Linux-Advocacy Digest #963, Volume #31 Sun, 4 Feb 01 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: DOS2Unix (Mike Martinet)
Re: Whistler predictions...
Re: DOS2Unix (Mike Martinet)
Re: linux is dieing (Mike Martinet)
Re: reality check: Linux, WAAAY too much diddling (J Sloan)
Re: DOS2Unix (J Sloan)
Re: The 130MByte text file (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is a fad? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: [MDLUG] humorous (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 13:20:27 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 01:35:44 -0700, Mike Martinet
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >How can you not love Linux?
>
> Generally about an hour or so of using it is enough for most users to
> hate it.
>
You hear this a lot from people, I take it? In casual conversation? At
work? People come up to you on the street?
Anyway, I can believe it. It's a difficult thing to learn to use.
But man, if you really like machines, there's nothing like it.
I prefer it this way. The more people avoid learning the intricacies of
the technology they use, the longer I'll have a damn good job.
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:21:49 -0000
On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 13:52:02 -0500, Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>> |
>> | "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>| >> Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>| >>
>| >> «--snip--»
>| >> >> Mandrake's hardware detector is stunning in its efficiency. It
>| >> >> works the way Microsoft's so-called plug & play systen *should*
>| >> >> have worked, but doesn't.
>| >>
>| >> I'm sure you're speaking about a recent version of Mandrake. Try Win2k
>| >> and you'll be equally stunned.
>> |
>> | I run Win2K Professional and there's no comparison....
>> | Mandrake wins, hands down, for hardware detection.
>
>Do you still have to select your display adapter and monitor?
Still?
Redhat 5.0 did video autodetection, nevermind Mandrake 7.2.
[deletia]
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 13:26:09 -0700
"Form@C" wrote:
>
>
> What M$ did was produce a system designed to make computers more accessible
> to people without extensive DOS knowledge and without the time to learn it.
> I don't think they actually did anything *wrong* at that time, just
> followed an alternative route. (OK, I'm leaving out any legality arguments
> here). They hid DOS because they thought that was the right thing to do at
> the time.
>
> The idea was that company managers would be able to access company data
> directly without having to go through "lower" levels - up until this point
> typing just "wasn't done" by those in the upper ranks. The GUI system was
> absolutely ideal. No special skills to learn and no need to learn anything
> about system configuration because the IT people would look after that
> side, just as they always had. The user could still change the "pretty"
> bits of the GUI though. This did a lot to get desktop computers onto the
> desks of the upper ranks.
>
> BTW,Windows *was* an application at that time - it even used config.sys and
> autoexec.bat as part of its configuration and himem.sys for memory
> management.
>
> There are many people who share the view that "command lines are good, GUIs
> are the spawn of satan" but the two systems are fundamentaly different and
> are aimed at different types of users.
>
> --
> Mick
> Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
I'm fairly familiar with what MS did. And I don't think it's all bad.
I just wish they'd done it differently is all. And with less malice
towards other solutions.
MjM
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux is dieing
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 13:33:28 -0700
Hey!
That brings up a question I've never faced before. How do you go about
backing up a working Linux implementation? If you (or anyone) wouldn't
mind offering details, I'd like to hear it. I've spent a lot of time
configuring this system and I'd hate to have to do it again from
scratch. I've got a CD-ROM burner. What should I put on it to get
myself back up to speed again in case I start hearing funny HD noises?
All of /etc including subs would be my first thought...
Thanks,
MjM
Hank Barta wrote:
>
> Or perhaps more accurately, my hard drive is dieing. It began making
> loud whining sounds a couple of days ago. I tried to get one last
> backup, taring an image to the local disk to transfer to another
> system. But it was too late. There are too many disk errors to
> complete this.
