Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #33 Fri, 13 Apr 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Rob
Robertson)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it) (Bloody
Viking)
Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine (Nomen Nescio)
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [Fwd: Piracy???? (KMM187962C0KM)] (Andres Soolo)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("James S.
Cochrane")
Re: Baseball (Nomen Nescio)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (dex)
NYC LOCAL: Thursday 19 April 2001 Install Fest at XADAX on the Island of the
Manahattoes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Andres Soolo)
Re: What's your take on this story? (Microsoft opening up the MSOffice file
formats?) (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: IE ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:47:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
> >
> > Gunner © wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:47:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic vote:
> > > >
> > > >All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
> > > >filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now.
> > >
> > > AYE! And I'll donate the ammo!
> >
> > Well, that's pretty silly, especially when we can use Glen's
> > own tax money to pay for the ammo and the firing squad.
> >
> > Thank God we live in a country founded on the principle of
> > inalienable, individual rights, eh?
>
> So far, we have two AYEs and zero NAYs.
It's a qualified 'aye', of course. I wouldn't really want to vote on
such a thing because there are no moral grounds for doing so, but as
an online exercise in illustrating the inherent flaw in pure democracy,
I'm all for it.
_
RR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it)
Date: 13 Apr 2001 20:50:31 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Write to the web-master and tell them that his site is full of
: proprietary bullshit, and therefore, you reference other sites.
What we need is a lot of people writing to website makers about the problem.
Trouble is, like the Office file formats, lock-in has occured with all but a
tiny fraction using the Big Two browsers. Lowest Common Denominator and all
that crap.
Both Marc Andressen AND Bill Gates should be guillotined with a guillotine
with a Linux box as the embedded system. Can't trust Windows for a mission
critical system like that! And I'd LOVE to design and programme it.
<diabolical laugh>:-D</diabolical laugh>
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is Giving Microsoft a Migraine
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:00:11 +0200 (CEST)
t. max dumbass:
> Said Mike in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:56:12 -0700;
> >Dave Martel wrote:
> >>Mike wrote:
> >
> >>>The reason there is a lack of linux loaded systems in computer stores
> >>>is that there is no market for linux loaded systems.
> >
> >>Chicken or the egg.
> >
> >Not really. A company like, say, Microsoft creates a market by making
> >software the average dummy can use and advertising the hell out of it.
>
> BWAUGHGHHGPHGPH! <---the sound of vomiting.
truth hurts eh?
> >The average dummy cannot use linux systems and linux advertising is
> >nil. Some percentage of computer store owners preinstalling the linux
> >OS will not compensate for the other two deficiencies.
>
> The average dummy cannot use a vcr and vcr advertising is nil.
the average man can use a vcr for what he bought it for - watching
prerecorded tapes.
the average woman can do the same.
she just needs her boyfriend to set it up for her first.
but he'll do it in exchange for unskilled labor.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:06:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paolo Ciambotti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:55:54 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost
>In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Sure, if nobody connects to it and all services are disabled... :-)
>>
>> Of course, one might then start quibbling as to whether it's really a
>> server or not; kind of like asking whether a restaurant with no food is
>> deserving of the term "restaurant", or a car wash that doesn't wash, or
>> a phone unit that doesn't have a dial tone, or ... well, you get the
>> idea ... :-)
>>
>
>From the original article on TechWeb -
>
>"[...] although missing for four years, hasn't missed a packet in all that
>time."
>
>Sounds like it was working to me.
Yes, it was....however, the sealed-up server was a Novell box,
not an NT one; the speculation is how long NT would survive in
such a state.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- somebody took "firewall" a little too literally... :-)
EAC code #191 7d:05h:57m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Piracy???? (KMM187962C0KM)]
Date: 13 Apr 2001 21:13:15 GMT
[What's soc.singles got to do with it?]
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thats what Microsoft employees are, kids) not even knowing basic computer
> industry knowledge in regards to licenses, influencial companies etc.
I guess they're actually supposed to not know such things.
