Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ is very alive! (mlw)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux=Stink*Stank*Stunk (Terry Porter)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 Quick Review (Pan)
Re: KDE2 (A transfinite number of monkeys)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:07:59 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> Aren't you people forgetting that HURD is based
> >> on C++ with that microkernel technology.
> >>
> >> They are going the be the C++ club of the future.
> >>
> >> C++ is far from dead. It's just not being used
> >> as few old timers really understand how to use it.
> >
> >
> >!!! Warning!!! The following reads like flame bait, to many it may be.
> >It is not intended to be. !!
> >
> >These are all very important questions (and only scratching the
> >surface). If you do not know these sorts of things cold, then you are a
> >programmer and are probably better off doing stuff in Java or some other
> >limited environment until you learn more. It isn't until you understand
> >these sorts of things do you understand how to develop software.
> >
>
> Well. I think if your going to work on defense contract programming
> missle boards I would agree. If your going to work on kernel's I
> would agree. If your going to do day to day business development
> then being a programmer is adequate. And the choice of languages
> should remain open to C++. C++ isn't just for rocket scientists.
> I think it's a wonderful business language also.
This is the point I was trying to make. Programmers don't want to know
this stuff. Engineers love it. If all you are doing is creating forms in
VB or TCL to sit over a database, you don't need to know. If all you are
doing is writing a few lines of code in Java, why would you care? That
is the difference between a programmer and an engineer.
[snippage]
>
> Then there is the government with their ADA.
I have never used ADA, so I can't comment. I have refused government
work because of the invasion of privacy that it requires.
>
> I would agree with these comments. It's just not a commonly used
> tool. But it has many benefits which if people used them we would
> have better software today.
When you say it is not a commonly used tool, how do you based this? It
has no fewer people using it. Its usership has not dropped, but has
grown.
The space of people trying to develop software has grown immensely. More
safe language usage for trivial tasks. (When the word 'trivial' is used,
it is not intended to mean unimportant, it is intended to mean without
serious complications.)
When I have to write PHP code to access an SQL database, there aren't
many issues I have to deal with, just does my query work, and does it
return what I want. (Being dedicated to detail, I do analyze the query
and make sure it is as efficient as it can be.) This is an example of
"trivial" I'm not going to coredump, I'm not going to corrupt the file
system, still, it is 100% necessary to do.
But remember, all the higher level languages must be written in
something lower level like C/C++.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:03:06 +0000
In article <8vqvqq$5f036$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <qFZT5.10131$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>
>> >Because they are still looking for a way in.....
>>
>> Yeah, on windows trojan ports - as I said above. I don't run
>> windows so the trojans they're looking for are not on my
>> machine.
>
>The most wide spread OS is?
>Most trojans are written to what OS?
>
>Combine those two answer and you'll realize why you've a lot of port scans
>to windows trojans
>Not to mention that this is about the most inefficent way to do this.
Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
>
>> >> I see thousands of scans for windows machines. I don't see any for
>> >> unix machines.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Because they've already found a way in.
>>
>> No, not on my machine. I've never been cracked.
>
>That you know of :)
mmmm :)
>
>
>> The massive amount of port-scanning shows how many thousands of
>> people are trying, continuously, to crack windows machines using
>> one of the very very many trojans out there. These are the ones
>> which are eg., regularly posted to newsgroups, knowing that many
>> windows users run Outlook express, and will 'open' the attachment,
>> infect their machine because 'open' also happens to mean 'run'
>> in the windows world.
>
>You can't tell the difference between a trojan and an exploit?
>If there was a wide spread trojan for unix machines, wouldn't people scan
>for it?
How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine? You need a delivery
mechanism. Microsoft provides one. You need root access, Microsoft
gives that to everyone.
>
>If unix was a wide spread OS, used by average computer illeterate persons,
>you would see the same for unix.
No, for the reasons I give above.
>
>> Then, a few mins later, the scanner detects the running trojan,
>> and, guess what, your windows machine just got owned.
>
>That is true for all OS.
>
No, for the reasons I give above.
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:09:34 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqtuv$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >Actually, no, I couldn't.
> >> >If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
> >> >Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
> >>
> >> You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
> >> at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
> >> some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
> >> some such error.
> >
> >A lot of users are running as root.