>
> Surprisingly, the system is still up and running, providing
> firewalling and IP Masquerading services for my home LAN connection
> to the Internet. I wonder how long it can continue to operate? It has
> remounted the root file system read only (and the swap device is on
> the same drive.) I guess I'll have to wait and see. I'll get no more
> logging since the logs are on a RO file system. On the other hand,
> it should be a bit more secure since it will be *real* hard for an
> intruder to actually accomplish anything.
>
> The drive began failing when uptime was 28 days and it is now at 30
> days (and the whining has somewhat subsided.)
>
> --
> Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
> Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: reality check: Linux, WAAAY too much diddling
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:33:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Welcome to the joy of Linux my friend.
> Yes LINUX!!!
> The operating system that has you do all the operating.
Consider the source here - flatfish is consumed with
grief and bitterness, and is simply lashing out at Linux,
well, flailing away actually, without much effect.
Linux is very user friendly, but it is picky about who
it's friends are. I like Unix, I feel at home there, and
Linux most of all. But flatfish hates and fears Unix,
and Linux most of all. You will see this reflected in
his/her rants here.
> Hopefully you didn't waste too much time on it.
For an intelligent person, learning is never a waste.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:38:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 01:35:44 -0700, Mike Martinet
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How can you not love Linux?
>
> Generally about an hour or so of using it is enough for most users to
> hate it.
Depends on the user - of course there are a great many
people who after using it for an hour start giving serious
consideration to the idea of going microsoft-free.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 20:39:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:29:49 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Loading a 130MByte text file into a GUI editor you consider sabotaging my
> >own system?
>
> Just loading Linux is in effect sabotaging a system to some degree.
disclaimer - wintroll alert, consider the source.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:00:59 GMT
Daza wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Have you looked at specweb 99? Nobody has better 8-way
> > results than Linux, not solaris, not aix, not Tru-64 Unix.
> >
> > microsoft, with their all-out "benchmark buster" web cache
> > configuration, came close, but you can see the results for
> > normally aspirated windows pcs way down in the results.
> >
> > jjs
> >
>
> Ooooh. 8-way. So many. ;-)
Actually, 8 way is considerably more than 99.9% of the
webservers on the planet are using. But give it time, I
saw Linux running on a 16 way Itanium box last summer.
and how many processors can you get in an IBM S/390?
>
> Try 64-way?
Say, how many CPUs are in these Beowulf clusters that
are starting to fill out the top 500 list - and didn't IBM just
announce that they are building a 512 processor monster
for some government agency?
(I know, I know, it's not the same...)
> I only lump Linux and Windows together because they both have limited SMP
> scalability compared to many high end OS's.
So why not say "macos 8 and windows", or "freebsd and linux"?
Grouping such opposites together makes it hard to
follow what your point is.
> In my original message I did
> point out that clustering is a viable method to scale beyond an OS's limited
> SMP scalability. However, even with clustering Linux and Windows are
> lagging behind high end OS's with the ability to provide single system image
> facilities. For really large systems, their are many technically and
> operationally superior platforms than Windows or Linux.
> Don't read too much into benchmarks. They are artificial. Speak to people
> running real world applications for a true picture.
Everyone can relate to benchmarks, especially if they
have a bearing on real world use.
For instance, owners of Harley Davidsons used to
maintain that in an honest race, a Harley would beat
the crap out of those new fangled "rice burners" like
the Kawasaki 900.
The 1/4 mile was a very good benchmark, as was miles
per gallon, and amount of maintenance required, and
these served as reality checks.
It became clear to all that a Z1 would run away from
a Harley like it was standing still, would never break
down, and get better gas mileage in the bargain!
But Harley riders would counter with, "yeah, but it's not
a Harley, and that's what counts".
Some of these dinosaur OSes that have never seen
use outside of a very specialized high end data center
remind me of the old Harley Davidsons.
Just my $.02
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:20:23 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:18:02 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>So we have the truth at last! He just wants to look at the pretty
>>girls!
>> I bet that's the only reason he has a computer!
>
> I am a girl.
So?
