Linux-Advocacy Digest #307, Volume #26 Sat, 29 Apr 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows) (Donn Miller)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Christopher Browne)
Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows) (Perry Pip)
Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows) (Christopher Browne)
Re: Where is PostScript support?? (Lee Sau Dan)
Re: A split? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work. (Perry Pip)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 16:03:37 GMT
I will snip a bit because this message is way too long.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
[snip]
> >> >> >> The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just because an application programmer has access to
all the
> >bells
> >> >> >> and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will
use
> >them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Jedi, read what he wrote. He said Gimp HAS access to XDND, in
> >fact,
> >> >>
> >> >> He also said that you can't drag from kfm to gimp. KFM
is
> >> >> supposed to be conformant to the same standards as the
rest
> >> >> of KDE is it not?
> >> >
> >> >Argh. Could you please not argue about what you ignore?
> >> >He said "KDE 2.x". Kfm is part of KDE 1.x. Kfm's replacement in
KDE
> >2.x
> >> >is Konqueror. Kfm can't drop to gimp because KDE 1.x doesn't use
> >Xdnd,
> >> >because its Dnd stuff was done before Xdnd existed.
> >>
> >> ...so much for release early and release often, or nice
> >> modular design for that matter (something that C++ with
> >> all of it's object oriented hoo-haa should facilitate).
> >
> >Jedi, do you have the slightest idea how stupid you look?
>
> ...being foolish enough to actually buy into all of that
> lame ass propaganda about KDE and GNOME agreeing on
> interop standards doesn't make me look half as stupid as
> it makes YOU and the rest of the KDE Team ASSHOLES look.
And again, you keep going on and on about things you just have no
clue about. KDE and GNOME did agree on a common drag and drop standard.
We just had not agreed yet at the time. The common standard is Xdnd.
GNOME is already using it, we are using it in the current development
version. Who didn�t honour his word, and where?
> True, I was foolish enough to take you charlatains at your
> word. That makes me the chump. However, that condition is
> remedied easily enough.
Well, you seem to have taken us at whatever you UNDERSTOOD we were
saying, which seems to have only a remote acquaintance with reality.
> >Why don't you just say "oh, well, didn't knew that", instead of
> >backpedaling so furiously?
>
> Actually, I did say that. I said it a little more explicitly
> in another reply.
Yet here, you backpedal. Why?
> I made the mistake of overestimating you jokers.
Well, since you don�t know much, I suppose you could still be doing it.
Or not.
> That certainly won't happen again.
Whatever makes you happy, kid (I really hope you are a kid, being a
grown up like this would be hell).
> >
> >Do you have ANY idea of when the Xdnd spec was finalized, of when it
was
> >adopted by Qt, and of when development of KDE 1.x was switched to
> >stability maintenance?
>
> It doesn't matter. The dnd protocol can be implemented outside
> of the core widgetset.
Guess where the older protocol was implemented, ignoramus?
> You don't need use Troll's lameness or
> the lameness of the QT licence as a CRUTCH.
Who is doing that? The Qt license was no impediment to implementing the
older protocol. It would be no impediment to implement Xdnd either, if
Troll Tech weren�t kind enough to do it for us.
Let me use short words so you get it:
DND much work.
People helping limited.
Trolls were doing it anyway.
It was not urgent.
We wait for trolls.
Got it?
> HELL, in this respect adding Motif or OffiX dnd support would
> also be nice. Evidently, we'll have to wait for Troll to put
> it in instead of the KDE developers taking the initiative.
Yawn. Can you write ONE paragraph without being factually wrong?
Look at Qt 2.1. Look at DnD protocols supported. Look at who wrote
them.
> This also highlights the liability of using someone else's
> corporate property in free software or an open standards
> implementation.
Since you have no clue, it is no surprise your conclussions are random.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 16:11:16 GMT
Ok, no more Mr. Nice Guy :-P
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> Mebbe, mebbe not. I would be more convinced of that whole
> 'QT is now finally GPL compatible' if I saw some 'GPL
> compatible' behaivor going on: like a BeOS or a MacOS version.
Shut up and port it. Nobody is stoping you, and most certainly the
license is not stopping you. Your own lameness may be stopping you.
> >> The interface didn't have to change. KDE and GNOME are both to
> >> a certain degree 'wrapper' libraries. There's no need for either
> >> of them to be hung up on implementation details of underlying
> >> interfaces when presenting it's own interface. Even if Xdnd is
> >> in some way rather bizarre in comparison to Motif DnD or Offix
DnD
> >> there should be some 'simple' mode of interopability that could
> >> be achieved with minimum impact. Motif dnd, for example, has
several
> >> types of interaction and clients can choose to implement a only
subset.
