FAA allows "crashes"???
kenno
from a Unix system to Windows Advanced(!) Server. Which just happened to
be the recent problem with all the radios on the west coast going out when
AS bluescreened. ("Windows AS shut itself down like it was supposed to" -
yeah, right).
Now, I admit that it has been quite a while since I flew in the left seat
as PIC, but the rules used to be that nothing was allowed in the air or
critical components on the ground that was not certified as appropriate
and qualified for air travel. Has that changed? Windows may be a great
Doom server, but no way no how can it have been legally qualified for use
in air travel without hankypanky on the part of some civil servant and
contractor.
How soon can we get this changed back out, you think?
KNO
Simon Cooke
Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
glancing over it.
Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows crashed.
Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
kenno
> glancing over it.
>
> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows crashed.
>
> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
Your eye isn't critical enough. I hope you don't have to take charge of
any critical infrastructure.
The point is, the old system worked well without any need to shut itself
down on its own accord in the middle of a workday. The only reason that
it was changed out was that the hardware it was running on came over on
the Mayflower and was crapping out.
That is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a critical application
on a game OS.
If you owned a heavy trucking company, would you allow your maintainance
department to replace all your trucks with Toyota pickups because big
Diesel Macks are too complicated to service?
If I were you, I would download an Amtrac schedule like me:-)
KNO
Johannes Bauer
[Simon Cooke drivel snipped]
> Your eye isn't critical enough. I hope you don't have to take charge of
> any critical infrastructure.
He won't. Cooke is yet another Wintroll moron, probably living off
welfare (like Relf... oh no, he just uses foodstamps, alright). Too
blind to see the obvious, too dim to understand it even if he'd see it.
Greetings,
Johannes
--
One can look at the designs of a bridge, realize it's built of tongue
depressers and bubble gum, and from this conclude that it is, indeed,
junk, without once having to take the actual suicidal risk of driving
across it. We do the same with your code. Your code is crap. [...]
- Kelsey Bjarnason in COLA about Jeff Relf's X.EXE
Simon Cooke
>> Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
>> glancing over it.
>>
>> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows crashed.
>>
>> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
>
> Your eye isn't critical enough. I hope you don't have to take charge of
> any critical infrastructure.
>
> The point is, the old system worked well without any need to shut itself
> down on its own accord in the middle of a workday. The only reason that
> it was changed out was that the hardware it was running on came over on
> the Mayflower and was crapping out.
>
> That is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a critical application
> on a game OS.
In other words, the fact that it wasn't the OS at fault, but the
application instead just went way over your head.
There is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a BUGGY critical
application.
Please, go enjoy your Linux OS. It's meant for people like you - that don't
think, but want to play at being "against the establishment".
Simon Cooke
> kenno wrote:
>
> [Simon Cooke drivel snipped]
>
>> Your eye isn't critical enough. I hope you don't have to take charge of
>> any critical infrastructure.
>
> He won't. Cooke is yet another Wintroll moron, probably living off
> welfare (like Relf... oh no, he just uses foodstamps, alright). Too
> blind to see the obvious, too dim to understand it even if he'd see it.
Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS don't you
understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant hypocrit?
Sinister Midget
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:58:41 -0600, kenno wrote:
>
>> I just found out that the FAA has changed their radio voice control
>> from a Unix system to Windows Advanced(!) Server. Which just happened to
>> be the recent problem with all the radios on the west coast going out when
>> AS bluescreened. ("Windows AS shut itself down like it was supposed to" -
>> yeah, right).
> Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
> glancing over it.
>
> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows crashed.
>
> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
It still crashed. It makes no difference which when the plane crashes,
do it?
You might grab hold of your knee, foamy. It's jerking.
--
Klez - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Simon Cooke
Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that forger's
lies.
Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to tell,
flatfish.
Simon Cooke
> On 2004-11-02, Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> sputtered:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:58:41 -0600, kenno wrote:
>>
>>> I just found out that the FAA has changed their radio voice control
>>> from a Unix system to Windows Advanced(!) Server. Which just happened to
>>> be the recent problem with all the radios on the west coast going out when
>>> AS bluescreened. ("Windows AS shut itself down like it was supposed to" -
>>> yeah, right).
>
>> Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
>> glancing over it.
>>
>> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows crashed.
>>
>> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
>
> It still crashed. It makes no difference which when the plane crashes,
> do it?
Alan, that's possibly the most stupid statement I've ever heard.
A quick recap:
Kenno: You shouldn't use Windows, it made the FAA's systems crash.
Me: No, actually, it was the application the FAA was using that crashed. If
it was running on Unix, it would still crash.
Alan Brady: It still crashed. Even though the OS didn't crash, it's still a
problem with windows.
Boy you're fucking stupid.
Daeron
> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS don't
> you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant hypocrit?
>
No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story: Windows
crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A backup system
failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down after 49.7
days is damage control waffle. We all know what such a 'design' is
really called - it's called memory leakage. Wherein an application eats
up memory without returning it to the pool. All achieved by letting the
machine switched on.
"they were investigating five incidents in which planes lost the
required separation distance during the first 15 minutes of the
communications breakdown"
"FAA officials said they had known for more than a year that a software
glitch could shut down radio communications"
"Hamid Ghaffari .. described a scene of high tension Tuesday evening as
controllers .. watched close calls unfold without being able to alert
the pilots"
"You can see planes getting close together, but you can't talk to them,"
said Ghaffari, describing conditions Tuesday evening.
"In one .. The vertical separation at that time was 100 feet"
'Officials from Professional Airways Systems Specialists .. said the
quirk in the system, known as Voice Switching and Control System, is a
"design anomaly"'
"When the system was upgraded about a year ago, the original computers
were replaced by Dell computers using Microsoft software. Baggett said
the Microsoft software contained an internal clock designed to shut the
system down after 49.7 days to prevent it from becoming overloaded with
data."
http://socalscanner.com/2004/091604_1.htm
"Microsoft software implicated in air traffic shutdown"
"A three-hour system shutdown that affected South California's airports
was reportedly caused by a technician who failed to reboot an MS-based
system"
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=414ea2d1%240%242144%24afc...@news.easynet.co.uk&lr=&hl=en
http://snipurl.com/ac5r
JEDIDIAH
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:28:39 -0600, kenno wrote:
>
>> The point is, the old system worked well without any need to shut itself
>> down on its own accord in the middle of a workday. The only reason that
>> it was changed out was that the hardware it was running on came over on
>> the Mayflower and was crapping out.
>>
>> That is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a critical application
>> on a game OS.
>
> In other words, the fact that it wasn't the OS at fault, but the
> application instead just went way over your head.
I'm still not convinced that NT as an OS is completely blameless in
this situation. That site chose to dump a perfectly function (albiet rusty)
application with something WinDOS based.
>
> There is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a BUGGY critical
> application.
>
> Please, go enjoy your Linux OS. It's meant for people like you - that don't
> think, but want to play at being "against the establishment".
If I had a similar application running on any Unix machine, I would
have at my disposal all the tools I needed to ensure that if the application
needed a restart it would not require the intervention of a human that might
screw things up or forget entirely.
I would not be at the mercy of the application vendor.
--
AV is a bandaid over a bulletwound.
|||
Linux posesses no such bulletwounds. / | \
rapskat
Fault at address <1vkv2v2cmma75$.vlh8laj4...@40tude.net>, details...
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:02:07 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2004-11-02, Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net>
>> sputtered:
>>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:58:41 -0600, kenno wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just found out that the FAA has changed their radio voice control
>>>> from a Unix system to Windows Advanced(!) Server. Which just
>>>> happened to be the recent problem with all the radios on the west
>>>> coast going out when AS bluescreened. ("Windows AS shut itself down
>>>> like it was supposed to" - yeah, right).
>>
>>> Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
>>> glancing over it.
>>>
>>> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows
>>> crashed.
>>>
>>> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
>>
>> It still crashed. It makes no difference which when the plane crashes,
>> do it?
>
>
> <snip>, that's possibly the most stupid statement I've ever heard.
>
> A quick recap:
>
> Kenno: You shouldn't use Windows, it made the FAA's systems crash.
>
> Me: No, actually, it was the application the FAA was using that crashed.
> If it was running on Unix, it would still crash.
>
> <snip>: It still crashed. Even though the OS didn't crash, it's still a
> problem with windows.
>
> Boy you're fucking stupid.
What the fuck is it with you and people's personal info? Are you such a
fucking dick that you can't even respect a person's privacy? Do you like
to peep into the windows of little boys when they are getting dressed as
well?
Stupid me, look who I'm talking to - someone completely devoid of any
moral character whatsoever. I should never be suprised when you do
something completely deplorable like this.
--
rapskat - 11:35:57 up 1 day, 15:31, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.21, 0.21
Q: What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous?
A: A canary with the super-user password.
Simon Cooke
> On 2004-11-02, Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:28:39 -0600, kenno wrote:
>>
> [deletia]
>>> The point is, the old system worked well without any need to shut itself
>>> down on its own accord in the middle of a workday. The only reason that
>>> it was changed out was that the hardware it was running on came over on
>>> the Mayflower and was crapping out.
>>>
>>> That is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a critical application
>>> on a game OS.
>>
>> In other words, the fact that it wasn't the OS at fault, but the
>> application instead just went way over your head.
>
> I'm still not convinced that NT as an OS is completely blameless in
> this situation. That site chose to dump a perfectly function (albiet rusty)
> application with something WinDOS based.
So their design/business choice is a Windows flaw?
That's some tortured logic you've got there.
>>
>> There is no excuse to put lives at risk by running a BUGGY critical
>> application.
>>
>> Please, go enjoy your Linux OS. It's meant for people like you - that don't
>> think, but want to play at being "against the establishment".
>
> If I had a similar application running on any Unix machine, I would
> have at my disposal all the tools I needed to ensure that if the application
> needed a restart it would not require the intervention of a human that might
> screw things up or forget entirely.
>
> I would not be at the mercy of the application vendor.
You have the same tools available at your disposal on a Windows machine.
You would still be at the mercy of the application vendor's buggy code.
Daeron
Then why is it the Windows OS requires a shutdown after 49.7 days
instead of gracefully restarting the application.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS don't
>> you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant hypocrit?
>>
> No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story: Windows
> crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A backup system
> failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
Please quote where it says that Windows crashed if it wasn't rebooted once
every 49.7 days in the story.
You'll find that it doesn't say that in the story.
> The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down after 49.7
> days is damage control waffle. We all know what such a 'design' is
> really called - it's called memory leakage. Wherein an application eats
> up memory without returning it to the pool. All achieved by letting the
> machine switched on.
