Linux-Advocacy Digest #172, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: The upgrade (Terry Porter)
Students Offering Free Web Site Design... ("Tyrone Williams")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: File Transfer by Null Modem Cord HOWTO (Bloody Viking)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("mmnnoo")
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (Terry Porter)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Windos is *unfriendly* (Terry Porter)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (turtoni)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (WJP)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:35:22 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only because they were previously and are still heavily into IBM's "big
> iron". While I do not denigrate OS/2 on its merits (its vastly superior
> to MS crapware), I think its only fair to point out that the bulk of its
> popularity is in "true blue" shops, who buy it based on the fact the IBM
> makes it, rather than any actual competitive merits.
But if the purchases *were* made on competitive merit, OS/2 would likely
win by a landslide. Why? The client requirements are very narrow,
heavily tied into IBM as you've noted, and the banking industry needs an
impenetrable, highly available, dependable client. As much as I favour
Linux, if I worked at a bank I'd have to vote for OS/2 in any competetive
bid situation.
Yeah, you *can* sink a screw with a hammer, but it's just wrong.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:35:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> I'm sorry, the U.S. *never* authorizes violence.
Sure. Just like the two nukes we dropped on population centers.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:37:40 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <
> Bill Hudson, senile never-been, displaying his ignorance as usual.
This from an MI ARNG Specialist with 11 1/2 years of service that'll never
see Sergeant stripes or any leadership responsibility. You're too funny,
wannabe.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 01:38:02 GMT
On Thu, 3 May 2001 17:35:30 +0100,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Did I leave out anything actually relevant?
>>
>> I thought so.
>
> Like what?
I posted that my system detects sound cards, and that no manual intervention
is neccessary, you cut that out and didn't even mark it 'snipped'.
>
>> > I can't comment as I don't have an NE2000.
>>
>> You can trust me there, Ive had these cards (no name elcheapo's) for about 5
>> years after buying a box of them.
>
> Old huh?
Exactly, old enough for Windows to have got it right by now.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Tyrone Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Tyrone Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Students Offering Free Web Site Design...
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 21:52:26 -0400
Students Offering Free Web Site Design...
Hello, my name is Tyrone Williams and I am a teacher at an inner-city school
in Chicago. Most of my students are African-Americans and come from a
disadvantaged background; but they have a burning desire to learn and grow.
As part of a program to make these students Internet-savvy, I teach a class
on web page design. The skills that are covered are HTML, DHTML,
JavaScript, PhotoShop and basic server side programming.
My students have learned the basic skills and are now looking for "real
life" projects. In a bid to gain practical experience, they are offering to
build web sites for free. What they are asking in return is a "Letter of
Recommendation" upon successful completion of the site. Most of these
projects will be completed over the Internet, using e-mail as the medium of
communication. I believe that this kind of cyber-internship will open doors
for these kids when they graduate from school.
I couple of days ago, I posted a very similar message and 3 businesses have
come forward to get a web site designed by my students. I need at least a
dozen more businesses. Please remember that there is no cost to you. The
web site design is absolutely free. This is a win-win situation.
Please visit my students at - http://www.Geeks4Free.com
If you know anybody else who needs a web site designed, please forward this
message to them. Thank you very much.
Tyrone Williams
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:48:22 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Compaq seems to think that people like you- you know, anti-MS
> > > zealots- are not a big enough a big enough market to be worth servicing.
> >
> > Self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I don't see how. If they misjudge the market, some
> other vendor will get those sales.
>
> It's not like every vendor signed up to those
> per-processor OEM licenses. Some obviously
> saw things differently than Compaq.
>
> > By the way, signing contract to EXCLUDE other vendors is illegal.
>
> Nobody is claiming MS did this, you know. Even
> you have not, not that I've seen.
>
> [snip]
Thats what per-proscessor and per-system licenses are all about. its one
of things that lead to the first consent decree.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:54:07 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Kelley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps Microsoft is the one copying here... I also noticed that
> Microsoft is using translucent green and colored window buttons ala
> Quartz in XP.
