Linux-Advocacy Digest #913, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (glitch)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (glitch)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (*)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (*)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is awful (almost as bad as M$-Windows) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use malloc? (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("John W. Stevens")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:10:53 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Tom Wilson writes:
>
> > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> I've adjusted my statement, to, "Okay, it does require a puny
> >>>>>>>> amount of movment of the arm to get the pinkie up to the esc key,
> >>>>>>>> but it's so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my consious
> >>>>>>>> thought, and it doesn't fucking matter, since it it's merely a
> >>>>>>>> 'stretch' motion, which doesn't make you lose your place, like a
> >>>>>>>> 'swing' motion does.
>
> >>>>>>> I'll adjust my statement as well: "Okay, it does require a puny
> >>>>>>> amount of movement of the arm to get the pinkie down to the cursor
> >>>>>>> keys, but it's so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my
> >>>>>>> conscious thought, and it doesn't matter, since it it's merely a
> >>>>>>> 'stretch' motion, which doesn't make you lose your place, like a
> >>>>>>> 'swing' motion does.
>
> >>>>>> You enjoy this game of replacing what I say fill-in-the-blank style,
>
> >>>>> Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. I'm simply noting that whatever
> >>>>> you can say about Esc can be applied equally well to the cursor keys.
>
> >>>>>> but the difference is that what I said was actually true.
>
> >>>>> What I said is also actually true. Where is the alleged difference?
>
> >>>> Tholen...
> >>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> >>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> >>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
> >>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
>
> >> Tholen...
> >>
> >> When you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> >> remember to slit lengthwise.
> >>
> >> Or maybe you can offer yourself to one of the local Hawaiian volcano gods.
>
> > I think the point of that exercise is to appease the volcano, and not to
> > piss it off royally.
>
> Yet another person more interested in invectice than a logical argument.
> No surprise there.
You just just don't fucking get it, do you Tholen.
You're a premier-grade moron. A complete knee-biter.
How's that book of yours coming along...
"How I turned $10,000,000 in real estate into $100 cold cash"
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:12:09 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Tom Wilson writes:
>
> > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> Tholen...
> >> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> >> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> > .....Along the femoral artery. It's quicker that way.
>
> Desperate for attention, eh Tom?
Goddamn, Tholen... somebody offers you clever and helpful advice,
and you insult him in return.
What a fucking ingrate you are.
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:04:46 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of the
> devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
What the heck are you trying to say?!
And are you trying to say: perpetuity, as in, forever?
The only USB devices that support perpetual enumeration, are those that
implement the entirely-optional-so-no-manufacturer-did-it object ID
stuff.
> You plug in a USB device, great. Can Linux identify it, yes. Can it
> support it? No. Can it support it through a simple, modular HID layer
> change? NO. Can it support it without recompiling the kernel? Probably
> not.
Wrong on all counts.
And all the rest of the snipped stuff was wrong too.
Ok, I'm satisfied . . . this guy doesn't have anything valid to say.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:20:06 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Unreal is available natively for Linux and I believe HalfLife is too
but not sure
Others can be found at lokigames.com , they have at least 4 games im
going to get.
muppet wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiousity, what games do you play?
>
> In the interests of starting a discussion:
> Half-life opfor, Unreal Tournament and Creatures2 at the moment
>
> Those and "get DVDs working on my Linux box", which is more of an adventure
> game with clues scattered around the place, with the end result probably
> being a slightly disappointing final scene.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:22:52 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91e2jc$2i7u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Any box with 256 processors is not going to have a "single point of
> failure". You think the designers of the behemoths only put in 1 disk
> drive, 1 power supply, 1 network card, or 1 of anything? Every component
in
> these boxes has redundency. The redundant components have reduncency
within
> them. There is no single piece of hardware that when fails brings the
whole
> box down. It's called engineering.
Except for acts of god. ie. Airplane crashes into data center, earthquake,
Power loss (most places only have a single power vendor, thus if that vendor
has a major problem, they lose all power.), Tornado, Hurricane, Alien Attack
;)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:27:55 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Chris Osborn wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Name the THING you can do with Windows you
> >CAN NOT do with Linux.
