Linux-Advocacy Digest #458, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: RTFM at M$ ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dave Vandervies)
Re: State of linux distros (Brent Pathakis)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Bloody Viking)
Re: M$ doing it again! (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:24:10 +0000
> Steve Mading pointed out his configuration *always* filters printer
> output, even if it is labeled raw. It appears that different distros
> apply different filtering policies. I don't what distro Steve is running
> (he didn't mention, or I missed it) but I would consider that behaviour
> as broken, because if I state that I want unfiltered output to my
> printer I don't want my system to second-guess me and filter it anyway.
My system always filters stuff, not because it second guesses me, but
because it doesn't have a raw option.
man lpr | grep more
throws up nothing.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:37:57 -0600
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > M$ Claims it has created a new environment for Whistler which allows
> > users to customize their desk top...Like X ...now M$ is "claiming"
partial
> > opensource. To me this is scary!
>
> This could be very interesting. The fact is that Microsoft has been
> reverse engineering Linux and open source projects as part of the
> Windows 2000 and the .Net and Whistler. The challenge of course is that
> one would have to get court orders and subpeonas to prove that Microsoft
> actually plagerized the Linux code.
Uhh. how does someone "reverse engineer" something that has source code
freely available?
Further, many companies in the past have successfully received access to the
Windows source code in lawsuits. I don't see why that's a challenge.
> Of course, Open Source code can be used to invalidate all patents,
> patent applications, and possibly even certain nondisclosure agreements,
> if it is possible to prove that Microsoft actually copied or plagerized
> Open Source code. There are a number of ways to keep the Windows
> developers from realizing that they are receiving Open Source code.
> First, they have to be prevented from being exposed to any Open Source
> products. Second, they have to be "Fed" by a "Genious" who gives them
> unmarked comment-stripped source code. They think they are looking at
> proprietary code which they are not allowed to discuss because of NDAs.
> Their best friends might be working on the same project as an Open
> source product, but they wouldn't know.
You've been watching too many movies. You've just described the plot of
"Antitrust".
Perhaps you could figure out a real plot for your own fiction?
> Of course, if the "inspiration code" can actually be traced back to
> actual Open Source code, then the resulting code is a result of
> plagerism. Due to the nature of the GPL, all code directly linked to
> Open Source would also be Open Source. This might only result in some
> DLLs being placed into GPL, or it could force the entire Windows 2000
> Kernel into GPL. The fact is that Internet Explorer is legally Open
> Source under the terms of the NCSA license under which it was originally
> submitted.
NCSA licensed the mosaic source code to Spyglass, and Spyglass was legally
able to relicense that code. Just because code can be dual licensed doesn't
mean that the code must always conform to both licenses at the same time.
Trolltech's QT for instance is both licensed under the GPL and under their
proprietray license. That doesn't mean if I purachase a proprietary license
from them that I have to also follow the GPL.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:43:49 -0600
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Microsoft, with its max thirty-two node behemoth (well, to hear
> the behemoth price anyway: $3,000 per node) doesn't get a look in. It's
> laughable.
Have you looked at the price of a 17 node Solaris OS?
http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=56777
$60,000, whether you use 17 nodes or 32. at 17 nodes, that's $3,529 per
node. at 32 nodes that $1,875. Truly, a case of less is more.
> This is based on GPL software, which must be why Allchin's panties were
> in a knot last week to C/Net.
Solaris is also based on GPL software. There's more GPL'd code in Solaris
than there is in Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:46:39 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "The supercomputer is being built by IBM at the DOD-affiliated Maui High
> > Performance Computing Center and will be used by the DOD, other
> > government agencies and academic institutions. In addition to tracking
> > fires, uses eyed for the cluster include environmental research and
> > defense projects related to warfighting efforts."
> >
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/stories/0,1199,NAV47_STO58037,00.html
>
> Wonderful article. I'm glad the supercomputer will be used for some
> non-warfare initiatives.
>
> Now at $3,000 per processor a (non-existant and hypothetical) Windows
> 2000 supercomputer would cost 512x$3,000 or $1.5m for the software alone.
> The entire GNU+Linux supercomputer solution will cost less than $10m.
Well, let's see.. a 128 node Solaris system costs $360,000, so.. 4x that is
1.44 million dollars.
> We should remember that the NSA has already designed a more secure version
> of Linux:
>
> http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/index.html
Is in the process, it's not yet done. The version they have is a good first
step, but there's more work that needs to be done.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:55:05 -0600
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_YPl6.6203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And this spite of the fact that they've recently become so paranoid
> they're even blocking pings:
They've been doing that for 3 years at least. It's nothing recent.
> I guess this doesn't speak well for their $6000 per CPU enterprise
> firewall software they've just released:
I fail to understand the correlation. MS blocks pings at the border, long
before it gets to a machine other than a router. This is to prevent the
most common DoS attacks.
