Linux-Advocacy Digest #945, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (George William Herbert)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Andres Soolo)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Font Editor? (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: 30 Oct 2000 14:52:22 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Ginn) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Which Windows, Pete? You're doing it again.
>
> Which Linux? Linux-Mandrake, SuSe, Red Hat...
You're the one that always calls people to task for not being
specific. I was merely calling you out for doing the same.
> >> Borland Delphi and C++ Builder are two of these packages. They are
> >> going to appear on Linux, but not yet.
> >
> >So use something else. There are plenty of alternative packages for
> >free. For me, nothing comes close to XEmacs for C/C++ development.
>
> There is nothing else.
... that you choose to use. There are plenty of options, as you have
been told several times. What does Delphi offer me that XEmacs doesn't?
> >There are plenty of nice free options on Linux. Have you checked out
> >KWord in KDE 2.0? I just downloaded and installed Mandrake 7.2
> >yesterday which comes with KDE 2.0 and it's very nice. I used to use
> >Sawfish without GNOME or KDE, but I can see myself switching for good
> >to KDE for Konqueror alone. No longer can anyone say that Linux lacks
> >a usable browser. Heck, Konqueror even does full-screen browsing,
> >which was the biggest complaint I had about Netscape.
>
> I'll be getting Mandrake 7.2 as soon as I order it - I only found out it
> has been released today.
KDE2 is very good, and I've never been a KDE fan.
> Unfortunately the last time I upgraded from 7.0 to 7.1 things did not go
> terribly well.
Don't upgrade. Reinstall from scratch. It's a little work up front,
but it will pay off in terms of stability.
> >LyX with TeX as the engine is still easier to use than Word or
> >anything else if you aren't into micromanaging your output.
>
> WYSIWYG is still easier than a text editor and engine.
LyX is not a text editor; it's a front-end for TeX. It's commonly
referred to as being WYSIWYM (what you see is what you _mean_). Go to
http://www.lyx.org for more info.
> >So keep Windows for games. Linux is not the best option for gaming at
> >this time.
>
> So we at least agree on something; Windows is a better platform than Linux
> at this time.
... for gaming. I have no problem admitting that; Win98 is a toy OS.
> >This is such a minor issue, I can't believe you're still using this as
> >a reason not to switch. Sure, I guess 3-D sound is a nice thing to
> >have, but is an unstable Windows box really worth 3-D sound? If this
> >is going to hold you up, I can't really say anything to convince you
> >otherwise. Besides, why can't you keep Windows around for games, and
> >use Linux for other things?
>
> 3D sound is my job.
>
> So, I'll keep Windows around to keep hearing 3D sound and eventually use
> Linux.
You make a common mistake; you assume that your needs are universal.
I'll venture that very few people who use a PC actually care about 3-D
sound. The few that do can run Windows. Use what works best for you,
but don't assume that what works best for you works best for everyone
else.
> >To be honest Pete, I don't think anyone cares whether you switch to
> >Linux or not. There are free replacements for virtually everything you
> >listed that are as good or superior to all your current Windows
> >programs. Whether you choose to use them or not is up to you. If you
> >want to spend upwards of $300 to get a W2K system that might suit your
> >needs compared to a Linux package that will cost mybe $20 at the local
> >computer store, that's your choice. You know all this already, so I
> >know this won't sway you at all, but maybe something I've said will
> >have some influence. I'm not a Microsoft hater; I have Win98 SE at
> >home, but Linux is a better solution for 95% of what I do. It's free,
> >stable, secure (if you know what you're doing), and I know it will
> >always be around in some form. Regardless of how big Microsoft is
> >right now, you can't say the same for them.
>
> There are still a few major obstacles that I'm waiting to change. Since I'm
> a GUI developer that's why I'm waiting for Kylix to appear (Delphi for
> Linux). I could learn a whole new set of interfaces but I'd rather stick
> with what I know for now.
So your argument boils down to the fact that you don't want to learn
anything new.
You're right, Pete. Linux isn't for you.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George William Herbert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 30 Oct 2000 14:27:18 -0800
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said George William Herbert in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Terje Mathisen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>>> That would depend on what you consider "ethernet speeds". The correct
>>>>> throughput rate to measure on an Ethernet is comparable to arcnet.
>>>>> Ethernet's CSMA/CD relies on statistical access to the media, and is
>>>>> only really efficient at nominally 10% of the "bandwidth speed".
>>>>
>>>>OK, please do some actual throughput tests and come back:
>>>>
>>>>I'm willing to bet that you'll discover that CSMA/CD is perfectly
>>>>willing to work with 30-60% utilization, and for a simple streaming
>>>>application using maximum size packets (1500+ bytes), you'll get up to
>>>>90-99%.