>
> Why I need Windoze:
> Run my Adobe apps:
> Illustrator
> PhotoShop
> ImageReady
> Dimensions
>
I've recently, within the past 3 days, noticed The Gimp is a great
replacement for Photoshop. It may not have ALL the filters that PS has
and it doesn't have the Kai plugins but it has the same features as PS
has it seems. I'm going to use it on my laptop to edit pictures so i
dont have to install PS.
And isnt Adobe making Illustrator for Linux? i think its in Beta now but
i could be wrong
> So I can use my nifty hardware:
> Logitech PageScan Color Pro
> IBM DFP T55D with Matrox Millennium G200
> Matrox Rainbow Runner
> Microsoft Cordless Phone
>
> Why I use OPENSTEP:
> Better GUI
> Application development
> Stuart
> Mynah
> Fixx'm
> Webster's
>
> --
> Chris Osborn Full System, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2160 Jefferson St., #240
> http://www.fullsystem.com/ Napa, CA 94559
> Webhosting that *works* - 99.99% uptime - First 3 months free
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:15:18 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Swango
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:20:20 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one.
>
> Unsubstantiated assertion. I've had Linux running on a 386 with 4 MB.
> (Granted, that's a bit extreme.) Now *that's* sluggard -- but then,
> 386's aren't exactly the fastest machines out there, anymore.
>
> I've seen a dual Pentium 133 at Weird Stuff (I have a PP200).
> Maybe it's time for me to upgrade? :-)
I'm (mostly) running Debian 2.2 stable, on a dual PIII-500MHz processor
box that has three identical fast/wide SCSI drives installed in it. The
kernel is 2.2.17, patched to use the new RAID code. I set up five
partitions to use RAID-5, two to use RAID-0.
Software RAID ROCKS! RAID-5 is fast, RAID-0 just SCREAMS.
I have a 100 MBps home network, with the main machine acting as a
gateway, firewall and NAT, where one of the satellite machines is
running diskless.
I'm doing so many things that Windows couldn't do, that it would be like
cutting off both arms to have to squeeze back down and use just the toys
that come with Windows.
Yes, it is time to upgrade.
> >Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> >time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> >USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> >seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> >kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> >memory.
>
> My printer works fine -- it's a LaserJet 5L, driven by a
> Ghostscript filter that RedHat 6.0 nicely set up for me.
> I don't have a scanner or a USB camera (I don't have USB),
> so can't comment on these. I am tempted, though.
Standard USB devices work fine. As always, of course, check the
hardware compatibility lists before buying.
If you are transitioning from Windows to Linux . . . well, you bought
Windows hardware, why are you surprised if it doesn't work with Linux?
I experience the same kinds of problems whenever I try to install
Windows on Linux hardware . . .
> As for CDRW -- don't have one of those either;
I have a SCSI CDRW. It burns at 4X, and it works like a charm. Nary an
error, bug or problem. Only one coaster in the last 124 burns (due to a
bug in the *OLD* RAID code that triggered a SCSI bus reset, which
allowed the buffer to run dry).
> "They" who? Linux isn't owned by a corporation. I'm not even sure
> if it's owned by Linus -- although I think he has copyright, now.
> (He had to fight for it, though.)
No, he owns the trademark.
The Linux kernel is GPL'ed . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:26:48 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> It's easier to run than Windows . . . I've got a seven year old who runs
> Linux.
but what does your seven year old run on linux exactly?
or is staring at a bash prompt all the enjoyment you'll allow your child?
poor bastard.. -kK
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:31:23 -0600
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is a *LOT* of hardware that Windows does not support.
Some, sure.. but not what i'd call a lot.
> A Windows 98 install I just tried, totally and completely failed because
> Windows did not support the standard hardware installed in the box . . .
> hardware that Linux had been running on absolutely rock solid, 24/7, for
> more than three years.
Really? Hmm..
> Hint: do *NOT* try to install Windows on a system that has only SCSI
> disk drives!!! For some reason, this causes Windows to be violently
> ill. Put an IDE drive in, and things get better, but beware of the TGUI
> 9440 cards, as Windows will simply barf all over 'em . . . and watch out
> for GoldStar CD-ROM drives . . . the standard Windows drivers will hang
> one in 30 times when attempting to access the drive when a CDR is in it.
