Linux-Advocacy Digest #677, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Anybody considering Linux should read this. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("the_blur")
Re: Whistler review. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:33:05 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:31:55
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>How it could be a windows-ism error?
>Since they are supposed to develop to multi-platform[...]
...and failed. That's a windows-ism.
>If you program for *nix, you need to take this into consideration, if they
>only tested N6 on *nix running as root... Well, my
>already-lower-than-see-level appriciation to them just got lower.
Well, that's your problem. Mine was already pretty low, but I still use
Netscape. At least its better than IE.
[...]
>> >Point?
>>
>> Point being that your presumption that this is comparable or even
>> analogous to the registry is fatally flawed.
>
>No, it's not.
>It store user spesific settings in a place where they don't belong.
>The way it does it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Correct. The fact it does it, does, right? Who declares where
application settings belong; applications, or operating systems? It
seems to me that operating systems declare where operating system
settings belong, and shouldn't be dictating how applications are
supposed to work. This is a windows-ism, and why the registry problem
you're describing is Microsoft's fault, and would be even if the
registry weren't a nightmarish pile of problems waiting to happen.
[...]
>Bah!
>Even assuming that they split MS, it wouldn't change a single thing.
>Windows will still be the most widely used OS around.
Not for long. You'd be surprised how eager people are to save $40 on a
new computer.
>Windows will still have most application developed to it.
Not for long. Granted, real middleware will take years to develop,
after the regression of industry standards caused by the monopoly. But
applications themselves will be a very VERY competitive market, much
more quickly than the OS. After all, it takes applications to break an
application barrier.
>Nothing much will change, except that Office & IE will be done by a sperate
>company.
<*snicker*> Sorry. Couldn't resist.
[...]
>> >> Which is why I say its Windows fault; why are there rules if they're so
>> >> readily violated?
>> >
>> >Lazy programming?
>>
>> I would concur; Microsoft does engage in some of the laziest programming
>> ever seen.
>
>No, lazy programming on the side of the ISVs.
I don't think you understand. "Rules" in software development are
supposed to be congruent with technical efficiency, not the whim of
monopoly. MS is the one with the lazy programmers. The ISV programmers
are more properly considered 'fatigued', having to keep up with MS churn
(tm).
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:33:08 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 05 Dec 2000
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> Bah!
>> Even assuming that they split MS, it wouldn't change a single thing.
>> Windows will still be the most widely used OS around.
>> Windows will still have most application developed to it.
>> Nothing much will change, except that Office & IE will be done by a sperate
>> company.
>
>And the Office/IE company won't have access to undocumented APIs.
>
>Say, does anyone hate those shitty fading menus and their crappy
>"continuation arrow" (or whatever they call it)? Drives me nuts
>to see just a few options, and have to move down and click to
>see the rest. Furthermore, some of the options are embossed inward,
>for no reason that I can see. Pretty ugly enhancement to the
>Windozzzzzzzzz interface, if you ask me.
>
>(And yes, I know, you didn't ask me <grin>).
Nor has anyone asked me, which is why I didn't point it out myself.
Just how more pathetic can this stuff get, and still have people buy
into the idea that because its new its 'innovation'. Its the most
outrageously stupid thing I've ever seen in a computer interface of any
type! Its literally so bad its a crime!
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:33:13 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:27:01
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:36:39
>
>> >Users can of course write to HKCU.
>> >Please check MS guidelines to programming in windows, you'll see that it
>> >states very clearly that user spesifics settings in HKCU.
>> >Beside, the very same mecanism (HKCU being user spesific) works in win9x.
>>
>> And as I've explained (quoted below), this does cause the kind of
>> problems you're addressing. And they're *Microsoft's* problems, since
>> the app isn't supposed to have to be re-written to work on NT.
>
>It doesn't need to be re-written for NT.
>It need to be written correctly the first tim.
Even if it was written for WinDOS? Years before MS shoved NT down
everyone's throat as a desktop OS?
