Linux-Advocacy Digest #14, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Feb 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What makes GNU/Linux good! ("Martigan")
Re: X-windows Doesn't Suck (bigbinc)
Re: X-windows Doesn't Suck (bigbinc)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Bennetts family")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Mark Bratcher)
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Mark Bratcher)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What makes GNU/Linux good!
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:15:51 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95pnq6$13s2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Martigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Well I thought I should write (not right) this because of all the
> : Wintroll-linsux-isms out there.
>
> : I started my computer days with an Atari 800XL, then a C=62,
followed by
> : an Amiga 2000. I had the Amiga until 1998 when I bought a PIII with
> : windows.
>
> What's a "C=62"? Is that a Commodore 64 with 2Kb of RAM disabled?
>
Well if you want to think about it like that, go for it. I think it is
just a good case of phat-phinger.
------------------------------
From: bigbinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X-windows Doesn't Suck
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:11:52 GMT
Sucks is a bad word, I take that back. Any piece of software that has
been developed over the course of so many years with the inclusion of
different groups of people across the world doesn't deserve to suck.
In my own experiences with my own Linux setup(RedHat7.0, Linux Mandrake
7.2), Xwindows and the Desktops have been slow and difficult to
configure to my own liking. Under Gnome and KDE, applications take
forever to load, large applications like StarOffice and Netscape crash
(of course I can recover the system but still). LinuxConf may or may
not load. After I stopped using Gnome(I thought maybe using just the
wm I would get more speed) it took me forever to get the Window Manager
(IceWm, fvwm) the way I wanted it. And after all that, I still went
back to Gnome, because the window manager lacked the features that I
needed. Additionally, setting up Xwindows is hassle. I have setup
several different computers, but sometimes you end up with a monitor or
video card that takes days or weeks to work properly if at all.
But these are interface issues more than anything else, not real
problems.
In a nutshell, I dont really have a problem with Xwindows I just wish
that there were other alternatives of a GUI for unix based systems.
Something with a simpler architecture. "I" dont need a Xserver or any
server for that matter if I am running a simple 486/pentiumI. But I
would like a simple(doesnt even have to be button based)GUI.
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MontyManley/MontyManley9.html
Are there alternatives?
Berlin Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <95o4np$d5p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bigbinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying
the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying
x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?
>
> Berlin Brown
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This guy agrees with me.
> http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
>
> --
> "...yes darling, computers are people too..."
> bama.ua.edu/~brown084
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
"...yes darling, computers are people too..."
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/lights/5679
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: bigbinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X-windows Doesn't Suck
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:11:30 GMT
Sucks is a bad word, I take that back. Any piece of software that has
been developed over the course of so many years with the inclusion of
different groups of people across the world doesn't deserve to suck.
In my own experiences with my own Linux setup(RedHat7.0, Linux Mandrake
7.2), Xwindows and the Desktops have been slow and difficult to
configure to my own liking. Under Gnome and KDE, applications take
forever to load, large applications like StarOffice and Netscape crash
(of course I can recover the system but still). LinuxConf may or may
not load. After I stopped using Gnome(I thought maybe using just the
wm I would get more speed) it took me forever to get the Window Manager
(IceWm, fvwm) the way I wanted it. And after all that, I still went
back to Gnome, because the window manager lacked the features that I
needed. Additionally, setting up Xwindows is hassle. I have setup
several different computers, but sometimes you end up with a monitor or
video card that takes days or weeks to work properly if at all.
But these are interface issues more than anything else, not real
problems.
In a nutshell, I dont really have a problem with Xwindows I just wish
that there were other alternatives of a GUI for unix based systems.
Something with a simpler architecture. "I" dont need a Xserver or any
server for that matter if I am running a simple 486/pentiumI. But I
would like a simple(doesnt even have to be button based)GUI.
Are there alternatives?
