Linux-Advocacy Digest #510, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? ("Adam Warner")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Chris Ahlstrom)
"Rebel Code" author on NPR's Fresh Air - audio link (Seve)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (J Sloan)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:10:41 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> I agree, anyone thinking that an OS has no effect on the performance of a
> database running on it is an idiot.
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jon Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > To ignore the performance of an OS underlying a database indicates your
> > > complete lack of how software works as well as your ignorance of the
> real
> > > world interaction between hardware/software/users.
> >
> > Idiotic.
Depends which system calls it uses. I was commenting on your blasting
of someone for essentially no reason. Basically, there's no evidence
one way or the other that the effects of the OS are greater than the
effects of the database. You are talking through your hat.
Two data points are insufficient to categorize a system with two
degrees of freedom, a fact which any moron even remotely cognizant of
statistics should recognize.
Chris
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:11:34 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Exactly - microsoft's "bet the farm", "benchmark buster"
> > > > configuration with the special web cache in front of iis
> > > > is badly outperformed by AIX, and can't even match the
> > > > performance of the free Red Hat Linux system.
> > >
> > > Special cache? You mean some software anyone can buy and run outta the
> box?
> >
> > If it's not part of the base OS, nor part of the web server, then yes,
> > it is a "special cache"....
>
> You mean like tux?
Nope, wrong again - Tux is not a cache, it's a web server.
Can you spot the difference?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:21:14 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Really? So, Red Hat 6.1 is significantly faster than Red Hat 6.0? 5.2?
> > 5.1?
>
> Yes, of course. Otherwise why change?
Well then, post some benchmarks.
The reason for the new versions is additional hardware support, additional
applications, bug fixes, etc...
> > The linux releases are also years apart.
> >
> Yes, of course. In order to provide a significant performance
> improvement. Otherwise why to make a new release?
The 2.4 kernel only provides significant improvement on SMP systems, not on
typical ones. Even then, this was more of fixing a deficiency rather than
improving.
> > > Again, I'm talking about the price INCREASES of Crimosoft software.
> >
> > Something you have not yet proven.
>
> What was the retail price of Office 95 and what is the retail price of
> Office 2000?
> (BTW, Office 95 was significantly better than Office 2000)
Office 2000 standard and Office 95 standard cost about the same, MSRP. The
more advanced versions cost more, but they include a lot more stuff than the
original office 95 did.
> > > 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.
>
> Are you kidding? Latest distros (RH, Mandrake, Suse) if you install all
> the software take 4 to 6 GB of your HD. Not taking sources into account,
> of course.
Without source, I doubt that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 04:16:16 GMT
On 27 Feb 2001 00:19:35 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On 23 Feb 2001 18:49:48 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>:>But what if a C compiler didn't support malloc(), or printf()? Those
>
>: If it didn't support those, it wouldn't be a C compiler. The ISO C
>: language definition clearly says that those are supposed to be supported.
>
>And Pipes are an INTERPROCESS tool, by definition. DOS didn't have
>more than one process. It had a single "process" that lived forever,
>often replacing its program code with a newly loaded EXE or COM
>file, but that's not the same thing as starting a new process.
>(Program != Process). Piping is impossible under that type of
>environment, even using MS's temp file technique. Why is it
>impossible? Because you can't communicate between two processes
>when only one process can actually exist. DOS 'pipes' are a method
>for a process to communicate with ITSELF, not to other processes.
I don't know why you're bothering to offer this argument -- I am *NOT* trying
to argue that DOS has real pipes, I've already argued the opposite (and offered
an argument similar to the one you present here)
The fact that I don't agree with the other guys argument doesn't mean that I
don't agree with his conclusions. I am not in the business of blindly
cheerleading for any argument that happens to support my conclusions, no matter
how absurd. I try to be more intellectually honest than that. The fact that an
argument supports ones own ideas is not reason to forgive its inconsistencies,
in fact in my experience, it is all the more reason to treat the argument with
a dose of suspicion.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:25:50 -0600
"gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gPDm6.1154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:u6rm6.101$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "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
> >
>
> I thought we were talking about building a computer, not upgrading one?
> Lowest on pricewatch for that was $85, but that's for OEM. If you want it
> retail boxed, it's $185.
It was only specified a single copy of ME, it was not specified whether it
be an OEM or upgrade or retail. Even if you take full MSRP retail price,
you'd be hard pressed to find all the components mentioned for less than
that. The cheapest new retail hard drive I can find is about $75 for a
10GB. You might be able to find some liquidation somewhere cheaper, but
let's stick with current retail products.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:17:08 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > 10752000 * 8 = 86016000 bits per second, easily doable with 100Mb.
>
> Sure... assuming that a 100 mb/s ethernet connection has no problem with 86%
> effeciency. Given he's running a pentium pro 200 - did you think he's using
> a high end ether net switch.
The switches at my data center are state of the art.
What does the sort of box I tested with have to do
with anything? I can't very well take down my mail
servers to do a test install of Red Hat 7.1.
> And are we to believe he's got 16 or more dual
> processor clients to actually GENERATE that much load?