>> Had Microsoft provided some method of setting machine-wide configuration
>> settings without running aground of permissions, this problem wouldn't
>> occur.
>
>Pardon?
>You don't *want* anybody to be able to set a machine wide configuration!
Sorry, charlie. Sometimes you do. Even in a real multi-user system (in
comparison to NT, which merely pretends).
>That is whole *point* in permissions.
>That nobody except the administrator can set a machine wide configuration!
No, that's not the point in permissions. The point in permissions is
that the administrator can determine what is the machine's
configuration, not the application configuration. This isn't a host
we're talking about; its a desktop or a workstation or a server, not all
three or any one, like a Unix system. (:-D I'm just funnin' with ya'.)
[...]
>> >"allowing all users of the system to share the settings, since they're
>> >really all the same person" is a silly statement.
>>
>> I concur. But that's a failure of WinDOS that you're just going to have
>> to deal with.
>
>No, it's not.
[...]
>If I log on as a different user on purpose, I *expect* to get different user
>settings, and that is what I get.
Unless you don't, or you do want to, and don't get it. Whichever.
[...]
>No!
>If it's a user spesific settings, they belong in the HKCU, because they
>*are* user *spesific*, which mean that each user should have its own.
You do realize that this is entirely correct, but useless, don't you?
In a desktop environment, it is not a clear call whether any one
arbitrary application configuration setting should be system-wide or
user-wide. Yes, often app developers get it wrong. Sometimes the OS
makes their job tough. Sometimes they botch it on any OS. None of this
makes the registry make sense, or be the reason the problem isn't more
easily solved, when it occurs. It hardly ever occurs on Unix, so that's
pretty much all that needs to be said.
[...]
>> Like I said, the only thing that makes Netscape any good at all is that
>> its better than IE.
>
>I can quite easily read what the OS does with my memory, and even assuming
>you are correct, which I doubt, Netscape *still* took over 65MB.
>Everything else *put together* only took about twice that much!
You are under the impression that memory numbers from Windows mean
anything at all in real life. From what I've heard, they must be taken
with a grain of salt.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:33:24 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:03:28
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:09:31
>> [...]
>> >*Developing* software is what cost money.
>> >Which you don't get in return if you GPL it.
>>
>> But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
>> trade secret, either. Whatever it is you do make money on has to cover
>> the cost of developing, either way. Your argument is specious.
>
>Yes you do.
No, you get money selling licenses, not developing software.
>Which is why most software beyond some level of sophistication is released
>as such.
No, that's just because its easier to cheat and steal than to make an
honest profit.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anybody considering Linux should read this.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:28:13 GMT
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:12:14 GMT, tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I see adds in Computer User and elsewhere for Linux certification
>training. How would that work? Certainly, somebody would need to set
>standards for certification; otherwise, companies would have no
>guarantee (as if they do now) that new hires will have a certain
>minimum level of skill & knowledge. But who sets the standard for
>Linux and who "sells" the certifications?
>
>Tom
>
RedHat certification can be obtained fairly cheaply.
LSB Linux Standard Base is establishing some of this.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:39:37 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 04 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> I don't think I care. As far as I know, they're just a profiteer trying
>> to extract exorbitant profits by limiting the availability of the
>> programmer's work. I'd just as soon they did go out of business, thank
>> you. They're massively inefficient, from the standpoint of free market
>> production.
>
>I must complain about your postings, because they encourage
>my laziness. Just wait for Max to answer, find that he's
>expressed in a clear and concise way what I was confusedly
>thinking, no need to work out an answer! It's not fair!
Sorry. Not. :-D
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:32:20 GMT
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:31:43 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 04 Dec 2000 07:05:40
> [...]
>>You don't have to reboot Linux for ANYTHING EXCEPT, changing out
>>the kernel! And you don't have to change the kernel to turn off
>>TCP/IP.
