Linux-Advocacy Digest #749, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Mar 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Sun Blade 100 ("GreyCloud")
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(Roy Culley)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (LShaping)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (B'ichela)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (LShaping)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (LShaping)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Sun Blade 100 (Darin Johnson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (LShaping)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American ("GreyCloud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:43:49 -0800
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> yeap, probably self-ricious dick heads who use Linux over Solaris, not
> because is is better, but because it is not proprietry! geeze, get a
fucking
> life, its like running NT on a Alpha box, a 32bit os on a 64bit box, what
a
> fucking waste! its like getting a BMW and putting a Lada motor into it!
>
> Matthew Gardiner
I agree with you there. Solaris 8 on sparc is fully 64-bit... actually sun
makes two versions
of Solaris .. the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Its in the docs. But for
$950! Its got my attention.
I was hoping. if someone has purchased a sun blade, they would report on it.
And for the price its far below the intel p4 pricing at this time.
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > > DOn't waste your time running crap on a Sparc, use Solaris for
> > > christsake!
> >
> > There are a number of satisfied sparc-linux users who
> > would take issue with your statements.
> >
> > > more stable, developed and hardware support for Solaris
> > > Sparc than Linux Sparc.
> >
> > Some people want to run Linux so they can have a single
> > OS and a single set of management tools across all their
> > hardware platforms - from handheld/pda to mainframe &
> > supercomputer.
> >
> > I know that a few years ago a certain UC campus moved
> > their CS dept off of Solaris onto Linux - mail, dns, nis, nfs,
> > shell accounts, file/print services etc - and even installed
> > Linux on their sparc hardware. It's been a few years now,
> > but last I heard they claimed it was more manageable with
> > Linux.
> >
> > jjs
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:42:38 +0100
In article <98e50i$l3f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Exactly because of those features. Most (all?) unixes ship with those.
Still waiting for these Solaris features that Linux doesn't have.
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:45:15 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"." wrote:
>>
>> > That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
>> > must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
>> > functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
>> > probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
>> > never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
>> > always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
>> > machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
>> > more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
>> > programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
>> > languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
>> > help us if they did.
>>
>> I take a not-quite-so-extremist point of view... knowing lower levels,
>> and understanding (at least in a superficial way) what the compiler is
>> actually trying to create can make you a much better programmer. I fully
>> recommend every single programmer learn/be taught one flavour of
>> assembler (it doesn't matter what flavour... the concepts are the
>> important thing).
>>
>> I've met a lot of bright programmers who actually knew sod all about the
>> COMPUTER. They get taught some logic, and a language, and they start
>> programming. I don't believe it makes them BAD programmers, just
>> ignorant of some important aspects.
>
>But that ignorance leads them to do ... stupid things...which makes
>them "not nearly as good programmers as they would be if their
>ignorance was removed by learning about *the computer*"
Both of you have completely missed the point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:15:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 Mar 2001 20:38:21 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you want phase change refrigeration, butane is easy to get as well as
>R-134a as used aboard cars now. For non-phase-change, booze can be cooled
>below 32F by whatever external refrigeration mechanism. The only hazard of
>booze cool is that booze is flammable.
I have heard that r134a is not eactly docile either! Since we
are talking about cooling a cpu. waht about Absorbion cooling. thats
right a nice GAS or electric heating element boiling ammonia and
water. This stuff is safer than CFCs in the sense it is not regulated
(hell you can get ammonia in the grocery store!) Absorbion cooling of
course requires that the case be perfectly LEVEL (means forget
laptops!) the phase change comes from the generator. This generator is
heated by a gas or electric unit. This is the same method as used in
Servelle gas refrigerators. This is a proven workng technoligy!
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:45:49 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LShaping wrote:
>>
>> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>
>> > More seriously: powerful instruments are very good to save time and to
>> > provide a cleaner and re-usable code, but you can't use successfully a
>> > high level instrument if you don't have a good knowledge of the low
>> > level ones. OOP is very good, but when you need to create a new object,
>> > or to derive another from an existing one, you aren't programming with
>> > objects, you're programming objects instead, and you need a good
>> > knowledge of the language objects are written into. And you can't have a
>> > good knowledge of a language if you don't know the sort of machine code
>> > which will be produced. Usually program bottlenecks are very few and
>> > very limited. For 95% of the code you don't care. But the residual 5% is
>> > the one which affects overall performance. You can't ignore the
>> > resulting machine code.
