Linux-Advocacy Digest #375, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(Steve Mading)
Re: Why use malloc? (Steve Mading)
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Steve Mading)
Re: KDE Hell (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ultimad (Rotes Sapiens)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: One difficult way to sort of achieve it. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: KDE Hell ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Bob Eager)
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Jay O'Connor)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:47:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote
: on 9 Jan 2001 20:58:53 GMT
: <93fu2d$ib4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>: Yup. At least until it gets a Linuxal Basic that is better than Visual
:>: Basic.
:>
:>That's already happened.
:>
: Just out of curiosity -- where?
I was being somewhat sarcastic. ANY basic is "better than Visual Basic".
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use malloc?
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:45:18 GMT
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> How often are you in a situation where you are using calloc to make
:> an array with a *constant* literal number in the code? Think about
: Almost always. The size of a single item doesn't change too often.
Oh, yeah - that's right (I forgot originally that sizeof() isn't really
a function call, and therefore can be a constant as far as the optomizer
is concerned.)
Still, I wouldn't make my malloc/calloc decisions based on something
that trivial unless speed was that vital to the task at hand. The
amount of work the OS itself is going to have to do to allocate the
chunk of memory will dwarf the effect of this one single multiplication
optimization.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:48:55 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <93ft3r$qeo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Martigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>: It's like cars these days, not many people can change their own oil,
:>: hell some can't even pump gas. They don't care how it works, just that it
:>: does. So in that aspect. Microsoft "whistler"(sp?) is the next vision of
:>: Mr. Gates.
:>
:>"Some people can't even pump gas"??? In the '50s I'd believe that,
:>when full-service gas stations existed. Today everything is self-serve.
:>Anyone who can't pump their own gas is someone who can't get gas at all.
: It is illegal in New Jersey.
Specify, what is it that is illegal?
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 16:52:35 -0700
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SMP under Linux levels off after four processors, similar to FreeBSD.
FreeBSD can't even MIGRATE PROCESSES (much less, kernel functions).
It's not in the same class as Linux or Windows NT for that matter.
> Real SMP support is found under Commercial UNIX's, and Windows NT.
How is Windows NT/2000 better than Linux 2.4.0?
Caveots:
1) FreeBSD is a great platform, don't get me wrong -- I just wouldn't
use it for SMP performance; I'd use it for other (network) performance
bennies.
2) Yes, Solaris, Irix, AIX (etc.) kick both Linux and Windows NT out
the door with massivly MP machines.
3) You can run Linux on 32 processor mahcines *right now* -- Windows
2000 can't outside of Redmond.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: 10 Jan 2001 16:32:54 -0700
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
Although I agree with this (and I think Ballmer does too), Microsoft
would never admit this without an ulterior motive. In this case, it's
to provide more ammunition in the DOJ case that Microsoft is not a
monopoly.
--
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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:56:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In <93fru4$qeo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/09/2001
: at 08:22 PM, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
:>The design of a protocol *is* part of software design.
: No, there were protocols before there were computers.
That's a false equivocation fallacy. The word "protocol" has
several seperate meanings, and it should have been obvious
from context that I was not referring to the type of protocols
you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:07:26 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "." wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > I regularly eat for lunch yuppies driving Boxsters heading to the
>> > Hampton's to hob knob with the movie stars.
>
> haha. you sure showed them. yuppies think too much!
Don't forget the old joke. What's the difference between yuppies and pigeons?
Pigeons can still afford to put a deposit on a porsche. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:03:28 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:07:48 GMT, "adam"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>if you are THAT upset about driving stick shift don't drive a sportscar...
> I drive a 1996 Chevy Impala SS fully modified putting out somewhere in
> the neighborhood of 400HP.
>
> Would you like to race sometime?
