On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:47:39 +0000 (UTC), the wharf rat wrote:

> In article <m9jvzhyb4u3d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>>

>>Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been

>>hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?

>

> Tar, like any other unix program, simply reads stdin and writes

> stdout. You can connect those descriptors to files but it's not "designed"

> to write to any particular device.

 

Then why is it called "tape archiver"? That's what tar stands for. It's

filled with options to format data for tape drives, for instance.

>>Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy" while you're

>>at it, there's plenty of hits.

>

> When I do this all I get is some text about Subarus.

 

The API has changed over time, and deprecated certain functions as well.

It's not as big of an issue with Linux though because you can usually

recompile the app.

WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support

content.

And what did you expect? If I think vista is such crap, would you then

expect me to use it as my main OS? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!???

I have it as a tripple boot with XP, and Ubuntu.

 

You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

 

With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager

like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are a

simple user.

Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in your

face all the time again.

Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got

updated.

It seems you are not a real user.. perhaps you are a granny and dont even

have an internet connection? Because if you are really using a computer you

would know what im talking about! GESH!

 

UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off! Would I tell a newbie to turn it

off? No.... but I would tell him to leave it on, with pain in my heart

because I know how frustrating it is. As I told you I am not against having

another layer of protection, its the implementaion!

 

The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available

with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

 

gesh!

 

 

 

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message

news:jbdes4zvrdt8$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:42:33 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

>

>> Experts of course!

>>

>> I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL

>> And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista

>> so

>> closley thats why I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

>

> So you support Vista but don't use it yourself. You make my point.

>

> You only see systems when they're screwed up. That skews your view of

> things.

>

>> To answer your question:

>> You can use tweakUAC that has 3 modes,

>>

>> 1)off

>> 2)on

>> 3) On but its not in your face all the time.

>

> That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask what modes there were. I

> asked you if turning off UAC was a good solution.

>

>> I never had a problem with security with windows xp that didnt have UAC.

>> Its not the added security layer that bothers me, its the implimentation

>> of

>> UAC thats always in your face thats the problem. Even MS knows this, and

>> they are redesigning it for windows7. This is due to the outrage of the

>> users and hatred that just makes people either turn it off, or click

>> without

>> reading the warnings.

>> Thus its not effective.

>> Even the linux implementation is better, you add a password, but you dont

>> do

>> it 100 times a day.

>

> As an admin, you hit a UAC prompt a lot because that's what you do, tweak

> settings. But as a user, UAC prompts are seldom seen if the machine if

> setup correctly (that includes proper permissions on things like USB keys

> and secondary disks). At least once you've got the machine configured the

> way you like it.

>

> That's not to say UAC is perfect, and there is certainly a lot of room for

> improvement, but for a normal user it's not that big of a problem.

In article <hwd5ycqk8zde.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,

Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>

>Then why is it called "tape archiver"? That's what tar stands for. It's

 

They had to call it something. But in fact, tar is designed to

read and write tar archives. Not tape drives.

>filled with options to format data for tape drives

 

Tar has options to control input and output block size and to

inform it of media capacities. Those are applicable to tape devices but

not unique to tape devices. Or even required by all tape devices.

 

Hey, don't listen to me. Go read the man page:

 

" The tar command creates, adds files to, or extracts files from an archive

file in ``tar'' format. A tar archive is often stored on a magnetic

tape, but can be stored equally well on a floppy, CD-ROM, or in a regular

disk file."

D.S. = Dom Sheldon is a cold man

 

From Michael Jackson's HIStory album

Written by Michael Jackson

 

They wanna get my ass

Dead or alive

You know he really tried to take me

Down by surprise

I bet he missioned with the CIA

He don't do half what he say

 

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x4)

He out shock in every single way

He'll stop at nothing just to get his political say

He think he bad cause he's BSTA

I bet he never had a social life anyway

You think he brother with the KKK?

I know his mother never taught him

right anyway

He want your vote just to remain TA

He don't do half what he say

 

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x4)

Dom S. Sheldon is a cold man

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x3)

Slash!

Does he send letters to the FBI?

Did he say to either do it or die?

 

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x4)

Dom S. Sheldon is a cold man

Dom Sheldon is a cold man (x3)

 

Dom S. Sheldon is a cold man

[Ad lib fade]

 

 

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.net> wrote in message

news:yKadnfaFPYGbAmLanZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com...

