Linux-Advocacy Digest #334, Volume #30 Mon, 20 Nov 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: Corel To Dump Linux? (mlw)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Michael")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Michael")
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Charlie Ebert)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:33:35 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:18:19 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >iostreams are C++. printf is C. You can't use iostreams in a C program
> >and you can't use printf in C++ program. You can use printf in a C
> >program disguised as a C++ program though.
>
> Sure you can use it in a C++ program.
>
> >Depends. In a kernel, the speed trade off is critical. In the TV
>
> Then don't write kernels in C++.
>
That is what we have been saying! Don't write kernels in C++, use C!
Using C in Linux isn't a phobia, it is the proper tool for the job!
Linux using C has to do with the relative size/speed of C++ code vs. C
code. Nothing else.
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:35:01 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:23:56 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> >That is the point that started this thread. Kernel programmers don't
> >have a phobia about C++. It just isn't the right tool for that job.
>
> Well this does help to clarify your POV. You originally said "C++ isn't
> the right tool for the job" without saying what you meant by "the job".
> If you're referring to kernel programming in particular, there is possibly
> some truth in that statement.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
I was thinking in contex of the thread. Sorry there was
miscommunications.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:35:55 GMT
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You're both wrong. Searches must be done (the key names
> >> must be converted to memory/disk addresses), but they are
> >> probably indexed or hashed for speed, as is common in
> >> databases.
> >
> >I strongly doubt about that. If indexing or hashing is used,
> >while REGEDIT (for a Key search) doesn't use it, and offers
> >you the classical textual search (search up, or search
> >down)?
> >
>
> REGEDIT lets you search for a substring within a key. If the registry
> is indeed a big hashtable, then it's perfectly obvious why that's a
> slow operation while lookup based on a complete key is lightning fast.
Two points.
1) REGEDIT is slow even when you're searching for a full key. One would
think: first use hash table, if fail, use textual search.
2) If you look at the Registry API's, you'll find that you may only
query a subkey of an already open key. You must start from one of the
top four keys, which you know, and then travel recursively down: open
subkey, query, open subkey, query, etc. This because key names aren't
unique. It's like a directory tree: a name is unique only within a
directory. This means that you can't have a single hash table, but you'd
have one for each element of each level except the last. Which I
strongly doubt.
Usually a program needs only its configuration data, which are all
subkeys of the program key. So you only have one slow search, and all
subsequent queries are limited to the few subkeys of the already open
program key.
The situations changes when a program needs to know something about
other programs or data files. Each time it's a fresh search (or sequence
of queries) from top.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:34:51 GMT
In article <JNgS5.9261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vc416$i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Only one version of NT ever had random uptime reporting problems.
> > SP5. It
> > > jus so happens that SP5 is probably the most common service pack
being
> > used
> > > on most web servers.
> >
> > That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate
for
> > 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
> > remaining accurate for 497 days. BTW, I thought service pack were to
FIX
> > problems, not create them! looks like the programers that worked on
> > service pack 5 didn't get that training.
>
> It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is
less
> precise.
>
> I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially
identical
> between both platforms.
Hardly Identical. NT is acurate for 49 days, Linux/Unix is accurate TEN
TIMES LONGER! 497 days! This is better design. When looking at the TIME
that Unix was designed, memory was VERY expensive (the reason that 2
bits were used for the year giving us Y2K), Programers did not program
with large variables and computers were much less reliable, 497 days was
a VERY reasonable number and shows a well thought out choice! When NT
was being designed memory prices were far lower and it was not uncommon
for computers to be up MUCH longer than 49 days. 49 day was a very poor
choice, and is an example the LACK of thought in programing that drove
me away from MS
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:40:17 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Andy Newman wrote:
> > >
> > > mlw wrote:
> > > >Show me, for instance, some sort of object oriented technique in C that
> > > >can't be written better in C++.