Really? And where do you get that gem from, Daeron? Care to quote your
source instead of just making things up?
> "they were investigating five incidents in which planes lost the
> required separation distance during the first 15 minutes of the
> communications breakdown"
>
> "FAA officials said they had known for more than a year that a software
> glitch could shut down radio communications"
>
> "Hamid Ghaffari .. described a scene of high tension Tuesday evening as
> controllers .. watched close calls unfold without being able to alert
> the pilots"
>
> "You can see planes getting close together, but you can't talk to them,"
> said Ghaffari, describing conditions Tuesday evening.
>
> "In one .. The vertical separation at that time was 100 feet"
These quotes have nothing to do with the OS or the application we're
talking about. But nice attempt to divert the subject.
> 'Officials from Professional Airways Systems Specialists .. said the
> quirk in the system, known as Voice Switching and Control System, is a
> "design anomaly"'
>
> "When the system was upgraded about a year ago, the original computers
> were replaced by Dell computers using Microsoft software. Baggett said
> the Microsoft software contained an internal clock designed to shut the
> system down after 49.7 days to prevent it from becoming overloaded with
> data."
>
> http://socalscanner.com/2004/091604_1.htm
"an internal clock designed to shut the system down"? If so, they did it
themselves, because Windows AS doesn't have that 'feature'.
Yet another case of the blind leading the blind.
> "Microsoft software implicated in air traffic shutdown"
>
> "A three-hour system shutdown that affected South California's airports
> was reportedly caused by a technician who failed to reboot an MS-based
> system"
... which was because the app stalled if it wasn't rebooted, not the OS.
Yet again, the Linux community tries to blame application faults on
Windows.
It's getting pathetic. Don't you guys have some bugs to go fix in GTK?
There's one I opened two years ago which is still marked as "to be fixed
next rev", and keeps getting bumped each time because no-one can figure out
how to fix it.
Simon Cooke
It doesn't. I've run systems for three times that period of time without
needing to reboot.
Windows 95 had a problem like that, where the OS crashed after that amount
of time. These guys apparently are running Windows 2000 Advanced Server -
which doesn't, and never has had that problem.
Simon Cooke
I'm sorry, rapskat... If he stops calling me names, I'll stop using his
name.
Until then, stay out of it. This is between me and Alan.
rapskat
at address <2upqsfF...@uni-berlin.de>, details...
>> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS don't
>> you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant hypocrit?
>>
> No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story: Windows
> crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A backup system
> failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
Isn't this related to the 32bit internal clock issue, like how Linux will
reset the uptime every 497 days? I think Ghost or someone mentioned
something about this recently.
--
rapskat - 12:01:55 up 1 day, 15:57, 2 users, load average: 0.38, 0.19, 0.15
You will remember something that you should not have forgotten.
Simon Cooke
> Error log for Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:27:57 -0500: Daeron caused a Page Fault
> at address <2upqsfF...@uni-berlin.de>, details...
>
>>> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS don't
>>> you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant hypocrit?
>>>
>> No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story: Windows
>> crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A backup system
>> failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
>
> Isn't this related to the 32bit internal clock issue, like how Linux will
> reset the uptime every 497 days? I think Ghost or someone mentioned
> something about this recently.
All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to measure
time. Which, unless you know what you're doing, is the wrong thing to do
for anything that takes over 20 days. You also need to know how to handle
rollover. You also need to know what resolution you need that information
accurate to; because it can be off +/-100ms IIRC.
In other words, yet another "programmer" who thinks they know what they're
doing screws the pooch by not paying attention to details.
They're the 80%'ers - the people who only do 80% of the job, and leave the
20% for others to clean up after them. I hate those guys.
GreyCloud
I wonder what company did the programming? They remind me of Lockheed
shipyard.
Sounds like shoddy programming to me.
--
---------------------------------
Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r
Simon Cooke
Apparently it was Harris Corp.
> Sounds like shoddy programming to me.
Indeed.
GreyCloud
Simon Cooke wrote:
Wasn't the problem about using the wrong API? I've read in another
newsgroup that there was an API that would affect the system after 49.7
days. Something to do with a DWORD value.
Simon Cooke
Yep - GetTickCount has 1ms resolution, so it rolls over at 49.7 days.
They probably shouldn't be relying on a counter value lasting that long
anyway. 49 days is probably way out of the time domain of the problem
they're solving - particularly if the system is designed to failover and
recover from a backup, in which case long term timestamps are obviously not
useful at all.
Which means that they probably don't have any rollover protection in there,
period. Sad really. All it takes is using two values instead of one.
Simon Cocksucker
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:27:57 -0500, Daeron wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS
>>> don't you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant
>>> hypocrit?
>>>
>> No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story: Windows
>> crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A backup system
>> failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
>
> Please quote where it says that Windows crashed if it wasn't rebooted
> once every 49.7 days in the story.
>
> You'll find that it doesn't say that in the story.
>
Here you go, you face-fucked, shitpacking cocksucker:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/15/air_traffic_security/
"The Los Angeles Times reported that the outage was
the result of a worker neglecting to perform a monthly
reset of a Windows-based control system, resulting in
its automatic shutdown after 49.7 days of operation. A
backup system also failed."
Here's the link to the actual story, cocksucker:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-faa16sep16,1,3729661.story
Daeron
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:27:57 -0500, Daeron wrote:
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS
>>> don't you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant
>>> hypocrit?
ha haaa .. ;)
>> No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story:
>> Windows crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A
>> backup system failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
> Please quote where it says that Windows crashed if it wasn't rebooted
> once every 49.7 days in the story.
> You'll find that it doesn't say that in the story.
"Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock
designed to shut the system down after 49.7 days"
>> The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down after
>> 49.7 days is damage control waffle. We all know what such a
>> 'design' is really called - it's called memory leakage. Wherein an
>> application eats up memory without returning it to the pool. All
>> achieved by letting the machine switched on.
> Really? And where do you get that gem from, Daeron? Care to quote
> your source instead of just making things up?
This gem is my opinion hence the reference to 'We all know'
Please quote from any Windows API reference the part that refers to 'an
internal clock designed to shut the
system down after 49.7'.
google groups 'microsoft "memory leak"' = 44,200
google 'microsoft "memory leak"' = 65,800
>> "they were investigating five incidents in which planes lost the
>> required separation distance during the first 15 minutes of the
>> communications breakdown"
any response trollboy ?
>> "FAA officials said they had known for more than a year that a
>> software glitch could shut down radio communications"
any response trollboy ?
>> "Hamid Ghaffari .. described a scene of high tension Tuesday
>> evening as controllers .. watched close calls unfold without being
>> able to alert the pilots"
any response trollboy ?
>> "You can see planes getting close together, but you can't talk to
>> them," said Ghaffari, describing conditions Tuesday evening.
>> "In one .. The vertical separation at that time was 100 feet"
> These quotes have nothing to do with the OS or the application we're
> talking about. But nice attempt to divert the subject.
These quotes have everything to do with Windows putting lives at risk.
>> 'Officials from Professional Airways Systems Specialists .. said
>> the quirk in the system, known as Voice Switching and Control
>> System, is a "design anomaly"'
>> "When the system was upgraded about a year ago, the original
>> computers were replaced by Dell computers using Microsoft software.
>> Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock
>> designed to shut the system down after 49.7 days to prevent it from
>> becoming overloaded with data."
>> http://socalscanner.com/2004/091604_1.htm
> "an internal clock designed to shut the system down"? If so, they did
> it themselves, because Windows AS doesn't have that 'feature'.
Please provide any citation for the existance of any such feature '
designed to shut the system down to prevent data overload'.
Sounds like a memory leak to me .. :)
> Yet another case of the blind leading the blind.
Yet another case of an inappropriate metaphor ..
>> "Microsoft software implicated in air traffic shutdown"
>> "A three-hour system shutdown that affected South California's
>> airports was reportedly caused by a technician who failed to reboot
>> an MS-based system"
> ... which was because the app stalled if it wasn't rebooted, not the
> OS.
What caused the app to stall .. er crash ?
> Yet again, the Linux community tries to blame application faults on
> Windows.
This isn't the Linux community. This is Ray Baggett, vice president of
the Professional Airways Systems Specialists union.
--
Yet another case of trollboys inappropriate and excessive trolling style.
Simon Cooke Sucks Cock
> Error log for Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:03:33 -0800: Simon Cooke caused a
> Page Fault at address <1vkv2v2cmma75$.vlh8laj4...@40tude.net>,
> details...
>
>>
>
> What the fuck is it with you and people's personal info? Are you
> such a fucking dick that you can't even respect a person's privacy?
That's why nobody sheds a tear for that cocksucking shit-faced liar.
What goes around comes around and when it came back to him he
cried "wolf" and was upset because nobody gave a shit.
Daeron
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:04:42 -0500, rapskat wrote:
>> Isn't this related to the 32bit internal clock issue, like how
>> Linux will reset the uptime every 497 days? I think Ghost or
>> someone mentioned something about this recently.
> All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount ..
Please provide any citation that supports the above assertion. That the
radio system in Palmdale used such an app.
Why would an application using 'GetTickCount' require an OS reboot once
every 49.7 days ?
Does use of 'GetTickCount' lead to memory leakage ?
Simon Cooke Sucks Cock
> Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that
> forger's lies.
You were caught, so, give it up, relax, and smoke yourself a nice
meat pipe.
> Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to tell,
> flatfish.
Good one. Let's pick someone else everyone cannot stand and hope
the bullshit sticks.
You fucked up with a major slip, foamy, and got caught with your
pants down. Now, you're taking it up the ass, which shouldn't
be a problem for you anyway given your lifestyle except that it's
happening in public.
Stop pretending you're a stranger to nym shifting, you cocksucking
sack of shit.
Simon Cooke Sucks Cock
> Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that
> forger's lies.
You were caught, so, give it up, relax, and smoke yourself a nice
meat pipe.
> Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to tell,
> flatfish.
Good one. Let's pick someone else everyone cannot stand and hope
Ray Ingles
> Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock designed
Ummm... yeah, right, whatever. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
Now, 2^32/(1000 millisecs/sec)/(3600 secs/hour)/(24 hours/day) = 49.71
days until a 32-bit millisecond counter will roll over. Looks like no
one's learned anything since Windows 95:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - Simplicity made complex.
S.Heenan
> The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down after 49.7
> days is damage control waffle. We all know what such a 'design' is
> really called - it's called memory leakage. Wherein an application
> eats up memory without returning it to the pool. All achieved by
> letting the machine switched on.
