Linux-Advocacy Digest #365, Volume #30 Wed, 22 Nov 00 12:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Keith T. Williams)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Gary Hallock)
Re: MusicMatch JukeBox for Linux!!!!!! (Marc Richter)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8( ("Mike")
Re: Linux for nitwits (Gary Hallock)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (Chip)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Phil 'Guido' Cava)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:07:43 GMT
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:04:31 -0500, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>gcc, gdb, with a couple of open xterms on 4 desktops. Very cool. But as soon
>as I go on the internet, I jump on the windows box. What do you think
>Q-public is doing? Playing with gcc?
That's the saddest part. They actually DO believe that :(
claire
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:09:49 GMT
You Penguinista's have a difficult time reading for some reason.
Maybe your eyes are worn out from reading all of those How-Not-To's.
He said MENU BASED.
claire
On 22 Nov 2000 14:27:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:10:09 -0700, Dan Hinojosa wrote:
>>It was between Text Editor and xemacs....
>
>left mouse ->select
>middle mouse -> paste
>
>should work with almost any application.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:04:54 GMT
In article <8vge0n$gbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8vfovl$12o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <ZvsS5.406$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > sfcybear writes:
> > >
> what
> > is most important. Your silly little word games does NOTHING to
chang
> > the fact that the NT uptime clock is Useless.
> >
> Useless after 49.7 days. The Linux clock is useless after 497 days.
Still the point that I have been trying to make is the same. The choice
to set the Uptime limit to 49.7 is an example of the poor programing
choices that are made at MS. I can see NO valid reason to put in an
uptime clock with an upper limit of 49.7 days, it's just plain stupid.
Before you pull a funkenbusch and fly off the handle about no reason to
set the time at 497 days, please read some of my other posts. 497 days
makes a sh*t load more sense than 49 days!
All unix? wrong. Take a look
http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
The BSD's are showing greater than 497 days.
>
> I don't know of many (any?) NT Admins that feel it is a priority to
> collect uptime information from the network.
Of course not. If the uptime stats were known they would be forced to
switch to Unix.
If they want NT uptimes,
> they download the correct tool for the job - the uptime utility.
>
> > For TIME mesurements, the linux clock will give accurate time for
ten
> > times the time period of NT. There you happy? For all your BS, the
NT
> > clock is still worthless.
> >
>
> ...after 49.7 days.
Yeah, I guess an Uptime clock of 49.7 days is all you need in NT. No
reason to have it set much higher than the longest the system can stay
up.
It was just plain stupid to set an uptime counter upper limit at 49.7
days. One of the few things I think is even dumber is trying to make a
case that an Uptime counter of 49.7 days is usefull.
>
> Where does the definition of worthless kick in Matt? 50 days? 495
> days?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith T. Williams)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:10:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) was seen walking softly
and carrying a big stick to say in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:07:00 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8vcn0b$gr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> 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
>>
>>You are completly clueless Matt.
>>
>>No Unix system that I know of suffered from Y2k in the way
>>you mention. Unix has never used two digits for years
>>(digits, not bits as you claim) in any way except for
>>textual printout (on screen or printer or text file). All
>>date and time variables are stored internally in a "seconds
>>from" some day (usually Jan 1, 1970, IIRC). The only Y2k
>>issues Unix had were when dates were stored in textual form,
>>or when they were printed or read, not when they were stored
>>in binary form.
>>
>
>You completely avoided answering the point raised, which was
>the poor choice of 49 days as an uptime counter reset used in
>NT, unless maybe 49 days was the best they expected NT to
>stay up for?
>
In point of fact, both *nix and NT use 4 bytes to represent the
uptime. The difference is in how often they update the counter.
Unix updates it every 100th of a second, NT every 1000th. Which
is wonderful if you care if your machine has been up xx.99 or
xx.999 seconds, but I personally don't care, because I can't
tell the difference between either of these and a full second in
terms of my server uptimes. If either of them updated the
counter every second, then they would be able to measure
49,710.27 days and that would be an uptime worth bragging about.
(and btw, the counter isn't reset, it rolls over from
11111111111111111111111111111111 to
00000000000000000000000000000000) <G>
--
Keith T Williams
Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you
make your second shot perfect.
Free PC Help - http://www.pc-help.org http://www.accs-
net.com/help
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:11:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Only an idiot would post their real name on usenet.
