Linux-Advocacy Digest #999, Volume #34 Wed, 6 Jun 01 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Ray Chason)
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Ray Chason)
Re: UI Importance (Ray Chason)
Re: Best Distribution? (Terry Porter)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Microsft - the WASTED $1,000 PC (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Stuart Fox")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Stuart Fox")
Re: A Song for Aaron (Rotten168)
Re: XP - what's for me? (Rotten168)
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Kernel comparisions ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:10:56 -0000
flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you been hitting the old Fosters tonight mate?
Yegads. Faastuh's? Nasty stuff, at least the version we get in the
States is. It's not even brewed in Uhstrayuh, but in Canada.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:15:54 -0000
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I can't believe nobody has yet nominated Aaron Kulkis.
>
>Well, anyway, I nominate Aaron as first runner-up in case the winner is
>unable to serve in his official capacity. Really, how many of the
>uninitiated here have wondered whether Aaron is actually a Winvocate in
>disguise? Besides, I enjoy Aaron's subtle yet informative posts and think
>he should get some kind of recognition for all his efforts.
Kooklis at least sometimes knows what he's talking about, and I'd
gladly take him out of my killfile if he'd lose that pile of spam that
he calls a sig and if he'd learn to snip properly when quoting.
My nomination for Winvocate in a Tux is Ebert. Sometimes I wonder if
that man is sane.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:25:46 -0000
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fg0i0$s2d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I occasionally sue cat for very small programs.
>
>I heard about strange hobits, but suing cats is something new ;-D
US Patent 5,443,036 ("Method of Exercising a Cat") covers the act of
using a laser pointer to create a spot of light, inducing a cat to
chase it. If someone infringes, could the cat be sued?
(No link. Alas, Delphion charges now, or soon will, and the USPTO
provides no way to get a sane URL. Go to
http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm and type 5,443,036 in the
search box.)
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 04:25:34 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:12:19 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2001 00:29:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In his ferver to get himself kill filed, DrSquare finally
>>succeded ...
>>
>><plonk>
>>(yes my killfile really works)
>
> You just read my mind.
>
> And my killfile works quite well too, even if there is only 2 people
> in it :)
>
Why aren't I in it, I know I've driven you to the point of
leaving COLA at times ?
:)
>
> flatfish+++
> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 04:27:07 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:08:23 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2001 00:46:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I haven't had a problem
>>> installing Linux on a machine since RedHat 5.0.
>>
>>Oh.... this is a keeper, it will look good on the end of your list
>>of fake id's!
>
>
> With the exception of the Thinkpad......
>
>
> Prove it.....
Oh no please .... Flatty, not the "GoodWin...dows" treatment???
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 04:29:19 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:20:09 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06 Jun 2001 01:23:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:57:04 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And if Linux didn't support your printer, which is quite common?
>>
>>Only for you :-
>>"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>>S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>>Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
> Huh?
>
> Have you been hitting the old Fosters tonight mate?
>
Sadly no, not because there is no Fosters, or because I can't
afford any Fosters .... I just don't like beer.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 04:30:03 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:10:56 -0000,
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Have you been hitting the old Fosters tonight mate?
>
> Yegads. Faastuh's? Nasty stuff, at least the version we get in the
> States is. It's not even brewed in Uhstrayuh, but in Canada.
Bwahahahahah, LOL!
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Microsft - the WASTED $1,000 PC
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 Jun 2001 04:36:33 GMT
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:08:18 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>But they don't always get accepted overnight.
>>Pc sales world wide have dropped down, to an all time low,
>>and consumers are tired of junk thats obsolete in a few years,
>>and don't have the money to throw away any more.
>>
>
> I agree with Terry's comments 100%.
>
> I find difficult and extremely amazing to see even my company
> contemplating a HUGE EXPENDITURE to upgrade all their desktop
> PC's to a Windows XP level and throwing away hords of Pentium III's
> in the process as they were inadequate for the job.
Future generations will dig all this stuff up, hunting for rare
tantalum etc, as the same amount that 1 pc needs now, will supply
100 pc's in the future. Sadly by the time we reach that capability
most of it will be lost to the wastefull generations.
The GNU/Linux philosophy is "share", and it just doesnt fit properly
into a greedy, wastefull world .... yet
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:43:27 GMT
"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VGfT6.55745$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> How many UNIX geeks know about SAMBA (a slick little utility that enables
> UNIX/Linux clients to co-exist in Windows-based networks)? Here's the
most
> telling argument about SAMBA: it's not only included with any decent
distro
> of UNIX/Linux, SAMBA even works against Windows *2000*-based networks.
> Microsoft could choose to wreck SAMBA, but hasn't (and won't, either).
>
I take it you haven't installed sp2 on a win2k box participating in a domain
controlled by a samba server. Try it to get a better understanding of
how Microsoft chooses to treat their customers.
