Linux-Advocacy Digest #381, Volume #30 Thu, 23 Nov 00 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Ton Nijkes)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:13:56 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > SourceSafe has nothing to do with CVS, nor was it designed by
> Microsoft.
> > > > > They bought it from a company called OneTree about 5 years ago.
> > > SourceSafe
> > > > > also has a command line, but then you wouldn't know that because
> you're
> > > such
> > > > > an "expert".
> > >
> > > > Used SourceSafe several times. Underneath it is CVS. It should be as
> > > > good as CVS if you get by the GUI and crippled command line.
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. CVS and SourceSafe have nothing in common other than
> they
> > > are both version control software. SourceSafe does *NOT* use CVS.
> Hell,
> > > SourceSafe existed before CVS was a real program (CVS started as a bunch
> of
> > > scripts wrapped around RCS).
> > >
> > > All you're doing is proving how little you know, and how eager you are
> to
> > > stick your foot in your mouth.
>
> > Ok then, SourceSafe is a wrapper around RCS. Last I used it, it looked
> > more like CVS code. But CVS and RCS are so similar. We dumped SorceSafe
> > in favor of Continuus about a year and a half ago. We put CVS on older
> > systems that won't run Continuus.
>
> Try again. RCS is a file based version control system. I think you're
> confusing SourceSafe and PVCS which *DOES* look a lot like RCS/CVS.
> SourceSafe uses a hashed database format, where all files are stored in a
> central repository with hashed index names that look like this "AAAAXYZA.A"
> (that's not a madeup name either). RCS uses single files wich usually end
> in ,v, which stores the revisions in a subdirectory of the file that's being
> archived. SourceSafe stores files as compressed binary interleaved diffs
> with label information and others in a "record" based format. RCS stores
> files in sequential text diffs with sparse record information.
>
> SourceSafe draws nothing from RCS, does not contain an RCS code (it's GPL'd,
> so they'd have to make the source available), and is in no way related to
> RCS or CVS in any way other than the fact they both maintain version
> control.
>
> Why do you insist on making these statements that are completely devoid of
> fact? You're as bad as Rex... no.. Worse. At least Rex admits when he's
> proven wrong.
I'll try to find a copy of SourcSafe running and look again. PVCS
is/was, I thought, a PC version of CVS. It's been while since I've used
it. The file storage backends are different, as are the user interface
front ends. I'll look to see about the algorithms in the middle. And the
command handler.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:43:43 GMT
On 22 Nov 2000 20:34:10 -0800, Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>that is enough to cause his problems.
>Netscape occasionally likes to consume huge amounts of memory. Linux
>gets very slow when that happens.
This'll take care of that problem:
#!/bin/sh
ulimit -m 16384
exec /usr/bin/netscape $*
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ton Nijkes)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:13:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 02:15:22 -0800, Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
>
> > Just do what I do.
> >
> > In every interview, I say the magic words:
> >
> > "Be aware, I will not take responsibility for failure of anything running
> > on or produced on a machine running using any crud produced by Microsoft."
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
>
>
> Candidate displays major attitude problem and expresses a desire to
> cherry-pick assignments.
>
> Recommendation: NEXT!
>
Employer displays major lack of knowledge and expresses a desire to
not appreciate knowledgeable personnel.
Recommendation: See ya!
Ton.
--
================================================================================
//
// Ton Nijkes Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
//|\ || Murphy Software BV,
//||\\|| P.O. Box 285, Voice: +31 (0)53 4320055
|| \|| 7500 AG Enschede, The Netherlands Fax : +31 (0)53 5360448
================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:44:12 GMT
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:21:16 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Really? Do you understand the concept of minimum timer resolution? Your
>simplistic function doesn't work. The tick count in Windows 95/NT has a
>minimum timer resolution of 55ms, though it's recorded in 1 ms units.
Count ticks in the isr and convert to ms when someone makes a system
call to read the timer. The timer gets read a lot less often than it
gets incremented so you put the slow operations in the read call.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[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, 23 Nov 2000 16:45:17 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iyJS5.23511$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:IKIS5.1542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Linux, ext2fs... the limit is built-in because the designers weren't
> > > > smart enough to do what several other OSes have successfully been
> > > > able to do.
> > >
> > > You mean Microsoft? The company that only sold systems
> > > with 32 Meg DRIVE limits back when Linus came up with
> > > the 2Gig file limit design?
> >
> > What year was that? I was using a DOS 3.2 that exceeded that limit in
> 1986.
>
> It must have been an OEM version, probably Compaq's. Other
> companies added the ability to have multiple partitions before
> the stock MS version had them. I've forgotten the sordid details
> of which long overdue feature was added to DOS in which decade.
>
Very good, it was Compaq's, but that didn't stop it running on other
systems. I didn't think Linux was around back then though.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:59:04 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:wVdQ5.126634$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >
<trimmed>
>
> Wrong, Netscape sold it (for around $35, if I remember right) until
> M$ decided to crush their competitor.
>
But it was available on multiple FTP Servers for free, infact, in direct
contravention of law, Netscape had exclusive use contracts with many ISP's
that forbade the ISP from supporting any customer using IE. These ISP's had
among their number large members such as Pacbell.net and AT&T.
> > Why should that be a problem for anyone, much less Microsoft with
> > all their other products? Why should it bother them to see someone
> > succeed with a cross-platform product that actually followed
> > standards?
