| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 1999/8/3 [Recreation/Dating] UID:16229 Activity:high |
8/3 Will anybody be holding a "How not to hit on every EECS chick you see."
help session?
\_ There would be more turnout for a "How to score with every
EECS chick you see" session.
Then again, given how most of them look...
\_ You been on campus lately son?
\_ There'd be the problem of who to teach the course....
\_ Well, jean is cute, anjie is wild, and fonger is kinda okay too. |
| 1999/8/3 [Reference/Tax] UID:16230 Activity:high |
8/3 Where is Amazon located? If I buy a book through Amazon and the
central "hub" is in California, will there be a CA sales tax,
or will it be excluded like all other mail orders?
\_ Amazon ships from Nevada. Doesn't matter though. Sales tax is
required to be charged on all mail orders from companies with a
location in California, no matter where they ship from.
\_ Amazon doesn't charge CA residents sales tax.
\_ They're supposed to.
\_ Why? They're not in CA.
\_ If they have an office, warehouse or any other
'business facilities' in CA, then they are in
California and are sposed to do the tax thing.
\_ But Amazon doesn't have ANY of those in
CA, unless we've annexed Nevada or Seattle
Delaware:
recently.
\_ I thought they had a warehouse. Guess
not.
\_ Really? I thought the hub is in Seattle. I have some software
engineer friends working for Amazon in Seattle, and they quite
often have to help packaging shipments when there are too many
incoming orders. -- yuen
\_ Seattle is corporate hq. They have distrubution centers
around the country, including Nevada, Kentucky, Kansas,
Washington, & Delaware:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/misc/press-releases/kentucky-dcs.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/subst/help/sales-tax.html |
| 1999/8/3 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:16231 Activity:very high |
8/3 Can anybuddy tell me which process of Linux actively looks for a
nameserver or ISP after I perform a "route add -net ...."? I live
in a place where it costs money each time I make a phone call and
for each minute I spend on the phone. I.e., I don't want any
processes just checking to see if there's a good connection or not
every once in a while. I'm using RedHat 5.2, I don't ride a bike.
Thanx. --mtbb.
\_ this is easily found on <DEAD>linux.org<DEAD> FAQs..., but here's the rough
info: edit nsswitch.conf to have "hosts: files dns"
edit resolv.conf to have "nameserver 128.32.102.9" <
that was a slow berkeley nameserver
good luck !
\_ The FAQs suck. It's total super linuxoid geek trash and
hard to read through, or even find in the first place.
\_I suggest - that if you want to have a long-term
useful & working linux system, that you read the docs.
if you can't do that, you shouldn't be in Berkeley,
or CS, or eecs.
\_ I'm not in Berkeley anything. I'm just a user
waiting for linux to be useful for non-super
geekoids. Heap abuse on me all you want but it'll
never touch windows until normal people can use it.
\_ You're posting to a CSUA newsgroup. Hence, you
are either a (1) a computer science major (2)
a system administrator or (3) someone who has
nothing to do with CSUA but just wants to hoze
the motd. In either 1 or 2 you must be someone
who uses unix and hence are a Berkeley something.
If you can't figure out how to read stupid docs
or faqs or howtos then yes or figure out how
to use unix then you surely don't belong in 1
or 2.
\_ I'm not a super geekoid and I find linux
to be very usable and useful. In fact, I've
almost trippled my productivity after switching
from windows since i stop wasting my time
going to <DEAD>www.windows95.com<DEAD> and finding hacks
like TweakUI, Microangelo, and lame ass DLL
cleaners and trying to figure out regedit.exe.
I don't know what planet you're from but
the FAQ and docs are pretty straigt forward.
