Linux-Advocacy Digest #530, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: why open source software is better (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] .sig (Gergo Barany)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Lawrence Kirby)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Aaron is actually a nice guy! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: I will now perform a neat trick (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (David Steinberg)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:01:36 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97frbg$alg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:976bmc$drc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :> : The definition says it's a queue of bytes between two processes. A
file
> : is
> :> : most definately a queue of bytes. And it bridges two programs via
their
> :> : stdin and stdout.
> :>
> :> Programs != Processes.
> :>
> :> The DOS style is actually a temporary storage between one process and
> :> ITSELF, because there is only one process in DOS. At different times
it
> :> is populated by different program images, but it is only one process.
>
> : I see you didn't comment on my arguments about other OS's that also
don't
> : have processes, but do have multitasking such as AmigaOS and MacOS <=
9.x
>
> The definition of a pipe as an interprocess tool is very old and
> predates the use of threads, so it doesn't mention them. But when
> it comes down to it, a thread is half of what makes a process.
> A process is an execution thread plus a walled-off memory space.
> The only difference between a thread and a process is that memory
> space.
Hmm.. was I blind when you asserted:
> :> Programs != Processes.
???
Now, here you are claiming that Programs == Processes.
> When it comes to pipes, that memory space difference is
> irrelevant to how they work. By that measure, pipes between threads
> are still pipes. They work exactly the same way as pipes between
> processes - there is no difference. In DOS, because of the lack of
> BOTH processes and threads, they CANNOT be implemented the same way.
Interesting how, when it suits your argument, you pedantically drone about
how the definition states processes and not programs, yet when confronted
with the flaw in your logic, you reverse yourself but still squirm to try
and figure out a way to make your original statements still valid, despite
all your arguments being contradicted by your own statements.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 27 Feb 2001 19:54:23 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:25:07 -0800, Keldon Warlord 2000 wrote:
>1) I have actually used Win 311 on a 486. I couldn't get a damn thing done
>because it lacked so many features that today we take for granted.
I got quite a lot done with it, the main problem I had was that the machine
didn't have enough memory for the apps I wanted to run. (Not Windows'
fault.)
>2)Win 311 isn't even fundamentally like Win 95. I took that same 486, put a
>total of 20MB of RAM on it, and it was like a whole another
>world....granted, at times it ran as slow as hell, but at least it WORKED.
Sort of yes and no. The design of Win 9x is severely compromised by
compatibility constraints, and it's essentially Win 3.1 with a whole
lot of stuff "tacked on".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:05:27 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nope. AmigaOS has "tasks" which are synonymous with threads.
> > AmigaOS tasks all run in the same address space and have no seperate
> > context of a process.
>
> I used to develop software for the Amiga. It has processes. It has
> top. It has PIDs. What does the 'Proc' part of CreateNewProcTags()
> mean? (Yes, there is a CreateTask() call as well -- but tasks can't
> do many things that processes can).
It's been a while since I did Amiga programming, and I no longer have my
reference books, but IIRC, CreateNewProcTags, the Proc stood for Procedure,
not Process.
In any event, Steve was asserting that Programs != Processes, so Program
ID's are irrelevant.
> > MacOS has improved in recent years, but still has no concept of a
process.
> > MacOS X will change that.
>
> A process needn't have it's own address space. That's how UNIX does
> it now, but it was not always the case.
The difference between a process and a thread is that process includes an
address context.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:08:51 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Edward,
>
> >>> 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?
> >
> > Are you rtying to tell me that someone removed the comments between 2.2
> > and 2.4. I really don't believe you. Can anoyne confirm this?
>
> Just grep'ed my 2.4.2 kernel source. There is this statement in
> kernel/kmod.c:
>
> static inline void
> use_init_fs_context(void)
> {
> struct fs_struct *our_fs, *init_fs;
> struct dentry *root, *pwd;
> struct vfsmount *rootmnt, *pwdmnt;
>
> /*
> * Make modprobe's fs context be a copy of init's.
> *
> * We cannot use the user's fs context, because it
> * may have a different root than init.
> * Since init was created with CLONE_FS, we can grab
> * its fs context from "init_task".
> *
> * The fs context has to be a copy. If it is shared
> * with init, then any chdir() call in modprobe will
> * also affect init and the other threads sharing
> * init_task's fs context.
> *
> * We created the exec_modprobe thread without CLONE_FS,
> * so we can update the fields in our fs context freely.
> */
The comment is about part of the code that's going on inside the function,
not what the function itself is supposed to do. Comments about the function
preceded the function, comments about code inside the function appear inside
the function and before the code that it is commenting.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:08:32 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
>
> You really are a contemptable piece of slime, aren't you?