> On 2008-04-11, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:06 +0300, groovy wrote:

>>

>>> We all know that vista sucks.

>>

>> You mean you all think you know.

>>

>>> You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

>>> Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

>>> I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

>>

>> Maybe because we actually *USE* it. The vast majority of people i've run

>> across that dislike Vista are people who have either never used it, or

>> have

>> used it only briefly, or on a woefully inadequate machine.

>>

>> I've met very few people that have used Vista for any length of time on a

>> decent machine that dislike it.

>>

>

> I tend to agree with that. I was put off myself at first. I was having

> a significant instability problem, and some of my software just wouldn't

> work... But, as it turned out the instability was bad RAM. Once that

> was replaced and I updated the software with a couple of vendor patches

> for Vista, everything has been pretty much smooth sailing.

>

>>> But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>>> professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>>

>> I used to know a lot of people that hated Macs too. Using excuses like

>> "It

>> treats me like an idiot", but suddenly those same people are now praising

>> Macs. The difference? They actually used on for a while.

>>

>> People are a fraid of change, and more afraid of great change.

>

> Yep. Just go back to 2001 and look at all the complaints about XP's

> gratuitous ui changes, and the need for retraining. The complaints

> about instability (what was the number that was being quoted then?

> Somethign like 1 in 5 xp machines crash more then twice a day). Look at

> the people like Sinister who had the "XP: The ME of NT" sigs. Look at

> the reports of slow uptake. Hell, 4 years after XP's release, it still

> had less the 50% of the corporate desktop market. In fact, I doubt I

> have heard a single complaint about Vista that I didn't hear about XP -

> well except for DRM maybe, but with XP it was activation. I mean

> really, the extended the Windows98 support lifetime twice because of

> protests against moving to XP.

>

> History will just repeat itself with Windows7. Only this time people

> will be crying over the death of Vista - not XP.

>

> --

> Tom Shelton

"AqD" <aquila.deus@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bcaa8442-26d4-49dd-a83e-7382f39fda11@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> So what?

>

> A lot of linux apps are a hundred years behind their windows

> counterparts.

 

 

Hey Aquila. LTNS.

 

So you have left Linux now?

 

You stopped GUI twiddling, and now are using Windows Server 2003??

 

What's going on?

 

ss.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:47:39 +0000 (UTC), the wharf rat wrote:

>>

>> Tar, like any other unix program, simply reads stdin and writes

>> stdout. You can connect those descriptors to files but it's not "designed"

>> to write to any particular device.

>

>Then why is it called "tape archiver"?

 

Idiot.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

 

All supporting my claim.

> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support

> content.

 

Whatever that means.

> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

 

I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.

> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager

> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are a

> simple user.

 

I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.

> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in your

> face all the time again.

> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got

> updated.

 

Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same

apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore

you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.

> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!

 

An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand

that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just

security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and

compatibility as well.

 

It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x

more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it

bothers you that much.

 

As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile

virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher

ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.

> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available

> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

 

You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.

Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up

some day.

The fact is dork boy, is that users dont care about all the tech details.

 

Computers should be made for PEOPLE!

 

they want to use the comptuer for producing work or enjoyment.

 

UAC slows the user experience down.

 

Im done with you, you you have been blinded by vista so much, its

conflicting with your brain function! Simple things you cannot understand!

 

Now run along...

 

 

 

 

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message

news:1e83e9l122uhe$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

>

>> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

>> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

>> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

>

> All supporting my claim.

>

>> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support

>> content.

>

> Whatever that means.

>

>> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

>

> I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.

>

>> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager

>> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are

>> a

>> simple user.

>

> I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.

>

>> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in

>> your

>> face all the time again.

>> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got

>> updated.

>

> Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same

> apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore

> you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.

>

>> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!

>

> An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand

> that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just

> security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and

> compatibility as well.

>

> It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x

> more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it

> bothers you that much.

>

> As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile

> virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher

> ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.

>

>> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available

>> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

>

> You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.

> Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up

> some day.

ricky valentine wrote:

> Experts of course!

>

> I know more than most MVP's in here that are supposedly experts.. LOL

 

You know nothing!