>>>
>>>You are under the impression that throughput tests would involve
>>>measuring the utilization of the Ethernet. That is specifically what I
>>>meant to point out would be of dubious value. I have no interest what
>>>an ethernet can do in isolation or in thought experiments. If you're
>>>going to design a [complex] network which includes Ethernet, you should,
>>>as Robert Metcalfe intended when he designed the thing, consider your
>>>"bandwidth" to be a nominal 10% of the bit rate. Unless you're not
>>>using shared ethernet, and hardly anyone uses shared media these days.
>>>And then they wonder why their shared switches don't make all of their
>>>"network" problems magically disappear, like the sales droid promised.
>>
>>I've seen this often enough argued, but both the detailed theory
>>(your 10% quote there is an inaccurate quote without sufficient
>>context) and practice I've seen with medium sized shared media nets
>>(up to 15-20 systems) showed that you could consistently get at least
>>50% from any arbitrary pair of systems involved with moderate normal
>>traffic between the others, and I could often hit 90% or better
>>if the rest of the network was lightly loaded. Obviously, with
>>shared media if you have everyone try and talk simultaneously
>>the total combined utilization is under 100%, but I've run 8
>>system test networks where each of the 8 was doing bidirectional
>>bandwidth testing with the other 7 and I was getting 85% of
>>combined 10BT theoretical out of the combined network when
>>packet sizes were large on the average, and 75% for worst case.
>>
>>I'm sorry if you never were able to do so, but my experience
>>says I can do better than you think I should.
>
>I was just never able to convince myself that any of this amounts to a
>hill of beans. You yourself admitted that these optimistic results were
>achieved in a test network. That would hardly provide any refutation
>for my argument that the isolated performance of a single ethernet
>system is *irrelevant*. Sure, you can hit 90%. But you have to know in
>advance where and when you're going to hit it, or you get that extra
>demand that puts 90% at 180% (or not, obviously) because of the
>logarithmic response curve of ethernet.
No, my "optimistic" results started on a mixed platform production
network (20 systems, though usually only 15 were powered on;
mixed PC, Mac, mostly UNIX). That network was in full normal
daily use at the time. The 85% number was for a test network
of 8 basically identical SPARC systems on a non-externally-connected
hub, but is not atypical compared to production nets I've run.
I come to this argument because people were telling me at the time
(1990) that you couldn't possibly expect that sort of performance
out of a multi-platform 20-node Thinnet coax ethernet, and I had
a bunch of test data saying that I was regularly doing better
than was "theoretically possible". I don't have a particularly
large respect for naysayers who reject experimental data out of
hand on experimentally verifyable claims.
>Stop trying to convince me that your success in implementing individual
>and pre-defined "solutions" amounts to sufficient experience to
>contradict my own. If you want to use shared media ethernet, you can do
>so cheaply and effectively. You'll notice nobody does this anymore, it
>being "cheaper" to go to switched ethernet, or at least more expedient
>that trying to understand why "the network" doesn't work, even when
>certain component pieces seem to be doing a bang-up job. Answer, based
>on best practices surveyed across more than three dozen major carriers,
>enterprises, and service providers? Shared ethernets only work well in
>supporting *the network* when the anticipated load on the media is 10%
>utilization.
The number one reason to go to switched ethernet is that single
point failures are noncritical, be they cable cuts or failed-noisy
interface systems. I have had enough of each to know better.
The number two reason is that the network-wide debugging becomes
trivial as you no longer have to be looking for pathological
collision oddities.
The number three reason is that it's harder to sniff. Having been
the victim of several of the classic sniffed network incidents in the
late 80s early 90s, this alone justifies switching...
The number four reason is, quite legitimately, that bandwidth is
better on an overall and average per system standpoint with port
switched gear, and modern systems need more bandwidth in and out
in critical applications. I've built a number of sites out where
high watermark performance took 100BT switched on good switches right
out to the edge of its performance range (90 megabits); gigabit is
now something I'm deploying in similar conditions.
It is possible to simultaneously understand all of that and point
3 in particular and not exclude experimental data of achivable
bandwidth on unswitched Ethernet. I just don't get why some
people get so snitty about this point... it's not like I'm trying
to drive a resurgence of unswitched networking. All I am saying
is that hubbed Ethernet is, in fact, capable of a hell of a lot
more than 1 megabit (individual and/or aggregate) in production
applications. I've been there, and done it, and while I'm not
going back there it worked just fine.
-george william herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: 30 Oct 2000 22:19:10 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>And how are you going to pipe one command to another if there is no command
>>>line?
> By getting a reel OS and using reel softwair that has graffix and not pipes.
