Linux-Advocacy Digest #158, Volume #30 Fri, 10 Nov 00 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: wtb: Old Digital DEC PDP-8 computer or software ("MH")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: KDE2 ("MH")
Re: What I dont like about Linux ("MH")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (chrisv)
Another Silent Computer :( ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy? (Jake Taense)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Terry Porter)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (chrisv)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Peter da Silva)
Linux & Motif ("Tim Cain")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Peter Vaneynde)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Greg Copeland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wtb: Old Digital DEC PDP-8 computer or software
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:58:42 -0500
You're a very malcontented individual, aren't you? That's too bad.
You took the time to reply, then purposely didn't include the smiley face at
the bottom of the post that clearly indicated that the post was in fun. No
insult was made, nor intended.
Anyone this thin skinned, and this blatant in looking for a way to attack
must have an agenda, or something up their crawl. I think you do, and I
think I know what it is. And I think you do too.
But, having said that, the post in question was nothing more than a fun jab
and you knew it, yet you chose to make it into something it wasn't in order
to attack. The same sort of attack that you decry constantly, accuse me of,
and yet never fail to make yourself. And you wonder why your "factual
opinions" hold zero weight to me, and why I may question your authoritative
rhetorical stance on just about any issue that you try and act
authoritatively on.
Besides, anyone who plays the game usenet, then threatens to sue someone
else playing the same game for defamation, especially when said defamation
obviously never took place, or even if IT DID is,..well, I'll leave that up
to common sense.
Me thinks you protesteth too much. And we all know what that means.
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
> >
> > > Everything was "new." Learning meant inventing, inventions became
> > > standards, standards could be ignored like management....
> >
> > Must be why you love linux so.
>
> This is exactly why you are unpleasant and usually not worth the time of
> a response.
>
> If you spent less time looking to insult people and more time trying to
> understand what people write, you would be much better off.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[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
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:56:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And when Hitler and Goebbels were conspiring to slaughter your
> relatives back in the old country, that was specified by law, too.
>
> Are you saying that, since it was specified by law, that it was not
murder?
>
Yes, that is what they are saying. This is why it is ok to take a baby, cut
its head open and suck it brains out with a vacuum cleaner... because it is
legal.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:13:05 -0500
> There you have it. Not only do Konqueror and IE look alike, but they are
> based on the same code (Mosaic). Well hell, how would you like to write a
> web browser from scratch? :-)
Oh, I'm sure there is at least one regular in here who either was on the
mosaic team, helped write I.E., or has written a web browser for some
obscure company that would be impossible to authenticate.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:22:03 -0500
Does anyone get the sense here that if MS spun off a facade company to port
a few MS apps to linux, say Word for instance, and they were to call it
LinWordz or something.....
I can hear you in here now singing the praises of this product like it was
the best thing since X rated internet sites. Oh, forget that last part.
Doesn't apply in cola., Uh, er,..since Konqueror...
Funny, this two sided argument known as linux advocacy.
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Raul Sainz wrote:
>
> > If you have not tested Konqueror at KDE2, then you are
> > missing the new world ... taste it and forget Netscape forever.
>
> I agree. While I'm not really a big KDE fan, Konqueror was a damned
> nice browser! It was one of the best browsers I've seen, and the best
> (IMO) for unix. Good effort, Konqueror team.
>
> - Donn
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:23:25 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Therefore... *PL0NK*
Oops! You lose! And you were doing so well up until then....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Another Silent Computer :(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:27:48 GMT
Damm what you Linvocates have to go through these days to get sound.
>From another group:
***************************************************************************************
Path:
bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnslaves3!wnmasters2!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uio.no!news.kth.se!altair.nada.kth.se!f00-mlu
From: Mattias Lundahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: SBLive!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:19:05 +0100
Lines: 11
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.nada.kth.se
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Xref: wnmasters2 comp.os.linux.hardware:220763
X-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:24:03 GMT
(bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
How do I get sound from my SBLive! card? I'm running Mandrake 7.2,
and the sound card detector correctly identifies the card but gives a
"emu10k.o device or resource busy" error message when I try to
activate the module. I should probably point out that I am not 100 %
sure of the name of the module, but it is at least something similar
to emu10k.o and located in, well /<something>/lib/modules. I have
tried to manually modprobe the module, with the same message
resulting. Would it be possible to use the DMA, IRQ and so forth for
the card's SB16 emulation, as provided by MS Windows system
overview? And, if so, in what file should these figures be put?
