Linux-Advocacy Digest #258, Volume #30 Wed, 15 Nov 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (tom)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (Matt Gaia)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: OS stability (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OS stability (Donovan Rebbechi)
RE: Need some advice on Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (tom)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:01:04 GMT
In article <8uvd9k$8om$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just an uneducated guess, but if you just went to a console and left
> the misbehaving netscape process running, it might have caused some
> problems - that isn't supposed to happen (and almost never does), but
> you never know.
>
> You weren't running netscape as root, were you?
I think at that point I was logged in as a user. Can't remember. I
initially went in as root of course to set up the modem, then set up
the ISP in Kppp and logged on for awhile to make sure it was working
okay. I'm *pretty* sure I logged out as root because the last thing I
did as root was to add the two setserial lines to the appropriate file
so the modem would show up for all users. I wouldn't have been able to
do that when Netscape locked up things. (Actually, I was still able to
open up the "start" menu; i looked around for something akin to
Windows' Task Manager to kill the errant process.)
> Linux is much more stable than win98. Netscape, however, is not the
> most stable linux program - it has some issues. However, 99.999% of
the
> time, you do not need to reboot. The worst netscape can do is kill the
> gui, and that is very rare (I've had it happen maybe two or three
times
> in the last 18 months). Once you learn your way around linux a bit,
> recovering from something like that will not be a problem.
When I first got to the command prompt, it never even occurred to me to
run a "jobs" command to see if Netscape was still going. What is the
Linux equivalent to Task Manager? Do I have to go to a console and use
the appropriate counterpart to "jobs", or does KDE have something
useful?
> like someone suggested, try pan, which you can get from here:
>
> http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/PByName.html
>
> if it isn't on your 7.1 cd. IIRC, pan-0.8.0beta2-1mdk works well, but
> try out the newer ones as well.
Shoot, that site is even more confusing than the one at superpimp!
They keep running you around in circles; I never did get to a file that
could be downloaded.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 01:56:24 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uvast$gmo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : It's a failing and design flaw of Linux, would you please admit this
> : and move on? Linus, Red Hat, and several others have admitted this
> : flaw and are fixing it, why can't you?
>
> I *am* willing to admit that not being able to go bigger than 2GB
> is a flaw. I am *not* willing to admit that this flaw has anything
> to do with high-end databases, since they use partitions anyway,
Which ones? Oracle? They say themselves that raw paritions aren't
very flexible, difficult to manage, and in fact can limit your
fault tolerance and offer only limited performance benefits.
The majority of DBAs run Oracle with files.
In fact, the leading contender in the TPC using Oracle is BullFrog
(notice Sun used Sybase??)
The Full Disclosure in PDF format is here:
http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/Tpcc/bull.epc2450.00110701.fdr.pdf
Notice page 132 which is the database file setup scripts including
using files for the tablespaces, not raw partitions.
If someone was interested in the getting the ABSOLUTE, MAXIMUM
amount of performance, would they not use raw partitions, as you
and others contend?
> despite the fact that you don't seem to know that.
The facts speek for themselves.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:17:45 -0500
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Ahhh, the fine musings of a Win-troll. No one in here ever said that
Linux was completely bullet-proof. It just doesn't have the lovely
BSOD's
and dll-hell that Windows have. Sure, it may not have all the pretty
fonts and colors on it, but I'll take stability over eye-candy any day.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You better duck Tom :)
>
> Linux doesn't have any problems like that at all.
>
> Just ask the fine folks around here :)
>
> claire
====== 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: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:19:49 +1300
> Email viruses are easily defeated with rules and virus scanning software.
... provided you and the scanning software know about it, which is
unlikely in the case of almost every new virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 16 Nov 2000 02:27:23 GMT
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:52:10 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>no, I potray you as a jerk. Linux supporter or not.
So who's hurling insults around now ? You have clearly questioned my
integrity as a Linux supporter in this thread and in other threads,
and now that I've demonstrated that your attacks are utterly baseless,
you resort to insults.
