Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #32 Thu, 1 Mar 01 04:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax) (WarpKat)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: [OT] .sig (Bill Godfrey)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado)
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:19:27 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > PnP was actually designed for PCI, and was later adapted to ISA, which
> > is why it's called ISA PnP to differentiate between them.
>
> Sounds like a marketing usage. PCI configuration and ISA PnP have very
> little in common other than that. PCI configuration is just part of the
> PCI spec and doesn't have a special name. It was not added on later,
> whereas some ISA devices support an add-on scheme called "Plug and Play"
> that attempts to bring the functionality of PCI configuration to ISA.
> Sometimes it even works.
It supports a scheme called ISA Plug and Play, which is different from Plug
and Play in general, and more recently Universal Plug and Play.
> > Hell, PnP includes external devices, such as external modems, USB,
> > FireWire devices, etc...
>
> Only in a general sense, to quote p3.1 of the HOWTO you pointed to:
>
> "The standard PCI (and not PnP) specifications do the same for
> the PCI bus."
>
> "Since the PCI bus specifications don't use the term PnP it's not clear
> whether or not the PCI bus should be called PnP (but it supports in
> hardware what today is called PnP)."
>
> IOW, PCI has an auto-configuration scheme which is not called PnP in the
> PCI spec.
Why would the PCI spec call it that? Plug and Play is a bios thing, PCI is
a bus thing. ISA doesn't define Plug and Play either, but the BIOS does and
the hardware provides a way for the bios to discover and configure itself
through the ISA or PCI bus.
Further, the quote you just gave says "but it suppports in hardware what
today is *CALLED PnP*)." (emphasis mine, of course). So it is, in fact
called PnP.
> I feel comfortable in asserting that the PCIMG would not want
> to be associated with ISA PnP in any way, being as their scheme actually
> works.
That's why ISA PnP is called ISA PnP and not PnP in general.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:13:29 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Well, my understanding is that they're completely overhauling the SMP
> support, and the threading models.
Yep, they need to catch up.
> They're adding kernel threads, better
> pthread support, tighter security/auditing (probably more in line with the
> NT event system and DAC's),
That's a howler! BSD is as unix as it gets, I really can't
feature them going to pc features - I'd be shocked.
> direct support for Alpha, ia64, and possibly
> PowerPC and ARM.
Catching up, that's good.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:24:01 -0600
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I really do not know. The directive was that Win2K was to be banned
> on all machines not used for testing purposes. Whether this directive
> is being followed or not is up in the air.
Perhaps (and this would make sense) the "directive" (if it exists) was given
when Windows 2000 was widely spread in beta, and was intended to prevent IBM
employees from installing the beta version of the OS?
> Yes, actually a number of studies have been done and the average TCO
> of running OS/2 vs. running Windows was considerably less for OS/2.
Hmm.. I would have thought that the cost of rebuilding your INI files every
few months would override that.
------------------------------
From: WarpKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax)
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:02:52 GMT
It's funny you mention that ISP (VCNet.com) because I used to have an account
with them and actually had a website hosted there. =]
David Brown wrote:
> Here is a fascinating site, which includes links to back up most of its
> claims:
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml
>
> A quotation from it is applicable to the Microsoft Tax thread:
>
> We have increased our prices over the last 10 years [while] other
> component
> prices have come down and continue to come down.
>
> JOACHIM KEMPIN, Microsoft Senior Vice President
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 02:32:37 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > They're adding kernel threads, better
> > pthread support, tighter security/auditing (probably more in line with
the
> > NT event system and DAC's),
>
> That's a howler! BSD is as unix as it gets, I really can't
> feature them going to pc features - I'd be shocked.
The event model and DAC's are defined by the Department of Defense, and
existed in many implementations of other OS's before Windows NT even
existed. I was simply using NT as an example most people would understand.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:25:07 +0000
>> Linux 2.4 has 32bit uids, while in 2.2 they were 16 bits. This must be
>> the call to provide binary compatibility for old apps, compiled with
>> 16 bits uids. The glue around this is provided by glibc.
>>
>> So duh, it is selfdocumenting.