Why would you need "16 or more dual processor clients"
to "generate that much load"? The test was done from a
Unix box on the same 100 mb lan, using apachebench.
This isn't rocket science, folks:
ab http://case/manual/footer.html -k -n 8192 -c 128
and read the results.
> It's a lie. Plain and
> simple.
Well, it's cute of you to think so, but no.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:17:25 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> <snipped very good points>
> [about head conduction in chips]
>
> If they can ficure out how to grow diamond crystals, and make
> semiconductors on them, that would solve a lot of problems since diamond
> has 10 times the thermal conductivity of copper.
Ever hear of "Silicon on Saphire" process?
Saphire can be cultured rather cheaply...right now.
>
> It might also be worth making the heatsinks out of copper since it has a
> higher conductivity than aluminium.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:27:26 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:10:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > The article is based on a faulty premise. Since Windows 95 came out,
> > not all components have come down in price in any significant way.
>
> Oh, I guess that explains why we have $600 PC's now. The components all
> cost the same as they did in 1995.
I didn't say that. I said "not all", the original article stated that all
components had.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:18:19 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> And isn't Tux a "special" web add-on?
Tux is a web server, and I suppose you could say it's
special, since it's quite fast, and did I mention free too?
jjs
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:18:20 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> The 2.4 kernel only provides significant improvement on SMP systems, not on
> typical ones. Even then, this was more of fixing a deficiency rather than
> improving.
So fixing a deficiency is not an improvement? I admire your ability
at semantic manipulation, Erik.
> > > > Again, I'm talking about the price INCREASES of Crimosoft software.
> > >
> > > Something you have not yet proven.
Sure I did.
> > What was the retail price of Office 95 and what is the retail price of
> > Office 2000?
> > (BTW, Office 95 was significantly better than Office 2000)
>
> Office 2000 standard and Office 95 standard cost about the same, MSRP. The
> more advanced versions cost more, but they include a lot more stuff than the
> original office 95 did.
You have not shown this to be true at all, Erik.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Are you kidding? Latest distros (RH, Mandrake, Suse) if you install all
> > the software take 4 to 6 GB of your HD. Not taking sources into account,
> > of course.
>
> Without source, I doubt that.
Too bad you can't get Windows source code on a CD. Or Windows documentation
on a CD. (Of course, you can get some development info if you want to
pay for an MSDN subscription. Hell, if you pay about $1500 they'll throw
in some development tools.)
Erik, you go from semi-sensible to tedious in the blink of a post.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:19:06 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> I still don't follow this. When the OS runs on a faster computer, it's
> performance goes up as well. You have stated only prices, and nothing
> relating to performance.
You still don't get it. Install Win 3.1 on your machine. And tell
me it is no faster.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:30:20 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Not at all. MS understood that you make money on the server. The
client is
> > free. They have always done this with all their client/server products.
>
> You meant to say that Windows NT Workstation and Windows 2000 Pro are
> free???? Cool!
Good point, however I was not referring to OS's. I was referring to
applications. And before you jump on the fact that i'm admitting IE is an
application and not part of the OS, IE was in fact an application until IE3.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS?
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:33:01 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > This is a matter of consistency. Would you prefer a customer that buys
> > multi-million dollar hardware have to jump through hoops, jumping from
> > vendor to vendor to find what they need?
> >
> > I'm certain most of the OEM's demanded that they be the sole source of
> > patches.
>
> You may be certain, but what is the basis of your certainty?
Because i've worked for OEM's, and any OEM that sells systems of that level
deals with their own clients personally. They usually have engineers
dedicated to that client.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:25:56 GMT
Hi Chris,
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > This is a matter of consistency. Would you prefer a customer that buys
> > multi-million dollar hardware have to jump through hoops, jumping from
> > vendor to vendor to find what they need?
> >
> > I'm certain most of the OEM's demanded that they be the sole source of
> > patches.
>
> You may be certain, but what is the basis of your certainty?
Probably so there's no chance that Microsoft mucks up compatibility with a
security patch without the individual OEMs being able to test the patch out
first on their hardware.
There is a competing issue here though: are Windows 2000 security patches
made publicly available (therefore the exploit is widely known) before the
OEMs have had time to do their own testing and release their own patches?
(And I don't think a solution to this would be to hold up the notification
of security vulnerabilities for a longer period of time for standard
customers).
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:28:39 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> There are 3 single-tasking graphic servers that run a web server called
> "boa" under single-user mode FreeBSD. This gives them the ability to simply
> server HTTP graphic files (which are completely static and don't require any
> multitasking) very fast.
>
> Although, it appears that they're starting to phase even these out. Check
> out:
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=64.4.18.24&submit.x=72&submit.y=11
>
> Then look at the history, you'll see it wobbles between Win2k and FreeBSD.
> They may have even completely replaced it with Win2k, since the last record
> of a change was a few weeks ago.
