Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #31 Sun, 4 Feb 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("nuxx")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit (J Sloan)
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Another thing I've noticed. ("Interconnect")
Re: Whistler predictions... (Tim Smith)
Re: Whistler predictions... (Tim Smith)
Re: "It's the desktop, stupid" (mlw)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[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: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:07:47 +0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> nuxx wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > nuxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Champ Clark III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <95bh0f$t75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> >
> > > > In my opinion, quotas aren't nearly as important as fine grained
ACLs in
> > the
> > > > corporate world (where NT was initially targeted). NTs file sharing
> > >
> > > I've worked at more sites than I can count. Unix's traditional
> > > owner/group/other scheme has been sufficient every place I've been
at...
> > > even though every commercial version of Unix out there offers ACL's,
> > > I have NEVER once seen a system in the corporate world using them.
> > >
> > I'm not doubting your background or experiences, but if you've ever
worked
> > on a large scale industrial project involving sensitive information from
> > multiple departments in multiple companies, you'd understand why fine
> > grained ACLs are absolutely vital. You really need greater power than
> > owner/group/other in many situations (I do realise that Unix can to
this -
> > interesting that you've never seen it).
>
>
> GM
> FORD
> Kmart
>
> Both financial data AND product parts files (CAD/CAM/CAE applications).
>
>
> I've yet to come across such a need in the Commercial world.
>
My experiences differ somewhat. I've never worked in the automotive
industry - mainly the resource sector. We should leave it at that before a
boring yes it is/no it isn't argument ensues.
<snip>
> > >
> > The current crop of Unices weren't built in a day, or a decade for that
> > matter.
>
> Linux is less than 10 years old, and is only about 1 year behind the most
> advanced commercial unices.
>
> In 5 years, Linux will be 1 year ahead of any commercial unix which
> doesn't adopt open source directly into their own distributions.
>
It's certainly going to be an interesting few years with regards to the
success of open source. If better products are the result, everyone wins.
nuxx.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:20:26 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:95kpo4$k8s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
>
> My questions:
> 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating system?
> Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
>
> How does one test this? (whether an operating system is 64 bit or 32
> bit?)
Linux is 32 bit on 32 bit hardware. It's 64 bit on 64 bit hardware (ie, on
standard PC's, Linux is 32 bit. On Alpha processors, 64 bit SPARC, 64 bit
MIPS, or the upcoming Itanium processor, it's 64 bit)
> 2) Does this account for the "generally understood" linux's stability
> and the "well known" Windows (maybe not win2k) lack of stability?
No, it has nothing to do with either (whether true or not).
> 3) If Linux is true 64 bit and windows 2000 is still 32 bit - then
> surely Win 2000 cannot be compared to Linux (case of apples vs
> oranges). Or have I missed the boat entirely?
MS has a currently available beta version of 64 bit whistler. You can get
it if you are an MSDN member.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 01:10:48 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95ifj9$aep$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:39:09 +0200,
> > Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> >
> > >> > False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have
> eyes
> > >for
> > >> > *much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
> > >> > We can understand pictures much better than text.
> > >>
> > >> That must be why you are reading USENET in heiroglyphics, eh?
> > >
> > >For complex ideas, you need writing, or else you start to mess with
> people's
> > >idea about what a picture mean.
> > >For simple ideas, there is no better way than pictures, which are
usually
> > >can by-pass cultureral ties.
> > >Not to mention that you can recognize pictures much faster than text,
and
> > >once you associated a picture with an idea. (IE, outstrecthed hand with
> > >"Stop!") it's much faster & easier than reading it.
> >
> > no, the word "Stop" is no slower than an icon, the word becomes an icon.
>
> Not really, you need to read it, and then phrase it into an idea.
> A picture doesn't need phrasing.
>
> > >> The fact is, text is FAR more efficient for expressing complex ideas
> > >> (because 10,000 pictures can be summarized with a single word).
> > >
> > >Give me that word, please.
> > >That can sumerise a 10,000 picutes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > porn?
>
> No, that isn't it, sorry.
Television?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:22:17 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> >
> > My questions:
> > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating system?
> > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
>
> It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> a future 64-bit version of windows.
It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 01:12:50 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FLYe6.19226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> > I am also convinced that IBM was the worst possible company to promote
> > and market this operating system...
>
> Weren't they the ones that gave us the 640k nightmare?
Indirectly as they chose MS-DOS to "power" the thing...
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 01:18:32 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > (Taken me some serious gutts to post in this emotionally charged
> > > forum. But love every bit of it. Hope Linux survives!)
> > >
> > > My questions:
> > > 1) I've heard that linux (latest kernel) is 64 bit operating system?
> > > Is this true? How does this compare with Windows 2000 x-bit (please
> > > don't say 2-bit, though it may be tempting!)?
> >
> > It is rumored that microsoft is doing some work on
> > a future 64-bit version of windows.
>
> It's not rumored, the beta has been available for 3 months publicly.