> And because I have watching and using and installing and supporting vista so

> closley thats why

> I can say without any doubt that vista is CRAP!

 

You're crap!

Get lost as*hole!

Frank

ricky valentine wrote:

> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

 

You lying sack of sh*t! You were not in any of the Official

Longhorn/Vista beta...you fukkin liar!

 

You're a delusional attention starved mental idiot!

Frank

Perhaps if someone from MICROSFT tells you the truth THEN you will start

believing ???

lol

Article:

 

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/04/11/microsoft-exec-uac-designed-to-annoy-users

 

The User Account Control in Windows Vista improves security by reducing

application privileges from administrative to standard levels, but UAC has

been widely criticized for the nagging alerts it generates. According to one

Microsoft executive, the annoyance factor was actually part of the plan.

 

In a Thursday presentation at RSA 2008 in San Francisco, David Cross, a

product unit manager at Microsoft who was part of the team that developed

UAC, admitted that Microsoft's strategy with UAC was to irritate users and

ISVs in order to get them to change their behavior. "The reason we put UAC

into the platform was to annoy users. I'm serious," said Cross.

 

Microsoft not only wanted to get users to stop running as administrators,

which exacerbates the effects of attacks, but also wanted to convince ISVs

to stop building applications that require administrative privileges to

install and run, Cross explained. "We needed to change the ecosystem, and we

needed a heavy hammer to do it," Cross said.

 

 

"Erik Funkenbusch" <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote in message

news:1e83e9l122uhe$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:00:42 +0300, ricky valentine wrote:

>

>> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

>> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

>> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

>

> All supporting my claim.

>

>> I cant do work on it, but I use it to provide support and create support

>> content.

>

> Whatever that means.

>

>> You dont seem to know what a user is like now a-days.

>

> I am well aware of what users are like now-a-days.

>

>> With updates that happen daily, and without a centralized update manager

>> like the one linux has, you actually keep updating stuff even if you are

>> a

>> simple user.

>

> I wasn't aware that clicking a button was such a hardship.

>

>> Programs prompt you all the time for updates, and then you have UAC in

>> your

>> face all the time again.

>> Yesterday alone Divx, Adobe flash player, and several other programs got

>> updated.

>

> Odd, updates don't seem to come very often for me, and I have the same

> apps. Maybe it's because you only boot into Vista once a month, therefore

> you assume it updates every day because every time you use it, it updates.

>

>> UAC is CRAP! Yes I turn the damn thing off!

>

> An expert indeed. If you were actually an expert, you would understand

> that turning UAC off cripples compatibility in Vista. It's not just

> security that gets turned off, it's all the account virtualization and

> compatibility as well.

>

> It's no surprise you have a lot of trouble, turning off UAC creates 10x

> more problems. A "real" expert would advocate turning on silent UAC if it

> bothers you that much.

>

> As and example, without UAC you don't get Registry or Profile

> virtualization, which means apps that write to areas that now have higher

> ACL's will fail instead of being virtualized.

>

>> The tweakuac was mentioned because it gives one extra mode not available

>> with vista alone... the mode is UAC on but silent..

>

> You can turn on silent UAC without the use of third party utilities.

> Again, an "expert" would know that. it's called gpedit.msc, look it up

> some day.

I can prove I was, can you?

 

"Frank" <fab@notspam.com> wrote in message

news:%23k3P1HAnIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> ricky valentine wrote:

>

>> WTF? I have Vista even before it was called vista! The betas, the RC, the

>> RTM the SP1.. I have installed vista so many times I can do it blindfold!

>> Do I use it for work? HELL NO! its crap!!!

>

> You lying sack of sh*t! You were not in any of the Official Longhorn/Vista

> beta...you fukkin liar!

>

> You're a delusional attention starved mental idiot!

> Frank

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>it's called gpedit.msc, look it up some day.

 

Is that one of those yucky "command line interface" thingies that

Wintrolls like to imply is never needed with Windoze?

