Linux-Advocacy Digest #388, Volume #34 Thu, 10 May 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Neil
Cerutti)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" ("Robert Kent")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (chrisv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:13:53 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You can use it with all the other code you want. You just can't use a
>> GPL library without infecting your program. So use an LGPL library;
>> that's what it's for.
>
> LGPL still has problems.
> And couple of important libraries are released under the GPL, not LGPL.
Most notably readline[*], which has caused me some non-trivial amount of
grief in the past. I do not believe that you can make a BSD library
even optionally dependent upon a GPL library and keep the licensing as
BSD. Now, since changing the licensing is an absolute no-no (it would
annoy very many current users of the code, and rightly so) the only way
out if this is to keep the two unconnected except by whatever works
that third-parties do. Which sucks (the CLI to Tcl is currently stuck
with whatever facilities the console's cooked mode offers) but the
alternative is to create an unencumbered readline equivalent, and I've
not got the time to reinvent the wheel right now.
People who GPL libraries should have their toenails slowly peeled off
with red-hot tongs by a cackling black-hooded torturer in a medaeval
dungeon. Or be forced to use the latest version of VB... (Bwahahahaha!)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- We shall, nevertheless, continue to dispense [insults] on the premise of
giving credit where credit is due, you ill-bred nanowit sack of bovine
fecal matter. -- Xelloss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:17:22 GMT
"Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sure, switching to the PPC was a good thing, but
> > they were very careful not to change the software
> > while doing it. Not any more than they had to.
>
> But developers had to rewrite their apps. At least as big a rewrite as
> Mac OS 9 API to Carbon.
Not even remotely. What they had to do was replace
procedure pointers with OS-provided constructs
called "universal procedure pointers". It was a small
change in a few places, no big deal.
Everything remained as it was. You could still
manipulate the insides of OS datastructures just
as before, for instance.
Carbon is a *much* bigger change. It is so even
if you avoid the optional bits like the Carbon
event manager.
However, it is of some importance, I think, that
Carbon is *not* the minimal change required to
work in a protected memory, pre-emptively
multitasked environment. Both the new
event manager and the new printing manager
represent efforts to 'clean up their act', and not
merely to achieve compatibility.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 10 May 2001 14:28:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan Johanson posted:
>
>"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson posted:
>> >Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run
>> >edit.com - DOH!
>>
>> Actually, Notepad sucks, even compared to edit.com.
>
>I don't agree, what does edit.com (which just fires up the QB
>IDE in text editor mode) do that notepad doesn't do so well?
The current version of edit.com actually does seem to be just as
limited as notepad. I remember being able to open several buffers
in edit.com not very long ago, but in NT4 it's almost as
limited as notepad. I notice they also broke long filename
support in edit.com.
On the other hand, I did find the old DOS 6 help system lurking
inside. It's erie how much it looks like GNU Info.
>> >WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy
>> >text based interface when a beautiful set of antialiased
>> >fonts of any size you can imagine are right there on your
>> >desktop?
>>
>> A computer *is* fundamentally a text-based interface.
>> Sometimes you just don't want the extra abstraction layers
>> getting in your way. Using a lower level of abstraction can be
>> more efficient.
>
>A car *is* fundamentally a fancy horse and wagon, sometimes it's
>good to smell the, um, lower level of abstraction.
For example, some people prefer using a Standard Shift
Transmission, which is much more complicated to operate than an
Automatic Transmission. Why do you suppose that is?
In the years before fuel injection, some people prefered
carburators with a manual choke in the cab because, once you
learned to operate it properly you could get your vehicle started
in almost any weather. Once an automatic choke got stuck, so were
you. But a manual choke was a pain in the ass in other ways.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** Your mining mules have deteriorated from heavy use and cost
$50 each to repair. The total cost is $200. ***
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:44:34 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Let's assume that you are correct..that most men are bisexual.
>> >
>> >Please explain then, why all of these supposedly bi-sexual men at the
>> >typical bar or night club aren't hitting on each other after striking
>> >out with the women?
>>
>> There's any number of reasons, OBVIOUSLY, ranging from the social
>> stigma of revealing these desires, to fear of disease, to just not
>> wanting it too much at all. Any NUMBER of reasons that are more
>> plausible than your assertion that most people have 0 (zero) capacity
>> for bisexual feelings.
>
>right... 80% of men are bisexual, and Nooooone of them recognize it
>in each other?????
>
>God, you're stupid as fuck, you know it...
Well, you clearly have conceeded defeat, having had to resort to the F
word like this.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:44:55 GMT
Is there any chance that IBM could make the source to OS/2 Warp available to
the open source community? Would Microsoft stop them?
