Linux-Advocacy Digest #695, Volume #33 Wed, 18 Apr 01 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: To Eric FunkenBush ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Eric FunkenBush ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 (GreyCloud)
Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: What's the point (GreyCloud)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Postgres 7.1 Released (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:34:31 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> In particular, Numbers 31:
>
> 7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses;
> and they slew all the males.
>
> Anyone who has studied war will tell you that it's impossible to kill
> every man in an army in combat, and that many must have been killed
> after being defeated: "mass sacrifices of the defeated soldiers".
>
> Also:
>
> 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto
> Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the
children
> of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan
near
> Jericho.
>
> Such "spoil" consisted of every one that was not killed, every woman and
> child.
>
> 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
>
> Apparently they had.
>
> 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of
Balaam,
> to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there
was a
> plague among the congregation of the LORD.
>
> Here, apparently God said not to just kill every man, but he even got mad
> because all women and children were spared.
>
> 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman
> that hath known man by lying with him.
>
> Ok, I didn't include mass assasination of defenseless women and children,
> but consider it just an oversight.
>
> 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with
him,
> keep alive for yourselves.
>
> Now, if you tell a murdering mob that they can keep every virgin alive for
> themselves, what do you think that means? Massive rape of the defeated
> women. Those who were not slaughtered while imprisoned, of course.
>
> Now, apparently the standard of behaviour expected by go in battle is
> a bit harsher than the current one, and he seems to get pretty mad when
> the armies get soft on him.
>
> So, anyone using the argument of "war is allowed by god" should keep
> in mind that not ANY war is allowed by him, but that he prefers those
where
> every male of the losing side is killed, along with most women and
children.
>
> How anyone can be a literalist, and believe that an entity that gave such
> commands is worth adoring is beyond me. I say, if this is god, then god
> can fuck himself. Since he is supposedly omnipotent, he should be able to.
And your statement that "...if you believe the bible is the revealed word of
god, you are inthe same position as childs who believe in santa, in a way."
There you go again, using an example YOU don't believe in an attempt to
strengthen YOUR argument.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:36:47 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:aNjD6.37212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed 18 Apr 2001 04:40, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >> It would be extremely tricky to turn off many C++ features when you
> >> compile a program, for one simple reason: how the hell can the
compiler
> >> know for certain that no libraries will be linked in that require
> >> support for them?
> >
> > 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.
>
> Exception code isn't "linked in", it's compiled in. The linker has
nothing
> to do with exceptions. Here, I compiled a basic C++ iostream hello-world
> into assembly (with g++ -S). The output asm code is very different:
The startup code must handle thrown exceptions. C startup code doesn't do
this, which is why it's smaller than the C++ startup code (also global
constructor/destructor code). The linker does link in exception handling
code, and it could be smart enough to know when it doesn't need to do this.
> > No, the compiler doesn't know anything about the other object modules,
but
> > the linker does. The compiler doesn't generate exception code in the
> > object modules unless you put a try bock in there.
>
> Patently wrong, for reasons stated above. The exception stack frame must
> still be set up, period, if the code calls any external functions that
> require exceptions. And since it's impossible to determine if any
external
> functions require exceptions until the rest of the program is compiled,
the
> compiler must assume that exceptions are required unless told otherwise.
No, the exception stack need not be set up as such. This is why you can
link code that has exception handling and code that does not. For instance,
what happens when you compile your program to not use exceptions, but you
link to the C++ standard library (and that WAS compiled with exceptions)?
> > Where C++ begins to grow is that the C++ header files often include
other
> > header files they depend on, and the number of files to be processed
grows
> > exponentially. Again, this can be curbed with proper dependancy
> > management, but most programmers don't seem to do this very well.
>
> Umm, it's called #ifndef/#define/#endif. Unless you're claiming that, by
> virtue of being C++, there will be more headers than in C?
Those header guards do not prevent the code from being #included in the
first place, and the pre-processor has to skip over those files, both of
which consume time. This is why MS invented the #pragma once command, so
that the header files are only included once in a compile unit.
> > My argument is primarily against the concept that C++ must be more
> > inefficient at compiling regular C code than a standalone C compiler.
>
> By virtue of the fact that C++ is a much larger language to parse than C,
> the efficiency hit is inevitable. If you optimize for the case of C code,
> you will necessarily make C++ code compile more slowly.
Which I said you could do. My point was simply that stating that it HAS to
make C code compile slower is not really true.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:39:30 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Of course it is. I made no statements about the quality or usefulness
of
> > STL or templates, only that very few people (in comparison to the
majority)
> > are not using them. My own experience is that less than 10% of the C++
> > programmers even know how to use std::string, much less containers or
> > algorithms.
>
> When I think about this, it doesn't surprise me in the least. I'm teaching
> C++ part time at a university, and a lot of the *instructors* barely know
> STL, ditto for textbook writers. Ignorance trickles down from textbook
> writers to instructors to students (or from textbook authors directly
> to self-studyers)
>
> I suppose a lot of this probably has to do with the fact that the
inclusion
> of STL in the standard is really a very new thing.
