Linux-Advocacy Digest #897, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: What do you do if your language of discussion is subverted? (Perry Pip)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Perry Pip)
The Next Frontier (Milton)
Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon us
(Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Mading)
Re: The 130MByte text file ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Craig Kelley)
questions (windows & Mac)....? ("cool cool")
My open-source quote (Dan Hinojosa)
Re: Micro$oft Linux (mslinux)? (Craig Kelley)
Re: The 130MByte text file ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Poor Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 1 Feb 2001 22:41:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No..that's agnosticism.
: A theism *IS* a belief....specifically a belief in the null postulate.
Break it down: a - theism = lack of theism = lack of the belief that
god exists.
:> If you null hypothesis is that
:> deities and the supernatural don't exist, then no active
:> 'belief' is not necessary.
:>
:> Agnosticism is more of a position that the issue is unsolved
:> or unsolvabe.
: i.e. "I don't know"
Belief and knowlege are not the same thing. An honest person could
admit to themselves that while they believe a god exists, they really
don't *KNOW* this for sure. Agnosticism is compatable with theism and
also with atheism. It is not some third in-betweener group, like the
popular media distorts it to be.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: What do you do if your language of discussion is subverted?
Date: 1 Feb 2001 22:50:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:49:29 GMT,
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Flacco raised an interesting point a couple of days ago about what aspects
>of open source Microsoft would co-opt.
>
>That question cannot even be sensibly asked if Microsoft is able to
>manipulate what certain phrases mean, such as "open source." We have seen
>that Microsoft is employing the term "open" in their restrictive licensing
>practices, and now Microsoft (through Miller) is now telling the world that
>the Windows source code should indeed be considered open.
>
>If the term "open source" becomes so subverted that the general public
>perception is that Microsoft's development model can be considered "open
>source," then how can the term even be used in discussion without there
>being confusion?
>
>This is not Microsoft FUD. This is manipulation of citizens' ability to
>communicate with each other in an accurate manner.
>
>Thoughts?
>
We'll just come up with some new buzz words emphasizing the difference:
'modifyable source'
'freely patchable'
'open development'
Any truly interested in OSS for it's advantages will know the difference.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: 1 Feb 2001 22:52:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:37:23 +0000,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>GVim worked fine
>
>XEMACS loaded the file ok.
>
So then just use what works and don't whine about what doesn't. That's
what any mentally healthy person does.
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: The Next Frontier
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:49:57 -0500
"Will Swope, general manager of Intel's solutions enabling group,
yesterday said Linux developers should view the data center as the "next
frontier" for the operating system. Linux has become mature enough to
expand beyond its current uses in front-end Web servers"
Samuel Palmisano, IBM's president and chief operating officer.
Palmisano, who was named to his current job at IBM last
summer (see story), opened the LinuxWorld conference with a keynote
speech in which he asserted that Linux is ready to leap the chasm
between being "a nice modular technology" for smaller business systems
to becoming a key operating system for use in corporate e-business
applications.
"Linux "is now and will continue to be the fastest-growing
operating system in the world," said Palmisano."
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO57196_NLTam%2C00.html
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/sw_factsheet.html
http://www.ibm.com/linux
http://www.informix.com/linux/
http://www.oracle.com/linux/
http://www.sybase.com/linux/
http://www.borland.com/linux/
http://www.sap.com/linux/
Did I forget anyone?
This is my reply to that braindead M$ executive Doug Miller.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41527,00.html
--
«««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Milton B. Hewitt
CAUCE Member - http://www.cauce.org
Proud supporter of the Microsoft Boycott Campaign
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
«««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon
us
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:21:31 +0100
Nigel wrote:
>
> It is perfectly readable with my newsreader - Knode running on ICEWM
> under mandrake 7.2
>
That's not the point, I use KNode myself.
I just think that someone who is talking to us that way just needs no
attention. I did NOT read his text.
He can put a sensible config in, post again, then we will see.
Just because he is using a windows-news-reader does not mean that
he is exempted from good manners.
--
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 1 Feb 2001 22:59:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> No it isn't. It's the lack of the belief that god does exist.
: That definition encompasses both Atheism & Agnosticism.