With the current model, they have to sell you a flawed product to ensure
that they can control your future ability to use it as you are forced to
apply the patches. With the XP model, they will always have the option
to break compatibility with any perceived competitors whenever they
want.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:51:06 +1200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:45:34 +1200,
> Gees even Stuart Fox is being helpfull on COLA!
> So my vote for Winadvocate of the month must be,
> in the following order :-
>
> 1/ Ayende
> 2/ Eric Funk
> 3/ Stuart Fox
Thanks .... I think?
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:52:33 +1200
"Tuomo Takkula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fi8iq$md7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:oI%S6.7225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ..
> > > Okay, why I don't like this?
> > > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should
restart
> > it,
> > > not stop.
> >
> > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
> > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>
> Utter nonsense. Of course there is something wrong if the GUI crashes,
> but that doesn't mean it does crash again if you restart the GUI, or
> that the rest of the operating system or the running tasks is in any
> way compromised by that. Under Unix, restarting the window manager
> (when Netscape graps the X token and dies) simply puts the running
> applications into their old state. No reboot necessary.
The distinction is that the GUI & GDI are separate. If the GUI crashes,
fine, just respawn explorer. If the GDI crashes, well WinNT needs that to
function correctly so it throws an exception (Blue screen)
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:55:42 +1200
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhjt5$49d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that
> it's
> > bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy with
> > um... SoftICE)
>
> I don't have this book, and orderring it will take a month.
> Can you give a list of the reasons?
>
Here's the relevant section, hopefully there's no copyright infringement
here :)
Is Windows 2000 Less Stable with Win32 USER and GDI in Kernel Mode?
Some people wondered whether moving this much code into kernel mode would
substantially affect system stability. The reason the impact on system
stability has been minimal is that prior to Windows NT 4 (and this is still
true today), a bug (such as an access violation) in the user-mode Win32
subsystem process (Csrss.exe) resulted in a system crash. This crash occurs
because the parent process of Csrss (the session manager, Smss, which is
described in the section "Session Manager (Smss)") does a wait operation on
the process handle to Csrss, and if the wait ever returns, Smss crashes the
system-because the Win32 subsystem process was (and still is) a vital
process to the running of the system. Because it was the process that
contained the data structures that described the windows on the display, the
death of that process would kill the user interface. However, even a Windows
2000 system operating as a server, with no interactive processes, can't run
without this process, since server processes might be using window messaging
to drive the internal state of the application. With Windows 2000, an access
violation in the same code now running in kernel mode simply crashes the
system more quickly, since exceptions in kernel mode result in a system
crash.
There is, however, one additional theoretical danger that didn't exist prior
to moving the windowing and graphics system into kernel mode. Because this
body of code is now running in kernel mode, a bug (such as the use of a bad
pointer) could result in corrupting kernel-mode protected data structures.
Prior to Windows NT 4, such references would have caused an access violation
because kernel-mode pages aren't writable from user mode. But a system crash
would have then resulted, as described earlier. With the code now running in
kernel mode, a bad pointer reference that caused a write operation to some
kernel-mode page might not immediately cause a system crash, but if it
corrupted some data structure, a crash would likely result soon after. There
is a small chance, however, that such a reference could corrupt a memory
buffer (rather than a data structure), possibly resulting in returning
corrupt data to a user program or writing bad data to the disk.
Another area of possible impact can come from the move of the graphics
drivers into kernel mode. Previously, some portions of a graphics driver ran
within Csrss, and others ran in kernel mode. Now, the entire driver runs in
kernel mode. Although Microsoft doesn't develop all of the graphics device
drivers supported in Windows 2000, it does work directly with hardware
manufacturers to help ensure that they are able to produce reliable and
efficient drivers. All drivers shipped with the system are submitted to the
same rigorous testing as other executive components.
Finally, it's important to understand that this design (running the
windowing and graphics subsystem in kernel mode) is not fundamentally risky.
It is identical to the approaches many other device drivers use (for
example, network card drivers and hard disk drivers). All these drivers have
been operating in kernel mode since the inception of Windows NT with a high
degree of reliability.
Some people speculated that the move of the window manager and the GDI into
kernel mode would hurt the preemptive multitasking capability of Windows
2000. The theory was that with all the additional Win32 processing time
spent in kernel mode, other threads would have less opportunity to be run
preemptively. This view was based on a misunderstanding of the Windows 2000
architecture. It is true that in many other nominally preemptive operating
systems, executing in kernel mode is never preempted by the operating system
scheduler-or is preempted only at a certain limited number of predefined
points of kernel reentrancy. In Windows 2000, however, threads running
anywhere in the executive are preempted and scheduled alongside threads
running in user mode, and all code within the executive is fully reentrant.
Among other reasons, this capability is necessary to achieve a high degree
of system scalability on SMP hardware.