Actually, I believe that it's because the STL is entirely new style of
programming. It took years for OOP to really catch on after it was
available. The STL is based on generic programming, rather than OOP per se.
It will take time for the concept to really sink in. People that are
already familiar with C++ seem to take the longest to learn it.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:39:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Notice how Bill Hudson refuses to tell us how long he's served in any
combat zones.
>
> Must be because the number of months = ZERO.
I posted it once (I actually counted the LES's). Find it, "war-hero"
wannabe.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:39:28 -0700
Dreamspinner3 wrote:
>
> What I find objectionable is that someone had to whine about the fact that a
> child might see the particular word posted here. I feel, along with other
> posters in this thread if you have read it through, feel that parents should
> be WATCHING their kids and censoring what they do on the Internet, rather
> than expecting everyone else to do it for them. Usenet is a wide-open field
> and one should expect to see all kinds of stuff on it, including people who
> like to use bad words. Thus parents should be supervising their kids
> Internet activity and not expect everyone else in the world to censor
> themselves just become they might offend their precious child. Parents
> should be responsible for their children! That is that!
>
I find it rather amusing to see people worrying about what their
children are reading or going to read about on the net... go to the
school yard and hear some real profanity!
Poor state of the education system. Things sure have changed.
As to the C500, if the program can acquire an image that is twain
compliant then it should acquire it. Adobe PhotoShop acquires from my
twain compliant scanner without any problems. The O/S has to know that
the device is there.
> "Rick Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dreamspinner3 wrote:
> > >
> > > Did you see me swearing at all? Hmmm???? Yes, I know what this group
> is
> > > about. Yes, I agree with you (suprise!!) such language as he used is
> > > unpleasant. However, why whine about it? And you're the one who
> mentioned
> > > your children.... He has a right to post here. I just ignore and/or
> > > killfile people I don't like. I don't whine about it or try to impress
> my
> > > morals upon them. I guess that is where we differ.
> >
> > This is not a difference. This is a similarity. Some "whine" about
> > language, while you "whine" about whining. You try to impress your
> > notion of proper discourse upon the "whiners."
> >
> > Why does the "photophile" have the right to post here, while the "whiner"
> > does not? You could ignore the "whiners", just as you admonish them
> > to ignore the references to human-camera sex. The kill file option works
> > just as well with either.
> >
> > You do not find foul language objectionable, yet you find objections
> > to foul language objectionable. Interesting.
> >
> > --
> > Rick Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Am I fucked? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:42:00 -0700
Todd wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I work for HP. HP is attempting to suppor all devices under windows 2000 in
> anticipation of Window XP (since it will be both a consumer OS as well as a
> Business OS).
>
> Plug in your camera to the USB port. If Windows 2000 doesn't instantly
> recogonize it, try rescanning the USB ports under the hardware device
> manager.
>
> I find that this always works for me.
>
> You won't have any luck under Linux... camera and scanner support is non
> intuitive AT BEST under Linux.
>
> I don't speak for HP since it has a zillion employees, but I know enough to
> know that Linux is viewed at most as a server OS. (which implies no support
> for consumer oriented peripherals)
>
> -Todd
>
> "Igor3489" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
> >
> > It appears that the camera supports TWAIN.
> >
> > I have two questions:
> >
> > 1) Is there another TWAIN driver/app that would support my camera, without
> > the need for HP drivers?
> >
> > 2) Can I use the camera with linux? That would be preferred as I do use
> > linux much more than win2000.
> >
> > Thank you!
How about asking the HP-UX people about the /dev part. Maybe they can
shed some light on this. I can't believe that HP doesn't attach
scanners and Twain compliant devices to their PA-RISC series systems.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 00:46:34 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> That explanation is not open for Bill Hudson, as he rejects it when
> anybody else refuses to discuss classified things.
Not quite KuKuNut, I called you on your BS when you stated you were in clas
ops in Iraq but couldn't talk about it until 2041. After LMAO, I pointed
out that by your very post you "talked" about it. I also pointed out that
if it were true it would actually be 2066, IF ever. I also pointed out you
were a "wannabe" at best or a security risk at worst. Since then we've all
known what you made so plainly obvious: you are a simple minded liar and
"war-hero" wannabe.
Now go polish the wreath around the Presidential Unit Citation you claimed
your unit was awarded for counter-terror action in Atlanta, Georgia. LOL!!!
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:51:33 -0700
"cat < nonsense > cola" wrote:
>
> "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> You're not seeing the forest for the trees. 30 million people connect to the
> net via AOL, many more through ISP's that provide setup software that
> enables a complete point and click interface with no inputting of dns
> information, configuration of protocols, etc., The poster who inspired this
> thread had taken the time to actually get a linux box up and running with
> most of the sundries operable. He was questioning the payoff of his effort.
> A valid question, I believe, for the needs of the average computer user.
