Linux-Advocacy Digest #948, Volume #30 Sun, 17 Dec 00 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451894 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: Whistler review. (Andres Soolo)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux is awful (JoeX1029)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (LShaping)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[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: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:13:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some
>programs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> settings on computers.)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a
>major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in California.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical. It is quite possible that people will generally know
>what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do with a power switch without needing to consult a manual, but
>will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not generally know how much power is consumed in the on and off
>states.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider the AC adaptor for a modem, for example. The power switch
>is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the modem, not the AC adaptor.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logical. The behavior of the power switch changed from its
>traditional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role. People *think* it still works the way it did 10 years ago.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really? Your Curtis Mathes is older than that. You claim it kept
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the power on.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it was very unusual for its time.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Really? I had a clock-radio that when "off" kept the clock on. Very
>usual
> >>>>>>>>>>>> for its time.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its behavior isn't capable of being comprehended without logical
>thought.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And with logical thought, the average consumer will know how much
>power
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still being consumed by a unit even when the switch is in the off
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> position? That's not the issue here.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (See definition of intuitive).
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are still trying to make decisions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the traditional use of the power switch - power cord setup.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, sounds like your example involves a mislabeled
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> button. There is a difference between "video blank" and "power off".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've described the former. I've been talking about the latter.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, they concern the device that serves as a power switch these days.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> An "off" switch that leaves 10 amps of power running isn't much of an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> off switch.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The issue of all these devices still drawing power is keeping a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that systems outside of California were somehow
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to handle it?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Outside CA, NY, and MA, there have been more plants built. These
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plants are now selling some of their excess off peak power to CA. In
>the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past CA would sell power to Texas during the peak time in Texas and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas would sell to CA during the peak time there. Now the transfer
>is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all one way. To CA. But it is getting difficult for Texas utilities
>to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify building more plants just to have power to sell to CA. They
>have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to justify the need for plants based on need in Texas.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with being designed to handle the load.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is
>putting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like those Californians are going to have to do without their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 72-inch projection televisions. (Did your Curtis Mathes need 10
>amps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep its filament going?)
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get a lot of people killed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The power consumed by a device in the off state has absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the issue of whether the power switch itself
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is intuitive.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The switch marked "on" and "off" on my 1903A4 Springfield is a Power
> >>>>>>>>>>> Switch?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Show me your 1903A4 Springfield.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Next time you are in Arizona, give me a call.
>
> >>>>>>>> What's your number? I usually get to Arizona at least once a year. It's
> >>>>>>>> a big state, however. Don't expect me to look you up in Yuma.
>
> >>>>>>> Tucson/Pheonix. E-mail me.
>
> >>>>>> Most trips are to Tucson. Somewhat fewer to Flagstaff, which usually
> >>>>>> involves arrival at Sky Harbor.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not all switches marked thus perform the same functions or
> >>>>>>>>>>> perform the same functions the same way!
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they do.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Looking at your post you definately said your concept of a power switch
> >>>>>>>>> has "One position is "on" and the other position is "off"."
>
> >>>>>>>> Yet you illogically turned that around and tried to make it sound like
> >>>>>>>> every switch with an "on" and an "off" must be a power switch.
>
> >>>>>>>>> So if that isn't your concept of a power switch, what is?
>
> >>>>>>>> Something that changes the state of the power applied to a device:
> >>>>>>>> power on, power off. That doesn't mean every switch with an "on"
> >>>>>>>> and an "off" is a power swtich. That's just plain illogical.
>
> >>>>>>> You said the intuitive concept of a power switch was a switch with one
> >>>>>>> position "on" and the other "off".
>
> >>>>>> I said my concept of a power switch is that one position is "on" and
> >>>>>> the other position is "off".
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> And why did you say it was your concept of a power switch?
>
> >>>>>>>> Because you asked me about my concept of a power switch.
>
> >>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> why won't my computer fire 30-06 rounds from the magazine when
> >>>>>>>>> the power switch is in the "on" position.
>
> >>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that your computer has a magazine
> >>>>>>>> from which it might be able to fire rounds.
