Linux-Advocacy Digest #531, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 17:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: [OT] .sig (Joona I Palaste)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Mathew Hendry)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: //////////////|||||||||| Evidence Eliminator ||||||||||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
. 5704 (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (mlw)
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. (Steve Mading)
Re: [OT] .sig ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:48:53 GMT
Its rather ammusing that a country that lectures the world on democracy
and fighting corruption, the US citizens allow it to happen on their own
back door step. There is a total lack of any credibility in regards to
the upper house and DOJ when trying large coporations who blantantly
break the law, and show no remorse. Look at the number of Senators in
the upper house who take bribes, aka "campaign contributions" or
"donations to such-and-such's chariety". Hence the reason a total ban
on anyforms of payment to parties etc is needed to ensure real
administration is carried out, not, running the country run by large
coporations in stelth mode. Had there been real credibility, Georgie
Bush would have told Microsoft to go suck eggs in regard to "influencing
the out come", and Microsoft would have benn given a beating. In
regards to the populast notion of Microsoft helps the average user,
BULL-SHYTE, I find it rather ammusing (from down here (New Zealand)),
that so many yankies put there large coporates on a pedda-stool,
praising them for their "innovation", yet, bitch because they don't like
free trade and multi-nationals, THEY ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING!, get
over it. In New Zealand, and probably in the other "colonies", there is
a vigorous hatred and suspicion of Large corporations, and those who
don't give back to the community and abide by the laws face the rath of
the public, hence the reason why SUN Microsystems, Linux etc have been
so successful in New Zealand, the compete, yet realise where the line is
drawn between bully tacticks and fair competition. Had Microsoft setup
shop in New Zealand they would be punished by almost every law under the
sun, such as selling faulty goods, and not diclosing that information in
regards to those faults, the list goes on and on.
Matthew Gardiner
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews
> /story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50300&id=200102261557000226907
>
> The Department of Justice and 19 states argue
> the findings of District Court Judge Thomas Penfield
> Jackson should stand, citing evidence presented during 78
> days of trial.
>
> This paragraph of information is absolutely true.
> 19 states and the Department of Justice filed this action.
> They argued the trial for 78 days.
>
> On Day #1, if you go bother to go back and read the trial
> notes, YOU DID NOT SEE JUDGE THOMAS PENFIELD JACKSON
> making judgement on the validity of the DOJ's claims,
> the 19 states claims, nor even Microsofts claims.
>
> That's because Thomas Penfield Jackson was acting like
> a judge should. He was going to JUDGE the TRIAL.
>
> If you bother to read the new clips, there everywhere,
> you will see that Microsoft is directly accusing
> Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of being BIASED and
> against them the entire trial.
>
> Here's one of the new Judges comments.
> We have Judge Harry Edwards saying the following.
>
> "You're going to replace one monopoly with another if
> you're right," appeals court chief judge Harry Edwards told
> government lawyers.
>
> Elsewhere in the article we read this.
>
> "You don't seriously assume that
> you have competing middleware operations, do you?"
> asked Edwards.
>
> You know, the phone company was once a monopoly and
> the government broke them up. We used to pay
> over a buck a minute to call my Grandmothers house.
>
> If she were alive today, I could call her for 5 cents
> a minute. And considering inflation causing the price
> of housing to go 6 times higher than then, the price
> of gas to go 6 times higher than then, to pay 5 cent
> a minute for longdistance is incredible.
>
> I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHERE IS THIS JUDGES BRAIN ANYWAY?
> DOESN'T HE UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU BREAK MICROSOFT UP INTO
> CHUNKS THEN YOU'VE CREATED COMPETION AND THERE WILL BE
> NO MONOPOLY? THAT WHEN THEY BROKE UP THE PHONE COMPANY
> THERE WERE NO NEW COMPANIES CREATED FROM THE DUST TO ESTABLISH
> MONOPOLY POWER. ONLY THE PEICES REMAINED TO COMPETE!
>
> DID HE ABSOLUTELY FORGET THAT THE ACTION FOR THE APPEAL
> WAS TO STOP THE BREAKUP. THAT THE BREAKUP WAS WHAT THE
> APPEAL WAS ALL ABOUT.
>
> WHERE IS JUDGE EDWARDS BRAIN? WAS THE MAN BORN YESTERDAY?
> OR IS THIS GUY ALREADY BIASED FROM DAY 1.
>
> Jeffrey Minear is one of the DOJ attorneys being questioned.
> We have this exchange from Judge Harry Edwards after he
> questioned Jeffrey Minear about the "POSSIBILIY" of creating
> just another monopoly if they broke Microsoft up.