> $ traceroute microsoft.com
> 1 lynn2-br1-fa2-0-0-1.wharf.shore.net (207.244.124.10) 234.475 ms
134.687 ms 1.670 ms
> 2 lynn2-cr3-f0-0.wharf.shore.net (207.244.95.37) 0.661 ms 0.691 ms
0.533 ms
> 3 cmbr1-br1-s0-0-0.wharf.shore.net (207.244.95.14) 91.571 ms 224.229
ms 105.516 ms
> 4 209.67.246.205 (209.67.246.205) 2.337 ms 2.251 ms 2.214 ms
> 5 dcr04-p0-0.wlhm01.exodus.net (64.14.70.45) 2.204 ms 3.317 ms
2.717 ms
> 6 bbr01-g1-0.wlhm01.exodus.net (64.14.70.51) 2.508 ms 2.496 ms
2.205 ms
> 7 bbr02-p2-0.okbr01.exodus.net (216.32.132.209) 24.440 ms 24.536 ms
24.622ms
> 8 bbr01-g4-0.okbr01.exodus.net (216.34.183.97) 25.595 ms 24.589 ms
24.649 ms
> 9 bbr02-p3-0.sttl01.exodus.net (216.32.132.89) 70.668 ms 71.385 ms
71.185 ms
> 10 ibr01-g5-0.sttl01.exodus.net (216.32.29.21) 71.675 ms 70.924 ms
70.845 ms
> 11 exodus-px.microsoft.com (209.185.9.238) 71.634 ms 71.953 ms
71.749 ms
> 12 207.46.190.109 (207.46.190.109) 72.108 ms 71.833 ms 72.115 ms
> 13 icpmscomc7503-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.129.5) 72.278 ms 73.076
ms 73.179 ms
> 14 * * * <-- this must be their ping firewall powered by ISA
No, it's a router.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 02:22:29 GMT
In article <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>> 180.0:
>>
>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>> {
>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>> }
>
>
>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
Really?
========
dj3vande@mef08:~ (0) $ cat > foo.c
#include <math.h>
double deg2rad(double degrees) )
{
return deg * M_PIl / 180;
}
dj3vande@mef08:~ (0) $ gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -O -c foo.c
foo.c: In function `deg2rad':
foo.c:5: `M_PIl' undeclared (first use in this function)
foo.c:5: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
foo.c:5: for each function it appears in.)
foo.c:6: warning: control reaches end of non-void function
dj3vande@mef08:~ (1) $
========
Funny, it doesn't seem to be defined in _my_ math.h...
dave
--
Dave Vandervies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is really no need to reconcile them. What the Standard says defines the
C language. The FAQ attempts to explain it in a form mere mortals can
understand. :-) --Chris Torek in comp.lang.c
------------------------------
From: Brent Pathakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:52:42 GMT
Mike wrote:
> "dev null" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9737j1$b6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Culled somewhere off of www.devx.com this a.m.
> >
> > ... In other words, most Linux distributions, even the ones whose
> > market share is growing each year, are concluding that they can't make
> money
> > selling Linux.....
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Wow, get that! Companies sprouting up like weeds, trying to turn a
> > profit
> on
> > a free product by adding value only. --dubious value at that. And there
> is
> > only SO much value one can add to a linux distro or the penquinistas
> > start braying like donkeys in heat. See Corel for what can happen when
> > they
> think
> > you have 'window-fied' linux!
> >
> > I'm STILL wondering how they ever thought that they COULD be viable.
> > dot com madness, something like mad-cow disease I think.
>
> And yet, Red Hat appears to be consolidating its leadership position, and
> was (until the recent slowdown) on track to become profitable next year.
> They are selling exactly that "dubious value" you refer to.
>
> But it appears that they are the only Linux distribution vendor who has a
> viable chance of long term survival and reasonable financial success at
> this point. The problem for Red Hat is that this places them one notch
> below Microsoft in the open source bible. Corporations might like them,
> but they'll be trashed on cola in proportion to their success - especially
> since that success will be viewed as coming at the expense of other
> distributions, and because as Red Hat becomes the de facto Linux standard,
> their decisions about what to put in their distribution will directly
> affect the success of open source projects.
>
I think a lot of people have a basic misunderstanding here.
Linux companies don't and probably won't ever make as much money as
Microsoft or other commercial companies. One of the goals of open source
software in general and Linux in particular is to devalue OS and commercial
software...while increasing the value of service instead.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 02:55:59 GMT
Richard Heathfield ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Not just yet! :-)
: There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
: 180.0:
After I posted to the thread I fired up a web search engine and sure enough, a
full circle is 2*pi radians.