> > >
> > > There very likely isn't one as C++ directly supports the programming
> > > constructs whereas C only allows their implementation (and with enough
> > > discipline, adherence to convention and some macros to hide things you
> > > can make it work reasonably well but it's no replacement for direct support).
> >
> > What you say is true and correct. The only reason for using OOP in C is
> > to gain some of the benefits of OOP without the penalties of C++.
>
> You keep saying this, but have failed to show a single one.
>
> >You
> > trade programming ease for runtime speed/size.
>
> Show me one instance where an OOP design in C would take up less memory
> than in C.
>
Didn't I just give you one? Wasn't your only response to propose an
non-oop C as C++ alternative?
> > OOP in C isn't easy. If
> > you *need* strong OOP and can sacrifice a bit of runtime speed and code
> > size, use C++.
>
> Again, there is NO runtime speed loss for the simplicity of C++, plus
> code size is an interesting aspect which you probably have wrong.
>
> struct _bogus
> {
> void (*function)(struct _bogus *, ...);
> };
>
> vs
>
> class sweet
> {
> protected:
> void function(...);
> };
>
> The C++ class call will actuall cost an extra (on a pentium) one extra
> "mov" instruction to get the vtable pointer, but the C structure will
> have an extra 32 bits for each function for each instance of the class.
>
> If you have 10,000 instances of struct _bogus, that is an overhead of
> 320,000 bytes per function. Where as one static read-only instance of
> the vtable is created for the C++ class. So C++ will be more efficient
> with memory.
>
> However, if you use a vtable sort of thing for bogus, as:
>
> struct _bogus;
>
> struct _bogus_vtable
> {
> void (*function)(struct _bogus *, ...);
> };
>
> struct _bogus
> {
> _bogus_vtable *vtable;
> ...
> };
>
> struct _bogus *b = CreateBogus(...);
>
> b->vtable->function(b,...);
>
> Then you have that extra "mov" instruction, and all the crap of trying
> to do it in C.
>
> >Then you would gain lots of programmer productivity. I
> > would prefer Ada, but thats me.
> > That is the point that started this thread. Kernel programmers don't
> > have a phobia about C++. It just isn't the right tool for that job.
>
> But, as it has been exampled, there is no speed penalty for using C++
> (and proper OOP design in C++ can be much faster and easier to maintain
> than in C). So oop in C is pointless. And that is the point of this
> thread.
>
> And BTW I am a kernel guy, I have written drivers for a few operating
> systems, including Windows 9x and NT as well as Linux. C++ is actually a
> very good way to develop NT drivers becuase it is inherently object
> oriented. I have a library of things like IRQ and DMA objects which
> abstrct the differences between NT and 98 interrupts, ISA DMA, ISA DMA
> bus mastering, and PCI bus mastering.
>
> >
> > --
> > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not Powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:43:33 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vc416$i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Only one version of NT ever had random uptime reporting problems.
> > SP5. It
> > > jus so happens that SP5 is probably the most common service pack being
> > used
> > > on most web servers.
> >
> > That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate for
> > 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
> > remaining accurate for 497 days. BTW, I thought service pack were to FIX
> > problems, not create them! looks like the programers that worked on
> > service pack 5 didn't get that training.
>
> It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is less
> precise.
>
> I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially identical
> between both platforms.
If someone sells you a hot dog for $5 and another for $50 you'd say that
the price is essentially identical?
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:38:02 GMT
So? Does it change anything? NT uptime clock croaks at 49 days even with
your
word games.
In article <f9hS5.30858$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> sfcybear writes:
>
> > That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate
for
> > 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
> > remaining accurate for 497 days.