Berlin Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <95o4np$d5p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bigbinc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am very pissed off. I like Linux and Unix. I have been studying
the
> works of Linux from his earlier versions of linux and it is very good
> modification of the minix system. The author of Minix actual argues
> that a microkernel based is more efficient but linux still is more
> powerful. Anyway, with all that said, Linux the Os is Cool. What is
> it missing, a GUI that is worthy something. And, I have been trying
x-
> windows and I just quit because I just found out how crappy the system
> is and a waste of my time. I would rather have more fun writing an
> alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?
>
> Berlin Brown
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> This guy agrees with me.
> http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
>
> --
> "...yes darling, computers are people too..."
> bama.ua.edu/~brown084
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
"...yes darling, computers are people too..."
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/lights/5679
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:29:47 +1100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1. People are just not interested in Linux, and I'm not talking about
> IBM I am talking about Joe user who makes up the lions share of the
> market.
Most people think that the Internet = the Web. Most people have never heard
of Usenet. It's no big deal. Linux will thrive anyway.
> 2. It's all about ease of use, compatibility with the neighbors and
> applications and Linux fails on all counts.
Samba, Staroffice's MS import/export filters, ...
> 3. Linux is FREE for God sakes and it STILL cannot get any sizeable
> market share. Do you Penguinista's have any idea what would happen if
> Gates took out a full page ad in the Sunday NY Times and gave Whistler
> away for free? There would be riots in the streets. Why? Because Gates
> makes something that people want, and Linux does not.
No, Gates has something people *think* they need. After all, the next
version of Windows can't have as many bugs and BSoDs as the current one, can
it? Can it?
> Editors,
> compilers and megabytes of half finished code fragments ala Freshmeat
> don't generate interest in an operating system.
No, but they're vital tools for people like me. There are only a handful of
decent editors on Windows, my pick being GNU Emacs :-).
> 4. Windows makes things so damm easy that screwing with Linux is just
> not worth the time even if one manages to get it working properly.
> I can walk into ANY computer store and you can put a blindfold on me
> and I can pick out hardware and software that will work with Windows
> without even looking. As long as you don't put me in the Mac section
> :) and even in that case if it is USB hardware chances are good it
> will work with Windows as well.
If hardware companies published the specifications to their stuff (like they
used to), and preferably went open source with their drivers, then Linux
would be able to have the drivers, and with the public involved, they'd also
have a better, faster, more stable driver on Windows, too.
> 5. Why in the world should I bet my job on some word processing
> program that is trying to be MSWord? Why not use the real thing? It
> came with my pre-load anyway? Install StarOffice? Why? It is free even
> in the Windows world yet nobody is using it. Why is that? Exactly WHY
> is nobody using StarOffice? Seems to me it would be a no-brainer to
> save a fortune in licensing fees but yet there is very little interest
> in even the Windows version of StarOffice. Why is that? Damm if
> someone offered me a free Car I think I would take them up on it and I
> wouldn't care if it was purple with green polka dots.
> Answer is StarOffice is garbage.
StarOffice is great, a little slow to load, but it works well, and with
significant use, I have *never* seen it crash (under either platform). It
has all the functions anyone could need, and plenty more, and the UI is
perfectly acceptable too. MS has brainwashed people into thinking that they
need Office.
> 6.Hardware support under Linux is a highly mixed bag. You see LinoNuts
> have to beg manufacturers to write drivers for Linux. Or they have to
> reverse engineer the hardware in order to come up with their own
> semi-functional drivers.
> Why should I put up with using half the functions of a card or device
> I paid good money for?
> Windows drivers are on a CD included in the box. Where are Linux
> drivers? Are there any Linux drivers at all?
> I'm not even including Win_hardware here I am talking about everyday
> hardware.
See my response to (4).
> 7. How about fragmentation. Linux currently has God knows how many
> distributions with their own package management solutions and source
> tree and so forth. Some are semi-compatible with others but unless you
> really know what you are doing you risk rendering your system useless
> mixing and matching.