**************************************************************************
If he does manage to get it working, he'll soon discover that the card
operates in a half aborted fashion. He should have bought a $15.00
Sb-16 instead.
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis - Who is this guy?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:38:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> :> And why don't you loose the long signature file? It is annoying.
>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> : ....Especially to the malevolent in-duh-viduals named therein.
>
>> Too bad they are people nobody in *this* group has heard of, and
>> therefore your sig is uselessly verbose.
>
>Hey, guess what: Aaron Kulkis graduated from Purdue! Isn't that impressive?
>I graduated from Penn State, and you're at Wisconsin! Every person with a
>college degree in this thread went to a university in the Big Ten conference.
>LOL!
He doesn't say he graduated - only that he studied.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Nov 2000 15:39:48 GMT
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:29:44 -0500, Clifford W. Racz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:53:16 -0500, Clifford W. Racz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >But Linux never locked up either, once i got it running.
>> >
>> >My Windows 2000 disk cost me $5.
>> Wow, over here in Australia win2k is about $400 (new install)
>> So did Microsoft start giving away free software lately?
>
>No, it is a student discount thing through the university here. I am not
>saying windows is good for everyone, but this is my argument - if Linux is
>not for everyone, then why do I hear that it is the greatest thing since
>sliced bread, only to be as disappointed as I was.
Perhaps your expectations were not met ?
These days all the $$commercial$$ firms using Linux are making a LOT of
*promises*, they naturally are motivated by one thing only, guesses anyone ?
> I think a balanced
>approach would be good.
Always good advice :)
>After talking to a sys-op here at the vet school, he told me, and I quote:
>"Linux kicks ass for development work, and is fun to play with, but IMHO it
>isn't ready to be a main desktop OS.
Yet I have used Linux *as* a desktop since 1997, soley, no Windows.
> Definately kicks ass as a server OS,
>though.
Thats true too, I'm on the net atm thru a 486sx/33 router/firewall, and http
server. It has only 8meg ram and a 100mbhdd, yet is flawless :)
Cost all up ... $30, inc software!
http://www.freesco.org
> Unless you have a real reason to run it on your laptop, I'd skip it
>and go with Windows ME or Windows 98SE."
I havent got a laptop atm.
>
>I wished that someone here had told me this earlier; I would have more
>respect for their opinions now.
>
>> > In contrast,
>> >Linux has cost me an estimated $1000
>> hmm Linux is free, mine cost me $6.50.
>>
>> Perhaps you should shop where I shop ?
>> However I wont be buying Win2k for $5, as the police in this country take
>a
>> very dim view of theft.
>
>The other thing I would have appreciated is to be told that buying the Linux
>package to get "Support" was a complete waste of money. Somehow, I thought
>I would be supporting the Linux "cause" and getting some real support.
I can understand your dissapointment, but then have you ever tried to get
Microft support ???
Besides you'll get LOTS of support for Linux problems on the net, but not here
on COLA, search for *linux* in your newsreader ng listing.
> What
>a waste of time. I bought RedHat 6.2 AND Mandrake 7.0; so, apparently I
>spent ~$90 for virtually NO REASON except to just give it away.
Thats not true, Redhat does make things a lot easier for a newbie, and you get
the doco with the extra expense. I myself bought a cheapbytes Redhat4.2 cd in
1997 for $6.50, *and* the book "Running Linux" by O'Riely, for $65.
So in essense I paid a similar sum to you all up. I also recall my copy
of Win95 cost me $120, had no book, no apps, and 1 free call to MS, which I
used and found out it was worthless.
> And then, I
>spent $40 on the RedHat reference book. And then all the time to figure it
Redhat comes with a book?
>out.
>
>If I can get win2k for $5 here and Linux, just to figure out what to do with
>it, costs me much more, than what am I doing? My time is valuable (even if
>SOME people think I am a lame-o at $20/hr).
>
>>
>> > and netted me very little in return. I
>> Linux has made me about $2000 lately :)
>
>Don't think I am saying Linux is bad for everyone. Only those who don't
>really need it, nor know how to use it.
Same goes for the Mac, Windows or an Amiga Id think ?