Wrong.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/gettickcount.asp
"We all know what such a 'design' is really called - it's called memory
leakage."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Daeron
> Daeron wrote:
> Wrong.
Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount' - Why does
this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or 'becoming overloaded with
data' ?
> BWAHAH~1
Could you ask one of your other personas to provide the citation that
shows that the application used in the radio system at Palmdale used
'GetTickCount.
If not then your entire argument is specious ..
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:27:57 -0500, Daeron wrote:
>
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>>>> Johannes, which part of the application crashing and not the OS
>>>> don't you understand? Or are you admitting that you're a blatant
>>>> hypocrit?
>
> ha haaa .. ;)
>
>>> No, 'the application' didn't crash. According to the story:
>>> Windows crashed if it wasn't rebooted once every 49.7 days. A
>>> backup system failed. A technician forgot to do the rebooting.
>
>> Please quote where it says that Windows crashed if it wasn't rebooted
>> once every 49.7 days in the story.
>
>> You'll find that it doesn't say that in the story.
>
> "Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock
> designed to shut the system down after 49.7 days"
"Designed to shut down" does not mean "Crashed", Daeron.
>>> The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down after
>>> 49.7 days is damage control waffle. We all know what such a
>>> 'design' is really called - it's called memory leakage. Wherein an
>>> application eats up memory without returning it to the pool. All
>>> achieved by letting the machine switched on.
>
>> Really? And where do you get that gem from, Daeron? Care to quote
>> your source instead of just making things up?
>
> This gem is my opinion hence the reference to 'We all know'
Your opinion is something "we all know"? Very odd, Daeron.
> Please quote from any Windows API reference the part that refers to 'an
> internal clock designed to shut the
> system down after 49.7'.
>
> google groups 'microsoft "memory leak"' = 44,200
> google 'microsoft "memory leak"' = 65,800
Memory leaks != "an internal clock designed to shut the system down after
49.7 days", Daeron.
Nice spin attempt, FUDMeister General.
>>> "they were investigating five incidents in which planes lost the
>>> required separation distance during the first 15 minutes of the
>>> communications breakdown"
>
> any response trollboy ?
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Fudmeister Daeron.
>>> "FAA officials said they had known for more than a year that a
>>> software glitch could shut down radio communications"
>
> any response trollboy ?
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Fudmeister Daeron.
>>> "Hamid Ghaffari .. described a scene of high tension Tuesday
>>> evening as controllers .. watched close calls unfold without being
>>> able to alert the pilots"
>
> any response trollboy ?
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Fudmeister Daeron.
>>> "You can see planes getting close together, but you can't talk to
>>> them," said Ghaffari, describing conditions Tuesday evening.
>
>>> "In one .. The vertical separation at that time was 100 feet"
>
>> These quotes have nothing to do with the OS or the application we're
>> talking about. But nice attempt to divert the subject.
>
> These quotes have everything to do with Windows putting lives at risk.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Fudmeister Daeron.
Windows did not cause this problem, therefore Windows was not putting lives
at risk, you lying hypocrit.
>>> 'Officials from Professional Airways Systems Specialists .. said
>>> the quirk in the system, known as Voice Switching and Control
>>> System, is a "design anomaly"'
>
>>> "When the system was upgraded about a year ago, the original
>>> computers were replaced by Dell computers using Microsoft software.
>>> Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock
>>> designed to shut the system down after 49.7 days to prevent it from
>>> becoming overloaded with data."
>
>>> http://socalscanner.com/2004/091604_1.htm
>
>> "an internal clock designed to shut the system down"? If so, they did
>> it themselves, because Windows AS doesn't have that 'feature'.
>
> Please provide any citation for the existance of any such feature '
> designed to shut the system down to prevent data overload'.
>
> Sounds like a memory leak to me .. :)
Which is not an "internal clock designed to shut the system down", you
illiterate prick.
>>> "Microsoft software implicated in air traffic shutdown"
>
>>> "A three-hour system shutdown that affected South California's
>>> airports was reportedly caused by a technician who failed to reboot
>>> an MS-based system"
>
>> ... which was because the app stalled if it wasn't rebooted, not the
>> OS.
>
> What caused the app to stall .. er crash ?
Incorrect design. They most likely used GetTickCount(), not considering the
limitations of that function.
>> Yet again, the Linux community tries to blame application faults on
>> Windows.
>
> This isn't the Linux community. This is Ray Baggett, vice president of
> the Professional Airways Systems Specialists union.
... who is not blaming it on Windows, but on the application.
You're the Linux community member trying to blame application faults on
Windows.
Nice spin attempt. Pity you're so transparent it's laughable.
Simon Cooke
Please provide any citation that supports your assertion that a memory leak
on that system required it to be rebooted.
You don't have even circumstantial evidence of that.
Whereas I do of my case - namely, that GetTickCount rolls over once every
49.7 days, and is the only part of Windows AS that cares about that time
period.
Stop spinning, Daeron, you're just running your credibility into the
ground.
Simon Cooke
> SImeon Heenan wrote:
>
>> Daeron wrote:
>
>>> The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down after
>>> 49.7 days is damage control waffle. We all know what such a
>>> 'design' is really called - it's called memory leakage. Wherein an
>>> application eats up memory without returning it to the pool. All
>>> achieved by letting the machine switched on.
>
>> Wrong.
>
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/gettickcount.asp
>> "We all know what such a 'design' is really called - it's called
>> memory leakage."
>
> Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount' - Why does
> this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or 'becoming overloaded with
> data' ?
Because the guy quoted in the news story doesn't know how the system works,
and is guessing. Like you are, spinmeister.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that
>> forger's lies.
>
> You were caught, so, give it up, relax, and smoke yourself a nice
> meat pipe.
>
>
>> Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to tell,
>> flatfish.
>
> Good one. Let's pick someone else everyone cannot stand and hope
> the bullshit sticks.
>
> You fucked up with a major slip, foamy, and got caught with your
> pants down. Now, you're taking it up the ass, which shouldn't
> be a problem for you anyway given your lifestyle except that it's
> happening in public.
If you really really want me to become a complete asshole and start posting
under lots of different names, I'm more than willing to set up a bot to do
that.
Are you sure that this is what you and the rest of comp.os.linux.advocacy
want?
> Stop pretending you're a stranger to nym shifting, you cocksucking
> sack of shit.
I notice that you still don't have the guts to post under your own name.
Figures. You're all mouth when you don't have to worry about getting your
account shut down, aren't you.
Come back when you have some kind of spine.
Simon Cooke
> In article <2upqsfF...@uni-berlin.de>, Daeron wrote:
>> Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock designed
>> to shut the system down after 49.7 days...
>
> Ummm... yeah, right, whatever. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
>
> Now, 2^32/(1000 millisecs/sec)/(3600 secs/hour)/(24 hours/day) = 49.71
> days until a 32-bit millisecond counter will roll over. Looks like no
> one's learned anything since Windows 95:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
Except for the fact that Windows 2000 doesn't have this problem and never
has, by George, you're right!
Simon Cooke
I notice that you still don't have the guts to post under your own name.
Simon Cooke
I notice that you still don't have the guts to post under your own name.
Daeron
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
What version of Windows were they using at Palmdale ?
Can you provide any citation that shows it was not Windows 2000 ?
Simon Cooke
Windows 2000.
Which, illiterate fuckwit, as quoted by you:
Daeron
>> SImeon Heenan wrote:
>>> Daeron wrote:
>>> Wrong.
'the guy quoted' never mention 'GetTickCount'. I'm not asking him, I'm
asking you. Why does 'GetTickCount' cause a system crash every 49.7
days. Assuming it does. Remember it was you that said.
'All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to measure
time.'
Why do you think the app uses 'GetTickCount' and why does the app crash
after 49.7 days ?
Daeron
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:01:32 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> On 2 Nov 2004 13:32:42 -0400, Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>> In article <2upqsfF...@uni-berlin.de>, Daeron wrote:
>>>>> Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal
>>>>> clock designed to shut the system down after 49.7 days...
>>>> Ummm... yeah, right, whatever. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
>>>> Now, 2^32/(1000 millisecs/sec)/(3600 secs/hour)/(24 hours/day)
>>>> = 49.71 days until a 32-bit millisecond counter will roll over.
>>>> Looks like no one's learned anything since Windows 95:
>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
>>> Except for the fact that Windows 2000 doesn't have this problem
>>> and never has, by George, you're right!
>> What version of Windows were they using at Palmdale ?
Would you mind addressing this question ?
>> Can you provide any citation that shows it was not Windows 2000 ?
Would you mind addressing this question ?
> Windows 2000.
I'm sorry but samples of your typing do not constitute a citation. I
meant from a reputable source.
> Which, illiterate fuckwit, as quoted by you:
> "Windows 2000 doesn't have this problem "
This is you quoting you. What's happened here is in you attempt at
de-railing the thread(s), you confused yourself.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:41:21 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>
>>> SImeon Heenan wrote:
>
>>>> Daeron wrote:
>
>>>>> The reference to an 'internal clock' designed to shut down
>>>>> after 49.7 days is damage control waffle. We all know what such
>>>>> a 'design' is really called - it's called memory leakage.
>>>>> Wherein an application eats up memory without returning it to
>>>>> the pool. All achieved by letting the machine switched on.
>
>>>> Wrong.
>
>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/gettickcount.asp
>>>> "We all know what such a 'design' is really called - it's called
>>>> memory leakage."
>
>>> Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount' - Why
>>> does this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or 'becoming
>>> overloaded with data' ?
>
>> Because the guy quoted in the news story doesn't know how the system
>> works, and is guessing. Like you are, spinmeister.
>
> 'the guy quoted' never mention 'GetTickCount'. I'm not asking him, I'm
> asking you. Why does 'GetTickCount' cause a system crash every 49.7
> days. Assuming it does. Remember it was you that said.
Not a system crash. An application crash.
> 'All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to measure
> time.'
>
> Why do you think the app uses 'GetTickCount' and why does the app crash
> after 49.7 days ?
They assume that the counter doesn't roll over. Which means that they're
checking one value from the counter with another later value. They're
expecting all values returned to be greater than values previously
returned.
This causes big kaboom in their algorithm.
DWORD a = GetTickCount();
sleep(1000);
DWORD b = GetTickCount();
sleep(1000);
DWORD c = GetTickCount();
now, if we're close to the point where the counter rolls over, then you can
end up with this situation:
a < b
a > c
Most likely, they're using the time stamp to access an array, or something
similar. They index the array using a-b or a-c. In the case a - c, they end
up with a negative number, which is huge... which pushes it out of bounds
of the array and causes the app to crash.