>
> Can't *they* do anything original?
>
>
I'm particularly distressed by that last comment about everything looking
like a clone of MS Office. I could duplicate that screen in its entirety
with a collection of UNIX software I used on X-Terminals ten years ago.
The calendar looks exactly like Synchronize(tm), the desktop looks like
CDE, the process manager is standard AIX, etc., etc. If there's any
"ripping off" on that last URL that was posted, it was by MSFT. This
shit's all been done before, and better. MSFT is imitationware.
I hate arguing history with people who weren't part of it.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:55:31 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I suppose you could look at it that way, but I don't see
> > > how it's Microsoft's fault that their competitors produce
> > > second rate products. :D
> >
> > DR-DOS was not second rate. It included things susch as disk compression
> > that MS-DOS did not. It also forced Gates to either lower prices or at
> > least not raise them.
>
> DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
> next to Windows.
>
Reqlly? Why?
> Really. I'm not saying everything MS made was gold. :D
>
> > CP/M was not second rate. MS-DOS was a "poor-cousin" clone.
>
> Actually it was. CP/M needed a serious upgrade to make it on
> the IBM PC, because it was written for an earlier CPU that
> only could access 64k of memory.
>
Then explain whay IBM wanted CP/M first. Gates even steered IBM to
Digital first.
> DR-DOS did eventually produce this- it was called
> CP/M-86, I think. But I don't think it was ready when
> IBM tried to cut a deal with them.
>
IBM tried to get CP/M first. Get your history straight.
> > Unix was/is not second rate.
>
> A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
> doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
>
Why doesnt it make it on the desktop?
> Sure, it's better than DOS. What isn't?
>
> > Linux is not second rate.
>
> It's just like Unix.
>
Somewhat.
> > BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this. It
> was emphatically second rate; it might have
> become better given time, but in reality that
> didn't happen.
>
I mean, BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
> > Lotus 1-2-3 was not second rate.
>
> Well, no, but they stuck to DOS too long-
> and this limited them. Excel was able to do
> things Lotus could not because it could leverage
> Windows techology.
>
Hence the accusations that MS engineers got info before competitors.
> By the time Lotus came over to Windows,
> they were playing catch up. And Microsoft
> fought them doggedly, as you'd expect.
>
Hence the accusations that MS engineers got info before competitors
> > WordPerfect was/is not second rate
>
> A similar story as with Lotus 1-2-3.
>
> WordPerfect for DOS was about as good
> a DOS word processor as you could have-
> but Windows raises the bar by a lot.
>
Hence the accusations that MS engineers got info before competitors
> DOS desktop apps aren't competitive
> with Windows apps- they don't have the
> tools to be.
>
What do you mean?
> That's why Lotus and Wordperfect's
> supposition that they could sit on their
> dominance of DOS was so mistaken.
>
They did not sit. MS leveraged its knowledge about WIndows and captured
the Windows applicaion market.
> > Go system was not second rate.
>
> I'm not so sure. *None* of the pen based OSes
> have been good enough to catch fire yet. Not
> that Microsoft's attempts have been any better.
>
Go was better. Pen Windows sucked.
> As far as I know Go's product wasn't any
> worse than anyone else's though.
>
There really werent any other pen based systems in the US market untill
Go. Then MS squashed GO and produced a putrid pen system.
> IMHO there's a certain level that these
> things have to reach before anyone can
> hope to dominate the pen computing
> market. I don't think they've got there
> yet.
>
> [snip]
> > Becasue the other testimony showed Microsoft has a history of
> > manipulating the industry.
>
> Well, at least it showed that MS's competitors didn't like
> MS very much. :D
If someone continually stabbed you in the back, would like them?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:57:29 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > DR-DOS was not second rate. It included things susch as disk
> compression
> > > > that MS-DOS did not. It also forced Gates to either lower prices or at
> > > > least not raise them.