> Do deb packages work with RPM? Well sort of. Do SuSE rpm packages work
> with RedHat? Well sort of.
> How about Mandrake? Some Redhat stuff works and others do not.
> How about Slackware?
> TurboLinux?
> Corel?
> True Debian?
Most of it works well enough anywhere.
> A nightmare for the uninformed.
> So let's talk about the uninformed a little bit.
> Hope you have lot's of reading time on your hands because Linux
> involves lot's of reading. Generally the process starts with How-To's
> and then when you find that the How-To's are either outdated or too
> generic you will start searching the internet where you will find many
> people sitting in the same quagmire as you. Lost souls looking to run
> Linux and the net is chock full of them.
The uninformed are pretty lousy at Windows too. I'd bet that they could be
taught how to do what they know under Windows under Linux pretty quickly,
too.
> So why run Linux?
>
> I don't know. Really I don't. Maybe you hate Gates? Maybe you have
> convinced yourself that Linux is better, I have no idea.
> As far as I can see only a real idiot would put up with 1980's style
> applications on their desktop. That's in a nutshell what Linux is
> about.
Flatty, only a real idiot would bite the hype that is the Microsoft
marketing machine. "So many pretty colours, it /must/ be good. Who cares if
a change in the wind direction will lock it up, I want my pretty colours.
No, I don't care about getting my work done, or losing 4 hours of work due
to a crash, either."
> Don't believe me?
>
> I suggest you try Linux for yourself and make your own mind up.
Done.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:27:33 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you worded it. The two sentences refer to different subjects. The
> first sentence makes a declaration about what "I" believe, whereas the
> second talks about what is believed by people in general.
> If you kept it consistent, you would have:
> I deny that the continuum hypothesis holds. I simply don't know
> whether it holds or not.
> Sounds more like a person who is very confused about what they really
> believe (ie, the sentences aren't really consistent).
More like, but not equal to. The point that I was trying to make was
"I hold that the truth value of the CH is not 1.0. But I don't know what
value it is exactly". I.e. that the second statement adds to the
first, and IS consistent with it. That's at least one reading of "I
don't agree that god exists. I simply don't know whether he does or
not" (and you can replace "know" with "can't prove" or any other
modality to taste).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:28:44 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then there was the "agnostic dyslexic insomniac" who used to lay awake
> all night wonding if there really was a dog.
Nice attempt to end a thread by darwinizing it.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:58:46 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. People are just not interested in Linux, and I'm not talking about
> IBM I am talking about Joe user who makes up the lions share of the
> market.
People are interested in Linux...
> 2. It's all about ease of use, compatibility with the neighbors and
> applications and Linux fails on all counts.
...but because of lack of ease of use are put off by Linux.
> 3. Linux is FREE for God sakes and it STILL cannot get any sizeable
> market share. Do you Penguinista's have any idea what would happen if
> Gates took out a full page ad in the Sunday NY Times and gave Whistler
> away for free? There would be riots in the streets. Why? Because Gates
> makes something that people want, and Linux does not. Editors,
> compilers and megabytes of half finished code fragments ala Freshmeat
> don't generate interest in an operating system.
Windows costs money. Now in Whistler they're talking about a product
activation code.
> 4. Windows makes things so damm easy that screwing with Linux is just
> not worth the time even if one manages to get it working properly.
> I can walk into ANY computer store and you can put a blindfold on me
> and I can pick out hardware and software that will work with Windows
> without even looking. As long as you don't put me in the Mac section
> :) and even in that case if it is USB hardware chances are good it
> will work with Windows as well.
True enough, but only because of popularity. If Linux were as popular as
Windows, who would the hardware manufactures write all the drivers for -
Linux of course.