I've installed windows on all SCSI systems. As long as the SCSI bios is set
to the proper INT 13 setting it's not a problem.
Trident cards have always been pretty well support. You probably need to
download an updated driver from them though.
Your problem with the Goldstar drive is probably a problem with the drive
itself. Many drives don't like certain brands of CDR. There is nothing in
the windows driver that could make the CD-ROM hang on a CDR but not on a
regular CD.
> Also, do *NOT* let Windows attempt to install the drivers from the
> floppy disk supplied with the 3COM 3c59x cards, unless you are
> *ABSOLUTELY* sure that the floppies are perfect . . . Windows will
> delete some critical DLL's *BEFORE* completing a successful install of
> those drivers, leaving you with a "complete reinstall" situation. And
> watch out for . . . oh, never mind. Nobody cares, anyway.
That's the install script provided by 3COM, not anything to do with Windows.
> Suffice it to say: wanna run Windows? Buy Windows compatible hardware.
I've used all the above hardware at one time or another without troubles.
It seems more like you're using marginal second hand hardware or didn't have
it setup correctly.
> And, no, don't ask me how to check data integrity under Windows . . .
> there don't seem to be any tools for this, unlike Linux . . . md5sums,
> and all that, do not seem to be standard tools on Windows boxen.
Check out SFC.exe. The system file checker.
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:29:39 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> > ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice?
>
> 139. (140, if you count a three year old who starts it, then types
> random stuff into it 'cause everybody else uses it, and three year olds
> are "monkey-see-monkey-do" creatures).
yeah. so name them.
and 'a three year old' and 'a seven year old' do not count as names.
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:16:10 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>>>>> So, to sum up:
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] Nothing is intuitive.
>>>> You need to consult a manual for everything???
>>> "Intuitive" doesn't mean "not needing to consult a manual".
>> You have a better definition that is simple to understand?
> How about the one in the manual? Erm, I mean, dictionary? :-)
Apparently the definition wasn't intuitive to you.
How were those definitions better and simpler to understand?
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:25:30 -0700
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh, absolutely, from a maintenance point of view, spaghetti code is a
> nightmare. However, if a display system does everything it's supposed to
> do,
If it's spaghetti, it won't.
> and reasonably speedily and stably,
If it's spaghetti, it won't.
> then whether the code underneath is
> spaghetti or a marvel of modern engineering practice is *absolutely
> irrelevant* to the statement he made, to wit:
Nope. Quality of code effects quality of service. The two are
unavoidably linked.
> The fact that the code may be spaghetti does *not* mean that the
> functionality it provides cannot be "decent, professional" and offer control
> over it;
Actually, it means just that.
"Maintenance begins the *SECOND* *TIME* you edit a file. If the way in
which you design and write code obfuscates the meaning, or makes
maintenance difficult, then the overall quality of your code will be
low, and over time, the overall quality of your code will invariably
degrade."
This is a beginner level software engineering quote.
Or, in short, maintenance begins about one day after *CREATION* begins.
> it simply means that you can't maintain the code which already
> provides this decent, professional and controllable system.
The system won't BE decent, professional and controllable if it's
spaghetti.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 (almost as bad as M$-Windows)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:35:18 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> You are attributing to malice, that which can adequately be explained by
> other means.
>
> OEM's are in the business of making money, and any way they can shave a
> penny or two off they'll jump on it. Since the windows-only hardware is
> cheaper that's why they use it. This is not some mandate from MS.
>
> Why is the windows-only hardware cheaper? Say it costs $40 to make a
> regular modem, and it typically sells for $100. That's $60 in profit that
> people make along the way. Now, suppose you can offload some of the
> complexity of that modem to software, so that now it costs $10 to make the
> modem. Well, you still need to provide the functionality which you shaved
> off, but by doing it in software, it has a fixed cost to develop and then it
> costs pennies to "manufacture" that $30 of savings on the hardware by
> duplicating CD's.
>
> > But, if they were built to standards, they would still be useful till they
> > wore out. Is this Micro$oft's plan.