>
>If I were going to create a distributed computing system or a server farm
>for some store's website, then Linux would be great.
True.
> But as a desktop OS
>for everyday things, it isn't as easy to use.
NOT TRUE!
> There are always these
>peculiar little things that average Windows user doesn't know how to do and
>the help files are not very helpful.
You talking about using Windows or Linux ;-)
The man pages are for people who *already* know what theyre doing. The how-tos
I've found to be the best thing since sliced bread.
However without a good book Linux is very hard to just *use*, especially
if you've come from a Windows environment as you're sheltered and ignorant at
that point.
>
>IMHO, I actually prefer Linux in the command prompt. And I think that
>managing an NT network would be a nightmare. But it will now take quite a
>bit to convince me that Linux should be my desktop OS.
I'm trying, cause naturally I'm convinced, as I use it *every* single day.
>
>Another Note, I can tolerate using Linux if it is maintained for me, as well
>as mac OS, the HP Unix desktop environment. But I don't have time to fool
>with everything.
Makes perfect sense to me :)
>
>> Kind Regards
>> Terry
>> --
>> **** ****
>> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
>> up 1 day 1 hour 20 minutes
>> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 10 hours 20 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Nov 2000 08:47:19 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On 09 Nov 2000 15:49:44 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> >KDE and GNOME are projects to make Linux behave more like Windows and
> >Macintosh.
>
> Laughably false. They are projects to provide Linux with a modern set
> of development tools. It's not that there's anything *wrong* with the
> standard POSIX development tools -- but they do not in themselves make
> a complete application development framework.
True, and I don't begrudge those that need them. This "modern set of
development tools" is that as implemented in Microsoft Windows, right?
> > Those of us who like UNIX generally don't get it either.
> >Don't worry, you're not alone! We've been doing component programming
> >for decades on stable, multitasking systems.
>
> Component programming for decades ? Hmmmm ... I don't see anything close
> to KDE and GNOME that's more than a few years old. (possibly Motif/CDE,
> but that's been saddled by licensing problems, and it's also saddled with
> C as its language)
Sure:
cut -f1 file | grep foo | wc -l > blah_count
> Personally, I think the Glib/GTK and Qt APIs offer a lot to programmers,
> and GUI programming would be a hell of a lot harder without them.
I program to GTK all the time (note that neither GTK nor Qt is GNOME
or KDE).
> I disagree with your comment about people who "like UNIX" disliking
> GNOME/KDE. What are all the Linux developers writing their GUI applications
> in nowadays, and do those people "like UNIX" or are they writing free
> Linux software under duress ?
I didn't say "dislike"; I just meant that there are those of us who
would still be using Linux becaus it is UNIX, not because KDE and
GNOME are so spiffy.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:53:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Is this crap being machine generated now? The plot never changes, its
>like a travelling roadshow of a horrendous off-Broadway flop.
That's because this same kind of thing has happened to so many of us.
Get it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 10 Nov 2000 15:38:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
> > I figured that wolves need the hugs more, in general, seeing as they don't
> > get cut much of a break ...
> Yes, in Dutch we call that a "lage aaibaarheidsfactor" of which I,
> unfortunately, don't have an inkling to the English translation.
Will someone translate this for me? Web searches have been pointless...
lots of references to books in Dutch, but no translations.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "Tim Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux & Motif
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:07:21 -0000
Hi,
I've been looking around for Motif development tools
(UIL compiler etc) for Linux with little success.
Does anyone know of any resources out there, or has
Motif died the death in light of Lesstif, Gnome, Kdeetc?
Thanks,
Tim.
------------------------------
From: Peter Vaneynde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 10 Nov 2000 17:07:55 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > I figured that wolves need the hugs more, in general, seeing as they don't
> > > get cut much of a break ...
>
> > Yes, in Dutch we call that a "lage aaibaarheidsfactor" of which I,
> > unfortunately, don't have an inkling to the English translation.
>
> Will someone translate this for me? Web searches have been pointless...
> lots of references to books in Dutch, but no translations.