After all, everything influencial is a competitor to Microsoft.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
broad-mindedness, n:
The result of flattening high-mindedness out.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Apr 2001 16:02:57 -0500
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:34:31 GMT, RTO Trainer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 13 Apr 2001 15:13:54 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
>Everett) wrote:
>
>
>>>No, I did not introduce the Bible in any way. I refuted your claim that
>>>the change in wording from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt no
>>>murder" is simply some metaphoric trick you use to ignore your ethical
>>>and moral responsibility for killing in war.
>>
>>It's not "a change in wording". It's a more accurate translation of the
>>original text. The original Hebrew accurately translates to "murder".
>>Are you suggesting the less accurate translation you're sticking with:
>>"Thou shalt not kill" is a ban on killing animals and plants? Those
>>are instances of killing, but not of murder. Just because you don't want
>>to believe it's the most accurate translation doesn't mean it ain't.
>>
>>
>
>As I thought I pointed out:
>
>This is a raging debate among bible schollars. The current
>understanding is that 'murder' is the more correct translation,
>however, we can't know.
>
>We can't know because there is no "original Hebrew" to refer to. The
>oldest copies of the text are in Greek (the older Hebrew texts have
>not survived/not been discovered).
>
Not true. The translation is not under any sort of raging debate
among bible schollars.
There are Hebrew manuscripts from which the accuracy of the translations
of the Septuagint can be determined. The "Nash Papyrus" (c. 150 BCE)
from Egypt contains Deuteronomy and the Qumran Scroll (250-200 BCE) also
does. Not only do these texts verify the Hebrew directly, but they supply
overwhelming support for the accuracy of the Septuagint.
------------------------------
From: "James S. Cochrane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:35:18 -0700
Rob Robertson wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Rob Robertson wrote:
> > >
> > > Gunner © wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:47:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > >Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic vote:
> > > > >
> > > > >All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
> > > > >filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now.
> > > >
> > > > AYE! And I'll donate the ammo!
> > >
> > > Well, that's pretty silly, especially when we can use Glen's
> > > own tax money to pay for the ammo and the firing squad.
> > >
> > > Thank God we live in a country founded on the principle of
> > > inalienable, individual rights, eh?
> >
> > So far, we have two AYEs and zero NAYs.
>
> It's a qualified 'aye', of course. I wouldn't really want to vote on
> such a thing because there are no moral grounds for doing so, but as
> an online exercise in illustrating the inherent flaw in pure democracy,
> I'm all for it.
>
Purely as an online rhetorical exercise in demonstrating democracy, "Aye".
Julie
>
> _
> RR
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Baseball
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:20:12 +0200 (CEST)
t. max dumbass:
> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:55:12
> -0600;
> >t. max dumbass:
> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:19:39
> >> -0600;
> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:39:05
> >> >> -0600;
> >> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:44:45
> >> >> >> >aaron wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Anonymous wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for
>once?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
> >> >> >> >> > retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It's been so for well over a DECADE, jackie.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as
> >> >> >> >windows is today?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who
> >> >> >> does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >which one is easier to learn to use?
> >> >>
> >> >> Unix, without a doubt. I've taught ignorant people both, and there is
> >> >> no comparison. Unix is more powerful than many people feel comfortable
> >> >> with, of course, as they're insecure and unimaginative, as they've been
> >> >> taught to be. But Unix is undisputably easier.
> >> >
> >> >the emperor's new OS
> >>
> >> Quite trolling me, you little worm. You are not EVEN entertaining
> >> enough to be worth my time flaming.
> >
> >SCORE!!!!
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> >tee hee!
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. What a putz.
you sound bitter
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: dex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:26:22 GMT
Or netadmins using NT DNS's to disprove reliability claims ;)))
>
>
> When you're fighting SPAM, nslookup and traceroute are very valuable.
>
> --
> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: NYC LOCAL: Thursday 19 April 2001 Install Fest at XADAX on the Island of the
Manahattoes
Date: 13 Apr 2001 17:35:32 -0400
The GNUbies and LXNY, with NYLUG in support, are throwing a big
Install Fest on Thursday 19 April 2001 on the Island of Manhattan.
This Install Fest is free and open to all.