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch

<erik@despam-funkenbusch.com>

wrote

on Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:00:28 -0400

<m9jvzhyb4u3d.dlg@funkenbusch.com>:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:41 +0100, White Spirit wrote:

>

>> There are profound technical reasons why Windows is crap. This is just

>> one of them:

>>

>> Let's look at the WinMain function called by every Windows program. It

>> has the following prototype:

>> int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR

>> lpCmdLine, int nCmdShow)

>>

>> hPrevInstance is a legacy from 16-bit days. If there was an existing

>> instance of the program running, the new instance needed to know about

>> it because programs running under 16-bit Windows shared the same address

>> space. Consequently, the programmer had to take measures to ensure that

>> the two instances didn't conflict. Most programmers simply limited the

>> application to one instance.

>

> So are you seriously suggesting that Unix doesn't have it's own legacy

> cruft?

 

Unix has a *lot* of legacy cruft. The most obvious

one: /etc/passwd. Ideally it should be taken out and

shot the replacement might be dictated by PAM, somewhere

in /etc/pam.d. (For its part /lib/security/pam_unix.so

has the string /etc/passwd in it. There are also some

intriguing other strings therein. Can't this be specified

as a parameter somewhere?)

>

> ACL's have been "it" for a long time, and because of the vast majority of

> Linux users and apps that don't know how to deal with them, people still

> use UGO.

 

The specification of access control lists is at best a

black art, and I've seen several variants. The first one

I encountered was a PPON (person, something, organization,

network), which was in use in DomainOS prior to about

version 9, where UGO was introduced, presumably for

compatibility reasons, as DomainOS was required to coexist

on the *same system* with BSD and SysV.

 

The resulting hybrid got rather mucky, and had some

interesting innovations in particular, one could define

a symlink that referred to an environment variable within

the user's process space.

>

> Or how about tar, a system designed for legacy tape drives that has been

> hacked to make it filesystem friendly over the years?

 

And what would we replace it with? BACKUP in particular

on legacy DOS systems was an interesting mess.

>

> Why not search your kernel config file for the word "legacy"

> while you're at it, there's plenty of hits.

 

I see four hits in /usr/src/linux/.legacy:

 

CONFIG_PM_LEGACY=y

CONFIG_MEGARAID_LEGACY=m

# CONFIG_PATA_LEGACY is not set

# CONFIG_LEGACY_PTYS is not set

>

>> Microsoft fixed this with Windows 95

>

> Actually, it fixed it with Windows NT.

 

Actually, it fixed it well prior to that. Win32s

(PW1118.EXE) in particular was available in the Win3.11

timeframe.

 

The copy available at

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/softlib/MSLFILES/PW1118.EXE

is dated 1996-02-19, shortly before Win32s's decommissioning

I can draw no conclusions therefrom.

 

References to WWW, however,

exist to NCSA Mosaic in October 1994:

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/bio-www/1994-October/000082.html

Windows for Workgroups was released in 1993-08-11,

presumably with Win32s following shortly afterwards.

As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.1x explains:

 

Limited compatibility with the (then-new) 32-bit

Windows API used by Windows NT was provided by another

add-on package, Win32s.

 

which suggests that WfWG contained Win32s as part of its

initial release.

>

>> - at which time it was over twenty-five years behind Unix in this

>> regard(*)! Windows NT was also over twenty-five years behind Unix by

>> being multiuser for the first time and finally allowing multiple

>> permissions for the file system. Of course, the filesystem still became

>> severely fragmented after a short amount of normal use - something that

>> still happens with Windows XP, over thirty years behind Unix

>> filesystems.

>

> Oh, I get it, you're one of those people that really has no clue as to the

> history of Unix. You think Unix sprung fully featured from the head of

> Zeus in 1973, ignoring the fact that it too evolved over time.

>

> Here's a hint:

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

 

Another hint: Woolongong. Unix didn't have sockets until

1985 or thereabouts. Windows *actually might beat Unix*

in terms of IPC!

 

To be sure, one has to ask as to what a process was in the

Windows 1.0.1 context...but it's clear DLLs were available

even way back then, and of course they can communicate

with each other -- by calling each others' routines.

Note that the TCP/IP specs -- RFC791 and 793 -- are dated

September 1981. The Wikipedia entry for Unix mentions BSD

introducing TCP/IP network code to the Unix kernel in the

1980s, but doesn't mention an exact year. For its part

Windows 1.0 was released 1985-11-20, followed quickly by

Win2 on 1987-12-09. So it appears BSD4 wins after all,

as it came out in Nov 1980.

