Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #32 Mon, 26 Feb 01 08:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: why open source software is better (Per Abrahamsen)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Linus Kendall)
Re: Great, Apple patents Themes ("Edward Rosten")
Re: why open source software is better (Per Abrahamsen)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! (mlw)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Joona I Palaste)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) ("Peter Pichler")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:14:51 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Could it be that M$ makes mice and keyboards ?
> >>
> >> It's contracted out. They merely slap their logo on them.
> >
> >You keep claiming this, but have so far refused to provide any proof that
> >this is the case.
>
> When did Aaron previously claim this? AFAIK, he just entered the
> discussion.
In other discussions.
> >You seem to think that just saying it makes it true.
>
> Are you saying that MS owns the manufacturers of MS mice and keyboards?
> This seems highly doubtful, TBH.
No, what has been claimed was that MS just rebadges Logitech keyboards and
mice. Yes, MS outsources their stuff to other manufacturers, but it's still
their hardware designs, not someone elses.
This is supported by the statement "They just slap their logo on them",
which clearly indicates that he's claiming they're just re-badged products
from someone else.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:18:08 -0600
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
> > become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
>
> no, but all the cost is in the initial design and writing. once you
> are past the non-recurring cost, the cost to stamp out yet another
> cd-rom is virtually nil.
>
> windows 95, nt and office haven't changed all that much (despite
> various name changes by version).
Then explain why Windows 98's distribution size is roughly 3x the size of
Windows 95's when it first came out.
Also explain why Windows 2000 has roughly 30 million lines of code, while
NT4 only had roughly 10 million. That's not changing "all that much"?
> it doesn't matter if it's cheaper to design and write operating
> systems because that's not happening. all you need to do is stamp out
> more copies.
Maintenance is 2/3 the cost of the lifetime of a product.
> > Have PCs really gone down in price ? I paid about the same
> > for the computer I wanted 5 years ago as I'd have to pay for
> > the computer I want today. It's true that old hardware is
> > cheap, but then, old software is cheap too (how much does
> > Win 3.1 cost nowadays ?)
>
> yes. i paid $2k for a decent box (w/o monitor) 4 years ago. i figure
> i could pay $1k for a decent machine today.
That just means that your idea of decent has changed.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:12:23 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97d9c2$5u5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A "published" API is one which intended for external use. There are
> > plenty of functions in the linux kernel which are not intended to be
> > used outside of the kernel itself. Those are unpublished, and
> > undocumented since they are not listed in man pages (unlike the
> > functions which are intended to be used externally, which do exist in
> > the man pages).
>
>
> If you make up your own definition of published, then you are correct.
> Using everyone elses definition you are wrong. All parts of the Linux
> kernel are documented and published. Therefore there are no undocumented
> and unpublished calls.
>
> Since you are such an expert on the matters, why don't you go and name a
> few `unpublished' calls, then.
Sure.
use_init_fs_context()
exec_usermodehelper()
move_last_runqueue()
and hundreds more.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:24:58 -0600
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> The article states quite clearly that the *ONLY* component of a typical
> >> computer that has not come down significantly in price is the OS.
> >
> >You're being pedantic just to be able to say you are correct.
> >
> I am beginning to think that that is Erik's favorite game.
>
> He tries hard to misinterpret the meaning of what you post and get
> you to respond without detecting his twisted interpretation.
>
> I have not figured out how many posts must come between for him to
> "win" yet but I will.
I'm not being pedantic. The entire argument is based on a false premise.
If some components have not reduced in price, then the argument that the OS
is the only component to not reduce, thus it must be a monopoly is invalid.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:23:38 -0600
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > > Because, in general, when talking about monopoly we're talking post
Windows
> > > 3.1.
>
> Absolutely wrong. Crimosoft has been engaging in monopolization since
> the early 80's. Did I get u wrong or did you just admit that MS is a
> monopoly, Erik?
I said when talking about it it, people usually refer to post consent-decree
activity.
Since the early 80's? You're trying to say a company with 75 employees was
a monopoly?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:35:17 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> [...]
> >OS's generally do not improve their performance significantly from
release
> >to release.
>
> Well, but Windows does. At least according to Microsoft.
I said significantly. I don't believe MS claims that windows performance
has increased significantly in new version, just that it has increased.
> >There is usually some, but the releases are years apart versus
> >the months apart of hardware items.
>
> Add "the pace of technical development" to the list I posted recently of
> things you use to confabulate any coherent discussion of Microsoft's
> monopoly pricing.
I was commenting on how software is different from hardware. Not about
pricing.
> >With
> >software, the actual cost to manufacture the product is near 0, which
means
> >it's quite economical to just throw it away rather than reduce it's
price.