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What would be better is if IBM created an O/S 2 warp compatibility layer
> for Linux. Lotus Smart Suite is one piece of software available for
> OS/2 Warp that would be nice for Linux. IBM would lose nothing as it
> has already discontinued selling OS/2 Warp, and will discontinue support
> in a couple of years. This would be a win-win situation. You'd be
> surprised how many ex-OS2 warp programmers are out there, and this would
> bridge the gap.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 16:47:01 +0100
> Most notably readline[*], which has caused me some non-trivial amount of
> grief in the past. I do not believe that you can make a BSD library
> even optionally dependent upon a GPL library and keep the licensing as
> BSD. Now, since changing the licensing is an absolute no-no (it would
> annoy very many current users of the code, and rightly so) the only way
> out if this is to keep the two unconnected except by whatever works that
> third-parties do. Which sucks (the CLI to Tcl is currently stuck with
> whatever facilities the console's cooked mode offers) but the
> alternative is to create an unencumbered readline equivalent, and I've
> not got the time to reinvent the wheel right now.
>
> People who GPL libraries should have their toenails slowly peeled off
> with red-hot tongs by a cackling black-hooded torturer in a medaeval
> dungeon. Or be forced to use the latest version of VB... (Bwahahahaha!)
As well as haing to program in VB, they have to write the code in Word.
> Donal.
If your program links with a GPL'd library, your program is not
necessarily GPL, for instance:
If you write a program that dynamically links with the standard C
library, thi has nothing to do with the GPL at all and so you're program
isn't touched by the GPL. If someone installs your program on their
computer where the only C library is compiled from GPL'd code, your
program has linked to a GPL'd library, but your program still does not
fall under the GPL, because your program is not dependent or even derived
from any GPL'd code[*].
So, if you write a readline equivalent, and compile your program against
it, you won't have to GPL the program, because your readline
(Nreadline) is all original code and is LGPL'd or BSD'd. Suppose that you
only link dynamically against Nreadline, so when you ship the binaries,
the program gets linked to he real readline instead, your program still
isn't GPL'd for the same reason it wasn't earlier. Now there is nothing
stopping you from making a trivial and extremely bad readline alternative
(eg using the kernel line disciplin and null functions for all the
Readline calls), so with a trivial amount of work you can negate the GPL
on a library.
Note, GPL covers the implementation, not the specification.
[*] this applies in source form too. If someone distributes a program
which is normally compiled against normal libraries (ie, not GPL), you
can't force a license change in the program simply by compiling it
against your own GPL'd libraries. Only the IP owner can change the terma
of the license.
I asked RMS about this, but he said that he was too busy to comment :-(
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:48:33 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > I was not aware that Rhapsody had any direct predecessors or
> > descendants. MacOS X is *very* clearly a descendant of
> > NeXTStep.
>
> You didnt get very far did you? Rhapsody was the original codeword for
> the OS based on NeXT's OS. So, yes it had predecessors and descendants.
Do you have a cite for that? My understanding is that
Rhapsody was an internal project.
[snip]
> > The problem was that they couldn't seem to handle producing
> > and supporting a new one. The never broke legacy apps
> > because they never got that far.
>
> Legacy apps would break all over the place in "new" MS OS's
MS is pretty good about it, really. Not perfect, but
it's better than never making any progress. :D
> > They tried several times- both new OSes and new
> > frameworks within the MacOS. They couldn't seem
> > to make it work.
>
> Which they are you talking about now? Apple or M$?. Apple legacy apps
> would have run under Copland (without new features), but Copland never
> got out the door. Legacy apps DO run under OS X.
Apple. MS tried new frameworks and new OSes, but they
*could* make it work.
The whole "... never got out the door" thing is a big damper
on the comercial success of projects like Copland, to say
the least.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:48:33 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I know that, but in the real world, the computer you're on may have no
> > > access to the printer yo want to use.
> >
> > In the real world, the computer you are on may not have
> > GhostScript installed, either.
>
> If you are producing Postcript files, you'd better have a Postscript
> interpreter, either in software (Ghostscript) or hardware (a postscript
> printer)
It would certainly be inconvenient not to.
Nevertheless, PostScript is not always available, any
more than networked printers are.
[snip]
> > I don't think any of this affects the point I was
> > trying to make, though. Windows, Microsoft's
> > fervent hopes aside, isn't the best tool for
> > every possible role. It dominates the business
> > desktop because it's the best tool to build apps
> > for that desktop.
>
> Windows dominstaes the market because of Microsoft's anti-competitve
> practices.
Wishfull thinking. You don't want to admit that
your favorite platform- MacOS for you, isn't it?-
is not up to par.
