Re: API ?
Kat wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2003, at 18:59, Isaac Raway wrote:
> > > Kat wrote:
> > > Eight hardware parallel ports? Can you cram that many onto a windows box?
> > Is case you didn't notice, Windows runs on the same hardware as *nix.
> > I'm assuming you're a *nix head because only *nix heads would make such
> > a blatently uneducated comment. It's *all the same* man.
>
> Ah, the opportunity to spew more venom, as some say i do......
Well, I'd say those people are a bit unfair. I wouldn't really call this
venom...
> Lemme count the mistakes in that reply...
>
> 1) windows and nix on the same hardware: duh, really, golly gee,
> thanks for telling us that! You must be all of 7 years old to catch my comment
> in
> that way?
My point was that if you can get it to happen on another OS, it's
probably possible with Windows. That's the real thing you should be
picking apart, as it's probably not true anyway.
> 2) I am not a *nix head, never was, prolly never will be.
Fine.
> 3) Most *nix heads are smarter than you seem to be.
My point was not so much intelligence, but the fact that *nix people are
really rabid in their bashing of "Windoze"--seemingly for no other
reason than the bashing itself--and I'm just getting sick of it.
> 4) Most *nix heads have no use for 8 parallel ports like Wolf
> mentioned, and wouldn't jump someone with such nonsense like you did. In fact,
> most
> people wouldn't try to install 8 ports on a single box, even if they
> knew how to.
That's a lot of generalization. Just because someone uses a *nix means
they have no use for 8 parallel ports?
> 5) It's not all the same. Windoze, dos, and *nix do not allow access
> to the underlaying hardware the same way at all. Grabbing the time with dos32
> on
> a windows box will not guarantee reliable or timely access, and may
> result in data loss. Do anything i want in dos. I dunno *nix.
I submit to this.
> 6) most boxes don't have enough free interrupts to handle 8 parallel
> ports, remember the hardware standard was set way back at 8, even getting 15
> is a patch. Polling the cards to see who yanked on the int line is
> potentially time consuming, throwing things out of sync.
> 7) No one said a thing about loops. (re: your other abrasive email)
Nothing else is capable of preventing a process from handling it's
events. "Loop" includes blocking calls, because they're actually in a
loop somewhere.
> 8) Any preemptive OS (such as windose after win3.xx) will have a event
> loop, cally our event processes if anything is que'd for them, and if not,
> skip over it to the next process. Go buy a clue.
A thread with an event loop in Windows is expected to respond to events.
If the thread is doing something that prevents it from properly
processing events, Windows assumes that the application has dead locked,
and rightly so. If your interface is unresponsive (which will be the
case if Windows "arbitrarily" decides it's locked up), then it's
worthless anyway.
That's why we use different threads for parallel and serial IO, and keep
the GUI in the main thread.
> 9) You assume i am a man, i assume you are an uneducated animal.
Well, I am a man. But, last time I checked, I wasn't an animal and I was
rather intelligent.
Kat
Love & Peace
Isaac
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
