Linux-Advocacy Digest #39, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: IE ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (mlw)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Salvador Peralta)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (pip)
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:59:55 +0100
> Then it wasn't well designed. There is a difference between good design
> and an orgy of graphics. Good design takes place behind the scenes and
> aside from everybody getting a good looking page to end up with, normal
> people don't even know it has gone on.
True. Unfortunately, most corporate web buildes tend to misatke good
design for fancy design.
> I think people are mixing up good web design (which may involve new or
> fancy techniques) with gimmicks and an over produced finished product.
>> Secondly, HTML was designed to degrade gracefully, so any page that
>> doesn't have a specified feature will not look as pretty, but will at
>> least be usable. Admittedly, it takes quite a bit of work to ensure a
>> website will gracefully degrade, but if the company is bent on having a
>> prefessional image on the web, they can probably afford a competant
>> enough web designer to make it work.
>
> Unfortunately, HTML was designed with several things in mind, including
> graceful degrading. It was also designed to be a simple way of
> presenting information which the user could decide how they wanted to
> look by their browser and settings.
Yes, unfortunately, this is not well supported. It would be nice to be
able to set a default style sheet for pages. Unfortunately, NN doesn't
have this feature and the control is gives is very limited.
> But when the net outgrew it's academic beginnings, people wanted more
> control and the browser companies made HMTL continually more
> complicated.
> CSS arrived too late to save HTML from becoming what it
> wasn't supposed to be.
True, but many of the better sites use CSS to their full potential.
Unfortunately, not enough browsers suooprt CSS very well. As far as I can
tell Mozilla 0.8.1 (current) seems to have about the best support.
> Graceful degradation doesn't apply so much any
> more as the myriad of HMTL properties which should be usden CSS are
> often misinterpreted by older browsers and cause an effect which is
> anything but graceful...
Yes. They're usually OK if used in style sheets, but NN seems to have a
fair few things not valiable through the style sheets, which kind of
wrecks any plan.
>> Another problem with fancy professional looking sites is that they
>> often take ages to download. If you want to see a prefect example of a
>> very fancy looking site that takes a horrible amount of time on a 33.6
>> modem
>> (the one I have at home), then visit:
>> www.abbeynational.co.uk When every I do telephone banking with them,
>> they keep trying to get me to use the website. I keep telling them its
>> far too horrible.
>
> The HSBC site isn't so bad, that's my internet banking service...
>
> Really though, for an argument on that subject, see my post above.
>
> MP
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:08:34 +0100
> I rarely uses Linux GUI, usually through
> a remote console, so I can't commend on that, but I just had a very bad
> experiance trying to find out how to format a file system on linux.
> First I tried man format, which brought me a string formatting command.
> Then I tried man -K format, man -K "format filesystem", etc. I spend
> half an hour with it, finally having to reboot to *DOS* to do so. Yuck.
Linux is not windows and the terms for similar things are different.
Under Windows, the format command initializes the media and then makes a
filesystem on top of that.
Under linux,
fdformat formats a floppy device
mkfs.* makes a file system.
mkfs.* has nothing to do with formatting.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:08:24 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
> > > [...]
> > > >I see no evidence that the early differences between
> > > >GEM and Windows had anything to do with who owned
> > > >DOS. I admit that the transition to Windows 95 did
> > > >depend upon this- but had CP/M been king, Windows 95
> > > >would effectivaly have meant migrating everyone to
> > > >*Microsoft's* CP/M clone in the process.
> > > [...]
> > > >It's all hypothetical, but that's how I see it.
> > >
> > > I think you are mistaken in ignoring the impact of Microsoft
> > > force-bundling Windows with DOS, the very behavior that MS signed a
> > > consent decree to avoid ending up in court. Later, they paid Caldera
an
> > > undisclosed amount (I speculate it could be up to two billion dollars)
> > > to avoid further investigation into Microsoft's actions to kill off
> > > DR-DOS.
> >
> > I speculate it was 2¢ because Caldera didn't have a shot in hell of
winning.
>
> Then why did Micro$oft settle?
