Linux-Advocacy Digest #257, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: where's the linux performance? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Graham Murray)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:20:59 GMT
On Sun, 06 May 2001 17:06:51 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
>court. The fact that no one has taken on the challenge says more about
>the value of the covered works than the validity of the threat.
I think there are lots of explanations for why no one is particularly
interested in being sued over this issue. The validity of the threat
is only one factor. As long as the FSF's position is not so weak that
it is not credible that they wouldn't sue, the position is strong
enough to deter most. Even an extremely weak threat would be enough
to stop people who are working on projects in their free time with no
particular intention to make money.
My point is that while the lack of law suits is probably not a convincing
arguement for the the FSF's position, it is even weaker evidence that
the code is of limited value.
While it's true that the FSF's position hasn't been tested in court,
the position is not so far removed from some precedent that suggests
their position is wrong.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:01:08 +0200
In article <9d242m$n03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jonathan Martindell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2
> and then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been
> very disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I
> think, should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg
> rams, 10 gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've
> tried running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10
> seconds to load. StarOffice takes a really long time too. When I'm
> using win2000 I never have this problem. Even on comparable software.
> Forte for Java and StarOffice both load many, many times faster in
> windows vs linux. Do you think that my linux isn't configured for
> maximum performance? I've spent some time looking through websites and
> have noticed an increase when I use the hdparm tool but nothing
> extrodinary. If this is the extent of the linux performance than I
> don't think I'll be sticking with it. However, if it just requires more
> work than setting up windows and you ultimately get greater performance
> than I will definitely stick with it. I enjoy tinkering with computers
> in that way. What do all of you think of this? Do you know of any
> websites that show the results of linux benchmarks? Any help would be
> greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan
>
>
Jonathan,
First of all, if necessary, apologies for the people thinking you are a
troll. They have been reading this group longer than I am, and most posts
like yours turn out to be someone who is out to troll this group instead
of really asking for help.
That being said, I think there are some things that might be worth
looking into. As someone else remarked, first check if you don't have any
unnecessary services running, this can really bring down your
performance. Second, you said that a little tweaking with hdparm brought
a noticable, if small increase. This for me would indicate that the stock
kernels in your distros are not optimized for your hardware.
Unfortunately, this means that you will have to recompile your kernel.
Fortunately, this is quite easy. I'll give you a quick rundown:
1. First locate the kernel sources. They are usually in /usr/src/linux.
If necessary, download the most recent kernel yourself.
2. In a terminal, as root, go to the kernel source directory.
3. do 'make xconfig' if you want a grapical configuration, or 'make
menuconfig' if you want it text-based.
4. Make sure you have an accurate spec sheet of all your hardware handy,
and select the necessary options. It is safe to compile everything
*except* your HD drivers and your root filesystem (usually ext2) as
modules.
5. Pay special attention to the HD parameters. There are several options
there to optimize your performance (if you have an Intel 440BX
motherboard, select PIIX tuning support, for example).
6. Choose save and exit.
7. Do 'make dep' optionally followed by 'make clean'
8. Do 'make bzImage'
9. Do 'make modules modules_install'
10. Your kernel will be in arch/i386/boot/bzImage. Copy it to /boot,
optionally renaming it (I always call mine vmlinuz-<version>).
11. Edit /etc/lilo.conf. The easiest way is using Linuxconf, and choose
'Add new kernel' in the 'Boot' menu. Fill in the relevant details.
12. Do 'lilo' for good measure.
After rebooting, you should have a marked improvement in performance. My
HD went from 5 M/s to 20 M/s. Play a little with hdparm to squeeze more
out of your system if necessary. Read the Kernel-HOWTO for more details.
Good Luck,
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: Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 06 May 2001 17:54:56 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:56:59
> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function does.
>
> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> unless the function is documented?
No. Such a function, while part of the library, is not part of the
API. As has been stated before, the API is like the contract between
the consumer (application) and provider (library.) Undocumented
functions are outside the API, and there is no guarantee that all
implementations of the API will contain that function, nor that if it
is provided that its parameters, return value or action will be the
same.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:42 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:25:33
>"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> For the record: I work for a bank. To be exact, I work for the ING Group.