So, you want drag-and-drop pipes with graphically superior 3D textures?
The idea is fun. And it's so crazy someone might actually develop it.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of
nothing.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:58:34 -0500
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No one could stop an OEM from selling a retail copy of Windows
> Me.
> > > But
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > would be a lot more expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Look, when the OS license cost more than the profit margin of a
> PC,
> > > > > > then DOUBLING the OS licence cost effectively forces the OEM to
> raise
> > > > > > prices.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Discounts do allow companies to sell their products for less.
> > > > > Sometimes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes they just pocket the difference as profit.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regardless--PUNISHING a company for offering a competitor's product
> > > > is OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE and it is illegal.
> > >
> > > You don't get it. "Punishing" would be if they told Dell they had to pay
> > > more than retail for Windows Me and Office 2000 if they sold products
> > > Microsoft didn't want them to.
> > >
> > > "Rewarding" is where Dell gets Windows Me and Office 2000 real, real
> cheap
> > > for doing what Microsoft wants.
> >
> > Since Microsoft doesn't require any other vendor to pay retail
> > price, then that's not a discount.
>
> By retail I meant the stand, no discount price. And lots of vendors pay that
> price.
When the "discount" price is the prevailing price, that *IS* the price.
This has already been determined in cases against stores that ran
"sales" by marking up prices, and then claiming that the price
is "marked down" or "xxx % off", when in fact, all they did was
to stop jacking up the price.
Since *NO* OEM pays the "retail" price for Losedows, the "retail price"
is ***NOT*** 'the price'.
That's the law.
I suggest you learn it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:59:53 -0500
John Fereira wrote:
>
> In article <rGPK5.116711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the chip you
> >run
> >> > it
> >> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
> >> > > :
> >> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
> >> > > :
> >> > > :Talk about extortion.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why? I see no relation.
> >> >
> >> > I guess you are blind.
> >> >
> >> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they were
> >> > intentionally
> >> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and some
> >other
> >> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior product.
> >> >
> >> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold hardware to
> >> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and Chrysler
> >strongly
> >> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that sold
> >them
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > the franchise.
> >>
> >>
> >> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
> >>
> >> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT UNDER
> >> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple manufacturers...
> >
> >A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford and GM
> >and Chrysler cars?
> >
> >Never seen it.
> >
> >Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
> >
> >That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate dealers
> >sell cars.
>
> Are you sure they're separate? Out in the south SF bay area there is a
> company called the "Lucas Dealership Group". It's one company that owns
> mulitple dealerships that include almost all of the major domestic and
> foreign models. I've seen the same thing in several other places. Each
> dealership might be limited to one or two manufacturers but they're all owned
> by the same company.
And the reason that they can compete is because the automakers are NOT
allowed to discontinue volume discounts just because the dealership
sells competitors products.
The computer industry should be the same.
>
> John Fereira
> Ithaca, NY
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:09:17 -0500
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "John Fereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8tkmsn$6c2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <a_kL5.118299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"John Fereira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8tk5ji$rf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <rGPK5.116711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >> > > :Look at Oracle. You pay for the software by the mhz of the chip
> > >you
> > >> >run
> > >> >> > it
> > >> >> > > :on .... as if that was any of their f**king business.
> > >> >> > > :
> > >> >> > > :Upgrade the processor and pay more money!
> > >> >> > > :
> > >> >> > > :Talk about extortion.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Why? I see no relation.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I guess you are blind.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > The problem with Microsoft's business practices is that they
> were
> > >> >> > intentionally
> > >> >> > > designed to thwart agreements between the Microsoft client and
> some
> > >> >other
> > >> >> > > third software maker by means other than offering a superior
> > >product.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > They were designed to strongly encourage companies that sold
> hardware
> > >to
> > >> >> > sell only Microsoft software in the same way GM, Ford, and
> Chrysler
> > >> >strongly
> > >> >> > encouraged franchisees to only sell cars made by the company that
> > >sold
> > >> >them
> > >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> > >> >> > the franchise.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Note the PAST TENSE, as this is *ILLEGAL*.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A sizeable portion of auto-dealers, IN AND AROUND DETROIT--RIGHT
> UNDER
> > >> >> THE AUTO-EXEC's NOSES sell cars and trucks from multiple
> > >manufacturers...
> > >> >
> > >> >A sizeable portion? Are you trying to tell me dealers sell both Ford
> and
> > >GM
> > >> >and Chrysler cars?
> > >> >
> > >> >Never seen it.
> > >> >
> > >> >Or are you talking Ford/VW and GM/Volvo.
> > >> >
> > >> >That I've seen. And I've seen Auto Malls where multiple separate
> dealers
> > >> >sell cars.