> > >
> > > DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
> > > next to Windows.
> >
> > Considering that DR-DOS was never meant to be a GUI, but, in fact,
> > a platform which could, among other things RUN windows on it...
>
> DR-DOS, like MS-DOS, was a lousy platform for
> something like Windows, never mind desktop
> applications.
>
Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
> > what is your point, exactly?
>
> My point is that Microsoft's competition is
> mostly very poor as a development platform
> for desktop apps.
>
> That is emphatically true of DR-DOS.
>
Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
MS-DOS, how can you support your point?
> I know you don't like to think about what
> Windows offered developers- it makes it too
> obvious what merit the platform had, and
> indeed still has.
>
> But it was developers who made Windows
> king by writing the best apps for it. DOS
> apps couldn't compete; they didn't have the
> tools to match the quality that Windows apps
> could put out.
Microsoft developers.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: File Transfer by Null Modem Cord HOWTO
Date: 4 May 2001 02:00:58 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Couldn't you use a line in /etc/inittab to get it to respawn?
I tried that, and it respawned way too fast, causing stderr messages on the
console. That's why I chose the method I chose.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:03:57 GMT
I don't think "open" is the right word at all.
If you don't believe me, just try to get a copy.
One of Microsoft's goals is to confuse the issues for people
who don't know enough to judge for themselves.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "jtnews"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On CNBC this morning I heard that they're making opening more of Windows
> source code due to pressure from the open source model of Linux.
>
> If open source is so bad, according to Microsoft, why are they suddenly
> changing their tune now?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 02:00:46 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 10:34:08 +0900,
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Excellent sleuthing, and a great read Aaron :)
>>
>> I don't think,
>> "Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>> S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>> Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"--
>>
>> is a Linux user, he's just too dam ignorant.
>
> It is easy for someone knowledgable to pretend to be ignorant.
True, but what's the point of a knowledgable Linux user pretending to be
ignorant here ?
>
> --
> Osugi Sakae
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 19:12:43 -0700
In article <3af205f2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Osugi Sakae"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is easy for someone knowledgable to pretend to be ignorant.
And impossible for someone ignorant to pretend to be knowledgeable. And
since I have never seen a knowledgeable post from Flatso, I must conclude
that he's truly ignorant rather than pretending.
Of course I could be wrong. And that would make me ignorant. Or merely
pretending.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 02:19:41 GMT
>From a Motorcycle news group today
"glitch1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Linux and Unix geeks, stay away !! :)
> Been mucking around for months with w98se and w2k to get the 2 machines
> networked, also trying to rig both onto one internet connection. Tried all
> those "you beaut" apps like Winproxy, Wingate etc., trying to follow the
> EASY instal & forget stuff, resulting in more frustration than coffee at
> hand....
> W98 dropping the network constantly resulting in endless logon/logoffs, 98
> and 2k not talking on the same level, bugger it.
Tell us again Wintrolls, how "easy" Windos is to set up ?
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:34:47 GMT
On 04 May 2001 02:19:41 GMT, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From a Motorcycle news group today
>"glitch1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Linux and Unix geeks, stay away !! :)
>> Been mucking around for months with w98se and w2k to get the 2 machines
>> networked, also trying to rig both onto one internet connection. Tried all
>> those "you beaut" apps like Winproxy, Wingate etc., trying to follow the
>> EASY instal & forget stuff, resulting in more frustration than coffee at
>> hand....
>> W98 dropping the network constantly resulting in endless logon/logoffs, 98
>> and 2k not talking on the same level, bugger it.
>
>Tell us again Wintrolls, how "easy" Windos is to set up ?
>
Oh it's the greatest! I love wasting 3 hours watching the machine reboot
everytime a new driver is loaded. No operating system is complete without 10
reboots.