It encompasses all atheists and *some* agnostics, specificly those
that are both agnostic and atheist. One can be both, assuming
the more technical philosophical definition of term is being used,
rather than the one that is becoming popular through common usage.
It works much like the way common usage has usurped the term
"hacker" to mean something different than what it meant to those
who used the word to describe themselves. The word "hacker"
described a set of people with certain technical skills and a way
of attacking a problem 'sideways' to get elegant solutions that
were not readily apparent. A certain subset of these people
started getting media attention when they used those skills to
circumvent computer security. Since this was the public's only
exposure to "hackers", they falsely assumed that this subset of
hackerdom was what the word "hacker" refered to, not realizing
that the subset they were exposed to was not indicative of the
whole set. Similarly, those atheists that actually do have the
active belief that there is no god tend to be a more vocal subset
of the whole, and the term gets mis-applied to them only.
: Theism: "I believe in a God/Goddess"
: Polytheism: "I believe that there are multiple Gods and/or Godesses"
: Atheism: "I believe that no God or Goddess exists"
This only describes some atheists, not all of them.
: Agnosticism: "I don't know if one or more God(s)/Godess(es) exist or not"
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: 1 Feb 2001 23:05:40 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Linux sux, 'cuz I tried to use beta software, which is not even Linux
software much less Linux, to do stuff it wasn't designed to, and it
didn't work.]
Pete, this is the kind of garbage that makes you look like a typical
Wintroll.
You are obviously smarter than than a typical Wintroll, however, so
how 'bout acting like it?
Joe
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: 01 Feb 2001 16:06:22 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:25:45 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >. wrote:
> >
> >> Xemacs works just fine.
> >
> >That's not surprising.
>
> Considering XEmacs probably takes 100 meg just to load itself
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT LIB %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND
28730 ink 1 0 12284 11M 3456 S 0 0.0 19.4 0:21 xemacs
12.2 megabytes
Not bad, considering all it can do. I write my news posts with xemacs
(as can be seen in my headers), write syntax-higlighted code with it
(including compiliation and debugging). I have xemacs-21.2-b43
installed, and then new packaging system looks cool, you can
auto-update emacs lisp packages from any number of websites now.
It uses mmap() to open files, so it takes up very little real core.
I had two 77MB files and one 22MB file open just now over a remote X11
session to a machine with only 128MB of RAM -- it didn't pause at
all.
--
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: "cool cool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: questions (windows & Mac)....?
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:13:54 -0800
hi
sorry to interrupt
but I've got a question (no, I meant a few questions).
cuz I'm still using Win98 second edition, and cuz I was told (last year) tha
t Win 2000 (or ME? or are these two the same things? sorry I don't know much
about computers, like you and you do, sorry) still have lots of ah....bugs?
or....whatever, I don'tknow.
he just said that I should stick with Win98 unless there's a technical reaso
n.
is this true?
my real question is,
If I really want to switch my platform (OS, whatever it is, ok?)
which should I go for? I'm thinking about Win2000 or Me.
any different?
or does anything in Linux that is compatible and not compatible with Words o
r many other common programs and games?
cuz this dominates everything I do with my computer.
any suggestion?
******important***********
oh, I've seen this from a science magazine that they have on one page, perha
ps it's just a commercial or an article of something else, not sure, have th
is Mac OS but what's bizarre (sorry if I've misspelled) about it is that,
everything on the screen is like bubbles, except the menu bar on top
how amazing is that when, like say, pull down a menu from the menu bar, the
drop-down menu goes like a waterdrop.
and the "windows" (or how should I properly call it?) are like bubbles on th
e screen.
like, can you imagine how fantasic this thing could look like?
is this really true? like is this what they're releasing (the new MacOS?)
I would run to to store to buy a Mac in the first day of its release if it's
true.
but since that page didn't say anything about anything.
so I would hope that anyone could answer.......?
thanx (a million thanx)
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:xk2d6.144$X6.52633@r
uti.visi.com...
> Haha... Charlie, you're just digging yourself in deeper.
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <tsKc6.45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <GPrc6.1008$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
> wrote:
> > >> >> Microsoft W2k was their attempt at creating a mono-os to replace
> > >> >> the dual product lines of NT and 98/95. They needed to make
> > >> >> this effort work as it IS too costly to compete with Linux
> > >> >> when you HAVE to support dual os's and PAY your EMPLOYEE'S.