>
> I regularly eat for lunch yuppies driving Boxsters heading to the
> Hampton's to hob knob with the movie stars. It's actually quite funny
> watching them try and swear in German. I have to wonder how many of
> them are running Linux? But then again, the majority of them are
> investment bankers(if they are not movie stars) and in that world it
> is all Windows or real Unix. Linux need not apply.
>
>>stick around though, im sure a distro will come along in the future that
>>will suite your lazy needs. mandrake may not be the easiest for a
>>windows/mac monkey like yourself, but its a huge piece of cake compared to
>>other distros..
>
> Unlike you, I prefer end results and not the method used to attain
> them. To use your automobile analogy, I am halfway down the 1/4 mile
> before the idiot in the Boxster has figured out where first gear is.
>
> It's all about ease of use and applications and Linux has neither.
Don't fret child, maturity will surely come one day.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:00:53 +0100
In article <Edu56.124308$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if you are THAT upset about driving stick shift don't drive a sportscar...
>
> stick around though, im sure a distro will come along in the future that
> will suite your lazy needs. mandrake may not be the easiest for a
> windows/mac monkey like yourself, but its a huge piece of cake compared to
> other distros..
>
> you dumb!
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<huge snip>
I challenge him to try storm linux (debian based). I'm sure even apt
is beyond his abilities but stormpkg is a nice clickity click interface
to apt. He just has to point his browser at www.stormix.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rotes Sapiens)
Subject: ultimad
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:01:44 GMT
Can anyone tell me what the ultimad program does? It seems to use
port 1737.
Sig:
I thunk, therefore I am.
Descomputers.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:06:30 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> Then why do you keep telling me that my problem with XEDIT is
> that I haven't read the 3270 manual??
>
> Hmmmmmmmm?
>
I never did. If you think I said this then please provide a link to the post.
>
> > Second, the 3270 manual is not non-existant.
>
> It's been non-existant at every facility where I've used 3270's...
Just because you didn't have a copy on your desk does not mean that it didn't
exist.
>
>
> > I provided a link to the
> > manual and you can even get it in hardcopy form if you want.
>
> Since this is the year 2001, And this helps me in 1983 how, exactly?
Because you do not need a copy of the 3270 manual to use xedit and you did not
back in 1983. You need a copy of the 3270 manual to have an intelligent
discussion about the design of xedit. I have told you this repeatedly but you
just ignore my posts.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:09:48 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Considering that until Hallock posted a URL for the XEDIT manual,
> I had never even SEEN any XEDIT documentation....NO, it's not
> odd at all.
>
> Or are you now going to argue that I should be in telephathic
> contact with IBM programmers.
And that is why you have no clue how to use xedit. You know, even if you
did not have access to the xedit manual, you could have typed from the
CMS command line:
help xedit
or from the xedit command line:
help
But you would rather just suffer and complain.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:15:34 +0200
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ikon$2co$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Conrad,
>
> > > Is that why Linux is the reigning specweb champ?
> > > It seems the windoze zealots all want to live in the
> > > past, and keep reassuring themselves with tales
> > > of the old discredited mindcraft benchmarks.
> >
> > mind you, that's without a journaling file system which slows linux down
> to
> > lower than ntfs speed.
> >
> > AND, mind you again, it's a non-production benchmark-busting-limited
> > funcionality kernel mode httpd. It was tuned to beat benchmarks, no one
is
> > using it in production (show me the netcraft URL of someone who is?) As
> > opposed to the off the shelf IIS platform which came within 2.7% of the
> > "champ"'s performance. If you think 2.7% is a whooping win - I guess we
> know
> > you are satisified with small things.
>
> LOL. It was using a beta 2.4 kernel. And Microsoft knows its arse has been
> whiped according to this ZDNet article:
>
>
http://cma.zdnet.com/texis/cma/cma/+XG9egzV0xzmwwwxqFqr+__6W96mzmwwwwnzmwwww
> pFqrp1xmwBnLFqnhw5B/display.html
>
> ---Begin Quote---
> There's some sincere flattery of Linux going on at Microsoft these days.
