Linux-Advocacy Digest #915, Volume #33 Wed, 25 Apr 01 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Brent R)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Sky King)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("B.B.")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Stephen Fuld")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Scott Erb)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: More Lies from a Linux "advocate" (GreyCloud)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (GreyCloud)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:53:00 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> jet wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > jet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > jet wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:01:19 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:17:32 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Never been in Saudi Arabia, have you, so please keep your
> > > > ignorant
> > > > > > > > >> > stereotypes to yourself.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I'm not invoking "ignorant stereotypes", I am quoting what I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> a fairly good source.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, considering that I ***LIVED*** In Saudi Arabia for a
> > year, I
> > > > say
> > > > > > > > > that your source is full of shit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You've found very little in the way of flaws in my source.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't need to "find" the flaws...they are self-evident from my
> > own
> > > > > > > PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF LIVING IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR A YEAR
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All
> > > > you've
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > is dispute the assertions I've made about clothing. Note that
> > the
> > > > > > document
> > > > > > > > I cited acknowledges that westerners are not as restricted in
> > terms
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > clothing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But many of the points still stand. Are women allowed to drive,
> > or
> > > > leave
> > > > > > > > the house without a male relative ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll take that to mean "no".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They get many privileges, and many restrictions
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No amount of "privileges" could make up for a restriction like that!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know you wish American women had those kinds of restricions. Too
> > bad,
> > > > > > bitter boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In contrast, in the United States, we have stripped all of men's
> > > > > > > privileges, and all of womens' restrictions, giving us a society
> > > > > > > where men have all the responsibilities and restrictions, and
> > women
> > > > > > > have all of the privileges.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? Cool! Where is this "United States". I'd like to move there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In other words...FEUDALISM.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > American women are allowed to drive, go out of the house
> > unescorted,
> > > > > > > and run off with 50% of a man's wealth PLUS a substantial sum of
> > > > > > > 2 decades of his future earnings, all by getting pregnant by
> > > > > > > Dangerasshole, but designating Mr. High Achiever the father on
> > > > > > > the birth certificate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bitter boy myth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The primary reason why male/female relationships in the United
> > States
> > > > > > > are in such a sorry state is entirely due to the fact that
> > feminism
> > > > > > > tipped the delicate balance of power from level
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How was being denied access to education that lead to higher paying
> > jobs
> > > > and
> > > > > > being paid less for the same work "level"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > to anti-male in
> > > > > > > every respect
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Translation: Aaron hates feminism because it gave women the power to
> > > > turn
> > > > > > down his advances.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you're saying that without hysterical Feminism, such a right
> > > > > would not exist...
> > > >
> > > > Bait and switch.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that *IS* what you were trying to pull.
> >
> > Gee, why did you snip the part where I said you can have the right to do
> > something, but not the power? You tried to switch "power" for "right".
> >
> > J
>
> If I snipped it, then how could i switch it, you ignorant cunt...
Aaron, calling someone that word is indicative that this is about more
than a discussion of the faults/merits of modern feminism and is more
representative that you are here to act out some rage/aggression that
you built up over the years.
Anyway it's still crass and crude and totally unneeded. Please don't
make me killfile you for the fourth (?) time.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:55:26 GMT
On Wed 25 Apr 2001 02:43, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Not to discount your experience, but my experience leads me to believe
>>that
>>#1 is the more dominant factor for a lot of people. In my entire life, I
>>have never found a woman sexually attractive. When my dad gave me a few
>>issues of Playboy, I read the articles. I have dreamed about having sex
>>with a woman exactly twice, and both were nightmares. Surely, most people
>>living heterosexual lives don't have these sorts of experiences, right?
>
> Everyone has. Ok, not the nightmare part, but the articles in Playboy are
> actually pretty good. I remember reading Mailer, Asimov, Bradbury, and
> many others there.
>
I meant, reading the articles and NEVER, NOT ONCE, looking at the pictures
without thinking, "Wow, this is boring."