[snip]
> > One might prefer .GIF, actually. :D
> >
> > It may not be very good, but it's surely
> > more portable.
>
> PDF?
Programs than can print GIFs are more
common than those that can print PDFs, no?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:48:34 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > What, in your view, is an API then?
> >
> > In Win32 an API?
> > Is POSIX?
> > Is the Macintosh Toolbox?
> >
> > Why are thse APIs and that int 21h
> > foolishness not an API?
>
> int 21h is not an API, it is a low-level DOS interrupt routine.
You aren't being clear. Is the int 21h thing not
an API because it is:
1. low level
If this is it, then it seems like there's overlap
between the stuff DOS does and the stuff
Win32 does, so either parts of this DOS thing
are APIs, or parts of Win32 are not.
2. DOS
If this is it, then I may say that seems pretty
unfair to DOS. :D
3. an interrupt
If this is it, then the Macintosh Toolbox is
not at API on 680x0 Macintoshes, where
it is always a bunch of interrupts. But on
PowerPC machintoshes it *is* an API,
because there it is a bunch of shared libraries,
like Windows has.
I don't find any of these criteria particularly
satisfying.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 14:48:38 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > So Macs apps today are built to the same
> > Toolbox they were in 1983, despite it's
> > well know defects.
>
> What defects are those? Multitasking? It does that pretty well for an OS
> that was never designed for it.
Well, I don't really think so, but it's true that the initial design
of the toolbox made it hard to get right.
That kind of my point; the toolbox has needed
an update *badly* for at least a decade now. It's been
holding them back for at least that long, and multitasking
is an example.
> Protected memory? It does pretty well for an OS that was
> never with it.
Not really. MacOS could at least protect application
zones from each other, even with the toolbox it had.
> Try again.
I've already outlined in posts on this threads
some of the serious deficiencies in QuickDraw.
There are other issues. The whole 'code resource'
thing is awful; it makes user-defined controls
much harder than it has any right to be.
You might want to look at the Carbon event manager
sometime. It shows what Apple *could* have done
*years* ago. This library makes the event manager
suck much, much less and has been retrofitted to
MacOS 9.
They should have come up with that one years
ago. The crap you have to go through if you
don't have it does not bear description.
> BTW, you fail to give credit for Apple's move in switching CPU's. They
> did that. They will move to an new OS base fairly smoothly.
They did do that. It's the most remarkable thing they've
done in almost two decades. It made gave them something
of a new lease on life, but that particular trick is getting
a bit old now.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:00:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>right... 80% of men are bisexual, and Nooooone of them recognize it
>in each other?????
Damn, you are dense. People keep it secret, you know? They don't
want anyone else to have even the TINIEST suspicions. People CAN
suppress their feelings and keep secrets, you know. Also, I'm sure on
most men, the desire is so weak that it almost never crosses their
minds, and if it does, the thought is immediately suppressed, since
"I'm a manly man not a damn queer. Hell, I make FUN of queers with my
buds!"
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:02:23 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because stupid bigots like to rationalize their hatred of gays by
>> blaming them for AIDS.
>
>No. I merely refuse to associate with people who are so fucking suicidal.
Again, the false logic from Kookis. Homosexual != suicidal.
Homosexuality != unprotected anal sex. Idiot.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 17:05:47 +0100
>> If you are producing Postcript files, you'd better have a Postscript
>> interpreter, either in software (Ghostscript) or hardware (a postscript
>> printer)
>
> It would certainly be inconvenient not to.
>
> Nevertheless, PostScript is not always available, any more than
> networked printers are.
In the UNIX world, either you have a PS printer, or you have GS. Without
either, you'd never be able to print anything except plain text.
>> > I don't think any of this affects the point I was trying to make,
>> > though. Windows, Microsoft's fervent hopes aside, isn't the best tool
>> > for every possible role. It dominates the business desktop because
>> > it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop.
>>
>> Windows dominstaes the market because of Microsoft's anti-competitve
>> practices.
>
> Wishfull thinking. You don't want to admit that your favorite platform-
> MacOS for you, isn't it?- is not up to par.
I have to agree with Rick on this one, but I'll leave that discussion to
another thread.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 15:07:44 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Max wonders why you seem unable to address him like an adult would.
>
>Because most people use a lot of metaphysical ideas in the way they
>'explain' how the world works to themselves. Illogical, unscientific,
>yet still undeniably practical. As long as ignorance doesn't bother
>you, that is.
>
>You don't honestly think philosophers are insulted when everyone else
>claims they're just playing word-games, do you?
Said the guy who lost the argument. Again.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