I've never seen it, and I don't know anyone
who has, so I couldnt say.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:27:37 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qvlf6.266$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:xZbf6.4122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ah7f6.224$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:76Yd6.340$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "meow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > THIS SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE. THERE IS NO REASON THIS CANT BE CODED
> SO
> > > > > THAT THE USER CAN ONLY CHOOSE OPTIONS THAT HIS MONITOR SUPPORTS.
> > > > > iTS EXTREMELY BAD PROGRAMMING THAT IT ALLOWS THEM TO SCREW UP
THERE
> > > > > MACHINE SO VERY EASILY.
> > > >
> > > > While I disagree that Linux could possibly harm an LCD screen, I do
> > agree
> > > > with you on one point.
> > > >
> > > > Monitors and Video cards have supported automatic identificaiton of
> > > monitor
> > > > capabilities for years. Why doesn't Linux support this?
> > >
> > > Xconfigurator does and has for quite some time.
> > > Mandrake's installer does and has ever since they opted for graphical
> > > installs
> > > Educate yourself before posing such questions...
> >
> > When I was running Mandrake 7.2 it most certainly did *NOT* auto-detect
my
> > monitor. I had to physically select it from the list (and I had to do
> this
> > every time I changed graphic modes, which was quite annoying).
>
> What kind of monitor?
Sony GDM-F500.
> I'm using a bargain basement ProView 19", an OptiQuest Q71 17", and a
> generic, no-name 15" all of these worked just great. (The 15" could be
> persnickity at times and Windows didn't like it much either. Cheap piece
of
> junk. I use it for CLI-only DB server installs and the like)
>
> The video card, a Voodoo 3 2000 PCI, was detected as well. (From version
7.1
> and on...Earlier versions kind of choked when presented with it and the
3dfx
> DRI drivers from then really sucked)
Well, I couldn't get X to load the accelerated driver for my video card
(Hercules Dynamite 128/Video), so I had to use the generic SVGA driver. I
tried to upgrade to XFree 4.0.2, but I needed RPM 4, and when I upgraded to
RPM4, my package database needed to be converted, but RPM wouldn't convert
it. It kept failing. So finally I got fed up and just wiped the disk and
installed FreeBSD. Haven't had a problem since.
>
> >
> > Xconfigurator? Does that exist in every distribution of Linux? Does it
> > exist in even most of them?
>
> Any based on RedHat, I would imagine. Despite its' inferiority when
compared
> to suse and Debian, RedHat and Mandrake are what most people can get off
the
> shelves and therefore are the most prevelent.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:41:08 +1100
Unfortunately you need the overhead to run windows, you can quite
comfortably run Linux wihout KDE or Gnome, if you can cope with CLI that is.
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 04:26:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:25:28 -0600
> > <GcMc6.158$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> FACT: linux does not force you in to software and hardware upgrades.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> How many people are running on `old' systems? I'm running on a P133
and
> > >> under Linux it runs fine. It won't even run the latest version of
> > >> windows.
> > >
> > >Huh? Windows runs fine on a P133. Heck, I've run WIn2k on a P100
laptop.
> >
> > Win 3.1 once ran on a 386/20, with 4 megabytes. (Presumably, it
> > ran rather sluggishly -- but it ran.)
>
> I have a 486DX33 with 4Mb, now "upgraded" to 8Mb. Windows 3.1 runs about
> the same as Windows 98 on my K2-400 with 64Mb.
>
> The vast increase in processor, memory and hard disk specs neatly balances
> software bloat, and Microsoft aren't alone, KDE is another resource hog.
>
> Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: 4 Feb 2001 17:27:22 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When whistler finally hit's market I predict the following.
The more interesting question is which will be first? Microsoft
releasing Whistler or you making a post that is not completely stupid?
I think Microsoft will win that one. Heck, I think Netscape will make a
decent browser first!
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: 4 Feb 2001 17:35:08 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:02:09 +0000, Mart van deWege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>READ the bloody EULA for a change! It specifically states that
>ONLY a single backup is permitted. So if I like to be safe and
>want to have multiple redundant backups, I am in violation,
>although copyright law and precedent specifically grant me the
>right to make multiple backups.
Perhaps it is that way in your country (although I doubt this), but in
the US and most of the rest of the world, neither copyright law nor
precedent gives you a right to make even one backup. Rather, what the
law says is that making backups is not a violation of copyright.
The EULA, if it is enforceable, is enforceable as a contract. Even if
you had a right to make backups under the law, you could give away that
right in a contract.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "It's the desktop, stupid"
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:13:52 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2001-02/lw-02-penguin_1.html
>
> Fascinating!
If you want a real discussion, I would love one devoid of the flames and
posturing that so populate this forum.
The "desktop" as it is so professed is not what people make it out to be.
Yes, Linux has competing desktop metaphors, and with it, more importantly,
competing APIs for dealing with them. It makes sense to have an RFC for desktop
IPC, just as much as it makes sense to have one for FTP and HTTP and HTML.
That being said, and as an admission of a short coming of the current UNIX
environments, it is not as serious as it seems. The Windows' desktop is not as
perfect as proponents profess. Many applications routinely ignore common
messages and data types, this can be seen by the circle with a line when you
try to drop a file on it. Also, there is decent in the ranks of Windows program
developers. Many software OEMs are ignoring "CUI" and developing their own UI
and ignoring the Windows metaphors.