Without the code, you can't see what causes it for certain, but this is a
reasonable mechanism.
Daeron
>>>> Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount' -
>>>> Why does this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or 'becoming
>>>> overloaded with data' ?
>>> Because the guy quoted in the news story doesn't know how the
>>> system works, and is guessing. Like you are, spinmeister.
It was *you* who invoked 'GetTickCount' to bolster your argument. I'm
just asking you to back it up. Insulting Baggett does noting for you.
Just demonstrate how low you will go when cornered.
>> 'the guy quoted' never mention 'GetTickCount'. I'm not asking him,
>> I'm asking you. Why does 'GetTickCount' cause a system crash every
>> 49.7 days. Assuming it does. Remember it was you that said.
> Not a system crash. An application crash.
shuffle, shuffle .. fuddie would have been so proud. Any spelling errors
in the above or did it happen before some arbitrary date set by you .. :)
>> 'All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to
>> measure time.'
>> Why do you think the app uses 'GetTickCount' and why does the app
>> crash after 49.7 days ?
> They assume that the counter doesn't roll over ..
"The elapsed time is stored as a DWORD value. Therefore, the time will
wrap around to zero if the system is run continuously for 49.7 days."
According to this the counter will rollover. Whether it does or not is
beside the point. You still havn't addressed why a counter rollover - or
not rollover - causes a total system failure every 49.7 days. In that no
one can radio the airplanes.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>>>>> Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount' -
>>>>> Why does this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or 'becoming
>>>>> overloaded with data' ?
>
>>>> Because the guy quoted in the news story doesn't know how the
>>>> system works, and is guessing. Like you are, spinmeister.
>
> It was *you* who invoked 'GetTickCount' to bolster your argument. I'm
> just asking you to back it up. Insulting Baggett does noting for you.
> Just demonstrate how low you will go when cornered.
If you would like to get Baggett here to defend himself, I'll more than
happily cross-examine him and give him right-of-reply.
Until then, I have to assume that the guy doesn't know what he's talking
about, because he's making NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS.
>>> 'the guy quoted' never mention 'GetTickCount'. I'm not asking him,
>>> I'm asking you. Why does 'GetTickCount' cause a system crash every
>>> 49.7 days. Assuming it does. Remember it was you that said.
>
>> Not a system crash. An application crash.
>
> shuffle, shuffle .. fuddie would have been so proud. Any spelling errors
> in the above or did it happen before some arbitrary date set by you .. :)
Read the rest of the post, moron. I did answer your question, but I also
clarified your attempt at spin instead of just letting it (and you) lie.
>>> 'All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to
>>> measure time.'
>
>>> Why do you think the app uses 'GetTickCount' and why does the app
>>> crash after 49.7 days ?
>
>> They assume that the counter doesn't roll over ..
>
> "The elapsed time is stored as a DWORD value. Therefore, the time will
> wrap around to zero if the system is run continuously for 49.7 days."
>
> According to this the counter will rollover. Whether it does or not is
> beside the point. You still havn't addressed why a counter rollover - or
> not rollover - causes a total system failure every 49.7 days. In that no
> one can radio the airplanes.
I did. Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote.
Here it is again. And note, it's not a total system failure - it's the
FAA's app that crashes, not the OS.
Simon Cooke Cocksucker Extraordinaire
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:06:59 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>
>> 'the guy quoted' never mention 'GetTickCount'. I'm not asking him,
>> I'm asking you. Why does 'GetTickCount' cause a system crash every
>> 49.7 days. Assuming it does. Remember it was you that said.
>
> Not a system crash.
Fuck off, cocksucker. Go suck some cock. Nobody gives a fuck
what you have to say, you lying, nymshifting sack of piss.
Simon Sucks Cocks
> SImeon Heenan wrote:
>
> Could you ask one of your other personas to provide the citation that
> shows that the application used in the radio system at Palmdale used
> 'GetTickCount.
>
> If not then your entire argument is specious ..
S.Hemale isn't Simon Cocksucker. S.Hemale lives and posts from
Toronto in Canada.
Simon Cooke Loves Cock
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:08:37 GMT, Simon Cooke Sucks Cock wrote:
>
>> rapskat wrote:
>>> Error log for Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:03:33 -0800: Simon Cooke caused a
>>> Page Fault at address <1vkv2v2cmma75$.vlh8laj4...@40tude.net>,
>>> details...
>>>
>>>> Alan, that's possibly the most stupid statement I've ever heard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the fuck is it with you and people's personal info? Are you
>>> such a fucking dick that you can't even respect a person's privacy?
>>
>> That's why nobody sheds a tear for that cocksucking shit-faced liar.
>> What goes around comes around and when it came back to him he
>> cried "wolf" and was upset because nobody gave a shit.
>
> I notice
The truth about you being a two-faced cocksucking fairy
shit who can dish it but can't take it?
Simon Cooke
wrote:
Still spineless, I see.
You still don't have the guts to post under your own name.
Figures. You're all mouth. You're a spineless coward, with nothing to back
up your words and posturing.
If you had any balls, you'd post under your own name. You don't - you stab
at me from the safety of your anonymity - because if I knew who you really
were, you wouldn't even dare.
You're pathetic. But hey, don't change the habit of a lifetime.
Simon Cooke
You're the one posting anonymously, fuckwit.
And you're till spineless, I see.
Simon Cooke
Still spineless, I see.
Simon Cooke Loves Cock
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:12:52 GMT, Simon Cooke Sucks Cock wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that
>>> forger's lies.
>>
>> You were caught, so, give it up, relax, and smoke yourself a nice
>> meat pipe.
>>
>>
>>> Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to
>>> tell, flatfish.
>>
>> Good one. Let's pick someone else everyone cannot stand and hope
>> the bullshit sticks.
>>
>> You fucked up with a major slip, foamy, and got caught with your
>> pants down. Now, you're taking it up the ass, which shouldn't
>> be a problem for you anyway given your lifestyle except that it's
>> happening in public.
>>
>> Stop pretending you're a stranger to nym shifting, you cocksucking
>> sack of shit.
>
> I notice
The truth about you being a two-faced cocksucking fairy
shit who can dish it but can't take it?
--
Simon Cooke wrote:
> No, sorry, that's a lie. I posted Bailo's info to stop him from
> posting defaming information about me, as a prelude to legal action.
An admission, also a prelude to legal action. You lost a debate and
that was the extent of your so-called "defamation", you fucking fairy.
OTOH, here is a nice example of defamation:
>> Would you like me to post some links, you cocksucking shit?
>
> Sure.
Ok, then. Here is just a quick sample:
--
Simon Cooke aka foamy smoke meat pipes.
Simon Cooke aka foamy aka a host of other sockpuppets was to quick
to push that "post" button on his newsreader when he was soliciting
for cock.
The message posted below has disappeared:
Just as the message below has also disappeared and Simon tries to
convince his loyal readers that the message was a forgery to cover
his tracks:
He was caught twice in a span of two years having made the
same mistake, which is forgetting to change his newsreader
profile before posting.
More recently he was caught posting as foamy by a very
stupid slip up.
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:12:52 GMT, Simon Cooke Sucks Cock wrote:
>>
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>> Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that
>>>> forger's lies.
>>>
>>> You were caught, so, give it up, relax, and smoke yourself a nice
>>> meat pipe.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to
>>>> tell, flatfish.
>>>
>>> Good one. Let's pick someone else everyone cannot stand and hope
>>> the bullshit sticks.
>>>
>>> You fucked up with a major slip, foamy, and got caught with your
>>> pants down. Now, you're taking it up the ass, which shouldn't
>>> be a problem for you anyway given your lifestyle except that it's
>>> happening in public.
>>>
>>> Stop pretending you're a stranger to nym shifting, you cocksucking
>>> sack of shit.
>>
>> I notice
>
> The truth about you being a two-faced cocksucking fairy
> shit who can dish it but can't take it?
Still spineless, I see.
Daeron
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:33:04 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>>>>> Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount'
>>>>>> - Why does this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or
>>>>>> 'becoming overloaded with data' ?
>>>>> Because the guy quoted in the news story doesn't know how the
>>>>> system works, and is guessing. Like you are, spinmeister.
>> It was *you* who invoked 'GetTickCount' to bolster your argument.
>> I'm just asking you to back it up. Insulting Baggett does noting
>> for you. Just demonstrate how low you will go when cornered.
> If you would like to get Baggett here to defend himself, I'll more
> than happily cross-examine him and give him right-of-reply.
> Until then, I have to assume that the guy doesn't know what he's
> talking about, because he's making NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS.
He is not making NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS. It was you who invoked
'GetTickCount. I asked you to back it up.
Anytime you're cornered you try and provoke someone else to pick a fight
with whoever you are losing the battle with. In the case some tech
support guy mentioned in an article.
'All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to measure
time' See this is you that said it.
Can they still use the radio ?
Simon Cooke
> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:33:04 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>
>>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Assuming the airport radio control app used 'GetTickCount'
>>>>>>> - Why does this wrapping round at 49.7 cause a crash or
>>>>>>> 'becoming overloaded with data' ?
>
>>>>>> Because the guy quoted in the news story doesn't know how the
>>>>>> system works, and is guessing. Like you are, spinmeister.
>
>>> It was *you* who invoked 'GetTickCount' to bolster your argument.
>>> I'm just asking you to back it up. Insulting Baggett does noting
>>> for you. Just demonstrate how low you will go when cornered.
>
>> If you would like to get Baggett here to defend himself, I'll more
>> than happily cross-examine him and give him right-of-reply.
>
>> Until then, I have to assume that the guy doesn't know what he's
>> talking about, because he's making NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS.
>
> He is not making NONSENSICAL STATEMENTS. It was you who invoked
> 'GetTickCount. I asked you to back it up.
Yes, he is making nonsensical statements.
He said - from the article you quoted -
"Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock designed
to shut the system down after 49.7 days to prevent it from becoming
overloaded with data.""
Which is a COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL STATEMENT, as there is no such clock, and
anyone who designed such a "feature" would be a complete and utter idiot.
> Anytime you're cornered you try and provoke someone else to pick a fight
> with whoever you are losing the battle with. In the case some tech
> support guy mentioned in an article.
Really? So you're saying that he's here in this thread then? In that case,
please provide the name he's posting under so I can ask him for more
details.
> 'All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount to measure
> time' See this is you that said it.