>
> >>>>>>> No, I'm supposing my computer has a switch with one position marked "on"
> >>>>>>> and the other marked "off".
>
> >>>>>> Why did you mention a magazine from which rounds are fired?
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>> The '03A4 loads from a magazine when in the switch is in the "on"
> >>>>>>> position.
>
> >>>>>> Is it a power switch? If not, then it is irrelevant to the present
> >>>>>> discussion.
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>> Therefore it is intuitive that the computer would do the same.
>
> >>>>>> Illogical, given that the discussion is about power switches, not
> >>>>>> some other kind of switches.
>
> >>>>> Your definition of a power switch :
>
> >>>> On the contrary, you asked me for a concept of a power switch, not a
> >>>> definition.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>
> >>>>> Therefore, by your define both are power switches.
>
> >>>> Illogical. All pulsars are neutron stars. Does that mean all
> >>>> neutron stars are pulsars? No. Classic illogic on your part.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>> Want to change your definition?
>
> >>>> I didn't give you a definition. You asked for a concept. I gave
> >>>> you a concept.
> >>>>
> >>>> Want to change your accusation?
>
> >>> What is your intuitive concept of a power switch?
>
> >> I already answered that question. You erroneously declared my answer
> >> to be a definition.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> Care to try to duck the question again?
>
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I ducked it previously. From
> >> above:
> >>
> >> RL] OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
> >> ]
> >> DT] One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
> >>
> >> Your claim that I ducked it is rather ironic, considering all the
> >> statements of mine that you've ducked. For evidence, see above where
> >> I've written "Note: no response."
>
> > Until you give an intuitive definition of a power switch, nothing you
> > say or ask has any meaning whatsoever.
>
> Then why did you ask for a concept first, Russ?
>
> > Therefore, it gets no response.
>
> How convenient for you, Russ.
ME : OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power
switch?
>
YOU: One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
Care to define what "is" is? Or would you like to duck the question?
Are you interested in a real debate or just making yourself look like
... OK, I won't say it. If you decide to give either your intuitive
"concept" or "definition" of a power switch, we may continue.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
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: Kulkis digest, volume 2451894
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:14:22 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> As a sign of good faith to those of you who have complained, I will
> now implement the same corrective measure that I have implemented
> in the past for other similar offenders. Here is the inaugural
> Kulkis digest.
>
> 01> Tholen....
> 01> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 01> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 01> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 02> Tholen....
> 02> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 02> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 02> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 03> Tholen....
> 03> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 03> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 03> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 04> Tholen....
> 04> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 04> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 04> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 05> Tholen....
> 05> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 05> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 05> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 06> Tholen....
> 06> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 06> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 06> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 07> Tholen....
> 07> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 07> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 07> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 08> Tholen....
> 08> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 08> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 08> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 09> Tholen....
> 09> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 09> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 09> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 10> Tholen....
> 10> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 10> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 10> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 11> Tholen....
> 11> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 11> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 11> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 12> Tholen....
> 12> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 12> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 12> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 13> Tholen....
> 13> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 13> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 13> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 14> Tholen....
> 14> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 14> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 14> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> 15> Tholen....
> 15> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 15> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 15> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> Illogical Kulkis, given that you're the one spewing the invective,
> not me.
>
> 16> What Marty is saying is that, being the sub-standard in-duh-vidual
> 16> that you are, using you as an offering would be an insult to the gods.
>
> What I am saying is that your invective (and Marty's) gets you nowhere,
> Kulkis.
>
> 17> Tholen....
> 17> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 17> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 17> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> Illogical Kulkis, given that you're the one spewing the invective,
> not me.
>
> 18> Actually, Dave, I was quite serious.
>
> Your use of the past tense suggests that you're not serious anymore.
>
> 19> Tholen....
> 19> it's YOU who should be apologizing. Now remember Dave...
> 19> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
> 19> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
> Illogical Kulkis, given that you're the one spewing the invective,
> not me.
>
> 20> You just just don't fucking get it, do you Tholen.
>
> How ironic.