>
>Actually, there's where he has you, Charlie. You do, because TCP/IP is
>built into the kernel in Unix, including Linux. But that's presuming a
>particular concept of "turn off" which you might disagree with. This
>reflect's Erik's own argument, that you can't 'remove' TCP/IP, like you
>can in Windows. Erik undermined his argument, of course, by pointing
>out that 'removing' TCP/IP doesn't remove it, but merely disables it,
>but that's beside the point. In Windows, you can 'remove' TCP/IP as if
>it were a driver or a service, and you can't on Linux. All you can do
>is disable it. This would be the equivalent of "removing the bindings"
>on Windows, which corresponds to the Unix concept of assigning IP
>addresses. Remove all IP addresses from all cards on Unix, and you've
>'turned off' IP. But on NT, there's an extra thing; removing TCP/IP as
>a protocol, since its not built in to the kernel.
>
>What happens when you remove TCP/IP as a protocol, and then reboot, is
>that you have to reboot again in order to use any TCP/IP, so it sort of
>*like* being built into the kernel, but I think we've been through that
>part.
>
> [...]
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
INFANTILE SILLYNESS!
Are we to assume we can just remove the TCP-IP stack from
ANY WINDOWS PRODUCT WITHOUT INVOLVING A RECOMPILE OF THE KERNEL?
JEEZUS CHRIST MAN!
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:41:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 05 Dec 2000 06:00:54 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>| Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:09:31
>| [...]
>| >*Developing* software is what cost money.
>| >Which you don't get in return if you GPL it.
>|
>| But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
>| trade secret, either.
>
>Oh, but it's this return that drives the software industry as it largely
>is today.
Quite true. That's why people (like me, I'll admit) get incensed about
the current state of affairs. Its also what drives the move to the GPL.
So if you don't like GPL, then don't do it. We know that'll never work,
and the GPL software will eventually take over the planet, but its only
fair to warn them.
[...]
>| Same with commercial software; you don't make the money you invested
>| back, unless you sell something to make a return on the investment. You
>| seem to be treating development of a product as if it were manufacture
>| of a commodity. Microsoft, of course, encourages such mistaken
>| thinking, very much.
>
>If the developer and producer wish simple monetary compensation for
>their efforts then it *is* like a commodity. This *is* the situation in
>which a lot of software is produced.
Actually, no it isn't, at all. People don't buy software as a
commodity; they buy licenses to run software as a commodity. Making
monetary compensation on software code itself, rather than a license to
use it, is what GPL is all about.
>I do, however take your point that this doesn't always have to be and
>certainly isn't always the case.
>
>| And while obviously this would be a more lucrative arrangement for
>| software producers, your *assumption* that this is necessary or else
>| software cannot be produced is, as I've mentioned, a specious argument.
>
>The reality is that *if* the ISV isn't happy, there'll be no software
>produced by them.
Fine; there'll be others who are more competitive.
>The producer has to find it profitable.
Yes, but the question isn't whether there is profit to be made; we know
there is. The question is how much profit there is to be made. And the
fact is, a free market works to minimize the profit in the face of
competition, by allowing producers to maximize profit through
efficiencies.
It is true that software producers are making exorbitant profits, but
that's because they're profiteering, not because they're extremely
efficient.
>If one
>production paradigm is more profitable, the producer will usually choose
>the more profitable method .... unless of course, the motivator is not
>just merely monetary profit.
Indeed. Which is why I proffer the anti-trust argument; staying out of
jail is a useful controlling motivator. Locking in customers is
anti-competitive.
>The profit may be gained from other
>developers input in the further development of the software. Their may
>be no desire for a profit at all and just social rewards.
There may indeed be no *need* for a profit at all. Social rewards
themselves may more than make up for the great bulk of software
development necessary, outside of the "form over substance" software
industry of today.
[...]
>What's wrong with trying to make a living? What's wrong with requesting
>remuneration for your efforts in return for the customers increased
>productivity using your software?
