Linux-Advocacy Digest #684, Volume #33 Wed, 18 Apr 01 10:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) ("John
Husvar")
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("cat cola"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: What's the point ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: The X-Box and monopoly was: Blame it all on Microsoft (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Boyce Endertois")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Martin Gregorie)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Boyce Endertois")
Re: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Neil Cerutti)
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Neil Cerutti)
Re: What's the point (Ian Davey)
Re: Communism (Rob Robertson)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! (WesTralia)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "John Husvar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "John Husvar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:40:03 GMT
"Marksman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UFdD6.3368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> AYE!
>
> "David L. Moffitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bg6jm$207a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > %%%% AYE!!!!
> >
> > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Re:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > >
> > > > AYES:3
> > > > NAYS:0
> > >
> > > ABSTAIN:1
> > >
> > > An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
> > > but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
> > > vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
> > > the action or the mass decision behind it.
> > >
> > > _
> > > Rob Robertson
Hmmmm, sub-issue:
Shall everyone who, in any way participates in this thread, even simply
reading it, be required to vote on any issue presented?
Lets see just how much "tyranny of the majority" can be demonstrated.
Enforcement could be a problem, no?
John
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:48:15 +1200
"." wrote:
>
> 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.
>
<snype>
Well, I hear all these awful stories about Pete's experience with Linux,
however, I have none of those problem. Maybe I have some sort of voodoo
magic or something? Funny thing is that, he (Pete) would like Linux to
succeed, well, thats the impression I got by him shelling out several
grand for Kylix, why doesn't he do something about its so-called
failings as not only will it help the linux community, but himself, for
more people to use his software.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:02:40 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > It is well documented how Microsoft limited Borland's access to
> Windows
> > > > information.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? Even if true, limiting access doesn't make
> your
> > > product buggy. Programs crash because they do something like
> dereference
> > > invalid memory. The IDE simply doesn't do what it's supposed to do in
> many
> > > circumstances, which is poor programming and nothing else.
> >
> > When making a development environment, one needs all the lowest level
> > information available. In Windows, a debugger is not a trivial matter.
> Borland
> > did a great job with the information available. For a couple years, they
> had
> > the best compiler and environment.
>
> The debugger is mostly x86 oriented, not Windows oriented. In fact, MS
> didn't even write their own debuggers at first, but rather licensed them
> from NuMega.
That's not true. They licenced some of the code to do desktop overly pop-up
from NuMega, but they did not licence the SoftIce debugger. NuMega had access
to the information need to write this application.
> What does that tell you about how difficult it is for a third
> party to write a debugger for Windows.
NuMega had a partnership With Microsoft, where as Borland was a competitor.
As a point of fact, a Windows debugger is easier now than it was back in 3.1
days, but it is still quite difficult.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:32:52 -0400
> > I bought an HP Photosmart C500 digital camera. I have Linux and Win2000.
> >
> > Guess what, the stupid camera does not work with Win2000 because HP did
> > not write a driver for it.
Odd. My HP C315 works not only on W2K, but on Whistler Beta 2 as
well --using the W2K DRIVER THAT SHIPS WITH IT.
Some folks have all the luck.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:32:14 +0100
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In what way is NS4 insecure? IE has almost as many security bugs found as
> IIS. Over 100 security bugs found in Microsoft SW in 2000!
Does it matter?! NS4 is a web browser which doesn't support HTML. By it's
own specification it should have been bang up to the HTML4.0 provisional
specification which was available when it was released. Yeah, we could
forgive them if they went by HTML3 and then updated it, but to leave a
browser that is completely incapable around for more than a year is
disgusting... It can't even do the very very basic stuff correctly. It comes
to something when a browser company's web site looks distinctly better and
is more readable in their competitor's product.
They coded the site themselves so obviously there is no secret "way around"
these problems, the support simply isn't there...
MP
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:55:57 -0400
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 21:10:51 GMT, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >After six years of Windows and one GPF too many, I bought Redhat7 and
> >installed it. I expected a learning curve, but nothing like I ended up
> >with.