>
> Which users are these? I'm not aware of any.
Those who are new to unix, mostly. Or are ignorant or don't care.
Dito for those who run as admin in NT.
> >In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to damage
the
> >registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to do.
>
> *Who* has to do this - this would be the people running as admin
> with maximum privileges all the time? Of course, if you go around
> re-partitioning, then I can assume you run with max privileges all
> the time.
Practically no one has to do this.
Default admin privileges are more than enough most of the time.
> If your users are that ignorant, you don't give them root passwords.
I don't give the non-ignorant users root passwords.
I'm talking about home users running as root.
> Nobody but myself has root passwords for my machines.
Wise move.
I've seen a guy that sent his user password to a guy in aphganistan so this
guy could upload some files to his account.
I don't want to know what would happen if he had the root password.
> You've removed the start of this thread, which was that rm -r
> in /etc would need root privileges. You go on later in this to
> say that /etc got fully and totally trashed in your experience, and
> then later corrected that to say that it really happened because
> you re-partitioned the machine.
No, the FS was dead, so I repartitioned during the new setup.
I wasn't pleased with the partition table as it was.
> >
> >
> >> >"*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
> >> >partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
> >> >drives will be erased of all information and existing operating
systems,
> >> >regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
> >>
> >> So if you know all this, why did you do it?
> >
> >Because I didn't know about it *at the time*
> >Gee, it's so hard to rememer that?
>
> I don't know because I wasn't there, so I didn't have to remember
> it. Was it hard to remember?
<Qoute: Ayende Rahien>
(I used to do custom installs, and intended this to be a
test to RH6 until I would decide if it was good enough to move to, which is
why I didn't choose upgrade, I intended this to go to another HD, but choose
to do a server install instead of custom one, and it wiped the system.
Documented, but unwarned from.)
</Qoute>
It's quite clear from the text that I didn't know about this.
> Why were you installing a server setup on a multi-boot machine?
> This is not sensible.
To *test* it?
To see if it was worth moving to?
> >> >Read what I said, it won't mount on other systems.
> >> >I tried the rescue disk method, and it failed.
> >> >The hardisk was find, I repartitioned it and it worked, no bad
sectors.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by 'if failed'. Rescue disks can't fail, they
> >> just boot. That's what they do. If you can't boot the
> >> machine you've bigger problems than you're claiming already.
> >
> >rescue disk to boot.
> >fschk, on one occasion I stopped it after 5 hours (4GB HD, about 3/4
full).
> >The second & third time fschk itself failed to fix the system.
>
> How did a rescue disk fail? They can't fail! They just boot. They
> provide fresh copies of key filesystem management tools, often
> statically linked, so that you can cp,mv, rm, fsck etc., work in
> a ram based root filesystem etc etc.
fsck failed to restore the disk, that is what I meant and what I said.
> If you had to repartition the disk, then everything else was trashed
> anyway. Repartitioning seems to happen to you a lot, but not
> to anyone else - why might this be?
A lot?
I only repartition during system first setup.
How did you come up with "Repartitioning seems to happen to you a lot"
> Fsck does not take 5 hours on a 4Gb hd. That is a Windows speed
> process. No-one sane would stop an fsck in mid-stream, unless
> they don't know what they're doing, of course.
After 5 hours I stopped it because I figured out that it wasn't worth
waiting for it.
Checking the disk was the last thing I did, I first tried to mount it on two
seperated linux machine, then on a window machine, and then tried to check
it.
After all of this, it seemed like the disk was toast anyhow.
> >> Why would you repartition? The only reason to do this is if
> >> the partition table has been damaged on the machine. If that
> >> has happened, it is nothing to do with the filesystem on
> >> any partition at all. It will not prevent a rescue disk
> >> from working. How did you know that the partition table had
> >> been damaged? This just doesn't add up.
> >
> >Because I then had to reinstall, and I wanted to make some changes in the
> >partition table for the new install.
>
>
> The only systems which need reinstalling are windows ones. You
> don't reinstall linux ones because there is no advantage in
> doing so. This is a windowsism.
The file system was fucked up, the computer had no OS.
I reinstalled linux so the computer would have an os.
> I think you need to learn a bit more about linux before making
> these posts - your windows experiences simply do not have
> analogues in the linux world.