As
> we wrote in these pages in August, a prototype version of Tux, Red Hat's
> kernel-level Web server and cache, blew away all other contenders in
> SPECweb99 Web benchmark tests, including Microsoft's IIS (Internet
> Information Server) Web server, which ran at about 40 percent of Tux's
> speed-a huge difference.
>
> Microsoft took those results to heart. I was in Redmond last month for
> briefings and learned about the new architecture planned for IIS 6.0, the
> Web server that will ship in Whistler, the follow-on operating system to
> Windows 2000.
>
> Lo and behold, IIS 6.0 has been totally rede signed as a kernel-level Web
> server and cache. When I asked IIS 6.0 Program Manager Bill Staples if
these
> changes were in response to the SPECweb results, he said Microsoft was
aware
> of the Linux numbers and was hoping to do better in the future. Given the
> effort that must be required to implement this major rearchitecture of IIS
> 6.0, that's got to be the understatement of the quarter.
>
> Red Hat started shipping Tux earlier this quarter with a prerelease
version
> of the Linux 2.4 kernel, which Tux requires. Red Hat is supporting this
> early build of the kernel for use with Tux.-Timothy Dyck
>
> ---End Quote---
>
> You are going to have to PAY FOR A WHOLE NEW OPERATING SYSTEM (that is in
> beta) to even be able to approach Linux's new performance. Respond to
that!
Have you even seen the 4Q results of SPECWeb99 ?
Tux just barely got the higher score, and it's a web server *no one* use.
IIS got just behind Tux, and it's a commonly used webserver.
Production server vs. benchmarking only server, what do you think is more
impressive?
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One difficult way to sort of achieve it.
Date: 10 Jan 2001 17:12:34 -0700
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Huh? If you've got the windows CD, just boot off it.
> >
> >Oops! What happens if you have no CD either?
>
> I guess one way some longtime NT user could do it
> would be to make ms lanmanager floppy disks and
> install these on the blank machine to connect to the
> network - would probably only work on a machine
> with old ne2000 isa netcard though (MS lanman
> client used to be on NT4 install cd - at least on the
> msdn versions I have seen).
>
> Of course this is only suitable for installing over a LAN
> and doesn't count as Internet install ability.
>
> Another way would be to install Arachne DOS internet
> browser (www.arachne.cz) and connect to the net over
> a dos tcpip stack and download the whole CD contents
> to the local drive before starting install (dos ftp clients
> may also be available). Still not true internet install though.
So, basically, it's pretty much impossible to install Windows (any
version) over a network; much less from an FTP or HTTP server.
Net Ghost works great, but it isn't really installing.
(not to even mention applications!)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: 10 Jan 2001 17:13:49 -0700
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
The Halloween docs said this years ago:
http://opensource.org/halloween/
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:26:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <93ipoc$q7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 10 Jan 2001 21:28:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Call up 10 fortune 100 companies and ask whoever answers the phone if
>>>>they know where Guam is.
>>
>>> You have so little faith in humanity.
>>
>> I did tech support for a long time, years ago. I know *exactly* how
>> much faith to have in humanity.
> Let me guess, all those people who needed help were just too much for you,
> so you went clammoring back to a world without humans.
No, I learned enough about computers to get a job that pays something
other than peanuts.
>>
>>>>I dont expect you to get the point, claire, so dont even attempt to
>>>>wrap your pygmie brain around it. It was meant for everyone else.
>>
>>> The point is that there are virtually no companies running Linux on the
>>> desktop or on their mobile platforms. Virtually none.
>>
>> I wasnt addressing you with this point, I thought id made that clear.
> Oh yes, because the staff at ABCNews really likes to fiddle with their
> laptops and download themes for sawmill/fish/whatever the hell they're
> calling it TODAY.
This has nothing to do with the point.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:27:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He has NO faith in humanity, because he doesn't get to deal with it on a
> routine basis.
