Linux-Advocacy Digest #653, Volume #33 Tue, 17 Apr 01 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win4Lin + Win 3.1 (Daniel Franklin)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (William Shakespeare)
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) ("Alex Chaihorsky")
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) (Lady Veteran)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Craig Kelley)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Dennis Yelle)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (.)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Impact of Internet (Matt Kennel)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Franklin)
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux
Subject: Re: Win4Lin + Win 3.1
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Apr 2001 09:25:42 +1000
Matthew van de Werken wrote:
>
>"Christopher Fardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Would Win4Lin run Windows 3.1?
>>
>> From Chris
>>
>
>I believe so. However, it begs the question: "why would you want to?"
>
Indeed... Wine may be a better solution, and it's free.
- Daniel
--
******************************************************************************
* Daniel Franklin - Postgraduate student in Electrical Engineering
* University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: 17 Apr 2001 02:24:21 GMT
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:13:19 GMT, Chronos Tachyon wrote:
> On Mon 16 Apr 2001 06:06, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> elflord@ruffbruff ~ $ cat test.cc
>> #include <cstdio>
>> using namespace std;
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> printf ("hello world\n");
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> elflord@ruffbruff ~ $ g++ test.cc
>> elflord@ruffbruff ~ $ strip ./a.out
>> elflord@ruffbruff ~ $ ls -l ./a.out
>> -rwxrwxr-x 1 elflord elflord 3364 Apr 16 19:05 ./a.out
>> elflord@ruffbruff ~ $
>>
>
> Odd. My GCC is 2.95.2, what's yours? I used -O2, BTW...
2.95.3, with no flags.
>> Of course, it's not clear that C would be any faster (or smaller) to
>> compile if you wanted to do OO programming.
>>
>
> I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that for those who want a nice, tidy
> language shouldn't have to put up with the bloat of turning C into (C++)--.
I agree.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 02:32:24 GMT
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:50:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:13:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Mysterion wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But who the hell WANTS to live and work in Detroit?
>> >
>> >Great money
>> >Low cost of living.
>> >
>>
>> The same could be said for Saudi Arabia.
>
> Very true. Not a bad place for a non-Moslem, but only if you're married.
I thought you were a fan of "freedom". Do they have any of that in Saudi
Arabia ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: William Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 19:36:11 -0700
Tim Hanson wrote:
> --
> "Why isn't there a special name for the tops of your feet?"
> -- Lily Tomlin
I am absolutely certain that in some language there is. Actually in
multiple languages, no doubt. That is one of the things that is sad
about losing so many languages, as we are in the process of doing.
BTW, I have a Master's in Linguistics...
--
Bill
"The second thing we do, let's kill all the editors." Edited out of
Henry IV, Part I.
------------------------------
From: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: 17 Apr 2001 02:46:56 GMT
Reply-To: "Alex Chaihorsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Mathew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> And these Democrats would be Conservative,and Liberal Republicans like
> Abraham Lincoln were responsible for ending slvaery.
> Try to dispute this Aarom.
>
>
That is not even funny, Mathew. At the time of Lincoln, there was no such a
distinction (in todays terms, anyway).
And you ASSUME that "these Democrats would be Conservative". Even if they
are - the still vote Democratic, so what is your point?.
It was not only in Lincoln's times, but also in the beginning of the "human
rights" movement that Republicand pioneered.
If you remember Kennedy called negroes "poor bastards". at the time. Not
that I blame hin - the whole culture was that way then.
Cheers,
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, NV
------------------------------
From: Lady Veteran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:58:17 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Apr 2001 02:32:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:50:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> Chad Everett wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 15:13:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Mysterion wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> But who the hell WANTS to live and work in Detroit?
>>> >
>>> >Great money
>>> >Low cost of living.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The same could be said for Saudi Arabia.
>>
>> Very true. Not a bad place for a non-Moslem, but only if you're married.
>
>I thought you were a fan of "freedom". Do they have any of that in Saudi
>Arabia ?
Saudi Arabia is fine, unless you happen to be female.
Bobbi
Meet our Mistress of Love and Light....
http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
Give me my sword.
Colonel Oveta Hobby-First Director of
the Women's Army Corps.
I don't have the time every day to put on makeup.
I need that time to clean my rifle.
Hanriette Mantel- Comedian
I took the Meyers-Brigg personality test. I am a field Marshal
Promote self acceptance!
www.self-acceptance.org
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:11:18 GMT
William Shakespeare wrote:
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
> > --
> > "Why isn't there a special name for the tops of your feet?"
> > -- Lily Tomlin
>
> I am absolutely certain that in some language there is. Actually in
> multiple languages, no doubt. That is one of the things that is sad
> about losing so many languages, as we are in the process of doing.
Long live the urban creoles!!!
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:13:16 -0600
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Alexis Cousein wrote:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > Too bad IA32 chips run faster than Alphas now. :)
>
> Too bad they're IA*32*, though, and can't address more than 4GB.