I can see why you choose to post under a false name.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 16 Nov 2000 02:29:55 GMT
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:55:14 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 04:09:22 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>> >WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK.
>>
>> A lot of people care what I *do*. You may dismiss my comments on COLA
>> as inconesquential. I wouldn't fault you for doing so, but I would
>point
>> out that
>>
>> (1) The same could be said for your incoherent ramblings.
>
>I address the topic at hand. Which you have not even though I have asked
>you to stay with the topic. and drop the insults.
You just called me a "jerk" and now you're asking me to "drop the insults" ?
>> (2) Deeds speak louder than words. And all those Linux users who
>> keep sending me thank you letters certainly care what I do.
>
>Welll it certanly helped make you an egotitical jerk. Linux supporter,
>programer or not.
No, I am not egostistical.
I am simply demonstrating that your claims that I'm somehow anti-Linux are
simply wrong. Instead of having the balls to admit that you were wrong
and apologising, you go on the attack and call me "egotistical" for refuting
your nonsense.
Well, I'm sorry for refuting your nonsense.
Have a nice day, Mr Bear.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Need some advice on Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:19:40 GMT
> Defragment disk and use Partition Magic or fips >=2.0 to resize
WinME
> partition size and then install Linux on one or several partitions in
the
> remaining
> space. I suggest 4GB for Windows and 22GB for GNU/Linux (one or two
> distributions) ... the other 4GB are ok for Solaris on Intel :)
Is there any inexpensive way of doing this? I mean can I get some kind
of free utilities to defragment and resize the partition?
Thanks for the advice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:36:58 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > >
> > > You can change MFT size quite easily.
> > > Of course, you need to know how, but isn't it true everywhere?
> >
> > No, that isn't the kind of thing you should have to know,
> > it should be in a quick reference program that matches
> > the version of format you are running.
>
> That isn't something you need to know? Wow.
> They how would you use it?
Look it up when you need it.
> Beside, it took me less than a minute to find how to change the MFT size.
The important thing is to know when you need that kind of
tuning, you can always look up how. How long did it take you
(starting from the time you encountered windows) to find
out that what cases need it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:40:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Linux does seem to lead the league in supporting rigormortis hardware.
Apparently Windows 95/98/ME support the very same hardware, only
you'd call that a good thing, since it applies to your precious
Windows. Either that or you are admitting somehow that Linux
beats Windoze in support of older hardware.
> I guess the designers released the specs of the cards into the Open
> Sewers world as they were being handed their pink slips. Sort of like
> a last sweet revenge.
Actually, ofttimes the drivers are written by reverse-engineering the
equipment. Work worthy of any intellect.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:42:55 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> Exactly. This is why I used OS/2, then WinNT, and now Win2k. I explicitly
> have avoided Win9x and Linux. :-)
Have you tried Linux? What were your findings.
Thanks,
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 16 Nov 2000 02:48:47 GMT
On 15 Nov 2000 23:39:16 +0200, Michael Livshin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>> I'm not saying you should use C++ without polymorphism. I'm pointing
>> out that you don't need to use much manual memory management in C++.
>
>any non-zero amount is enough for me, thankyouverymuch.
You're trying to dismiss the issue with a hand wave, but that doesn't cut
it.
C++ is most certainly an improvement over C in terms of relieving the
developer of memory management. Sure, other languages require less memory
management than C++ (none or almost none), but C++ is certainly better than
C in terms of memory management.
>> I'm not sure what you mean here. C++ does have rtti, but it's often
>> not used. Explicitly identifying classes instead of using polymorphism
>> is a sloppy programming practice.
>
>when you utter broad claims like the above, don't forget to add "in
>C++". as in: "C++ doesn't support run-time type identification very
>well, so explicitly identifying classes is a sloppy programming
>practice in C++".
>
>actually, I'm not claiming that such a style is a good idea. I only
>claim that throwing information away for now good reason is FUCKING
>STUPID.
There are a lot of things that are "stupid" depending on your point of
view. One could argue that it's "stupid" not to build destructors into
a language, or to fail to support generic programming, or to have no
compile time type checking.