>
Simple, the reason why alot of large companies settle a lawsuit is because
it CHEAPER to settle than to go though with a trial and winning. Lets say
they settle for $5 million and if they had gone to trial and it could cost
2x or more.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:08:39 -0600
In article <9cgf7f$rsl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
[ ... ]
> The contract specified that writing any system (i.e. privileged)
> code rendered the maintenance contract void - however, there were
> many important things that could be done only that way (as there
> are on most systems, but shouldn't be, but that is another rant).
> If I recall, a user of a RENTED machine was not allowed to void
> the maintenance contract, but that did not apply to BOUGHT ones.
> There were a lot more details about what was forbidden, but I
> forget them now.
It was considered perfectly normal for most customers to violate
these contract provisions to a limited degree on a regular basis. If
you rented a machine, this went double. If you bought a machine,
you'd made a relatively long-term commitment, and IBM knew it -- they
knew perfectly well that they were required to keep your expensive
machine working long enough to pay off. If you merely rented the
machine, they knew it would take comparatively little for you to
switch to a different brand if their's wasn't doing the job.
As such, writing privileged code was a lot like speeding -- they'd
look the other way about a few minor incursions here and there, just
like you won't usually get stopped for doing 1% over the speed limit.
Of course, if you do triple the speed limit you can pretty much bet
it's NOT going to be ignored.
Of course personalities can also come into things. Assuming he has
any first-hand knowledge of this at all, based on the way he comes
across on the newsgoup, I have little doubt that IBM would have been
very happy if Aaron Kulkis had taken his business elsewhere. Anybody
who acts like he does can count on being given absolutely no slack in
any respect. I doubt that I'd be anybody's nominee for Mr.
Personality, but even I never ran into any trouble with doing what I
needed to...
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:07:54 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9chgui$fd9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Intel and MS have been in bed for a long time. Intel is another
> > disgusting monopoly and most folks do not realize the degree to which
> > they break the law. They really only innovate when given some
> > competition, like any monopoly. And Intel and MS have been getting
> > together with ZDNet and the other press-scums to rig "benchmarks" for
> > many years now.
>
> The most significant innovation if INTeL is to pioneer the onion-skin
> approach to processor design.
I already cry whenever I buy a proccessor, thank you very much.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:19:24 +0100
> I have to disagree. How is it possible that a hardware failure unrelated
> to any software should affect the reported reliability of the OS?
It has no effect. However, it is meaningless to equate aggeragate uptime
to continuous uptime. Unfortunately hardware failures make getting uptime
figures a pain in the neck.
> Besides, exactly how long is it that we have to run something before we
> are finally allowed to calculate and report it's uptime? I mean, a
> machine running 30 days without reboot has a uptime of 100% for those 30
> days. Do we pick an arbitrary length of time - say, 1 year. OK, so I
> have a server that has been up for 1 year without any reboot of any
> kind. So, I can report 100% uptime - but, on the 13th month a CPU fan
> fails and I have to replace it requiring a reboot - what is the uptime
> for the OS (not the entire system, just the OS)?
In order to quote a figure, such as
"This OS has an average uptime of 100 days"
Every machine the figures are got from has to be run until the OS
crashes. This gets very difficult with stable OSs. An easier figure to
quote is:
"This OS has a reliability of 99% over 100 days"
or
"Over the course of 100 days, the average uptime is 99.99 days"
ie, one crash in 100 days. In this case each machine has to be run for
100 days. These figures are of some merit, but are more useful if a bunch
are given, ie for 100, 200, 300, 400 days etc.
There is a great difficulty in getting figures that have any meaning at
all in tests like this.
> Look - W2K has been out, officially, since Feb 17th 2000. If I have a
> machine that has been running continuously since Feb 17th without reboot
> and it's been a year and a half - is that enough time to claim 100%
> uptime?
It would be meaningful to claim the machine has an uptime of 100% over a
course of 1.5 years. unfortunately, this is not statistically significant
since there is only a single machine involved.
> If so, I have a file/print sharing system I'd like to show you.
