is not a bit deal...I add a line to lilo.conf that says:
>
> append = "mem=163264k"
Note: If you get this wrong, KERNEL PANIC...
>
> Now the output of my free command is:
>
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 159648 156484 3164 107448 3264 75536
> -/+ buffers/cache: 77684 81964
> Swap: 128484 7372 121112
>
> (That's with Staroffice and Netscape both active, along with other bits)
Both hogs, geez...
> Which feels pretty good, actually.
>
> I believe the issue has something to do with the BIOS's method of reporting
> RAM to the OS. Although it makes one wonder what all the flavors of Windows
> that get the number right are doing that Linux is not.
Spare us the Microsoft conspiracy bit... BeOS Personal Edition was able to
detect it all just fine.
Face it, it's yet another example of the less-than-good programming
efforts of the Linux team.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:22:53 GMT
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8t41b4$hvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff <SNIP>
>
> > > Wouldn't it be nice to be able to telnet/ssh into the box and remotely
> work
> > > on it to restart/fix the webserver ? After all, I've constantly heard
> people
> > > boasting about this capability for Linux boxen. With a tanked Tux box,
> > > well... :)
> >
> > Use a watchdog card and telnet in to it when it reboots itself.
>
> What are those ?
I think Compaq has something like this called the Remote Insight
Board. It's a PCI card with a mini processor, video card, modem, NIC,
keyboard controller et al. It's essentially a computer within your
computer. It has it's own IP, etc. It can communicate with the computer
and capture the video and send it out over telnet even when the computer
itself is booting (you can go into the CMOS of the machine through
telnet). Most of them have battery backups so that you can reboot or
power down the machine and still do work on the card itself.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:34:46 GMT
Stop wasting my time liar....
You have been exposed as a BULLSHIT ARTIST
claire
On 24 Oct 2000 20:07:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:22:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't mind variou various benchmark information on this as well.
>>>The FreeBSD community isn't as visible as the Linux one, but it's clear
>>>that, if there's an advantage to FreeBSD, it should be touted.
>>>
>>>And this looks like an advantage. :-)
>
>> I was simply asking him to prove his statement, I don't know if it is
>> true or not.
>
>You wouldnt understand the proof even if it did exist. Ive explained the
>quality of its existance in two other posts. Read them.
>
>
>>>
>>>You could be nicer about it, you know. :-)
>
>> He chose to BS ( in another thread) and unfortunately he got caught
>> tossing around terms he knows nothing about.
>
>Actually, you tossed them around first and then some guy came to
>your rescue and started writing your posts for you so that you didnt
>look like a TOTAL retard, but merely a moronic fool.
I didn't, toss them around. I know exactly what they are and had a
civil discussion with Gary about it.
You jumped in spewing BULLSHIT and got caught.
Believe me I don't need anybody to post for me.
>> I don't try to argue programming, or network servers, because "hello.c
>> was as far as I got.
>
>And since a soundblaster is as far as youve gotten with hardware, perhaps
>you should leave its discussion to qualified people.
You have a real difficult time reading post's don't you.
TWO digital audio cards...
Read it again, or at least get somebody to read it to you.
>> yttrx lies, lies and lies again. He gets caught all the time.
>
>Name some.
The entire VM/RAS/PSSP thread....
Boy do you look like an asshole on that one.....
Go back to your scripts, kiddie.
claire
>Go on, claire. Put em up.
>
>Heres some things that are apparantly true:
>
>1. you have no linux experience
Sure do..
>2. you have no bsd experience
True. But I never said I did..I don't need to BULLSHIT like YOU DO.
>3. you have no UNIX experience
AIX.
>4. you are a moron
I don't make statements I can't back up. You do though.
>5. people type for you so that you appear to be more intelligent than a devilled egg.
At 2:00 in the morning?
I must have a lot of friends.
I've heard some convoluted attempts at reasoning in COLA, but having
somebody type for someone else has to be a first.
Is that what you do?
>6. your opinions are useless
Maybe. But they are backed up with facts and yours are not.
LIAR.
claire
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:26:45 +1000
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8t4nn3$4vt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said the guy who just lost the debate.
Well, if that's losing, bring it on.
>
> Personally, I won by leaving it. And as long as I stay out of debates with
> Max, I'll have a happier life.
Less patchy baldness, too ;).
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:44:30 -0300
El mar, 24 oct 2000, Chad Myers escribió:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><SNIP: more ignorant childish Charlie Ebert ass-spewings>
>
>> I can't believe I'm jumping into this...must be feeling completely idiotic
>> today, as I open myself up to attack.
>>
>> In all fairness to Chad, Linux does not detect RAM correctly on certain
>> computers. For instance, the Thinkpad that I use...Linux will only detect
>> the first 64MB.