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:08:44 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > jet wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > jet wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > jet wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:01:19 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:17:32 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> > Never been in Saudi Arabia, have you, so please keep your
> > > > > ignorant
> > > > > > > > > >> > stereotypes to yourself.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I'm not invoking "ignorant stereotypes", I am quoting what I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> a fairly good source.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, considering that I ***LIVED*** In Saudi Arabia for a
> > > year, I
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > > that your source is full of shit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You've found very little in the way of flaws in my source.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't need to "find" the flaws...they are self-evident from my
> > > own
> > > > > > > > PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF LIVING IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR A YEAR
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > you've
> > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > is dispute the assertions I've made about clothing. Note that
> > > the
> > > > > > > document
> > > > > > > > > I cited acknowledges that westerners are not as restricted in
> > > terms
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > clothing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But many of the points still stand. Are women allowed to drive,
> > > or
> > > > > leave
> > > > > > > > > the house without a male relative ?
The women choose to live there so its their social choice. sky
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What about it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll take that to mean "no".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They get many privileges, and many restrictions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No amount of "privileges" could make up for a restriction like that!
> > > > > > >
Unless of course women choose their lifestyle and have NO other
choices at ALL. This is not the case. They could leave the
country etc. sky
> > > > > > > I know you wish American women had those kinds of restricions. Too
> > > bad,
> > > > > > > bitter boy.
> > > > > > >
Nope. We think the less clothing the better on our women. sky
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In contrast, in the United States, we have stripped all of men's
> > > > > > > > privileges, and all of womens' restrictions, giving us a society
> > > > > > > > where men have all the responsibilities and restrictions, and
> > > women
> > > > > > > > have all of the privileges.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really? Cool! Where is this "United States". I'd like to move there.
> > > > > > >
Well we have AA, quotas, diversity hiring, the VAWA, the Child
Abandon Law and on and on. All these benefit women and not
men. Only men are forced by law to support kids that are not theirs.
Name some that benefit only men. sky
> > > > > > > > In other words...FEUDALISM.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > American women are allowed to drive, go out of the house
> > > unescorted,
> > > > > > > > and run off with 50% of a man's wealth PLUS a substantial sum of
> > > > > > > > 2 decades of his future earnings, all by getting pregnant by
> > > > > > > > Dangerasshole, but designating Mr. High Achiever the father on
> > > > > > > > the birth certificate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bitter boy myth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The primary reason why male/female relationships in the United
> > > States
> > > > > > > > are in such a sorry state is entirely due to the fact that
> > > feminism
> > > > > > > > tipped the delicate balance of power from level
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How was being denied access to education that lead to higher paying
> > > jobs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > being paid less for the same work "level"?
> > > > > > >
Nope. Same pay for SAME job. sky
> > > > > > > to anti-male in
> > > > > > > > every respect
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Translation: Aaron hates feminism because it gave women the power to
> > > > > turn
> > > > > > > down his advances.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, you're saying that without hysterical Feminism, such a right
> > > > > > would not exist...
> > > > >
> > > > > Bait and switch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that *IS* what you were trying to pull.
> > >
> > > Gee, why did you snip the part where I said you can have the right to do
> > > something, but not the power? You tried to switch "power" for "right".
> > >
> > > J
> >
> > If I snipped it, then how could i switch it, you ignorant cunt...
>
> Aaron, calling someone that word is indicative that this is about more
> than a discussion of the faults/merits of modern feminism and is more
> representative that you are here to act out some rage/aggression that
> you built up over the years.
>
> Anyway it's still crass and crude and totally unneeded. Please don't
> make me killfile you for the fourth (?) time.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:59:52 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> With Redhat, setting up DHCP is trivially simple. During the install, it
> detected both my token ring and my ethernet cards. For each it asked me
> if I wanted to use DHCP. I checked the DHCP box for the the token ring
> and entered the static address for the ethernet. When I booted up after
> the install both cards worked flawlessly.
And in my case it didn't work.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:01:27 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> 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.
Two days? It never occured to you that I might be off the internet due to
my ISP? That I haven't seen your post? Or a myriad of other reasons???
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: 25 Apr 2001 20:09:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:08:44 -0400, Sky King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > But many of the points still stand. Are women allowed to drive,
>> > > or
>> > > > > leave
>> > > > > > > > > the house without a male relative ?