Yes. And Baggett still doesn't appear to know shit. He may have been
misquoted, but going off the available data, he's a loon who is guessing
about how the system he's talking about works.
Yes, I have. If you can't read or understand what I wrote, that's not my
problem.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
You're all guessing, you are guessing that GetTickCount is involved,
unless you have actual evidence of it? didn't think so.
It may be that one or more of the guesses are right, doesn't mean you
aren't guessing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBh+i4d90bcYOAWPYRAvwZAKCk4OyUfymv65nyaMYg1wAY3DXJHgCgoIJ2
xmId9Smm3BR3VQQcuhAuB4I=
=jSAM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:55:58 -0800,
Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:14:14 GMT, Simon Cooke Sucks Cock wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>> Oh, and by the way, Alan, I'm not foamy. Please don't spread that
>>> forger's lies.
>>
>> You were caught, so, give it up, relax, and smoke yourself a nice
>> meat pipe.
>>
>>
>>> Foamy is, as far as everyone with a brain appears to be able to tell,
>>> flatfish.
>>
>> Good one. Let's pick someone else everyone cannot stand and hope
>> the bullshit sticks.
>>
>> You fucked up with a major slip, foamy, and got caught with your
>> pants down. Now, you're taking it up the ass, which shouldn't
>> be a problem for you anyway given your lifestyle except that it's
>> happening in public.
>
>
> If you really really want me to become a complete asshole and start posting
> under lots of different names, I'm more than willing to set up a bot to do
> that.
>
> Are you sure that this is what you and the rest of comp.os.linux.advocacy
> want?
>
Why do you make the assumption that an asshole nymshifting forger,
represents the rest of COLA?
>> Stop pretending you're a stranger to nym shifting, you cocksucking
>> sack of shit.
>
> I notice that you still don't have the guts to post under your own name.
> Figures. You're all mouth when you don't have to worry about getting your
> account shut down, aren't you.
>
> Come back when you have some kind of spine.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBh+jpd90bcYOAWPYRAiSKAKCyWuLDkMr5Mt5CP0kLqlreDAxaSwCdFmUD
YxfeWBgV2m7CRdobyksMstA=
=dBmz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you
nothing. It was here first.
-- Mark Twain
S.Heenan
> SImeon Heenan wrote:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Following the linux advocacy playbook I see.
Keep reposting articles. It's all you've ever and will ever be any good at.
You've come a long way from your humble beginnings in an internet cafe.
How's your pal Jack S. ?
Ray Ingles
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
>
> Except for the fact that Windows 2000 doesn't have this problem and never
> has, by George, you're right!
No, it's just had other, related problems:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823273
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;318152
Neither one crashes the system per se, but the rpcss.exe one (consuming
more than 60% of the CPU) is kind of nasty.
I think it probably *was* an app that crashed. But even the programmer
who is pure of heart can still be screwed by Microsoft not learning
from its own mistakes.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The Nevada Supreme Court has said police may plant tracking
devices on or underneath people's cars without a search
warrant." - http://www.politechbot.com/p-03452.html
Sinister Midget
>
> Ummm... yeah, right, whatever. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
>
> Now, 2^32/(1000 millisecs/sec)/(3600 secs/hour)/(24 hours/day) = 49.71
> days until a 32-bit millisecond counter will roll over. Looks like no
> one's learned anything since Windows 95:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
They're still using it. They added NTFS and a lot of bloat. Otherwise
it's the same crap system that had dimbulbs waiting in line overnight
to get their anal orifii probed as soon as Winders 95 was released.
--
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is NO!
Sinister Midget
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:09:50 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:04:42 -0500, rapskat wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't this related to the 32bit internal clock issue, like how
>>>> Linux will reset the uptime every 497 days? I think Ghost or
>>>> someone mentioned something about this recently.
>>
>>> All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount ..
>>
>> Please provide any citation that supports the above assertion. That the
>> radio system in Palmdale used such an app.
>>
>> Why would an application using 'GetTickCount' require an OS reboot once
>> every 49.7 days ?
>>
>> Does use of 'GetTickCount' lead to memory leakage ?
>
> Please provide any citation that supports your assertion that a memory leak
> on that system required it to be rebooted.
All of you Windiots, every last one of you, need to find an english/
reading class, or hire a tutor. Something! You guys are all seeing
things that aren't there a whole lot.
I understand that happenes. We all do it. But this is getting too
consistent and too frequent to think it's mere coincidence.
Perhaps Windwoes X-Bot SP2 broke something that makes you guys look at
"A" and see "B".
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
Sinister Midget
>
>> On 2004-11-02, Simon Cooke <simonREM...@earthREMOVElink.net> sputtered:
>>>
>>>> I just found out that the FAA has changed their radio voice control
>>>> from a Unix system to Windows Advanced(!) Server. Which just happened to
>>>> be the recent problem with all the radios on the west coast going out when
>>>> AS bluescreened. ("Windows AS shut itself down like it was supposed to" -
>>>> yeah, right).
>>
>>> Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
>>> glancing over it.
>>>
>>> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows crashed.
>>>
>>> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
>>
>> It still crashed. It makes no difference which when the plane crashes,
>> do it?
>
>
> Alan, that's possibly the most stupid statement I've ever heard.
>
>
> Kenno: You shouldn't use Windows, it made the FAA's systems crash.
>
> Me: No, actually, it was the application the FAA was using that crashed. If
> it was running on Unix, it would still crash.
>
> Alan Brady: It still crashed. Even though the OS didn't crash, it's still a
> problem with windows.
>
> Boy you're fucking stupid.
You missed the part about your knee jerking. It's still doing it.
--
Bill Gates: "As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to
steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow
figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Sinister Midget
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> If I had a similar application running on any Unix machine, I would
>>>> have at my disposal all the tools I needed to ensure that if the
>>>> application needed a restart it would not require the intervention
>>>> of a human that might screw things up or forget entirely.
>>>>
>>>> I would not be at the mercy of the application vendor.
>>
>>> You have the same tools available at your disposal on a Windows
>>> machine. You would still be at the mercy of the application vendor's
>>> buggy code.
>>
>> Then why is it the Windows OS requires a shutdown after 49.7 days
>> instead of gracefully restarting the application.
>
> It doesn't. I've run systems for three times that period of time without
> needing to reboot.
You must be getting some of those "crazy uptimes" the geniuses at
MICROS~1 say they were seeing. Like 6 months, 8 months.
--
How dare the government intervene to stifle innovation in the computer
industry! That's Microsoft's job, dammit!
Sinister Midget
>
>> Error log for Tue, 02 Nov 2004 08:03:33 -0800: Simon Cooke caused a Page
>> Fault at address <1vkv2v2cmma75$.vlh8laj4...@40tude.net>, details...
>>
>>>
>>>> sputtered:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I just found out that the FAA has changed their radio voice control
>>>>>> from a Unix system to Windows Advanced(!) Server. Which just
>>>>>> happened to be the recent problem with all the radios on the west
>>>>>> coast going out when AS bluescreened. ("Windows AS shut itself down
>>>>>> like it was supposed to" - yeah, right).
>>>>
>>>>> Read the story again, this time with a critical eye, instead of just
>>>>> glancing over it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows didn't crash. The application software running on Windows
>>>>> crashed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or should we blame UNIX every time an application segfaults?
>>>>
>>>> It still crashed. It makes no difference which when the plane crashes,
>>>> do it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A quick recap:
>>>
>>> Kenno: You shouldn't use Windows, it made the FAA's systems crash.
>>>
>>> Me: No, actually, it was the application the FAA was using that crashed.
>>> If it was running on Unix, it would still crash.
>>>
>>> problem with windows.
>>>
>>> Boy you're fucking stupid.
>>
>> to peep into the windows of little boys when they are getting dressed as
>> well?
>
> I'm sorry, rapskat... If he stops calling me names, I'll stop using his
> name.
>
> Until then, stay out of it. This is between me and Alan.
OK, Sherlock. Show me (and everybody else if they care) the name I
called you in this thread. I'll stick around practically all night so
you have ample time to find it.
What I /did/ do was point out that you're knee-jerking all over the
place. Is that namecalling? Hardly.
BTW, your knee is starting to ratchet like a machine gun. Somebody must
have said something uncomplimetary about your religion again. Not
necessarily bad, but if it isn't glowing and sickeningly sweet, you
start shooting in all directions at once.
Like now.
--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.
rapskat
Fault at address <czetp728yoen$.1dsyjxfwszs3r$.d...@40tude.net>, details...
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:09:50 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>
>> Simon Cooke wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:04:42 -0500, rapskat wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't this related to the 32bit internal clock issue, like how Linux
>>>> will reset the uptime every 497 days? I think Ghost or someone
>>>> mentioned something about this recently.
>>
>>> All it means is that their application is using GetTickCount ..
>>
>> Please provide any citation that supports the above assertion. That the
>> radio system in Palmdale used such an app.
>>
>> Why would an application using 'GetTickCount' require an OS reboot once
>> every 49.7 days ?
>>
>> Does use of 'GetTickCount' lead to memory leakage ?
>
> Please provide any citation that supports your assertion that a memory
> leak on that system required it to be rebooted.
>
> You don't have even circumstantial evidence of that.
>
> Whereas I do of my case - namely, that GetTickCount rolls over once
> every 49.7 days, and is the only part of Windows AS that cares about
> that time period.
>
> Stop spinning, Daeron, you're just running your credibility into the
> ground.
I think the most important point here is why was any version of Windows
deployed in that context in the first place?
Regardless of the actual culprit in this instance, Windows is simply not
suitable for mission critical tasks *at all*. No version of Windows to
date has been certified as a telecommunications carrier grade class OS,
which can guarranty 5 9's uptime.
The bottom line is that, whether or not this issue is directly related to
Windows or not, it is not suited for this type of use. I certainly
wouldn't put my life or finances on the line where Windows was involved
considering it's track record, I don't care what the marketing moguls say.
--
rapskat - 20:36:21 up 2 days, 32 min, 2 users, load average: 0.37, 0.42, 0.29
There's small choice in rotten apples.
-- William Shakespeare, "The Taming of the Shrew"
DFS
Spare me the backhanded Windows insult. And spare yourself the ignorance:
what do you know about the servers used at your bank? I'm sure several
versions of Windows handle quite a lot of the transaction processing.
As for guarantees and uptime? Linux just locks up doing even the simplest
things. You can't even exit TuxRacer while RhythmBox is playing without
locking up the screen, forcing a Ctl-Alt-F#. What a joke.
