Linux-Advocacy Digest #850, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Swangoremovemee)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful (Jeremy Bowen)
Re: Predicting the Future (Swangoremovemee)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:58:20 GMT
In article <FdBZ5.5436$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> HP's don't they say OS and application CD. They expect you to read
the
> directions though and not blindly answer yes to the dialogs.
The directions don't say anything about it being a restore cd. It is an
installation cd. Nothing that you have to say will change the fact that
Microsoft distributed at least *some* of their OEM cd's without full
support for the drivers that they are contractually obligated to
support, nor will it change the fact that they distributed installation
cd's to OEM customers that do not allow the creation of multiple
partitions with the use of the cd.
Even if it were a restoration cd, it wouldn't change the fact that they
aren't supporting the drivers they are obligated to support.
Keep trying, Renfield, perhaps your shill skills will improve with time.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:46:37 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> Russ Lyttle writes:
>>> All this from an simple intuitive power cord.
>> Incorrect; Aaron's claim that nothing about a computer is intuitive
>> preceded that.
> Which has been amply demonstrated in this thread.
On the contrary, nobody else has amply demonstrated the sequence of
claims in this thread.
> Tholen...
> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> remember to slit lengthwise.
Once again, lacking a logical argument, you turn to invective. No
surprise there.
Kulkis, once you finally realize how insecure you are, maybe you'll
come back here an apologize some day.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:15:37 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:42:04 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I didn't say anything, so what on earth are you talking about?
Sounds like . has been drinking again.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:56:43 GMT
Les Mikesell writes:
>>> Or they might have used ksh with the vi edit mode, or less (an enhanced
>>> more that uses vi-like keystrokes to browse through files).
>> UNIX users are in the minority.
> How many MS-windows users were there in 1976 when the vi commands
> were chosen?
Irrelevant to the issue.
>> The ABDick was also tall and narrow (portrait mode) and displayed a
>> full screen of text, but it might have been a green screen. Come to
>> think of it, we may have replaced our ABDick machines with the CPT
>> machines. Never did catch on.
> The price of the dedicated WP machines was what killed them when
> PC clones running DOS Wordperfect 4.2 came around with equivalent
> functionality at less than half the price and network capability. There
> was nothing intuitive about WP's keystrokes but people used it anyway.
Earlier than that. We had word processors on CP/M. Take Magic Wand,
for example.
>>>> Of course, according to Aaron, nothing about a computer is intuitive.
>>> Exactly.
>> But do you or do you not agree with him?
> I'm not sure what he meant, but there is nothing that would make any
> sense without relating to some prior knowledge.
What's unclear about the claim that "nothing about a computer is
intuitive"?
>>> Many younger people have probably never seen a typewriter
>>> and would be very confused by the fact that you scroll down
>>> to get the page to the right position on the typing line instead of
>>> moving a cursor (which they probably have seen) up to the
>>> the text in question.
>> Younger people seem to be less confused by computers than older
>> people with exposure to typewriters.
> Young people are often more open to new things than older people
> in general - after all, if you are young enough everything is new.
> However in this case I would say it has more to do with the millions
> MS and Apple have spent trying to brainwash you, errr.. promote their
> products.
You would say lots of things that don't answer the original questin.
>>>> Fortunately, I don't think otherwise. Remember, my statement was
>>>> that to use hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive.
>>> It is no more or less intuitive than any other keys might be, especially
>>> given that at the time most keyboards did not have any special cursor
>>> control keys.
>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
> How can it apply to any time other than when the choice was made?
Simple: there are new users all the time.
> And anytime afterwards prior experience would make it intuitive when
> encountered in ksh, more, and an assortment of other programs that
> copied the scheme to some extent.
And if you don't know the extent, then you might wind up using something
that doesn't work.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:02:19 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> What I said is also actually true. Where is the alleged difference?
> The only possible answer to this is to merely repeat what I've already
> said,
That is, to repeat your pontification.
> that you deny.
With good reason.
> Repeating it again is pointless.
Especially without any supporting evidence.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:03:20 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> My statement wasn't applied to "at the time". I'm talking about now.
> You didn't say so.
I shouldn't need to say so for those who understand context.
> (See I can be a pendantic pain too. Your game is fun.)
You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game, Steve.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:00:47 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Hitting escape merely requires a small wrist and hand strectch,
>>>>> not a whole arm-swing.
>>>> Hitting the cursor keys merely requires a small wrist and hand stretch,
>>>> not a whole arm-swing.
>>> No, not on the standard 101 (or 104) key keyboard layout.
>> You're now qualifying your statement. Note that "standard" 101-key
>> keyboards still have variations among them.