This Install Fest is made possible through the work and kind generosity of
the organizers and all the volunteers. We especially thank Matt Lederman
and XADAX.
All free software welcome! We do not discriminate among free kernels based
upon the first letter of their names. We shall install as many free
systems on as many machines and on as many different kinds of machines as
possible. We shall install both Linux kerneled and free *BSD kerneled
systems. Any person who installs or helps install the Hurd or Squeak or
any Lisp OS or any ML OS will be treated to gin.
All experienced installers are invited to come and help.
All students of economics, of the history of engineering, and of the art
of propaganda are invited.
Date: Thursday 19 April 2001.
Time: 4:00 pm to midnight.
Late comers are just as welcome as those who arrive at 4:00 pm.
Location: XADAX
161 W. 22nd Street, near Seventh Avenue
on the Second Floor
above The Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre
on the Island of Manhattan.
Hardware: Bring the boxes on which you wish to run a Free OS.
Though it is safest to bring your monitor, keyboard, and mouse,
you need not. We will have such available onsite.
Internet connections via ethernet will be provided.
Telephone lines will be provided, so we can help with PPP.
Software: Bring whatever distribution CDs, boot and rescue disks, boot
managers, tiny distributions, manuals, and anything else you
want. Again, you need not bring any of these things, since
they will be available onsite.
http://www.lxny.org
http://www.gnubies.org
http://www.nylug.org
http://www.sixgirls.org
http://www.fsf.org
http://www.debian.org
http://www.linux.org
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd
http://www.squeak.org
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.netbsd.org
http://www.openbsd.org
http://www2.ics.hawaii.edu/~esb/prof/proj/hello
http://www.daemonnews.org
http://slashdot.org
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems
http://www2.tunes.org/Review/OSes.html
Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:51:57 +0100
> I don't think it was working sealed up like that. Our secretaries
> stuffed their PCs under their desks without any air flow paths, and
> about a month later they complained the computer died. Fried power
> supply.
>
This depends on the machine architecture - don't forget that older machines
need less power and run cooler than modern ones. If it ran something as old
as a 486 or P90 it would only need minimal cooling.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 13 Apr 2001 21:37:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft JScript runtime error '800a138f'
>
> 'aszSplitHTTPLANG[...]' is not an object
They actually use the Hungarian notation in JScript?
A dynamically typed language?
Ahem ...
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's bad enough that life is a rat-race,
but why do the rats always have to win?
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What's your take on this story? (Microsoft opening up the MSOffice
file formats?)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:54:37 +0100
> No need for the "if" there... Word 2000 already has changed formats AGAIN,
> their files are huge (HTML is about as efficient as the Word format), they
> load so slowly, the product stalls in responding to commands for no
> apparent reason, it's buggy, and you have to pay a lot for it unless you
> steal it.
>
> Chris
>
Isn't this the software equivalent of stealing a Yugo car?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:52:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:08 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:59:21 -0400
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >WesTralia wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> > One which has the full overhead of a function call, including
>> >> > the overhead of pushing the CPU state onto the stack, and
>> >> > recovering it at the end.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> "pushing the CPU state onto the stack"
>> >>
>> >> OK genius, explain what you mean!
>> >
>> >
>> >Pushing all data registers, pointers, and the program counter
>> >onto the stack.
>> >
>> >What did YOU think it means?
>>
>> Pointers? What pointers?
>
>
>Stack pointer
Pushing the stack pointer on the stack seems to me rather pointless... :-)
>Frame pointer
Yes, that's a valid one. Of course, that's usually in a register.
(Side point: Oh gosh the VAX was elegant, from a machine language
point of view. Am I spoiled rotten? :-) )
>Heap Pointer.
A heap pointer needn't be saved; it's part of process address space.
Even if it is, it's just another register.
>Data Segment pointer
Ditto. (Maybe on a pre-VMpage system, though, like System7 on a
PDP 11/70. But that's positively *ancient*. :-) )
>Text Segment Pointer
Ditto.
Oh, and you forgot block segment start.... :-)
>
>etc. etc.
>
>MORON.