> > >> >
> > >> >MS has been trying to get rid of Win9x since the day it was released
.
> > >Each
> > >> >successive release of WIndows brought the convergence of the NT and
9x
> > >> >platforms closer. This was years before Linux was any kind of worry
> to
> > >MS.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> This paragraph is typical EF. They have been trying to get rid of
> > >> 9X since it was released! How many people on the internet would
> > >> make a statement like this? If they were trying to get rid
> > >> of it since the time it was released, then why did they
> > >> release it in the first place!
> > >
> > >Because the buying public would not buy NT when they released it. It
> took a
> > >long time for the two OS's to converge. The biggest problem was
> application
> > >compatibility. Windows 95 was all about migrating users to 32 bit apps
,
> > >which required 16 bit compatibility in the interim.
> >
> > True.
>
> I love it, after railing at me over a statement about how stupid it is, yo
u
> suddenly admit i'm right. What does that say about you, Charlie?
>
> > >> Linux came to being before 95 did.
> > >
> > >And wasn't compatible with Windows.
> > >
> >
> > True, but so what?
> >
> > Do things need to be compatible with Windows for
> > them to be in existance?
>
> No, but when Windows NT was released, 16 bit Windows compatiblity was all
> that matterd. 32 bit Windows is still mostly what matters to people.
>
> > >> >> And with 64 bit systems on the way, Microsoft will now have
> > >> >> 4 OS's to support instead of 2.
> > >> >
> > >> >It's the same OS whether it's 64 bit or 32 bit. 64 bit simply has
> wider
> > >> >parameters. There are no new functions and no unsupported functions
> that
> > >> >are different between 32 bit and 64 bit NT.
> > >>
> > >> Boy! You really ARE a foolish child aren't you.
> > >> The god damn instruction sets aren't the same and
> > >> neither is the compiler. The entire structure
> > >> of the kernel and a good deal of the OS will
> > >> change with this chip.
> > >
> > >Yet for some reason, you think that Linux is immune to this. Any chang
e
> > >Windows had to go through for Itanium, Linux also had to go through.
> >
> > Yes it did, I told you that EF.
> > And it is running and ready for release.
>
> No, it's not quite ready for release. In fact, Linux 2.4 still needs
> several key patches to make it work properly under Itanium.
>
> > Where is fucking Windows!
> >
> > >> I suggest you examine the work for the 64 bit
> > >> version of Linux.
> > >
> > >Actually, I have. I've diffed the ia64 and i386 kernel files, and ther
e
> are
> > >huge differences. You seem to think it was a simple recompile.
> > >
> >
> > NO, you did.
>
> No, I didn't. Simply quote me if you intend to continue this charade.
> Provide a deja link and an exact quote. Go on.. Go ahead. You can't.
>
> > >> If they are merely re-compiling with a 64 bit
> > >> compiler, then Whistler will be the lamest peice
> > >> of shit ever released from Microsoft.
> > >
> > >That's not what I said. I said that the API's are the same, except for
> > >wider parameters. It's the same OS from an applications point of view,
> > >except for parameters.
> >
> > That *IS* what you said.
>
> No, it's not. Again, provide the quote. You can't, so quit saying I did.
>
> > >> Further! If all it took was recompiling the same
> > >> code with a 64 bit compiler, how come it's taken
> > >> these fuckwads 2 years to come out with a beta
> > >> of Whistler?
> > >
> > >I never said any such thing. This is more of your halucinagenic haze
> which
> > >makes you think i've said things which I haven't.
> >
> > Demonizing me for your *STUPID* comments won't save you EF.
>
> You demonize yourself. Stop claiming people say things they haven't.
> Either you're lying or you're delusional. Take your pick.
>
> > >> Can you manage to answer any of these questions
> > >> truthfully and without the capt. kangaroo.
> > >
> > >You only asked one question, moron.
> >
> > Answer the questions.
>
> You only asked one question. Stop making it plural.
>
> > >And the answer is that the chip is not yet finished. Duh! MS had beta
s
> for
> > >quite some time, and both MS and the Linux camp announced versions of
> > >windows running on simulators at the same time.