>> While I cannot speak for the server side of things, it is true that on
>> the desktops we (at least my division) were an OS/2 shop for a long time.
>> We're now slowly switching to NT. Despite being pleasantly surprised at
>> its stability,
>
>Remember you are probably coming in at about sp6 or so. Any assumptions
>about instability before that would have been for good reasons.
SP5 was more stable than SP6, actually.
>> it is still a pain because of certain assumptions in UI
>> design, which are just plain brain dead (like switching focus to the
>> desktop when you close a window. I am a touch typist, so I consistently
>use
>> alt-F4, only to have to use the mouse to refocus on a new window).
>
>I hate to defend them, but what's wrong with alt-tab?
I do think he was forgetting that. ;-)
To be honest, it could the basis of an argument that what is 'intuitive'
is not always what is 'familiar', because I have had the same kind of
trouble, myself. It just doesn't "seem right" to alt-tab for the next
app to pop up, after you close one. Why is that?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:46 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 06:25:25
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>You're grasping at straws.
>>
>> Yea, right, sure, blah, blah, blah...
>
>About the level of discussion I've come to expect from you. Complete and
>utter noise.
I presume you're referring to the comments I was referring to, since
that is the gist of my meaning.
>>>I wanted to say Word does not need the extra step. Lyx does, and needs a
>>>filename. So what if Word is incapable of doing it?
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! "So what if it sucks rocks: Microsoft makes it, so it
>> must be good!"
>
>So, you chose to ignore the specific point and try instead to switch to a
>more general one. Again, another marker in your style of "discussion".
There is no specific point; you only brought it up to avoid the general
one. Don't you remember? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. <*spank*>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:50 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:38
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> By "in theory" I meant to exclude such moronic ideas as those coming
>> from you right now. This "here is code" is THEORY. PRACTICE is when
>> you make a real program that real people use.
>
>So ask any software company if in practice they wait for all components
>to be finished before writing any other components that use their
>interfaces.
This isn't necessary for my claim to be true. Are you saying that one
component is produced and delivered before being tested with the others?
A rather sloppy development model, eh? One might almost suspect that
the ability to pull that off would be dependent on the various parts not
being *derivative* of each other, wouldn't you say?
For example, if a developer were to write a program that required a
library which had an API published, but for which no library was ever
coded. The developer could certainly offer the product for sale, but
would anyone buy it? Hell, could he give it away?
Perhaps, if there were people who knew of this API, and anticipated the
library. But until that library appears, there really isn't anything
but purely academic (scientific; knowledge not copyrightable) value in
the program. Now, say, some enterprising young man, with honest effort
and ernest intent, decided to be a good productive member of society and
writes a library. He'd like to make money on it; the program's
existence provides him a market, but the program author (one of those
GPL nut flakes, so insane that he not only sides with RMS, he's nutty
enough to agree with T. Max that a library can be derivative of a
program!) threatens to sue him in court if he doesn't pay royalties.
Now just explain to me, without wigging out into any fantastical
posturing based on rhetorical claims, should the guy who writes the
library pay the program writer royalties, or should the program writer
pay the library writer royalties? The API is 'public property', because
APIs aren't copyrightable, so it doesn't even matter which of them, or
some other person, designed it. If you were either party, in turn, and
wanted to get paid for your efforts, but were threatened with suit by
the other, what set of 'rules' can you provide that allow the correct
result, regardless of your perspective, and the uncertainty of the
claims?
I'm not entirely sure how well this little gedanken experiment will hold
together, because it is terribly late and I'm terribly tired, but I'd
like to see what comes of it, regardless. Have at it, but try to spare
me any rhetorical avoidance of the issue, please.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:51 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:39
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> No real-world software has EVER been written to an *API* that doesn't
>> "exist".
>
>Of course it is - and is probably the typical practice for projects small
>enough to not need a formal spec. You just write the main program
>using functions/methods that you implement later after seeing exactly
>what they need to do.
"Implement later" doesn't mean "doesn't exist until later". I know it
sounds like a quibble, but it goes to the distinction between library
and intellectual property. It's why I put the word 'exist' in quotes,
and I do wish you hadn't ignored it.
>> If you write the program and say "some day their will be a
>> library that..." then you have created the API.
>
>But it didn't exist until you wrote it as part of the main program.