>>
>> That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
>> must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
>> functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
>> probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
>> never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
>> always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
>> machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
>> more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
>> programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
>> languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
>> help us if they did.
>> LShaping
>
>What Giuliano meant, and you utterly missed, is that those who have
>never written in machine code usually have no freaking clue
<plonk>
LShaping
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:46:54 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001 02:41:16 GMT;
>>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>
>>> More seriously: powerful instruments are very good to save time and to
>>> provide a cleaner and re-usable code, but you can't use successfully a
>>> high level instrument if you don't have a good knowledge of the low
>>> level ones. OOP is very good, but when you need to create a new object,
>>> or to derive another from an existing one, you aren't programming with
>>> objects, you're programming objects instead, and you need a good
>>> knowledge of the language objects are written into. And you can't have a
>>> good knowledge of a language if you don't know the sort of machine code
>>> which will be produced. Usually program bottlenecks are very few and
>>> very limited. For 95% of the code you don't care. But the residual 5% is
>>> the one which affects overall performance. You can't ignore the
>>> resulting machine code.
>>
>>That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
>>must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
>>functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
>>probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
>>never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
>>always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
>>machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
>>more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
>>programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
>>languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
>>help us if they did.
>
>I think what Giuliano said is that all "good" programmers *understand*
>machine language; he didn't say anything about messing with it. And he
>is right, of course;
And that is an opinion, of course.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:08:10 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said John S. Dyson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:09:09
> >"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
> >> with me"?
> >>
> >Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem with the
> >GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the term 'free'
>misleadingly
> >in describing it.
>
> Not this again. Its *such* a pathetic argument.
>
> If you are not willing to understand and take responsibility for your
> freedom, John, it is nobody's fault but your own. Cross-posting to
> misc.int-property doesn't make it a new argument.
>
I added no additional groups, thank you very much. Apparently, you aren't
tracking things very well. Please take responsibility for your claims about
crossposting and other things, because you are so very wrong. Take note that
these facts are there for everyone to see: I have added no groups to the
discussion, and don't normally do so.
Alas, you cannot refute the fact that GPL'ed code isn't free. :-).
John
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:59:32 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> its like getting a BMW and putting a Lada motor into it!
True, getting a Sparc and putting Solaris on it definately reduces the
horse power.
There's a lot of reasons to use Linux or BSD on a Sparc if you're a
single non-corporate user type:
1) Cheaper. Forget arguments about increased support costs;
Sun won't help you if you have a problem, and if you know
what you're doing you can do a better job of support.
2) Smaller and faster. Slowlaris didn't get that nickname
because it was a lean and mean OS.
3) More supported machines. Sun doesn't want you to keep running
those 10 year old machines, they want you to upgrade. While not
all of the models will work with Linux or BSD, you can have a sure
bet that someone will get them to work sooner with free source code
than waiting for Sun to get benevolent.
4) BSD is a lot closer to the One True Sun operating system, SunOS 4,
than the Solaris changeling is.
5) More fun. Solaris is oriented to bureaucratic types. Linux is
freewheeling and fun, BSD is hackerish.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:09:43 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:51:54 -0500;
> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97nmcd$sgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem
> >> > with the GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the
> >> > term 'free' misleadingly in describing it.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> in what way?
> >>
> >Think of it like this: GPL is free sort of like our Income Tax is 'voluntary.' In
>fact,
> >our Income Tax isn't 'voluntary', and GPL isn't free. Another common misusage (by
> >almost all parties in the US) is that the US is a Democracy, which technically it
>isn't.
> >In fact, the misusage of the term 'Democracy' has often caused confusion.
> >
> >If GPL is a license of free software, then you wouldn't have multiple rules and
>redistribution
> >encumberances.
>
> Says you.
