Linux-Advocacy Digest #792, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Opera (Pete Goodwin)
Re: ease and convenience (Peter Hayes)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:38:38 GMT
In article <1104_990887593@terry>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
> features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
> compliant browser, try Opera.
It was great until it crashed.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:31:19 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 May 2001 13:53:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 05:56:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] flung this gem:
>
> |
> |Thought I'd try a new newsreader tonight. Would this be easier on
> |Windows or Linux?
> |
> |(Debian) Linux:
> |1) launch a shell
> |2) apt-get install knode
> |3) knode&
But don't you need to configure a local news server if you want to read
offline? I thought Pan was the only Linux newsreader which didn't need
leafnode or the like.
So that adds to your installation time, and more importantly, hassle.
> |
> |Windows:
> |1) fire up a web browser
> |2) navigate to the newsreader company's website
> |3) sort through 3 or 5 layers of hyperlinks to find the obscurely
> | located 'free trial version'
> |4) download to hard drive
Get Free Agent off a cover cd thereby making 1-4 redundant.
> |5) double-click installation executable
> |6) exit installation program and close all other running programs
> |7) double-click installation executable
> |8) scroll down and click "I accept" to a legally binding contract you
> |didn't read
> |9) accept all defaults
> |10) click 'start' and navigate to the program icon, usually under
> | a submenu named after the company (fortunately "branding" no
> | longer involves a hot iron)
> |11) grant permission to clobber the installation of competing products,
> | making this the 'default application'
I wonder whose product this might be? Agent doesn't behave like that.
> |12) scan past the 'buy now' button and click the 'buy later' button
> | (it's a lie, but the only way to start the program)
> |13) read about all the great features in the full version you're missing
> | and click 'ok'
> |
> |I could have gone a lot further overboard with this and maybe thrown
> |in a reboot; this comparison isn't an exaggeration.
> Commercial
> |software will always be a hassle because its purpose is not to serve
> |your needs, but those of some business.
Mmmm. The programmer needs to eat, and maybe so does his/her family.
> That's quite a good read! Allow me to balance your experience with one
> of my own. Networking, where Linux reigns supreme.
>
> Task: Install & setup NIC cards in a windows & linux PC.
> The Card: NetGear FA311. Very popular card, sold at places where the
> 'end-losers' (as you like to refer to them) shop.
> I bought mine at Staples.
> BTW the card says "linux supported" on the box.
>
>
> Windows:
>
> 1. Shutdown
> 2. Open case and install card. Plug in the cat5 cable.
> 3. Reboot
> 4. windows says "New Hardware Found" ...
> 5. Feed it the driver provided on the floppy from the box.
> 6. Reboot
> 7. NetHood -> Assign IP and subnet if needed.
> 8. NIC install is complete with all protocols installed for basic
> networking. Initializes quickly with no problems.
>
> Linux:
> 1. Shutdown
> 2. Open case and install card. Plug in the cat5 cable.
> 3. Reboot
> 4. Log into Linux as root
> 5. cd /
> 6. mkdir fa311
> 7. Mount -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy
> 8. cp /mnt/floppy/fa311.o /fa311/fa311.o (/mnt/floppy/ "path where
> drivers are on the floppy"
> 9. cd /fa311
> 10. install -m 644 fa311.o /lib/modules/2.2.12-20/net/
> 11. Start linuxconf
> 12. ->Client Task
> 13. ->Basic Host Information
> 14. ->Enable the card
> 15. ->Check DHCP if needed
> 16. ->Add IP address and subnet if needed
> 17. ->Net Device = eth0
> 18. ->Kernel = fa311
> 19. ->Accept changes
> 20. ->Activate changes and allow the OS to remount the floppy drive
> 21. ->If window is still there then hit Quit
> 22. sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/network stop
> 23. insmod fa311.o -f
> 24. sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/network start
> 25. Card is basically installed, but eth0 takes 5 or more minutes to
> initialize on every reboot.
>
> I could have gone overboard and talked about how a novice computer
> user would have NEVER gotten this card to work under Linux.