> It wasn't updated to SP1 because quite simply it didn't need it and the
> client doesn't like to pay for our visits. It sits in it's little spot
> in a half-rack we setup for them with a UPS and just runs and runs and
> runs. I figure 1.5 years without any reboot of any kind is 100% uptime.
Yes, but you can't quote the figure of 100% uptime without qualification
for it to mean anything. See above.
> Agreed?
more or less.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: 29 Apr 2001 17:22:19 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:12:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yet another troll...
> Take a P166 with 64 meg and load Linux Mandrake 7.x on it and Win98SE
> and see which one is more responsive. Linux is slow as shit...
Have a dual boot with NT 4 and Linux on a similar config. My fiancee only
complains about the "speed" of the machine when Windows is running (-;
> So much for Linux on legacy hardware, unless of course you like
> looking at a CLI then Linux screams....Of course any newbie forced to
> use the cli will be screaming as well. Try loading kde or Gnome and
> see the system crawl.
On that system, KDE will work just fine.
> How about multimedia?
>
> USB MIDI interfaces?
> High end Sound cards?
> Hell, even run of the mill sound cards utilizing ALL THE FEATURES?
The usual troll comments. If you care so deeply about these things, just
use something else. There are plenty of people who don't use them.
> Because there is virtually NOBODY USING LINUX!!!!!!!
But inspite of the fact that "virtually nobody" is using it, it's still
around.
> Sure it is used in back room server operations, so are ball bearings
> in my wheel bearings on my car.
> Point is nobody cares.
I would bet that you care about the reliability of the car. And I'd bet that
the car manufacturer cares about the reliability of the ball bearings used.
Who cares if the end users don't know that Linux is doing the work ? If they
keep coming back to companies that are using Linux based solutions, then
Linux will not die any time soon.
> Linux is dead before it has even started and XP will put yet another
> 100 nails in it's coffin.
Yes, Windows has been "putting nails" in Linux's coffin for years, and
in UNIX's "coffin" for years before that. But we're still waiting for
a death certificate !!!!!
> Linux is a time waster and is meant for bit tinkerers and losers.
Given that you have nothing better to do than troll advocacy groups, I'd
place you squarely in the latter category. So, why aren't you using
Linux (-;
> The masses have spoken and Linux does not even have an honorable
> mention....
No, you have spoken enough for "the masses".
> GoodBye Linux....
Goodbye flatfish
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:28:15 -0400
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:zU5F6.6825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:3ae45e41$0$2769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Except that it isn't true. Many companies are finding that an
> NT/2K
> > > > > solution is
> > > > > > not more stable, is not cheaper, is not easier to manage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except that what you just wrote is NOT true. W2K IS much more stable
> and
> > > > > cheaper and in every single way imaginable much MUCH easier to
> manage. I
> > > > > mean, night and day differences.
> > > >
> > > > Stable? Where's the W2K box that's been running for 2 years?
> > >
> > > Well - I'd imagine that is about as possible as the linux 2.4 (release
> > > version) box that's been running for a year. Get it? I'll give you a
> clue,
> > > W2K release date < 2 years!
> >
> > Then find us that statistically significant number of NT boxes that have
> been
> > up for two years.
>
> And where am I going to find you the type of proof I can provide on-line for
> such a thing? Especially given the uptime counter in NT4 wraps at 49.7 days?
> However, when you want "up" time I think we're both smart enough to know
> that it's not necessarily 100% contiguous time, we're talking unexpected
> down time, i.e., crash.
No way Jose! Uptime is that, UPTIME, i.e. without being rebooted. When you
reboot you clear the whole OS. Memory heap is clean, disk cache gets flushed,
memory leaks are freed. The whole thing starts fresh. That's why uptime is
UPTIME!
>I look at the farm at work and see servers that I
> know have never crashed. Sure, rebooted every few months because of some
> hotfix or some patch or perhaps a hardware upgrade/repair. If you were to
> run an uptime tool on those machines you wouldn't find 1, let alone 2, years
> on any single one - however, there aren't any that I know of that have
> actually literally crashed due to the OS puking.
If they are NT, you are quite lucky.