But this is all a little silly, because it ignores the fact that different
languages are designed with different goals and are intended to be used in
different ways. The language bigots completely ignore the design goals of
<which ever language they want to bash> and measure everything in terms of
the <design goals of their favourite language>.
> it just may become handy -- debugging and error recovery come
>to mind. there are other reasons, but you won't consider them valid
>because apparently you think in C++.
Could you be explicit about what information is "thrown away" ? What
run time information is C lacking ? You can check if a base class pointer
really points to a given derived class object. You can get the typeid.
What precisely are you complaining about ?
And are there nontrivial examples where your complaints produce
real problems ?
>good. any chance that it gets standartized?
It's at least as standardised as most of the alternatives.
>> C++ has exceptions. You can certainly recover from run time errors
>> in C++.
>
>I don't mean exceptions. I mean real errors. ones that lead to
>segfaults in C/C++ apps, since the stupid app just has no brains to
>cope with "out-of-bound" situations.
You could install signal handlers.
However, judicious use of exceptions should be able to handle most of
these "errors".
>oh, by the way: can you continue from a C++ exception? (answer: no).
What do you mean by "continue from a C++ exception" ?
>> >also, C++ type system is simply too weak. you have to cast around it
>> >to get non-trivially interesting behavior,
>>
>> No you don't.
>
>well, I suppose you are right here, in a way. if you *think* in C++.
>'cause I don't, and I find it painful when I try to.
In C++, there are a lot of idioms that one can use instead of using casts.
If you're trying to use C++ as though it's Smalltalk or Java, I can see why
you find it painful. It requires a different approach.
>> The point is that something that is widely used is more likely to
>> attract criticism than something that is only used by its passionate
>> advocates. The fact that C++ is criticised is more a reflection of
>> the fact that it is used outside a small core of passionate
>> advocates.
>
>I'm afraid you are wrong here. C++ is criticized because it sucks.
Well, that's the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Most C++ users don't
feel the need to run around saying that other languages "suck".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:40:56 GMT
There's a good chance that the operating system itself was fine and
still going strong. I'm just too much of a newbie to know how to deal
with such issues gracefully. Windows & DOS have gotten me too used to
bailing out of little problems with the three-finger salute.
Tom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ahhh, the fine musings of a Win-troll. No one in here ever said that
> Linux was completely bullet-proof. It just doesn't have the lovely
> BSOD's
> and dll-hell that Windows have. Sure, it may not have all the pretty
> fonts and colors on it, but I'll take stability over eye-candy any
day.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > You better duck Tom :)
> >
> > Linux doesn't have any problems like that at all.
> >
> > Just ask the fine folks around here :)
> >
> > claire
>
> -----= 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! =-----
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 16 Nov 2000 02:53:34 GMT
On 16 Nov 2000 00:04:29 +0200, Michael Livshin wrote:
>I mean that the ontological flexibility of C++ is so puny that I have
>to adjust my ways of thinking to match the language, instead of the
>other way around. and naturally I don't like that. YMMV.
If you're used to programming in (X), of course you have to adjust
your way of thinking to program in (Y). IMO, you're the one who seems
inflexible, not the C++ language.
Read "Design Patterns" (Gamma et al) or "C++ Programming Styles and Idioms"
(Coplien) some time. C++ is a very flexible and powerful language. If you
learn how to use it, that is.
It is not idea for everything, and it isn't meant to be. But given its
design goals, it is hard to fault. (Though you may disagree with the
design goals)
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:58:05 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: "Tore Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
> > Second,
> > Windows, like DOS before it, naturally locks files in use against
> > another open (the bane of backups).
>
> Windows, like DOS before it, is capable of opening files SHARED.
The first open must explicitly open for shared access or the others
will fail.
> > So, all the running programs
> > and any data files they might have open will refuse to copy.
>
> Since when has it been impossible to copy running programs? I just now
> copied NETSCAPE.EXE with no complaints from Win2K. Strictly for your
> benefit I even fired up my old AT running DOS 5.00 and tried to copy a
> running program. No problem at all - naturally.