>
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Simply replace the copies on the shelf with new versions, throwing away the
old copies.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:29:42 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > So in other words, you agree that not all components have come down in
price
> > in recent years, and that the premise only applies to components which
have
> > a performance issue associated with them. The current model goes down
in
> > price when a better performing product replaces it.
>
> Actually, someone posted even cheaper prices for the keyboards and floppy
> drives than I realized existed! So I was wrong. It's beginning to look
> like that author I quoted was correct, after all, Erik.
He posted the price of a refurbished floppy, not a new one. You can always
find loss leaders.
Cheap keyboards have been around for close to a decade as well. The prices
for good quality and cheap ones have stayed roughly the same.
> > OS's generally do not improve their performance significantly from
release
> > to release.
>
> If you're talking about Windoze, I agree.
Really? So, Red Hat 6.1 is significantly faster than Red Hat 6.0? 5.2?
5.1?
> > There is usually some, but the releases are years apart versus
> > the months apart of hardware items.
>
> Which is why Linux is blowing by Windoze in features and performance,
> even with the kernel delays.
The linux releases are also years apart.
> > The other factor is that the cost of the hardware item has a significant
> > amount attributable to raw components, processes, and production. It's
not
> > economical to just throw away a 650 processor when the 700 comes out.
With
> > software, the actual cost to manufacture the product is near 0, which
means
> > it's quite economical to just throw it away rather than reduce it's
price.
>
> Again, I'm talking about the price INCREASES of Crimosoft software.
Something you have not yet proven.
> > > > Many components have gone UP in price. The GeForce 3 video card
> > > > will cost $599, the GeForce 2 Ultra costs $499.
> > >
> > > I'm willing to agree here, but would ask just how much horsepower
these
> > > babies have. Those prices are the cost of a good PC box today!
> >
> > Windows ME certainly has orders of magnitude more software that comes
with
> > it than Windows 95 when it first came out.
>
> How many CDs does it come on? Same number as Windows 95, or not?
> (I don't know, because there's no way in hell I'm wasting my money on
> ME... I learned my lesson with 98.)
Windows 95 (original version) took about 20 megs for the entire set of cabs
and setup files. Windows ME takes over 120 Megs.
> Standard RedHat comes on four CDs now. (2 binaries, 1 document CD, and
> 1 source-code CD). That's one more than the previous version came on.
Those CD's aren't full, they're packaged so they can easily split the
distributions for different price levels.
The binary CD's also contain source code.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:31:25 -0600
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >
Because Crimosoft is selling millions of copies, many more
> > than before, when it had competition, and fewer people
> > were using PCs with Windozzzzzzzzzz?
>
> Not only that but the general price of all operating systems except
> Windoze has gone down.
Really? Is that why MacOS has gone up in price? From $99 to $129 for an
upgrade?
Is that why Solaris still costs $360,000 for a 65 CPU license?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:38:35 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> [...]
> >> All of these things (floppy drive, disks, case, power supply, and a
good
> >> video card) COMBINED cost less than the price of a single copy of
Windows
> >> ME. Looks like you lose...
> >
> >Funny, I can't find all those things combined for $35
>
> Nor can you find ME for $35, list price. What is it, $89.99?
Sorry, $50
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/2715-1.htm
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:51:05 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a9a2332$0$24949@reader5...
> > OS's generally do not improve their performance significantly from
> > release to release. There is usually some, but the releases are years
> > apart versus the months apart of hardware items.
> <snip some more>
>
> So, given that the performance of the underlying hardware does increase,
> that would mean that OS's actually decrease in relative performance.
How did you jump to that conclusion? What math did you use? Relative to
what?
OS performance has many factors. For instance, an OS that use unused memory
for disk cache performs much better than one that doesn't, at the cost of a
higher memory useage. Thus, on a machine that doesn't have much or any
unused memory, the machine will perform poorer with the same CPU, even if
there's otherwise no swapping.
> I am
> quite sure you didn't mean to say that, but that's the way your statement
> parses. Care to clarify a little? Otherwise you'd be flamebait for all MS
> haters who'll keep on harping that the various incarnations of Windows
> keep getting slower for the same price.
I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion?
------------------------------
From: Per Abrahamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 26 Feb 2001 12:50:17 +0100
[ FUT: gnu.misc.discuss ]
George of the jungle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, what open source software have you written?
Lots of Emacs stuff, minor contributions to other projects.
> Personally, I am in favor of open source BMWs.
If BWM decided to "open source" their cars, they would still be
expensive to build. You would probably be able to buy cheaper BMW
clones manufactured in Taiwan, but my guess is that most people would
continue to buy them at BWM for the perceived quality and the name.