Each *process* can't address more than 4GB.
--
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: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:16:15 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:57:11 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >That's one bug up my ass these days. Who the hell cares if you link
> >statically? It's faster and safer, and the extra space is generally
> >meaningless with today's big-ass PC hard-drives.
>
> Actually, the problem is not disk space, but memory usage
> and cache efficiency.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (that gueses a desktop linux would need some
> 300MB of RAM if everything was static)
That would bring it up to about the memory required by Windows 2000 Pro
with all of those DLLs in use. <grin>
Cache as cache can! <laughing at own joke, ha ha>
Chris
--
"Where do you want to hang today?"
------------------------------
From: Dennis Yelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 20:19:31 -0700
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:06:23 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> > Of course there's a name for companies that trusted Microsoft as a
> > >> busniess
> > >> > partner...extinct!
> > >>
> > >> Which one is extinct? There's about 32,000 Certified Business Partners
> > >> Organizations. And about 6 million developers using Microsoft
> Development
> > >> tools.
> > >> http://www.microsoft.com/business/partners/
> > >> Which one became extinct? Ass.
> > >>
> > >> You really shouldn't Drink & Write.
> >
> > Of course those numbers supplied by Microsoft on the page you referenced
> > is a lie. Try going to the link on that page that let's you find a
> > Microsoft "partner" and see what happens.
>
> OK, I come to a few pages which lets me narrow the big list:
>
> United States | English | California |
When I clicked the first link directly under
the big 'Choose a Partner' bar,
which was: 'Microsoft Certified Partners'
I got a page that said:
Sorry, there is no microsoft.com Web page
matching your request.
I think that was what he was talking about.
Dennis Yelle
--
I am a computer programmer and I am looking for a job.
There is a link to my resume here:
http://table.jps.net/~vert/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:24:53 GMT
Wrong Terry "The Porter".
YOU are OUR entertainment!
Flatfish
On 16 Apr 2001 09:19:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 08:26:46 -0400, "cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure it doesnt have the eye candy of KDE or Gnome, but I use my pc for
>> *work*,
>>> not purely entertainment.
>>
>> Uh huh. I see.
>> A Google search says this about your work:
>>
>> Relevant Messages for Terry Porter Linux Results 1 - 10 of about 186
>>
>> Whereas: Relevant Messages for cat < nonsense > cola Linux Results 1 - 10
>> of about 25.
>> Can we get a quick ratio/proportion?
>At last Ubercat, you demonstrate rarely seen wit and humour, can I have some of
>whatever your smoking please ;-)
>
>Your hypothesis is unfortunately wrong, because my posts to COLA do not
>prove my above statement to be inacurate.
>
>COLA *is* my entertainment :)
>
>>
>> btw, I've got a Carbon Fiber 58cm with Shimano 105 and campy wheels for
>> sale.
>No thanks, I ride a motobike, sounds nice tho.
>
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: 17 Apr 2001 03:31:51 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it _should_ be a replacement for Windows, except it isn't.
This, pete, is why youre an idiot. You for some reason have decided
to believe this ridiculous posit. Who cares if its a replacement for
windows?
If it doesnt suit your needs, for the billionth time, DONT USE IT.
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
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: 16 Apr 2001 22:23:21 -0500
On 17 Apr 2001 00:10:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 16 Apr 2001 22:46:11 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That there was no standard in 3000BC of massive rape of women of the defeated.
>>>
>>>I am not conceding that yet. Let's work a little more in that.
>>>
>>
>>Either you can support that assertion or you can't. Here we are about 20
>>ridiculous posts later and you still have not to come up with ANY shred
>>of evidence that your assertion is not an absurd fact that you just made
>>up in your head.
>>
>>Either provide some evidence or give it up.
>
Won't provide a single shred of evidence...again. You made it up in your
head cause it sounded good and you thought it would help you argument.
>Well, I had something going on above, but you deleted it.
>Recapitulating: you agree that at 1300BC, the israelites did rape the women
>of the defeated?
>
Nope. Never agreed to that. Yet another "fact" that you've made up in your
head.
Still no facts or evidence from you. It's really very simple. You can
either support your claim or you can't. Talking about Moses has nothing
whatsoever to do with some "standard" of warfare from 3000BC that you've
fabricated in your head.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:50:58 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Alexis Cousein wrote:
>
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > Too bad IA32 chips run faster than Alphas now. :)
> >
> > Too bad they're IA*32*, though, and can't address more than 4GB.
>
> Each *process* can't address more than 4GB.
Each process can't address more than 4GB at a time. With VLM extensions a
process can address up to 64GB.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Impact of Internet
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:56:41 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
Alwyn Goodloe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: Here's my take on these questions:
:
: The internet, in a short time, has proven to be one of the best
: ways to communicate information ever developed in history. Was
: this why the guys at CERN developed it to begin with. For those of
: us in academic research it has made life much easier. I think within
: ten or fifteen years the most of academic publishing machine (except
: for undergrad textbooks) will have been replaced by web based publishing.
