Linux-Advocacy Digest #395, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Keldon Warlord")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry... (was Re:
The Sixth Sense) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:25:43 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> >>
> > At last we can pull this thread back to the original premise:
> >
> > C++ is not strictly an OO language, it is a super set of C with a rich
> > set of features which facilitate OO design.
> >
> > The whole point is that procedural code can be written just as easily in
> > C++ as in C, but the big win are the features of C++ which are not part
> > of C.
> >
> > A procedural approach can be used with C++, just as in C, but "inline"
> > are officially part of the language and variables can be declared
> > anywhere in the scope of the brackets. C++ offers better type checking
> > and function overloading and a lot of features that are compile time
> > based. Code compiled as C++ code has NO degradation than if it were
> > compiled as C code, but can be more efficient because the compiler is
> > smarter.
> >
> > If you want to write OOP software, which, if designed correctly, can be
> > more efficient and easier to maintain than OO C code, C++ is the only
> > way to go.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> OK, lets agree that one procedural language is as good (in general) as
> another.
> Lets also agree that you can use C++ as either a procedural language or
> a OOP language.
> Now, on a distributed open source project such as Linux ( or GNU) for
> example, how do you enforce conventions that result in understandable
> code? One contributor uses the procedural subset, another uses an OOP
> subset, there are dozens of conflicting class hierarchies, etc.
> With C its a non-problem. There is an established C culture with lots of
> extant proven code and an (mostly) agreed upon objective way of judging
> code. (Code gets rejected because it isn't "elegant". Most C programmers
> agree that it wasn't "elegant" :) That does not exist with C++. But
> again I ask, If you are going to use C++ as a procedural language, why
> not just use the simpler C?
I reject the implication that since C++ provides more features it is
thus harder to maintain a project. It isn't true. Project coding
guidelines are always the ONLY way to enforce project consistency. One
can, and should argue, that since C does not support many of the
constructs which make software development easier, it is actually harder
to keep consistency with "C." Look at the GTK, it is a disaster of
idiosyncrasies and coding guidelines which could have been a lot easier
and more efficient if done in C++.
Why not use the "simpler C?" because it isn't. Take for instance:
inline int test(int val)
{
...
}
main()
{
for(int i=0; i < 100; i++)
test(i);
}
You can't do that in C. C++ supports many constructs which make standard
procedural code "better."
And again, if you are going OOP, then C++ is clearly the only choice
when compared with C.
>
> I disagree with your statement that C++ is a superset of C. If it were
> then all C++ compilers would compile all C programs, no exceptions. But
> enough of that.
C is a super set of C, but enforces a more rigid language
interpretation. Strict ANSI C will compile with no problems, with just a
few exceptions: (An the exceptions are rooted in common C practice)
(1) Global variables must be declared once, and "extern" for the public
definition.
(2) Character constants are chars, not ints.
(3) Enums are themselves types, not ints.
These differences are fairly trivial, and much less than those between
ANSI and K&R, and often time less than those between "C" Compiler
vendors. (And C allows many more variations between vendors, than does
C++, yet another reason to use C++)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:28:32 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:34:10
[...]
>> And so now suddenly you're suggesting that others should give a shit
>> about languages they don't use, even though you just said previously
>> that you see no reason to do that yourself.
>
>They shouldn't, they give shit about what *they* are using.
>Got that?
No, I don't "got that". You're prevaricating. They do care about what
they're using. That's why Linux has so many languages it supports. It
doesn't support the one or two you wanted, because you don't give a shit
about what language you're using, as long as you can get it on monopoly
crapware, because you're too brain-dead and deluded to recognize the
inferiority of such a solution. IOW, your whole language rant was a
ruse, and had it not been language, you would have found some other
miscellaneous issue to try to discredit the more functional system in
order to defend your bogus choice to use monopoly crapware.
>> removing any excuses they may have for avoiding it.
>
>Nonesense.
>MS translate much of its products to many other languages, because there is
>*profit* in it.
If there were profit in it, it would be done, regardless of what system
you're talking about; that's called a free market enterprise system,
also known as "capitalism". Microsoft does not engage in this type of
strategy; they are not capitalists, they are monopolists.
>Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an OS in
>their own language, and they'll pay for it.
Most people who use computers do know English, and your fantasy that
catering to every minor language in the world is a free market response,
regardless of how hard you insist it is a valid explanation, is simply
not correct. It is not profit which drives MS development; this has
been clearly admitted by those in charge: it is the protection of the
monopoly which guides their development. You may be too dumb to
understand the difference, but that doesn't prevent there from being
one.
>Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
>language, btw.
What?
--
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: "Keldon Warlord" <[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: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:37:54 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Keldon Warlord wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Keldon Warlord wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Keldon Warlord wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Uncle Fester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now if it only had some decent multimedia programs to run
like
> > > > > > > > SoundForge or Cooledit or Cubase or Cakewalk or DVD or some
> > Direct-X
> > > > > > > > plugins then we would be in business.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Linux would be worth it just to finally break free of DirectX!
> > > > > > > You're right though, we're missing a lot of programs in
LinuxLand.
> > > > > > > Let's see... Happy99, Melissa, Navidad...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > are all Linux users this dense or just you? he said DVD and
other
> > > > multimedia
> > > > > > programs....or is it insane jealousy that the MPAA won't give
away
> > those
> > > > DVD
> > > > > > source codes for FREE like the other dozen brainwashed companies
> > that
> > > > have?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So...what you're saying is...being held hostage to the likes of
> > > > > Sony and Time-Warner is a good thing?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > no...what I'm saying is that this is the only DVD player that I
> > have...and I
> > > > sure as hell don't want to mess it up!
> > > >
> > >
> > > And how is Linux going to overwrite the firmware ROMS
> > > in your DVD player exactly?
> > >
> >
> > you tell me. afterall, Linux is the hellspawn OS of SATAN, isn't it?
>
> No....not at all.
>
> SATAN is a tool which helps admins keep *nix systems secure.
>
>
...but there are DAEMONS inside Linux! its true! ;-)
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 16:41:05 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:37:35 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >> That is what is known as an "argument from ignorance".
> >
> >No, it's not. I'm not arguing that anything *IS* true or false, I'm saying
>
> Seems to be a common technique of Max's. When in doubt, blindly make a
> completely baseless conjecture, and deride any argument that your conjecture is
> baseless as "argument from ignorance".
Arguing about argument techniques isn't much fun.
--
Linux rocks
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:23:06 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:30:01
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >You complaint about obscuring the line between executables and data is
> >misdirected, tell it to Apple & Xeroix.
> >That is the major part of gui, FWIW.
>
> It ain't worth spit, that's what its worth. No, this isn't even a minor
> part of "gui", though I can understand completely why you would be
> confused on this subject. It is the procedures which are affected by
> the use of a GUI, not the operations, or the abstractions.
It's part of the all widely used GUI.
Namely, Windows & Apple.
This had been around since Apple's first GUI, in 1986 IIRC. It might be part
of Xeroix as well.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 registry...
(was Re: The Sixth Sense)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:24:02 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 18 Nov 2000
> 17:10:08 GMT;
> >Giuliano Colla 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)? There's no up and down in a hash table!
> >
> >What you say makes sense. Searches in RegEdt32.exe are pretty
> >damn slow. But programs seem to work well. Must be the effects
> >of disk caching, I guess.
>
> I don't know about you, but I think programs often work damn slow on
> Windows, and it notably seems to be because of the registry. I think
> the fact is that, since a hierarchical database is not properly
> "searched", a record not being "located" so much as "called", they
> *don't* hash or cache it, explicitly! I think the reason Windows
> performs like a dead panda covered in molasses, quite often, is because
> it suddenly has to traverse a pathetically huge array of branches and
> nodes, maybe 50 times immediately, just to figure out what to do.
>
> Searches are damn slow because they are obviously "registry walks",
> retrieving each node and comparing it to the search value. Giuliano's
> detractors do have a point there; the system doesn't use the registry
> like that. (The applications don't use the registry at all, strictly
> speaking, but call the system to do that for them.) In a hierarchical
> database, you either know precisely where the information is that you
> want, or you can't get it (without crawling through every node, as the
> search does).
I don't know about the programs you use, but those I use/write don't
*search* the registery.