Well, excuse me for pedantifying. :-P
>
>>
>> That's tangential to storing the state of the micro during a context
>> switch or function call for later restore. A pointer is merely a
>> novel method of interpreting a number within a general register or
>> memory location as a memory address. (For that matter, a number is
>> merely a novel method of interpreting the bits within a general
>> register or memory address, and the bits within a general register
>> are a novel method of interpreting logic voltages, which are merely
>> novel methods of interpreting largish collections of electrons [*]:
>> 1 pF = about 6,250,000 electrons per volt.)
>>
>> Of course, one of the pieces of CPU state is the program counter.... :-)
>>
>> OK, so I quibble.
>
>You also just demonstrated that you don't know fuck about CPUs
Oh really? :-P
I at least know that pointers are merely a human way of relating
to bags o' bits. That was my point; as far as the micro is concerned,
it's pushing bits from a data register to the address buss.
A bit's a bit.
Many CPUs for example don't care what's stored in their registers,
which means that one can do stupid things like
MOV #1,R1
MOV 4(R1),R1
and of course cause an access violation, but why should the
first instruction really care?
I will note that the 68000, however, went the split-register route
(8 D registers, 8 A registers, two of which are dedicated to
SP (A6) and PC (A7), respectively.) In cases such as that, one
might be able to cause an exception (although why even bother?)
on an immediate load to an A register. However, HP PA uses
32 general-purpose registers which can be used for pretty much
anything (although HP does have a calling convention, dedicating 5 registers
thereto (4 parameters, 1 return; extra parameters are pushed on the
stack as always), and register 0 is *always* zero). I don't know
what SPARC uses, but I suspect it's similar. Makes compiler writing
very simple; one doesn't have to worry about whether LEA 10(%ax)
makes sense when allocating %ax.
And then there's ... errrm .... the x86 ... . I don't know whether
the 386 fixed all of the weidies regarding register usage or not.
(It probably did, but I do wonder.)
>
>
>>
>> Note also that a smart compiler won't push all registers onto the stack;
>
>Depends on the CPU. Some CPU's don't give you any choice. Some do.
I've yet to run into one at this point which doesn't
allow specification of which registers to push and pop.
To be fair, though, I really haven't coded in that many:
68000 (Motorola)
8086 (Intel et al)
1802 (Harris)
VAX 11/7xx (DEC)
6502 (?)
HP PA RISC (HP)
and a very small smattering of SPARC (Sun), which I might have seen
during debugging something or other. Can't say I've coded in it yet.
(I might; I've got a Sparc 5 at home running Linux. Maybe when
California gets its power woes straightened out.)
[rest snippd]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 7d:06h:27m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:59:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:14:18 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:59:21 -0400
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >WesTralia wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> > One which has the full overhead of a function call, including
>> >> > the overhead of pushing the CPU state onto the stack, and
>> >> > recovering it at the end.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> "pushing the CPU state onto the stack"
>> >>
>> >> OK genius, explain what you mean!
>> >
>> >
>> >Pushing all data registers, pointers, and the program counter
>> >onto the stack.
>> >
>> >What did YOU think it means?
>>
>> Pointers? What pointers?
>>
>> That's tangential to storing the state of the micro during a context
>> switch or function call for later restore. A pointer is merely a
>> novel method of interpreting a number within a general register or
>> memory location as a memory address. (For that matter, a number is
>> merely a novel method of interpreting the bits within a general
>> register or memory address, and the bits within a general register
>> are a novel method of interpreting logic voltages, which are merely
>> novel methods of interpreting largish collections of electrons [*]:
>> 1 pF = about 6,250,000 electrons per volt.)
>>
>> Of course, one of the pieces of CPU state is the program counter.... :-)
>>
>> OK, so I quibble.
>>
>> Note also that a smart compiler won't push all registers onto the stack;
>> it would be kind of silly for a function such as:
>>
>> foobar:
>> MOV 4(SP),R0 ; argument 1
>> ADD 8(SP),R0 ; argument 2
>> RET
>>
>> assuming the micro has registers R0 through Rn, where R0 is used
>> to return values, a fairly typical backwards stack frame (push
>> = decrement then shove), and a 4-byte PC.
