Linux-Advocacy Digest #613, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:12 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:11:20
[...]
>IBM was almost bankrupted from an anti-trust trial for exactly what
>Microsoft IS being sued for. Apple does exactly was IBM used to do before
>they opened the liscense structure to the "clone" computers. IBM used to
>make the computer, the OS, and they got slammed for it (albeit improperly)
>from the government.
>
>Apple does the same thing, and yet, they don't sued. I guess it's an
>example of the government learning from dumb mistakes.
I'm sorry, Kyle, but if we're going to continue this discussion, you're
going to have to do some homework and get your facts straight. Its one
thing to have actually been around and learned what's going on; I might
not know the details, but there was plenty of context to make sure I
interpreted things correctly. You seem to have a rather... broken
knowledge of history. IBM was almost bankrupted from what???
IBM never 'got slammed' for making proprietary computers; everybody did,
at the time. It was the *way* they made (and mostly the way they sold)
their computers which got them in trouble. Apple has never had that
sort of trouble. One could say its because they've never done anything
anti-competitive. But I doubt you'd understand that. Perhaps after you
do some general research to learn what really happened with IBM and
Apple and Microsoft, you should take "the advanced course" and read some
of those very long detailed posts explaining all this to half a dozen
other people last year. They're available on deja.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:08 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:17:18
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:59:29
>> [...]
>> >The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
>> >NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
>>
>> BIG lie.
>
>Not really. The only benchmark I've seen [...]
I'm not really concerned with what benchmarks you've seen. You made a
statement that was false. Your lack of knowledge is not support for the
truth of it.
>>
>> [...]
>> >> >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think itanium
>> >> >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
>> >> >that will run Itanium, butthead)
>> >>
>> >> When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux development
>> >> started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a compatible
>> >> version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
>> >
>> >It's irrelevant, MS is ready, they've had at least 2 or 3 demos of
>> >Windows 2000 running on Itanium.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
>
>They have. Why do you deny openly available facts? You'd probably say I was
>lying if I told you water was wet.
I wasn't denying it; I was ridiculing you for saying it. "Its
irrelevant". Bwah-ha-ha. Only a sock-puppet would be impressed with MS
having run 2 or 3 demos, let alone believing it means "MS is ready", and
frankly I have no idea why that would make the question about the AMD
chip irrelevant.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:10 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:51:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >I don't ever recall a situation where the Supreme court (the only body with
>> >the power to revoke protections under a federal statute) has revoked all the
>> >exclusive rights provided to an indivudial, or firm in reguard to their
>> >intelectual property.
>>
>> It was a "lower" court (federal circuit appeals court), not the Supreme
>> Court. The most clear case was Lasercomb America v. Reynolds. Reynolds
>> included Lasercomb's software in their product without permission, and
>> specifically in contradiction to the license agreement, in addition to
>> copyright law. But because the license was 'over-reaching' (effectively
>> requiring a non-compete in order to use the software), the court through
>> out the license, and literally revoked the copyright protection. Vault
>> v. Quaid was another big one.
>>
>> http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
>
>Well, the garbage crammed into their liscense wasn't provided to them under
>USC Title 18, so there was no right to enforce it. When you try to enforce
>that stuff, THAT'S when you get slapped. Microsoft hasn't yet tried to
>persecute, err, prosecute anyone for violating an EULA for reasons that
>didn't violate Title 18.
On the contrary; they use the threat of copyright infringement (Title
18) as a justification for enforcing these licenses. You confuse lack
of prosecution with legality.
[...]
>> Well, its not possible to not have rights to your own software; I'm not
>> sure what you mean. But, yes, I do agree that both the executives and
>> the lawyers are culpable for writing EULAs which are over-reaching (and
>> therefore potentially unenforceable.)
>
>Actually, it IS possible not to have rights to your own software. Microsoft
>has a limit on what they can do to people once they own a copy of Windows;
>which is what people do, own a COPY. Microsoft used to claim that selling a
>copy of Windows WITHOUT an OEM vendor status was a "violation" of their
>rights, which it isn't. Microsoft DOES NOT have the right to control who
>owns their software, nor who sells it. Once someone obtains a copy of
>Microsoft Windows, it is theirs. They may sell it to whoever they wish,
>provided that the technology inside the application is not controlled by the
>US Department of Commerce (who as I can recall, controlls where that
>encryption software get's sent if it leaves the US.)