That is about the most inefficent way to do it.
You call a key by its path, which is pretty damn fast.
You need to know where you are going to, otherwise, the registery is
useless.
The registery is there for keeping your program's settings, that is all.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:29:31 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:59:04
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> 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.
>
> What laws precisely do you think this contravenes?
>
> [...]
> >> The latest Mozilla project looks pretty promising.
> >
> >Still looking promising. Have they reached Alpha yet?
>
> TBH, I'm thinking more and more these days that Netscape sucks big dog
> dicks, almost as much as IE does. And just as with OSes, I'm not
> willing to go with Opera, although I'm very attracted to its
> functionality, simply because it is not mainstream, and I'm pretty
> conservative that way. I can use Netscape, of course, though I stick
> with an old 4.0x version of Navigator-only. Still, I think we'd have
> all been better off if Mr. Andreesen had taken fewer lessons in how to
> make software from Mr. Gates. The idea of using an application as the
> basis of middleware is as contradictory as the idea of using an OS as
> middleware. Meanwhile, we still have no decent middleware, and not just
> the OS but the web browsers suck, and are at a technological standstill,
> as well.
Actually, it's quite the opposite.
Netscape announced that it was planning to make its browser the middleware,
and thus eliminate the need in Windows.
IE was the response for this.
Mr. Andreesen came up with browser-as-a-middleware all on his own.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:11:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:04:17 -0500;
>Ayende Rahien wrote...
>> > And so now suddenly you're suggesting that others should give a shit
>> > about languages they don't use, even though you just said previously
>> > that you see no reason to do that yourself.
>>
>> They shouldn't, they give shit about what *they* are using.
>> Got that?
>
>That's the practical approach. Why should I care that Windows supports
>Japanese? If it does, good for the Japanese, but I don't really care.
>It's for MS to care since they wish to market their OS to the Japanese.
Now if only MS marketed their product (as in, presented it to a free
market), you're ideas might make sense. They monopolize; they don't
market. There is a cost/benefit analysis that goes in to including
support for a language. Ayende's "most people don't speak English"
loses some of its punch when you recognize that *most* people do, in
fact, use one or more of a very small handful of languages. Microsoft's
'carpet-bombing' approach is obviously keyed towards removing any reason
to avoid the software, rather than providing any actual profitable
value.
>The same goes for the OS features. I only care about the features I wish
>to use and how they're implemented. I couldn't care less about the
>features a sysadmin would need. That's for MS and the sysadmins to care
>about.
Well, then I presume that means you don't care about any features,
because these are *personal computers*, and there is no real difference
between 'sysadmin' and 'user'. Unless you're in a professional
environment, in which case you don't make any choices, so your point is,
again, moot. Considering the ideas you've presented here, I'd say your
best choice would be a Mac.
>etc. etc. There's nothing uncivilized about that approach. If I offer a
>service, then I care about the target customers and their needs or
>preferences. If I'm the customer, then it's a different perspective.
Treated in this kind of hopelessly over-simplified way, you have a
choice to present a clear ethical underpinning to your thinking, or
become deluded into thinking that monopolization is "just" doing
business. It is not. That last bit, btw, where you indicated that a
customer has a different perspective than wanting to meet their needs or
preferences, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
>> > Of *course* Microsoft supports as many languages as they possibly can.
>> > When you're trying to ensure that nobody who uses a computer can avoid
>> > using your product, its worth putting quite a bit of (non-efficient,
>> > from a competitive free market production standpoint) investment in
>> > removing any excuses they may have for avoiding it.
>>
>> Nonesense.
>> MS translate much of its products to many other languages, because there is
>> *profit* in it.
>> Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an OS in
>> their own language, and they'll pay for it.
>>
>> Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
>> language, btw.
>
>I think you missed what T. Max was really saying but that's OK. It's not
>worth it. :=)
I think you missed what T. Max was really saying. That's not OK,
because it was important.
--
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
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:11:52 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:55:44
[...]
>Windows support a lot of languages, including full translations of most of
>the popular software from Microsoft. (Windows & IE & Office the most notable
>of them, but not the only one.)
>Linux? I don't know.