> Typically, when I think of
> the machine running 2 years nonstop I think of the novell server someone put
> in a closet and everyone forgot about.
That's because you CAN forget about stable systems. That is the point.
Everytime you don't have to spend 15-20 minutes rebooting a server, that's
15-20 minutes you can do something else. If you have 24 servers, and you have
to reboot each one, that's a whole day of someone's time.
>
> When I think stability and reliability and uptime - I want to know about
> unexpected downtime - scheduled reboots for hardware shouldn't count against
> uptime calculations.
Of course they do. I had a Windows NT server that I schedule a reboot every
Sunday morning to make sure it wouldn't crash. If I left it running much longer
than that, it would do any number of things from BSOD, DNS failure, IIS
failure, you name it. Rebooting every Sunday eliminated the problems I was
having with it. That does not mean it was more stable, it means I did an
end-run around its lack of stability.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: 29 Apr 2001 17:24:54 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:52:41 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Take a P166 with 64 meg and load Linux Mandrake 7.x on it and Win98SE
>> and see which one is more responsive. Linux is slow as shit...
>
> Take a P166 with 32 meg and load Linux Mandrake 8.0 on it and Win98SE. At
> the start of Installation, Mandrake 8.0 complains the system is "low on
> resources" and may fail the installation (it did the same with Mandrake
Try loading Win 2k on the same system. Comparing Linux with Win98 is not
really a fair comparison -- Linux is closer to NT/W2k in functionality.
If you want to compare with W98, you also need to spend some time trashing
W98's reliability, its susceptibility to viruses, and its complete absence
of server functionality.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:26:58 +0100
> I thought that Intel Processors already had 7 levels of operations (win
> and Linux only use a few) ?
I believe you're refering to the rings (levels of trust, esentially with
ring0 being all powerful)
I was refering to the habit they have of piling on features and features
without the redesigning. Surely the A20 gate could be emulated in
software for those who *really* need it?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:41:29 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ed Allen quoth:
>>I couldn't agree more. It is only the cognitive dislexia of the
>>conservative position which makes me seem to prefer the Democrats.
>>I'd prefer a party half-way between the current liberals and the
>>putative libertarians, if the libertarians could only see their way
>>to jettisoning their anti-government rhetoric.
>>
> I insist that they stop believing that corporations are the
> highest form of life ever envisioned.
I'm not sure how you can say this. Haven't corporations proven, time
and again, that they will sacrifice their profit motive for the
collective good? I certainly trust big tobacco when it comes to the
reporting of health risks involved with smoking. Who needs
government when they can monitor themselves?
> As for Democrats and Republicans I dislike them both. Neither
> one
> seems to believe in Constitutional government. They both serve
> corporate interests above the public ones, they just don't make
> worshipful noises like the Libertarians.
Might be a bit overly pessimistic. I've worked with some very
dedicated public servants.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:34:51 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > i doubt anybody is going to be buying an ia64 to run windows. there's
a 64
> > > bit version of NT and associated SDKs, but most of these processors
will
> > > end up running some version of Unix.
> >
> > Intel would like to sell 64bits proccessors, as well as AMD.
> > What do you think the consumer will take, the latest, best, 64 BIT!!!
(In
> > giant red letters)
>
> considering how poorly the pentiumpro did in the consumer marketplace,
> i would say no.
>
I don't believe the Pentium Pro was marketed at a consumer (desktop) cpu but
was more for the server market. Considering a Pentium II was cheaper the a
Pentium Pro at almost 1/2 the speed.
> > or a simple 32bits that will serve it just as well ? And only NT4
> > run on 64bits, which is nice, but I want 2K or XP on a Hammer or a
> > mckinely. Not that I *need* to do this, but it would be nice.
> > Anyone can guess when we will see 128bits proccessors?
>
> we probably won't see consumer oriented 128 bit processors. 64 bits
> is enough for most everything. when you need 128 bits, it will
> usually be in the AND, OR, XOR bit ripping stuff or AND and SUB where
> you just paste two 64 bit operations together. which is what 8 and 16
> bit processors had been doing all along to get 32 bits.
