Linux-Advocacy Digest #276, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Chad Myers")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Shared library hell ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:11:11 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > You need to take extra steps to setup GS as an interupter for the
> > printer. Of course, you can just run printtool to do it for you. Now,
>
> Extra steps compared to what? I selected a printer when I installed Linux.
>
> > I've never used GS to print, I use it to view mathematical
> > documentations. But according to Denial, GS isn't a good way to use a
> > printer. Got any info about it?
>
> GS Is fine to drive printers. ctually it works very well for postscript.
> It is a bit sucky for PDF interpretation, but Acrobat for Linux can be
> run as a filter. That coupled with GS is very good.
>
> -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
I find that my Epson worked just fine under linux going thru GS. No
problems at all.
Even PDF files printed quickly and were no problem.
V
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 02:57:05 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YLmJ6.127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> > In any case, every Windoze user I've talked to that burns CDs tells
> > me about how often they've coastered a CD. I've never coastered one
> > under Linux, so I have no intention of wasting my time booting to
> > Windoze 2000 to burn CDs. Windoze, even of the NT/2000 ilk, has too
> > high a peak interrupt latency to be worth risking a $0.50 CD-R.
> > You never know when Windoze will pop in and garbage collect,
> > and not respond to the CD interrupt in time. Windoze latency is
> > like 10 msec typical even in the most advanced desktop versions.
> > Linux latency, on the other hand, is measured in microseconds.
>
> At 10x burning speed under Linux the fifo's utilization seldom drops below
> 98% regardless of the load (System in question is 768MB, 30 GB 7200 RPM
> UDMA, PIII 866). The same system running Windows will often drop as low as
> 58% with no other tasks running and will, about 40% of the time, produce a
> frisbee. However, I don't know if this is attributable to Adaptec's burning
> software (Not so good, IMHO), or to the OS (Equally not-so-good).
This is BS.
I have a PII-400 with 256MB RAM and I can play Unreal Tournament while burning
a CD.
Except when I had a problem with my IDE channel, I've never seen EZ CD Creator's
buffer drop below 95% on any system I've used it on, including the old dual-
P200 I used to have. And I always am doing something while burning CDs.
I usually take care not to do anything TOO intensive like compiling code or
copying the entire contents of a hard disk from one to another, and I've
never had a problem.
Granted, EZ CD isn't a prize, but it's not that bad. And likewise, Windows
isn't either (Windows 2000 at least).
-c
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:12:39 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 16:32:37
> [...]
> >On user side, maybe, I really didn't deal with printing on linux on the user
> >side.
> >I'm talking on the *developer*'s side here.
> >There is no abstraction on linux of the printer. [...]
>
> Yes there is. It is a very accurate, consistent, and practical
> abstraction, too. A printer (any device on Unix, with few exceptions)
> is a file. Deal with it. Its worked well for decades, and is far more
> consistent, reliable, and compatible than monopoly crapware.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Have you ever tried to cancel a print job under windows? It can take a
while.
That's why HP on their newer printers put a cancel print button on the
printer.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:17:38 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 23:18:54 -0700, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, just as a follow up, how can a GPL program fork? when all
> > modifications must be made public and handed back to the author. The
> > only time a program can fork is under the BSD license.
>
> How do you explain GNU Emacs vs XEmacs then? Or GCC vs EGCS?
>
Also explain how forking has been a bad thing for BSD.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
IanP
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:24:36 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <dJZI6.6119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > > These efforts at providing a user interface toolkit
> > > and graphics engine were not adequate. And I do not
> > > think they reveal an intention on Suns part to go into
> > > the desktop area; the limited tools Sun did provide
> > > were appropriate for the applications then being
> > > run on Suns.
> >
> > Sun started off producing workstations not servers. It was about the
> > time they produced OpenWindows that the server market really took
> > off. Sun basically gave up the desktop (apart from workstations used
> > by system developers) and concentrated on the server market. It was
> > when BG announced that NT was going to be a better Unix than Unix that
> > the battle with Microsoft started. This was a direct assault on Sun's,
> > and the other major Unix server companies (HP and IBM to name but 2),
> > server business. Microsoft lost that battle and W2K was too little too
> > late. Now Sun are again going for the desktop with their sunblade and
> > by adopting gnome as the destop GUI. Interesting times ahead.
>
> I agree. This is not Sun trying to muscle in on the desktop;
> it is Microsoft trying to muscle in on the workstation market.
>
> I don't know if Sun is going to now attempt to move on the
> desktop, but if they do they are going to have a lot of work
> to do to catch up there.