I am happy to hear you correctly understand this aspect of the issue. I
would point out merely that Microsoft has more than 'a limit' on what
they can 'do to people once they own a copy'. Indeed, they can do
nothing. The only thing the owner is not allowed to do is copy it, and
that comes from copyright law, not the license agreement. The license
agreement is actually a trade secret license, in essence.
[...]
>> Actually, it was probably the change to Maryland law, so that they could
>> claim that they have no legal responsibility to ensure their software is
>> usable at all for any purpose. I posted a message on that yesterday.
>
>This law made NO sense to me. Sorry.
Don't apologize. The only people it made sense to were the profiteers.
>> >Microsoft can put all the intimidating language they want into an EULA.
>>
>> No, they can't. Including 'intimidating language' for its own sake
>> would invalidate the license.
>
>It's not concidered unnessecary intimidation when Microsoft actually fools
>themselves into thinking it's enforcable.
You presume that it does not prevent anyone from acting within their
rights; if MS fools them into thinking its enforceable, it is
intimidation.
[...]
>Microsoft's OEM"s are nearly as toothless. Controlling the aletrnative
>actions of a company after they have purchased a liscense from you is
>impossible, but Microsoft does have the right to STOP selling liscenses to
>companies they don't like.
So they really have no power at all, except to put the OEM out of
business, at their leisure, is that what you're saying?
[...]
>> I read an article in Maximum PC yesterday (Jan 2001 issue) that
>> erroneously said that a license can not just contradict, but supersedes
>> copyright law. This is not the case; no license can ever prevent a user
>> from doing what the copyright law already allows them to do (such as
>> make a backup copy).
>
>I'd love to meet the idiot editor who let THAT slip through.
I would expect that there are a rather large number of lawyers who would
not catch it, to be honest.
[...]
>> I think it would be safer to just ignore the 1996 'telecommunications'
>> act. Ripping someone off was already illegal before that.
>
>Not really, it was kinda hard for a court to define "electronic media"
>before that one. It was a definition missing entirely from Title 18, which
>was concidered "modern" when it was refering to audio cassetes in the 90's.
Your assumption is that there was some need or reason to mention it.
[...]
>> No, it was IBMs anti-competitive behavior, not the law, which "nearly
>> bankrupted" them. The only change that is necessary with anti-trust law
>> is it needs to be more routinely enforced. Times might change, but the
>> tricks used by profiteers and monopolists do not.
>
>IBM freely liscensed the design of the PC platform. And they still got
>slammed for anticompetitive actions. Of course, massive 80's downsizing
>hit, I guess IBM was just in bad company allaround.
You seem to again have a rather muddled amount of information. IBM's
anti-trust troubles all predate the PC platform, most by many decades.
They have not gotten slammed for anti-competitive actions since then.
In fact, the last big action was abandoned (the Reagan years) and I
believe all of their old consent decrees have expired. It was their
focus on mainframes and inefficient operations which caused downsizing,
not a particular decade of the century.
[...]
>> Don't bet on it. Something tells me Mr. Ashcroft is going to have an
>> uphill battle.
>
>I wouldn't call capital hill an "upward" one for a Republican. Ashcroft is
>going to be the next Attourney General. Oh well. I suppose he couldn't
>possibly be worse than Janet was, I mean, come on. WACO. They wanted to
>crusify Reno after THAT one, and she was a Democrat!
I would MUCH rather have a militant Attorney General who fire-bombs
fundamentalist extremists who think they're God and are stockpiling
weapons than one who believes that the US is a Christian Nation and will
be a puppet for the Pope and the New Right*. The threat to liberty is
becoming rather frightening. America may be entering a very dark time.
* It is VITALLY important to recognize that Reno did *NOT* firebomb the
Davidians, but Ashcroft (and Bush, and the entire Republican party, in
fact) *are* politically influenced heavily by the Christian Coalition.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:32:08 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, JS PL <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>>
>>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> JS PL wrote:
>>> >
>>> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays exactly
>>> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to only
>>> > play one until I reboot though.
>>>
>>> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
>>> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
>>
>>What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>
> ...something this odd, HELL YES.
>
>[deletia]
>
> I wouldn't even take a claim like this about the Win95
> retail version at face value...
Oh, I would. I think maybe JP/SL doesn't even know how to kill a
process, so rebooting is the only way he knows to 'get it to work'
again. He might have some glitch somewhere, and this is just his
One-Microsoft-Way-inspired typical reaction.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:34:05 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:36:07
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, JS PL <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> JS PL wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays
>> >exactly
>> >> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to
>> >only
>> >> > play one until I reboot though.