Requesting? Or demanding? An just how do you wish to measure the
increase in productivity using your software, over a competitor's
product or any bog-standard freeware?
>Take an interesting parallel. Industrial equipment can be extremely
>expensive. This extreme expense cannot only be accounted for through
>production costs. A huge chunk of that charge is based on the fact that
>the equipment manufacturer knows that you'll be using the equipment he
>sells to you to make money.
Actually, a huge chunk of the *cost* is based on that fact; you need to
make sure that equipment works well, and continues to do so
indefinitely, or you're liable for the customer's lost revenues due to
negligence.
Unless, of course, you make software.
>His equipment is therefore of a lot more
>value to you than the simple value of the manufacturing and assembling
>of its parts. Equipment that is a lot simpler than a car in concept and
>technology is far more expensive.
And to such manufacturer's get away with extortion because of this fact?
Of course not; unless you have a patent, you are faced with competition
(and often even then, as alternatives don't necessarily infringe).
>It's the same for software. There's nothing wrong with wanting returns
>on your efforts and returns on the profits people make off your efforts.
Yes, I'm terribly sorry, but this is wrong. You don't have any claim to
the profits people make using the software. You only deserve profits
from the software. If you want the profits made by using it, then go
ahead and use it yourself. But don't expect your competitors to not
replicate your software; they have a legal right to do so.
>| As I've described several times (and if Professor Lessig might actually
>| have the opportunity to read this and the time to respond, I would
>| humbly ask for his comments, public or private, on the matter) it is not
>| possible to compete with an anti-competitive company (monopolist). You
>| have to "_out-anti-compete_" them.
>
>Leave the monopoly argument for a moment. We're just speaking about
>software development and production in a commercial setting as opposed
>to a OSS setting.
I know of no such "settings". Only the real world, stripped of as much
perception-based obscurement as possible. If you are discussing
commercial issues, then you can't ignore that the industry is dominated
by a monopolist.
>| So the direct result, more or less,
>| of treating software as copyright-wrapped-in-a-trade-secret-license, is
>| that the GPL has been created. And adopted, more and more, by the very
>| programmers that you insist will be put out of work by it.
>
>The fact that programmers are adopting this model, doesn't by any means
>mean that all are or ever will be attracted to it. This model will work
>for a segment .... no doubt about that.
And your logical argument why this 'segment' wouldn't be the vast
majority of all software used by typical consumers is....
>| The free market does always win in the end. The only real question is
>| whether it gets tougher for the producers, or the consumers, during the
>| transition. Since GPL represents "free software",
>
>They don't have to pay .... lovely. I'd sure love not having to pay for
>anything. :=)
Not much need to pay for something that costs nothing to produce.
>| and the alternate
>| approach represents "rented permission to use",
>
>One has to pay, as they do for most other things in life that doesn't
>appear out of thin air or through natural phenomena.
Everything in life is a natural phenomena. In a free market economy,
you pay of some particular thing, not on general principle, but because
it cost money to produce and has value. One or both of these is lacking
in software.
>| I think its obvious
>| which causes more pain to the consumers, and it is no surprise that you
>| are arguing this point from the perspective of the producers (or, as you
>| inaccurately refer to them, the programmers.)
>
>Well, one has to have a balanced outlook.
>
>Both paradigms fall under two full swings of the pendulum.
So you agree Microsoft should be broken up, rather than entirely
dissolved?
[...]
>| You misinterpreted my contention. I said that "support" means technical
>| support (your "advanced question"), not newbie help. As you've pointed
>| out, this is a valuable service, quite capable of supporting a profit
>| margin, since there aren't that many questions that you can get an
>| answer to on the web.
>
>Here, it depends on the type of software.
Not at all. It depends on the type of user. Which is to say, it
depends on the customer, not the product.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 05:35:05 GMT
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:31:47 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 05 Dec 2000 01:51:20
> [...]