So you agree a library can be derivative of a program, even if it isn't
considered part of the program?
>> Whether you documented,
>> coded, or 'implemented' it first is entirely irrelevant, you've defined
>> it enough to use it, so it exists. You cannot use an API that doesn't
>> exist.
>
>Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken.
Viola.
>> Nor is coding in a library the only thing which can be called
>> "implementation".
>
>I don't think anyone is arguing that point.
Somebody was; I think it was Roberto, but I could be wrong.
>> This isn't a situation of my ignorance of programming; I've explained
>> that already several times, and don't understand why it is so hard to
>> understand; you'd think programmers would be smart enough to figure it
>> out after a dozen exchanges! The question has nothing to do with
>> programming, it isn't a matter of what is or is not possible in
>> programming, and it's getting to the point where programmers appear
>> particularly ill-equipped to understand the *COPYRIGHT ISSUES* involving
>> derivative works, and the FSF's claim, which does stand up however much
>> you waste my time arguing against a point you don't grasp.
>
>No one is equipped to understand the FSF's claim because it is an
>extreme strech from anything defined by law. The closest literary
>example would be something that references another work that you
>must separately obtain the right to use. For example, consider a
>description of a meal or menu where the recipes are not included
>but the cookbooks containing them are listed instead - or perhaps
>a playlist of songs which are covered by their own copyrights.
The FSF's claim is admittedly untested and unsure. But more practical
examples exist; the protection of a plotline or character. The
non-real-world example of a copyright on a playlist of songs seems
fanciful, but the idea that the documentation describing an API is a
copyrightable work is not.
>According to the FSF position, you would not be able to make the
>reference to a covered work without permission of its copyright
>holder. However, the way everyone else sees it is that anyone
>can make the reference without permission, but the end user must
>separately obtain the right to use the other works in order to use
>them.
It is not "making the reference", but relying on the functionality,
which is the basis of the infringment claim.
>To complete the meal, you need to obtain the cookbook(s)
>containing the recipes; to play the playlist you must obtain the
>songs; to run the program you must obtain the referenced libraries
>and the right to use them.
Obviously, this mirrors the FSF's position, as I've corrected above. It
is the application of the analogy, not its validity, which is suspect.
>The catch here for the FSF position is that GPL'd libraries are freely
>obtainable and explicitly permit unrestricted use once you have them.
I don't understand why that's a "catch". Because you can read a
copyrighted work it is no longer protected?
>> The MOST you can say is that the position has not been FULLY tested in
>> court. It's a lame excuse for a position, but at least it is better
>> than just saying "the judge was wrong; he doesn't understand copyright",
>
>No, you can say that the position is unlike any other and does not
>resemble anything mentioned in the law. Of course that still does
>not eliminate the possibility that a court could be convinced to
>agree with it but there is no reason to expect it.
You have provided no reason to suspect otherwise, and it still stands
unrefuted, and consistent with all known copyright law. Your position
is an argument from ignorance, I'm afraid. A valid question, but not an
answer that can be presumed to be correct.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:54 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:39
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
>does.
>>
>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>> unless the function is documented?
>
>He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
>the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
>documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
No, he meant that the program must be expected to break unless you have
complete documentation for the library to begin with. Have you been
following the discussion?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:55 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:39
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >
>> >The GPL does not allow for any non-GPL'd part, making no distinction
>> >about between component types.
>>
>> Yet when I point out that neither does copyright, you seem to miss the
>> point. Why is that?
>
>Because copyright allows you to obtain the right to use two different
>things separately, under different terms, and use them together as
>is the case when you obtain a program that uses functions from
>a dynamic library or source code that you link yourself to a library
>which you are allowed to use. The FSF wants to claim that your
>right to use one component is somehow affected by the other. Unless
>you copy something that you don't already have the right to copy there
>is no basis in copyright law to support that claim.
You're switching who and what you are referring to with "use" too often
for me to make sense of that. If you base your work of authorship on
someone else's work of authorship, it is *derivative*. Is that somehow
*too* simple for you to understand?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:56 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 01:35:26
>In article <KIjI6.1140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Microsoft was convicted of having a monopoly on PC OSes. The evidence
>>> >> provided in the prosecutions argument was their use of monopoly power
>> in
>>> >> one market (PC OSes) to attempt to gain monopoly in another (web
>>> >> browsers), thereby proving they have a monopoly in PC OSes.
