From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 13 16:22:02 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 13 Aug 2001 23:22:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 88004 invoked from network); 13 Aug 2001 23:21:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Aug 2001 23:21:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta2 with SMTP; 13 Aug 2001 23:21:56 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15WR1r-0004gJ-00 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:21:51 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:21:51 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] New to lojban, any suggestions? Message-ID: <20010813162151.B9477@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: <98.192c4c8b.28a9b794@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <98.192c4c8b.28a9b794@aol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i From: Robin Lee Powell On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 07:07:00PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/13/2001 4:18:38 PM Central Daylight Time, > rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > > > > It was an example. You're clear on the concept, yes? > > > > You said that my claim that there is functionality in Linux that Win* > > doesn't support was 'unlikely'. I gave you an example. > > > > It's not a matter of "I don't know how to do it". It's a matter of > > "It's impossible without altering the OS or programming in machine > > language to get around the OS". > > > > Counter-example. > > OK. Thank you, for adding the useful information -- what I asked for -- that > it genuinely is impossible. I won't ask to see the proof, since I probably > could not follow the details of the systems anyhow. > > Now for the deeper question: does this mean that MS can't do something that > Linux can. That is, is the function which MS can't compute an in=> out > function or one used in the internal operations of Linux? If the latter, > then no matter how hard it makes step-by-step emulation, it is ultimately not > a shortcoming of MS, if it can accomplish anything that Linux can using > another line of operation (abaci have lousy TM emulators, but still calculate > all the same functions). And, of course, it may make a difference in > efficiency of calculation as well. On the other hand, if it is an external > function that Linux can and MS can't calculate, that is a serious defect in > MS and worth some putdown points (unless there is a coounter case that MS can > and Linux can't compute). It's neither, really. It's a function of their security models, which are rather different, and their means of program execution. > I thought there were Linux emulators for Windows as well as conversely. As far as I know, there is the latter but not the former. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/