>
> Netscape was no great standard follower either, though better
> than IE.
>
> The latest Mozilla project looks pretty promising.
>
Still looking promising. Have they reached Alpha yet?
> Chris
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 23 Nov 2000 05:02:48 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>Christopher Smith wrote:
[...]
>Well, you missed the chance of your life. That of coming out of a
>difficult situation leaving in doubt the unaware readers. But you went a
>step too far, showing your abysmal ignorance. Now, I'm sorry for you,
>it's too late.
Yes, he surely did blow it. ;-)
[Lengthy presentation of an accurate, consistent, and practical
understanding of the functions of a shell regretfully snipped.]
[...]
>The shell feature is just related to clicking an Icon on a folder, and
>is common to MS and *nix.
>The application feature is unique to MS, and related to MS inability to
>make an acceptable OS.
>
>After this lengthy explanation, I assume that you've understood that
>running an application from IE is not a shell feature. It's an OS
>feature. That's why is totally different on MS crapware from other sane
>OS's.
Unfortunately, Giuliano, you forget that Mr. Smith is an MS-droid, and
therefore believes that IE *is* a shell, or part of "the shell", because
Microsoft says it is, and thus immune to the knowledge you've provided
him.
[...]
>> I suggest you detail the *specific* version of Windows and IE for which this
>> works. Certainly, I've never experienced a situation in a default
>> configuration where clicking on a link to a file will open that file without
>> prompting.
>
>I'd suggest that YOU specify which version of Windows and IE you've
>tested for that.
>(hint: just try with a PC magazine CD, where clicking a link will
>trigger a setup.exe)
I'm pretty sure that this argument is due to a mistaken assumption that
you two are talking about different things. I know both behaviors you
describe seem to be exhibited. Unfortunately, I don't know precisely
what the determinant factor is. Maybe it is simply the rather grungy
"security profile" mechanisms that Windows/IE use. Perhaps if the
program is in the "local zone" in the default settings, it executes
without prompt, and if it is in the "internet zone" in the default
settings, it prompts with an unusually large dialog, requiring either
"run it" or "save it to disk" be chosen, and providing an option "don't
prompt for this file type again". If this is the case, I have two
comments:
a) Can anybody describe the precise configuration settings responsible
for this behavior, and can internet links be executed without prompt, or
can the identical prompt be applied to local zone servers as users
currently see with public access servers? I ask merely to try to expand
my knowledge on the subject.
b) I think this illustrates, just as Giuliano's clear depiction of how
Windows uses the concept of a "shell" in a slightly disfunctional
manner, in comparison to Unix (at least, and I presume all other OSes)
did, the poor design of monopoly crapware. I say this because glomming,
munging, and bolting everything into one delusional interface considered
"the shell" and meant to encompass not only the entire GUI, but all OS
functionality used by applications as well as users, specifically
defined as the Win32 API (and all related MS APIs, both published and
internal), and the problems that are caused when this is done, are so
integral and apparent in this issue. The idea was simply that a
system-wide mechanism (even one mostly only used by MS and the most
entangled application developers) for providing security profiles for
network sessions/transactions/exchanges, I would guess. Why have both
the system (if it does) and the application (IE, which may or may not be
considered separate from the system, depending on how dumb you are) not
use a single, 'integrated' capability. But the problem it causes isn't
really even so much a matter of security (it doesn't seem to do much
good; Windows is still hopelessly insecure, and things which subscribe
to using the Win32 features for security profiles are probably at a
*greater risk* than those that handle these functions autonomously), as
a matter of operability. Giuliano didn't argue this point, I believe,
because he was concerned about security. The topic of discussion was
operational, involving links (both symbolic and 'shortcuts') and
consistency (the discussion which spawned the issue of shortcuts, IIRC).
So what was reputed to be a security feature, was actually a bolting of
IE into the OS, and is supposedly a benefit to the user in convenience,
is actually an operational liability, an inconsistent function which
doesn't even support its own purpose adequately, and causes cascading
intricacies in other features and functions, thus contributing even more
strongly to the pathetic quality, overall, of monopoly crapware.
I've been reminded recently that I'm replying to discussion that's
almost a week old, at least. My apologies, but it is reading posts like
Giuliano's that make it worth the confusion, and I can't help but
respond, thus contributing to the value of Usenet to those who might
just pick up something useful in passing.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[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, 23 Nov 2000 05:02:56 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> The "so many other virii" you mention are, I presume, the earlier
>> generation of Office macro viruses. When an infected document was
>> emailed, launching it on the recipient system would infect that host.
>> The action of the trojan was to cause other documents on that system to
>> become vectors, so that when they were emailed, they spread the trojan.
>> Mostly Word, but also Excel, supported such viruses (and still do),
>> though any VB-enabled application would work. While again similar to
>> the previous waves of basically MS-only viruses in concept, they were a
>> distinct, though precursor, mechanism.
>
>No, I wasn't referring to office macro virii, I was talking about the
>scripted email virii that could change shit on your computer as soon as
>you read the HTML email, if you never changed your security settings by
>default. One specific example was kak, which changes the registry and
>sends itself out as a signature.
I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info. Got more?
>I have a patch from MS for that one specific flaw, but I can't help
>wondering if they fixed the problem or just moved it somewhere harder to
>find...
I think we can guess...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