>>> Maybe you have a different type of keyboard.
>> I have several keyboards.
>>> The human wrist doesn't bend 90 degrees,
>> Irrelevant, given that I never said it does.
>>> and even if it did, that would put the fingers aimed sideways
>>> and not at all lined up with the cursor keys. Maybe, just maybe
>>> you can get one pinkie there that way, but that is insufficient
>>> to operate the keys painlessly.
>> Maybe, just maybe you can get one pinkie up to the Esc key, but
>> that is insufficient to operate the key painlessly.
> False.
Independent of keybaord?
>>> The escape key is all by itself, one key, easy to 'whack' without
>>> needing much accuracy (if you get all 'butterfingers' and slap the
>>> key on the edge, that's good enough).
>> With other editors, I don't need to do that.
> Yeah I know - more precision is needed.
How would more precision be needed to NOT strike a key (because it is
unnecesary)?
>>> The cursor keys require accuracy,
>> Incorrect; it's easy to undo an incorrect motion operation, and
>> I have fewer of those than with hjkl.
> Okay, they only require accuracy if you don't want to waste your
> time.
Waste your time? You mean like changing modes?
>>> and they require the hand to remain there for a while while
>>> you hit them several times,
>> Incorrect; my keyboard has autorepeat. I just hold the key down.
> Notice the plural in the phrase "hit them several times". Note I
> did not say, "hit it several times". Autorepeat doesn't help much
> when you hit something like "up/up/left/left"
It can; it can cut the number of keystrokes in half.
>>> so hitting them with a twisted wrist, using your stretched
>>> pinkie, doesn't work.
>> Works just as well as for the Esc key.
> I will never agree to that premise without a demonstration. It
> doesn't seem possible if you are a human being using a standard
> keyboard.
Yet you expect me to agree to your premise without a demonstration.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:05:02 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> There I go being presumptuous again.
>> More like a reading comprehension problem on your part. You also thought
>> that Aaron wrote that nothing is intuitive.
> No, I didn't, Mr Pendantic.
How ironic, considering your last posting.
> I just forgot to type it in one reply of many.
Forgetting to type it doesn't change the fact that you thought Aaron
wrote something that he didn't write, Steve. That's an example of a
reading comprehension problem.
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:23:51 -0700
Linux isn't for amateurs
It's all in a matter of time for Linux to support these and other devices, in
fact it's all in a matter of getting Mfg. to port drivers, open source and the
like.
Mandrake has problems so does Windows, it really boils down to what you want to
do. Do you want an OS that has driver and mfg support for the masses, or do
you want an OS that is harder to configure yet more stable.
For myself I use Mandrake as a workstation at work because It's a better
interface for the Solaris Servers that we run. However at home I have two
systems a dual-bootable Mandrake7.2/Win98 and a RedHat6.2 File
server/experimental server. I tried ME for about 2 months and promptly went
back to Win98 because of the memory leaks I couldn't play games beacuse of it.
I'll upgrade when it's had a little more time to Mature. Now that's not to say
Mandrake and RedHat have been perfect, I've had problems with each, as far as
configuration and tweaks, but once these problems have been taken care of it's
as stable as can be.
Linux isn't for everyone. I suppose you got into it because you heard all the
hype about Linux. Now you're frustrated because you can't get things to work.
Frankly I started out 2 1/2 years ago the same way, frustrated because I
couldn't even get my video card to work, I left Linux alone for a while and
guess what all my problems we're solved a few months down the road. I enjoy
Linux because it's challenging. Sure windows brags about Plug and Play, but
nothing beats the sensation of a conquering a challenge.
Sorry I can't help you out here. Good luck and stick with it if you want a
challenge if not have fun with ME.
Jeremy
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> "WorLord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Taken from the obscure and questionable writings of "Kelsey Bjarnason"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >
> > >Odd; I installed it just the other day - or tried to. It wouldn't even
> > >recogniz that the drives _existed_, never mind supporting them.
> > >UltraDMA-100. Doesn't understand it at all, apparently. 'Course.
> throwing
> > >them onto the IDE bus let it find them - but so much for the UDMA
> support.
> >
> > Tell me something, do you try to install Intel software onto an IMAC?
> >
> > No?
> >
> > Then why are you trying to install an OS that *clearly states* that
> > UDMA-100 is *not* supported onto a computer that has a UDMA-100
> > controller?
>
> Hey, this is *Linux* - the be-all and end-all of OSen, right? Hint: WinME -
> which was released _before_ this particular distro of Linux, if I'm not
> mistaken - at least recognized the drives, installed on them, booted from
> them, and once I'd installed the drivers for the UDMA controller (included
> with the system, BTW) voila - UDMA100 support.