> > >
> >
> > The CHIP IS FINISHED YOU CLUELESS DIPSHIT!
> > IT'S BEEN RUNNING IN PRODUCTION HP-9000 FOR ALMOST
> > 2 YEARS NOW!
>
> More delusions. HP doesn't seem to agree with you.
>
> http://www.ia-64.hp.com/
>
> "ItaniumT is at the heart of the next generation of computing technology,
> and will be available in servers and workstations within six months."
>
> > You don't know your fucking head from your ass on anything
> > do you EF.
>
> Amazingly enough, everytime you say something like this, it's just after y
ou
> prove how little you know.
>
> > >> >> Funny but, in Linux land there is only ONE OS which is
> > >> >> supported and that's Linux. No-matter what machine
> > >> >> you may be running on, Linux is consistent on all of
> > >> >> them. You could be running a mac or an S390, the
> > >> >> OS base is the same to the user.
> > >> >
> > >> >Spoken like someone that's never run Linux under multiple platforms.
> > >That
> > >> >one OS is significantly different depending on which hardware you're
> > >running
> > >> >under.
> > >>
> > >> Well, actually I am and no it's not.
> >
> > That's very BIG BOY of you EF.
>
> ????? That was *YOUR* comment. Not mine. You don't even know what you'v
e
> said, how can you possibly know what anyone else does?
>
> > >Apparently *YOU* have not diffed the kernel sources then. Otherwise yo
u
> > >wouldn't say this.
> >
> > I am the ONE who started saying it fuckwad!
> > You are the dipshit who thought you could just
> > recompile the sources with a 64 bit ready compiler.
>
> No, you're the one that said Linux is one OS and just needs to be recompil
ed
> for each platform. While it's true that after the port is done, that's al
l
> it takes, but then the same is true for Windows. Here's your quote:
>
> > Funny but, in Linux land there is only ONE OS which is
> > supported and that's Linux. No-matter what machine
> > you may be running on, Linux is consistent on all of
> > them. You could be running a mac or an S390, the
> > OS base is the same to the user.
>
> And this is exactly the same thing for NT based 32 bit Windows and 64 bit
> Windows.
>
> > >> >> Truely Microsoft is insaine.
> > >> >
> > >> >Pot calling the kettle black.
> > >>
> > >> With followership such as you EF the conclusion
> > >> is nearly an automatic one.
> > >
> > >No, you're the one making insane statements that are easily countered
> with
> > >facts, yet you continue to believe in your fantasy world where things
> don't
> > >exist and people say things you want them to have said.
> >
> > This doesn't help unbury your position on this matter.
>
> To be quite frank, I'm not srue you even know what your position is.
>
> > >> >> They are insaine to even believe they can compete with an OS
> > >> >> like Linux. There are just a FEW computers left which don't
> > >> >> have a Linux port working for them. Just a few.
> > >> >
> > >> >spelling it the same way twice isn't a typo. Insane has no i in the
> last
> > >> >half of the word.
> > >> >
> > >> >Just a few? How many is a few? Apple II, Commodore 64, PET, trs-80
,
> > >color
> > >> >computer, Altair, TS-1000/ZX-81, Unisys A and B systems, CDC Cyber
> > >systems,
> > >> >Cray I, II, III, XMP and YMP, ETA 1, Connection Machines, RS-6000,
> > >AS/400,
> > >> >IBM System 36/38, Any number of VAX systems, IBM 43xx, Tandems, HP
> 9000,
> > >> >Psion...
> > >> >
> > >> >I could go on for quite some time you know for systems that don't ha
ve
> > >Linux
> > >> >ports.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, and you could easily double the list talking about Microsoft's
> > >> lack of portage. That was the whole point of this.
> > >
> > >MS has ported a version of Windows to every architecture that Linux has
> been
> > >ported to, except 3. That's not "double".
> >
> > They run Intel and Alpha. No more.
> >
> > Linux runs on dozens of chips.
>
> Why do you ignore the list of processors that I posted that Windows CE was
> ported to (and still supported on)?
>
> > >> >> Microsoft is supporting Intel and Alpha and nothing else.
> > >> >
> > >> >Never looked at the number of processors supported by CE, have you?
> > >>
> > >> You've obviously never built a god damn computer boy.