> Too bad, BMW is not.
Nope, it would help their competitors improve their car models.
An "open source" car would probably mostly appeal to the hobbyist
market of people who want to build their own cars. The established
car manufactures can build cheaper closed source cars for the consumer
market.
That's why it work better for software, the manufacturing cost is
close to zero.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Kendall)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:47:15 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:03:49 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Lars Träger wrote:
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:37:29 -0500, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >How does Windows/Linux/StudlyOS prevent your apps from crashing? When
>> > >the app crashes, you lose the same amount of work whether or not the OS
>> > >goes down too.
>> >
>> > A properly working OS will prevent the crashing app from corrupting the
>> > rest of the system.
>>
>> So some versions/distributions of Linux are not a properly working OS.
>>
>
>But UNLIKE Windows, those linux distributions are PROPERLY labelled as
>'development' versions....NOT "ready for prime time" like M$ does.
>
Actually not. *points at rh 7.0*
The real difference is that almost always are the core parts,
and I could streatch as far as all important parts, of a Linux
system properly labelled as "development" versions if they aren't
ready for prime time. This follows the simple logic that most
of the core parts aren't involved in any money-making on their own.
---
Linus Kendall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Great, Apple patents Themes
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:47:00 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam
Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://delphion.com/details?pn=US06188399__
>
> Patent overview:
> "Systems and methods for providing a user with increased flexibility
> and control over the appearance and behavior of objects on a user
> interface are described. Sets of objects can be grouped into themes to
> provide a user with a distinct overall impression of the interface.
> These themes can be invoked by calling a corresponding theme engine.
> Theme engines can be hard-coded or data-driven."
>
> Check out the 16 claims:
> http://delphion.com/details?&pn=US06188399__&s_clms=1#clms
>
> Also refer: http://slashdot.org/articles/01/02/25/169230.shtml
>
> (goes off shaking head in disbelief)
>
> Adam
This is absoloutely unbelieveable. Surely it won't stand up, since theming
has been used for several years now by other people.
Besides, MS wasnt themes in WinXP (although when in not clear). They are
not going to let anyone (especially not Apple) get in the way of thier
latest `innovaition', so we might get them slugging it out in court. Heh.
MS to the rescue, who would have thought it.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Per Abrahamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 26 Feb 2001 12:56:38 +0100
Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I am in favour of open source Beatles music.
There are lots of free music, get it legally from www.mp3.com. I
presume there are some in the same genre as Beatles.
> Too bad Paul, George, Ringo and the demon lady want to get paid and
> increasingly so.
Yes, if copyright for pop music expired 5 years after publication,
that would still leave plenty of time to cash in on the music. And
neither Paul, George or Ringo would be starving.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:02:20 +0000
In article <WJqm6.93$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97d9c2$5u5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > A "published" API is one which intended for external use. There are
>> > plenty of functions in the linux kernel which are not intended to be
>> > used outside of the kernel itself. Those are unpublished, and
>> > undocumented since they are not listed in man pages (unlike the
>> > functions which are intended to be used externally, which do exist in
>> > the man pages).
>>
>>
>> If you make up your own definition of published, then you are correct.
>> Using everyone elses definition you are wrong. All parts of the Linux
>> kernel are documented and published. Therefore there are no
>> undocumented and unpublished calls.
>>
>> Since you are such an expert on the matters, why don't you go and name
>> a few `unpublished' calls, then.
>
> Sure.
>
> use_init_fs_context() exec_usermodehelper() move_last_runqueue()
>
> and hundreds more.
1
use_init_fs_context() looks pretty well documented to me. A quick search
through the kernel sources found the function with comments telling me
what it does.
2
use_init_fs_context() is a function internal to kernel/kmod.c and is
defined and used only in there.
So do you think that all internal functions are syscalls?
Do you think it is even possibe to access that function from a syscall
from a user process?
I'm not goint to bother checking the others because you are a complete
twit and have probably just quotes a bunch of random internal functions.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:10:10 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter Hayes"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:10:37 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Bloody Viking wrote:
>>
>> > The price of software, always escalating, is the No. 1 reason why
>> > people use warez. Sure, I'd like to have an office suite. But I'm not
>> > - repeat, not - going to pay $300 for it. I'll just live without if I
>> > have to, and use a text editor for documents, use C for math instead
>> > of a spreadsheet, and so on.
>>
>> Pick up StarOffice. It's even been ported to LoseDOS.
>
> Is it free for commercial use?
Isn't is open source now, anyway?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:05:16 +0000
>> >> The source-code IS *ALWAYS* the authoritative documentation.
>> >
>> > Not everything in the kernel is documented in source comments either.
>>
>> Then read the source code. It's all in there.