> >
> >I got my cable modem, printer, cdrom drives, and daily programs going,
and
> >it took me endless hours - most of them spent trying to fix my display
> >resolution, only to find out the config file was XF86config-4 and not
> >XF86config. How the hell was I supposed to know that?
> >Then I started tackling my digital camera. I followed all the howtos I
> >could find - no joy. And I still dealt with crappy looking fonts on my
web
> >browsers. And that's when I decided to throw in the towel.
> >After wasting 2 solid weeks of vacation time accomplishing half of what I
> >could do in a few hours under windows (even with the crashes and GPFs) I
> >wiped my hard drive slick and threw on Windows ME.
> >
> >So my question is, for the home user, what's the point? Has anyone
learned
> >Linux from the ground up just to use it at home? What's the advantage?
I'm
> >convinced Linux is great if you want to run a server or whatever, but is
> >there a point in home users running Linux?
If you have an income, want to enjoy technology as it becomes available, (or
within a reasonable time thereafter) and just want to 'do stuff' then no,
there is no point in running linux. None at all.
Better than 90% of computer users in the world run some form of windows,
like it or not.
If you have more than passing interest in computer science because you more
than just 'enjoy it', then indeed, run linux.
People in this group have been spreading BS for years about the ease of
linux as an inducement to potential new users. They mention this 'learning
curve' from time to time, as if it was nothing for the average computer
using individual to give up hours a day just to setup and use email and the
web, pull their hair out when adding hardware, or even trying to get the X
window system up and running. Most of these people are tech savvy, in that
they've been using computers, intently I might add, for some time.They more
than likely program in more than two languages and love wrapping their head
around any problem that crops up. The 'curve' just wasn't as great for them.
Windows became too appliance like, too vanilla, crashes more than they would
like, and since they're living vicariously through their F'n pc (in a lot of
cases) the feeling of superiority that running a more complex (in terms of
just day to day operations) operating system is just what their shallow ego
needs for proper inflation. Many, and I mean MANY, of these very same people
use Windows. They'll claim it's because they are somehow forced to. All too
many of us know that is simply not the case. They use windows as well as
linux for the very same reasons I, and many more do. It's touch and go, it's
a much more satisfying web experience, and it supports much of the newer
'cool' hardware toys such as digital cameras, all in one output devices,
games, and so on. Nothing beats sitting down and cranking out a script in
one of many shells available under linux. Calling gawk, or sed to process
text. It's really, really powerful stuff. Take some time and learn perl --
there's next to nothing you can't do on your system. These advocates just
simply forget who they are preaching to. They aren't close to any semblance
of reality. They have just stared at the terminal for too long. Drifted too
far from shore, I fear. (really, sometimes I think these cola aholes want
people who they know don't have the patience or intelligence to try and
setup and run linux, knowing very well many of these people will fail, and
will from that day look up to the linux running pc user as being even more
god-like. Sad, it really is. And a tad sick to boot)
Use whatever works for you, and don't let these malcontented individuals
with no concept of reality, no psychic center, and no clue outside of their
logon prompt tell you different.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: The X-Box and monopoly was: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 18 Apr 2001 12:57:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thaddeus L Olczyk posted:
>On 17 Apr 2001 20:49:02 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>Uhm. Get a clue.
OK. I got out my glass.
>The reason the X-Box was invented was that ( supposedly ) the
>Playstation II was supposed to allow one to allow one to surf
>the net. As Playstation evolved it would have acquired the
>capabilities of a home computer.
If Microsoft thinks that surfing the net and doing e-mail is the
definition of a home computer, they are screwed. People who want
to do only those simple things already don't need a PC.
>That would have given Microsoft a competitor with a very large
>installed base. Worse yet, that base would have been relatively
>young, precisely not the kind of people want using a competing
>platform. Therefore they invent the X-Box as a competitor to
>screw with Sony.