>
> You're confusing range with accuracy. Both clocks could be equally
> accurate. Range usually comes at the expense of precision. That is,
> the same number of bits can provide a greater range if the precision
> is reduced.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:50:31 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> > But if you write the C++ code like the C code, then you aren't writing
> > C++ code, but C code, so why do C++ or use a C++ compiler? The sample
> > posted was selected to be simple and use "true" C++ and C. Your logic is
> > common : "Post samples", "But you could do that aother way". Any real
> > program is simply to big to post (I don't think the group would like 2
> > files of several meg each attached). So read it an weap : The C++
> > program, a proper C++ program, not a C program in C++ disguise is bigger
> > and slower.
>
> Your program was bogus, period.
>
> C++ is a superset of C. If it makes sense to do something a certain way,
> then that is the way to do it. Your example is not a "proper" C++
> program, it is an obfuscated example of bad programming.
>
No, C++ is not a superset of C. It started that way, but it isn't that
way now, any more than Java is a superset of C. C++ has a lot of C like
syntax, but lots of valid C programs won't compile under C++. The
differences between "void" and "static" come to mind.
> The programming you post as a C++ program, is not defined as part of the
> language. However, if you do this:
>
> struct _bogus
> {
> void (*function) (int);
> };
>
> vs
>
> class Sweet
> {
> protected:
> void *function(int);
> };
>
> C++ is a great win. Even better is this:
>
> struct Sweet1
> {
> protected:
> virtual void *function(int);
> };
>
> Just because you want to write an inline function which encapsulates a
> simple iostream call, does not mean it is the right way to approach the
> problem. (In fact, it is a very bad example.)
>
The right way to approach the problem depends on the problem. There is
no "Right Way" in general. The posted code was one way to approach a
specific problem.
> I am serious about this thread, but it seems that no one can come up
> with a reasonable reason why you should use C instead of C++, and if
> that is the kind of example that you have to fabricate, I think I made
> my point.
>
The reason is simple : in a kernel, the determinism, general speed,
general size, and extant library makes C the choice over C++. Second
alternative is Assembly Language, then Ada, then perhaps, Smalltalk or C
with Classes. Forth has been used successfully.
If you think writing a kernel in C++ is easy why don't you do it? Even a
simple version of something like Micro-C OS would be a valuable
contribution to the community if you made it.
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:55:28 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:13:14 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >mlw wrote:
>
> >common : "Post samples", "But you could do that aother way". Any real
> >program is simply to big to post (I don't think the group would like 2
> >files of several meg each attached). So read it an weap : The C++
> >program, a proper C++ program, not a C program in C++ disguise is bigger
> >and slower.
>
> My program was also "proper C++", wasn't it ? I have it beating your
> C program on speed.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
I haven't run your code yet. That will be delayed for a bit. But the
point is whether on something as complex and time critical as an OS
kernel, C++ (or even OOP) will perform satisfactorily. Take a look at
Jean Labrosse's "Micro-C/OS" and see if you can implement it as a C++
design that runs faster. That is a fairly simple kernel. The final
project should run on a 68HC08 in 16k ROM.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:57:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> sfcybear writes:
>
> > That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate for
> > 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
> > remaining accurate for 497 days.
>
> You're confusing range with accuracy. Both clocks could be equally
> accurate. Range usually comes at the expense of precision. That is,
> the same number of bits can provide a greater range if the precision
> is reduced.
Maybe the terms he used aren't exact.
But if someone comes to your home to measure the floor in order to
deliver you the wall to wall carpet, and does it with a micrometric
gauge, providing .1 mil accuracy, but spanning only 3 inches, you'd call
him an idiot, wouldn't you?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:00:08 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
>
> If you think writing a kernel in C++ is easy why don't you do it? Even a
> simple version of something like Micro-C OS would be a valuable
> contribution to the community if you made it.
> > --
I actually published an article on just that for Keithly Metrabyte
several years ago. It was about how to design kernel drivers for Windows
NT and Windows 98 using the same source, and C++ classes to abstruct
things like DMA, bus mastering, IRQs, etc. The source is (AFAIK) still
being used at Keithley, and probably still available on the web.a
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel To Dump Linux?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:05:36 -0500
xza wrote:
>
> Looks like Corel is trying to cut it`s loses and dump
> the Linux albatross around it`s neck.