>I *do* know that to the languages that *I* need, Linux is no alternative
>unless I plan to make a dist of my own.
So you're just going along with the monopoly, haven't even examined
whether other systems meet your needs, and expect us to give a rat's ass
about your opinion of operating systems?
--
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
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:11:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:35:50
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:44:12
>
>
>> >Why *should* I care about language that I'm neither using nor likely to
>use.
>>
>> Because you want others to care about languages that they neither use
>> nor are likely to use, but that you use. Get it? Its called being
>> civilized.
>
>I don't want them to care, *I* care.
You want Microsoft to care. Which means you want Microsoft to care
about what other customer's want (or you are just making things up about
them caring what *any* customer wants, including you, and you just got
lucky that what they provide is coincidentally what you can use.) You
said that Microsoft adds language support to increase profitability. So
you care about whether they pay attention to their customers (you)
right? Well, that means you care about whether they pay attention to
their customers (others), as well, or you're just not thinking hard
enough to be considered competent to make purchasing decisions.
>Linux just can't supply my needs, period.
Sure it can. You just don't care if it does, because you're happy with
monopoly crapware, being as you are ignorant or rich or both.
>That was the point that started this arguement.
Yes, it was. And it is an uncivilized argument, as I've said. "I've
got mine; screw everyone else." Granted, I know that most people are
not used to thinking about their commercial purchases in terms of
civilized ethics. But, then, most companies are competitive, not
anti-competitive monopolies.
>> >Linux has *bad* support for the launguages that *I* need. I don't give a
>> >horse's ass for those that I don't need
>> >Guess who has the best support for those languages that I *do* need?
>>
>> Monopoly crapware, of course. Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever,
>> but you're too dumb to know it.
>
>You know, it's exactly this kind of statements that make you look like an
>idiot.
Perhaps from your perspective, but I assure you it is merely do to your
lack of experience. Anybody who would be satisfied with W2K simply
doesn't know enough about using computer *efficiently and effectively*
to be able to tell whether my statements are idiotic or not.
--
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: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:11:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
[...]
>By a strictly logical point of view, Max is correct: the
>information provided is sufficient.
>
>By a practical standpoints, I stick with Aaron.
IOW, you understand why counters are the correct way to do it, but you
would seriously like there to be an easier solution, so you're willing
to pretend there is one.
That's not a crime, of course. The IETF themselves support the
sentiment "perfection is the enemy." Meaning that if it works well
enough, it works, and there is little point in over-defining the system
or the requirements for academic reasons.
Nevertheless, it was the far-sightedness of the developers of Internet
protocols which result in a system so robust and interoperable that the
entire planet can consist of one large (inter)network. So it may very
well be that in assessing which is the "practical" approach, you may not
be aware of certain issues which are nonetheless important in defining
why counters, not clocks or timestamps, are the only reliable way to get
the actual information you are looking for.
>You have a 32 bit counter which rolls over before reaching
>maximum count, and does it at a value which isn't related to
>maximum count by a power of two, but a by power of ten.
>Sort of "how can we implement it in such a way as to annoy
>client software?"
THERE IS NO MAXIMUM COUNT! You might think it is trivial to say
"servers need special handling to derive uptime", but the fact is, its
just another component, no more or less important than all the other
equipment necessary to get to the server. Network devices give the most
accurate, consistent, *and practical* uptime indications using
continuity indicators, not clocks. Counter rollover is not an issue,
unless you are using the numbers incorrectly, and inadvisedly, and
ultimately falsely.
--
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: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:12:03 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
18:37:35 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>>> And without inside knowledge, we don't know what the problem is
>there.
>> >>>>> Maybe they have power problems. Maybe they had some hardware
>failures.
>> >>>>> Maybe they've been experimenting with beta software. Who knows.
>> >>
>> >> Are you grasping at straws here, Eric? Thought so. ;)
>> >
>> >You know the reason?
>>
>> That is what is known as an "argument from ignorance".
>
>No, it's not. I'm not arguing that anything *IS* true or false, I'm saying
>that neither of us know, therefore an argument one way is just as valid as
>the other way (in other words, neither is valid).
This is known as an "argument from ignorance".
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
--
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
******************************
