Linux-Advocacy Digest #213, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux disgusts me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Apple is doing a good thing ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux disgusts me (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source (Dave Martel)
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? (Dave Martel)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 5 May 2001 15:28:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Make money off it? That's the only part that counts in copyright, you
>know: you gets paid.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong in the real world where the rest of us live
(or, at least, in the US).
18 USC 106(1) says you're wrong.
The FSF even disagrees with your position. Otherwise, why would they think
they could sue over non-profit GPV violations?
Copyright is the right to prohibit others from making copies (plus some
other rights). The existence of profit changes the penalties, but not the
fact that it's a violation of law.
You're welcome to disagree with the basis of the law...but until you can
convince a court you're right, and convince the appeals courts the original
court was right in agreeing with you, in the real world, you're wrong.
That's the way the real world works.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:47:53 -0400
On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> The program may not be *functional*,
>>>> but you can definitely write such a program. [...]
>>> Find a non-programmer who calls a random bunch of characters that do not
>>> perform function "a program". Why would you even bother writing a
>>> program that is not functional? Just trying to 'cheat' copyright law,
>>> without actually getting into any trouble?
>> You elided the reasons both here and in another post. Try reading for
>> comprehension, for once.
> Try not being a trollboy. What have I 'elided'? The many examples of
> people missing my point and failing to understand anything outside their
> limited perspective without getting entirely confounded?
Gee ... do you know that when you edit things and put "[...]" over what
you've eliminated, you've elided? Obviously not. Go back and read the
post that contains what you elided and then try applying your
much-vaunted reasoning skills (*snicker*) to that.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:48:39 -0400
On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
> Answer one post reasonably, or I'm going to stop wasting my time with
> you.
That's rich, coming from you.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:50:59 +0100
> Which makes your debate opponent equivalent to Hitler, meaning this
> thread can end.
I wish people would stop misquoting Goodwin's law.
> Then Middle Easter Arabs could get back to the
> business of killing each other, beheading adulterers, destroying idols,
> stamping out women's rights, fighting the good fight against the spread
> of democracy, and enforcing medieval religious edicts without the
> Jewish irritant to divert resources.
That seems liek a biased opinion generated only on the knowledge of the
minority who insist on fighting. Many of the countries long ago declared
peace (for example Egypt) and are busy trying to better themselves.
> p.s. Muslims do have a good idea with alcohol. I'm amazed that
> prohibition has worked fine in Muslim countries for 1000+ years without
> the emergence of the sort of gangsterism that gave liquor industry
> propagandists a pretext to smear prohibition in the U.S.A.
It is not in the muslim culture to drink alcohol, where as in prohibition
era USA, it was very much in the culture to drink alcohol. At the time it
was prohibited, there was a large market, and a supply sprang up.
> I guess if
> you want to get serious about taking on drunkards you'd better see that
> they get religion first.
Doesn't sound like much of a good idea to me. I think religion has been
responsible for far more problems than alcohol ever has.
> And make it a religion loaded with aggressive
> memes capable of locking onto a brain tight enough to displace even a
> chemical addiction.
It might prevent a chemical addiction, but curing an already present one
is a different thing entirely.
-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]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 09:05:48 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ayende Rahien quoth:
>> alias foo='tail -20 .bash_history'
>>
>> in the user's .bashrc provides another. Of course, tab provides
>> name completion or a list of choices rather than trying to guess
>> for
>> the user. In most cases, giving the user the list means a quicker
>> result. Also, I don't get the point about <HOME> and <END>. Both
>> work fine on my system to jump to the beginning and end of the
>> line.
>
> Okay, how do I get del to work correctly and not put ~ instead of
> deleting?
This works fine on every system with bash I've ever owned so
I forget what <del> maps to in terms of character sequences,
but if it isn't working for you, I think you want something like
stty erase '<del>' echoe
> And in history, I think he meant F7 like, when you got a
> windows with all your recent commands.
right. as I said above, you just create an alias in your .bashrc.
alias foo='tail -20 .bash_history'
Then type 'foo' in a new bash session.