There's nothing wrong with wanting to look at pretty girlsif you are a
girl.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:13:44 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 19:48:17 GMT,
> Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:s1gh59.s8b.ln@gd2zzx...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So, with that, I ask you guys:
> >> > 1. Why is Linux the most vulnerable web server platform?
> >>
> >> In 2000 Microsoft hit the ton with security bugs. A record. The worst
single
> >> application was IIS. You were saying...
> >
> >"hit the ton"?
> >
> >View attrition.org. Linux frequently beats NT+2K (combined) in number of
> >defacements per month.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
> >
>
> name a month in 2000 when this was true.
August and September.
These are just web servers, and publicly recognized attacks.
These don't take into the fact all of the Linux boxes that were compromised
during the extensive DDoS attacks last fall. Entire university labs of
Linux boxes were compromised and use in this manner.
One idea we could extrapolate from this is that there really aren't that
many Linux web servers out there, or that are running sites that attract
crackers. But, when the boxes attract the crackers (like when they need a
sizable farm for performing DDoS attacks on MS, Ebay and Amazon) they
don't stand a chance.
So the argument that Linux is a secure web server really isn't truthful.
It's just that there aren't very many Linux web servers out there, and
therefore not many get cracked.
It's also relevant to note that Attrition's numbers lump NT and 2000
together. So Linux even beats TWO OS's combined!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [MDLUG] humorous
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:28 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:35:30
[...]
>Yes, Thank god Chad Myers has Aaron R. Kulkis banned from
>his newsreader.
Yea, I guess you've got a good point, there. We should all thank our
lucky stars that Chad has Aaron killfiled. If we could only get Chad to
killfile everyone else, things would be much more productive around
here.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:31 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 1 Feb 2001 23:33:10 GMT;
[...]
>Actually, the reason is too much reliance on higher-level things
>being done in kernel space (kernel code runs with absolutely no
>safety net, so it needs to be kept to a minumum if you want
>stability.) I fear the inclusion of lots of third-party closed
>source driver modules from hardware vendors into Linux - will
>it some day make it as flaky as the bad drivers in Windows make
>it?
I don't think so. Certainly the drivers themselves may be just as
flakey, but even then, the OS is far more stable, and prevents one
flakey driver from causing crashes to apps or other drivers.
But you do raise a valid point. This is why so much spontaneous effort
seems to go in to producing open source versions of any necessary
drivers. You can't make a piece of hardware available and not have some
Linux freak reverse engineer a driver for it; it simply can't be done.
Often it takes time, though. In the end, trying to use hardware
"incompatibilities" to control the market is doomed to failure, in a
competitive free market, the fact that its worked so well in the
monopolized world of Windows notwithstanding.
>: It has no sense of timing of it's internal processes.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:34 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 15:07:28
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> > >Okay, unless Chad was lying about the plonking, he probably won't
>> > >see this, but it needs to be said, to defend myself: The question
>> > >"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is often used as a classic
>> > >example of the practice of assuming facts not in evidence during
>> > >the phrasing of a question. I had thought that this reference was
>> > >a standard part of pop culture and everyone would know it. Perhaps
>> > >I was wrong about that. I was making reference to the fact that
>> > >Chad was trying to hide an unsupported assertion inside his question:
>> > >the assertion that Linux is the most vulnerable web server platform.
>>
>> What Chad doesn't want to talk about is that
>> even though windows has barely 20% of the
>> web serving market on the internet,
>
>20% of the "My Cat Fluffy" web sites, but more than half of the
>real business web sites out there.
>
>IMHO, I'd rather have 50%+ of the business and ecommerce market
>than the "My Cat Fluffy" or "My Trip to DisneyLand" web sites,
>but ymmv. Apache can have the thousands and thoudands of one
>hit/month web sites, for all I care.
>
>When you look at sites with SSL (even according to Netcraft's
>own numbers) Windows dominates.