My attempt:
Low cuddlyness factor.
ie. There is not much of a willingness to cuddle it. Examples include
snakes or spiders. A "hoge aaibaarheidsfactor" is a property of
teddybears and koalas (in the last case, not that is it a willingness
to cuddle it, not if this action is advisable) :-)
Groetjes, Peter
--
LANT nv/sa, Research Park Haasrode, Interleuvenlaan 15H, B-3001 Leuven
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: ++32 16 405140
http://www.lant.be/ Fax: ++32 16 404961
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:09:38 GMT
In article <O%JO5.2487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:23:12 GMT
> > <8ubr4n$mcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >In article <3a080572$0$36976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:8u8rlg$8k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > In article <3a07d40b$0$14416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > > news:8u77je$vai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > > In article <3a06de7b$0$32739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> > > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > > > > By the way, what is the maximum
> > >> > > > > partition size limit on Linux, and what is the maximum
file
> > >size
> > >> > on
> > >> > > > 32bit
> > >> > > > > hardware?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Assuming ext2:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Max file size: 2GB, unless you use the "bigfile" patch.
> > >> > > > Max part size: 4TB
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 4TB maximum FS size is quite decent, but 2GB filesize is
hardly an
> > >> > > "enterprise scale" limit. Needs to mature a bit :)
> > >> >
> > >> > Or you need to use the "bigfile" patch. You seem to enjoy
selective
> > >> > reading.
> > >>
> > >> Oh yes, and what are you going to do, recompile Oracle to use the
new
> > >API?
> > >
> > >What new API? Are you smoking something funny?
> >
> > Technically, it's a new API, but one can recompile apps
> > by using the options:
> >
> > g++ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D__USE_FILE_OFFSET64 ...
> >
> > The source code -- at least for open() level stuff; I don't know
> > about fopen() or iostream -- would not have to change.
> > However, the objects would not be compatible, as open() and
> > other such things become macros with the real calls becoming
> > open64().
> >
> > Makes life interesting. :-)
>
> So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
> techniques or special filesystems.
If Oracle for Linux supports raw partitions, that's hardly fancy.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:17:59 -0600
Mathias Grimmberger wrote:
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
> >
> > Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
>
> ???
>
> AFAIK the Linux kernel is not designed to be preemptable. Nor are the
> majority of other OS kernels out there, for a reason I'd guess. KISS
> principle and stuff.
>
> > somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
> > laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
>
It's important to understand that Linux is a preemtable kernel, just as
long as it is not in a system call. When it (the kernel) is in a system
call, the process that needs to run, must wait until the system call has
completed. The 2.4 kernel fixes this. Having said that, in the
majority of the cases for a typical user, this is not a problem.
Furthermore, several groups have done studies for real time extensions
which show that in the cases when system calls do not need to be
preempted, the context switch times were anywhere from 2-12 (I forget,
it may of been up to 10) times faster than NT's context switch time.
Furthermore, in many cases, Linux's kernel was able to best QNX. These
are the reasons why Linux is being targeted for so much real-time
development and extension. Please don't call me out on the NT context
switch times. If you stop an think about it, it makes COMPLETE sense.
This is because NT's kernel is designed to make threads the optimal
scheduled entity. It does this very well. The trade off is that
processes severely suffer. That's why most UNIX software that is ported
to NT performs so badly, because the software is usually based on a
process implementation and not a threaded implementation. In short, NT
sucks at process scheduling and excels at thread scheduling. Unix is
the opposite.
As one person has already said, your ability to perform multiple tasks
is mostly limited by the hardware that you are running. For example, if
you want a more responsive system (without regard for the OS), don't buy
IDE, get SCSI. The list could go on for common sense configurations.
In short, don't by hardware that won't support your needs and complain
about the OS.
> I don't think you even know what you are talking about. MacOS 9 SMP and
> Linux SMP are very different (basically MacOS 9 simply doesn't have it).
> And Microsoft's NT has it's own peculiarities WRT SMP (e.g. doesn't HLT
> idle processors with the SMP HAL - WTF?). Not to mention
> DOS/W3.x/W9x/WME which wouldn't know what to do with more than 1 CPU
> even if you kicked it really hard.
>
Agreed, Mac didn't really support the conventional notion of SMP.
> > "For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> > to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> > running a browser and my mail program. And when
> > I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> > want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> > really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
>
> Seems to work for me. Really. ;-)
>
Not only does this work well for me too, but I can run xmms while
allowing esd to mix the sound too, while watching TV using my TV card.