>
> claire
Only an idiot would post someones work phone number and address without their
permission. I guess that makes YOU the idiot.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Richter)
Subject: Re: MusicMatch JukeBox for Linux!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:17:04 -0500
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 19:29:18 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes kiddies, script or otherwise, you have heard it from the source.
>MusicMatch JukeBox is currently available, in beta, for Linux.
>
>This IMHO is the ultimate program for mp3's, burning, CD's and so
>forth. It just destroy's the competition like winamp etc, at least
>under Windows
>
>I don't know how the Linux version is, but their Windows versions have
>been flawless so I would only expect the best for the Linux versions
>as well. As soon as I get Mandrake running I'm going to try it.
>
>Here's your chance for an excellent multimedia program for Linux!
>
> http://www.musicmatch.com/download/?OEM=LINUX
>
>
>claire
Claire,
Thanks for the info...I'm gonna check it out.
Watch out, that was actually a reasonable post, in which you
refrained from saying "Linsux" once. :-)
Have a good holiday!
--
Marc A. Richter I&R Deployed Support
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:19:56 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What are you talking about?
>
> Works fine for me on Win2k.
>
> claire
Oh, really? It's not simply that it doesn't work, Install Shield comes up with a
message box saying that Windows ME and W2K are not supported. You have to create
the rescue disks and boot from them. How do I know this? Because I recently tried
it on a Netfinity with Windows ME installed. And I just got a new Thinkpad T20 with
W2K installed. Perhaps the latest Partition Magiic 6.0 works, I don't know. But 5.0
does not and 6.0 was not out when I tried to install on Windows ME. We only got our
corporate license for PM 6.0 a few days ago.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8(
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:23:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Damm. That's the only C program I know and even "I" could make it work
> under Borland's Turbo-C and later Turbo C++.
>
> Looks like you better read the "Where are my Libraries"
> How-to :)
>
> claire
Programming "Hello World" in a GUI is much different that programming it for
the command line.
A typical GUI implementation has to manage windows and user input, in
addition to displaying the text. It doesn't seem like it should be that
difficult, but it generally involves creating a window, getting a pen,
associating a font and color with the pen, positioning it in the window,
writing the text, adding an "OK" button, defining an action to go with the
button (close the window), placing the button in the window, displaying the
window, and releasing the window and other objects that were created. I'm
probably leaving out a bunch of steps here, and the number and complexity of
the steps depends strongly on the particular GUI you're writing for. My
point is just that it's much more complex than it first appears, even to
write a simple "Hello World," application.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:24:02 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I had cable modems on the brain at the moment because I was IM'ing my
> cousin who is getting one installed today and having grief with the
> cable company because he runs Linux.... He's installing Windows just
> to make them happy.
>
> I make one mistake and I get crucified..
>
> tough crowd...
>
> claire
It's not one mistake. This is a common problem of yours.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Chip <[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: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 07:37:34 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually it is about 6 times, but whose counting :)
>
> claire
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:45:08 -0800, "Keldon Warlord"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Chip
> >>
> >
> >whatever newsreader you are using. IT SUCKS. I've seen this same message
> >three times from you already.
> >
I can't agree more, I never know how many times it will post a message.
--
Chip
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:46:13 GMT
In article <8vgnag$nv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still the point that I have been trying to make is the same. The
choice
> to set the Uptime limit to 49.7 is an example of the poor programing
> choices that are made at MS. I can see NO valid reason to put in an
> uptime clock with an upper limit of 49.7 days, it's just plain stupid.
> Before you pull a funkenbusch and fly off the handle about no reason
to
> set the time at 497 days, please read some of my other posts. 497 days
> makes a sh*t load more sense than 49 days!
But still is an arbitrary use of a number. Why not make it 4970? Or
some other arbitrarily large figure? Whether it makes sense or not,
both systems are affected by the same issue, just one is affected a lot
sooner. Obviously collecting uptime information *from the TCP/IP
stack* is not a priority for MS operating systems.
>
> All unix? wrong. Take a look
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>
> The BSD's are showing greater than 497 days.
>
OK. So Linux suffers from a problem with it's uptime counter. It's
obviously useless and broken.
> >
> > I don't know of many (any?) NT Admins that feel it is a priority to
> > collect uptime information from the network.
>
> Of course not. If the uptime stats were known they would be forced to
> switch to Unix.