>
> "I can't say that it's inconceivable that a situation could
> arise where there would be..." Minear answered before
> Edwards cut him short with: "You haven't argued that."
>
> It is obvious to me that Judge Harry Edwards IS BIASED against
> the U.S. Governments actions and he's BIASED on the FIRST DAY!
>
> Not 78 days, but the FIRST DAY.
>
> Also I checked http://www.msnbc.com and noticed they had
> NO COVER story on this on the front page.
>
> That's amazing!
>
> http://home.netscape.com/
>
> That's where we find the lead of the article we've read.
> And there's a poll which shows over 60 % of Americans
> feel Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson was biased in his
> trial of Microsoft.
>
> Here are two more peices of the article you can read for
> yourself
>
> "I think the intriguing thing in the afternoon was the chief
> judge led the charge (against the government's case) on
> some of these issues," said William Kovacic, a professor of
> antitrust law at George Washington University.
>
> Intriguing, LED.... These are very interesting words.
>
> Isn't it really the JOB of the MICROSOFT ATTORNEY'S TO DO THIS?
> This judge hasn't even seen all the evidence for himself.
> The trial has just started. If this were true then it would
> be the post trial comments of the judge. These comments
> would be made during the ruling section....
>
> The judge's questions "did much more damage to the
> government than they did to Microsoft," said Robert Lande,
> a law professor at the University of Baltimore.
>
> Robert Lande says it best.
> It's just like the Republicans say, the government is corrupt and
> evil.
>
> Yeah right. 19 states file this action. Everybody was having
> a coffee and a donought when all this ocurred. It was just
> like the presidential elections in Florida. Nobody knew how
> to make their ballot but they thought they were doing right.
>
> 19 states of elected officials were completely on drugs.
> They were OFF their rocker. They ALL GOT BIASED at the SAME TIME
> towards MICROSOFT.
>
> And Jeffery Minear is one of them.
>
> Even thought he wasn't at Jacksons trial, he's one of them.
>
> He was just the specialist attorney the DOJ appointed to
> handle this appeal trial.
>
> This just stupify's me. It really does.
>
> The Judge argues the point that to break up Microsoft will just
> create ANOTHER monopoly?
>
> Just like the phone company thing. They are all one big strange
> monopoly who's went from $1.20 a minute to 5 cents.
>
> Oh, and the phone company officials are all on drugs also.
>
> http://judgelink.org/about/AdvisoryBd/Edwards.htm
>
> There's the judges web site. Appointed by President Carter.
>
> I am absolutely positive that if this attempt to break up
> Microsoft does fail and justice is reduced that another
> attempt will be made in the future.
>
> The AT&T breakup BTW was actually initiated in 1958 and
> finished in 1984 when the decree finally was approved.
>
> Justice does happen. It sure isn't swift.
>
> The we run into people like Judge Harry Edwards with
> their contemptable logic and appearent lack of historical
> knowledge, which lead me to conclude that we will end
> up going around with Microsoft again in the future.
>
> I don't think for one minute the appeal court is going
> to give this trial a fair trial nor represent the best
> interests of the American people.
>
> Clearly they are not using their heads on day 1.
> And this is not proceedural notions either.
>
> The is pure bias from day 1.
>
> And I ask how this happened?
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 27 Feb 2001 20:42:24 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the following
on comp.lang.c:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:32:11 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>>
>>> Joona I Palaste wrote:
>>> >
>>> > And as much as you hate it, Aaron, I have the full right not to care
>>> > diddly-squat about your Constitution.
>>>
>>> Doesn't bother me in the slightest, as long as you do nothing to
>>> infringe my Constitutional rights.
> Worse -- he'll add him to the signature.
> W: Joona infringed on my constitutional rights. Booo hoooo
> (does that not strike terror into your heart ?)
I'd actually take bizarre satisfaction about that. And whenever I'd
have to quote that signature line, I'd add:
And there's not a single thing he can do about it. Ha!
--
/-- 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! ------------/
"We're women. We've got double standards to live up to."
- Ally McBeal
------------------------------
From: Mathew Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:56:07 GMT
On 27 Feb 2001 17:35:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>On 27 Feb 2001 14:11:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
>>
>>>However, none of your quotes proves that <math.h> cannot define PI.
>>
>>Nor did yours, but I don't think a rigorous proof was requested. :)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Please elaborate.
They would also rule out _PI, so they are incomplete. Just as my quotes were
incomplete in failing to list all explicitly reserved identifiers.
-- Mat.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 27 Feb 2001 20:53:46 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <97esd6$m16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:> :> Yup. It sounds like you got it wrong. The drivers GIMP is using are
:> :> the same drivers everyone else could use if they felt like it, they
:> :> just aren't dumb enough to want to.