Linux isn't stable or reliable - I don't care what cola nuts say.
Simon Cooke
Who's talking about this thread, Alan? You don't get to set where the
goalposts are.
And for the record, in this thread you did so at least one time:
Message-ID: <slrncofbgr....@home.harry.net>
"You might grab hold of your knee, foamy. It's jerking."
There's that one, where you claim that I'm "foamy".
And there's this one:
Message-ID: <slrncoecnq....@home.harry.net>
And several others.
rapskat
address <10ogfme...@corp.supernews.com>, details...
>> I think the most important point here is why was any version of Windows
>> deployed in that context in the first place?
>>
>> Regardless of the actual culprit in this instance, Windows is simply
>> not suitable for mission critical tasks *at all*. No version of
>> Windows to date has been certified as a telecommunications carrier
>> grade class OS, which can guarranty 5 9's uptime.
>>
>> The bottom line is that, whether or not this issue is directly related
>> to Windows or not, it is not suited for this type of use. I certainly
>> wouldn't put my life or finances on the line where Windows was involved
>> considering it's track record, I don't care what the marketing moguls
>> say.
>
> Spare me the backhanded Windows insult. And spare yourself the
> ignorance: what do you know about the servers used at your bank? I'm
> sure several versions of Windows handle quite a lot of the transaction
> processing.
My Bank doesn't, at least not on the server end.
> As for guarantees and uptime? Linux just locks up doing even the
> simplest things. You can't even exit TuxRacer while RhythmBox is
> playing without locking up the screen, forcing a Ctl-Alt-F#. What a
> joke.
A PROPERLY SETUP AND ADMINISTERED Linux system is multitudes more stable
and secure than any version of Windows. What a clueless winluser like you
experiences trying to play a game or listen to music on Linux is in no way
relevant to Certified Communications Grade Computing.
> Linux isn't stable or reliable - I don't care what cola nuts say.
Perhaps not for you, however if this was the case, it certainly would not
be deployed in nearly as many functions as it has since it's inception.
Windows has been around for a generation and has never seen such a varied
or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
Number 2 and rising fast, baby!
--
rapskat - 21:49:49 up 2 days, 1:45, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.31, 0.31
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain
Simon Cooke
> A PROPERLY SETUP AND ADMINISTERED Linux system is multitudes more stable
> and secure than any version of Windows. What a clueless winluser like you
> experiences trying to play a game or listen to music on Linux is in no way
> relevant to Certified Communications Grade Computing.
Nor are your experiences with Linux - because Linux isn't meant to be used
in such environments either.
rapskat
Fault at address <eluwkv51ki7v$.fta03999...@40tude.net>, details...
Wrong again...
http://www.osdl.org/lab_activities/carrier_grade_linux/documents.html/document_view
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39167606,00.htm
http://www.express-computer.com/20041011/casestudies05.shtml
...and about 645,000 more where those came from.
--
rapskat - 22:40:30 up 2 days, 2:36, 2 users, load average: 0.24, 0.19, 0.18
You teach best what you most need to learn.
Sinister Midget
> What the fuck is it with you and people's personal info? Are you such a
> fucking dick that you can't even respect a person's privacy? Do you like
> to peep into the windows of little boys when they are getting dressed as
> well?
It doesn't bother me that Simon Kook would use my name. I adopted
"Sinister Midget" because I liked it, not because I was trying to hide
my identity. If that was a concern I never would have answered Ewik's
original question about it (knowing full well that His Funkenbuschness
would use it to try tracking down information he could use to discredit
me). Nor would I have posted it in another thread (can't recall the
subject matter, now).
It fascinates me that SCOoke thinks it bothers me and has decided to
use it as a weapon. It fascinates me even more that he tosses such
things out even when I haven't been abusive, then tries claiming
sainthood when he gets called on it later in a thread: "He called me
names first! Make him stop, make him stop!"
> Stupid me, look who I'm talking to - someone completely devoid of any
> moral character whatsoever. I should never be suprised when you do
> something completely deplorable like this.
That, too.
Welcome back, Simian:
1. Any recent claims that an entire group of people, based solely on
the operating system they use, are equivalent to the voice-in-the-head,
lunatic zealots who would fly aircraft into buildings for the purpose
of killing thousands of innocent people?
2. Posted anyone's private information on usenet because they *might*
post yours there? How about anybody who has trumped you in an argument?
3. Threatened anybody lately with lawsuits and court cases for simple
things, such as using the words "illegal alien" together, or
disagreeing with you vehemently?
(Before you start your tirade, make note of what I /didn't/ mention.
Just pointing it out before you start claiming I did, like you usually
do.)
DFS
> Error log for Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:13:38 -0500: DFS caused a Page
> Fault at address <10ogfme...@corp.supernews.com>, details...
>
>>> I think the most important point here is why was any version of
>>> Windows deployed in that context in the first place?
>>>
>>> Regardless of the actual culprit in this instance, Windows is simply
>>> not suitable for mission critical tasks *at all*. No version of
>>> Windows to date has been certified as a telecommunications carrier
>>> grade class OS, which can guarranty 5 9's uptime.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that, whether or not this issue is directly
>>> related to Windows or not, it is not suited for this type of use.
>>> I certainly wouldn't put my life or finances on the line where
>>> Windows was involved considering it's track record, I don't care
>>> what the marketing moguls say.
>>
>> Spare me the backhanded Windows insult. And spare yourself the
>> ignorance: what do you know about the servers used at your bank? I'm
>> sure several versions of Windows handle quite a lot of the
>> transaction processing.
>
> My Bank doesn't, at least not on the server end.
And you know this how?
>> As for guarantees and uptime? Linux just locks up doing even the
>> simplest things. You can't even exit TuxRacer while RhythmBox is
>> playing without locking up the screen, forcing a Ctl-Alt-F#. What a
>> joke.
>
> A PROPERLY SETUP AND ADMINISTERED Linux system is multitudes more
> stable and secure than any version of Windows. What a clueless
> winluser like you experiences trying to play a game or listen to
> music on Linux is in no way relevant to Certified Communications
> Grade Computing.
There's no such thing that I could find. Maybe you're talking about
carrier-grade computing?
In which case, Windows is all over the place:
http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/carrier_grade/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IGP/is_10_4/ai_80224563
http://www.apexvoice.com/DocumentPresentor.php?DocumentName=aps-win
http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5123
http://www.itpapers.com/abstract.aspx?scid=273&docid=92244
You're as uninformed as you are biased.
>> Linux isn't stable or reliable - I don't care what cola nuts say.
>
> Perhaps not for you, however if this was the case, it certainly would
> not be deployed in nearly as many functions as it has since it's
> inception.
> Windows has been around for a generation and has never
> seen such a varied or rapid-spread adoption.
What? That's total bullshit. But what else to expect from a Linux nutcase?
> At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant Windows as the dominant
desktop OS on the
> planet in less than 3 years.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!!!! If there's one thing you Linux nutcases do
have, it's eternal optimism even in the face of hugely contradictory
evidence.
Tell you what: how much real money do you want to bet on that? We can find
a neutral attorney we both agree on, and put the money in escrow, and in
November 2007 someone gets to take all the money. I'll go with any amount
up to $10,000.00.
Of course you and I will have to first agree how that "dominance" is to be
measured.
So, what'll it be - care to put your money where your mouth is? Or would
you rather retract that bit of hyperbole and admit you've been sniffing
paint and you need an intervention?
> Number 2 and rising fast, baby!
LOL!
Sinister Midget
Oh my gawd!!!!!!!!!! How could anybody /be/ so awful???
> There's that one, where you claim that I'm "foamy".
>
> And there's this one:
> Message-ID: <slrncoecnq....@home.harry.net>
How terrible of me!
> And several others.
I presume this means you're going to pull all the stops, because I
dared call /you/ foamy, or that I pointed out that Dickbell wanted to
assume (much like you have been doing) that someone who is a jerk has
to be a linux user!!
You have been a jerk, SiMoN. You've had to apologize for it before. I
didn't say anything that wasn't already widely-known. I won't pull one
of your tricks, but a poll, if one were taken, would likely find a
fairly large sentiment for that assessment.
--
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
rapskat
address <10ogn37...@corp.supernews.com>, details...
> rapskat wrote:
>> Error log for Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:13:38 -0500: DFS caused a Page Fault
>> at address <10ogfme...@corp.supernews.com>, details...
>>
>>>> I think the most important point here is why was any version of
>>>> Windows deployed in that context in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of the actual culprit in this instance, Windows is simply
>>>> not suitable for mission critical tasks *at all*. No version of
>>>> Windows to date has been certified as a telecommunications carrier
>>>> grade class OS, which can guarranty 5 9's uptime.
>>>>
>>>> The bottom line is that, whether or not this issue is directly
>>>> related to Windows or not, it is not suited for this type of use. I
>>>> certainly wouldn't put my life or finances on the line where Windows
>>>> was involved considering it's track record, I don't care what the
>>>> marketing moguls say.
>>>
>>> Spare me the backhanded Windows insult. And spare yourself the
>>> ignorance: what do you know about the servers used at your bank? I'm
>>> sure several versions of Windows handle quite a lot of the transaction
>>> processing.
>>
>> My Bank doesn't, at least not on the server end.
>
> And you know this how?
Because I do.
>>> As for guarantees and uptime? Linux just locks up doing even the
>>> simplest things. You can't even exit TuxRacer while RhythmBox is
>>> playing without locking up the screen, forcing a Ctl-Alt-F#. What a
>>> joke.
>>
>> A PROPERLY SETUP AND ADMINISTERED Linux system is multitudes more
>> stable and secure than any version of Windows. What a clueless
>> winluser like you experiences trying to play a game or listen to music
>> on Linux is in no way relevant to Certified Communications Grade
>> Computing.
>
> There's no such thing that I could find. Maybe you're talking about
> carrier-grade computing?
>
> In which case, Windows is all over the place:
>
> http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/carrier_grade/
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IGP/is_10_4/ai_80224563
> http://www.apexvoice.com/DocumentPresentor.php?DocumentName=aps-win
> http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5123
> http://www.itpapers.com/abstract.aspx?scid=273&docid=92244
>
> You're as uninformed as you are biased.
HAHAHA!!! Nice, what'd you do...a quick google search and copy-pasted the
first few links that came up? Did you even bother to *read* any of these?
Here's a hint, _not one_ of those links mentions anything about Windows
actually being *used* for this task. AAMOF, most of those links mention
Linux or some other form of 'nix first.