>
Hey Phil, what's happening to your usually reliable
good manners?
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 27 Feb 2001 20:03:03 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:37:14 GMT, Ian Davey wrote:
>So have I, and apart from the UI, there isn't much difference to Win3.1. Even
>the Win95 installer admits that much, saying stuff like "better optimised to
>run DOS games" but no list of vast improvements. You're probably just getting
>confused by the 3.1 UI.
Preemptive multitasking, dual mode and protected memory are vast
improvements. Microsoft don't market it like this though, because
it's not a good strategy for a mainstream audience.
These features are tacked on and the result is a shining example of
"second system syndrome". Backward compatibility often entails horrific
design compromises. However, it is plain dishonest to say that
it is "not much different" from Win 3.x.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gergo Barany)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 27 Feb 2001 20:08:44 GMT
[Followups to poster]
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gergo Barany wrote:
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Usenet is not a governmental body of the United States.
>
> Usenet is not a governmental body, period.
It's a community, and as such, has certain rules. Those rules are
difficult to enforce (by design), but they are there.
> > > Therefore, my .sig is protected by the Constitution of the United
> > > States.
> >
> > No, Usenet is not part of, or controlled by, any government.
>
> If I were to create and post child porn here, you can bet your
> last dollar that there would be police knocking on my door within
> a week.
That's not control. If you were trading child porn photographs, that
would be just as illegal because the content is illegal; but you can
hardly say that your government controls photography, can you?
> > > But you *CANNOT* legally make me shut up.
> >
> > That's because Usenet makes it hard to punish Netiquette violators,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You misspelled "has no authority"
Yes it does. It's called the Usenet Death Penalty. And there's also
abuse@ to report offenders to their ISPs.
> > not because you don't violate rules. And yes, that's a Good Thing.
> > Rules should not be followed because we fear the police but because
> > they are reasonable.
>
> define reasonable.
It's something along the lines of "what the majority finds
reasonable, where everyone uses their own definition".
> > > And the more you try, the more I will deliberately annoy you.
> >
> > As of now, you're not annoying me, so you'll have to try harder (but
> > please do it via e-mail).
>
> Please write another long post of complaint devoted to how
> you are not annoyed.
I'm not complaining, I'm having a discussion.
Gergo
--
You can't take it with you -- especially when crossing a state line.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Aaron Kulkis" writes:
...
>Complete bozos are not given security clearances nor allowed to even
>seeh, let alone use military code books.
Given the number of high-ranking miliary officers that have over the
years proven to be "complete bozos" this statement is, to say the least,
naive.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Aaron Kulkis" writes:
...
>> I'm not sure that this is strictly true - don't you mean "any compiler
>> that defines this in the standard header, when compiled in strict ansi
>
>Compilers do not determine the contents of the standard headers.
That is an implementation decision. The C standard does not require
standard headers to be files (*). When a compiler sees the directive
#include <stdio.h> it could simply act by updating its internal symbol
tables to enables the definitions required by that header. C compilers
are allowed to act on knowledge of standard library functions e.g.
to generate inline code directly, pick a form that implements a
particular class of arguments efficiently and so on. For example given
printf("%d", value);
the compiler might emit code along the lines of
__intrinsic_output_int(stdout, value)
>(Although standard header files are often shipped *with* compilers,
>they are two COMPLETELY seperate works.)
In K&R C you could argue that. Since the first C standard was
published in 1989 it is simply not true.
* - any include of the <> form need not access a genuine file. An include
of the "" form does have to search for a file initially but if that
search fails it proceeds with a search of the <> form so even a
"" form include need not end up including a file.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:36:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Aaron Kulkis" writes:
>> Um - no. I believe he distinctly said "macro."
>>
>> And there is no definition of PI in Standard C.
>
>
>Standard C doesn define getc(), putc(), printf(), scanf(), read(), nor write(),
> either.
Standard C defines all of those except read() and write().
>What does that have to do with anything?
Standard C defines what identifiers must be defined in standard headers,
what identifiers an implementation can put in standard headers for
its own purposes and what identifers an implementation may not
place in standard headers. In particular a C cimplementation may not place
PI or M_PI in <math.h> or indeed any standard header because they
are not in the implementation's namespace for any standard header.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:43:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <97fsrp$675$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Edward Rosten" writes:
>> Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
>> turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the ISO C
>> Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues are the topic
>> of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>
>Out of curiosity, which part of the ISO standard does it violate?
In C99 (C90 is similar) it is 7.1.3 Reserved identifiers
"Each header declares or defines all identifiers listed in its associated
subclause, and optionally declares or defines identifiers listed in its
associated future library directions subclause and identifiers which are
always reserved either for any use or for use as file scope identifiers."
