I've dumped Linux and moved to Windows XP.

[Gregory L. Hansen]

In article <5f063e31.0406151536.9ce7052@posting.google.com>,
Snuffelluffogus <darkred@myway.com> wrote:

There's a generation of Linux enthusiasts that do indeed strive for
precisely that... but only because they want Linux to be just the same
as Windows, and Windows is like that.

It's the majority, not a "generation". Personally I could do without
the bloat,
without the elaborate GUIs, without all the junk that only sysadmins
care about.
I think it's time to start over frankly. Too many hands in the pie.


http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions/Mini_Distributions/

How about a Linux that will fit onto a floppy?

Been there, done that. That's WITHOUT hardly anything useful e.g.
a C compiler. Whereas compare to MSDOS and Turbo C, which can be
distributed on 2 floppies.

Linux is patently obese.

So you want a C compiler, someone else wants a Fortran compiler, maybe Joe
needs GIMP for graphics work and Bob wants his office suite. And
eventually you're trying to please everyone, and Linux comes on seven CDs.

Well, heck, get a second floppy for a C compiler, if that's what you
want. The point remains that it's the Linux distribution, and not Linux
itself, that is obese. Most of what's on those seven CDs isn't Linux,
but various applications, drivers, and manuals.


--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[Chaos Master]

Snuffelluffogus (darkred@myway.com) said those last words:

Been there, done that. That's WITHOUT hardly anything useful e.g.
a C compiler. Whereas compare to MSDOS and Turbo C, which can be
distributed on 2 floppies.

Linux is patently obese.

http://blueflops.sf.net is my favorite example of tiny Linux. Internet browser +
IRC on 2 floppies. Supports most network cards including 3COM, NE2000 and
RealTek (sp?) (IIRC).

As for live CD, my favorite example is Damn Small Linux.

[]s
--
Š Chaos Master. |"These wounds won't seem to heal
My Evanescence HP is at: | This pain is just too real
http://marreka.no-ip.com | There's just too much that time can't erase"
(most often offline... ) | -- Evanescence, "My Immortal"

 

[Rich Grise]

"Trent" <trentallenblack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:19d1da79.0406141638.60a7e96b@posting.google.com...

But for security, robustness, and maintainability, Linux beats
it by orders of magnitude.

Cheers!
Rich

maintainability? damn, it can't even find my freaking printer, my HP
scanner, and when it BREAKS, i have to hire some guru from the 1960's
to
fix it.

keep lying, and your nose will hit the screen.

Heh.

When my Linux "breaks," I start looking for what _I_'ve done wrong. If
you follow the instructions, 99.9999% of the time it doesn't break.

I also found out I have a lot better luck when I let the install and
config scripts do their job before I go start dicking with my config
files. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Gumboot]

Gumboot wrote:

BSD family suffered much less of that cancerous growth. They're the
easiest place to hide without making an effort.

Snuffelluffogus wrote:

But is there a single-floppy boot?

Not with a C compiler on it, no. I suppose that you could write a C
compiler of similar calibre to Turbo C for any OS and fit it on a single
floppy, though.

I've wedged a whole Linux router image onto a single floppy (essentially
just a kernel and support tools and scripts). It's not like it's a big
deal to pull off everything you don't want.

Perhaps QNX is more your style. The way that's going you're going to
have to pull crap off to get what you want, but that crap is a lot more
detachable.

 

[MMI]

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David H McCoy
fake@mail.com
wrote
on Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:18:15 -0400
MPG.1b38266e89ef3e9a989788@news.east.cox.net>:
In article <10cri8rh60hlod7@corp.supernews.com>, djohnson@isomedia.com
says...
David H. McCoy wrote:
In article <40ccd87a$0$25487$45beb828@newscene.com>, abc@def.ghi says...

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike



That's pretty typical here. I believe that the problem is that OS/2
hasn't seen a significant change since OS/2 Warp 4, the last version I
used, so it appears to be difficult to understand that other operating
systems are on the move.