>
> Self-documenting only works when the programmer knows the context of
> which to look at it in. If I didn't know what an uid was, much less the
> difference between a 16 bit or 32 bit one, how would I know what that
> function does?
Why do you insist on being a twit. kerne documentation is not a tutorial.
Even if it had comments, you'd be screwed if you dodn't know the first
thing about UNIX (such as what a UID was).
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:36:31 +0000
>>You don't need to specify that process 1 and 2 are concurrent, since it
>>can be deduced from the definition.
>>
>>Under my definition
>>
>>prog_that_wont_finish | head -3
>>
>>will run under a multitasking system but not a single tasking system,
>>since the output of the first process never goes in to the input of the
>>second so under my definition, the single tasking system does not
>>implement pipes, therefore a multitasking system is required.
>
> Actually, this does not demonstrate that a multitasking system is
> required to satisfy your definition of "pipe". It demonstrates a
> limitation of single process systems, and that's about it (unless you
> specify that your example must work).
>
> Otherwise, we can invent contrived examples that will fail almost
> anywhere.
>
> eg:
>
> process_that_reboots_the_system | tail -3
>
> This only works on systems that can save their state to disk. Does this
> mean that other systems do not support your definition of pipes ?
This still works under my definition
So long as the first process produces output, the secone process will
get it. That the second process never displays anything is due to the
problem being noncomputable, but any data produces is piped.
In the DOS example above, the output of the first process never reaches
the input of the second. Since it is part of my definition that pipes do
that, this shows that DOS pipes don't fit the definition.
I don't think its a contrived example, because it simply highlights the
place in which DOS pipes fail.
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:37:53 +0000
>>>>> The simplest, broadest definition of pipes is that they are an
>>>>> inter-process, FIFO communications channel from one processes to
>>>>> another, which allows the 2nd process to start producing output
>>>>> before the first process terminates.
>>>>>
>>>>> A single-tasking OS is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling this
>>>>> definition properly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A simpler definition is:
>>>
>>> Yes, it's simpler, but also narrower.
>>
>>How so?
>
> The set of things that satisfy your definition is a proper subset of the
> things that satisfy his.
(surely thats a wider, not narrower definition than?)
I guessed you meant that, but I was wondering what specifically?
-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: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:41:31 +0000
>>>>Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
>>>>completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
>>>>
>>>>a) no B) YES.
>>>
>>> You cannot define your own printf name with external linkage.
>>
>>You can if you're not linking against the standard library.
>
> If you're not linking against the standard library you're not using a
> conforming implementation, in which case you're automatically off topic
> in c.l.c.
I was under the impression that to be conforming, the system had to
provide a standard library, but you could choose not to use if (for
example if you're in to building kernels).
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 01 Mar 2001 08:59:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joona I Palaste <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Finnish girls are good, but the girls to the immediate west
> >>are even better.
> This is the first time Aaron said something I agree to.
There are girls in the Gulf of Bothnia? Doesn't it get cold?
Bill, is quite aware that northern Finland shares a border
with Sweden, thank you very much.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:58:11 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> : Panzers go "blub blub blub" without a dock to land them on.
> :> :> : Beachheads are not docks.
> :> :>
> :> :> By that argument, the Normady landings never would have had any tanks
> :> :> in them, and they DID.
> :>
> :> : You must remember...we BROUGHT our own docks.
> :>
> :> Very true. And this makes your point about not being able to get
> :> panzers across the channel rather moot. It could have worked.
> :> The allies proved this later. Thank you for shooting down your own
> :> argument for me.
>
> : The Mulberry docks were a brilliant innovation. There is little
> : reason to believe that anybody else would have done the same thing.
>
> : For example, despite hundreds of beach-head landings in the Pacific
> : (which, like it's name, is a relatively peaceful ocean), none of the
> : belligerants *EVER* used such a dock...or even built any.
>
> Or needed to. Tanks are, to put it mildly, less than ideal for
> use on south pacific islands, even if you had a way to land them.
> Large unbroken grassy land is the tank's friend. Tanks were needed
> in France's farmland, but would be pointless somwhere with more
> rugged terrain.
true...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
From: Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 1 Mar 2001 09:00:28 GMT
In alt.solaris.x86 Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It won't handle files from older versions of PowerPoint, although
> it seems to handle the current version ok; one time I ran into that,
> I re-saved it using a newer version of PowerPoint, and the modified
> file would then load into StarOffice just fine. That's the only thing
> I've seen any significant number of examples of that just wouldn't load.