\_ Oh really? Maybe that linux spell checker
needs a bit more dev. work. If you find
linux faqs and setup easy then you're a
a super geekoid whether you realize it or
not. -still waiting for ease-of-use linux
\_ I never said linux is easy, nor do I wish to argue
a common stupid debate. If you don't like
figuring out things from FAQs, or reading,
than you shouldn't be using unix! go home! |
| 1999/8/3 [Uncategorized] UID:16232 Activity:nil 61%like:16233 |
8.2.99 ["old docs up for grabs" thread deleted. Old tocs sent to E&S] |
| 1999/8/3 [Uncategorized] UID:16233 Activity:nil 61%like:16232 |
8.2.99 -old docs thread deleted. Old docs sent to excess and salvage. |
| 1999/8/3 [Computer/Rants] UID:16234 Activity:nil |
8/3 Linux Torvald - 15th ranked person of the century by Time:
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/cgi-bin/time/osform/gdml3
He's closing on Madonna and two ahead of Bill Gates. It's just sad
that Elvis is up there. |
| 1999/8/3-31 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:16235 Activity:nil |
07/27 Tentative Next Politburo Meeting: look on the webpage for details. |
| 1999/8/3 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:16236 Activity:nil |
8/3 Any good examples of simple named.conf files for bind8?
I'm trying to implement a DNS server quickly, and it's very
different from bind4.
\-there is some kidnof conversion script i believe it
was inthe dist. might look around. ---psb
\_ http://www.isc.org/view.cgi?/products/BIND/docs/config/index.phtml
has the config file format, the name of the aforementioned
conversion script, etc.; this page is also in the bind-doc tarball.
-brg |
| 1999/8/3-4 [Computer/SW/OS/Solaris] UID:16237 Activity:low |
8/3 Software raid solutions (preferably almost free) for solaris x86?
I checked sunsolve, but I prolly missed something. thanks.
\_ why the hell would you think sunsolve would give you free RAID??
sunfreeware maybe. except it doesn't. you have to pay for
solstice disksuite.
\_ Well you can check out RAIDFrame (http://www.pdl.cs.cmu.edu/RAIDframe )
but last they published it only supported slowaris2.4, and only
on sparc. WTF are you running solaris on the x86 for anyway? There`s
so many better choices... (most of which RAIDFrame supports) |
| 1999/8/3-5 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Computer/SW/Languages/Functional] UID:16238 Activity:very high |
8/3 What do people think about STL (Standard Template Library) for C++?
I used it recently and it looks pretty cool. -emin
\_ STL is a good advance in terms of API, but the implementations
will need a while to mature to avoid foiling compiler
optimizations. This will come soon from KAI, Sun, et al. -mel
\_ for more docs try:
http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL
--jeff
\_ for Java "port", see http://www.objectspace.com/jgl and forget all about
them java.util collection classes --petr
\_ It's pretty convenient.
\_ I think it tends to be arcane. (And I'm a Unix bigot, so I have
a high tolerance for arcana.) Having a copy of the C++ standard
handy helps. Failing that, Stroustrup is your friend, sort of.
-brg
\_ In my humble opinion if there is a real need to use templates
for what you need to do, Lisp may be a better language than
C++. -- ilyas
\_!!! You're kidding, right? A good portion of the reason
for using templates is for inlining code while providing
\_ huh? inlining code? stl has nothing to do with inlining.
\_ Try again. It has *a lot* to do with inlining. That
is what your functors do when you pass them to
classes like map, priority_list, etc.
\_ Even with STL, C++ is much much harder to write and maintain
than Lisp. Furthermore, there is little evidence that
explicit memory management outperforms a good garbage collector
receiving hints from the programmer (something Lisp allows and
encourages). -- ilyas
\_ The STL is about not having to write general-purpose
code any more. Efficiency is a requirement, not the
goal.
\_ My point is that we've had things like qsort()
in the standard library for a while, but you
had to pass a function pointer. That meant a
function call for every compare. Inlining the
code makes a *huge* difference.
flexibility. I don't need or want the overhead of a
garbage collector and closures.
\_ Even with STL, C++ is much much harder to write and
maintain than Lisp. Furthermore, there is little
evidence that explicit memory management outperforms a
good garbage collector receiving hints from the
programmer (something Lisp allows and encourages). -- ilyas
\_ "C++ is much harder to write and maintain than Lisp"?
Please list your sources for this ridiculous
assertion.
\_ This is not an academic point, but a practical one.