> > >>
> > >> Are you sure they're separate? Out in the south SF bay area there is
> a
> > >> company called the "Lucas Dealership Group". It's one company that
> owns
> > >> mulitple dealerships that include almost all of the major domestic and
> > >> foreign models. I've seen the same thing in several other places.
> Each
> > >> dealership might be limited to one or two manufacturers but they're all
> > >owned
> > >> by the same company.
> > >
> > >Sounds like a way around the Big 3's attempt to keep one dealer from
> selling
> > >cars from multiple manufacturers.
> > >
> > >I found this link
> > >http://www.openhere.com/shop1/automotive/dealers/dealership-groups/.
> > >
> > >It seems dealership groups are just groups of companies -- each company
> > >having a dealership for one brand of car.
> >
> > That's not the way I read it. Check out the "John Elway Dealerships".
> > Multiple dealerships (John Elway Nissan, John Elway Chevrolet, etc), but
> one
> > company (one owner).
>
> No no no. Multiple companies owned by a parent company.
>
> > The "John Elway Dealerships" looks just like the Lucas
> > Dealership Group I mentioned. There are multiple lots, which might have
> > different names, but they're all one company and profits are all going
> into
> > one pot.
>
> Nope. Each is a separate company.
>
> Not one of those dealerships sells more than one Big 3 brand (except of
> course for the multiple brands under GM)
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I think Aaron is running a con when he says Dealerships can offer
> different
> > >brands from the Big 3.
> >
> > I think Aaron is right on this one and you'll have to resort to semantics
> to
> > prove him wrong.
>
> Reality proves him wrong.
>
> Take a look at the drop down list of dealerships.
>
> Not one dealerships sells more than one Big 3 brand. Not one. Go and look at
> all the other Groups.
Come to Detroit, and you can see for yourself.
>
> Same thing.
>
> I win. Semantics aren't needed.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:29:28 -0000
MH wrote in message <8tjtko$8i3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>COLA in 5 years.
>
>MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
>MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
>MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
>
>THIS AND...
>
>MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
>MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
>MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
>
>THAT.
>
Only in the nostalgia section in the same way that some people currently say
Digital research this and digital research that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Font Editor?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Oct 2000 22:44:18 GMT
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:34:38 -0500, William Olsen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anyone here know of a font editor for Linux?
>Would appreciate any info greatly - recently switched to Linux from Mac
>and I have a huge font collection I would like to make available to
>Linux - and to continue editing them.
There are quite a few ive seen over the years and vairous how-too's.
Search www.freshmeat.net and sunsite or do a hotbot search to find them.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
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, 31 Oct 2000 00:41:37 +0000
Relax wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You have not read the post. i was talking about context swithcing
> spped,
> > > > not datadase access speed.
> > >
> > > ..well, you quickly generalized. W2K makes great servers, indeed,
> regardless
> > > if the x86 context switch time.
> >
> > OK, so it doesn't make great servers for the application I suggested
> > (lots of people logging on to one computer). Such applications do exist:
> > my university has 2 such servers, (both 4 processor DEC besats, IIRC),
> > which are mail servers for about 10,000 people each. In fact, ec -l
> > /etc/passwd gives 10950 on my one. Bear in mind that many people use
> > shell accounts to get email. Win2K would not make a great server here
> > because i86 would not be suitable.
>
> Win2K's scenario for email (using Exchange for example) is different. 10,000
> accounts != 10'000 processes on the server :)
On a heavily loaded day, the load can get very high, since each user has
several (or many) processes. Win2K can't support 10k simultaneous users
logged on, unlike this server.
> HP and Microsoft claims to be able to support 34,000 typical email users on
> one W2K server. More details here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/productinfo/hplh6000_6p_2000.htm
And shell accounts?
>
> > > care how long my CPU takes to switch tasks as long as I'm not writing
> some
> > > hard real time stuff. The only numbers that counts is how much work my
> > > server is able to perform in a given time, and at what cost.
> >
> > Some people (those who own large multiuser servers) do care. With 2500
> > users per CUP, you would care if you were a user.
>
> Sure, in a typical Unix scenario. But under Win2K, you typically don't have
> 1 user = 1 process. It's more like 1 server process for all users. The
> server process will use a thread pool and some work queues to get the job
> done. This approach seems to work well.
Shell acounts?
> > The other problem with i86 is them only being 32 bit. 48.28%[1] of
> > instructions on average are data movement (the largest percentage out of
> > all the groups) A 1GHZ 32 bit processor is going to be slower than a
> > 500MHZ 64 bit processor (busses count as well in speed measurements).
>
> Fortunately, Intel has a plan :)
!
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