>
> Well, I guess the human being is completely documented too then. Just
> read the genome. No big deal, right?
You really are playing the fool.
How am I meant to read the human genome?
How am I meant to read kernel sources, simple. Use cat, more, less, vi,
pico, netscape, kedit, word, any bloody program that can view plain text.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:07:43 +0000
In article <97da6f$fvn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joona I Palaste"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following on comp.lang.c:
>>> 3) Because of its symbolic integration and derivation capabilities, it
>>> is forbidden in the Finnish high school graduation exams.
>
>> I think the TI-92 can do this now as well.
>
> So can the CASIO CFX-9970G, which I have. But then, I've already passed
> the high school graduation exams. I got the second highest grade for my
> math exam.
I have the 9850G.
Does the 9970 have good complex numbers? The 9850 is pretty poor.
It can add, subrtact multiple, divide, square and square root and that is
all.
IIRC, the Ti-85 could do anything with complex numbers that is could do
with real ones (including matrices).
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:09:24 +0000
>> Not even....plus it STILL has all of that baggage from DOS.
>
> 'Ya talking about Win9X/ME?
>
> NT/2k has no DOS "baggage"...and that is the OS that Linux should be
> compared with...
Nope. Incorrect. MS still try to flog the 9x series to the consumer, so
from a consumer point of view it makes sense to compare Win9x to Linux.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:24:40 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Those API's are not intended to be used outside of the kernel. I can
> > > reverse engineer the windows kernel too, doesn't make it any more
> > > "published".
> >
> > I have a real problem with what you write sometimes. While we often have
> > differences of opinions, you usually seem fairly reasonable, then there
> are
> > times when you will create a paragraph as above. You can't possibly
> believe it,
> > do you? You must say these outlandish things just to be an idiot.
> >
> > How can you say that open, "published," source code can in anyway be
> > undocumented. In the linux kernel there is nothing that is undocumented,
> one
> > can see every single API and what it does. Just because someone didn't
> dump the
> > comments to a separate text file, does not mean it is undocumented.
>
> A "published" API is one which intended for external use. There are plenty
> of functions in the linux kernel which are not intended to be used outside
> of the kernel itself. Those are unpublished, and undocumented since they
> are not listed in man pages (unlike the functions which are intended to be
> used externally, which do exist in the man pages).
This is a bogus definition of the word "published," clearly one of your own
fabrication, and certainly proof you need to reacquaint yourself with a
dictionary or thesaurus.
The whole kernel source code is published. Since the source code is the
original work, in a textual format, this is the authoritative documentation.
Yes there are functions that are very specialized, and not intended to be
called by other modules or from application space, however, they are not
"undocumented," what they do is clearly documented in the published source
code.
My dad had a great phrase, "Use your head for something other than a hat-rack."
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 26 Feb 2001 12:18:46 GMT
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> In article <97da6f$fvn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joona I Palaste"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following on comp.lang.c:
>>>> 3) Because of its symbolic integration and derivation capabilities, it
>>>> is forbidden in the Finnish high school graduation exams.
>>
>>> I think the TI-92 can do this now as well.
>>
>> So can the CASIO CFX-9970G, which I have. But then, I've already passed
>> the high school graduation exams. I got the second highest grade for my
>> math exam.
> I have the 9850G.
> Does the 9970 have good complex numbers? The 9850 is pretty poor.
> It can add, subrtact multiple, divide, square and square root and that is
> all.
> IIRC, the Ti-85 could do anything with complex numbers that is could do
> with real ones (including matrices).
The 9970 is pretty similar to the 9850 when it comes to complex
numbers. Complex numbers can't be stored in matrices. They can be used
with addition, substraction, multiplication, division, squares and
square roots, but not functions like sin or cos. I don't think sin i or
cos i is even defined.
--
/-- Joona Palaste ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"You have moved your mouse, for these changes to take effect you must shut down
and restart your computer. Do you want to restart your computer now?"
- Karri Kalpio
------------------------------
From: "Peter Pichler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:42:35 -0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Allin Cottrell wrote:
>> Aaron Kulkis quoted Richard Heathfield:
>>
>> > > If you answer, please remove your sig block before so doing.
>>
>> Richard, you have to understand that Mr Kulkis is a Free American
>> Citizen,
Abreviation: FAC. Pronounce at your will.
>> and as such has a God-given Right to do whatever the
>> hell he likes (e.g. appending 1708 bytes of yahoo rant to all
>> his Usenet postings), however annoying and inconvenient it may
>> be for the rest of us.
>
>And not only that, but I serve in the military to defend
>that right.
You must be /realy/ proud.
--
Peter Pichler (Increment my "From:" address if your email bounces.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