>
> > 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 installed every version of windows more times than I want to think
> about. Linux, 6 times or maybe more. Granted, the installation routines of
> the popular linux distros have improved by leaps and bounds. A credit to the
> programmers working for those companies. I still find windows installation
> almost a pop in the cd and forget it proposition after the serial is
> entered, and until the time zone setting is requested.
> Hint - this isn't really the topic of the thread.
>
> > 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.
>
> I ran Mandrake 7.1 install a few weeks ago. It died with a perl script error
> two minutes in. How many users do you think have the wherewithall to deal
> with that? Or even know what a perl script is?
> It's still the same mis-matched argument. Linux users, and people who use a
> computer more as an information appliance don't belong in the same room
> discussing anything on the topic of computers.
> The 'user' just wants a working device that communicates with what his\her
> peers\school\work use, and the ability to say 'hey, that digital camera
> looks cool!, that mulit-function fax, printer, copier, scanner is just what
> i need, I really like <insert friend here>'s new cd burner & software, it's
> SO easy!'
> With Windows, go out, purchase it, hook it up, follow the wizard
> instructions, and more times than not: and this last statement is very
> important, the device(s) work just fine for all intent and purpose. Is it
> Linux's fault that this isn't the experience on linux? No, of course not.
> But, it is the current state of the world of computer hardware\software.
> Like it or not.
> A linux 'guru' just wants to tell the 'user' what's wrong with what they're
> using because only they have the intellect to understand what it is in
> everyone elses best interest. Does anyone see the similarity between this
> logic and that of BG's and company?
>
> > 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.
>
> Granted, there will always be problems with any system. Requests will
> continue to come for help from those more knowledgeable than the caller.
> Once again, the post was someone who had taken the time to setup the box to
> a working state. After having done so, and then taken a survey of the
> effort, the question was 'what do I have here?' The answer, being that this
> person is not a programmer, is not much. --if expense is taken out of the
> equation.
I think you'll find a lot of frustrated windows users. My wife won't
buy anymore MS upgrades or even contemplate purchasing another
computer. She has had her fill of BSODs, freeze-ups, you name it. She
is looking for something that will do what it advertises to do without
breaking. Right now, people are just putting up with the goofiness of
windows and are hoping that MS would deliver a useful system that won't
break and die. Most of my friends have stopped upgrading, some have
even downgraded the o/s, and would have purchased a new system, but are
very gunshy now. They are waiting to see which neighbor is going to
stick his toes in water and see if any sharks are biting.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:55:54 +1200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> =
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> =
> > Well, I hear all these awful stories about Pete's experience with Lin=
ux,
> > however, I have none of those problem. Maybe I have some sort of voo=
doo
> > 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, f=
or
> > more people to use his software.
> =
> Several grand for Kylix? 8)
> =
> It cost me =A3550, how is that 'several grand'?
Thats English Pounds check out how much it would be in US dollars, or
worse, in NZ dollars.
=A3550 =3D $NZ1700 +GST (12.5%)
Matthew Gardier
-- =
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 21:03:22 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
>
> Sorry, but this was LONG before SoftIce even existed. The VC 1.0 and 1.52
> Codeview debuggers were both using NuMega code nearly 10 years ago.
SoftIce was available in version 1.0 for MSC 5.0 on OS/2. Way before there was
a VisualC/C++
>
> > > 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.
>
> MS and Borland had a very good relationship early on, when MS wasn't being
> so competitive in the developer tools market.
Yes, that was more or less my point.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:01:28 +1200
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Give the memory test ago, should only take around 30 minutes. oh, btw,
> I couldn't be bothered upgrading to KDE 2.1, maybe that could be the
> problem?
>
> 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
Yet no reply for 2 days. hmm, Pete is suffering from the typical luser
syndrom called "It ain't fucking work'in, but I won't do anything about
it". I offer a suggest, but no, that would mean that his problem is
solve, thus, nothing to bitch about, and as a result, poor old Pete
would have nothing to bitch about.
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]>
Subject: Re: Postgres 7.1 Released
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:10:15 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Postgres 7.1 has been released.
>
> : For those of you who do not know, Postgres is an object relational SQL
> : database, it performs very will under high load and multiple users. It has real
> : transactions and many advanced features like sub-selects, function based
> : indexing, and more.
>
> The day doesn't go by that I don't wish I could use PostgreSQL at the
> office instead of having to choose between MSSQL (little better than a
> toy) and Oracle (usually gross overkill, but even it lacks some
> PostgreSQL features that I find incredibly useful).
>
> I can't wait to get my hands on the new release.
In one of my web sites, we have a very large shared library of neat Postgres
functions. It started out as an implementation of oracle's "contains(..)"
function, and has grown to startling proportions.
One feature I simply love about postgres is the ability to create an index
based on a function, as in:
create index fubar_ndx on table (function(column)) ;
Thus, one can do really cool stuff like:
select * from table where string_reverse(field) = string_reverse('the quick
brown fox');
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