>>Fukenbusch! You are full of shit!
>>By this argument your actually trying to sell the crowd
>>that there IS a way to REMOVE TCPIP from Windows 2000
>>and not just TURN IT OFF!!!!
>>
>>You need a bone marrow transplant to the BRAIN Fukenbusch!
>>
>>Who is going to listen to this 3 year old shit!
>>
>>Get off COLA!
>
>You know what? Erik Funkenbusch is one of the biggest Wintrolls I've
>ever seen, and you're *still* full of shit. If you can't even
>understand that in even a trivially technical discussion of software,
>the concepts of 'remove' and 'turn off' aren't so arbitrary that you're
>argument is pathetic ranting, then I'd prefer someone else's bone marrow
>to your brains.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
He was implying you could REMOVE the TCP-IP function from
Windows 2000 by simply fiddling with a driver.
Now, are you going to tell me this IS possible?
IF you dont' believe me go back and read what the nitwit
said.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:45:45 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 02 Dec
2000 17:42:36 GMT;
>On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 10:38:00 -0600, spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>kiwiunixman wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Have you always wondered why bill gates never sits on a seat properly?
>>> its because conrade is up bill gates ass.
>>>
>>> kiwiunixman
>>
>>Hmm.....gets mighty crowded with 2 heads up the same ass then.
>
>Just spilled my coffee laughing.
>
>Good one :)
>
>claire
Is this you trying to be reasonable and jovial, you lying sack of shit?
--
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: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:42:07 -0500
> and micro$oft Winbugs is a big shit
> and Bill Gays is a son of the bitch !!!
Bill Gates Gave 21 Million dollars (I think, this could be more I'm not
sure) of his personal money to charity this year. He's a good man, what us
linuxfolk think of him doesn't matter much. He wants to give away 21 BILLION
dollars to charity during his life.
(If you're wondering, I just saw the report on CBS about him)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:47:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 02 Dec
[...]
>To whoever proposed the teaching of floating point:
>I would advocate a Harris 1802. It has many, erm, advantages
>over the 6502:
>
>- no JSR or RET instruction.
>- no offset indexing of any kind. If one wanted indirect load,
> one had to use LDN (Rn), LDA (Rn), or LDAX, after setting
> a register. (The 6502 has the infamous LDX, LDY, and LDA (n,X)
> and LDA (n),Y instructions. Bizarre? You bet your sweet bippy.)
>- no fixed PC register; the P register is 4 bits and is used to
> determine which of the general registers is used for instruction fetch.
> This can lead to all kinds of hacks, including a (very slow) emulation
> of a more traditional JSR and RET, using SEP.
>- the stack can be anywhere in memory; the 6502's stack was restricted
> to one "page" (0x01xx).
>- 1.7 megahertz clock cycle, 8 clocks per memfetch, 2 memfetches
> per instruction cycle except for long jumps or long skips,
> which took 3. In other words, it was blazingly fast. Not.
>- *two* subtraction instructions: SDI and SMI, with and without borrow.
>- no PC-relative code at all. Short jumps set the low 8 bits of
> the register currently used for the PC. Long jumps set all 16 bits.
>- The SEX instruction! (No, it's not what you think; there's a
> 4-bit X register, useable in LDAX and STXD, and a few other places.)
>- no dynamic memory refresh capability.
>- 7 I/O ports.
>- multiplexed address bus.
>
>Note that both are 64K addressable, 8 bit data bus. The nice thing
>about the 1802 is that it had a DMA mode that could be used for
>manual program loading.
>
>(I'm not familiar with such microprocessors as the Intel 4004 and 8008,
>which are even dumber.)
As scary as it may be to realize, I guess that adding layers of
abstraction doesn't actually prevent people from needing to know or
understand this cornswaggle. (Don't ask me what cornswaggle is; I don't
know that anymore than I know what PC-relative code is.)
--
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
******************************