In practice, me and many of my friends and coworkers
found the assertion to be true. If it is not true for you
I would be happy to know why. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas loses THREE POINTS. -1: One of the biggest benefits of
templates is typesafe containers. LISP does not have type
safety at all. LISP can't compete.
-1: Large LISP programs are MUCH harder to maintain than
c++ programs. -ali.
\_ Given two programs of equal size (down to a line), a
Lisp program will probably have a LOT more
functionality than a C++ program due to Lisp's
inherent terseness. I don't see a single thing that
will make C++ easier to maintain in the long run.
Not only will a given amount of C++ code express a
lot less than the same amount of code of Lisp, but
the C++ maintaner is forced to cope with bugs on two
fronts -- memory and logic, whereas a Lisp programmer
only needs to worry about logic. Strict type safety
can be easily implemented in LISP using CLOS methods,
if the programmer wants it. -- ilyas
\_ The industry didn't side with typed languages like
C++ and Java over Lisp/Scheme on a whim. They did
it because the C++ projects were getting done on time
and on budget and the Lisp programs weren't. That's
why Lisp has been consigned to academia and think tanks
while C++ programmers have jobs. -mel
\_ This may be the case, although I certainly wouldn't
say industry sides with things for a good technical reason.
Witness clueless executives gather around NT like scared
cubs around their dead lioness mother. I don't know if
anyone actually did a rigorous in-depth study of software
development times across languages. It may be that Lisp
is consigned to Academia and think tanks, but remember that
this is generally where the best and the brightest make
their living. -- ilyas
\_ This is much like English vs. Spanish. People often
claim that Spanish is much more consistent and simpler
than English hence better. The problem with LISP is that
although simple and consistent, it's too simple and
consistent making it visually difficult to distinguish
different constructs and mechanisms easily (too many
parens and no type declarations). You can argue that
declarations are a bad part of language but on a large
scale they tend to help a lot whereas languages lke LISP
and LOGO or acceptable for grade school pedagogy uses.
\_ Declarations, type safety and private data members
are useful features of a language, but they tend
to be used as crutches by programmers who are not
careful. Which language looks visually more
intuitive is a very subjective thing. Moreover,
one shouldn't need a type declaration to be able
\_ I find type declarations very useful for various
reasons. It's ability to restrict space and
functionality of a variable helps increase it's
compactness and computational efficiency. Plus,
I don't mind having an explicit reminder of what
type something is. The alternative is to use
\_ I am saying that often these features are not
as necessary for programming as people say, and often
may be more trouble than they are worth. In
particular, static typing is often a cludgy,
complicated affair that really only tells the
programmer that he can't stick a round peg in a square
hole (something he ought to know anyways if he put
sufficient thought into design). Btw,
ad hominem has no place in a mature discussion.
-- ilyas
the Hungarian notation and I would rather declare
types any day over using the Hungarian notation.
\_ Hungarian notation is just one convention, and
a rather cludgy one at that. Also, if you remember,
this convention is mainly used in languages with
explicit types like C++ and Visual Basic -- if type
declarations were as helpful as some people say the
convention wouldn't need to be used in such languages.
Furthermore, it is not true that a language with
static typing has to have type declarations, remember
ML?
And it is not true that a language with dynamic types
has to be inefficient. Good programming practices and
a good compiler will make sure that most things you
care about, such as arithmetic, will be fast. -- ilyas
to distinguish variables, else one doesn't know
how to name variables correctly. That Lisp is a
pedagogy language is a serious misconception. --ilyas
\_ "tend to be used"? You're saying that because
some features are used by bad programmers in
the wrong way the language is flawed? Please
crawl back under the hole you came out of.
\_ I am saying that often these features are
not as necessary for programming as people
say, and often may be more trouble than they
are worth. In particular, static typing is
often a cludgy, complicated affair that
really only tells the programmer that he
can't stick a round peg in a square hole
(something he ought to know anyways if he
put sufficient thought into design). Btw,
ad hominem has no place in a mature
discussion. -- ilyas
\_ Neither do baseless assertions belong.
Go away.