:>
:> : I got it wrong?!? Surely you mean Linux Mandrake got it wrong? Or The
:> : Gimp?
:>
:> No, I mean you got it wrong when you claimed there were different
:> drivers being used by Gimp.
: Other people here suggested The Gimp was using its own drivers. I saw no
: reason to disbelieve them. So, strictly speaking, it should have worked
: when I just took the defaults and tried printing? Why then was it
: necessary for me to select "Epson" in The Gimp whilst other applications
: did not need this?
You've already answered your own question in the above paragraph.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 20:56:01 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 27 Feb 2001 09:09:33 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
:>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>But the argument I've just offered is pretty much the same as the one
:>you objected to. I'm officially confused now.
: No, it's completely different. Read the other argument. The other argument
: said (essentially) that "DOS pipes can't do everything that UNIX pipes
: can do, therefore they are not pipes". This argument is obviously
: inadequate (unless you use "UNIX pipe" as a definition of pipe, which
: sort of defines the argument into triviality)
If you look at the argument trivially, then it might look like that
on the surface, but when the things that UNIX pipes can do that
DOS pipes cannot was actually listed, you can see that they are all
due to the fact that UNIX pipes are between processes and DOS pipes
are not.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:00:22 +0000
>> The fact is that after the government privatised the railways, safety
>> went down the tube and they're having to bail out the company that owns
>> th railways with more public money.
>
> Lousy management is its own reward.
>
> Of course, since you guys have become sooooooo fucking socialist, all of
Yeah, sure. Whatever.
> your best managers left LONG ago for the United States.
So its come down to "my country is better than yours" arguments. This is
my last word on this thread.
cut the sig.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:08:28 +0000
> Look, Max. The argument says "Since Windows is the *ONLY* component
> that has not come drastically down in price in recent years, Windows
> must be a monopoly in order to not follow the market demands". This
> statement is proveably false, and I pointed out that roughly half of the
> average computer has stayed roughly the same price for at least 6 years.
The prices of components that have not changed recently have at one point
started high and gone crashing through the floor. With Windows, it never
experienced the price drop. There is a big difference.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 21:05:40 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : Wrong.
:>
:> : Pipes REQUIRE multitasking.
:>
:> : Pipe are an INTER-PROCESS COMMUNICATION method....*NOT*
:> : short-hand for system-generated tempfiles between seperately
:> : run processes.
:>
:> Dos didn't even techncially have seperate one-at-a-time processes.
:> By the CS meanings of the word, it had one process that lived
:> forever, frequently replacing it's code with a new load from an
:> EXE or COM file.
: Oh god, that's sick.
Not really - just what it means to be not multiprocessing.
This is the same way all other non-multiprocess OSes were.
When a program ends and another starts, the OS doesn't do
the same sort of process-shutdown stuff that it does on
a multiprocessing system. It doesn't close files. It doesn't
free up memory. If a program dies prematurely, it leaves
junk behind. In Unix parlance, think of it like this:
The text segment contains the OS, and the COMMAND.COM
shell, and the TSRs and the currently loaded program,
but this is all in the same 'text segment', with one
'context record' that threads between these routines. When
the currently loaded program dies and a new one is loaded,
the portion of the 'text segment' containing the OS, the
COMMAND.COM, and the TSRs stays in place, and the portion
containing the program is 'exec'ed to bring in the new image,
but the PROCESS never really goes through a process-death
and restart cycle, because the OS, COMMAND.COM and TSRs are
all part of the one big process and they can't be killed.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:11:52 +0000
> I wonder what id software's profits are as a percentage of their revenue
> -- which raises another question -- why aren't id software's games
> cheaper ? They sell enormous amounts of games, as well as getting money
> from licensing the engine. Shouldn't they be able to get by just giving
> away the game and licensing the engine ? Why don't these unwritten
> rules about pricing also apply to id ?
The games market is very volatile and the products have a very short
life. My guess would be that the best strategy is to jump in and take
what you can as quickly as you can. Because of the enormous pace of the
market, everything needs to be rewritten over quite a short cycle which
increases the cost.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:15:00 +0000
>> /*
>> * 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.
You can squirm as much as you like, but it won't help. This comment
documents all the code in the function (the function is very short).