>
> Compare that to Mandrake. Can't even _install_ it, it won't recognize the
> drives, even as IDE. Yup, modern, advanced, powerful... but won't even
> install. Love it.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:22:51 GMT
On 13 Dec 2000 20:04:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>Redhat!=linux
Fortunately.
Swango
>
>
>
>-----.
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:14:00 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>> And that somehow makes the use of hjkl for cursor movement intuitive?
>>>>> It is neither intuitive nor non-intuitive, since the term is so
>>>>> relative that you've have to spend a long time detailing all the
>>>>> user's previous circumstances before you can make a statement
>>>>> either way on it.
>>>> How many users have previous editor experience where the cursor is
>>>> controlled by the hjkl keys?
>> Note: no response.
> I don't have the timne to repeat the same fucking thing over and over.
But you do have the time to repeat the same erroneous argument over and
over. Interesting.
> You play a game where he with the most free time wins the debate
Balderdash. You're erroneously presupposing that I'm playing a game.
> (just keep denying what the opponent says, and keep repeating the same
> questions until the other guy quits.)
Is that what you're trying to do?
>> Why make an irrelevant point? If you'd been paying attention, you'd
>> already know that I've said that intuition is not an absolute.
> Yes, *And* you have made statements like "hjkl is not intuitive",
> which CANNOT be made bare like that if intuitiveness is not absolute.
I have *not* made any statement like "hjkl is not intuitive".
> You aren't being consistent.
You aren't comprehending what I've written. No surprise there, as
you've also failed to comprehend what Aaron wrote.
>> I disagree. Just because it isn't an absolute doesn't necessarily
>> make it "vague and slippery".
>>> Unless you feel like getting pendantic enough to list zillions of
>>> criteria, the term won't mean anything.
>> Funny how so many people make valid use of it without listing zillions
>> of criteria.
Note: no response.
>>> (This is not the same as what Aaron was saying, that nothing can be
>>> intuitive.
>> That's not what he said. He said that nothing about computers is
>> intuitive. He distinctly called a wagon intuitive. It's now quite
>> clear where the problem is: you don't pay attention to what you
>> read.
> Why assume reading comprehension problems?
Because there is a difference between what people have written and
what you have claimed they have written.
> The problem in this case was typing too quickly. I left off the
> phrase "about computers" accidentally.
How convenient.
> Lay off the double-standard.
What alleged double standard?
> You constantly use shorthand and leave off the qualifiers when
> you discuss intuitiveness.
I rely on context. Quite a different thing.
>>> Things can be intuitive, but in a way that is not nearly
>>> as universally applicable as the user interface designers trick
>>> themselves into thinking.
>> Who said anything about "universally applicable"?
> You, every time you make a statement about intuitiveness
> without qualifiers.
So, if I tell someone it's going to be windy tomorrow, you would
take that as a claim that it will be windy everywhere in the
Universe? Context, Steve.
> Now, if you weren't so fucking pendantic with everyone else,
> I'd be more willing to cut you some slack and not be pendantic
> with you.
You're presupposing that I've been pedantic.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:19:16 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Admitedly, those presumptions could have been wrong.
>> As well as your presumption that the Esc key is closer than the
>> cursor keys.
> A. Measure the distance from 'a' to escape. (left pinkie)
> B. Measure the distance from 'j' to left-arrow, or 'k' to up
> and down arrows, or 'l' to right arrow. (right-hand's three
> fingers that operate the arrows).
On whose keyboard? Yours? That's not available to me.
> Roughly, 2*A = B.
On whose keyboard? Yours? That's not available to me.
> Sure some keyboards differ a bit, but not enough to make A > B
On what basis do you make that claim?
> (the only exception I'm aware of being some laptop keyboard layouts).
Which disqualifies your statement.
> Unless B>A on your keyboard, stop making this absurd assertion.
You're erroneously presupposing an absurd assertion on my part,
Steve.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:17:06 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> For the same reason lots of other totally relative terms with no
>>> concrete meaning exist - we are emotional creatures, and have lots
>>> of vague words that have no place in a logical discussion.
>> So, you're arguing that anything that isn't an absolute has no place
>> in a logical discussion?
> There isn't a concrete cutoff line, since everything in natural
> languages is at least slightly relative. I put "intuitive" way
> out there as much more realative than words like "twist" or
> "stretch", which describe specific types of motion.
But not amounts of motion. Is 5 millimeters a stretch? Or does it
need to be 10? Maybe 20? Is 10 degrees of rotation a twist? Or
does it need to be 20? Maybe 30?