>
>The women choose to live there so its their social choice. sky
Actually, no, they don't. They are not allowed to leave the country without
autorization. Think about it, how do you leave the country without
leaving the house?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:16:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@"B.B." wrote:
@>
@> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
@> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@> [...]
@>
@> @You're making the mistake of assuming the JS PL ever attended college
@> @in the first place.
@>
@> On the upside, his .sig is of a fairly reasonable length.
@>
@
@And your point is?
Your .sig is too long. Even us uneducated types can spot it.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Fuld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:25:31 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jeffrey Boulier wrote:
> > I don't know that much about IBM's pre-360 line of equipment, but in the
> > Olden Dayes most computer vendors made the source code available for
what
> > little there was of their operating systems.
>
> Wrong. In the 1960's, if a non-IBM programmer wrote even a single line
> of code on your IBM/360, it voided the warranty.
>
Technically true, but in practice wrong. Many customers modified their
operating systems for unique site requirements. Though the vendor *could*
then refuse to support the site, in fact, a customer was too valuable to
give up that easily. So they generally tried to work with you, especially
if it was clear that a reported bug was totally unrelated to any changes you
had made. Of course if you reported a bug and it turned out to have been
your, you got a nasty talking to. Many of the "customer unique"
enhancements proved so generally useful that the vendors adopted them,
supported them, etc. Some very useful products came about this way.
--
- Stephen Fuld
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:27:37 GMT
Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed 25 Apr 2001 09:28, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Hint: even if I did have some sort of "magic fairy dust" to make arbitrary
>>>men turn gay, that doesn't mean that they would suddenly find me
>>>attractive, much less a potential lifemate.
>>
>> True, but irrelevant. It increases your odds. More gays is a "good
>> thing" for you.
>>
>
>I suppose, in the same sense that rohypnol is a "good thing" for straight
>guys trying to pick up women in bars.
IMO you conceded defeat by saying something as stupid as this.
------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
soc.men,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:28:52 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:22:58 -0400, Scott D. Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lynette Warren wrote:
> >
> >>what a scam American feminism truly is
> >
> >How do you define feminism? In feminist theory they are many kinds. A
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What the heck is "feminist theory"?
Did you read beyond that point? I explained a bit about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:29:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:57:56 GMT
<8cDE6.143327$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9btk47$iqs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Jon Johansan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Says good-bye to expensive, hard to manage unix crap too...
>> > >
>> > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1120413
>> > >
>> > > Zenon Chomyszyn, technology manager at the Halifax, told Computing that
>> the
>> > > company's Unix systems are too expensive to maintain, and that he hopes
>> to
>> > > reduce these costs by installing W2DC, despite a high initial outlay.
>> > > "The benefits will be the management of the systems and boxes rather
>> than a
>> > > saving in purchase price," he said.
>> > >
>> > > Chomyszyn added that the operating system will increase the
>> availability,
>> > > reliability and scalability of the bank's databases, and will reduce
>> > > operational costs by managing a single server rather than thousands.
>> >
>> > Here in the body of the article you say they are moving from "expensive"
>> > Unix machines to Windows 2000 Datacentre, yet, in the subject you say,
>> > "bank switches from using NT 4", bit of a contridiction?
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> W2DC boxes are far less expensive that UNIX counterparts.
>
>Especially when you consider that all Win2KDC OEMs provide uptime
>guarantees in the 4 and 5 9's range for only a fraction of the cost
>of a similar guarantee for a Unix system.
Great marketing gimmick on Microsoft's part. Of course, 5 9's
is equivalent to 5 reboots per year, as it turns out (assuming a reboot
takes 1 minute):
1 year = 365.2425 days = 31556952 seconds
5 9's refers to 99.999% uptime = 00.001% downtime = 1e-5 year
= 315.56952 sec = 5 minutes, 15.56952 seconds
It's not clear to me whether Unix can match this, or not -- it's
also not clear to me that Microsoft can match this, or not.
It's clear that Win2k is a superior product -- to NT, if nothing else.
How superior remains to be seen.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 8d:09h:04m actually running Linux.
This is a pithy statement. Please watch where you pith.
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:41:58 GMT
On Wed 25 Apr 2001 03:27, chrisv wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[Snip]
>>
>>I suppose, in the same sense that rohypnol is a "good thing" for straight
>>guys trying to pick up women in bars.