I think they did it for the huge possible profits from forcing
the game producers to pay a licensing fee on every bit of product
sold. You can't do that in the PC world.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** Your child was bitten by a bat lizard and the hospital bill
cost you $100. ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
From: "Boyce Endertois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:00:26 GMT
Snipped: Complaint about F word in subject line.
> Next time, just kill-file the guy and don't complain about it. I don't
want
> to hear it. Raising your kids is your problem
You uncultured, drooling fool. Perhaps I can walk up to you in a pub and
pass gas in your face. Then I can tell you not to complain, as I don't want
to hear about it.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:01:09 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:28:40 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I see the same thing. But NT is not often used where it could, due
> >either a crash or lack of timeliness, do any damage to the work process.
> >I have seem it tried several times. One crash shut down a process line
> >permitting liquid nylon to harden in pipes and valves. 15 minutes off
> >line cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another caused
> >disruption of a refinery operation. It took several days to get the
> >plant cleaned up and back on line.
> >
> >I build SCADA system also. Several US cities are running systems I
> >designed. But if the operator displays fail, the A-B PLCs and
> >specialized computers will still run everything OK. The operator, just
> >has to run around to check local controls like he did before the
> >computers were installed.
> >
>
> Man..that ladder logic is the wierdest way to program I've ever seen.
If you have never used it, it would seem strange. But just think, there
was automatic code generation before PCs. You can draw a diagram on your
display, and it starts running. The VM reads a line of the drawing and
executes it. Sort of like having a VM read a UML diagram and run the
code.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Gregorie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 12:59:42 GMT
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 06:19:28 GMT, Franek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
>> maybe the problem was with the application, but didn't it take nt down with
>> it?
>I wasn't there at the moment <g>.
This happened on the USN cruiser Yorktown - look up comp.risks
archives for the gory details. You guys do all read comp.risks, don't
you?
In summary, an application failed to validate input, causing a divide
by zero error in a related process (NOT the entry screen) but that
managed to cause a BSOD crash, which in turn took the engines down.
Subsequent reboots failed due to the persistence of the error
(recorded in the in the db) causing reboots to fail in the same way.
The problem was eventually fixed by bypassing application autostart
and hacking into the DB to fix the error. Yorktown was dead in the
water until the problem was diagnosed and fixed, but IIRC eventually
powered up and returned to port.
The real trouble was that the NT box was a single point of failure.
As others have said, you should not use NT OR a *nix in a truly
critical system. Aircraft use at least triply redundant hardware with
continual crosschecks and hand shaking to enable error detection and
voting downnthe failing system. Less portable applications are written
for Compaq NonStop (running the Guardian OS) or Stratus (running VOS)
systems which have software and hardware designed to survive any
single point failure and with hot-pluggable replacement for all
components.
HTH
--
gregorie | Martin Gregorie
@logica | Logica Ltd
com | +44 020 76379111
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
From: "Boyce Endertois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:06:56 GMT
> I was at an Indians baseball game and some guys got kicked out for having
potty
> mouths. Not a totally public place, but kind of a public place.
There was a guy arrested in Wisconsin recently for swearing. His nickname
(honest!) was "boomer" and he was proud of his ability to let out a long,
loud and highly theatrical stream of obscenity.
Well, he was in a small boat on the river near a public beach and it
capsized, probably becasue of his girth. "Boomer" went on auto-pilot and let
out a stream of foul language that could clearly be heard by children on the
shore. A cop was there and the ignorant slob was arrested.
Now, it he had a Nikon CoolPix go in the drink, it may have be justified.
But he did not. He was just a slob with no greater claim to fame than his
ability to curse.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:21:00 +0200
Alexander Nosenko wrote:
> Tcl is cross-platform too, with an additional advantages of having the same
> GUI on *nix and Windows and full Unicode support (not in Perl yet).
and Tcl runs on *gasp gasp* Macs too!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: 18 Apr 2001 13:23:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch posted:
>You're not reading what I wrote. I said the *LINKER* could be
>smart enough not to link in exception code when none of the
>object files (and libraries are just containers of object code)
>use exceptions. I'm also saying that the linker could be smart
>enough not to link in C++ startup code when there is no need to
>call constructors of global objects or initialize the exception
>code.