No, when a computer has an empty HD, you need to *install* a new OS.
I guess you get all your computers from OEM, so you may not be aware of
this.
Again: If you don't have a OS on the computer, you need to *put* one there.
> >The partition table was fine, I just didn't like the way it was set up,
and
> >changed it on reinstall.
>
> Then there was nothing wrong with /etc - you just re-partitioned the
> disk. I wonder how you're going to trim this post to try to hide
> the history to this one.
No, I repartition the disk *after* the FS died on me.
> Your claims go from sublime to ridiculous.
Time table:
FS die on me. (And with it, the /etc)
refuse to mount
refuse to be fixed
I decide it's not worth the trouble anymore and install everything from
scratch.
During install, I change the partition table.
> >
> >> You hope.
> >
> >No, I know.
> >There is hardly anything that can curropt the registry.
> >If you know of something, please provide some info about it.
>
> I would suggest you partitioning the machine for reasons known
> only to yourself would be the largest risk to the registry in
> any machine anywhere near you.
See above for why I repartitioned.
The FS didn't failed becuase I repartitioned, because that happened
afterward.
> >> >The almost sole reason that the registry become curropted is HD
failure.
> >>
> >> HD failure is extremely rare compared to Win crashes in my experience.
> >> In fact, I've never had a HD fail (although I do know several folk
> >> who have).
> >
> >Lucky you.
> >On my machine (home one)
> >I'd three failures with WD 1.6 GB HD
> >One with a 10 GB (Seaquest, I think)
> >And one with a 15 GB from IBM
>
> What do you do to your machines which results in damaged partition
> tables, random re-partitions 'cos you feel like it, destroyed...
> this is silly.
Repartitions don't damage the HD itself.
> >Those are usually bad sectures, btw.
> >In one case over 25% of the disk became unusable.
> >Linux machines usually use older hardware, more prune to mistakes.
> >
> >BTW, what Win are you talking about?
> >I've yet to have Win2k BSOD on me unless it's the screen saver.
>
> The screen saver BSODs?
Yes, my screen saver is emulating win2k BSOD.
The file name is called "SysInternals Bluescreen.scr", btw.
I understand that there is also a linux version, and that it's usually
installed by default.
> Linux machines use hardware which is as old as it is. They
> do not usually use newer or older hardware than any other OS
> installed at the same time. Another very silly statement.
Part of the advantage of linux is that it can be used as a server on old
hardware.
A lot of linux systems are running on old hardware.
> >> >And, if we are already talking about it, the registry is not a single
> >file,
> >> >but several.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Damage of 1 or 2 bytes to a monolithic binary file can cause
> >> >> the whole file to be unparsable; to achieve the same effect
> >> >> in /etc., you'd have to damage *every* file in there, near
> >> >> the start of the file *and* each package would have to have
> >> >> non-sensible defaults compiled in (which they don't).
> >> >
> >> >And as I've said, you are very unlikely to damage the registry short
of
> >> >damaging the HD itself.
> >>
> >> The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
> >
> >How? Nothing can write to the registry save the OS.
> >And the OS hadnle the registry in a very strict manner, so you can't
corrupt
> >it.
> >
>
>
> Well, apparently you like to re-partition on a whim.
No, I don't.
> The registry can be corrupted, the OS is not free of bugs (in
> fact its renowned for not being so).
Not in writing to the registry.
> The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
No, it isn't.
The only way to access the registry is through the APIs
And the APIs keeps the registry structure.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:10:47 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqtv1$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:By3U5.2829$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> < ... >
> >>
> >> > > To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> >> > > Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> >> > > credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
> >> >
> >> > FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
> >>
> >> With all due respect, how do you come to that conclusion? My personal
> >> experience is that FAT is utterly horrible. NTFS, is something i've
only
> >had
> >> a few problems with. I've never had an ext2 FS failure, excepting an
old
> >1GB
> >> drive that lunched itself.
> >
> >Personal conclustion.
> >I've several cases of ext2 dying on me.
> >I've never had a case of FAT or NTFS dying on me, and I have seen people
> >abuse it to the full extent of the word.
> >File getting corrupted, yes, but never the entire FS.
> >
> >
>
>
> Your experience appears to be unique.
>
> I recommend Debian GNU/Linux to anyone. One of the main
> advantages of Linux over other OSs is that it has support for
> a huge range of filesystems.