 

For its part Winsock came out in June 1992. I'd have

to look regarding IPX, which was very popular during

the DOOM era but never quite caught on.

 

4.2BSD would have been the latest released version when

Win1.0 came out (4.2 came out in Aug 1983, 4.3 came out

in June 1986). Of course the 8088 could not handle BSD

Unix, since it lacked quite a lot of functionality such

as an MMU.

 

Yet another hint:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg

 

And that is the *simplified* variant!

>

> It really wasn't until the mid-80's when the filesystems we think of as

> "unix" filesystems were created. And, given that Windows NT was released

> in 1993, that makes your exagerated timeframe more like "less than 10

> years".

 

The actual file systems are many, varied, and fragmented

(in the logical sense, not necessarily in the data

sense). The Berkeley Fast File System (known to Linux

as UFS) was created around the 4.0BSD timeframe this

is the predecessor, to some extent, of all modern Linux

filesystems today, along with the Minix file system written

in the 1980s by Andrew Tanenbaum. Linux used the Minix

system in 1991 because it was the only one available that

suited his needs, apparently.

 

VFS was added to the kernel in 1992, with ext2 following

closely after, in April. VFS allows multiple file system

types, a significant innovation for Linux (though not a

new idea by any means). ext3, which included journaling,

did not show up as an *idea* until 1999 in a posting by

Stephen Tweedle. I'd have to look regarding reiser and

jfs but they probably showed up about the same time.

 

Most likely, the famed "Linux defragmenting filesystem"

simply doesn't exist, and Linux filesystems, while

better designed (IMO), are prefragmented to begin with,

in an effort to both limit head movement and performance

degradation. Inodes and bitmaps are scattered in clusters

throughout the volume.

 

A bit like putting one folding chair per room, as opposed

to storing them all in the garage.

>

> None of that excuses NTFS for fragmenting,

 

And this is a bad thing precisely why? There are several

problems here, some more serious than others.

 

[1] Fragmentation of the data blocks and scattering them

all over the cylinder. This is not a significant problem,

though it can cause management headaches. [*]

 

[2] Fragmentation of the data blocks and scattering them

across different cylinders. This slows things down as the

unit has to do a head seek. Caching helps when possible.

Note that the paging file is a file in this respect,

and can also fragment, screwing things up if not managed

carefully enough. (Linux has a similar problem if one

decides to append to an inactive swapfile -- a procedure

that is extremely rare.)

 

[3] Growth of the MFS. This is arguably the real problem

with NTFS, and AIUI can bog things down awfully if not

somehow corrected. The more space the MFS takes, the less

is available for other uses. I have no idea whether one

would have to reformat the volume or if tools exist to

shrink it down to size. Diskeeper Lite was eventually

borrowed/bought/nabbed by Microsoft it's not great but

does the job, to some extent.

 

[4] Access. Basically, the fragmentation "problem" is

a means to an end: quicker access to various blocks in

a given file. The real problem is not fragmentation

the real problem is the slowing of file access as the

system evolves, files are created, moved, extended,

possibly truncated, and deleted.

> although there is some research

> which suggests that multi-user server filesystems benefit from filesystem

> fragmentation because disk access is typically fragemented by multiple

> users accessing file simultaneously anyways, but that's a different

> argument.

 

ITYM "the file system" instead of "file". One easy way to

fragment a file system, of course, is to create a lot of

little files randomly in a single directory. That's where

/tmp and /var/tmp come into play.

 

(Not that Windows does that much better, but presumably

that's why the MFS in NTFS was created in the first

place, to offload the smaller file fragmentation problem

into a containment area. Linux can borrow some Solaris

technology, allowing /tmp to sit in a pseudo-filesystem,

entirely resident in virtual memory [+].)

>

>> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86

>> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only

>> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,

>> so it's certainly fair to say that Windows 95 was ten years behind the

>> techonology.

>

> Again, NT was released in 1993, and was in development

> since 87. Further, remember that Microsoft developed

> most of OS/2 up until the 1.3 version. The fact of

> the matter is, Windows 3.x (and 95) were more successful

> than than OS/2 primarily because of legacy support

> that you pan.

 

They were also more technologically advanced, if I'm

not mistaken.