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2656226,00.html
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3785993.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni
It is probably a good thing. I have never liked anything from Corel. I
am surprised that they trounced Micrographics.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:53:32 +1000
"Keldon Warlord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qx1S5.87207$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8v60jc$907$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Terrible argument. You would lose the war for sure.
> >
> >
> > Yeah I know, you can get solitaire *and* minesweeper in linux, what will
I
> > use windows for now?
> >
> > -m
> >
> >
>
> do they have something along the lines of winamp for Linux? :-)
>
> (hey, I'm just asking...)
>
I use XMMS (X Multi-media System) it's pretty good. Look very much like
winamp (but kinda sleeker), good support for plugins and visuals if you like
that sort of thing...
There are a couple of CLI mp3 players as well, can't remember the names
though (I wrote scripts to do my autoplaying and stuff, no need invoke the
program manually anymore)
I'm sure other people will post about his sort of thing as well.
-m
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:56:07 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
Get over it troll.
Been using winamp and XMMS, I can barely tell the difference, except that
XMMS doesn't skip when win98 starts thrashing the HD, and never had a crash
yet, can't say that for winamp, moreso for win though.
-m
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:18:59 GMT
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:04:55 GMT, Jim Broughton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What it really comes down to is nitpicking. Cut and Paste works under X PERIOD.
>It is better with the mouse buttons. Using it from menus is just plain SLOW.
Not with a Thinkpad and a Trackpoint it isn't easier to swipe the text
etc. It is actually quite difficult to do, especially when you have a
lot of text. It actually takes 2 hands. The menu's are easier in this
case, with this particular machine.
On a regualar desktop the mouse is easier, I agree.
claire
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:24:14 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > Andy Newman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > >Show me, for instance, some sort of object oriented technique in C that
> > > > >can't be written better in C++.
> > > >
> > > > There very likely isn't one as C++ directly supports the programming
> > > > constructs whereas C only allows their implementation (and with enough
> > > > discipline, adherence to convention and some macros to hide things you
> > > > can make it work reasonably well but it's no replacement for direct support).
> > >
> > > What you say is true and correct. The only reason for using OOP in C is
> > > to gain some of the benefits of OOP without the penalties of C++.
> >
> > You keep saying this, but have failed to show a single one.
> >
> > >You
> > > trade programming ease for runtime speed/size.
> >
> > Show me one instance where an OOP design in C would take up less memory
> > than in C.
> >
> Didn't I just give you one? Wasn't your only response to propose an
> non-oop C as C++ alternative?
No, you gave me an OOP (a bad one) example compared to a procedural C
example. When equivilents are compared, C++ wins.
>
> > > OOP in C isn't easy. If
> > > you *need* strong OOP and can sacrifice a bit of runtime speed and code
> > > size, use C++.
> >
> > Again, there is NO runtime speed loss for the simplicity of C++, plus
> > code size is an interesting aspect which you probably have wrong.
> >
>
> > struct _bogus
> > {
> > void (*function)(struct _bogus *, ...);
> > };
> >
> > vs
> >
> > class sweet
> > {
> > protected:
> > void function(...);
> > };
> >
> > The C++ class call will actuall cost an extra (on a pentium) one extra
> > "mov" instruction to get the vtable pointer, but the C structure will
> > have an extra 32 bits for each function for each instance of the class.
> >
> > If you have 10,000 instances of struct _bogus, that is an overhead of
> > 320,000 bytes per function. Where as one static read-only instance of
> > the vtable is created for the C++ class. So C++ will be more efficient
> > with memory.