>
> One of those filesystems is FAT, so if you believe the previous
> poster (against all known evidence) that FAT is better than
> ext2 - well, you can use it in Linux.
IIRC, UMSDOS linux are unanimously known to suck.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:21:39 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But I won't look a gifthorse in the mouth. Can you
> get my Win98SE to shut down properly - an email to
> tech support?
Have you even tried solving the problem?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:22:00 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vqs64$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vpjuo$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >
> >> >FAT is about the simplest FS that there can be, and it should only be
> >used
> >> >on single user OS, as it has no way to implement security measures.
> >> >I much rather have NTFS.
> >> >For that matter, the registry in NT acts like an NTFS partition, where
> >you
> >> >can delegate permissions.
> >> >In win9x, you can only dream about this capacity.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> But if that's all Win9x can read, then that's what you'd have to
> >> use for any other partition.
> >
> >Since when?
> >I can read just about any fs in the world from win9x.
> >Third party, yes, but I don't care about it.
> >Isn't 3rd party products what linux all about?
> >
> >
> >
>
> We're talking about the registry.
>
> This is fundamental to the OS and requires a native
> filesystem.
The registry as a seperate partition would be a good thing (although I'd
hate to see what you do when you've to resize the max of it.)
I would recommend a raw partition combined with dos export/import tool in
the rescue disk.
Although, if you think about it, a hidden FAT partition could serve just as
easily, there is very little difference between the registry and a FS.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:22:31 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vr0i5$5fqd9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> Also, if you've got a Fat32 partition on the machine, you
> >> must have Win98 already on there, so why were you installing
> >> it again?
> >
> >FDISK, heard about it?
>
> Which means that you trashed the ext2 filesystem, were not able
> to save anything to any other filesystem and are generally
> confused.
It was on *another* HD.
I said it in the original post, for crying out loud.
Pay *attention*.
> >> Or perhaps you might claim that you re-partitioned during
> >> this amazing installation, but then, you've destroyed the
> >> ext2 partition anyway.
> >
> >It was another HD, as I clearly stated.
>
> You did no such thing. This also means that you do not
> need FDISK, as you stated that you did above.
<Qoute: Ayende Rahien>
but he did have a spare HD and a win98 cd
</Qoute>
> This is complete rubbish.
He needed FDISK because the HD wasn't a FAT one.
> >> What's more, you've said he could read the filesystem anyway,
> >> so what exactly does he need Win98 for? To read the filesystem
> >> he can already read?
> >
> >To back it up so I can take the second HD and burn it.
>
> If he has booted linux then he can do it from linux. If he
> already had win98 on, then he could have used that.
No, he didn't have win98 on.
And linux refused to mount the HD.
> If he'd had a second hard disk, he could easily have built a
> new filesystem on that from Linux.
He was unable to do so.
> There is absolutely no reason to install Win98 at all.
>From your prespective, yes.
>From his, there is.
You:
A> don't know all the facts.
B> don't know the whole situation
C> making blind guesses based on how *you* would handle this.
D> all answers are correct.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:23:32 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > The NT4.x and 9x EULAs specifically prohibit ANY customer statement
> > > > which is damaging to Microsoft in any way.
> > >
> > > Can you point me out to where those statement are?
> > > I can't see how this is true, because when ME came out (and 95/98 too,
for
> > > that matter) a lot of magazines said something like: "You buy a new
> > > computer, get it, otherwise, keep your own OS" Which is clearly
damaging MS
> > > http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm is taking apart several of MS
> > > application.
> > >
> > > Two examples out of the millions I could've given.
> >
> > EULA binds customers, not journalists or net sites, hopefully!
>
> But most journalists are ALSO MS customers.
"...this product may not be used to disparage Microsoft or its employees or
management..."
(It's from memory, don't recall from what product it is, or even if it's a
real product or just a figment of my imagination. I read it a while ago and
it stuck.)
Is this what you are talking of?
How so, then, magazines can write critique about MS?
You can't evaluate the product and then criticize it, that is disparaging
MS.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:25:53 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Doh - the market barriers are to high thus there is no
> viable competition.
>
> Please try to understand this - it's fundamental to
> how monopolies operate.