>
Go back and read what I wrote again. Think, then reply. A clue: the
bit where I said "uptime information from the network" is the important
bit. This bug only affects the uptime information that is displayed by
the network stack. See the next bit of my reply for more details. I
know you are sometimes challenged by your comprehension skills, but it
helps to read in context sometimes. (another hint: not an insult, an
observation)
> If they want NT uptimes,
> > they download the correct tool for the job - the uptime utility.
Did you convieniently ignore this bit because it doesn't fit with your
world view?
> >
> > > For TIME mesurements, the linux clock will give accurate time for
> ten
> > > times the time period of NT. There you happy? For all your BS, the
> NT
> > > clock is still worthless.
> > >
> >
> > ...after 49.7 days.
>
> Yeah, I guess an Uptime clock of 49.7 days is all you need in NT. No
> reason to have it set much higher than the longest the system can stay
> up.
49.7 isn't a huge length of time to keep an NT server up for at all.
>
> It was just plain stupid to set an uptime counter upper limit at 49.7
> days. One of the few things I think is even dumber is trying to make a
> case that an Uptime counter of 49.7 days is usefull.
I'm not saying that it's useful, I'm saying that I don't actually care
what the TCP/IP stack reports the uptime as. If I want the accurate
uptime information, I'll use the uptime tool.
>
> >
> > Where does the definition of worthless kick in Matt? 50 days? 495
> > days?
No response? I'm still wondering where it kicks in? Obviously the
Linux stack is also worthless, as the BSD's don't show this bug. The
information must move from worthless to meaningful sometime after 497
days then.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Phil 'Guido' Cava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:08:36 GMT
Mr Funkytush,
Once again, you are full of shit.
"Significantly more cycles"? If the time to store a value in memory, any size
value, is "significant" wrt NT then it is undoubtedly time to find another OS -
and I don't mean W2K!
regards,
Guido
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >You are completly clueless Matt.
> > >
> > You completely avoided answering the point raised, which was the poor
> choice of
> > 49 days as an uptime counter reset used in NT, unless maybe 49 days was
> the
> > best they expected NT to stay up for?
>
> You are suggesting that someone "chose" 49 days. More than likely, they
> chose a 32 bit value without considering how many days it added up to.
> Perhaps it was important to store the value in milliseconds for some reason,
> rather than hundreths of a second like Unix. Storing it in a 64 bit value
> would have taken significantly more cycles.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:10:54 GMT
In article <8vfkcr$tlh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <wTBS5.9755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> And that is why it is considered a bug. Because it was done WITHOUT
> thought.
>
Lets see:
It doesn't affect operation on the network
It doesn't affect local operation
You can't guarantee the statistic gained from any host (with the
exception of some BSD variants) is accurate anyway
You can get the accurate information from other sources
It is a very very infrequently used piece of information for the
network stack to provide
The only affected user would seem to be Netcraft
It can't be high on their list to fix I have to say.
When will Linux be providing an infinite uptime measurement from the
network stack? When will this bug be fixed?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:02:06 -0600
Then why doesn't Linux store a 64 bit value there either? The answer is
obvious, the value is incremented in kernel time, which is to be minimized
as much as possible. Incrementing a 64 bit value requires at least an order
of magnitude more CPU cycles. (requires 2 32 bit reads, 2 32 bit writes,
several math operations to combine the two values, etc..) That may not seem
significant, but when it's being done once every millisecond, it adds up.
"Phil 'Guido' Cava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mr Funkytush,
>
> Once again, you are full of shit.
>
> "Significantly more cycles"? If the time to store a value in memory, any
size
> value, is "significant" wrt NT then it is undoubtedly time to find another
OS -
> and I don't mean W2K!
>
> regards,
>
> Guido
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >You are completly clueless Matt.
> > > >
> > > You completely avoided answering the point raised, which was the poor
> > choice of
> > > 49 days as an uptime counter reset used in NT, unless maybe 49 days
was
> > the
> > > best they expected NT to stay up for?
> >
> > You are suggesting that someone "chose" 49 days. More than likely, they
> > chose a 32 bit value without considering how many days it added up to.
> > Perhaps it was important to store the value in milliseconds for some
reason,
> > rather than hundreths of a second like Unix. Storing it in a 64 bit
value
> > would have taken significantly more cycles.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