>> >>
>> >> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
>> >> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
>> >
>> >What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>>
>> ...something this odd, HELL YES.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> I wouldn't even take a claim like this about the Win95
>> retail version at face value...
>
>But then, Linux + sound (usually)= nightmare that is,
>if you manage to get it working in the first place.
>
>OTOH, Sound + Win95 was a no brainer and always seemed to
>work, even with odd-ball sound cards.
Guffaw. Getting sound to work on Windows, any flavor, has always been
one nightmare after another, all the way back to DOS days. Not
surprising that you would talk about Win95, rather than NT, even though
the 'official line' is typically to say Win9x sucks and trumpet NT or
2K. I suppose this means that W2K still has that horrible stuttering
problem?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:36:43 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, "JS PL" <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>
>>What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>>I didn't do anything to the configuration. It's the default install. It
>>plays an MP3 ONCE.
>
>Can't say I've ever seen that one before. I do find the players
>pathetic looking though compared to Windows players.
>
What a load of splooge. I do find that its kind of unimportant what a
media player *looks like*, as it is a functional program (unless its on
Windows, of course), not a piece of art. The only thing that's supposed
to 'look good' is the media content, and, of course, Linux trumps
Windows entirely and easily, again, on that one.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:40:27 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:36:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What a load of splooge. I do find that its kind of unimportant what a
>media player *looks like*, as it is a functional program (unless its on
>Windows, of course), not a piece of art. The only thing that's supposed
>to 'look good' is the media content, and, of course, Linux trumps
>Windows entirely and easily, again, on that one.
And EXACTLY the reason why Linux is being ignored on the desktop of
home users.
For goodness sakes you guys actually like using the command line to
play CD's.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:41:21 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:23:06
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>Reread the post, but this time carefully. How could it takt 8 months to
>get your keyborrd to work? Hell, you couldn't fix it if the keyboard
>wouldn't work (I didn't consider USB ones). I thought if I made such
>wild claims such as a *keyboard* taking 8 months to work, and coupled it
>with an NT spontaneous BSOD, people would realise the first bit was a
>joke.
I had presumed that you *were*, in fact, talking about USB keyboards.
Well, the second time, at least. Overall, the idea seems to have gotten
muddled. Perhaps you could rephrase it.
>For the record I have never had any problems with keyboards under any OS
>and it took me a total of about 2 hours first time to get Linux running
>and I've never looked back.
>
>You were probably up too late posting like me :-)
For the record, both Jedi and I got confused, so perhaps it was more
your being up to late, rather than ours. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:44:01 GMT
Said Mark Lindner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:08:19
[...]
>If Windows 2000 is so much better, so much more "modern" and so much "easier
>to use" than UNIX, as Windoze advocates are so apt to claim, then it would
>stand to reason that if I can install UNIX on a machine and never have a
>single problem with it, then I'm sure as hell capable of properly configuring
>a Win2K box that won't fuck up and crash every day or two. However, experience
>consistently proves otherwise.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
[...]
> "Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
> -Horace Walpole
Amen.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:45:31 GMT
Said Adam Warner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:19:00
[...]
>I've now turned off the automatic reboot after a stop error. To do so
>requires me to reboot...
Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
[...]
>PS: We all know that Microsoft did not cause this error. Microsoft's
>analysis *example* gives the game away:
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q265/8/79.ASP
>
>"The preceding text indicates that the driver is used by a third-party
>software package. This driver is most likely the cause of the error."
Guffaw. That about sums it up.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:48:04 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:18:21
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>I've DX-Ball, and I've Getright open here, happily downloading several demos
>of games with obsene size.
>I opened it, no stuttering whatsoever.
Perhaps you've a better graphics card than my last two (the current ones
a laptop).
>The sound is a tad delayed, but that also happens when I've nothing opened.
Hmmm.
>I don't have a floppy to test it at the moment, but I've a zip drive, just
>copies a 50 MB to it and kept on playing, again, no stuttering.
Well, there's always the possibility you won't manage to find your eyes
capable of detecting it, because your brain wants to so sincerely exist
it isn't there. I've never seen a Windows box that doesn't stutter when
its doing any I/O. Ever.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:50:30 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average
>> > desktop *IS*
>> > > shutdown at night.
>> >
>> > This is an artifact of the historical unreliability of MS operating
>> > systems. Unix/Linux workstations are never shutdown at night.
>>
>> Tell that to your average "save the world" do gooder that insists on turning
>> everything off to save the ecology. So called "green PC's" were invented to
>> help shut these people up.