>>
>> An even smarter compiler, of course, could inline the
>> function and perform constant folding, translating
>>
>> A = foobar(1+2)
>>
>> to
>>
>> MOV #3,R5
>>
>> assuming A was being held in R5 in that section of code (another
>> optimization of course is that a value needn't be stored immediately
>> into memory; modern compilers don't really need 'register' anymore :-)).
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> OUTED! LOL!
>> >
>> >Yes...I admit that I have a first-rate university-level education in
>> >computer systems engineering.
>>
>> [.sigsnip]
>>
>> [*] very old memories used small ferrule cores (hence the
>> term "core dump"). However, most modern computers, and
>> all consumer-grade PCs, use dynamically-refreshed memory
>> for the bulk of their RAM storage needs (there is some cache
>> which is most likely SRAM in various spots). I don't know
>> how many pF each transistor has sitting on its gate, though.
>> I do remember that the leakage is such that they have to be
>> refreshed every 2 ms or so...at least, as of 10 years ago.
>> (Not as painful as it sounds, as DRAM is actually a two-
>> dimensional array, with RAS and CAS strobes; to refresh,
>> one throws an address onto CAS -- or was it RAS? -- and pulls it
>> down for a short interval. A 64Mb would be, internally, 8192 x 8192,
>> and a refresh cycle (one row) would have to be done about
>> every 250 ns -- assuming the leakage hasn't changed; for all I
>> know the transistors might be able to hold their charge for 20ms now.)
>>
>> There are also several formats for a "number"; the two most obvious
>> ones are the typical two's-complement specified integer and
>> the IEEE-compliant float or double, and the infamous
>> big vs. little-endian debate.
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>> EAC code #191 6d:17h:02m actually running Linux.
>> Are you still here?
>
>Now you're bringing back old memories. (Pun intended) :-)
>I saw a Libra-Scope computer in the smithstonian institute that used a
>drum memory... the stupidest thing I ever saw. The electronics rotated
>internally to the drum!
Before my time, admittedly. My first real computers (Wang calculators
may or may not count) was an HP 2114B which we affectionally named
"Num Num"; this was a piece of donated machinery at my high school.
It also had a bunch of ASR-33s attached to it.
Could do quite a bit in 8K of ferrule core, admittedly, although
its BASIC didn't have variable names more complicated than 'A',
'B6', or 'C$'.
It also had a weird instruction that did the following:
[DEST] <- PC+1
PC <- DEST+1
which was called 'JSR DEST', if memory serves; the routine return was
JMP DEST,I. So every subroutine had to be declared something like:
DEST: NOP
...
JMP DEST,I
and there was no recursion unless the routine maintained the stack itself.
Weird, but no more so than then 709's notion of stuffing three
index registers. (I never saw a 709 in person, though; I have
a programming book detailing concepts using it as a real-life
example.)
>
>--
>V
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 7d:07h:44m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:03:22 +0200
"Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:56DB6.8936$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > the degradation and eventual downfall of Netscape as the dominant
> > platform (it might come back, but I'm not hopeful; at least it's
> > open source now) because IE was given away for free and
> > candied up until it was speedy and everyone drooled over it), the
>
> Netscape might snipe at MS for not sticking to the industry standards, but
> at least IE made actual progress in the 18 months that NS4 proliferated
like
> a like sucking virus through our web.
I agree, Netscape *had* the marketshare, and then they turn on themselves
and destroyed it. And I'm not talking just about the developers, I'm talking
also the users.
NS4 is buggy, insecure, unstable, memory hog, and slow.
NS6 is a crying shame. It's by no means release quality. (65MB of my RAM
just to browse the web? No thanks). IE(two windows, 9MB) OE(16MB), WMP(16MB)
(both are memory hog all in themself), GUI-FTP(700KB), ADA IDE(9MB) and XML
editor (9MB) put together don't take that much memory.
I tried Mozilla too, and got much the same result. It doesn't help that both
are unstable.
As I could see, it gave me not a single advantage over IE except being
skinable, which I didn't like.
Frankly, it didn't take that long to discover which was the better product,
IE or NS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