Actually I do, and professionally. Only instead of dealing with
customers, I deal with sales and marketing people.
Theyre worse.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:22:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Look at the difference between TCP/IP and SNA.
: SNA definitions take a minimum of 3 files, at about 45 lines each on any
: machine that runs SNA, plus one additional file FOR EVERY OTHER SNA HOST
: stored ON EACH MACHINE.
: Fucking nightmare.
: Conversely, tcp/ip requires the host to assign itself an
: address, and a short routing table
To be fair, this is mostly because TCP/IP was made with knowlege
of ethernet, and SNA was older than that. The smarter routing
of TCP/IP is because of this. This still doesn't excuse the
fact that SNA's file transfer techniques are hell, but that
might actually be because of IBM's record-ized file view
of the world instead of UNIX's all-files-are-arrays-of-bytes
view of the world. I've had to savor the pain of talking to
a TCP/IP FTP server on an IBM mainframe, as part of a custom
system, and it was also hell because the FTP protocol was written
under the assumption that all files are just plain arrays of
bytes, perhaps with some mangling of the end-of-line characters
to make ascii convertions between systems, but that's it. This
assumption falls apart on an IBM mainframe with it's sheer living
hell of "memberdized" files and calling directories "libraries",
and having to define the record-oriented properties of a file,
and all that garbage. To get the damn ordinary ascii text file
to transfer to the host system on a nightly basis I had to
write a perl script that talked to their FTP server so that it
could do all the following:
- Zeroth - locally make an ebcdic version of the file with 'dd',
since the remote FTP server's ascii-ebcdic converter got
confused by differring line sizes, then pad out the file with
spaces so all 'records' are the same length.
- First, create an empty file on the remote IBM server, using
a non-standard FTP command (a "quote" command).
- Second, define the properties of that file as having so
many bytes per "record" (line), again a "quote" command.
- Third (this is the stoopid part), tell the remote system
that this new (still empty) file is allowed to grow to any
size. The default is to truncate the file at N records (I
don't remember the value of N, but it was sufficiently large
that I couldn't notice this problem during testing, it only came
up when the system went live and started using more than a few
hundred thousand records.) What Dain Bramaged system makes
file truncation at some arbitrary amount be the default
behaviour? Again, this was a special 'quote' command.
- Fourth - tell the remote system to *append* to the empty
file I defined above.
That was just to COPY a file up to the host. I had to do similar
hoop-jumping to rename the file also - I had to make a new file as
mentioned above and copy into it, becuase the rename command was
unimplememnted.
The script to do this, that is normally about 2000 lines of perl for
most customers, ended up being 7000 lines of perl to deal with an
IBM mainframe. For IBM mainframe hosts, we in the past had always
used a SNA toolkit installed on our Unix machine, but this time the
client said, "oh hey look, we can use FTP now like everyone else..."
and I was the one with the hell of getting it to work. Those were
the most painful, time-consuming 5000 lines of code I've ever
written - the HELP command on the remote FTP server returned
false information about how commands worked, and the documentation
on paper for it assumed I was already an expert at IBM's made-up
terminology. I actually got to the point where I wrote a program to
randomly generate all possible 4-letter strings (all commands were
guaranteed to have a unique first 4 character abbreviation), and try
them one at a time, just so I could get a reliable list of which
commands were actually implemented.
: Not only that, but tcp/ip will re-route in the event of
: catastrophic outages (as in, 1/4 of the network was taken out
: by various nuclear explosions).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:23:01 +0200
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > SMP under Linux levels off after four processors, similar to FreeBSD.
>
> FreeBSD can't even MIGRATE PROCESSES (much less, kernel functions).
>
> It's not in the same class as Linux or Windows NT for that matter.
>
> > Real SMP support is found under Commercial UNIX's, and Windows NT.
>
> How is Windows NT/2000 better than Linux 2.4.0?