Linux has a tremendous opportunity to develop a common desktop API, leaving
actual implementations irrelevant.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:14:59 -0500
>
> Microsoft is the one who's been in Fed court too many times to mention.
>
> I don't think Dell's been ever charged with criminal conduct.
>
>
Pish-tosh..It's sour grapes from competitors.
I can't wait until the appeal from Thomas P. Jackson's
court is heard. Microsoft is going to win big here.
------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:18:43 -0500
"G3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], pip
at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/3/01 6:04 AM:
>
> >> having a vision. They have both run businesses that succeed by
> >> relentlessly pursuing market share while competitors pursue innovation.
> >
> > That's not true. They are innovative - they nick other companies ideas,
> > therefore you could say that they have proxy innovation.
> >
> >
> >> I personally don't admire what Gates has accomplished at Microsoft.
> >
> > Really? I do. If you can sell an unreliable OS to >90% of people
> > then you can handle my marketing budget :-) I mean this in a very
> > real way! Sounds like sour grapes to me.
>
> The only reason gates has succeeded is because Apple was dumb enough to
fire
> Jobs. Now that Jobs is back he is once again proving there's only one
> company in the damn industry that can come up with a NEW idea.
>
What 'new idea'? OS/2 was a new Idea, it was just poorly marketed in
an era when IBM decided to live on their name. Microsoft out marketed them.
MacOS is hardly a new idea, Xerox thought it up first. Apple did the same
thing
that Microsoft did--they improved on it.
> Gates is hardly a visionary. He stole a couple good ideas who's creators
> didn't stick around long enough to fight him on it. Now he has money and
> when you have money everyone and their cat will SAY your a genius but the
> fact is the guy got lucky. MOST people doing what gates did would have
> ended up in Jail.
>
Gates saw the writing on the wall..Make it easier and they will come.
Microsoft has done that (for good or evil) well; they made it easier.
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:20:12 +0800
"Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:26:15 +0800, "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:A5pe6.65941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:pord6.1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > The mind boggles at this bit of sophistry.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hello? have we heard of Oracle? DB2? Sybase? Informix?
> >> > >
> >> > > In fact, EVERY database that matters has a Linux version.
> >> >
> >> > How many of these enterprise class databases have you deployed in
> >> production
> >> > environments on Linux servers? What sort of systems & how are they
> >> > performing? Seriously, I'm interested in reading some good Linux
> >advocacy
> >> > for once. Or is there anywhere I can find some case studies?
> >> >
> >> > cheers,
> >> > nuxx
> >>
> >> Here's one:
> >>
> >> http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/1204/pol-nasa-12-04-00.asp
> >>
> >
> >Thanks. Are there any similar stories for Oracle or DB2 on Linux?
>
> Glad you asked
>
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/1665/1/
>
>
http://www2.software.ibm.com/casestudies/swcs.nsf/customername/E8FDF9FEC5ADF
FC3872569860026B025
>
http://www2.software.ibm.com/casestudies/swcsdm.nsf/customername/640ED89B457
B6C24002568D5001BD6BF
>
> Any questions?
> --
Thanks for that. More interesting reading than specweb results or netcraft
surveys! :-)
nuxx
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 02:38:45 GMT
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 3 Feb 2001
>On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:12:34 GMT,
> John Travis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>And Charlie Ebert spoke unto the masses...
>>:When it comes to Koresh, don't we have better things to do
>>:with our Federal money and time than chace religious kooks?
>>:Religious kooks with guns or not, who cares....
>>:
>>:Did they break any law? I still never heard.
>>
>>Yes, several fire arms laws, hence the ATF.
>
>funnily enough, there were no convictions of firearms violations.
Well, considering the suspects burned themselves to death before they
could be charged, I don't find it funny at all.
[...]
>Completely missing the point that a couple of years before, Koresh was
>arrested, (and released w/no charges after investigation.) by the simple
>expedient of the sherrif going to Mt Carmel (alone) and asking Koresh to come
>into the station on an arrest warrant. Koresh complied, and all was well. There
>was no evidence that the Davidians would have resisted Koresh's arrest by the
>ATF at all, the only evidence that it was the Davidians who opened fire first,
>was the front door of the meeting hall, which the Feds "lost" before the
>trial.
Completely missing the point that Koresh did not turn himself in, but
instead barricaded himself in with children and eventually set himself,
and those children, on fire. Claiming that the ATF didn't ask nicely
enough is just arm-waving.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 04:38:55 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
It take a lot of time to complete, but once 4 is closed, then 3 will get the
focus, and the additional resources, and will speed up beyond 2 & 1.
> >> >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.
The *numbers* slowly climb to the top. (IE, 4 had 94325345, and 1 had
13243244. Shift the focus, and it's noticable that 1 does faster
proccessing, and its number go to the top.)
> >> >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.
No, I just spesific data, and explanation about how I got this number. He
didn't.
> >> 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?
You've the option in NT as well, but I can't remember where it is.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