> Commercial Hardware will always be easier to install ......
>
> What's the point? It is and always will be ( I Hope ) apples &
> oranges.
And it works the other way round, too.
Task: replace 10mbit NIC with 10/100mbit card. Bog standard card that costs
a tenner. RealTek RTL8159, or something like that.
RedHat 6.2 recognises the old card has gone, do I want to remove the
configuration? - yes - done.
RedHat 6.2 recognises new card, do I want to configure it? - yes - done.
Then the clever bit - do I want to migrate my network settings to the new
card? - yes.
Done. Finito. Up and running in 20" excluding the hardware swap time, of
course. No reboots, no strain, no pain.
Boot into Windoze, with the emphasis on the doze.
"Windows has detected unknown hardware and is installing the software for
it" (how Windows can install software for unknown hardware is beyond me).
It then asks for the Win98 CDROM. Despite its amazing ability to install
software for unknown hardware, Windows doesn't seem able to find a CDROM
drive. Point it at the drive. Can't find file xxx. Regret not going for the
"have disk" option. Point it at the folder. Installs software. Needs a
"quick" reboot. Windows is now thoroughly confused because it thinks there
are two network cards in this machine. Delete unwanted network card in
Device Manager and have another reboot. So after 20 minutes furtling about,
Windoze manages to accept the new card.
Or would you prefer the time I installed a NIC on a machine that previously
hadn't had one?
No sign of any "Windows has detected... blah, blah, blah". Nothing. Zilch.
Same NIC type as the previous example (I got a batch).
Go to Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Network -> Add Adaptor. Feed it
the floppy that came with the card.
Windows chunters most of the way through the installation procedure and
everything is looking rosy when it announces it's found a new plug and play
device, and please switch off and install it (honest). This cancels the
installation I was doing from the floppy. Clever stuff, this Windows...
At about the third or fourth attempt I get the floppy based installation
done before the dozy junkware realises a new pnp device has arrived. After
the statutary reboot all is well.
Peter
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:42:21 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > >Neither could 16 bit programs, if by "desktop" you
> > >mean that software.
> >
> > You are incorrect, Daniel. The desktop being described was capable of
> > much more than simple file management.
>
> What else could it be? What else could
> it do?
>
> > Whether it included a toolkit, a
> > la modern GUIs, is beside the point.
>
> Modern file managers do not include
> GUI toolkits, actually. They use them,
> but the toolkit is external.
>
> > Rick didn't mean "GUI toolkit" when he said "desktop".
>
> Then he was throwing up a red herring;
> but I think Rick *believed* he was being
> relevant in some way; he does not seem
> to know the difference.
>
Dont tell people what I think... and quit snipping the context.
> [snip]
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:40:09 GMT
In article <9eo08s$660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Neither will KDE.
>
> Wrong.. KDE2 runs nicely in a P120 with 64MB that i have. Standard Mdk 7.1
> install. Nautilus on the other hand is another story.
Sorry, I was thinking of my 32Mbyte P133. KDE ran like a dog. Windows 98
SE ran very sweetly. Can't say what Windows 2000 would do (if it would
even install).
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:40:59 GMT
In article <slrn9gvg7h.nu4.The.Central.Scrutinizer.wakawaka@C1459607-
A.arvada1.co.home.com>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Pete is either too fucking stupid and/or willfully ignorant to fathom that
> linux isn't a monolithic cast.
>
> He's the microsoft windows posterboy. You should feel sorry for him.
I feel sorry for anyone struggling with the desktop on Linux.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:48:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >If your intention is to twist everything to your favourite little dogma,
> >then you appear to be succeeding again.
>
> And, again, I'll calmly point out that I have no dogma, but only
> reasoned opinions. The fact that you can't refute them at all does not
> make them "dogma", it makes them 'correct'.
Your dogma is "monopoly crapware". That statement is of itself, crap.
I'll leave you to work which part I think is crap (See later if you can't
figure it out. BTW your dogma will get in the way if you let it).
> >What a federal judge is immaterial if the case falls apart in the end.