OS/2 has seen many significant changes since OS/2 Warp 4 was released in
1996. IBM has released two new "Convenience Pack" versions of OS/2 since
Warp 4 that they called 'OS/2 v4.51' (2000) and 'OS/2 v4.52' (2002).
These were fully-installable new updated versions of OS/2. The most
notable features they had that were not in Warp 4 were the JFS file
system (in addition to FAT and HPFS), the Logical Volume Manager (LVM),
Java 2 support, a 32-bit TCP/IP stack, improved peer-to-peer
networking, USB support, support for DBCS fonts, Geyserville power
management, better support for PNP devices, a revamped installer,
updated device driver options, and a lot of general improvements to the
WPS desktop function and performance, although its appearance remained
nearly the same as in Warp 4. The Warp 4.51 installer would let you
install over the top of a Warp 4 install and preserve your old Warp 4
desktop. The Warp 4.52 installer would let you install over the top of
a Warp 4.51 installer and preserve your Warp 4.51 desktop. You can
still get these from IBM by purchasing an OS/2 license from their
Passport Advantage online site and then purchasing a 'OS/2 Media Pack'
which comes with all of the Warp 4 CDs, the Warp 4.51 CDs, the Warp 4.52
CDs, and the 'Software Choice' CDs (which had software updates and
device driver additions.) Go to this site and click on the 'How to Buy'
link.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/

The latest fixpack for Warp 4 is fixpack 17 (xr_m017) and the latest
fixpack for Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 is fixpack 4 (xr_c004). This site
has links to all of these. An IBM subscription ID and password are
needed to access them which you get if you purchase a one-year OS/2
maintenance license.

http://ps.software.ibm.com/os2fixp/softupd.html



You consider Java support and a tcpip stack significant? That's stuff
that Windows had back in 96. So OS/2 matches 96 Windows? Okay.

Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.

Cheers,
Martin

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)

Kludgy, ugly, and slightly dodgy (and very hard to set up properly,
though that wasn't Trumpet's fault, that was DOS's) -- but it worked.

Win95's innovation was to make the TCP/IP stack easier to set up.
I don't know if it made the stack any better, admittedly.

 

[Julius Junghans]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:12:26 -0400
David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com> wrote:

In article <20040615194959.3cd9d3e9.julius.junghans@gmx.de>,
julius.junghans@gmx.de says...
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:18:15 -0400
David H. McCoy <fake@mail.com> wrote:

In article <10cri8rh60hlod7@corp.supernews.com>, djohnson@isomedia.com
says...
David H. McCoy wrote:
In article <40ccd87a$0$25487$45beb828@newscene.com>, abc@def.ghi says...

I'm not trying to incite a riot here, but I can't just sit here and let
you spout this nonsense. What would *your* reaction be to someone
claiming all sorts of defects in OS/2 (or Linux), but basing his
reasoning on OS/2 2.1 (or Red Hat 5).

Mike



That's pretty typical here. I believe that the problem is that OS/2
hasn't seen a significant change since OS/2 Warp 4, the last version I
used, so it appears to be difficult to understand that other operating
systems are on the move.

OS/2 has seen many significant changes since OS/2 Warp 4 was released in
1996. IBM has released two new "Convenience Pack" versions of OS/2 since
Warp 4 that they called 'OS/2 v4.51' (2000) and 'OS/2 v4.52' (2002).
These were fully-installable new updated versions of OS/2. The most
notable features they had that were not in Warp 4 were the JFS file
system (in addition to FAT and HPFS), the Logical Volume Manager (LVM),
Java 2 support, a 32-bit TCP/IP stack, improved peer-to-peer
networking, USB support, support for DBCS fonts, Geyserville power
management, better support for PNP devices, a revamped installer,
updated device driver options, and a lot of general improvements to the
WPS desktop function and performance, although its appearance remained
nearly the same as in Warp 4. The Warp 4.51 installer would let you
install over the top of a Warp 4 install and preserve your old Warp 4
desktop. The Warp 4.52 installer would let you install over the top of
a Warp 4.51 installer and preserve your Warp 4.51 desktop. You can
still get these from IBM by purchasing an OS/2 license from their
Passport Advantage online site and then purchasing a 'OS/2 Media Pack'
which comes with all of the Warp 4 CDs, the Warp 4.51 CDs, the Warp 4.52
CDs, and the 'Software Choice' CDs (which had software updates and
device driver additions.) Go to this site and click on the 'How to Buy'
link.