>
>Certain? How about the majority.
Not with latest kernel, really.
>> Now, fixing that is not a bit deal...I add a line to lilo.conf that says:
>>
>> append = "mem=163264k"
>
>Note: If you get this wrong, KERNEL PANIC...
Only if you give a too large number. I routinely give small numbers to test
low-memory configs without having to open the case (not to mention that it's
hard to decrease RAM with a single 128MB stick).
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Lewis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:41:26 GMT
You have lost you mind.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>dork
>claire
>P.S. If you want to discuss something intelligent tell me about RAS
>and PSSP.
>I notice you are avoiding it already.
>On 21 Oct 2000 20:05:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:36:17 +0100
Relax wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Relax wrote:
> > >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > No its not: it allows graphicsless computers to use graphics. i
> remember
> > > > running some CFD software with a GUI on a cray without a graphics
> card.
> > > > That is a good thing.
> > >
> > > You still need the X Client subsystem - some sort of (remote) graphical
> > > device interface - for your app to run. So, actually, there IS a graphic
> > > subsystem on the server in your example. The only problem is that it is
> > > pixel based and completely device dependant, GDI is not.
> >
> > There is not OS graphics subsystem. The graphics is done simply via
> > socket calls.
>
> It *has* to be a little more than that :) The libraries certainly provides
> things such as drawing surfaces in memory etc.
That is not necessary, you can do it by hand. All that is needed is
socket calls, since that is how all communication is done. In X terms,
Xlib is assembly language and the socket calls are machine code.
-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: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:46:03 GMT
Darin Johnson wrote:
> You must be good then. It's been a common complaint in the last few
> companies I've been at that sysadmins aren't helpful. I just assumed
> engineers always admin'ed their own machines if they wanted to get
> anything done.
Well, it's not just me; our whole group is like this. Then again, if we're
not helpful, we're not here. Our group works closely with the tools people
and we've setup levels of expected support with them. There are those few
engineers who do try to just "fix" things on their own (usually power-cycling
a machine and 99/100 times they do this without ever calling us and asking for
help) but they're usually repremanded by their supervisor for such actions.
Since we use LSF to spread jobs out to all machines, engineers doing something
to their machines always effects more then just themselves.
> Things do seem to have changed over the years. When I did sysadmin
> type work, I remember scheduling down times after hours, and I even
> did an upgrade over a holiday. But it was somewhat recently when
We just got a notice from SDG&E last week: 12 hour power outage for our campus
over Thanksgiving weekend... yet another holiday gone from our lives. We tend
to get such things back in perks and comp time though.
> someone brought something down in the afternoon, then not getting it
> fixed in time, just WENT HOME at 5 or 6, leaving the network down
> until he arrived in the AM.
Man, if one of us did that, we'd be fired so fast it'd make your head spin.
> Both companies before that, the engineers just all knew the root
> password, because it took far too long to get computer services to do
> anything.
Ahhh! Talk about 0 security. We've had some groups in the past do end runs
around our organisation, almost always because they think they know exactly
what they need and when IT trys to work with them to find the best solution,
they see it as no support (since IT won't do it "their" way). Every time a
group does this, they either have their setup break, or they get cracked and
then come running to IT for help... usually blaming IT for causing the problem
in the first place (which isn't true). When groups work with us (and we will
work to help you find the best, most secure, etc system) they always end up
being satisfied in the end. Some people just don't get it.
Then there are those that seem to think creating their own system or solution
is somehow a way to guarantee their job, because they're the only one that
"knows" how it works.
> Didn't use to be that way. When I was a sysadmin, I got chewed out by
> the boss if a user complained. But this was rare, I got more thanks
> than not usually. If users bought a new application and told you to
> support it, you supported it. Nowdays, the user is told what will be
> supported and what won't be (and being unsupported means not-allowed,
> not user-supported).
We're still told to support something here. The only time we aren't, is when
someone requests something and their supervisor decides there's not a real
need for it.
> I hate to be that way, because I know what being a sysadmin is like.
The things I hate are when our hands are tied. We were in a state for awhile
where there was no official policy on Linux. So engineers would just install
it behind our backs, and suddenly have root unix box access on the company
net. We've had to institute a lot more security as a result. However, even
when we didn't have supported "images" of Linux, if people asked us for help,
we were more then willing to help them get it (I burned CDs myself sometimes),
install and (most important of all) configure it in a secure manner. Of
course, there are those that would listen to all the suggestions for security,
then completely ignore it anyway... argh!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
Brian: "How's Antonio doing?"
Roy: "Much better. I sat him down, and I gave him some good advice: drink
until there's a crowd standing over you saying, 'You okay buddy?'" -- Wings
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