>
> You are entirely mistaken. Precisely what he said becomes all the more
> important if he is overturned on appeal, since we must consider where he
> went astray.
And if it goes all the way to the highest court in the land, and still
gets overturned, what then? Who will the government appeal to then?
> >> If I had meant "trapped", I'd have said 'trapped'. "Entanglement"
> >> implies, I think, cluelessness more than anything else, considering the
> >> context is 'being a sock puppet for a criminal monopoly'. Cluelessness
> >> or dishonesty, rather.
> >
> >Twisting it all again doesn't make it any truer.
>
> Denying it doesn't make it false, either.
Do the dance.
Twist and turn.
Do the dance.
Watch it twist and turn,
But do the dance.
> >Oh, I do know what it is. I'm just amused by your twisty way of taking
> >what I said and cleverly twisting it to say the exact opposite.
>
> That's the third time you've said "twist", in the same post. What is it
> you're trying to say, other than an admission you have run aground in
> defending illegal and unethical behavior?
>
> And why on earth does that seem abhorrent to you?
Again you're twisting what I said. I don't find "monopoly" and
"Microsoft" abhorrent. I do find "crapware" amusing. I find your attempts
to twist what I say slightly annoying, but hardly abhorrent.
> >> I am in your face.
> >
> >And doing a pretty piss poor job of it, I might say.
>
> Oh, yea. ;-)
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz....
> >> So's Microsoft, according to you. Guffaw.
> >
> >Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
>
> <*Spank*>
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> >Wake me when you have something useful to contribute other than the
> >rhetoric and hot air you've been blowing lately.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:49:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >I meant committee standards usually take time and lag behind what's out
> >there.
>
> You meant to misunderstand what was meant by the term 'standard', so you
> pretended on purpose not to understand the context, and to misinterpret
> it, in fact.
You misunderstand what I'm saying.
> >ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> Apparently. You keep using them after I've put them there.
Since when has "ZZZZ" been a word? Since you wrote it?
--
Pete
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 16:54:32 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > However, you could launch programs from there. You could access
> Control
> > > > Panels and Settings from there. And you could manage files from there.
> > > > Just like from the Finder on a Mac.
> > >
> > > Yes; it was just a file manager, just like
> > > the Mac's Finder.
> >
> > "Just a file manager?" Sure.
>
> Yes. Today the Mac Finder can do
> a *little* more- but only a little.
> It does the control panels, installs
> fonts, system sounds, and desk
> accessories.
>
> But that's not much really. And back
> in '86, the Mac Finder, like the IIgs
> Finder, did none of those things.
>
> [snip]
> > > But the Apple II desktop, like the Finder,
> > > was not a GUI toolbox, like Macintosh
> > > Toolbox- or its Apple IIgs equivalent.
> >
> > Have you even used the first GS system software?
>
> I've programmed for it, but never professionally.
>
> I've never used your "Apple 2 Desktop" program,
> though. You can't program that, so I was not
> interested in it back then.
>
You never used it. So you dont know what youa re takking about when you
talk about the Apple II desktop.
> [snip]
> > > But the Apple II desktop and the Finder
> > > (either the Mac or IIgs versions) are not
> > > like that.
> > >
> > > They are just programs.
> >
> > "Just programs"? .. as opposed to what?
>
> APIs, for instance. They are just apps, not
> libraries, not frameworks, not pastrami-on-rye
> sandwitches.
>
> Just apps.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Whats an "ordinary" application.
> > >
> > > You know, your word processor or
> > > spreadsheet or drawing program or whatever.
> >
> > There's no way for a GS app to access the control panel through
> > software?
>
> The control panel was just a desk accessory;
> a GS app used the system software to support
> them just as a Macintosh app of the time
> would do.
>
So answer the question. Were control panels and accessories accessible
from GS apps or not?
> Apps did not have direct access to the
> control panels. They didn't need it.
>
GS apps? They didnt? Are you sure?
> [snip]
> > You said ...
> > "There's no way for an ordinary application to make use of those
> > controls you see there, for instance."