http://www-306.ibm.com/software/os/warp/swchoice/

The latest fixpack for Warp 4 is fixpack 17 (xr_m017) and the latest
fixpack for Warp 4.51 or Warp 4.52 is fixpack 4 (xr_c004). This site
has links to all of these. An IBM subscription ID and password are
needed to access them which you get if you purchase a one-year OS/2
maintenance license.

http://ps.software.ibm.com/os2fixp/softupd.html



You consider Java support and a tcpip stack significant? That's stuff
that Windows had back in 96. So OS/2 matches 96 Windows? Okay.

--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------

who the hell needs java? its just a toy, sometimes nice, but at all you dont need it.

Now you are just being silly. Java is used to write some pretty robust
applications. I should know. I do this. And if it is a toy, one gets
paid well to play.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy


--------------------------------------

robust applications ?
java is "slow", what did you wrote in java thats new?

 

[Winfield Hill]

Julius Junghans wrote...

robust applications ?
java is "slow", what did you wrote in java thats new?

According to yesterday's Slashdot article about some recent
benchmarking at Rensselaer Polytechnic, Java is faster than C++
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/217239

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[David Sutherland]

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...

[snip]

Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.

Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

Cheers,
Martin

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)

[to Martin] Duh.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[Marty]

Winfield Hill wrote:

Julius Junghans wrote...

robust applications ?
java is "slow", what did you wrote in java thats new?

According to yesterday's Slashdot article about some recent
benchmarking at Rensselaer Polytechnic, Java is faster than C++
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/217239

Those results look rather bogus to me. The two areas where Java creamed
C++ were "method call" and "hash".

Method call is due to using the wrong optimization flags with GCC. -O2
will use a slow stack-based calling method. He should have used -mreg,
-O3, and -fomit-frame-pointer for optimum results. I believe he was
incorrect about -O3, in that I think it will perform space/speed
tradeoffs in favor of *speed*.

And the hash results are probably due to the runtime library used. That
has nothing to do with the language or compiler.

I'm certainly less than convinced. A tightly optimized Java runtime or
dynamic recompiler can do very well, but it can only theoretically
approach the speed of natively compiled apps.

 

[David Sutherland]

On 16 Jun 2004 11:08:58 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Julius Junghans wrote...

robust applications ?
java is "slow", what did you wrote in java thats new?

According to yesterday's Slashdot article about some recent
benchmarking at Rensselaer Polytechnic, Java is faster than C++
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/15/217239

Thanks,
- Win

Hope you read the comments - there was a great deal of spirited debate
about the validity of those results, although it does seem that java
is a lot faster than most people think


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[David Sutherland]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:02:43 -0700, Marty <unspecified@this.time>
wrote:

[snip]

I'm certainly less than convinced. A tightly optimized Java runtime or
dynamic recompiler can do very well, but it can only theoretically
approach the speed of natively compiled apps.

As some people pointed out in the debate, some run-time optimisations
can *theoretically* allow faster operation than code optimised at
compile-time - in very specific circumstances, of course, and usually
by cheating =) After all, it all ends up as machine ops...

Lots of interesting stuff in there


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[ryanm]

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cao8hj$2j4$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu...