That would require the Linker to do global analysis, though,
wouldn't it? Global analysis is a thing that C++ and C linkers
cannot do. Some people have based entire critiques of C++ on it's
weak-ass linking methods.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** You lost a plot of land because the claim was not recorded.
***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: 18 Apr 2001 13:30:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Ghost In The Machine posted:
>Sez you. Personally, I think the STL is a very well-engineered
>idea, although as usual Microsoft, by actually implementing it
>to spec, bodged it somehow. :-) It turns out MSVC++ 6.0, or the
>header files compled thereby, want std:: everywhere, unless one
>wants 'using namespace std;' near the top of his programs. As
>far as I understand it, this is to perfect spec, but it is
>annoying.
It is the way it's supposed to work. I like the way it's
designed, though I agree it's annoying. If I had a more complete
knowledge of the standard library I wouldn't mind the gcc
situation so much, but I get name conflicts as it is.
>Then again, g++ is freeware; just because it's freeware doesn't
>mean it's perfect.
Although the STL implementation (a free version) is much better
than MSVC++. Some people say it's because MSVC++ is so old and
hasn't been updated for a long time. ;-)
>I'm not even sure g++ and gdb interact correctly on Linux yet --
>I've had gdb think it's deep in string.h when it's actually
>somewhere else. How I report that as a bug, I don't know. I
>can't reproduce it on tiny programs. And of course g++ and
>std:: don't get along well for some reason.
gdb won't work reliably with source if you use any optimizations,
right? And then, certain necessary C++ features unfortunately
don't work unless you enable at least some of the optimizations.
In particular, the STL will not work unless you use
optimizations, and then the debugger gets futzed trying to read
the source code.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** Your offworld investment in artificial dumbness paid $250 in
dividends. ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:32:04 GMT
In article <9bk2m7$3p1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cat < nonsense > cola"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>People in this group have been spreading BS for years about the ease of
>linux as an inducement to potential new users. They mention this 'learning
>curve' from time to time, as if it was nothing for the average computer
>using individual to give up hours a day just to setup and use email and the
>web, pull their hair out when adding hardware, or even trying to get the X
What BS are you sprouting here? It's incredibly easy in Mandrake 7.2 (under
KDE for instance) to set up email and web access. Far easier than trying to
configure Dial-Up Networking under Windows. The average user will have no
problems when placed in front of a pre-installed box.
What average user would be setting up X windows? The same kind of user that
rushes out to buy the latest version of Windows and install that on their
machine? Hint - that is not an average user.
I've placed a neophyte user in front of Mandrake 7.2, set up the internet for
them (as I've done many times for "average" users on Windows) and left them to
it. This was a person who'd not used the web before, had trouble with a mouse,
and types at approximately 10wpm. So how that can that be called difficult?
They can now boot up, log in and get themselves on the net with no
intravention at all from me.
You're living in a fantasy world if you think new users of any system don't
need help from more advanced users. I'm constantly having to help out my
Windows using friends with problems installing software or hardware, and this
from a supposedly easy to use system.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:06:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip>
> what a maroon.
Stop playing "More Libertarian than thou". It's unseemly.
_
Rob Robertson
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 08:59:02 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> >
> > As for BeOS, I couldn't say. I haven't used it.
>
> Unlike Crime-o-soft, most of the foundation-level protocols used in
> Unix were put before public, academic and professional reveiw BEFORE
> being implemented.
>
Once again, Aaron the WinLuser, just makes up stuff as
he goes.
UNIX was provided to universities who requested it for
educational purposes in 1973. UNIX had already been
written at this time. In 1974 Thompson and Ritchie
published a paper describing the UNIX system in the
Communications of the ACM.
Thompson and Ritchie did NOT have "foundation-level
protocols" peer reviewed by the public, academic, or
by professional before implementation.
You are a WinTroll and you know it, Aaron.
--
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