>>> >
>>> >No, psycho. Assuming what you're trying to prove doesn't work.
>>>
>>> I didn't assume what you're trying to prove;
>>>
>>
>> Of course not, Brainstein. You assumed what *YOU* are trying to prove - that
>> Microsoft is a monopoly, and is therefore capable of using monopoly power in
>> one market to gain monopoly in another.
>
>Microsoft is a monopoly. The findings of fact state that. Microsoft aren't
>fighting the FoF in their appeal but the remedy.
I'm not sure where this myth got started, or why it shows such tenacity,
but the fact of the matter is that it is wrong. Microsoft doesn't have
much chance of having the findings of fact overturned, but they are
"appealing the findings of fact" as much as they are the remedy, and
several other points to boot.
>If they win the appeal
>then the EU will proceed with haste their case against Microsoft. Assuming
>the EU come out against Microsoft, and it looks very likely to do so, then
>they could be hit for 10% of their worldwide turnover. I wouldn't like to
>hold Microsoft shares if that were to happen.
I would: fining a monopolist does not harm the monopolist, because it
does not affect the monopoly. This is a MONOPOLY, you know; a company
that can raise prices at their own discretion without much limit?
I'm afraid the EU approach might well be less than affective in dealing
with the problem, regardless of what happens in the US courts.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:57 GMT
Said Roy Culley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 01:46:40
>In article <FsXI6.5997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>> > Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
>>> > powers you attribute to them.
>>>
>>> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
>>
>> Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
>> them any less magical.
>
>First you say 'Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural powers
>you attribute to them' and then 'Calling them "monopoly powers" does
>not make them any less magical'? You are very confused indeed.
>
>They are a monopoly. The findings of fact show this. They are not
>fighting the FoF (they can't because they screwed their case so
>badly) but the remedy.
They can, and they are. It doesn't make much difference to sock puppets
and trolls, though, since most of them just 'wish away' the entirety of
anti-trust law, anyway.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:58 GMT
Said Salvador Peralta in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
17:38:19 -0700;
>T. Max Devlin quoth:
>
>> A wild-ass guess would be "TAB_COMPLETION=TRUE" in the .bashrc or
>> something. Check man bash, I'm sure it's in there.
>
>...along with about a dozen other text completion options. :)
It was 'set disable-completion off', anyway.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:20:59 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 01:52:13
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:39:20 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > 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,
>>
>> They work for me.
>
>What special configuration is required? Perhaps I would use it more if
>it had some of this basic functionality.
No special configuration required; it has all of "this basic
functionality" and tons more than you can handle, apparently.
>> > It doesn't have a pop-up command history like cmd.exe (the F7 key)
>>
>> Up and down arrow keys scroll through the history. You can search the
>> history with Ctrl-R.
>
>Yes, yes, cmd.exe does all this, but it's nice to have a pop-up list as
>well.
No, it doesn't. Whether a lie or an oversight, there is no search
capability like Ctrl-R, I'm pretty sure. Nice tip, Bob. Thanks.
>> > 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).
>>
>> My God, you have actually posted something useful. Does it work that
>> way on NT as well (if I enable completion in the registry), or only W2K?
>
>Since NT 3.51 at least, I'm sure.
>
>Edit HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\CompletionChar
>
>Set the value to 9 (TAB key) (or something else if you prefer. It's fun
>to set it as 20 [space bar]!)
>
>Note, since this is an HKCU setting, it's a per-user deal.
Why is it turned off (or is that non-existent?) by default, Chad?
>> > I find the best combination of everything is the GNU Utils on Win32 and/or
>> > the Cygwin32 dir + cmd.exe.
>>
>> You mean you admit that all of those stupid Unix utilities are useful?
>> Will wonders never cease?
>
>Hmm, I don't recall ever having bashed on utilities although I usually only
>end up ever using grep because most of the others are either a.) too difficult
>to use unless you have a very specific case for using them, or b.) have
>counterparts in Windows that are typically much easier to use and provide
>slightly easier-to-read feedback (not the least of which is dir compared to
>ls).
LOL. Watch the troll gibber away.... :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