>
Says the license :-). The license has multiple rules and redistribution encumberances
and is therefore incompatible with being free. Nothing wrong with GPL, something wrong
with calling it free :-).
Alas, you choose to make a quagmire of obvious definitions, just like any other
slimeball
like (Clinton? :-)).
John
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:51:03 GMT
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>LShaping wrote:
>>
>> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>
>> > More seriously: powerful instruments are very good to save time and to
>> > provide a cleaner and re-usable code, but you can't use successfully a
>> > high level instrument if you don't have a good knowledge of the low
>> > level ones. OOP is very good, but when you need to create a new object,
>> > or to derive another from an existing one, you aren't programming with
>> > objects, you're programming objects instead, and you need a good
>> > knowledge of the language objects are written into. And you can't have a
>> > good knowledge of a language if you don't know the sort of machine code
>> > which will be produced. Usually program bottlenecks are very few and
>> > very limited. For 95% of the code you don't care. But the residual 5% is
>> > the one which affects overall performance. You can't ignore the
>> > resulting machine code.
>>
>> That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
>> must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
>> functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
>> probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
>> never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
>> always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
>> machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
>> more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
>> programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
>> languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
>> help us if they did.
>> LShaping
>
>There's a general rule: programmers tend to use constructs which are
>faster to write in the selected language, as opposed to the ones which
>execute faster. Sometimes they avoid constructs which do not produce
>code at all, but are lengthy to write. Therefore the problem isn't the
>progress in programming languages, but in computing power. If you have
>computing power in excess, you may disregard efficiency, but if you
>don't, you can't ignore the resulting code. I don't support the idea of
>writing code in machine language, unless really necessary, but reading
>the low level code your compiler produces may help a lot to write
>efficient high level code.
And so can buying a better compiler, and so can rearranging your
source code, and so can using a better high level language.
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 17:07:42 -0800
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Hayes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:46:54 +0000
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 01:16:55 -0800, "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><...>
> >
> >> I find this topic of great interest! You have a very strong point
here! Do
> >> you realize that only 10% of
> >> earths' biomass is on the surface and that the rest is deep down under
foot?
> >> There is a fellow that is
> >> researching a new theory that I believe to be true and also seems to
drive
> >> the political engine of oil.
> >> This scientists' claim is that oil is produced by the underground
bio-mass
> >> of bacteria. Its a self renewing resource
> >> and I suspect the oil industry top execs know this
> >
> >I've read something about this elsewhere, and the ecological implications
> >are immense. We're already detecting the effects of global warming. The
sea
> >off Scotland's west coast is 1 deg C warmer than 10-15 years ago.
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_1208000/1208372.stm
> >
> >So an inexaustible supply of crude oil may well soon (within <50-100
years)
> >tip the global climate into a hothouse to rival Venus'.
> >
> >But the oil execs are only interested in profit and bigger BMWs.
>
> Um...just as a dumb observation, the crude oil supply is not
inexhaustible;
> there's only so much carbon in the world. :-)
>
> Mind you, an accurate measure of the biomass might be of assistance;
> I can't say I know how that might be done. I would suggest that, if
> the political wills permit, one could bubble CO2 gas through the top
> layer of the oceans and seed those layers with phytoplankton somehow.
> Of course, the technical problems are considerable (how does one maintain
> a raft of piping through ocean storms, for example?).
> The phytoplankton might even generate oil as a side effect, as well
> as various other things such as raw sugar. But it might look ugly
> and interfere with whale migrations and native life.
>
> But if the 10% figure is correct, we are going to have major problems
> as we pull more of this bacteria-generated oil out of the ground;
> that carbon, after all, is being unlocked from its ancestral resting
place.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> >
> >Peter
Yes, there is a very real problem. A speculated scenario I overheard at
Brookings is that if we pump
the oil at a higher rate than bacterial production may cause other
problems... like the ocean filling into these
places and lowering the sea level. Another bad scenario is if something
were to poison off the underground
bio-mass one could'nt be too far off that it will also do us in. Some major
group of scientists gave the UN
a report that man only has about 35 years left unless something else is done
to curtail fossil fuel burning.
The planet has its limits.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 33d:06h:03m actually running Linux.
> This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