Of course, this all spans both of my CPUs too. As for Linux's
responsiveness, I honestly don't know what you are talking about. I
would hazard a guess that you may want to learn more about process
priorities before you respond to this post. If you want to have a
process run with a scheduled bias, you should start it using nice,
adjusting the priority to suit its need. Also, keep in mind that you
may have some built in hardware limitations too. For example, your
video card may not have enough bandwidth to drive everything you want to
do in what you consider timely. This is just an example.
Another important item to address is software. On linux, since you have
so many choices for so many applications, make sure that you pick the
application best for the job. Playing mpeg files with xanim isn't a
good choice, however, it works well for avi files. Having the right
application can make a dramatic impact on system usability. This alone
is one reason why many people stay away from E-window manager. Other's
choose to stay away from Gnome for this reason too. E uses tons of CPU
and memory, Gnome is a memory hog. On light systems, this can make a
huge difference.
The point I'm trying to make is that since Linux is so incredible
configurable, it not only can be a blessing, it also can be a curse.
It's not hard for someone to come up with a configuration that isn't
well suited for the system.
> Improvements are of course possible, there is talk about reducing
> latencies in scheduling processes and stuff. Heh, by now in Linux you
> can even bind the IRQ of a NIC to a given processor if you know what I
> mean...
>
Actually, IRQs are serviceable by all CPU's in linux. As far as I know,
there isn't any way to work around this as Linux is almost always better
at figuring out process/driver CPU affinity than could be done by a
person second guessing the kernel.
> > I must apologize. I had been giving Linux FAR too much
> > credit. I had assumed that they had at least a decent
> > PMT implementation, but according to this article, it
> > appears it's no better than the MacOS's CMT.
>
> ??? Some random article doesn't define what an OS does or does not do.
> It could even be wrong, now did you ever think of *that*?
I would steet clear of any Ziff Davis or Microsoft owned/endorced
mag/website if you truely want honest information. As a rule of thumb,
even though ZD has gotten much better, they are still pretty "bought and
paid for." As for Microsoft, well, put it this way, when you buy a car,
who do you listen to more, a friend that knows about cars, or the car
saleman wearing a white suite and flamingo tie?
>
> > Can't watch a movie and check email at the same time?
>
> I can.
>
So can I. No problems here.
> > And this is supposed to be the OS that's the death of
> > the MS OS? Give me a break!
>
> Which MS OS? For there is more than one. Although anything not NT hardly
> qualifies as OS.
This is true, NT is the only offering that MS has that is an OS. DOS is
an IRQ handler. Windows is a GUI + DOS. Win95/98 is better GUI and
driver framework built on top of DOS (yes, win95/98 are still DOS
extenders). Also, remember that NT, up through 4.0 was really version
1.x! W2k actually makes for NT 2.0. In other words, NT has just
reaches a level of stability where people should be starting to look at
it. IMOHO, if you used a 1.0 of NT for critical production work, a
moron sign and buzzer should be planted up your tail pipe. :P~ Have a
nice day! :)
>
> > Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
Careful, remember 'ol Bill has publicly stated that he wants NT to be
the next UNIX. In other words, he's trying hard for NT to be UNIX.
That's why there is such a convergance. Linux, at the same time, is
pushing for desktop space.
>
> So? Linux is the kernel and it doesn't look like Windows to me at all.
That right. I find this fact confuses more people, so I usually try
hard not to bring it up unless it really needs to be. Linux is purely
the kernel. Everything else which is not Linux, sits on top of it.
This usually comes up when people say "Linux crashed on me." In
reality, usually the GUI crashes, however, the kernel is still running.
This means that they system can almost always be recovered without a
reboot. This is not the case with NT as, lots of the GUI interface runs
along side the kernel (yes, it can and does make it faster). This means
that if the GUI crashes, it _can_ take the whole OS with it. That's why
when you see the BSOD, it's not uncommon that is was a single bad GUI
call implemented in an application to took the whole OS with it.
but...I've run astray...
>
> The rest is some distribution - the good thing is you have a choice,
> down to individual software packages. Unlike Windows where you get to
> take what MS offers you or not use Windows at all. My Linux boxes do not
> look like Windows - because I don't want them to look like it. If I need
> Windows I use the real stuff.
Exactly.
>
> MGri
> --
> Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
Greg
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