> >
> > However, if you use a vtable sort of thing for bogus, as:
> >
> > struct _bogus;
> >
> > struct _bogus_vtable
> > {
> > void (*function)(struct _bogus *, ...);
> > };
> >
> > struct _bogus
> > {
> > _bogus_vtable *vtable;
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > struct _bogus *b = CreateBogus(...);
> >
> > b->vtable->function(b,...);
> >
> > Then you have that extra "mov" instruction, and all the crap of trying
> > to do it in C.
> >
> > >Then you would gain lots of programmer productivity. I
> > > would prefer Ada, but thats me.
> > > That is the point that started this thread. Kernel programmers don't
> > > have a phobia about C++. It just isn't the right tool for that job.
> >
> > But, as it has been exampled, there is no speed penalty for using C++
> > (and proper OOP design in C++ can be much faster and easier to maintain
> > than in C). So oop in C is pointless. And that is the point of this
> > thread.
> >
> > And BTW I am a kernel guy, I have written drivers for a few operating
> > systems, including Windows 9x and NT as well as Linux. C++ is actually a
> > very good way to develop NT drivers becuase it is inherently object
> > oriented. I have a library of things like IRQ and DMA objects which
> > abstrct the differences between NT and 98 interrupts, ISA DMA, ISA DMA
> > bus mastering, and PCI bus mastering.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > > Not Powered by ActiveX
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> --
> Russ Lyttle, PE
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not Powered by ActiveX
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:22:56 GMT
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:05:01 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just did that and it worked. I went over to
>http://www.babelfish.altavista.com/translate.dyn, edited a small text file with kedit
>and
>executed all the steps precisely as you described. It worked flawlessly - Paste was
>not
>greyed out and when I click on it the text was inserted in the proper field. That
>is with
>KDE 2 - I no longer have KDE 1 installed. However, I have done this sort of thing
>many
>times in the past with KDE 1 and it has always worked.
Now using kde 2.0, how convenient. Ask one of your buddies to try it
with SuSE 6.4 and whatever 1.x version comes with it and see what
happens. Maybe it's a SuSE thing, maybe it's a Thinkpad maybe it's a
corrupt install I don't know but it doesn't work and last time this
came up at least one person agreed with me on it.
If I ever get Mandrake installed on this Thinkpad I'll try it with
that distribution.
How did you get Mandrake to install on your 765L, I'm all ears because
I have run out of ideas.
claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:23:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:04:55 GMT, Jim Broughton
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> What it really comes down to is nitpicking. Cut and Paste works under X PERIOD.
>>It is better with the mouse buttons. Using it from menus is just plain SLOW.
>
>
>Not with a Thinkpad and a Trackpoint it isn't easier to swipe the text
>etc. It is actually quite difficult to do, especially when you have a
>lot of text. It actually takes 2 hands. The menu's are easier in this
>case, with this particular machine.
>
>On a regualar desktop the mouse is easier, I agree.
>
>claire
>
Truth be known, AS A PA....
The mouse really sucks even under NT.
I prefer the hot keys.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:25:25 GMT
The difference is, if you said it I would believe you just as I
believe most of what the Linvocates say about their own Windows
horrors. I have been down those same roads many times myself and am
not in denial about it. I tell it like it is, and in this case it
doesn't work like it should with the distribution I was running on the
machine I was running.
claire
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:15:48 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> YOUHOOOO GARY WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> CLAIRE
>
>You know., I could tell you about all the times cut and paste has not
>worked as I expected it to on Windows. One of then being the software
>than came with the Epson printer I recently bought. I could tell you about
>the new Epson 88 printer that works flawlessly on Linux, but keeps messing
>up on Windows - half way through printing a page it hiccups and skips a
>some space on the paper leaving a white band. I could tell you how, after
>wasting tons of paper and ink on Windows, I have learned that I must hold
>my breath and resist any temptation to touch the keyboard. All too many
>times now, explorer goes west in the middle of printing and everything
>comes to a halt. I could tell you all sorts of Windows horror stories.
>And they are all true.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