>
> 20> You're a premier-grade moron. A complete knee-biter.
>
> How ironic.
>
> 20> How's that book of yours coming along...
> 20> "How I turned $10,000,000 in real estate into $100 cold cash"
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition on your part.
>
> 21> Goddamn, Tholen... somebody offers you clever and helpful advice,
> 21> and you insult him in return.
>
> How ironic.
>
> 21> What a fucking ingrate you are.
>
> How ironic.
Tholen.
YOu, personally, are a pollutant in the gene pool of life.
Remember to slit lengthwise, oxygen thief.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:16:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
>
> Not a big enough market.
In other words, no one in their right mind would want to run NT on S/390.
But there are lots of people who want to run Linux on S/390. I wonder why?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 18 Dec 2000 00:18:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>It wouldn't if they'd done it the proper way, calling the OS an Unix.
>>> "AN Unix"? Is this a deliberate mistake?
>>You might say so. The idea was they should've given proper credit instead
>>of bragging about `their' new innovative ideas.
> I was referring to the grammar.
Sorry, that was a completely undeliberate mistake.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
We're all in this alone.
-- Lily Tomlin
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:21:56 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> Nearly two years ago I downloaded the same version that is STILL the only
> version available at Sun. That is two years of inactivity in my book. BTW
> that version sucks.
>
So. You have just given an example of how closed source is bad. The 5.x
version was closed source and is still closed source. On the other hand,
after only 2 months of the 6.x version being open source, there have been 3 new
updates which you can download. How, in your convoluted mind, does this
demonstrate the end of open source?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 18 Dec 2000 00:31:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
try /var/tmp there should be like "rpmimstalllog" or something like that
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:16:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>> Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>> I suppose the notion that maybe they get mad because you are lying
>> about them never occurred to you. Calling all left-wingers "socialists" is
>> like calling all right-wingers Fundamentalist wackos. It's taking an
>> attribute of the fringe of the group and attributing it to the whole.
>> Use "socialist" when you are talking about that fringe that actually is
>> socialst, don't use it the rest of the time.
>I have yet to meet a (post-1970's American) "liberal" who wasn't also
>a closet-commie.
I saw a quote attributed (probably) to Will Rogers, went something
like this.
"I can remember a time when a liberal was someone generous with his
own money"
LShaping
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:23:16 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:913snq$pvc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > As you can see from those cases, which are very far from describing
all
> > > > possible variations, you have a number of settings which should be
> > > > common to all users, and some which should not, depending on the way
the
> > > > system is used.
> > >
> > > Agreed, but defaulting to HKCU if you aren't sure about where this
setting
> > > should belong is never a bad idea, IMO.
> >
> > Well, I was partially wrong.
> > I tried to install LCC on my computer, to install, of course, I'd to
runas
> > admin, so I did.
> > It stuck critical program information in the HKCU of the admin, causing
the
> > program to fail when I tried to run it as another user.
> > My first thought was that it was another case of trying to write to
HKLM.
> > But it wasn't, since I couldn't find the key it was complaining about in
> > HKLM, I then tried to run it as admin, which worked flawlessly, then I
had
> > to run as regedit and search the admin's HKCU for lcc's node.
> > For some very strange reason, it shoved *all* the configurations in
HKCU.
> > That is *not* something that I see often.
> > I'd to export the admin's settings and import them as the user I'm
generally
> > using.
>
> It's possible that a bug in the program triggers a bug in the registry
> handling software.
No bug in the registry.
The program stored *essensial* information in HKCU, therfor, it crushed when
run under another user.
> Two basic software rules are to keep apart unrelated things, and to
> reuse existing mechanism as long as practical.
> This ensures you that a bug will not affect unrelated things (making
> debug very hard), and that you only need to debug the minimum amount of
> software. Registry violates both those rules because it keeps in a
> single structure settings concerning different programs and different
> users, and doesn't take advantage of the standard file system handling
> mechanism. It's just a Murphy's law case: if it may go wrong, it will.
Actually, the registry is built like a file system.
Or maybe it's the other way around, file systems are built like hierarchical
databases.