OS, Web Server and Hosting History for 64.4.18.24
OS Server Last changed IP address
Netblock
Owner
Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0 13-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSD Boa/0.93.17.3 12-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSD Microsoft-IIS/5.0 11-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSD Boa/0.93.17.3 10-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSD Microsoft-IIS/5.0 9-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0 7-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSD Boa/0.93.17.3 5-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
Windows 2000 Boa/0.93.17.3 4-Feb-2001 64.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
It looks to me like Netcraft can't tell what the hell this address is running.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Seve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Rebel Code" author on NPR's Fresh Air - audio link
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:28:51 -0800
Today, NPR's "Fresh Air" aired an interview with author Glyn Moody.
Interesting to listen to. Especially considering it being in the
mainstream media. His new book is called Rebel Code: Linux and the Open
Source Revolution (Perseus, 2001). It charts the movement begun by computer
programmers who believe software should be given away for free. Moody is a
London-based writer whose work has appeared in Wired, The Economist, and
The Financial Times.
Here's the link to realaudio streaming of the conversation:
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/fa/20010226.fa.01.ram
Seve
------------------------------
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: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:38:31 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Good points, well backed up, thoroughly beyond doubt. You've
convinced
> > > me.
> >
> > the facts speak for themselves - it's been documented at hotmail, and
> > microsoft.com.
> > People working at hotmail have confirmed it, even slashdot has confirmed
it.
>
> For starters, I've seen multiple DIFFERENT 'confirmations' on slashdot,
> and widely differing stories spread about the media. Hotmail apparently
> runs on FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, NT4, Win2k, Linux, and I bet there's a
> story about how MS had to convert the thing to CBM BASIC so they could
> run it on C64s and claim it was running far too slow on the test linux
> boxen.
Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
site with "unnamed" sources.
Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
alone complete and fail within weeks.
> As for getting the details from microsoft.com or hotmail.com, MS would be
> only too happy to lie if it was in their best interests, so they are an
> unreliable source of information. Just check out Billy testifying in the
> court case!
And the only other source is unnamed.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:41:38 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97dgl7$buo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
Really? Then howcome my look at the function in the 2.4.0 source doesn't
have any comments on the function?
> 2
> use_init_fs_context() is a function internal to kernel/kmod.c and is
> defined and used only in there.
Exactly my point.
> So do you think that all internal functions are syscalls?
NT provides many internal functions through DLL hooks. These aren't meant
to be published, so yes.. they are syscalls in NT.
> Do you think it is even possibe to access that function from a syscall
> from a user process?
Sure, just create a kernel mode driver to do so.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:45:03 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Publishing an api is the act of making it public. Documenting an API is
that act of creating a document which describes the API. These are quite
simple and basic concepts.
pubˇlish (pblsh)
v. pubˇlished, pubˇlishˇing, pubˇlishˇes.
v. tr.
1 To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2 To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.
Clearly my definition falls in line with the second definition.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:37:21 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> With Linux, you have the choice of how often you want to
> > upgrade.
>
> And you don't have this choice with windows? How come?
Of course not - with micros~1, you cannot "upgrade" until micros~1
releases something to upgrade to. On the other hand, you MUST
upgrade, or you will be left behind.
With Linux, I can upgrade several times a week if I want to
follow the kernel development. I started doing that in the
2.3.3x series, because I wanted the improved speed and
the improved support for my Voodoo 3, as well as the built
in support for my sblive and my realtek ethernet.
OTOH, I could stick with my Slackware 3.0 install from 95
if I want, and still be fine, no bit rot, and no pressure to
upgrade.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:46:39 -0600
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > All OS's have unpublished API's, including Linux. You can find all
> > kinds of
> > >
> > > Wrong on two counts.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > > > API's that are inside the kernel but do not appear in man pages
because
> > > > they're intended to be used internally inside the kernel itself
without
> > a
> > > > published interface.
> > >
> > > 1) If it's only meant to be use INTERNAL to the kernal, and
> > > *NEVER* by application, then it's *NOT* part of the API.
> > >
> > > API = APPPLICATIONS Programming Interface.
> > >
> > > Anything which is "internal to the kernal" is, by definition, outside
> > > of the scope of the API.
> >
> > That's an awfully narrow view? What exactly do you call the kernel
module
> > API? A kernel module is not an application, yet the kernel exposes a
set of
> > interfaces for the modules to link to. Those interfaces are commonly
known
> > as API's, even if it's not an application.
>
> Hey, shit-for-brain (I'M TALKING TO *YOU* FUNKENBUSCH)....if you
> mean something *OTHER* than API, then don't use the term API.
>
> Now...here's some ... advice.
>
> sit down
>
> and SHUT THE FUCK UP
>
> you miserable, uneducated, lying fool.
And once again, we see that when Aaron makes a fool of himself and is called
on something, he can only result to name calling and vulgarity.
You didn't answer the question, but instead tried to dodge it by acting like
a child.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:49:57 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > I still don't follow this. When the OS runs on a faster computer, it's
> > performance goes up as well. You have stated only prices, and nothing
> > relating to performance.
>
> You still don't get it. Install Win 3.1 on your machine. And tell
> me it is no faster.
Actually, I have. It's slower than Windows 9x on the same machine (i've run
DOS benchmarks and 16 bit windows benchmarks).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