>
They already have ... take a look at the new Sun Blade 100. 64-bit
sparcIIe upto 2Gb ram. Solaris 8 is quite functional as a desktop O/S
and is very easy to use.
> [snip]
> > > I admit I overlooked it, but I don't think it's
> > > representative of Unix in general.
> >
> > You're right of course. NeXT was a serious attempt to put Unix on the
> > desktop. Sadly it was just too expensive / ahead of its time.
>
> If it's technologies were somehow folded into the
> other Unix distributions, things might be a bit different.
> But that doesn't seem likely, I must say.
>
> [snip]
> > > I *strongly* suggest that printing *must* be
> > > addressed as soon as possible. I honestly see
> > > very little movement on that front.
> >
> > I don't understand this printing problem that Unix supposedly
> > has. Unix apps normally produce postscript. Unix lpr uses filters to
> > see what the data type to be printed is. If you don't have a
> > postscript printer the filter will use ghostscript to convert it to
> > pcl or whatever. I now have a Lexmark z52 which has its own Linux
> > driver. To me it is totally transparent. Before I had an
> > HP850C. Again printing was totally transparent. Where is the problem?
>
> Printing is not transparent. Developers must emit
> PostScript. Doing X on screen and PostScript for
> printers does not make WYSIWYG easy.
I've never had any problems outputing to the printer. Use the library
calls.
Never was a problem under Sun.
>
> NeXT used PostScript for *both*. That's far
> more workable.
>
> But even so, PostScript is only the right thing
> if you and printing to a PS printer; on other printers
> GhostScript rasterizes it. This reduces any non PS
> printer to a bitmap printer.
>
So..? Windows isn't any faster.
> Turning the common and popular PCL printers into
> the moral equivalent of WinPrinters is not really a
> very nice thing to do. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > They have an enviable position, indeed.
> >
> > And it is the Internet server market which is the biggest threat to
> > Microsoft's .net strategy.
>
> I'd say it the other way around. .NET is an
> effort to gain some ground in the internet server
> (and indeed, other server) areas.
>
This is where MS has to do a lot of catch up work to do. Sun was there
a long time ago.
> [snip]
> > > But the desktop is not again going to be
> > > a great battleground until somebody offers
> > > a product competitive with Windows
> > > for producing desktop apps.
> >
> > The main apps required by businesses are word processing,
> > spreadsheets, PIM's, presentations, etc.
>
> Sure.
>
> > These are all available under
> > the various unix's today. The problem is not that you can only do
> > these things with Microsoft OS and applications but the deep
> > infiltration of Microsoft into companies IT infrastructure.
>
> I disagree.
>
> The problem is that you can't make desktop apps
> that are as *good* on Unix as you can on Windows.
>
> At least, not without prohibitly large efforts.
>
> > The
> > inertia to change is enormous. The slow adoption of W2K shows that
> > company's are not willing to fork out for new licences and upgrade
> > hardware just because Microsoft says so.
>
> Sucks to be MS some days. :D
>
> > When the CFO's are presented
> > with the cost of staying on the Microsoft bandwagon compared to
> > cheaper alternatives the tide will change.
>
> Well, slowly. Inertia is a very real thing; it *costs*
> to change over from one technology to another.
>
> That isn't a Microsoft conspiracy; it's a fact of
> life.
>
> > Even if company's don't
> > want to move away from Microsoft why upgrade when NT4 serves them
> > well. This is Microsoft's great fear. They rely on the constant
> > upgrade cycle. The business community has had enough.
>
> Microsoft has a problem. The upgrade treadmill does not
> seem to be working well enough right now. It, um, worked
> a lot better when Windows had more glaring deficiencies,
> actually.
>
> It *is* possible MS will find a solution, though.
>
> Don't count them out yet.
>
> > And now OSS is
> > offering cheaper, higher quality business applications. As import and
> > export filters improve between Microsoft proprietory formats the
> > reliance on Microsoft products will diminish.
>
> I don't agree here. For now, MS's products in the
> desktop area are *better*. Really. It's the problem
> I'm going on about. Unix application have a much
> tougher row to hoe to get decent quality, because
> the OS doesn't give them as much help.
>
> It's basic stuff like the limitations of X-Windows
> that are doing it.
>
> Unix, OSS or not, is not yet in position to take
> down MS on the desktop. It must address its
> own qualitative deficiencies, or MS can win
> on quality rather than price.
>
What quality? Do you call BSODs quality?
> Don't focus too hard on the ways Unix is
> better; the market is already using Unix where
> it thinks those are important. Focus on the
> places where Unix is still weak.