Thanks for that advice! I will go to San Jose (Costa Rica) to the next
ALCOMM (a workshop sponsored by SIGCOMM) and I am making all the work
with StarOffice. I will try to use my Solaris-x86 laptop but I will
check that the file can be loaded into PowerPoint (I hope we have
access to a new release of PowerPoint in case that the laptop cannot
be used).
Best regards,
Igor.
--
Igor Sobrado, UK34436 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 04:01:36 -0500
Christian Brandt wrote:
>
> About my background:
>
> In late 1993 I tried NetBSD0.9 and was disgusted :-)
> In early 1994 I tried Slackware and Suse-Linux (both were pretty much
> equal then) and since then I am a loyal chameleon ;-)
> Later I also worked with Solaris, FreeBSD, Debian, Slackware, AIX, some
> oldish HPUX (eek, it even used ps -edaf in good, reallyreally old
> BSD-syntax :-)
>
> And from what I have seen I realize: Even for the hardcore admin a
> gnuish world looks much brighter than a bsdish world. But donīt tell my
> coworkers, most have never used linux but installed BSD even way before
> I did ;-)
>
> Their arguments typically sound like this:
>
> "myfavouriteBSD Version reallynew is better for servers than your
> Slackware 0.1"
>
> or in other words:
>
> "its faster" (hum... as soon as you switch on softupdates on ufs it is
> comparable to linux, but not faster, its memorymanagment seems to be a
> bit smarter, so some daemons perform 5-10% better as long as I do not
> handoptimize linux or use a small, modulized kernel - which seems to be
> a sacrilege for BSD, most of our systems run with some >>4MB
> All-Inclusive-Kernel...
>
> "its smarter" well, I never got a more detailed answer than "make
> world", so I guess apt-get or yast-updates or even a mere
> packaging-system without 100Megs of Sources and hours of compiling just
> donīt count :-)
>
> "its more directed at powerfull servermanagment" well, maybe its just
> me, but even cut seems to be mangled to uselessness in BSD, not to
> mention find and tar...
> I WANT HUNDREDS OF OPTIONS AS LONG AS I ACTUALLY NEED THEM.
>
> "its more stable" uhm.. what can I say? I have seen all kinds of
>
> "no exploits" Hahaha! Most exploits are targeted at applications and not
> the kernel. Basetools are mostly not targets of exploits. A Apache or
> sendmail running at bsd is as vulnerable as under linux. Or to be more
> precise, you need to exploit a specific bug and thats mostly bound to
> the specific release of the OS, like Suse7.1, Slackware7.1, Debian2.2r2,
> FreeBSD4.2, AIX5 (well, would be fun ;-), Solaris7, NetBSD1.4, Suse4.4.1
> and so on...
>
> "the kernel is more powerfull" actually BSD-folk stopped to use this
> argument one year ago. Seems like they finally realized that you can
> shit into any recent computer and expect linux to deliver a driver for
> it :-)
>
> Based on the rather rude behaviour of most BSD-folks against Linux I can
> just say: Consider this post as a flame and realize you are walking on
> thin ice. Ignorance makes you comfortable, but not powerfull.
>
> This is my personal opinion.
The primary problem with BSD is that NOT ENOUGH people are involved.
The Jolitzes and others put their pride before progress...insisting
that no developments can be included which aren't THEIR developments.
The old "Not developed here" attitude.
>
> --
> Christian Brandt
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 04:03:36 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:97h62h$gso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> 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.
>
> : An Amiga task is a program, much like running code in DOS is a program
> : (TSR's are seperate programs that run as well). Multiple threads are
> : multiple programs to the Amiga.
>
> NO. Running code is NOT a program. Running code is a process.
> The word "program" refers to the image in its static form, either
> as an executable file (and the associated execution library files),
> or as a loaded bunch of code in RAM. It doesn't become a "process"
> until it is running. Here's an analogy: Program is to screenplay
> as process is to movie.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
correction: as process is to a performance.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