Another line of speculation was that SMP scaling would be hurt by this
change. The theory went like this: Previously, an interaction between an
application and the window manager or the GDI involved two threads, one in
the application and one in Csrss.exe. Therefore, on an SMP system, the two
threads could run in parallel, thus improving throughput. This analysis
shows a misunderstanding of how Windows NT technology worked prior to
Windows NT 4. In most cases, calls from a client application to the Win32
subsystem process run synchronously; that is, the client thread entirely
blocks waiting on the server thread and begins to run again only when the
server thread has completed the call. Therefore, no parallelism on SMP
hardware can ever be achieved. This phenomenon is easily observable with a
busy graphics application using the Performance tool on an SMP system. The
observer will discover that on a two-processor system each processor is
approximately 50 percent loaded, and it's relatively easy to find the single
Csrss thread that is paired off with the busy application thread. Indeed,
because the two threads are fairly intimate with each other and sharing
state, the processors' caches must be flushed constantly to maintain
coherency. This constant flushing is the reason that with Windows NT 3.51 a
single-threaded graphics application typically runs slightly slower on an
SMP machine than on a single processor system.
As a result, the changes in Windows NT 4 increased SMP throughput of
applications that make heavy use of the window manager and the GDI,
especially when more than one application thread is busy. When two
application threads are busy on a two-processor Windows NT 3.51-based
machine, a total of four threads (two in the application plus two in Csrss)
are battling for time on the two processors. Although only two are typically
ready to run at any given time, the lack of a consistent pattern in which
threads run results in a loss of locality of reference and cache coherency.
This loss occurs because the busy threads are likely to get shuffled from
one processor to another. In the Windows NT 4 design, each of the two
application threads essentially has its own processor, and the automatic
thread affinity of Windows 2000 tends to run the same thread on the same
processor indefinitely, thus maximizing locality of reference and minimizing
the need to synchronize the private per-processor memory caches.
So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
decrease in system stability or reliability.
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Song for Aaron
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:57:49 GMT
chrisv wrote:
>
> You're a mean one, Mr. Kook.
> You really are a heel.
> You're as cuddly as a cactus,
> You're as charming as an eel.
> Mr. Kook,
> You're a bad banana
> With a greasy black peel.
>
> You're a monster, Mr. Kook.
> Your heart's an empty hole.
> Your brain is full of spiders,
> You've got garlic in your soul.
> Mr. Kook.
> I wouldn't touch you, with a
> thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
>
> You're a vile one, Mr. Kook.
> You have termites in your smile.
> You have all the tender sweetness
> Of a seasick crocodile.
> Mr. Kook.
> Given the choice between the two of you
> I'd take the seasick crocodile.
>
> You're a rotter, Mr. Kook.
> You're the king of sinful sots.
> Your heart's a dead tomato splot
> With moldy purple spots,
> Mr. Kook.
> Your soul is an appalling dump heap overflowing
> with the most disgraceful assortment of
> rubbish imaginable,
> Mangled up in tangled up knots.
>
> You nauseate me, Mr. Kook.
> With a nauseaus super-naus.
> You're a crooked jerky jockey
> And you drive a crooked horse.
> Mr. Kook.
> You're a three decker saurkraut and
> Toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce.
>
> You're a foul one, Mr. Kook.
> You're a nasty, wasty skunk.
> Your heart is full of unwashed socks
> Your soul is full of gunk.
> Mr. Kook.
> The three words that best describe you,
> are, and I quote: "Stink. Stank. Stunk."
Speaking of Kulkis, what kind of Flame Warrior would he be?
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
I'm thinking a cross between a Troglodyte, Loopy, and a Tireless
Rebutter.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP - what's for me?
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 04:59:47 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> The largest thing inside MS's XP is it's software
> piracy prevention, detection and reporting features.
>
> Your paying $300 + dollars for an upgrade so that
> MS can spy on you. Sell your name on a list of
> software pirates to be prosecuted by attorneys.
> Interfere in your everyday privacy.
>
> That is what 30% of XP is.
Is it? Exactly how is XP spying on us again?
<madness snipped>
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:00:13 +1200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
> >Proof: Windows can run GUI as well as CLI, and both have facilities that
> >allow you to thoroughly hose your filesystem.
>
> Yes, but Windows' CLI is a piece of crippled shite.
Which you haven't qualified with examples yet. Windows GUI is as good or as
bad as the tools you run in it. Bash is almost completely useless without
all the little tools and utils that you need to run it, same applies to
cmd.exe
Give me an example of how it's crippled?
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:04:44 +1200
"Tuomo Takkula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What is mmap, exactly?
>
> It's great! In very simple terms, it maps a file (or some other
> object) to memory. That means, you can access a file (or other object)
> as you would access an array of, say, characters. This removes a lot
> of headaches when you have to process a file or to deal with memory
> shared between processes. You have to care for buffering, but the OS
> will take care to give you only the parts of the file/object that you
> actually want to access and by that it keeps things as fast as
> possible.
>
See http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/tips.shtml#KMem for an example of
doing this on NT.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