>
> I don't say Unix can't catch up, but I don't see
> all that much effort going into it. KDE and
> GNOME are good steps, yes, but too
> limited still.
There is quite a bit of effort going into it.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:26:28 -0700
Rick wrote:
>
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > > Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable
> > and
> > > > > when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and
> > buy
> > > > > MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
> > > > > buy for in the office."
> > > >
> > > > They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS.
> > > >
> > > They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas.
> >
> > C'mon. Even you don't take this line of "argument"
> > seriously, do you?
> >
>
> Once again. what is it going to take with you? Internal memos have been
> posted. Quotes from M$ execs have been posted. All describing a way to
> sabotage DR-DOS. The code was active in the betas. It threw up bogus
> error messages. The messages were meant to scare of beta testers, as
> stated in the memos. But -YOU- dont believe it.
>
> > > > Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would
> > > > point out that his saying it doesn't make it so.
> > >
> > > So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the
> > > competiton. Whats ti going to take with you.
> >
> > He's *lying*? He's your exhibit A!
> >
> > > You are a waste of time.
> >
> > Got me there, though. :D
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent
> > > > you from running on DR-DOS.
> > >
> > > it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence is
> > > in the Micorsoft memso. Oh, I forgot. you say the Microsoft execs were
> > > lying.
> >
> > If it were deliberately placed, it would have *worked*; DR-DOS
> > would not have run.
> >
>
> It DID work you idiot. The error messages came up. As they were meant
> to. Uncertainty about Dr_DOS was planted. AS it was meant to. As stated
> in the quotes.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > > What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ?
> > > >
> > > > IBM. IBM forced you to take their interner browser
> > > > with OS/2. The rapscallions.
> > > >
> > > > But that's not what I meant. Microsoft would
> > > > bundle weak programs with strong ones;
> > > > that's the idea behind an "office suite". Office
> > > > didn't depend on Windows for sales, but
> > > > PowerPoint sure depended on Word.
> > > >
> > > > The other companies did this too, of course.
> > >
> > > What compaies and apps were those?
> >
> > You know, like Lotus SmartSuite. I think there
> > was also a "WordPerfect Office", too.
> >
> > They still do it.
>
> Are seriously saying an Office suite is thae same as Micorosoft forcing
> vendors to take apps and/or OS/app combos?
>
> You are definitely an idiot.
>
> --
> Rick
Lets face it Rick, Daniel is too married to windows to leave or beleive
anything else.
The only way he'd leave if MS went down the tubes.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shared library hell
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:27:14 +0000
In article <upiJ6.11464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simple. You put the DLL in the application directory. Hey presto, it
> loads. No need to update any system environment variables.
>
> The only snag on Windows 9x is only _one_ module can load with any one
> name. I don't think that's true of Windows 2000.
>
That sounds like more than a snag.
Gary
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:37:26 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <NuXI6.6002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > >> > You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
> > >> > has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> What "better product" would that be?
> > >
> > > That'd be Windows.
> >
> > I know I'm pissed but please stop. How can you write that without a
> > smiley?
>
> I'm sorry that the existance of some who appreciates
> Windows pisses you off.
>
> But really, it's a very good product.
>
> It *is* better than GEM or DOS or Unix or OS/2
> or the MacOS... for the desktop app market, if
> nothing else.
>
Nah!
> I don't mean to suggest that it's the end all
> and be all of compterdom, but it's an important
> area and it's needs *do* deserve to be addressed.
>
> I see a lot of people just ignoring them, rather
> than trying to compete by offering a better
> solution to the problems there.
>
> This business of assuming that desktop
> applications should make do with the services
> servers need is very unfortunate for everyone,
> I think.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 03:44:42 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Why on earth would you dupe a Microsoft CD?
>
> Hmmm, ah, um-uh-na um-uh-na wha wha wha well, for example
> to make backups of the Office and Visio stuff I use at work.
> And ahhhh ahhhh the Microsoft Windows 2000 Hacking Kit
> (otherwise known as the Resource Kit). Ahhhm ahm um-uh-na
> um-uh-na we have a "site license".
>
> [Imitating Ralph Kramden, in case you wonder.]
Got it <g>
I generally burn copies of my MS stuff just so the originals can stay in a
safe place and the expendable copies can take the abuse. (If 9x and NT
didn't need re-installed so often, I wouldn't worry so much about this) I
had a flaked-out 24x CD ROM that would go schitzo and literally eject itself
while the disk was spinning at full RPMS. They'd litterally fly out of the
thing. I kid you not! After that experience, even though that particular
drive got slam-dunked in a dumpster, the first thing I do when buying a CD
is dupe it. "Undupeable" CD's are made so when my time and ability permit.