The degrees to radians conversion - which I added to my proggie - is
pathetically simple:
Degrees == 2 * pi / 360
If you want to save a few CPU cycles, you could use variable * .0174532 to do
the same conversion. I chose, becuse saving a few CPU cycles wasn't important
this conversion:
angle = angle / 360 * 2 * 3.14159268;
I tried it out and it works perfectly. A sine for a 30 degree angle comes out
to be .500000 as to be expected. So, with adding in math.h and compiling with
-lm I can now get my computer to do trig as I please.
Trig, once appreciated, is actually useful. It can be used to reverse-engineer
prescriptions for glasses for the nearsighted for example. It can be used for
ballistics too. Yep, you can "go ballistic" with creative use of trig.
Vector stuff involves 3-D trig in lots of cases. Ray-tracing uses a LOT of
trig as each "ray" computed is a 3-D vector to be triangulated in both up and
down AND left and right. So, while my use of trig is trivial by comparison, I
do know its significance.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:17:04 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What I find hillarious about this is the author appearently
> has never heard of HOT MAIL and how Microsoft has been trying
> for the last decade to replace the FreeBSD servers which RUN
> HOTMAIL with Windows counterparts.
Jezuz Charlie. Stop being so stupid.
1) MS has not owned Hotmail for a decade, it's only owned it for 3 years.
2) Hotmail has been running entirely on Win2k except for 3 single-tasking
graphic servers since July.
> They spent several million dollars in those attempts also.
> The last attempt was with Windows 2000.
>
> And they all failed. They can't keep the system up for
> more than 3-4 days. And rebooting thousands of boxes
> is completely crazy.
They don't have thousands of boxes. And the average uptime of Hotmails
servers are about 24 days. Stop pretending otherwise.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.hotmail.com
Hell, if you look in their netblock, you'll find servers with uptimes as
much as 77 days. Certainly nothing to brag about, but also showing your
gross dishonesty.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 02:50:02 GMT
In <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>> 180.0:
>>
>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>> {
>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>> }
>
>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
<math.h> has no licence to define such a macro when the compiler is
invoked in conforming mode.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 03:15:37 GMT
Dan Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In <978a64$r1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) writes:
: >Thanks! Fun easier quesation. Why isn't it in degrees as is the standard?
: What standard?!?
The Industry Standard. While high-end math pros might use radians, normal
people always use degrees to measure an angle. For all intents and purposes
degrees IS the standard. Even astronomers use degrees, "minutes", and
"seconds". As far as I care, degrees, minutes, and seconds ARE the Industry
Standard. Radians are not.
It's not too big a deal, certainly when you can readily convert between
degrees and radians. I will merely have to add in a conversion line into any C
proggie to convert from the Industry Standard degrees to the radians.
Almost certainly, who coded the math.h library was a high-end math pro, which
would make sense. Since those people like radians, they simply forgot degrees
support, since the conversion is so easy. No complaint here, only a small
inconvience that I done corrected.
The little "problem" I encountered and got help on is pretty damn esoteric.
Really, how many home users would ever ask about such a seeming "bug"? I can't
help but ask if other non-bugs are there solvable by adding a switch for the
compile.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 03:25:40 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: radians are a "unitless" type of unit, and therefore, the standard.
A full circle is 2 * pi. Still, it's a "unitless" unit. In any case, I found a
working solution to my pet problem by using a conversion formula. My proggie
works just fine now. Time to code up a proggie for the launch of an arbitrary
projectile, like a car off a jump ramp.
That fun problem has the further challenge of taking into account the attitude
of the car during ballistic flight. Air friction only adds more math fun! Use
fins for attitude control for ballistic flight across the Grand Canyon.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 03:43:41 GMT
Dann Corbit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Are you the guy with the monkey who throws peanuts at his girlfriends? If you
: really have no idea whatsoever about that which you are talking about, why
: bother to chime in at all?
Aaron Kulkus doesn't seem all that comfortable knowing that we humans did come
from an old version of an ape, let alone a monkey.
After all, that hair on your arm serves two purposes:
A: It gives laser docs job security.
B: It's an annoying reminder that we did come from a furred ape.
Want to see a furred person? Check this out:
http:www.luna.co.uk/~charles/
He's a Brit with a full Darwin fur coat like an orangutan! Yes, we DID climb
down from the trees. Why else would kids try climbing trees? Whether you like
it or not, we did come from a prehistoric ape, and that ape was the
human/chimpanzee precursor ape.
If you have a high-speed SUV outfitted with a flux cap, you can meet your
great^300,000 grandparent. He or she will look about like a modern chimp but
with arm length similar to our own.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:51:34 -0000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Trolltech's QT for instance is both licensed under the GPL and under their
>proprietray license. That doesn't mean if I purachase a proprietary license
>from them that I have to also follow the GPL.
The whole point of the proprietary license is that you can release a
binary without following the GPL.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