: Why because everything is costing more and more. Looked at the prices at
: Springer or Elsevir lately?? The folks who actually produce the documents
: make little. Now somehow we will still need editors so the products won't
: be free but my guess is that haveing independent editors and no publishing
: company will drive down the cost a great deal.
This isn't true at all.
I am personally familiar with the physics world. Most of the
non-profit journals of the professional society are now being
published online, but not exclusively so. You can download a PDF of
nearly any Physical Review article in the last five years or so.
see www.aps.org
Has this really lowered the costs of producing the journal? I very
much doubt so; I imagine in fact that the costs have increased on
account of all the server hardware and software necessary to support
all the interaction that people now expect.
And of course all the costs and value in the journal consist of the
editorial staff, those who can understand the paper to send it out to
appropriate peer reviewers, all the production systems and human
expertise in making a standard and high-quality format, dealing with
the graphics et cetera.
It is expert human labor that costs money and is indespensible. The
results are much better than random self-published ugly HTML that is
hosted on occasionally available servers here and there and still
better than self-produced TeX.
The Internet *did* make the product more useful and convenient.
The final stage of printing the outputs to bound library volumes is
hardly a big impediment once everything else has been accomplished.
It's like a Dilbert cartoon: some big shot ``business re-engineering
consultant'' goes into your office and declares ``voila! I've found
the source of your inefficiencies! Junk your laser printer!''
: There are lots of other examples where the internet can make information
:easier to produce and cheaper to get.
I think it makes information more expensive to produce and maintain and
easier for to find and get.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 22:58:21 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:SVKC6.28287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon 16 Apr 2001 05:37, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in
> > message
> >> Haven't you noticed that C++ programs take five times as long to
compile,
> >> and the result is considerably larger?
> >
> > C programs compiled as C++ are larger because C++ programs have features
> > that C doesn't have, such as global object instantiation and exception
> > handling. The startup code must do more for a C++ program. Of course,
> > the linker could be smarter about this and it could link in the standard
C
> > startup code when the expanded features aren't in the code.
> >
> > This is an implementation detail though and not something defined by the
> > language. It could be fixed if it were that big of a deal, but
apparently
> > it's not.
>
> Wrong, I'm afraid. It *is* defined by the language. Surely you're not
> implying that it's possible to write a C++ compiler (targeted to a much
> larger and more [mis-]feature rich language) that can compile code as
> efficently as a C compiler, are you?
If you're compiling a program that doesn't use C++, but only C, yes. Even
while compiling it AS C++.
> > C++ programs on average take longer because they include more stuff,
> > causing the compiler to do more work. This is aggravated by people
> > tending to #include stuff more often in C++ when they don't really need
> > to. This is more of a programmer discipline issue. Dependancies should
> > be as minimal as possible, but many people simply don't do this.
>
> This conveniently skirts the fact that, in C, an #include is usually
> harmless both to compile time and binary size.
Not true. Put 3000 #includes in your program and see if it takes the same
amount of time to compile as without them.
> > Again, it's really not technically the compilers fault, but rather
> > programmer fault. The same C program compiled as C++ should include the
> > exact same files as the same program compiled as C. This may not be the
> > case with g++, but it certainly is with compilers like MetroWerks or
VC++.
>
> It's certainly the case with g++. The problem is language bloat,
> especially exception handling.
Which can be turned off.
> >> prime example, although any massively large C++ project will do. On my
> >> poor widdle 300MHz box, almost every source tarball in KDE took between
> >> one and two hours to compile. Is KDE really *that* big?
> >
> > Yes, it's that big. Remember, it includes all of QT as well.
>
> No, it doesn't. Qt is already compiled as a shared library. You don't
> recompile MSVCRT40.DLL every time you write a Windoze app, do you?
But you include the headers, which have to be compiled as well.
> >> On a side note, I find most of C99 rather disappointing, for exactly
the
> >> same reasons.
> >
> > You don't have to use all the new features, and there are ways to reduce
> > the hits that you percieve. You just have to know what you're doing.
>
> Specifically, I refer to the K5 story about the changes that C99 brings:
> <http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2001/2/23/194544/139>
>
> A, D, K, L, M: Useful.
> B, C, I, J, O: Syntactic sugar.
> E, F, G, H, N: Pure language bloat.
>
> Although only G, H, K, and N seem to have the potential to bloat code size
> (with K and N mostly confined to the runtime library), most of these
> features will make C99 a notably more complex language to parse, which
will
> slow down compile times and make my life as a programmer suck more.
Since the parser is entirely in the realm of the implementation, there is
nothing preventing an implementation from giving extra weight to commonly
used features. This would likely increase the compile time for less
commonly used features, but it would seem like a good compromise.
ie, putting the commonly parsed features at the beginning of the search
tree.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