>
> The barriers are not technical so a different technical solution
> does not enable to monopoly to be broken.
>
> These concepts are really not that difficult.
What prevent the iceland goverment from localizing linux, for example?
What bussiness barriers?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux=Stink*Stank*Stunk
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 Nov 2000 14:25:03 GMT
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:23:04 +0000, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jacques Guy wrote:
>>Sir (aka Claire Lynn -- hello sweet tart!) wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>I fully agree Claire, sweet twat. I once installed Caldera
>>and the bloody thing had me play Tetris for a full
>>TWENTY MINUTES! I hate playing Tetris! It taxes my
>>grey cells! I prefer play wi' de paper clip. Linux
>>sux all right, yeah, right on, Twatty Bird.
>
>ah - another personality of steve/keys/jason/cat/claire
>etc. I didn't spot that. The overall approach was
>familiar, however ;)
>
>Mark
Look for the source of the post, our moronic Wintroll often uses
Att.Worldnet and Newsdawg dontcha Stevie boy ?
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 Quick Review
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:42:44 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> After failing to get the Cheapbytes version to install on my laptop
> via a bootdisk because CDROM is not bootable,
Why didn't you use dosutils and make your own bootdisk with rawrite? It
takes about 30 seconds.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: KDE2
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:54:54 GMT
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:38:39 -0800, matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: KDE2 comes with 15 themes, each of which can be configured using bg and fg
: color settings. Also, all installed gnome themes are immediatly available to
: use.
There's no such thing as a "gnome theme". GNOME is a modular architecture,
which does not center around any particular window manager (yes, I know you
can run E or blackbox under KDE, but it's not well-integrated). You have
Gtk+ themes, which control the style in which your Gtk+ widgets are drawn
throughout the system, and you also have themes for whatever your choice
of window manager is, be it the default Sawfish, IceWM, WindowMaker,
Enlightenment, XFce, or even AfterStep. All of these WMs are
GNOME-compliant, and integrate nearly equally well. Sawfish does have
slightly better integration - after all, it was written by people heavily
involved in the GNOME project.
: I have found KDE2 to be much more responsive on slower machines. Unfortunatly,
: most KDE2 packages are compiled with exceptions enabled which takes a lot of
: memory and processor time. This problem has since been solved and hopefully
: will not occur in the future.
Is this the case with the Debian packages?
: I have never had a problem with C++, issues regarding the ABI belong to the
: gcc developers and I will respect their decision. Compilers only become
: mature when they are tested, and KDE is proving that C++ is great for gui
: programming and they are testing the compiler.
Yes, you don't have a problem because you've got what, one or two machines?
Think about it from the perspective of the Debian people, or RedHat, or any
other distribution vendor. Binary incompatability == recompile everything
written in C++, or link it statically.
: > gnome-vfs,
: I assume that this stands for gnome- virtual file system. Does this mean a
: filesystem within a file? What happened to mounting a using loopback.
No, it's a common set of methods for file operations regardless of whether
they are on a local filesystem or not.
: > bonobo
: KDE has kparts for embedable components and dcop for desktop communication.
Is kparts CORBA-based? I've looked at the developer.kde.org info on kparts.
It supports network transparency for *document operations*. How about some
network transparency for the objects???
: > oaf medusa
: I don't know what these are?
oaf == Object activation framework. It's the GNOME 2.0 replacement for
gnorba. Each server registers itself using an XML format. When an
application requires a specific kind of service, it performs an OAF query,
and finds the object(s) it needs to instantiate to service its request.
: > or GConf.
:
: Kcontrol.
Nothing of the kind. GConf provides applications a simple, consistent
interface to store and retrieve configuration data. Kcontrol is just a
control panel, not unlike gnomecc.
: The KDE project never stumbled with QT.
Perhaps you were locked in a closet when that whole mess started???
: A great Web Browser that supports many standards and is getting better every
: day without accumulating bloat.
I'd agree that Konqueror is a nice browser. It's a shame I've got to install
almost the entire KDE distribution just to get that. Fortunately, galeon is
getting better all the time.
: A promising office suite
You mean like the gnome-office apps? (abiword, evolution, dia, gnumeric)
: Truly fast theming because themes can be programmed instead of just pixmaps
Oh, like gtk-engines? It's good to see the KDE team catching up in that
area!
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