> Yes, I do see it as vague and fuzzy as words like "nice". This is
> the main point of the article Aaron was citing way back at the start
> of this - the word isn't as concrete as people have tricked themselves
> into thinking it is, and as such, things that have been labelled as
> "intuitive" interfaces are much less so than we thought.
And that is supposed to make a power switch non-intuitive?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:26:56 GMT
Marty writes:
>>> David Ogg wrote:
>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>>> PS: Thanks for providing the new "seed" for another "logical debate".
>>> The old one was pretty-much spent.
>> More like a new "infantile game" of yours, Marty.
> Or more accurately, another opportunity for you to spew invective with
> impunity.
What alleged "invective", Marty?
>> But you don't need any seed for that.
> On the contrary, I do, given that I have no idea how to play this alleged
> "infantile game".
Illogical, given that you described your behavior that way.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:25:51 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>> David Ogg writes:
>>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>>>>>> Counting problems?
>>>>> See what I mean about his illogic?
>>>> What alleged illogic, Marty?
>>> Are you suggesting that a counting problem is an attribute indicative
>>> of being logical?
>> I wasn't suggesting anything, Marty; I was asking a question.
> Then why use the word "alleged"?
Because you alleged illogic on my part, Marty. I see that you still
haven't substantiated your claim.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:24:47 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> I suggest you learn the definition of intuition. Knowing how to
>> brush your teeth in the morning because you've been doing it for
>> years doesn't mean it's now intuitive.
> I suggest you pay attention to what we are saying.
How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't been paying attention
to what others have been saying. You did, after all, accuse Aaron
of having claimed that nothing is intuitive.
> We aren't talking about someone repeating the *same* command, but
> someone coming up with a NEW command that is built by putting
> together previously known information - as with this d/foo
> example. It could be intuitive to someone who had NEVER done
> it before but HAD done other d-something commands, and had
> done other /something searches.
Ah, so something about a computer could be intuitive, contrary to
Aaron's claim. Gee, sounds like you just agreed with me. Yet for
some peculiar reason, you are spending all this time arguing with
me rather than Aaron. Most interesting.
>> I learned to use Alt-C to mark a block column; vi doesn't let me
>> re-use that. I learned to use Alt-W to write a buffer to disk;
>> vi doesn't let me re-use that. I learned to use Alt-X to exit
>> the editor; vi doesn't let me re-use that. I learned to use the
>> Home key to go to the top of the screen; vi doesn't let me re-use
>> that. Need I go on?
> No, it's already clear you like taking statements out of context.
Which statement did I allegedly take out of context, Steve? No,
it's already clear you like pontificating.
> It was blatantly obvious he meant that Vi lets you use stuff you
> learned *about Vi* in new ways.
It's also blatantly obvious that the issue was not internal consistency,
which is what you are describing here.
>>>> I see you missed my point.
>>> I did as well.
>> Glad you agree.
> It's easy to miss points that are unstated, or not there.
It's easy to miss points that are not comprehended.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:36:11 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:32:06 GMT,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/15416.html
> >
> >--
> >---
> >Pete
> >
> >
>
> Appearently true. Seems they said the 2.2 kernels didn't
> have the CPU make in the table and that was the only issue.
> They didn't say the kernel couldn't run the P4 as the P4
> will run code written to work on a 386.
>
> Still, the point is mute seeing how Intel has recalled
^^^^
moot
> the CPU.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:37:30 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > mitch wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:47:40 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Better operating systems != Better applications.
> > > >
> > > >This is patently false. A non-multithreading OS will not support a
> > > >multithreaded application.
> > > >An OS which does not support virtual memory will not allow an application to
> > > >allocate things which are bigger than RAM.
> > > >Better operating systems make better software easier to write.
> > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hehe. Multithreading and Virtual memory does not instrinsically endow
> > > a poor application with greatness. The lack of these properties of
> > > the OS, if the application is used productively and without problems,
> > > is irrelevant.
> >
> > Of course not.
> >
> > But LACK Of multithreading and virtual memory DEFINITELY hinder
> > the capabilities of any programmer and what tasks can be accomplished,
> > and how much effort and complication is needed to get sophisticated
> > tasks to work properly....leading to more bugs...
> >
> > Or are you now going to try to tell us that you can run multi-threaded
> > applications on an OS that doesn't support multithreading...
>
> Well, in fact you can. It is just not easy. The classic setjmp,longjmp
> and stack manipulation are old favorites of DOS. It is very doable, I
> have even written my own system (12 years ago?). I still prefer threads
> which are part of the OS.
translation: kluges.
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