Indeed; that would constitute illegal monopolization. ;-/
>> it has the lead in the number of website defacements,
>
>NT does, not Win2K.
Due, obviously, to the very slow and reluctant uptake of W2K into the
web server market.
>Besides, even with NT and 2K combined,
>Linux still gives Windows a run for its money. On some months,
>Linux will smoke Windows with defacements, other months, Windows
>will eek out the lead.
>
>> a fact well documented on the site devoted to tracking this matter.
>
>Attrition.org? If you look at attrition.org you'll see Linux holds
>it's own in the defacements category.
>
>> The common fud is that "if Unix ever became as
>> popular a platform as windows nt, it would have
>> all the same virus and security problems that
>> windows nt does"
>
>Which is a fact. As Linux becomes more popular, we're seeing new
>attacks, we're seeing it used as distributed DoS clients and
>servers (in the now infamous ebay amazon attacks), we seeing
>record high defacements, etc.
It being used for defacements has nothing whatsoever to do with the
matter, so I would suspect, as any reasonable person should, that you're
simply lying about the rest of it, as well.
>> - In the light of the fact that Unix, which powers over 2/3
>> of the websites on the net
>
>(mainly all the "My cat fluffy" sites, oh yeah, and this
>overinflated number includes each virtual host on a server as
>another server which incorrectly inflates the numbers)
These mythical "fluffy" sites are the bulk of the Internet. Your
laughable desire to only include the Fortune 500, as if they have any
particular reputation for running good web sites, gets more tired and
pathetic the more you conceal it with such rhetoric.
>A number which is on the decline. Unix also powers less than
>half of the SSL sites, a category where Windows dominates.
Yes, "dominates" is a good word. "Monopolizes" is more appropriate,
however, as it clearly points out the illegal and anti-competitive
actions which Microsoft engaged in to attain such a result.
>This tells us that when money and security are on the line,
>people trust Windows more than Unix.
No, it tells us that Microsoft has done with SSL what it planned to do
with Kerberos, or any other open standard which it can manage to use to
trap still more implementations into supporting the illegal monopoly
known as One Microsoft Way.
>It's also interesting that you lump Linux in with Unix.
>When you need to give Linux some credibility, you lump it
>with Unix, but when you don't want to make it seem like
>Linux is just another useless Unix, you claim Linux != Unix.
>So which is it?
Both. If you had half a brain, you'd be capable of grasping that fact.
>The truth is, of those Unix web virtual hosts (not servers,
>there are far less than 2/3 total Unix servers) less than
>1-2% of those are Linux servers. Most are Solaris or BSD.
>
>> suffers far fewer website breakins than windows nt,
>
>Linux frequently beats Windows at this.
>
>> which has a small minority of the websites on the net
>
>Minority of "My Cat Fluffy" web sites, but a strong majority
>of eCommerce business sites.
Those most locked in to the illegal monopoly, yes. We're quite well
aware of the situation, Chad. Why do you keep bringing it up as if we
are naive enough to think that it indicates some merit of the software
itself?
>> it becomes clear that their position is devoid of merit.
>
>But when you really look at the facts, you see that you
>really don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You, Chad, are a pathetically dishonest sack of shit.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:35 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 18:15:51
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>>> >Okay, unless Chad was lying about the plonking, he probably won't
>>> >see this, but it needs to be said, to defend myself: The question
>>> >"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is often used as a classic
>>> >example of the practice of assuming facts not in evidence during
>>> >the phrasing of a question. I had thought that this reference was
>>> >a standard part of pop culture and everyone would know it. Perhaps
>>> >I was wrong about that. I was making reference to the fact that
>>> >Chad was trying to hide an unsupported assertion inside his question:
>>> >the assertion that Linux is the most vulnerable web server platform.
>>
>
>
>Ah, I want to point out something here Sloan.
>I didn't write this paragraph. I don't know
>where the fuck you got it from, but if you
>put MY name to it, it better have come from
>here.