>
> > At 10x burning speed under Linux the fifo's utilization seldom drops
below
> > 98% regardless of the load (System in question is 768MB, 30 GB 7200 RPM
> > UDMA, PIII 866). The same system running Windows will often drop as low
as
> > 58% with no other tasks running and will, about 40% of the time, produce
a
> > frisbee. However, I don't know if this is attributable to Adaptec's
burning
> > software (Not so good, IMHO), or to the OS (Equally not-so-good). One of
> > these days I plan to try Nero just to see, but, I find burning under
Linux
> > to be so much better that it seems a waste of time to mess with it.
>
> Yeah, CD burning is one activity that I care not if I can do
> it in Windows. Don't even want to bother trying just for the hell of it
> (and it would probably be hell, too.)
It's a little flashier and a bit more "idiot-proofed". Not very flexable or
reliable, though, in my experience. The ability to do background tasks while
burning CD's depends on phase of the moon and planetary alignments. Freshly
rebooting (9x and NT) beforehand seems to help a bit - Not much though.
Haven't tried it under 2000 as I recently removed it and went back to
NT4/98/Linux tri-boot as some of the older utilities I use won't work under
2000 and I have no desire to upgrade them until they actually do something
new or better to justify the trouble and expense.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:45:03 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 06 May 2001 01:52:13 GMT, Chad Myers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What special configuration is required? Perhaps I would use it more if
> > > it had some of this basic functionality.
> >
> > Caldera sets users up with this ".inputrc" file. Try putting it in
> > your home directory:
> >
> > -------------------------8<-------------------------
> > set meta-flag on
> > set output-meta on
> > set convert-meta off
> > #set bell-style visible
> > #set show-all-if-ambiguous on
> >
> > # Common standard keypad and cursor
> > # (codes courtsey Werner Fink, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > "\C-?": delete-char
> > "\C-h": backward-delete-char
> > "\e[1~": history-search-backward
> > "\e[2~": yank
> > "\e[3~": delete-char
> > "\e[4~": set-mark
> > "\e[5~": history-search-backward
> > "\e[6~": history-search-forward
> > # Normal keypad and cursor of xterm
> > "\e[F": end-of-line
> > "\e[H": beginning-of-line
> > # Application keypad and cursor of xterm
> > "\eOA": previous-history
> > "\eOC": forward-char
> > "\eOB": next-history
> > "\eOD": backward-char
> > "\eOF": end-of-line
> > "\eOH": beginning-of-line
> > -------------------------8<-------------------------
> >
> >
> > > Edit HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\CompletionChar
> >
> > Yes, yes, I know about that. I was asking about hitting tab again and
> > again to go through the matches. Never mind, I'll try it when I get to
> > work next week.
>
> Sorry. Well, someone else probably learned something by that.
>
> As far as repeatedly hitting the TAB key to cycle through dirs and files
> in a dir, it's quite handy. If you're sitting at a prompt, just hit TAB
> and it'll select the first (alphabetically) file or dir.
>
> If you know the file or dir starts with 'T', for example, hit T then hit
> TAB as many times as it takes to cycle through all the T files and dirs
> until your file shows up.
>
> Likewise, you can use SHIFT-TAB to cycle backwards, in case you got
> happy with the TAB key and went one too many.
>
> > > 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
> >
> > No, you just bash on the command line in general. Oh, a pun!
>
> I didn't "bash" on it, I was just merely saying that cmd.exe is better
> in everything but scripting, it seems. Bash is ok, it's just not very
> user friendly and in fact, gets the in the way most of the time.
>
> -c
cmd.exe... this is in Win2k I presume?
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:46:45 -0500
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YLmJ6.127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > In any case, every Windoze user I've talked to that burns CDs tells
> > me about how often they've coastered a CD. I've never coastered one
> > under Linux, so I have no intention of wasting my time booting to
> > Windoze 2000 to burn CDs. Windoze, even of the NT/2000 ilk, has too
> > high a peak interrupt latency to be worth risking a $0.50 CD-R.
> > You never know when Windoze will pop in and garbage collect,
> > and not respond to the CD interrupt in time. Windoze latency is
> > like 10 msec typical even in the most advanced desktop versions.
> > Linux latency, on the other hand, is measured in microseconds.
Well now that's certainly interesting.
I've been burning discs off my Windows 2000 server for quite some time.