> > >
> > >I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you think I said here. Wha
t
> > >does building a computer have to do with knowing what architectures an
OS
> > >supports?
> >
> > Well, you've made enough god damn comments about it
> > so far, I would have thought you would know!
>
> How could I possibly know what your delusional mind thinks?
>
> > Fuck EF! You mean to tell me you've been calling me a fucking
> > liar for paragraphs now and you admit you don't exactly know what
> > it is we're talking about here!
>
> No, I admit that I don't know what *YOU* think you're talking about. It's
> certainly not what this subject is about.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: My open-source quote
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:13:05 -0700
"Open source is like a bicycle without a seat. Sure it works like other
bicycles, but the comfort using it is not there."
--Dan Hinojosa, Java Developer
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Linux (mslinux)?
Date: 01 Feb 2001 16:15:13 -0700
surrender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > heard recently there is a new distribution of linux coming out, done
> > by Micro$oft! the web site i was given is www.mslinux.org, but it
> > has been down for a while... don't know if this is a rumor or not, or
> > a practical joke?
> > i mean, why would Micro$oft want make a linux OS? most
> > windows users don't know what Linux is and have no intention of
> > switching over (majority of them anyway), and those who use linux
> > are mostly people who are fed up with windows. who will be their
> > target audience?
> >
> > however, if Micro$oft made a distribution of Linux that is
> > compatible with all of the Micro$oft products (Word, Excel, Visio,
> > MS Studio...) then i can definitely see a huge market in that.
> >
> > any thoughts anyone?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
> This site was a joke.
> But I think MS is already working on it's own linux distro just in
> case...
wget -r 'ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/mirrors/redhat/current-release/i386/*'
find . -exec sed -e ./change_redhat_to_microsoft {} \;
--
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: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: 1 Feb 2001 23:15:59 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: My Linux box has a broken telnet server, hence I can't login. I suppose
: I could wire up a serial port but they're both already in use.
Telnet servers don't break. Yours isn't working because you
instructed your Mandrake security tools not to let you access it.
On the other hand, telnet servers also aren't secure, which is why all
usable security levels disable it by default. SSH is the modern
replacement for telnet, and your Mandrake distribution includes it.
You should use that instead.
:> Yes.... it is wonderfull stable when not deliberately trying to breadk
: So all the statements about Linux are, what, false?
All the statements you made about Linux in this thread to date, to the
best of my knowledge and recollection, are in fact false.
First, you're using apps in ways they weren't intended, and not using
the ones that would have been appropriate for the job. Second, your
blaming an OPERATING SYSTEM for the real or perceived weaknesses of
APPLICATIONS, none of which are even Linux-specific.
You've posted reasonably intelligent and clueful things in other
threads, which is why I haven't killfiled you. If this thread were
representative of your usual posting style and content, I would have
done so long ago.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 1 Feb 2001 23:14:06 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It'll half the available computing time for compilations, but that's
: to be expected.
: For desktop usage (word process, web browser, mail,
: etc.) you shouldn't notice the difference unless you're running a very
: slow processor.
But that's only becasue those I/O bound programs don't need much CPU time.
>From the sound of it, a busy-loop program *will* steal lots of time away
from other CPU-bound processes. The scheduler cannot tell that those CPU
cycles it is asking for are "less important" than the cycles used by
the compiler, or the math calculation going on, and the busy-loop program
is asking for a *lot* of cycles, constantly, all the time.
: It'll also impact most IDE drives, since they
: typically fire an interrupt every time data needs to be moved, but
: again you shouldn't notice it for regular use.
: I run seti-at-home in the background all the time, and it sucks up all
: my CPU usage while it's running. I never notice.
I doubt Seti@home is running at the default nice level. It is supposed
to only take "unused" cycles, so it is probably configured to be
extremely "nice" (the authors *know* it is a CPU-intensive task and
will be CPU-bound for a long time, unlike the author of an accidentally
infinite loop, who runs the program at default niceness.)
------------------------------
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:20:34 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>
> >> Edward Rosten writes:
>
> >>> are you the `Dave' that Marty and Kulkis refer to?
>
> >> Ask them. Different people have different names for me.
>
> > .... some of which border on unprintable ...
>
> That's their problem.
Shut your fucking face, donkey raper.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