None of these state that any version of Windows is certified for Carrier
Grade Computing, because it's not. Linux is.
>>> Linux isn't stable or reliable - I don't care what cola nuts say.
>>
>> Perhaps not for you, however if this was the case, it certainly would
>> not be deployed in nearly as many functions as it has since it's
>> inception.
>
>> Windows has been around for a generation and has never seen such a
>> varied or rapid-spread adoption.
>
> What? That's total bullshit. But what else to expect from a Linux
> nutcase?
Linux went from a bare bones kernel to one of the most popular OSen in use
today in little more than a decade, without the backhanded business
tactics that propelled M$ to the top.
>> At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant Windows as the dominant
>> desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!!!!!! If there's one thing you Linux nutcases do
> have, it's eternal optimism even in the face of hugely contradictory
> evidence.
The evidence is everywhere.
> Tell you what: how much real money do you want to bet on that? We can
> find a neutral attorney we both agree on, and put the money in escrow,
> and in November 2007 someone gets to take all the money. I'll go with
> any amount up to $10,000.00.
>
> Of course you and I will have to first agree how that "dominance" is to
> be measured.
>
> So, what'll it be - care to put your money where your mouth is? Or
> would you rather retract that bit of hyperbole and admit you've been
> sniffing paint and you need an intervention?
Oh geez, are we back to this chestnut? What is it with you and the $10K
thing? Do you owe money to some shady character who has threatened to
rupture parts of your anatomy or something? Perhaps you're trying to pay
off the loan for your Windows licenses?
Whatever, I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting money like that on someone
like you, especially when I know I am right.
However, if you are really so intent on divesting yourself of that much
cash, I would be glad to setup your system(s) with Linux and show you
howto use and administer them properly, since you don't seem to be able to
on your own. Ten grand should just about cover my fees. ;-)
>> Number 2 and rising fast, baby!
>
> LOL!
Exactly.
--
rapskat - 01:07:47 up 2 days, 5:03, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.55, 1.08
You have literary talent that you should take pains to develop.
Sinister Midget
> rapskat wrote:
>
>> or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
>> Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
>
> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
Who's fault is that you can't predict the future? Don't come blaming
anyone here for your own mistakes.
> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to the
> point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping the
> last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows 2000
> just yesterday afternoon.
That last part isn't the problem of anyone here either. You made your
bed. Sleep in it.
You seem to have trouble keeping your story straight. Even in the same
post you've altered it to whatever the voices tell you it should be.
Simon Cooke
> Welcome back, Simian:
>
> 1. Any recent claims that an entire group of people, based solely on
> the operating system they use, are equivalent to the voice-in-the-head,
> lunatic zealots who would fly aircraft into buildings for the purpose
> of killing thousands of innocent people?
No. Not that I made any such claims in the first place - as you well know,
Alan.
> 2. Posted anyone's private information on usenet because they *might*
> post yours there? How about anybody who has trumped you in an argument?
No - and nor did I do that in the first place, Alan. Please don't twist the
facts.
> 3. Threatened anybody lately with lawsuits and court cases for simple
> things, such as using the words "illegal alien" together, or
> disagreeing with you vehemently?
Which, given the climate in the US at the time, was perfectly valid.
Sorry Alan... I wasn't aware that you were in the habit of acting like an
idiot. Now I know differently.
rapskat
Fault at address <cm9t50$1nqg$1...@bdhi.net>, details...
> rapskat wrote:
>
>> or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
>> Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
>
> Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
Most people are like this. They could care less about what platform they
use, they just want to use the computer to do a set range of tasks. This
is why LGX/OSS is perfect for them.
> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to
> the point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping
> the last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows
> 2000 just yesterday afternoon.
I'm confused here. First you state that you first got into Linux around
late-'97. Now you are stating that you've slowly lost interest in Linux
since mid '91? Linux wasn't even "born" until late '91, and even then it
wasn't much more than a barebones kernel with some GNU tools ported to it.
FreeBSD wasn't released until '93 from what I grok.
> It was a fun ride as Linux has this irreplaceable 'coolness' about it,
> but in the end, it doesn't run the applications I use to earn a living
> with so it's gotta' go. For now, anyway. Maybe it'll become dominant and
> get the applications I need, and maybe it won't, but it's definitely not
> going away any time soon.
With the exception of some very specialist niche apps, Linux has decent
apps for just about everything. I would be curious to hear what apps that
are keeping you "locked in".
--
rapskat - 02:21:01 up 2 days, 6:16, 2 users, load average: 0.37, 0.40, 0.34
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less
than half of you half as well as you deserve.
-- J. R. R. Tolkien
Sinister Midget
>> Welcome back, Simian:
>>
>> 1. Any recent claims that an entire group of people, based solely on
>> the operating system they use, are equivalent to the voice-in-the-head,
>> lunatic zealots who would fly aircraft into buildings for the purpose
>> of killing thousands of innocent people?
>
> No. Not that I made any such claims in the first place - as you well know,
> Alan.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=linux+zealot+group:comp.os.linux.advocacy+author:simon+author:cooke&hl=en&lr=&selm=txz9a.4763%24gF3.505634%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net&rnum=8
http://tinyurl.com/452jc
http://www.google.com/groups?q=linux+zealot+group:comp.os.linux.advocacy+author:simon+author:cooke&hl=en&lr=&selm=pan.2003.03.15.21.35.46.370000%40earthliNOSPAMnk.net&rnum=10
http://tinyurl.com/58z65
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=_w69a.2533%24gF3.270228%40newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://tinyurl.com/5frtu
>> 2. Posted anyone's private information on usenet because they *might*
>> post yours there? How about anybody who has trumped you in an argument?
>
> No - and nor did I do that in the first place, Alan. Please don't twist the
> facts.
I was mistaken about the "why" of the situation, but not about the
"what":
http://www.google.com/groups?q=520+lawyer+group:comp.os.linux.advocacy+author:simon+author:cooke&hl=en&lr=&selm=lrqynrr4rsyk.fh9nvy2znk0e.dlg%4040tude.net&rnum=2
http://tinyurl.com/4tnxz
But it's /not/ OK for someone to take information that can be found on
the internet, that /you/ put there, to point it out:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3493086702d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=1wuanfn7oojch%24.1rwfy7rltblul.dlg%4040tude.net
http://tinyurl.com/6f73b
(BTW, the web link is /still/ valid, though picture placement has changed.)
>> 3. Threatened anybody lately with lawsuits and court cases for simple
>> things, such as using the words "illegal alien" together, or
>> disagreeing with you vehemently?
>
> Which, given the climate in the US at the time, was perfectly valid.
>
> Sorry Alan... I wasn't aware that you were in the habit of acting like an
> idiot. Now I know differently.
Sorry, Simon... I wasn't aware that you expected everyone to forget the
person that you are. Now I know differently.
--
"Ironically, Microsoft's efforts to deny interoperability of Windows with
legitimate non-Microsoft applications have created an environment in which
Microsoft's programs interoperate efficiently only with Internet viruses."
- Dan Geer.
Sinister Midget
>
>> On 2004-11-03, Black Dragon <b...@thedragons.lair> sputtered:
>>> rapskat wrote:
>
>>>> or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
>>>> Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
>
>>> Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
>>> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
>>> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
>>> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
>>> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
>>> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
>
>> Who's fault is that you can't predict the future? Don't come blaming
>> anyone here for your own mistakes.
>
> conversation with rapskat. Unlike you, he has a brain. Brains are rather
> handy to have during conversations. Try it sometime. You might like it.
I have tried one. Need someone to point one out so you can have a test
run?
> I didn't make any mistakes.
Coulda fooled me. But didn't.
> I'm not blaming anyone for anything.
Coulda fooled me. But I asked myself: Why would someone come to a
/linux advocacy/ group and start trashing linux without provocation
and have trouble keeping his years of use and dates straight within the
same post?
Guess what. It came back the same answer it always does: trolling.
I have this sensor that detects these things. I suppose it's just one
of those burdens we all must carry.
>>> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to the
>>> point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping the
>>> last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows 2000
>>> just yesterday afternoon.
>
>> That last part isn't the problem of anyone here either. You made your
>> bed. Sleep in it.
>
> There aren't any problems except the ones derived from your own paranoia
> and resultant attitude. In other words, the problems are perceived in
> your own head.
Coulda fooled me. I didn't even realize I was in a /linux advocacy/
group going on about switching to Windwoes 2K and arguing about whther
linux is making gains or no. Thanks for pointing the way.
>> You seem to have trouble keeping your story straight.
>
> The only trouble I'm having is trying to see from your point of view
> because I can't get my head that far up my ass.
You really should go back and read your own words. Yep, they're all
still there, not snipped by you, not snipped by me. Take a peek, why
dontcha?
> HTH
No.
> HAND
Absolutely!
--
Windows isn't unstable. It's spontaneous!
Sinister Midget
> Error log for Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:17:04 -0500: Black Dragon caused a Page
> Fault at address <cm9t50$1nqg$1...@bdhi.net>, details...
.....
>> Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
>> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
>> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
>> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
>> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
>> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
.....
>> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to
>> the point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping
>> the last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows
>> 2000 just yesterday afternoon.
>
> I'm confused here. First you state that you first got into Linux around
> late-'97. Now you are stating that you've slowly lost interest in Linux
> since mid '91? Linux wasn't even "born" until late '91, and even then it
> wasn't much more than a barebones kernel with some GNU tools ported to it.
> FreeBSD wasn't released until '93 from what I grok.
Be careful! He'll call you an idiot because his clock works backward.
And then forward again.
Or does it keep working perpetually backward? Maybe his calendar goes
97-98-92-94-91-02-96-04 or something.
--
Nimda: An original Microsoft web crawler.
Daeron
> In article <2upqsfF...@uni-berlin.de>, Daeron wrote:
>> Baggett said the Microsoft software contained an internal clock
>> designed to shut the system down after 49.7 days...
> Ummm... yeah, right, whatever. 2^32 = 4,294,967,296.
> Now, 2^32/(1000 millisecs/sec)/(3600 secs/hour)/(24 hours/day) =
> 49.71 days until a 32-bit millisecond counter will roll over. Looks
> like no one's learned anything since Windows 95:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
<quote daeron>
This looks like a repeat of the 'clock slow down bug' as it resides in
the same VXD. 2^32 / 1000 / 3600 / 24 = 49.710269629 recurring
A windows system function uses a 32 bit unsigned variable to store a
value that increments once every millisecond results in the value over
clocking every 49.710269629 precisely. The system crashes every
49.710269629 precisely. The source of this crash can be reasonably
deduced to be this function.