Never had a coaster due to the machine. It's a Gateway PPro200 with an
Adaptec 2940 and a Yamaha CDRW drive. I even had the drive moved over to a
P166MMX for a time, and again it worked flawlessly under Win2k although on
that machine I couldn't do much else.
I have had coasters due to bad media. Bought a package of 50 Sony discs
they worked fine, bought another package 50% of them coastered, bought
another package they worked fine. Even tried burning at single speed, and
those suckers coastered... pretty sure it was the media.
> At 10x burning speed under Linux the fifo's utilization seldom drops below
> 98% regardless of the load (System in question is 768MB, 30 GB 7200 RPM
> UDMA, PIII 866). The same system running Windows will often drop as low as
> 58% with no other tasks running and will, about 40% of the time, produce a
> frisbee. However, I don't know if this is attributable to Adaptec's
burning
> software (Not so good, IMHO), or to the OS (Equally not-so-good). One of
> these days I plan to try Nero just to see, but, I find burning under Linux
> to be so much better that it seems a waste of time to mess with it.
Hmm. Again PPro200, Adaptec 2940, 192 Megs of RAM off a 7200 RPM 13 Gig
drive. Just walked over fired up CD Copier, decided to make a backup copy
of my Solaris 7 CD for some pointless pleasure.
Hmm, processor utilization is only at about 5%. No noticeable spikes in any
of the other system performance counters.
How about making it a little tougher... Open up just about every management
console app. Oh, and I think I'll photocopy the first page from the Ultrix
FAQ using my scanner and the HP copying software that's on the same machine.
Well whatdaya know, the CD is still burning fine without any buffer
underruns. Processor and other counters spiked while running the other
apps, but once they are done CD copier is back down to about 5% usage.
Now granted this is only a 4x drive, but then again it's also only a 200Mhz
machine running Win2k Server.
Well that myth was easy to disprove. Oh yeah, just so you know I find
burning under Linux to be so much more difficult to do that it's not even
worth talking about.
That and I don't have Linux loaded on any computer in my office right now.
Ultrix on a DECstation - yes. Solaris 8 on a Sparc 10 - yes. Linux? - All
my intel are belong to Win2k.
Wheee!
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:50:15 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9d38m6$r3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Probably wouldn't be hard to put a coffee maker on, but that may
> violate
> > > > some gpl on the howto for getting linux to make coffee.
> > >
> > > That is one thing that frighten me about the GPL.
> > > There is already GPLed data, what happen when other things start to get
> GPL?
> >
> > I don't see why you're frightened.
> > You develop something, you want to make money out of it, you copyright
> > your work, then sell licenses or whatever, and nobody else is allowed to
> > make money out of it.
> > I develop something, I don't want to make money out of it (maybe because
> > I'm making money selling hardware), but I want to share my work with
> > other developers in order to make it better and useful for a lot of
> > people, me included, so I GPL my work, and nobody else is allowed to
> > make money out of it.
> > In both case we're speaking of protected IP. Nobody else is allowed to
> > make money out of it except the rightful owner.
> > Except that in case of GPL everybody else is entitled to use it and to
> > make money from its usage (e.g. I can use a GPL Apache to sell IP
> > service).
> > So what's wrong with GPL?
>
> The GPL is viral & unremovable.
> When you start to GPL data, you can start GPL other things.
> What about GPLing a network protocol? Since every program that uses it is a
> derivative, every such program must be GPL.
> GPLing is not nice, spesifically because it all-encompasing natute. I don't
> have a problem with forcing people to open the changes they made to your
> code, that is logical. But I've big problems with forcing them to GPL
> *their* code.
>
> Consider this scenrio, MS release WindowsGPL, where the license has once
> exception "A program need not to be GPLed if it used just enough of the
> system's resources to query whatever this is WinGPL or normal Win, and then
> display a message saying this program cannot be run on WinGPL"* ?
> Essencially meaning that everything you run on WinGPL must GPLed, too. Now,
> they also have normal Windows, which doesn't have this provision.
> How much software would run on WinGPL and how much on normal Windows? (I'm
> talking about the *exact* same base code, the only difference is that the
> reutnr value of bool isWindowsGol(); )
>
> (Linux gets away with it with a license exception that says that you don't
> have to GPL your program for normal system calls)
>
> GPL limit the scope that the code can be reused.
> At the moment, I can avoid developing GPL, but what happen if people start
> GPLing all sort of stuff, beside code.
>
> *Translation from layer speak in capital letters.
>
> The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.
> --Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
Nah! FUD!
--
V
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