> >
> > If there are ordinary applications, there must be non-prdinary programs.
>
> Ah. Yes, there are. Non-ordinary applications are things
> like games that would not *want* such controls;
> ordinary apps are things like word processors that
> would.
>
So you are saying accessoried are not acessible from GS apps?
> [snip]
> > > Actually by your own account,
> > > you used the Launcher.
> >
> > Used teh launcher to start the desktop.
>
> You are certainly free to do that. That
> doesn't make the desktop special.
>
I never said it was.
> > > But what was more common was to boot
> > > directly into the program you were
> > > to use, right off a floppy.
> >
> > ReallY? As opposed to booting them from thin air, or from a hard drive?
>
> As opposed to booting to the launcher,
> as you did, and then starting apps.
>
Whats the differnece between starting an app from a floppy using the
desktop ot the launcher?
> [snip]
> > > Really, I think you greatly underestimate
> > > what the IIgs could do, even with the first
> > > ROM revision.
> >
> > I have owned a GS since the first day thjey shipped. How much time have
> > put in with them?
>
> Several years. You underestmate the IIgs;
> it was quite a lot better than the IIe was,
> in many ways.
>
DONT TELL ME WHAT I THINK. I have a MUCH better idea of how much better
a IIgs is than the IIe than you ever could.
> [snip]
> > > > and the Apple II Desktop, which was an
> > > > 8 bit application. It was the desktop, NOT just a file manager.
> > >
> > > It was just a file manager.
> >
> > Keep repeating that.
>
> It's true. You seem to have a basic
> misunderstand how of system software
> works on *any* computer; the real magic
> is what you *don't* see, not the pretty
> icons.
>
And the OS under the desktop was ProDOS 8... ProDOS ... 8. And it could
run on a IIe. You said that such a desktop was never available for the 8
bit Apple IIs. You were wrong. Again. Go back and research your own
words... sincce you are always snipping context.
> This is true of every system I know
> of.
>
> [snip]
> > Boot computer--> ProDOS 16 loader --> launcher --> start desktop -->
> > ProDOS 8 loads --> desktop. From here you could start 8 or 16 bit apps.
> > If they were written properly, when you quit them, they returned you to
> > the 8 bit desktop.
>
> You don't need the desktop to launch apps; that
> is what the Launcher is for.
>
You said there was never a GUI like the Mac's for the 8 bit machine. The
Apple II desktop is such a beast, and its 8 bit. There ARE apps that
used that same graphic interface.
> > What IIgs controls did the launcher use? Can you describe the screen? If
> > so, please do.
>
> As I recall it was a smallish dialog with
> standard IIgs buttons down one side, and
> a list box down the other. You got to
> navigate the filesystem with this, a little
> like a standard file dialog.
>
> It was very simple.
>
> [snip]
> > > I don't understand what's so confusing to you;
> > > nobody is suggesting that the Apple IIgs could
> > > not run 8-bit software.
> >
> > I didnt think you could convincingly do it.
>
> Huh?
>
> Rick, you are getting weirder by the post.
>
> Please, keep it up! :D
>
And you are continuing to lose credibility.
> > > What exactly am I supposed to be swuirming
> > > out of?
> >
> > Why was the original GS desktop 8 bit?
>
> You mean, why did Apple ship this
> "Apple 2 desktop" thing to you,
> rather than a better file manager?
>
> Maybe they were cutting corners. You'd
> have to ask them.
>
> Why does it *matter*, Rick?
>
You seaid there wasnt one.
> > You also didnt answer this question from a couple of replies back...
> > when did the GS get a fully 16 bit OS?
>
> Never. Every single version of the IIgs OS
> had some 8-bit system software, for
> backwards compatibility.
>
> It's sort of like Windows 95 that way. :D
You are wrong again. You can remove ProDOS 8 completely from GSOS 5.x
and 6.x. The 16 bit environment runs fine. There is no dependance on
ProDOS 8. You cant say the same thing for window$ 95. DOS had to be
there somewhere.