>
> IMO you conceded defeat by saying something as stupid as this.
>
>
I see no such concession. The fact is that I find the idea of altering any
important component of another person's identity without consent, including
sexuality, to be morally reprehensible and a subjugation of free will.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Lies from a Linux "advocate"
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:54:04 -0700
mlw wrote:
>
> Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >
> >
> > > With MS software, the fact that there's already a glut of MS software
> > > out there creates a need for more MS software because of the avalanche
> > > effect. With the open source software, once companies invest in OSS,
> > > this creates a need for more OSS. So, maybe the recession is an
> > > opportunity for a break-out.
> > >
> >
> > True - although once companies invest in OSS they will realise what
> > bullshit the constant upgrade treadmill really is and closed-source
> > companies will lose revenue from upgrades and close down.
> >
> > How can we ensure ths only happens to monopolist scum and not the good guys
> > (for example small businesses writing proprietry solutions on a
> > per-customer basis)?
>
> The "upgrade treadmill" is not an invention of the PC, it is an american
> business strategy. If 1950's car is great, there is no need to buy 1954's.
>
> The trick is to make a product last long enough to make the customer think they
> got their money's worth, but not so long that they don't keep buying.
> --
> I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
Yes, its called planned obsolescence.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:06:23 -0700
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9q%E6.1338$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > [snips]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Figured it couldn't be compiler bugs! After some
> > > > > > > more dicking around with cleaning up some of
> > > > > > > the myriad of warnings, I noticed that the
> > > > > > > bad function was pushing an array of structures
> > > > > > > onto the stack. Looking at the size of the array,
> > > > > > > found it was 64 Mb!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At that point, we realized that the Intel platform
> > > > > > > was the cause of the trouble
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? The Intel platform, eh? Not, say, the programmer who
> created
> > > > > this
> > > > > > monstrosity in the first place without a shred of consideration
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > possible impact of doing it, no, not his fault, must be the
> platform.
> > > > >
> > > > > That was my thinking, too. Why on God's green earth would the
> programmer
> > > not
> > > > > anticipate such a thing and simply pass a pointer to the array?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just the overhead of passing a 64MB structure is unbelievable.
> > > >
> > > > what a fucking idiot.
> > > >
> > > > Must of been a recent departee from Mafia$oft.
> > >
> > > I've seen a lot of engineers write code like that. The maxim about never
> > > giving engineers a compiler and never giving programmers a soldering
> iron is
> > > pretty accurate. <g>
> >
> > That's why I studied both software AND hardware when I was in school.
> >
>
> I did pretty much the same. Brief stint in Med School too.
>
> I think electrical engineering students are better served by having a strong
> CS background as are CS types knowing how their tools actually function.
Thats what the gov. figured also. We received Computer hardware and
software education.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:07:50 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9q%E6.1338$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [snips]
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Figured it couldn't be compiler bugs! After some
> > > > > more dicking around with cleaning up some of
> > > > > the myriad of warnings, I noticed that the
> > > > > bad function was pushing an array of structures
> > > > > onto the stack. Looking at the size of the array,
> > > > > found it was 64 Mb!
> > > > >
> > > > > At that point, we realized that the Intel platform
> > > > > was the cause of the trouble
> > > >
> > > > Really? The Intel platform, eh? Not, say, the programmer who created
> > > this
> > > > monstrosity in the first place without a shred of consideration for the
> > > > possible impact of doing it, no, not his fault, must be the platform.
> > >
> > > That was my thinking, too. Why on God's green earth would the programmer not
> > > anticipate such a thing and simply pass a pointer to the array?
> >
> > That 64 Mb object was not a /parameter/.... it was a LOCAL VARIABLE!!!!!!
> >
> > <screams>
> >
> > Believe it or not!
> >
> > As for the programmer doing such a stupid thing, he obviously found
> > that it worked on his platform, so figured all platforms could
> > handle such a monstrosity!
>
> Still bad form for pushing a variably-sized structure rather than
> pushing the pointer to it.
>
I agree. Even the textbooks on this subject advocate using a pointer
rather than pushing the entire struct value.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > "Where do you want to hang today?"
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