Therefore it documents the function in its entirety. If you want comments
before the function, then go and write them. For the rest of the world,
these are just fine. Oh, and by the way, this isn't a syscall anyway.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:23:03 +0000
In article <XTTm6.202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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
You were the one talking about syscalls.
sys_geteuid16
isn't in my kernel.
sys_geteuid
is in my kernel. You're absoloutely correct, it has no comments in the
*whole* function about what it does but the function is only ONE line
long. If you can't figure out what it does, then you don't understand
basic C.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: //////////////|||||||||| Evidence Eliminator ||||||||||\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
. 5704
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:24:34 +0000 (UTC)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(methinks this is spam..heh)
: If you take your computer in for repair, what will they find?
They will find someone who isn't me taking my computer in for repair.
: Think about it !
I think I'm capable of fixing my own computers, thankyouverymuch.
: When you access the Internet, your computer keeps permanent hidden
: records of your activities!
I'm wondering where this magical "hidden records" drive is mounted...
: Do you want your family or the authorities to find out what sites you surfed?
ALL YOUR BOOKMARK ARE BELONG TO US!
: YOUR COMPUTER IS SPYING ON YOU!!!
: unless you've got
: http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/go.shtml?A653704
: vsdcnbfdosdptmzwojrfwzivhygvlmxlxfjlclshgocmdnmqsvk
How about prodiving a link to something that doesn't suck?
Like an encrypted filesystem...
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:31:28 -0500
"cat < nonsense > cola" wrote:
>
> > > You all are missing my point. Microsoft was almost giving away the
> > > office products a few years ago. Now they're gouging you for it.
> > > Monopoly power.
> >
> > That was my point.
>
> I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving away "
> the office products?
> And if you can provide the when, can you also provide the price? Since you
> have used 'you' as the gouge-e, I'm assuming that OEM's aren't in this set
> of those being gouged. A few years ago, by my use of 'few', would equate to
> the release of office 97. MS wasn't giving this product away by any stretch.
> I should know, I purchased it. Office 2000, the current version, is
> comparably priced to the previous version. So, I have to ask, just what the
> hell are you all arguing about? When was ms giving their cash cow (office)
> away?
By almost "giving it away" I refer you to the OEM bundling of MS Office 6.0 and
95 standard edition. What other people may be referring too, you'll have to ask
them.
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:27:11 +0000
> 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.
This function does not exist in kernel 2.2
sys_geteuid() does exits and has not one single comment about it
functionality in its entire length of one line long. If the name wasn't
obvious enough, then you'll never be able to figure out the source code
which is:
asmlinkage int sys_geteuid(void)
{
/* Only we change this so SMP safe */
return current->euid;
}
Look, Erik, there's no point picking up random examples because it takes
abotu 30 seconds for my computer to grep the entire source code. Unless
you find something correct, the don't bother posting because I can verify
when you're talking out of the wrong end very easily.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 21:26:41 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "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.
Bullshit. Where the fsck did you get that from? Do you actually
know what program, thread, and process actually mean? I admitted
that threads share some properties with processes. How you twisted
that into "programs == processes" I have no freakin' clue.
[rest deleted as it is based on you putting words in my mouth]
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:33:59 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:32:11 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>>
>>> Joona I Palaste wrote:
>>> >
>>> > And as much as you hate it, Aaron, I have the full right not to care
>>> > diddly-squat about your Constitution.
>>>
>>> Doesn't bother me in the slightest, as long as you do nothing to
>>> infringe my Constitutional rights.
>
> Worse -- he'll add him to the signature.
>
> W: Joona infringed on my constitutional rights. Booo hoooo
It would probably go something along the lines of
W: Joona tried to infringe on my constsiutional rights because he is a
**** comunist **** **** **** *****. And if he tries again then I'll get my
gun and shoot him in to little pieces, because he is a Nazi *********. Oh
and don't anyone bother to mention Goodwin because you can go an
************* Goodwin.
-Ed
>
> (does that not strike terror into your heart ?)
>
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:35:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Amphetamine Bob
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:52:34 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>jjs wrote:
>
>> Jon Johanson wrote:
>>
> > Gee, and IBM has the money and has done TPC before and yet they
>don't have a
>> > benchmark using linux. In fact, they use windows 2K even when
>> > running their own database.
>
>No, actually IBM has banned Windows 2000 for all internal use! Yes,
>it is true!
Now that *is* a wild claim, albeit somewhat believable. Is
there a press release from IBM supporting this? :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but somebody at IBM can see through the brainwashing :-)
EAC code #191 22d:02h:06m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 14:38:24 -0700
Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > printf() WITHIN <stdio.h> is defined.
>
> Wrong. <stdio.h> declares and prototypes printf, but does not define it.
>
> > printf() in general is not defined.
>
> Wrong. The behaviour of printf is defined by the ISO C Standard:
Not to mention that K&R include it in their book, which was the bible
before ISO.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