> 5. Why in the world should I bet my job on some word processing
> program that is trying to be MSWord? Why not use the real thing? It
> came with my pre-load anyway? Install StarOffice? Why? It is free even
> in the Windows world yet nobody is using it. Why is that? Exactly WHY
> is nobody using StarOffice? Seems to me it would be a no-brainer to
> save a fortune in licensing fees but yet there is very little interest
> in even the Windows version of StarOffice. Why is that? Damm if
> someone offered me a free Car I think I would take them up on it and I
> wouldn't care if it was purple with green polka dots.
> Answer is StarOffice is garbage.
Perhaps someone should come up with something bigger and better than both
StarOffice and Office.
> 6.Hardware support under Linux is a highly mixed bag. You see LinoNuts
> have to beg manufacturers to write drivers for Linux. Or they have to
> reverse engineer the hardware in order to come up with their own
> semi-functional drivers.
> Why should I put up with using half the functions of a card or device
> I paid good money for?
> Windows drivers are on a CD included in the box. Where are Linux
> drivers? Are there any Linux drivers at all?
> I'm not even including Win_hardware here I am talking about everyday
> hardware.
Again due to popularity.
> 7. How about fragmentation. Linux currently has God knows how many
> distributions with their own package management solutions and source
> tree and so forth. Some are semi-compatible with others but unless you
> really know what you are doing you risk rendering your system useless
> mixing and matching.
> Do deb packages work with RPM? Well sort of. Do SuSE rpm packages work
> with RedHat? Well sort of.
> How about Mandrake? Some Redhat stuff works and others do not.
> How about Slackware?
> TurboLinux?
> Corel?
> True Debian?
> A nightmare for the uninformed.
> So let's talk about the uninformed a little bit.
And we have, what, one Windows. "One ring to rule them and in the darkness
bind them all".
> Hope you have lot's of reading time on your hands because Linux
> involves lot's of reading. Generally the process starts with How-To's
> and then when you find that the How-To's are either outdated or too
> generic you will start searching the internet where you will find many
> people sitting in the same quagmire as you. Lost souls looking to run
> Linux and the net is chock full of them.
That will hopefully change.
> So why run Linux?
Why are you running Windows? I'm running it because I've yet to see
Netscape or KNode take out my desktop. Sure I've found other problems, but
in general usage, none so far.
> I don't know. Really I don't. Maybe you hate Gates? Maybe you have
> convinced yourself that Linux is better, I have no idea.
Yep, I'm not exactly struck on Mr Gates.
> As far as I can see only a real idiot would put up with 1980's style
> applications on their desktop. That's in a nutshell what Linux is
> about.
It's catching up fast.
> Don't believe me?
>
> I suggest you try Linux for yourself and make your own mind up.
I am, I have and I am running it right now.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:58:09 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:63Pf6.560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the line
> > for
> > > me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one of my
> > > machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We will
> > > neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to be
> > > viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely short-sighted
> > > would actually welcome such a system.
> >
> > Spoken just like someone without a clue about what .NET is.
> >
> > (HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it, and
> > something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this is
> > the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite surprised).
>
> OK, Erik The-laughably-named...why don't you tell us *precisely* what
> .NET is.....
>
If I may interfere, I'd say that it is a technological innovation
promoted by a company which has not succeeded up to now to provide a
barely acceptable technique for upgrading their browser via Internet.
Which has had his site explored for six months by intruders before they
noticed it. Which has been forced to outsource its DNS functions to a
company using Linux, because of blatant lack of internal competence.
Therefore it has all what is needed to make it successful.
However I'm looking forward to learn juicy details from those bedding
with Bill Gates.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 22:00:19 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4yRf6.575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > (HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it, and
> > > something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this
> is
> > > the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite
> > surprised).
> >
> > The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to conjure up past
> > memories of subscription based software from the early eighties. It is a
> > blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually, i'm surprised
> > its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is now, for someone
> > to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer sector said no,
> > resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial sector takes the
> > same tact with this profit mongering.