To give an example from *nix world, it would be like a program that stores
its settings in /home/foo
And crush when user bar try to run it, because the program settings cannot
be found on /home/bar
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:26:20 +0200
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91j8d6$8mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <91j657$bib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:91irk1$381$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > In theory, there should be no more than 497 days uptime reported
> for
> > those
> > > > systems. Nonetheless it does not stop Netcraft to post numbers
> > otherwise.
> > >
> > > Show me a HP-UX, Linux, or Solaris site on there that shows more
> than 497
> > > days uptime. There are some FreeBSD sites, but my guess is that
> they are
> > > the older releases. There is a Solaris box that shows 492 days
> uptime,
> > but
> > > that's less than 497. Be honest, you just assumed that they posted
> > uptimes
> > > over 497 days, didn't you. You didn't really check.
> >
> > I can show you NT sites that has > 49.7 days cycle.
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?display=&site=www.starbucks.com
>
>
> You might want to READ what you post! Starbucks is a W2K site AND the
> Starbucks netcraft page has a VERY clear statement about NT:
Win2K uses the same uptime scheme that NT uses, 100s of ms.
Therefor, it resets itself every 49.7 days
How did Netcraft listed starbucks' uptime, then?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:37:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:09:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:46:54 -0500,
>Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
>>
>>| >Linux was used on the Titanic but the render farm had to be augmented by
>>| >utilizing NT boxes after they had finished doing the design work.
>>| >The Linux render farm, as designed wasn't up to the task. If you
>>| >are looking for referrences to what I say, check out the TITANIC
>>| >thread in this group and COLA from about 20 months ago.
>>| >
>>|
>>| Just so the crowd doesn't think your full of shit,
>>| give us just one link to a web site which proves this.
>>|
>>| Just one.
>>
>>http://linux.nuvoli.to.it/varie/titanic/2494.html
>>
>>You'll see that Digital Unix, NT and Linux were all used.
>>
>>Both NT and Digital Unix were not selected for the final rendering
>>because of cost, not capability.
>>
>>Linux's kernel needed significant enhancing to made suitable for the
>>process, but this is what OSS is about .... having access to source
>>which I can't take away as a definite advantage to Linux. :=)
>>
>>Anyway, the point is that Linux helped in the making of Titanic. It
>>wasn't by any stretch of the imagination, exclusively used to create the
>>graphics in the Titanic. It proved to be the best choice for the final
>>rendering process but it wasn't used for actual design and creation of
>>Titanic graphics, that was a job for NT and Digital Unix machines.
>>
>>--
>>Curtis
>>
>>| ,__o
>>!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
>><(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
>>
>
>
>And this is the REAL truth, not some bullshit posting
>from a moron who's refering to a newsthread rumor.
>
>Linux is what run's hollywood these days and people
>who try Microsoft W2k to perform digital rendering
>and colorization of Movies fail every time.
>
>You NEED an operating system to perform these tasks.
>
>Windows is not an operating system.
Huh?
I thought the idea was that ALL THREE operating systems
were used in the production!
Windows NT is great for graphical front-end entry. I'm not sure
where Digital Unix falls in this stuff (it may have had an app
that helped).
And Linux works on the backend, chugging away.
The result: one of the most successful movies produced.
Nobody can deny this, but Linux didn't do it all.
As for Windows being an OS -- I'll refer you to another thread.
(One could quibble as to whether Windows = the Win32 API or not,
as well. It gets complicated -- but then, Windows is complicated.
A complicated mess.)
>
>Charlie
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random mess here
up 84 days, 6:49, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:39:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:16:27 GMT
[snip]
>The lack of an automounter? What for?
*cough* SMB *cough*
>
>NFS? There are several freeware NFS client/servers for NT, and several
>commercial ones for relatively little cost, so this argument seems
>wrong or unresearched. This isn't a valid argument.
>
>Symbolic links? NT supports hard links.
And soft links, in a wierd way. Probably not in a way useful
to programs, though.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random *cough* here
up 84 days, 6:53, running Linux.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