PI doesn't meet any of these requirements so it can't be defined by standard
headers. In particular this means that PI is not a reserved identifier and
a strictly conforming program can define and use it for whatever purposes
it wishes. A conforming implementation is not allowed to break a strictly
conforming program.
--
=========================================
Lawrence Kirby | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilts, England | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:21:30 -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:
> > > >
> > > > "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.
>
> Yes the above definition is valid for publish. The issue I have is how
"open
> source" is unpublished or undocumented? Since the source is the
documentation,
> how on earth can you support a claim that anything in Linux is
undocumented.
The problem is that these terms are overloaded. They mean different things
in different contexts.
For instance, when you refer to "an unpublished work", according to
copyright law, it means you have no intention of making it public knowledge,
no matter how many people you give the source to.
While clearly, the authors of the Linux kernel intend for it to be public
knowledge, they also don't intend for every function, even every function
visible outside the kernel to be used by all programs.
For instance, sys_geteuid16 is a syscall that's completely undocumented
other than it's uncommented source code.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:23:02 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97fsnu$674$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 2
> >> use_init_fs_context() is a function internal to kernel/kmod.c and is
> >> defined and used only in there.
> >
> > Exactly my point.
>
> No, it is not accessible from outside the kernel, so it is not a syscall.
Fine, if you want syscalls. sys_geteuid16
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:20:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:08:05 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 23 Feb
>2001 21:43:41 GMT;
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:48:59 +0200
>><974ans$lcr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Failing that, we could try to run NT on SPARCs. (Um...there's just
>>>> a slight problem with that... :-) )
>>>
>>>Yes, you would have to convice MS to give you the SPARC port.
>>
>>Sell, perhaps. (And not the source code, either.)
>>Someone then sets up a benchmark and we'll see which is better. :-)
>>
>>But OK, sounds like someone did a little work already.
>>(However, I was under the impression that the part(s) of Windows
>>ported to SPARC sat on top of Solaris.)
>
>As far as real life is concerned, this port of Windows to SPARC is
>entirely mythical.
The IE port is fact (AFAIK); my understanding is that it was a
saleable product. However, there are two essential differences.
[1] The part of Windows sitting under IE, AFAIK, can take advantage
of Solaris services. This does not skew the Windows/SPARC benchmark
to Microsoft's favor, of course; the Windows user (IE) would
have to go through two levels of calls to, say, open a temporary
file, or even draw (since the Win32 layer has to talk to X).
In that respect, it's not much different from Wine.
[2] It's not clear that IE requires all of Windows to run properly.
(A good portion thereof, of course -- certainly, one must be able
to draw, respond to user events, and implement buttons, combo
boxes, pulldown menus, ActiveX support, etc. etc.) Therefore, the
part which was ported for IE may not be complete.
So in essence you're right, AFAIK. (It would be a mildly
interesting test.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 22d:22h:47m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron is actually a nice guy!
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:21:21 +1300
That's real rich coming from a person who doesn't even use his real
name, LOL
Matthew Gardiner
Clamchu wrote:
>
> meow wrote:
> >
> > Ok i take back the posts ive been sending about Aaron
> > Im chatting to him on Icq and he seems a very nice guy
> > I was bored so dont shoot me
> > Trolling on here passes away the day
> > NO more from me!
> >
> > Meow aka Woof aka Mooo
>
> You stupid wanker. It's only fitting you and Kulkis should get along;
> you're both made of the same horse-shit material.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:26:10 +1300
Do you have any valid arguments regarding the Linux vs. the Evil Empire
(no, not the Soviet Union)? or GPL vs. proprietry software? it is rather
ammusing that a person who doesn't use his real name when posting
garbarge and doesn't stand be hind what he or she says. Mind you, if I
posted somthing like that, I wouldn't want anyone to find out it was me.
Matthew Gardiner
Clamchu wrote:
>
> Watch closely:
>
> Kulkis is a shit-head.
>
> There. A. Kulkis' .sig will now grow in size to at least 3 more lines.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: 27 Feb 2001 20:43:58 GMT
>From the article...
"You're going to replace one monopoly with another if you're
right," appeals court chief judge Harry Edwards told government
lawyers.
Oh, lord. And the fact that Judge Jackson expressed an opinon AFTER
hearing the case was supposed to show bias?
I'd also like to think that the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court would
understand that it's not about *gaining* a monopoly position, it's about
*abusing* that position.
Next stop, The Supreme Court.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:45:12 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97frbg$alg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hmm.. was I blind when you asserted:
>
> > :> Programs != Processes.
>
> ???
>
> Now, here you are claiming that Programs == Processes.
I think a single-threaded instance of a program == a process in unix. A
new thread of a program doesn't spawn a new PID, unless using fork().
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