>
Like nobody will ever need more than 640K, right? What about game
machines like the PS2 and others?
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:28:01 +0100
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9chcjc$780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ouch.
> NS6 is even worse, because it is not backward compatible with NS4.
> But there are plenty of non-MS browsers around, and 90% of them are better
> than NS4.
It is more compatable with the rest of the world though. I'd rather
completely forget about NS4 as a bad mistake ;)
> I recall, there was a period of 3 months after I tried NS4 that I returned
> to NS3, only to slowly switch to IE4 some time later.
It was something like the same with me...
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:40:19 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > I thought that Intel Processors already had 7 levels of operations (win
> > and Linux only use a few) ?
>
> I believe you're refering to the rings (levels of trust, esentially with
> ring0 being all powerful)
>
> I was refering to the habit they have of piling on features and features
> without the redesigning. Surely the A20 gate could be emulated in
> software for those who *really* need it?
Eeeeek (Out Of Depth Alert). If I knew what an A20 gate _was_, then I am
sure that I too would have equal concerns about it :)
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:38:14 GMT
"Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> there already is a consumer oriented 128 bit processor. it's called "super
> nintendo" ::))
>
Wow, I never knew the Super Nintendo was more powerful than the N64 (64
bits). (sarcasm)
The Super Nintendo has a 16 bit chip, the 65816 at 3.5MHz.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:40:38 GMT
"William Shakespeare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
>
> > we probably won't see consumer oriented 128 bit processors. 64 bits
> > is enough for most everything.
>
> Are there not 128-bit processors for Playstations and video cards?
>
The Playstation 2, is 128 bit, the Playstation, I don't remember. I do
know the PS1 CPU is much faster than a 486 50MHz, it the graphics processor
that makes it look good.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:33:19 +0100
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9chh9c$fmp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> True. Unfortunately, most corporate web buildes tend to misatke good
> design for fancy design.
Yup. One of the main reasons that new web technologies usually get a bad
name.
> Yes, unfortunately, this is not well supported. It would be nice to be
> able to set a default style sheet for pages. Unfortunately, NN doesn't
> have this feature and the control is gives is very limited.
> True, but many of the better sites use CSS to their full potential.
> Unfortunately, not enough browsers suooprt CSS very well. As far as I can
> tell Mozilla 0.8.1 (current) seems to have about the best support.
> Yes. They're usually OK if used in style sheets, but NN seems to have a
> fair few things not valiable through the style sheets, which kind of
> wrecks any plan.
Basically it should work as follows:
HTML outlines a generic presentation of information in simple constructs
such as paragraphs, blockquotes, tables and images. Other than being
presented in the correct order and construct this is where HMTL should stop.
Anything which signifies the designer trying to stamp their mark on the way
the constructs are presented should be up to CSS.
Unfortunately it didn't happen that way.
Maybe we need to ditch HTML altogether and put together a new standardised
sub-set of XML specifically designed as HMTL should have been...
MP
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:59:23 GMT
Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's probably because I've been spoiled by CDC. Not only did we get all
> of the sources with our operating system (and the build jobs - which we
> threw away and re-did better), but also we learned that it was a good
> thing (technically, not just socially) to return our fixes for everyone
> to share - that way they would be incorporated in the standard
> distribution, which would save us a headache next time round ...
CP/67 and then VM/370 were both distributed in source. I believe that
at one time there was some analysis that there was twice as much
kernel code (modifications) on the share waterloo tape as code in the
distributed kernel.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:02:44 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > Then there's the Office rip-offs
> > http://www.linux-mandrake.com/screenshots/venus1.jpg
> >
> > It's like a whos-who list of plagiarists!
>
> I mean look at this! I love how those that claim to despite the GUI and
> everything MS like - are the first to do everything possible to copy it.
> Look at all the damn near identical copies of Windows tools and the look and
> feel. Give me a break, these screen shots are fantastic. I didn't see a
> single original idea in the bunch.
It seems that the KDE developers are listening to the screams of
Win-Users who cannot deal with software that doesn't look and feel
like Windoze software.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