------------------------------
From: turtoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:43:00 -0500
billh wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <
>
> > Bill Hudson, senile never-been, displaying his ignorance as usual.
>
> This from an MI ARNG Specialist with 11 1/2 years of service that'll never
> see Sergeant stripes or any leadership responsibility. You're too funny,
> wannabe.
bill why don't you just be done with it and give arron a jolly good rogering.
you've been courting him for over a year, now.
turtoni - your friends say it's gettin embarrassin. grease length wise.
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:40:34 -0500
On Wed, 02 May 2001 23:53:28 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
//more snippola//
>
>What else do we retirees do? :-) If we stay with it, it won't be long
>till we know quite a bit about these things. :-)
"Touche'"!
Bill Powell
USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:26:50 GMT
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af18a90$0$37250$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cp41d$ku7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:zySH6.6169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9cf54s$r2p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:51CG6.1636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3ae8f1ec$0$21761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well - the only claims for stability I make of W2K are simple:
> > > > > > I have these W2K machines - they have never crashed. They stay up
> as
> > > > long
> > > > > as
> > > > > > I leave them running. I don't know how better to claim uptime
> than:
> > > they
> > > > > are
> > > > > > always up. Whatever the history of other previous products might
> > be -
> > > > the
> > > > > > product I use today is reliable and stable. I know this because I
> > use
> > > it
> > > > > and
> > > > > > it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > And what, exactly do we do with our W2K boxes?
> > > >
> > > > Keep using them? XP is a big upgrade for desktop/workstations, not so
> > for
> > > > servers.
> > >
> > > Just from the commercial side of things, I don't see XP taking off for
> > quite
> > > a while. So many of these shops have just now upgraded to W2K. I think
> MS
> > > would have been better served to have given W2K a miss and just waited
> > until
> > > XP was done. The whole thing is more than a little strange when you
> > consider
> > > their past marketing efforts. It just doesn't make sense.
> >
> > XP is currently aimed at workstations & desktops, the servers would come
> in
> > about a year afterward, I think
>
> Servers are following by 6 months.
I'm sure you know this already, Jan, but for those that don't, the
WinXP generation of server software is now officially called
"Windows 2000 [Advanced, Datacenter] Server". And they're aiming for a
Q1 or Q2 2002 release date whereas WinXP Personal/Professional is slated
for Oct or so.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:30:21 GMT
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af18c41$0$37286$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > You need to be A LOT more informed. This is a CPU function and has
> > NOTHING to do with the BIOS. When you disable it in BIOS, the BIOS
> > simple issues the needed instructions to turn it off.
>
> I know this.
>
> Likewise, any
> > OS during boot can choose to turn it back on.
>
> True - but Windows does not do this.
>
> > This was well established
> > by Intel when it first came out. In short, if you think you have ANY
> > protection by turning it off in BIOS, you have been horribly mislead.
>
> It gives DEFAULT protection. If I turn it off in BIOS then I know the ONLY
> way it's back on is if something *I* installed turns it back on.
>
> > My
> > understanding is that even a properly written application could do this
> > (turn it on and back off) if it had proper permission to access the CPU.
>
> Sure, but ONLY if *I* install such an application. I think it's quite
> paranoid and stupid to think that MS would do such a thing that is so easily
> detected and suffer the fallout of this sort of privacy breech. I think this
> is a non-issue.
It's quite easy to detect, as well, right? I mean if it's a software switchable
thing, then just install a base copy of Windows *.*, write a piece of software
which monitors the setting every couple seconds and then just use the computer
for a couple days for browsing, etc without installing any other apps. If the
setting ever changes, than its Microsoft's doing. If it doesn't, than you've
proven MS doesn't change it.
-c
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:53:15 GMT
Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
> =
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
> <snip>
> =
> > > I don't think so. All it does is to document the well-known fact th=
at
> the
> > > Windows QueryPerformanceCounter() is implemented in a rather stupid=
way.