>
> Caveots:
>
> 1) FreeBSD is a great platform, don't get me wrong -- I just wouldn't
> use it for SMP performance; I'd use it for other (network) performance
> bennies.
>
> 2) Yes, Solaris, Irix, AIX (etc.) kick both Linux and Windows NT out
> the door with massivly MP machines.
>
> 3) You can run Linux on 32 processor mahcines *right now* -- Windows
> 2000 can't outside of Redmond.
http://www5.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/index.html
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/hardware/default.asp
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Eager)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:30:58 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:40:14, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "ed is the standard editor!"
And I hope you mean the original version....before they added wimpy
prompts and increased the number of error messages from the original
2, to 3!
Let's see....the messages were:
1. ?
2. TMP
and then later:
3. ??
--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325; PS/2s 8595*3, 9595*3 (2*P60 + P90), 8535, 8570, 9556*2,
8580*6,
8557*2, 8550, 9577, 8530, P70, PC/AT..
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay O'Connor)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:28:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:32:17 +0000, Jens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi
>
>If you are interested in participating in an
>exciting software project then please read on.
>Otherwise, please ignore this post.
>
>This is my vision of a living object system which
>I will
>try to explain below. I have tried various ways to
IOW you want to reimplement Smalltalk, which has been around doing
what you are talking about for a long time and is a heck of a lot more
powerful and easy to use for living object systems than C++
Take care,
Jay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jay O'Connor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.roadrunner.com/~joconnor
http://www.ezboard.com
"God himself plays on the bass strings first, when he tunes the soul"
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:30:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: So Baudot is a software standard? I doubt that you'd have gotten any
: telegraph operators to agree.
Telegraph operators don't send bytes. The word "protocol" has several
meanings, and the context I used it in made it damn obvious I was
talking about computer software protocols, not telegraph protocols,
or human-to-human protocols, or any other false equivocation
fallacy you care to invent. That's akin to me saying, "I'm running
this program", and you saying, "No you aren't, you are sitting in
a chair - you aren't running at all."
:>The fact that the 3270 *protocol standard* was designed to be
:>incapable of communicating spaces actually entered by the user when
:>those spaces appear at the end of a line of text is a bad *software*
:>standard.
: First, it is not a software standazrd, as noted above. Second, it is
: not "incapable of communicating spaces actually entered by the user
: when those spaces appear at the end of a line of text"; the problem is
: more subtle. Normally you are only aware of the problem when adding
: characters in the middle of the line; it takes a truly dunderheaded
: user to ever see it at the end of a line. Specifically, there is no
: Earthly reason to go into insert mode when you are adding data at the
: end of a line, and the issue only exists in insert mode.
It doesn't matter where in the line it happens. It's still a terrible
interface, and it's caused by the fact that the 3270 can't differentiate
between spaces typed by the user and spaces on the screen merely for
display.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 11 Jan 2001 00:37:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: XEDIT's default behavior is to facilitate generating punchcards...
: technology which was almost totally phased out nearly 20 years ago
: (exception: voting machines in Democrook-run counties).
So where are your statistics to back up that the obsolete machinery
occurs only in Democrat run counties? Or are you just spouting
made-up bullshit?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:07:26 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Linux is crash free compared to Windows 98 SE. However...
>
> KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
> Windows PC.
>
> Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
> sites I visit. Netscape works but has two weaknesses - dreadful fonts and
> poor file saving - it displays a MOTIF style save dialog that doesn't
> understand the concept of caching the last directory saved to.
>
> KDE konqueror works fine with NFS mounted drivers, but I've yet to find a
> free NFS server for Windows.
>
I found an NFS server for Windows98. I dont remember if it was free or
if I just used the trial verison but I never got it to work anyway. I
tried mounting a Suse CD in my desktop cdrom drive with the program
(from my laptop) and the CD never did mount. After I installed Linux on
my other desktop and turned on the NFS daemon and setup the exports file
the CD mounted the first time.
Even 3rd party software for Windows sucks.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