Of course you can't do pop-ups from a cli unless you are running a
terminal session in X and write ( and alias ) a tcl/tk or perl/tk
script to do it. If I have time this weekend, I'll be happy to write
a script for it. Shouldn't take too long even though I'm not so
great at tcl.
> And how do I get tab completion to work on bash, for that matter?
Ummm... you hit tab? Works fine on every system I've ever run bash
on. If it doesn't work on the windows flavor, I'm sure its on the
todo list. Perhaps problemmatic in the windows implementation of
bash, but one that is not endemic to bash itself, which is simply
another reason to run linux.
--
Salvador Peralta
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:54:19 -0400
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> On Sat, 5 May 2001, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>> I think about an API an interface, not a bunch of useless function
>>> declaration. I can't interface with something I know nothing about,
>>> it may crash, corrupt data, etc.
>> The books were written because people started hacking against the APIs.
>> They would poke it and see what happened. Thus, the things that MS had
>> not documented for public use were now being described for use by whomever
>> wanted to.
> Yes, I understand how they do it.
> But it's not an API until you know what it does.
> Until you know what it does, it's a function declaration that you can use,
> but have no idea how it would affect your program.
> You may use it for finding out what it does, but it's not an API.
>
> Okay, I think that my defination of API is closer to your defination of
> usable API, can we agree on this?
The last statement I can agree with.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:54:59 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> [...]
>>I won't argue that point!!!
>>
>>Flatfish
>
>BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>
>You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>computers.
This coming from a person who posts reams of words that say so little
but use up so much bandwidth.
BTW what ever happened to your Linux computer?
flatfish
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:56:41 -0400
On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 22:56:31
>> Now, I can gurantee you that anyone who code in C++ can:
>> A> implement the API
>> B> predict what the output of the program would be according to the API,
>> *without* implementing the API.
> Make money off it? That's the only part that counts in copyright, you
> know: you gets paid.
Wrong. It can also be that others can't make money off work that you do
without your permission.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:58:01 -0400
On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
>>> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
>> Programming to an API without implementation.
> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
> exist.
That's your claim -- and we're saying that mere use of a library
doesn't imply or cause derivation. Not that you'll pay attention to any
of this -- you don't listen to anything that differs from what you
say.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:02:56 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("John
Smith") wrote:
>
>I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
>
>
>
>WTF ? Illegible non anti-aliased fonts that require a magnifying glass to
>read ? WTF ?
>
>
>
>And free software / open source developers have the temerity to criticize
>Microsoft. Get fucking real ...
>
>
>
>At least Microsoft has developers that understand the rudimentary principles
>of user friendliness. Default fonts of readable size, anti-aliased, ...
>
>
>
>Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you can
>learn how to do things right the first time.
>
>
>
>You bunch of losers,
>
>J
Talk to Terry Porter.
He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
denies all of these problems.
BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
have a How-To for just about everything.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 18:03:27 +0100
> That's why 98/ME will be dead this
> year, replaced by Windows XP.
In exactly the same way they were replaced by Windows 2000.
-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]
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:04:10 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 11:04:26 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <9ctqoc$2hu3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Hmmm - according to the "Porter Principle" we obviously have:
>>
>> 1) When someone complains that Linux is hard to setup and use, then the
>> following apply:
>> - He is stupid and ought to stay away from computers
>> - He is probably paid by Microsoft
>> - He should RTFM, and Get A Life, and <whatever>
>>
>> 2) When someone complains that Windows is hard to setup and use, then the
>> following apply:
>> - He is making an educated and intelligent assessment
>> - He is finally seeing the light
>>
>> Perhaps a bit unbalanced, don't you think Terry? Ever occurred to you that
>> this Motorcycle guy perhaps needed to RTFM on general PC setup and such?
>> (using months to network two WinPCs - really impressive!)
>
>What did you expect? This is a linux advocacy group where everything
>linux is seen through rose tinted glasses. Mind you, judging by the way
>the commercial companies trying to make a go of linux, maybe its brown
>tinted glasses.
They are dying like flies....
Wonder why....
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 May 2001 10:30:40 -0500
On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC), John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
>
smart move.