So you want a C compiler, someone else wants a Fortran compiler, maybe Joe
needs GIMP for graphics work and Bob wants his office suite. And
eventually you're trying to please everyone, and Linux comes on seven CDs.

And then you're in the same boat as Windows.

ryanm

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David Sutherland
<david@**ANTI-SPAM**sutherda.my-bulldog.com>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:55:07 +0100
<7g51d0t3kc5ui4berouofgaqqbu7b8d9gp@4ax.com>:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...

[snip]


Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.


Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.


Cheers,
Martin

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here: if one has a 3rd-party addon, does Windows
support something? I should note that Linux is almost all
3rd-party support (the 3rd-party in this case is GNU).

But the previous poster is correct; Win95 had TCP/IP support
out of the box, but AFAIK not before then.

(For what all this is worth, which isn't all that much, presumably.
Win95's TCP/IP stack was, by all accounts, not all that hot except
for the ease of use.)

Linux's TCP/IP is a little more complicated to set up, but it
works reasonably well now -- teardrop having long since been
eradicated.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here:

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of it now
to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its job and it beats
goung down to bare metal to achieve the same result.

 

[Gregory L. Hansen]

In article <10d1ln28u2aetae@corp.supernews.com>,
ryanm <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cao8hj$2j4$4@hood.uits.indiana.edu...

So you want a C compiler, someone else wants a Fortran compiler, maybe Joe
needs GIMP for graphics work and Bob wants his office suite. And
eventually you're trying to please everyone, and Linux comes on seven CDs.

And then you're in the same boat as Windows.

Except you pay a lot less.


--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein

 

[MMI]

David Sutherland wrote:

On 16 Jun 2004 07:37:41 -0700, mmi@nautimail.com (MMI) wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<7hu3q1-drn.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...


[snip]


Windows had TCP/IP stack support back in *'89*.

Out of the box? Surely not before Windows 95.



Guess that reading his next sentence was just waaaay too much trouble
for you.

No. If "something has support for some doodad" then I expect it to have
that out of the box, not that I am to hunt the net for some 3rd party SW
suite. But great, from this time on, I can say that OS/2 had let's say
NFS support from the 2.x (1992-1993) times. Great. And don't tell me you
didn't find any in your OS/2 box.

Or we can agree that "has support" means "out-of-the box" and then I'll
shut up about let's say NFS for OS/2, but I'll be right about Trumpet
Winsock... You can choose...

Cheers,
Martin

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)


[to Martin] Duh.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
<nospam@kadaitcha.cx>
wrote
on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:19:38 +1000
<7q4ecbepJXIED9E8E221779490D3qEesmH7A4erv@kadaitcha.cx>:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1 days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here:

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of it now
to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its job and it beats
goung down to bare metal to achieve the same result.

Which RFC?

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

 

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <2jv8q1-vtq.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net> (Thu, 17 Jun 2004
20:00:20 +0000), The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadontcha Man <allspam@kadontcha.xp

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of it
now to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its job and
it beats goung down to bare metal to achieve the same result.


Which RFC?

RFC 2549.

--
"When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price."
-- Richard M. Stallman

 

[Kadaitcha Man]

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kadaitcha Man
nospam@kadaitcha.cx
wrote
on Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:19:38 +1000
7q4ecbepJXIED9E8E221779490D3qEesmH7A4erv@kadaitcha.cx>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net
wrote:

(Trumpet Winsock
was a 3rdparty addon product that filled the bill in the 3.1
days.)


[to Martin] Duh.

True, a subtle point which I could have clarified better. There
are issues here:

There's nothing wrong with winsock. I'm using the latest version of
it now to build a custom, RFC compliant NNTP control. It does its
job and it beats goung down to bare metal to achieve the same result.


Which RFC?

1036, 850, 997, 1153, 2034, 1812, 3052 ...

 

[Snuffelluffogus]

What is the smallest size of a usable G++ with IDE?
Nowhere near as small as Turbo C++.