>
> The subscription based thing is there, much like Windows Terminal Services
> is there. You can use it, it works, but it's really only for a very small
> subset of the population.
>
> The subscription services are for companies that regularly upgrade. The TCO
> is reduced because everyone is automatically updated at the same time,
> without the need (or very little need) of maintenance and license
> management.
>
> This is really only for large companies. Small companies will continue to
> buy discrete versions of the products (non-subscription). MS simply can't
> get away with removing the non-subscription option. People simply won't
> upgrade if they're not interested in doing so.
>
> > I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET and, as a
> > developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I just ranted on.
> > We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't. If it takes
> > off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative OS's will just
> > have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
>
> Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
> The real benefit of .NET will be the Java-like cross platform capability
> (think CE, 32 bit windows, 64 bit windows, MacOS X all from the same EXE,
> each optimized for their own platforms by the .NET runtime compiler (which
> is much more like SmallTalk than Java))
>
> And, if people write .NET for Linux, as they'll be able to do from the
> standards, you can run on Linux as well.
What for?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:57:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then there was the "agnostic dyslexic insomniac" who used to lay awake
>> all night wonding if there really was a dog.
>
>Nice attempt to end a thread by darwinizing it.
>
Not really. Just a lost attempt at levity. :-)
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email address
===========================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:41:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:12:11 GMT...
...and J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would rather have more fun writing an
> > alternative and wonder if someone has(I think I will actually).
> > Because X-windows is just too bothersome. Does anybody else agree?
>
> Some think X is overkill, hence there are lightweight
> alternatives under development, e.g. Berlin et al.
Berlin is the opposite of lightweight, it's even more complex
conceptually than X11. However, it has been designed to make it
possible to avoid or optimise away issues that often degrade X
performance.
mawa
--
The fact that they produce _Sindbad_, _Baywatch_ and _PENSACOLA_ makes
me not only doubt the United States' qualification as /de facto/ ruler
of this world. It makes me wonder about their strange infatuation with
cleavage, too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:58:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> you worded it. The two sentences refer to different subjects. The
>> first sentence makes a declaration about what "I" believe, whereas the
>> second talks about what is believed by people in general.
>
>> If you kept it consistent, you would have:
>
>> I deny that the continuum hypothesis holds. I simply don't know
>> whether it holds or not.
>
>> Sounds more like a person who is very confused about what they really
>> believe (ie, the sentences aren't really consistent).
>
>More like, but not equal to. The point that I was trying to make was
>"I hold that the truth value of the CH is not 1.0. But I don't know what
>value it is exactly". I.e. that the second statement adds to the
>first, and IS consistent with it. That's at least one reading of "I
>don't agree that god exists. I simply don't know whether he does or
>not" (and you can replace "know" with "can't prove" or any other
>modality to taste).
>
If you replace the word "deny" in the original with "don't agree"
then I agree.
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email address
===========================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:05:00 +0000
Bob Hauck wrote:
> Yes, hardware interrupts, including from the ethernet and scheduler
> tick, do take priority. The kernel will respond to a ping even when
> everything else is stopped.
That's what I was wondering - that explains why an apparently hung system
can still respond to pings.
> Linux installs typically use a dedicated partition by default because it
> is more efficient, but you can use regular files too. They can even be
> added and removed while the system is running, but they won't grow
> automatically.
Growing automatically has its good and bad side.
> Perhaps, although you might need to qualify which "Windows" you mean.
> Win9x isn't known for it's great VM implementation (NT isn't either, but
> it is a lot better by all accounts). What does Windows do when it runs
> out of VM? I haven't tried that test recently. It used to be that the
> system would hang, or at least appear to be hung, in exactly the way you
> are describing.
Yeah, I know.
> Having growable swap files is not a clear improvement in all cases,
> although it might be in the particular one you were testing.
It's advantage is that it can grow, it's disadvantage it's that it's a file
and can be fragmented - bad news for swap space!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