You obviously haven't tried to copy a whole running system like
you claimed or you would know where the errors happen. I think
it is in the DLLs and a couple of the system files.
> Listen, I can agree that there *might* be problems with copying active
> and/or locked files. (Though I have not encountered them.) What I
> wonder about is the essential difference between Windows and Linux in
> this respect. A Linux box is chock full of demons running in the
> background. How do I know that these will not cause the same sort of
> problem? If there is something about the "cp -a" command or Linux in
> general that prevents this, I'd like to hear about it.
Unix/Linux rarely uses mandatory locking - it normally takes a special
file mode to do it at all. The philosophy (from years of prior experience
even before unix) was that mandatory locking does more damage than
good by preventing backups and other automated operations from
succeeding. Unix programs that share files are supposed to check
for advisory locks.
> (My own man
> pages are for FreeBSD and do not include an -a switch for cp, so I don't
> know precisely what it does.)
The -a switch is a GNU extension to cp that basically tells it to copy
as exactly as possible, recurse, duplicate owners, modes, symlinks,
device nodes, etc.. It has nothing to do with open file issues, since
there aren't any. In fact I have used Linux's 'cp -a' to move Win95
to a larger drive (after the format /s) when it failed at copying
itself.
On a *BSD system without GNU cp you would use
dump piped to restore - a slightly longer command line, but you
can insert an rsh in the pipeline and make that method work across
machines.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:59:31 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:40:31 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Actually, ofttimes the drivers are written by reverse-engineering the
>equipment. Work worthy of any intellect.
>
>Chris
And the results often show themselves in featureless devices that
barely function under Linux. And as long as reverse engineering must
be done to "steal" drivers fro Linux, it will always be behind the
8-ball.
Always.
claire
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:06:27 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > And what the GUI have to with blurring the distinction between
programs
> > > and data?
> >
> > The whole _point_ of the modern GUI is to try and move away from the
idea of
> > having a distinction between programs and data, towards just
manipulating
> > the data.
> >
>
> Maybe in Microsoft OSes, but do UNIX/Linux GUIs attempt to blur the
> distinction?
The good ones do. KDE, GNOME etc.
It quite simply is the whole point of the "modern" GUI (ie "desktop
metaphor") - to not have to worry about programs, but concentrate only on
the data.
If you honestly think this is a bad idea and want to blame someone for it,
then Apple or Xerox is who you're after.
> > I consider this a Good Thing. Why should I have to worry about
launching
> > (the right) programs to get at my data ? Why can't I just open up the
file
> > and work on it there ?
> >
>
> That's fine if the file is a data file, but bad if the file is a program
(and
> the user
> does not know that it is a program).
If they can't figure out it's a program in Windows, they'll ahve even less
chance in Unix.
> > > > > Nope. This is why UNIX/Linux is good. Have different browsers for
mail
> > and
> > > > > desktop, with the mail browser having no associations with shell
> > scripts,
> > > > > if one so desired.
> > > >
> > > > *shrug*. To each their own - I _like_ my UI consistency.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Windows users do prefer appearance to reality. I would not associate
> > > shell scripts with an interpreter in any file manager, nor would some
> > > users need to use more than one file manager, but options are good.
> > > Unless, of course, they threaten the One True Browser.
> >
> > Would you like to get to the point, or do you have some more
anti-Windows
> > rhetoric to blather ?
> >
>
> Your preference (and MS OSes appeal to that preference) of a consistent
> GUI over a consistent OS is far more damning thab anything I could say.
You'll notice I sai *UI* consistency. Unix lacks consistency in its CLI and
GUIs.
> > > > > But would the person have known that it was a shell script, or
even
> > > > > what a shell script is?
> > > >
> > > > They would have known it wasn't the usual text file.
> > > >
> > > > And if they didn't, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
> >
> > ANd if it happened on any other platform, it wouldn't have made a
difference
> > anyway.
>
> Accept that other platforms don't associate shell scripts with
interpreters.
Wrong.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