>

>> At least it didn't take MS that long to release 64-bit

>> versions of Windows. It's a shame that they're buggy,

>> slow, have poor driver support and come at an exorbitant price.

>

> 64 bit versions have no price different from their 32 bit

> versions. What are you talking about? And I use 64 bit

> vista every day, it's not buggy, and it's faster

> (marginally, anyways) than the 32 bit version.

 

How much RAM is on one's computer? That's the kicker.

 

word in RAM: a few tens of nanoseconds

word on disc: a few *milliseconds*.

 

That's a 100,000x difference. (To be fair, RAM is loaded

a page at a time, reducing the factor to about 100x --

it's still pretty bad.)

 

Starve a system for RAM and one will have problems, whether

one's using Windows, Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, AmigaOS, HURD,

or even DOS with an extender.

 

[*] of course there's the related problem of the controller

cards lying to the main CPU and the disks lying to the

controller cards, because of that stupid (in retrospect)

CHRN specification that restricted C -- cylinder -- to 10

bits or 1,024 positions. Even today, my laptop reports

that I have a disk with 255 heads and 63 sectors/track,

the Travelstar 80GN IC25N040ATMR04-0. 255 heads wouldn't

quite fit -- though 4 would, if I want to upgrade to

the 80 GB unit, which I eventually do.

 

Since most disks are also variable-geometry (stands to

reason since the head flies over the outer part of the

disc faster it can retrieve more data per second),

good luck keeping all files in the same cylinder, even

with complete information available.

 

[+] of course if one runs out of RAM, /tmp starts to

shuffle into the swap partitions/files, presumably.

I'd frankly have to look.

 

--

#191, ewill3@earthlink.net

Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just

way too frightening to novice users.

 

--

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <ftndvv$7bm$1@registered.motzarella.org>,

White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

> * Perhaps claiming twenty-five years is unfair given that x86

> architecture was originally unable to offer multitasking, which was only

> truly available with 32-bit x86. The i368 was first released in 1985,

 

You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was

utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and

Xenix.

 

The only difficulty in doing Unix on the 286 was that the memory

management model was segment based, not page based. So, for example,

when ISC was doing the port for AT&T from 3B2 to 286, the thing that was

the most work for us was writing a new VM system that was a cross

between a paging system and a swapping system. For the port from 3B2 to

386, we could just bring the 3B2 paging system over, and it mapped

pretty closely to what the 386 offered.

 

--

--Tim Smith

Vista has become more like linux than any other version before it.

 

The only sad thing is that they took the worst linux features instead of the

best.

 

 

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:shcvv3d0nsdesse8kchj3d2u5thkf6vjm0@4ax.com...

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>

>>it's called gpedit.msc, look it up some day.

>

> Is that one of those yucky "command line interface" thingies that

> Wintrolls like to imply is never needed with Windoze?

>

Ron Roberts wrote:

> I can prove I was, can you?

 

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

I dare you to post your signed beta agreement you fukkin lying POS!

Well...we're all waiting...oh and include your beta id # ok sh*thead?

Frank

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:58:06 +0100, White Spirit wrote:

> Hadron wrote:

>> Really? I blame the platform and its users.

>

 

Which makes sense because users and the platforms are responsible for the

software which someone else writes....

 

idiot.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:40:43 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

 

> A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a good

> app.

 

 

Yikes!!

> MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP

> machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the app

> when they bought MusicMatch.

 

Musicmatch is one of the most bloated pieces of software I have ever seen.

It truly sucks and will suck cycles out of a system faster than Monica

Lewinsky can suck a golf ball through 12 feet of garden hose.

 

Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

 

you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

 

 

"Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1pes3fn88vadd$.1w4dbjq8wz4uc.dlg@40tude.net...

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:40:43 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>

>

>> A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a

>> good

>> app.

>

>

> Yikes!!

>

>> MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP

>> machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the app

>> when they bought MusicMatch.

>

> Musicmatch is one of the most bloated pieces of software I have ever seen.

> It truly sucks and will suck cycles out of a system faster than Monica

> Lewinsky can suck a golf ball through 12 feet of garden hose.

>

> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>

> --

> Moshe Goldfarb

> Collector of soaps from around the globe.

> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:50:48 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> You are very confused here. The 286 offered multitasking. This was

> utilized at the consumer level in OS/2, and at the pro level in Unix and

> Xenix.

 

That's true, and there were people doing multitasking on 8086's (GEOS comes

to mind), though this naturally had problems because of the lack of MMU or

higher level priveleges.

> The only difficulty in doing Unix on the 286 was that the memory

> management model was segment based, not page based. So, for example,

> when ISC was doing the port for AT&T from 3B2 to 286, the thing that was

> the most work for us was writing a new VM system that was a cross

> between a paging system and a swapping system. For the port from 3B2 to

> 386, we could just bring the 3B2 paging system over, and it mapped

> pretty closely to what the 386 offered.

 

For unix, yes. For OS/2 there were a number of other factors, for instance

you couldn't very easily put th processor back into protected mode once you

moed it 8086 mode. v86 mode in the 386 solved that problem. But that was

largely for DOS compatibility anyways.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:59:40 +0300, vishhiita prime wrote:

>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>

> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

 

Bloat is a relative term.

 

Is a 3 ton pickup truck "bloated" compared to a sub-compact? No, it does

more.

 

Vista is bigger than XP, does that make it bloated? No. It too does more.

 

Certainly there are somethings in Vista that are bloated, as in, they could

be achieved with fewer resources, but on average a lot of Vista's appetite

is not bloat, but rather it doing the right thing... using resources that

are doing nothing to improve performance.

 

Computers now ship with 2GB of memory standard, for a cost of about $50.

That price is likely to go down even further very quickly. in less than 2

years time 4GB of memory will be $50. Why shouldn't the OS make use of

that memory if it's free?

What you really mean

 

"vishhiita prime" <vee@shhhita.ch> wrote in message

news:47ffc32d$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>

> you are excluding vista itself right? Because bloat king is vista

>

 

Now what you really mean is that you get a nice crown at Burger King.

 

Ask for extra cheese and supersize those fries.

 

>

> "Moshe Goldfarb" <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:1pes3fn88vadd$.1w4dbjq8wz4uc.dlg@40tude.net...

>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:40:43 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>>

>>

>>> A lot of people like Weatherbug too, that doesn't mean Weatherbug is a

>>> good

>>> app.

>>

>>

>> Yikes!!

>>

>>> MusicMatch is a poorly written piece of crap, it barely ran on my XP

>>> machines, much less Vista. That's why Yahoo effectively scrapped the

>>> app

>>> when they bought MusicMatch.

>>

>> Musicmatch is one of the most bloated pieces of software I have ever

>> seen.

>> It truly sucks and will suck cycles out of a system faster than Monica

>> Lewinsky can suck a golf ball through 12 feet of garden hose.

>>

>> Only Symantec is worse in the bloat department from my experience.

>>

>> --

>> Moshe Goldfarb

>> Collector of soaps from around the globe.

>> Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

>> http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

>

>

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:08:59 +0100, Cork Soaker <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote:

>"groovy" <bill.Gerry@greenpond.co.uk.ch> wrote in message

>news:47ff5017@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>: We all know that vista sucks.

>: You may look at vista from many views, and from all of them it sucks.

>: Sure there are a few idiots here and there that deny it.

>: I dont know how they are so blind though.. its scary.

>: But the overwhelming evidence and disgust from the community and the

>: professionals clearly show that vista is a very bad lemon.

>:

>: Not to worry, vista will be history soon and forgotten.

>The ONE thing I like about Vista, and it really is irrelevant because I

>won't use it, is the ability to use Flash drive to "cache" certain file from

>the hard drive.

>I see Intel's "TurboMemory" is designed for this (unless control of the

>"caching" is hardware based? I didn't really read much about it).

 

Yeah, nothing like using something that has 1/3 the read performance and

1/20000th the write performance of a hard drive. Let's the user feel really

really important pluging in something and thinking it might actually make the

slightest positive difference.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:24:01 -0700, Frank <fab@notspam.com> wrote:

>Ron Roberts wrote:

>

>> I can prove I was, can you?

>

>---------------------------------------

>I dare you to post your signed beta agreement you fukkin lying POS!

>Well...we're all waiting...oh and include your beta id # ok sh*thead?

>Frank

 

 

Ever consider anger management Frankie?