>
>Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you can
>learn how to do things right the first time.
>
The entire world knows that any Microsoft x.0 release is buggy crapware.
How is Microsoft going to teach anyone to do something right the first time?
>
>You bunch of losers,
>
Idiotic moron.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:06:44 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 23:33:15 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> So did I get your shared library question somewhat correct?
>>
>
>Only somewhat. See my reply. And you never mentioned what bad things
>would happen (or more accurately, what good things will not happen) if
>you try what you suggested with C++ code.
>
>> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would use
>> her real name in a advocacy group.
>>
>
>Only a moron would brag about his accomplishments and then refuse to
>provide any evidence.
>
>Gary
I told you I am not a programmer. Hello.c and a basic Fibonacci (sp?)
sequence and simple shell sort is about as far I ever went. BTW this
was with punched cards running Fortran.
FWIW, using a real name is just foolish.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 May 2001 10:36:45 -0500
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:23:56 +0100, dw133 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> And replace it with what? The AOL desktop?
>
>Please don't say that, the thought sends shivers down my spine.
"You've got menu!", "You've got window!", "You've got dialog!".....
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 12:10:34 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never seen this. You mean UTC don't you? Universal Time
> Coordinates?
>
My bad. Yes, UTC. Windows approach of storing local time in the
hardware clock and changing the hardware clock for daylight saviings time
is brain-dead. It causes sudden jumps forwards and backwards in time on
the time/date stamp of files. You can no longer compare two files to see
which was modified last. And forget about sharing files across
timezones.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:05:59 -0600
On 5 May 2001 08:41:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
Everett) wrote:
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 12:36:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The article not only isn't funny, it doesn't address MS's position on the
>>topic.
>>
>
>It was very funny.
Yes, but unfortunately only those of us who already understand the
open-source concept can see the humor, or the point, of Torvald's
reply.
>>I don't agree with MS, btw. I understand their concerns, but I don't condone
>>any actions to undermine either the GPL or opensource. Two distinctly
>>different things, though this is lost on many LinZealots, who would rather
>>take any news story on MS, spin it to fit their needs, then direct us all to
>>read the article with the spin as 'directions' on how to interpret it.
>>
>
>You're comments aren't very funny, and they don't at all address MS's position
>on the topic.
>
>>Too bad the reading comprehension of most zealots, including LinZealots, is
>>near nil.
>>
>
>Please enlighten us on how to comprehend Mundie's comments "correctly".
"What's ours is ours. What's yours is ours."
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 10:06:04 -0600
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:23:56 +0100, dw133
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> And replace it with what? The AOL desktop?
>
>Please don't say that, the thought sends shivers down my spine.
AOL-XP?
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:12:16 GMT
Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
(IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of living
off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
innovation. They never have come up with an original idea. The take other
people's ideas/programs/etc (with or without their permission), reverse
engineer them, improve upon them and release them and then use their market
dominance in the OS area to push competing products out of the market. This
doesn't seem to be a good way to promote innovation. Eventually people will
not want to get into the market for fear of having to compete with
Microsoft. This really doesn't have anything to do with Linux per-say, it's
just a pet peeve I have with Microsoft. (BTW one BLATENT example of this is
that Sun sued the crap out of Microsoft (successfully) because of Visual
J++... I think they came to some kind of agreement later but I'm not sure.
Anyway, Microsoft is going to release C# at the end of the year. It is a
carbon copy clone of Java in the way it behaves and even the syntax of the
language - at least based on the beta 1 copy that I have of VS.net. However
I think that this time they are going to fail because it lacks a number of
things java is known for, such as cross-platform compatibility. And you know
Microsoft won't be making versions for other OSs anytime soon... Very
stubborn about that.)
And I think you will see now that a lot of the stuff Microsoft has been
giving away (IE, etc) they will start charging for in future versions. After
the competition has been squashed, people will have to buy their products
because they will have no other choice.
In that sense it is good to have other options such as Linux for operating
systems and open source software.