What's happening here is that the system clock slows down so much that
GetTickCount() cycles round before the next comparison and confuses the
Application. So any bounds testing in the application code would be
meaningless. See this quote 'I have also been losing time at about a
rate of 8 to 10 minutes per 24 hour period' and 'developers reported
their clocks were losing as much as a second every minute'. What would
that do to range checking that is expecting a difference of a few
milliseconds ?
</quote daeron>
"SYMPTOMS
After 49.7 days of continuous operation, your Windows-based computer may
stop responding (hang)."
"CAUSE
This problem can occur because of a timing algorithm in the Vtdapi.vxd
file."
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/216641/EN-US/
------
SUMMARY: Users began reporting their clocks were slowing down after
crashing (i.e., not correctly shutting down). Most of the users
reporting the problem were developers who were using our SDK with Visual
Studio 5 (97). Developers reported their clocks were losing as much as a
second every minute.
[...]
The reason that the system clock was slowing down was that interrupts
were being turned off repeatedly for a very long period of time. The
questions were, where and why.
[...]
To cure the problem, I added code the VTDAPI.VXD that has it remove the
timers owned by threads that are being destroyed. This code should have
been in VTDAPI.VXD from the beginning. Its omission is essentially a
coding error in VTDAPI.VXD.
[...]
Microsoft's fix for a similar clock error, the "49.7-day
continuous-operation bug", appears to correct the system clock slowdown
bug as well
http://computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/4492.html
------
"The servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to
prevent a data overload .. To avoid this automatic shutdown, technicians
are required to restart the system manually every 30 days"
"the company completed testing of the VSCS Control Subsystem Upgrade
(VCSU), which replaced the original servers with off-the-shelf Dell
hardware running Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server"
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=2275
------
"The 49.7 day timed shutdown seemed like an odd number so I did a
google. There are tons of mentions about Windows 98 crashing at exactly
49.7 days. This bug was found way back in 1999."
'So if a bug is very predictable does it then become a feature which is
a "timed to shutdown at 49.7 days"?'
See jpeg of original article here and comments
http://snipurl.com/acvo
http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=lounge&Number=198352&page=19&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&part=all
Black Dragon
> On 2004-11-03, Black Dragon <b...@thedragons.lair> sputtered:
>> rapskat wrote:
>>> or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
>>> Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
>> Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
>> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
>> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
>> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
>> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
>> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
> Who's fault is that you can't predict the future? Don't come blaming
> anyone here for your own mistakes.
For starters, I wasn't talking to you. I was trying to have a
conversation with rapskat. Unlike you, he has a brain. Brains are rather
handy to have during conversations. Try it sometime. You might like it.
I didn't make any mistakes.
I'm not blaming anyone for anything.
>> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to the
>> point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping the
>> last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows 2000
>> just yesterday afternoon.
> That last part isn't the problem of anyone here either. You made your
> bed. Sleep in it.
There aren't any problems except the ones derived from your own paranoia
and resultant attitude. In other words, the problems are perceived in
your own head.
> You seem to have trouble keeping your story straight.
The only trouble I'm having is trying to see from your point of view
because I can't get my head that far up my ass.
HTH
HAND
--
Black Dragon /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
\ / against HTML mail and
Hell, rocket science isn't even rocket science. X postings.
A NASA Rocket Scientist; Undernet; circa 1996 / \
Black Dragon
> Error log for Wed, 03 Nov 2004 01:17:04 -0500: Black Dragon caused a Page
> Fault at address <cm9t50$1nqg$1...@bdhi.net>, details...
>> rapskat wrote:
>>> or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
>>> Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
>> Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
>> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
>> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
>> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
>> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
>> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
> Most people are like this. They could care less about what platform they
> use, they just want to use the computer to do a set range of tasks. This
> is why LGX/OSS is perfect for them.
>> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to
>> the point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping
>> the last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows
>> 2000 just yesterday afternoon.
> I'm confused here. First you state that you first got into Linux around
> late-'97. Now you are stating that you've slowly lost interest in Linux
> since mid '91? Linux wasn't even "born" until late '91, and even then it
> wasn't much more than a barebones kernel with some GNU tools ported to it.
> FreeBSD wasn't released until '93 from what I grok.
Gah! I'm stuck in a time warp here, wishing I was back in the mid 90's when
work in my field was plentiful instead of dwindling like it is now. <smacks
forehead with palm of hand> I meant '01 and '02 when I wrote '91 and '92.
I hate it when stuff like that happens, it's embarrassing!
>> It was a fun ride as Linux has this irreplaceable 'coolness' about it,
>> but in the end, it doesn't run the applications I use to earn a living
>> with so it's gotta' go. For now, anyway. Maybe it'll become dominant and
>> get the applications I need, and maybe it won't, but it's definitely not
>> going away any time soon.
> With the exception of some very specialist niche apps, Linux has decent
> apps for just about everything. I would be curious to hear what apps that
> are keeping you "locked in".
The programs I use on a daily basis are Cadkey (now called KeyCreator),
Solidworks, and Mastercam.
http://www.kubotekusa.com
http://www.solidworks.com
http://www.mastercam.com
And I don't really see it as being locked in. I see it as choosing the
applications that best suits my needs and I can afford, and running them
on the platform they require. If I had bottomless pockets, I'd happily go
for some higher end software that runs on HP-UX, Irix, or Solaris, but
that'd end up being more for bragging rights amongst my peers as it'd be
way overkill for my needs. :-)
Black Dragon
> or rapid-spread adoption. At it's current rate, LGX/OSS will supplant
> Windows as the dominant desktop OS on the planet in less than 3 years.
Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to the
point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping the
last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows 2000
just yesterday afternoon.
It was a fun ride as Linux has this irreplaceable 'coolness' about it,
but in the end, it doesn't run the applications I use to earn a living
with so it's gotta' go. For now, anyway. Maybe it'll become dominant and
get the applications I need, and maybe it won't, but it's definitely not
going away any time soon.
--
Linønut
> It was a fun ride as Linux has this irreplaceable 'coolness' about it,
> but in the end, it doesn't run the applications I use to earn a living
> with so it's gotta' go.
Why does it have to go? You can't afford two computers?
--
Penguins love icebergs.
Linønut
[the same post twice]
You're repeating some of your posts.
Linønut
You're fat-fingering the post-it key.
--
Penguins love icebergs.
Black Dragon
> [the same post twice]
No, I'm not. You replied to a forgery. I post only from Altopia. See the
Path: headers.
Black Dragon
> Black Dragon poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> You're fat-fingering the post-it key.
Nope. You're replying to forgeries. Check the headers.
Black Dragon
Whether or not I can afford two computers is irrelevant.
You snipped away the part of my post saying that I lost interest in
using it. Why bother leaving something that's never going to be used
sitting on a disk which can be put to better use?
It's not like I wiped some mysterious and irreplaceable Linux distro',
Linux is easily obtainable on demand.
Linux-User
> On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 19:33:04 +0000, Daeron wrote:
>
> They assume that the counter doesn't roll over. Which means that they're
> checking one value from the counter with another later value. They're
> expecting all values returned to be greater than values previously
> returned.
>
Probably a good assumption, it is based on the fact that the machine has
actually been up and running for 49+ days to begin with, in my experience,
Windowqs (any version) usually needs a kickstart sometime before then any
ways, so the counter probably never gets a chance to rollover....
Erik Funkenbusch
> It doesn't bother me that Simon Kook would use my name. I adopted
> "Sinister Midget" because I liked it, not because I was trying to hide
> my identity. If that was a concern I never would have answered Ewik's
> original question about it (knowing full well that His Funkenbuschness
> would use it to try tracking down information he could use to discredit
> me). Nor would I have posted it in another thread (can't recall the
> subject matter, now).
You're awfully black there Mr. Pot. In a previous message you were
swearing up and down that didn't call people names, now here you are doing
it unprovoked. I have never used your personal information as you claim,
either. Further, you have no problems whatsoever repeating personal
information about people.
> 2. Posted anyone's private information on usenet because they *might*
> post yours there? How about anybody who has trumped you in an argument?
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=fbp2t-sm8.ln1%40host.newsservicer.org
While you didn't originally post it, you had no problems repeating it.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Ya' know, I used to think that when I first got into Linux approximately
>> seven years ago, late in '97. Used to go around telling everybody that
>> too, but I was saying 5 years. In '98 I was saying 5 years, in '99 more
>> of the same, in 2000 I predicted closer to three. Those years have all
>> come and gone and outside of the few sysadmin geek type people I know,
>> few have ever heard of Linux and most couldn't care less about OS's.
>
> Most people are like this. They could care less about what platform they
> use, they just want to use the computer to do a set range of tasks. This
> is why LGX/OSS is perfect for them.
Except that Linux can't *DO* the range of tasks that a typical end user
would want, primarily due to a lack of available applications. There are
entire classes of applications that are virtually non-existant on Linux,
such as children's educational software. That's a VERY important home PC
application.
Also, considering that games are a huge reason people buy computers as
well, the fact that most games are not available for Linux will keep it in
a niche as well. The same reason the Mac has a hard time.
Now, let's look at some of the apps people I know use all the time, and
tell me the Linux equivelents.
Starry Night Pro
WinStar Express
Hallmark Greeting Card Maker
Act, goldine, etc..
Family Tree Maker
Everquest
City of Hero's
Sims 2
Reader Rabbit
Encarta
Streets and Trips
All of these things have *ZERO* equivelent on Linux, or at best a half
hearted, barely useable effort.
Until such applications are available for Linux, and a wide selection of
them, it's not going to gain much ground in the home.
>
>> Since mid '91 I've slowly lost interest in it (Linux) all together to
>> the point of installing FreeBSD on the server in late '92ish and wiping
>> the last Linux running (dual boot) workstation clean in favor of Windows
>> 2000 just yesterday afternoon.
>
> I'm confused here. First you state that you first got into Linux around
> late-'97. Now you are stating that you've slowly lost interest in Linux
> since mid '91? Linux wasn't even "born" until late '91, and even then it
> wasn't much more than a barebones kernel with some GNU tools ported to it.
> FreeBSD wasn't released until '93 from what I grok.
I think that was a typo. I think he meant 2001 and 2002.
> With the exception of some very specialist niche apps, Linux has decent
> apps for just about everything. I would be curious to hear what apps that
> are keeping you "locked in".
Really? You consider any of the above "niche" apps? Not.
There are hundreds of categories of software out there without any, or very
minimal linux equivelents.