Learn to read quote levels, Charlie.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:39 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 4 Feb 2001 04:18:44
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Nor could they make either OS truly multi-user. One would hope that, if
>> these were competitive products, they might take advantage of the fact
>> that a microcomputer does not necessarily benefit from the multi-user
>> methods of Unix-style OSes, instead of constantly failing to even
>> recognize the distinction, let alone take advantage of it.
>
>Explain this statement, why do you think that NT isn't a multi user OS?
Well, because its not.
The concept of a "multi user OS" is derived from the idea of host-based
computing, in which terminals were used to support a time-sharing system
on a centralized host. NT, like all Windows, came from a PC
environment, where each microcomputer has one user. NT supports
networking like Novell does, not like Unix does. NT is not, and never
will be, a multi-user OS.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:41 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 4 Feb 2001 04:08:41
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>start mean that you would open this in a new window, if you do it your way,
>it would run one at a time, wait for the first one to finish, and then do
>the second.
Ok.
[...]
>> Good point. But don't all SMT systems give priority to the "foreground"
>> application? Isn't the point of the exercise related to the fact that
>> it is the prime computations which are supposed to be time consuming?
>> Shouldn't it be finished 4,1,2,3, rather than 4,3,2,1 if your theory is
>> true?
>
>No, because of the way focus works, when the 4th windows close, then the
>focus goes to the one behind it (3).
Well, this really would be a bogus test, if the processing didn't even
take long enough to outweigh the windowing overhead. I believe the idea
is that the 4th window, nor any other, would not close for a substantial
enough time that the focus wasn't the issue.
>> >Move the focus to the first window and watch how it slowly climb to the
>top.
>>
>> The fact that the GUI is extraordinarily slow to respond when the
>> computer is being intensively used again raises the question of just how
>> bad Windows multitasking is.
>
>I'd four instances of this, (CPU 100%) and didn't feel any slow down in the
>GUI.
So why "watch how it slowly climb to the top"? Not to mention, we've
already determined that you're rather insensitive to GUI stuttering.
>> >You've either to change the computer's setting (from Applications to
>> >Background Proccesses) or put all those windows in the background.
>>
>> And if all the windows are in the background, shouldn't it then finish
>> 1,2,3,4, according to your theory, and 4,3,2,1 according to Charlie?
>
>If they are all in the background, yes, because they would each get an equal
>share of the CPU, and would end according to the order they started at.
>I've no idea how Charlie got his numbers.
Perhaps the same way you did; he made them up.
>> Where is this "Applications or Background Processes" switch setting?
>
>On 2K, System propeties>Advance>Performance Options.
>It's useful for servers, but I wouldn't recommend that you would switch on a
>workstation.
Only on W2K systems, or have they just renamed some option from NT?
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:43 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:45:27
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[...]
>> Even the Amiga OS had soft links at one point, as part of
>> its filesystem -- and that was back in the late 80's!
>
>NTFS had this ability from the start, AFAIK.
No, NTFS *could support* this from the start. It still doesn't actually
support it to this day.
>The problem that ln.exe is only available from the resource kit, and
>frankly, I don't like it.
>It took five minutes to assembled a hard link creator via UI (three APIs
>calls, open file, save file as, create hard link).
And how has your extensive testing of stability gone?
>> >Rephrase points
>>
>> I have no idea what this is. Is this similar to the Mac's HFS
>> resource fork, or what?
>
>No, resource fork is handled via streams.
>Rephrase points are a little like hard links, but for directories.
>It enable NTFS to mount HDs into NTFS volumes.
>And let you create all sorts of neat stuff if you know how.
>
>Basically, you tell the FS that when something access a folder, it should
>call a function/program that you create, and that will handle the rest of
>it.
[...]
I believe this is called "reparse points", not "rephrase points".
Another dubious vapor/FUD feature. Only a moron or someone paid by
Microsoft would even bother with them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