>>
>
>My Linux boxes, because of the above mentioned do gooder, go
>in low power standby state after some programmable time of
>no activity, and therefore don't need to be shut down.
>
>The same is possible also on Windows boxes, but it's better
>to reboot them frequently in order to have them working. For
>that reason I shut down Windows workstation, and not Linux
>workstations.
Its frankly impossible to use power-saving features with Windows in this
way. It so drastically increases the likelihood of a crash that its not
feasible except for the most specific machines which have been
thoroughly vetted for this purpose, with a highly restricted set of
software. So, like I said, its frankly impossible. Too many bugs in
*Microsoft's* handling of APC.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:03:40 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
> In article <WX2a6.931$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>Let me ask you a question. How long is WIndows supposed to wait? Suppose
>>IBM introduces a new drive with a 10GB buffer in it. It takes 10 minutes to
>>flush the buffer to disk. How long is Windows supposed to wait before
>>shutting down? The drive provides no way for the OS to know when the buffer
>>is fully flushed, so what is the OS supposed to do?
>>
> It's supposed to WAIT on the fucking interrupt you god damn idiot!
This is a general problem these days. Most software engineers just don't know
how the hardware works. In the old days we learnt what the hardware could do
because we were coding in assembler (even toggling in machine on occasions:-).
Now software engineers are so isolated from the hardware they resort to adding
delay loops in their software instead of finding out how the hardware works.
It is clear that Erik is of this sad generation. He might know how windows
works but hasn't a clue how it interacts with the hardware. It appears that
most Microsoft developers don't know how it interacts with hardware.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:06:29 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>> Wait, I know: it's the HW manufacturer's fault for not putting in a battery
>> backup so that the drive can finish flushing the data AFTER Windows pulls
>> the plug on the power. Dammit, this is the 21st century. Surely the IDE
>> drive should have an embedded processor and a battery backup so that it can
>> flush its own data after the power is off?
>
> Are you insane? Do you know what the profit margines of IDE hard disks
> are? You are joking, right?
Yes he is joking (I hope). Is sarcasm truely dead?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:14:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> Of course the OS has to be patched to wait longer, since the OS must deal
>> with whatever quirks the hardware presents, but the true fault is with both
>> the ATAPI spec for not providing a command, and IBM for not providing enough
>> reserve capacitance to allow the drive to flush and park.
>
> Then how do the have a patch for NT 4.0? Shouldn't they have been
> checking this in QA as a known problem? Obviously any idiot should have
> known if they had a problem, they should be checking for it.
Erik is really quite pathetic. Everytime faster processors come out the Microsoft
OS's must be patched so that they shut down cleanly. Why doesn't this affect
Linux, Solaris BeOS, etc? It is crap software. We now know that even Microsoft
accepts that their OS's are unreliable but they can't even shut down cleanly. The
sad thing is that the typical Microsoft user never hears about these serious
problems. They just accept BSOD after BSOD as normal.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:20:22 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
> In article <je2a6.916$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
>>enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
>>aparently the drive doesn't do this.
>
> Or it could be Jupiter in alignment with Mars and Pluto this time....
>
> Isn't it VERY convinient to find fault with hardware when YOUR
> the Windows USER who always blows your own dick off about how
> LINUX doesn't support hardware properly?
>
> Well, Linux may not have as much support for hardware as Windows
> but what it does support, IT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS!!!!
This is the crux of the matter. The people who write the drivers for Linux
know exactly how the hardware works at the lowest programmable level. It
is clear that Microsoft, and most of the hardware companies producing
drivers for Windows, don't know how the hardware works at a low level.
They probably only know C / C++ and can't develop software at the assembler
level when required (or do so very badly when they have to as they aren't
assembler programmers).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:25:58 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <M6ha6.1011$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
>> computer when you halt the OS.
>>
>
> Where have you been? I don't know about FreeBSD, but Linux does shut
> down the computer when you halt.
Well I hate to side with Erik but unless it has changed Linux used to
leave interrupts enabled on shutdown. Hence you could shutdown Linux
and still act as a router / firewall if the ISR's had code to do this.
Of course I could be completely wrong. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:29:31 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Wasn't that Erik F who claimed to now use FreeBSD instead of Linux?
> But he does not know that FreeBSD can power off the computer??
In a previous post I said that Linux used to leave interrupts enabled
on shutdown. Of course if it powers off, as it does on my sparc work-
station at work, then I stand corrected. :-) Still I know that my
disk buffers will have been cached before the poer off.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