\_ That's only TWO POINTS. You owe ilyas a point,
bitch.
\_ Everyone loses a point for taking part.
\_ Static typing is not especially useful. It requires
a lot of work for very little benefit. |
| 1999/8/3-5 [Uncategorized] UID:16239 Activity:moderate |
8/3 http://ucb.computing.discussion. watch tom flame saar. \_ He does have a point. It's pretty stupid to tell students what they want or need and then gauge their reactions through a pilot program. \_ tom has a sharply pointed tongue, that's about it. \_ it's rare that tom is totally wrong. #2 TOM FAN \_ Are you kidding? What's rare is when tom manages to burble something that isn't so utterly mean spirited and offensive that anyone could tell or would bother reading far enough to see if Mr. Congeniality has anything worth saying. The rare few bits he may get right aren't worth the effort to find among all the bile and spittle. \_ go post your flames on the newsgroup. |
| 1999/8/3-6 [Uncategorized] UID:16240 Activity:kinda low |
8/3 Townhouse for rent in north San Jose (near LSI logic).
Info on it:
North SJ 5-yr-old 3br,2+ba,1650sf,quiet,ac,
pool,frig,w&d,alarm,hardwd flr,avl now $1800+depos
510-643-8229, or mail rhuang@cs
now jctwu is a jerk for not deleting his huge, relevant-only-to-him
motd entry.
_________________________________________
< I've got yer relevance right here, pal! >
-----------------------------------------
\ ^__^
\ (oo)\_______
(__)\ )\/\
||----w |
|| ||
\_ LSI Logic sucks. Workers there are stupid.
\_ Yeah, I'm sure *everyone* at a reasonably successful
company are just "big doddy heads and big stupids!!@!!!111"
\_ Randy, you suck at vollyball, and LSI Logic sucks.
Been there done that |
| 1999/8/3-5 [Computer/SW/OS/Solaris] UID:16241 Activity:high |
8/3 How hard is it to get a Solaris 7 X86 machine on a Win32 TCP/IP
LAN? Software on the Sun will be broadcasting UDP packets to a
Win32 machine listening for them. -jctwu
\_ What's the issue? What kinds of UDP packets are you broadcasting
to the Win32 machines (although, I don't know why that would
matter). Basically, if both computers obey the TCP/UDP/IP
specifications correctly, you have nothing to worry about.
\_ just a initial setup issue. Remember all those "How do I get
my Windoze machines hooked up for LAN games?" This question
is "How do I get my Solaris machine hooked up for LAN work?"
-jctwu
\_ ifconfig
\_ the right way would be setting up TCP/IP on a well-
documented UNIX (RH Linux, FreeBSD), then doing it
for Solaris X86, but all I really want is a "Hey
stupid, here's an FAQ for you to follow." -jctwu
\_ Except Solaris x86 does everything for you if all
you need to do is put it on the network - when you
install it asks for hostname, IP address and puts
them where you need to go. And starting with
Solaris 7 5/99 they even added DNS configuration to
the GUI. If there's something more than that you
want you'll have to be specific.
\_ http://docs.sun.com & http://www.sunhelp.com you lazy ass.
\_ thanks. I hadn't known that Solaris X86 was
auto-detecting like that, for the reason that
my NIC was not on the HCL. "NE2000 compatible"
doesn't get you very far as I've learned. -jctwu
\_ Solaris isn't a well-documented Unix?
\_ is solaris open source?
\_ Not for most people, no. It doesn't have to be open
to be well documented. You'd really read source to
figure out how to get a sun on a network? No.
\_ if you have enough money to buy a source license it is
\_ so it's not well-documented unless you have
enough money.
\_ source makes for very poor documentation.
\_ unfortunately, documentation makes even
\_ documentation is fine documentation for
poorer documentation.
(and a source license is free for edu sites
Even the OCF has solaris source)
\_ documentation is fine for
trivial bullshit like setting up TCP/IP. |
| 1999/8/3 [Uncategorized] UID:16242 Activity:nil |
8/3 There are no differences but differences of degrees between different
degrees of differences and no difference. |
| 3/15 |