One thing I dont understand about a lot of the arguments going on with
GPL,etc is that no one is forcing you to use any license. If you do that
it's your choice. What's the big deal? If I want to give something away I
wrote and I'm proud of it's my business, not Microsoft's, and if I want to
charge for it it's nobody's business either. It was like that before the
Linux, Microsoft, GPL, etc and it will be that way later on too.
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_lJI6.3589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 4-19-2001
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
> >>
> >> "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
> >> discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
> >> through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
> >> arbitrary holes in the firewall."
> >>
> >> 4-25-2001
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
> >>
> >> "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange
> >> authentication information and delete it shortly after. This can be
> >> abused by a local user to gain access to the X server and can result in
> >> a compromise of the account kdesu accesses."
> >>
> >> 4-25-2001
> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
> >>
> >> "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux
> >> 7.1 (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they
> >> were world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap
> >> file(s), possibly including passwords."
> >
> >
> > After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
> > and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
> > tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
> >
> > Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page
> > file.
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
> Ah, Chad the security expert! Even Erik was gracious enough to admit that
> this was only an example, but I'll tell you what's wrong with this
> comparison: of the 4 RH exploits mentioned, only 50% are remote exploits,
> the other 2 are local exploits. Of the Microsoft examples mentioned,
> *ALL* were remote exploits. Get it now Chad? Evidently MS is smart enough
> to lock down the page file, but with all their billions still think
> connecting an insecure machine to the Internet is a good idea.
>
> Erik just demonstrated the principle that just because it's Open Source,
> it need not be secure, which is true. Both of you forget that there is a
> difference in the severity of the exploits. The difference? You are
> turning Erik's facts into an ad hominem attack on Adam Warner, whereas
> Erik engages in civil discussion.
>
> HTH, HAND,
>
> Mart
>
>
> --
> Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
> Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
> For that icy feel when you start to swerve
>
> John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:18:54 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:27:08 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So flathead is crowing about how they've managed to remove Windows
>sufficiently that the monopoly crapware is not the bottleneck it has
>always been in the past?
Actually for a change you are somewhat correct. MS has changed the
spec several times and the various software manufacturers have been
going wild trying to follow along. For example: Cubase uses ASIO style
drivers to achieve low latency. Sonar uses WDM drivers to do the same
thing. Vegas uses MME drivers do the same thing.
MS is definitely the bottleneck here and you won't get any argument
from me.
>
>So it is effectively impossible for a non-real-time version of Linux to
>provide perfectly glitch-free playback, unless it has a very large
>amount of fast memory for buggers, is that it?
Buffers?
>
>But flatheads comments didn't concern DirectCrap gaming performance, did
>it?
For the 10th time Direct-X effects (like reverb, or image widening or
echo etc) require extremely low latency or else you can't input
monitor.
Example:
I record your piano playing closely miked, dry with no effects. It
will most likely sound flat and lifeless with no reverberation.
So now I would like to add some ambiance to it, not unlike turning
your home theater setting to "Small Club".
With a high latency sound card, every time I move a knob to change a
setting there will be a slight delay as the system catches up to what
I am doing. This wouldn't be bad, but what if I wanted to monitor the
inputs and record your vocal through the same card and let you hear
the effects real time?
You would essentially be hearing your own voice later than the music
and it would sound fuzzy and swishy sounding and you would not be able
to perform or record properly. In short things would be out of sync.
If you download mp3's you might have gotten one where the person had
the inputs and outputs of his sound card tied together when he
recorded the mp3. When you play it, it will sound fuzzy and spaced
sounding. This is due to the delay.
As for the technical reasons why it can or can't be done under Linux
it is completely irrelevant because there are no applications of high
enough quality to use.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:20:46 GMT
But I got it somewhat correct didn't I.
I'm not a programmer.
Flatfish
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>>So did I get your shared library question somewhat correct?
>>
>>And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
>>use her real name in a advocacy group.
>
>That's because you're a troll, *sir*. In the real world, there's no
>reason not to, and many reasons to do so. *Children* use fake "fighter
>pilot" names online. But children don't expect anyone to take their
>opinion seriously, while trolls only pretend to have an opinion to be
>annoying.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