> > > What this call *ought to do* is retrieve the value of the Time Stam=
p
> Counter
> > > register using the RDTSC instruction (see
> > >
> http://cedar.intel.com/cgi-bin/ids.dll/content/content.jsp?cntKey=3DLeg=
acy::ir
> > >
> tp_RDTSCPM1_12033&cntType=3DIDS_EDITORIAL#4.0.%20Using%20RDTSC%20Proper=
ly).
> > > For some obscure reason the NT/2000 designers chose some roundabout=
way
> to
> > > determine a suitable clocktick, layering the whole thing in the HAL=
> > > (probably a legacy thing dating from when NT 3.x ran on pre-Pentium=
> > > hardware). Some people have reported that QueryPerformanceCounter()=
can
> take
> > > over 1000 clockcycles to execute.
> > >
> > > The only amazing thing is that this IBM guy does not know the corre=
ct
> way of
> > > reading time ticks on a Pentium PC. In MS Visual C++ all you do is
> execute
> > > the following inline assembler:
> > >
> > > // read the Pentium Time-Stamp Counter (RDTSC)
> > > __int64 nTickCountNow;
> > > __asm rdtsc
> > > __asm mov dword ptr[nTickCountNow] ,eax
> > > __asm mov dword ptr[nTickCountNow+4],edx
> > >
> > > .. and you have the result in the 64-bit integer nTickCountNow.
> > >
> > > Mikkel
> > Thats a different test. Perhaps someone should write the Linux and
> > Windows assembly code and run that test. The difference may be smalle=
r,
> > but it will still be there due to OS overhead.
> =
> Different from what? I don't hope that anyone is interested in testing =
the
> speed differences in the ways you can acquire clock ticks between Linux=
and
> Win2K/NT. These tools are used to measure the performance of *real*
> application code. All this IBM guy did was test the speed of the measur=
ement
> method itself. That's pretty uninteresting, IMO. And it says nothing ab=
out
> the relative performance of the two platforms, as Mr. Gardiner clearly
> implied. The "Microsofts so-called NT vs. Linux findings" was based on
> benchmarking real applications such as Apache versus IIS. And AFAIR, ev=
en
> the =DCber-Penguin himself had to acknowledge that NT actually had an e=
dge
> over Linux in some aspects (at that point in time, things have probably=
> changed with the 2.4 kernel)
> =
> Mikkel
I agree with you that what was measured was the time to acquire the
clock tick by one particular method. Benchmarks on the whole are crap. I
can rig benchmarks to prove anything. But the total overhead for Linux
is smaller than for MS operating systems. So no matter how fast you make
your test run, it will be possible to make a Linux test that runs
faster. For example, don't run X under Linux, switch to single user
mode, and get all the cpu cycles. Is that a good test?
-- =
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:39:20 GMT
"Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aEeI6.310$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, a default Windows install is pretty functional for me.
> > >
> > > What specifically are you talking about?
> >
> > Lack of a decent command-line interface and a standard API like unix
> > has.
(for some reason I didn't get Donn's post, so I'll reply through you
Stephen, I hope you don't mind)
Donn:
Several of the guys I work with are Bash and Emacs lovers. I tried
using Bash for two days straight. I had only used it whenever I had
to configure something on a Linux or Solaris box, but was never forced
to use it as my primary shell. I had to say, I was quite disappointed
with it after hearing so many good things about it from so many people.
Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the command
line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END don't work, you
have to use CTRL+A and CTRL+E (IIRC) which is much less intuitive.
It doesn't have a pop-up command history like cmd.exe (the F7 key), it
doesn't have very good TAB completion (in cmd, subsequent hits of TAB
cause cycling of files in the dir that meet the search criteria).
I find the best combination of everything is the GNU Utils on Win32 and/or
the Cygwin32 dir + cmd.exe. Having bash around when I need to run a script
for something is handy, but having to use it day-to-day is rather limiting.
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