> >
> > Planed obsolescence??
>
> This is a byproduct of the intense competition in the PC industry. Not
> because MS mandates it.
It is, however, made practical by the ubiquity of Windozzzzzzzzzzzz on
consumer desktop computers. (Not that that's Macrosoft's fault, mind you.
They're just happy to see another set of equipment that requires Microsoft
software.)
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:24:05 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> 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.
>> On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard. If yours is
>> different, then say it or shut up.
> As I understand it, Tholen uses a laptop, whose keys are
> quite differently laid out. I don't know which laptop.
I use a variety of computers, including laptops and desktops,
PCs and UNIX boxes. Most of the keyboards are quite different,
including tactile feel. Sun should get their keyboards from
Lexmark (formerly a part of IBM).
> This is neither good nor bad; it just means that assumptions
> based on the standard 104-key layout are just that -- assumptions.
Steve's assumptions. I know about my own keyboards.
> It also means that Tholen's assumptions, of course, based
> on HIS keyboard, may not relate too well to those of us
> not using a laptop.
I don't need to make any assumptions about my keyboards.
> To resolve this whole argument -- if that's possible :-) -- one
> might do some form of comparative testing, using both Vi and Brief.
> Take a document and do some edits on it -- the same document,
> the same edits -- using someone reasonably competent in
> Vi, and someone reasonably competent in Brief, both individuals
> having similar words per minute scores -- and of course using
> identical equipment.
Similar word per minute scores isn't enough. The act of looking
up the corrections that need to be made can be a major factor.
The fewer looks, the faster that person will be. Think of it as
the size of the personal memory buffer.
> Then do the same test, using rank newbies armed with cheat sheets.
>
> It's quite obvious that Vi's layout is somewhat arcane, but it's
> not obvious whether performance -- the number of words typed and/or
> the number of corrections -- suffers thereby. But it does
> have a learning curve.
If you would like to arrange such a test, be my guest. It would be
interesting. Interesting enough for somebody to write a thesis on
it? Maybe not.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:24:59 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> [snip]
>>> Tholen...
>>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>> Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>> is, remember to come back here and apologize.
> Is it me, or is there some sort of repeating pattern here? :-)
I gather from your emoticon that you already know the answer. So why
bother to ask the question?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 15 Dec 2000 14:58:05 -0700
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This indicates that malloc does not zero out the memory block being
> > allocated for use while calloc does. Is this correct? Also, calloc
> > has the advantage of being able to allocate as many blocks as required
> > while malloc is limited to one block per call.
>
> malloc() is faster than calloc()
>
> Avoid both like the plauge as much as possible, because they are slow
> (and the only reason to code in C anymore is for raw speed).
So what other options exist in C for allocating memory dynamically? I
thought [mc]alloc and free were the only tools to manage memory during
program execution.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:36:39 -0700
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> Curtis has posted it. BTW keyword Titanic in your search or Stephen Edward,
> Matt (sfcybear) or my name would also probably yield results.
>
> > -- Bob Day
And, from Deja:
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 13:06:41 -0700, Matt Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
[snip]
It seems that Matt *still* hasn't cottoned onto a few basic "features"
of that entire debate:
1. Neither Stephen nor myself _ever_ questioned the fact that Linux
made a significant
contribution to the creation of Titanic.
2. The DD article proves our point. The question was not _how_
useful but merely the fact
that it was useful _at all_.
In summary, both NT and Linux were used to create Titanic.
It seems the story has been well twisted by both sides . . . they did
not have to "augment" the render farm with NT because of any intrinsic
failing in Linux, or because Linux was not "up to the task", but simply
because there was so much work to be done that using every processor
helped.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:34:20 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> Repeating it is pointless.
>>>> Especially without any supporting evidence.
>>> Go into any fucking computer store and right before your eyes
>>> will be anywhwere from 5 to 15 examples right on display.
>> Why bother when I already have a keyboard in front of me?
> Yeah - why bother - that might actually prove you wrong,
It doesn't.
> and you wouldn't want that, now would you.
Irrelevant, given that it can't prove me wrong, because it
proves me right.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