Of course, if you wanted to run 8 bit apps, the 8 bit OS had to be
there. But, it wasnt anything like window$
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:54:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Because it is a supercomputer.
>
> Yea, right, sure....
Now let me see. What makes a supercomputer? Is it blindingly fast? In
this case, no. Can it do massively parallel operations - yes. Is it
physically pretty big - yes.
It looks like a supercomputer, it smells like a supercomputer. Oh, sorry,
it's not in one building and it consists of a million or so PC's.
> >Yawn, because it is one?
>
> No, it is not "one". It is 'something like'.
You want your supercomputer pure, is that it?
> >I'm not being dishonest, or mistaken or gullible
>
> Yea, right. Guffaw.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
> A loosely-coupled system for computing massive problems using
> distributed processing is *not*, by definition, a "supercomputer", Pete.
> Deal with it.
Deal with it yourself. If it's not a supercomputer (and Intel and SETI
think it is), then just what is it? A million or so individual PC's? Is
that it? Some might say that a million or so processors makes up a pretty
impressive supercomputer. But I guess the purist in you wants to say no!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:59:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >In other words, they do not exist. I thought so, more of your lies.
>
> IOW, you've not given reason enough to believe you're anything but a
> child with a senseless point. Try to describe your position coherently,
> Pete, and perhaps intelligent people will deign to address it.
You mean like you do:
"T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***"
I've yet to see you "state your case moderately and accurately". I've
seen lots of twisty statements, lots of dogma, but precious little in the
way of details.
Do you have an example of where I've snipped incorrectly. If so, post it.
Otherwise shut up!
> If you just want to troll, you get ME.
Now what's that supposed to mean, I wonder? Get ME, as in Windows ME? 8)
Nah, can't mean that. Oh, so you think you're the resident anti-troller?
Actually, I think you _are_ a troll yourself. You prolong arguments
without any substance (as you usually do) - the very definition of a
troller.
> NOW what are you going to do?
Why spank your sorry ass!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:00:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> None what?
You mean you don't know? Wassamata, lose the thread did ya! Losing your
marbles, huh?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:03:27 GMT
In article <9en06q$or$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > But is it multi-platform like Java? If not, then I don't want anything
> > to do with it.
>
> It is.
> MS-IL is not tied to a particular arcitecture.
8)
They're likely to produce a non-Windows version are they?
I'd like to see the OpenVMS version, the UNIX one, the Linux one... etc.
I can just see Microsoft stampeding to create it!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:05:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > Visual C++ doesn't follow the standards, whereas I believe Borland's C++
> > does, as does GNU C++?
>
> GNU is missing a few things yet. It will be more or less caught up
> when 3.0 comes out. Don't know about Borland, haven't used it in a
> while.
I thought GNU C/C++ was ANSI Standard.
> > Unfortunately, Visual C++ is the fastest one I've tried on Intel
> > platforms.
>
> I presume that you mean the executables are faster? Maybe MS ought to
> make a Linux version.
Yes, executables.
As for a Linux version, I can't see that happening any time soon. Also
I'm not sure I want to see MFC on Linux (argh!).
> Also, since you do Windows drivers, I suppose I should ask you this.
> Can you use GNU C/C++ to compile NT drivers?
I've not tried it. I suspect not, since once of the qualifiers to VC's
compiler is /driver. Does GNU C need special switches to do device
drivers on Linux as well?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 21:09:18 GMT
In article <9eof33$c0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Fastest in what? Compiling? Executing?
Executing. Delphi's the fastest thing I've seen for compiling. Like Kylix
on Linux.
> I would assume that the Intel compiler would be the best in creating
> efficent executables.
We use Intel's compiler as it does SSE2, whilst VC++ doesn't. Actually we
use both. Intel's compiler initially had a few problems but seems to have
improved since they released it.
I'm not sure which produces the fastest executable. One would expect
Intel's.
> VC++'s compiler is quite old, you know, the standard have changed. There is
> a new version just out of the corner.
I thought the next one would be .NET. That ought to topple VC++ from the
fastest executables (well, maybe not with the runtime compiler).
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