> >>
> >> When making comparisons between competitors, it certainly is
relevant
> >> to bring up how well each addresses legacy interoperability or
> >> implements newer standards.
> >
> >In a perfect world, perhaps. Consider chaning declarations, though
> >and passed structs. Every program which is linked to KDE would need
> >to be rewritten to work with KDE 1.n+1's new XDND unless, by chance,
> >they matched up perfectly (doubtful).
>
> The real question is what's so damn different about Xdnd when
> compared to DnD protocols from the last 15 years such that there
> would necessarily be a problem and/or why KDE was apparently
> written with too much of the innards of a particular protocol
> exposed.
I don�t feel confident enough about the probability of you actually
understanding the explanation, to bother explaining it to you.
> (Dunno really, it might not be infact that way. That's
> just the way that the defenders of KDE have been painting the
> situation).
Who did? Where? All I saw in this thread is David and I saying
simply that we did not switch to Xdnd in 1.x. Nobody said that
it was technically impossible (because it was not).
> Everyone is presuming that KDE fails at being modular and
abstract
> such that an addition of xdnd to KDE 1.x would be a problem.
Who is that everyone? I know I am not!
> You can code in assembler if you want that kind of
maintainability.
Well, there�s the portability thing, too. But hey, you could also
have said "you can code in C". What�s the point?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 12:36:49 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows)
mlw wrote:
> There are other issues as well, comments like these will be made public:
>
> "/* This should break lotus 123 */"
> "/* Hack to allow powerpoint to access private bitmaps */"
> "/* This should break notes */"
> "/* NSA paid big bucks to this back-door */"
> "/* netscape engineers are weenies */"
> "/* This is a big ugly hack, fix it in next version? */"
Well, I think MS would look for these comments and remove them. But,
think of how many lines of code of Windows are actually Microsoft's.
MS can't just release the source code as-is, because a lot of it
belongs to 3rd-party vendors: Symantec for disk utils and virus
checking, Spyglass - Internet Explorer (which is really a modified
version of SpyGlass Mosaic, BTW), and numerous other vendors.
Strip away all of the 3rd party code from Windows, and how much of the
code that is left is actually Microsoft's? Another point: There's
probably too much interdependency on 3rd-party code to just simply
compile a working system with what you'd have left. You'd need that
code just to make Windows function.
- Donn
------------------------------
Reply-To: <btolder>
From: <btolder>
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 09:38:12 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That's not quite the same thing. Adding a 3D API or a TCP stack
> is a far different matter. These are shared facilities that don't
> tend to eliminate the need for 3rd party application products.
> They also tend to conform to a less disputed definition of Operating
> System.
HTML controls are shared components too. Everyone platform has or is adding
them, just as every platform is busy improving internet integration.
> Thus the differnce between when Microsoft 'assimilated' Stacker
> technology versus when they 'assimilated' Netscape technology.
Netscape technology? Don't you mean Internet technology? Is nobody allowed
to implement Internet on Win32 except Netscape?
> Meanwhile, a product that is available for 12 or more platforms
> is effectively killed due to it's 'airsupply being cut off'.
The trial court concluded in their findings of fact that Netscape was not
prevented from distributing their products. That is pretty significant,
because in all other antitrust rulings the competitors were prevented from
distributing their products.
> Where's the Exploder for BeOS? What about Solaris x86? Howabout Tru64?
Microsoft has zero obligation to support other platforms. What do you
think--they are a charity or something?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:23:23 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when btolder would say:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> That's not quite the same thing. Adding a 3D API or a TCP stack
>> is a far different matter. These are shared facilities that don't
>> tend to eliminate the need for 3rd party application products.
>> They also tend to conform to a less disputed definition of Operating
>> System.
>
>HTML controls are shared components too. Everyone platform has or is adding
>them, just as every platform is busy improving internet integration.
Indeed. It is interesting that GNOME and KDE appear to be at least
partly sharing the same "xmhtml" widget that does this...
>> Thus the differnce between when Microsoft 'assimilated' Stacker
>> technology versus when they 'assimilated' Netscape technology.
>
>Netscape technology? Don't you mean Internet technology? Is nobody
>allowed to implement Internet on Win32 except Netscape?
Oh, but Netscape is the One True Inheritor of the Mosaic folk from
NCSA, so, um, ...
>> Meanwhile, a product that is available for 12 or more platforms
>> is effectively killed due to it's 'airsupply being cut off'.
>
>The trial court concluded in their findings of fact that Netscape was not
>prevented from distributing their products. That is pretty significant,
>because in all other antitrust rulings the competitors were prevented from
>distributing their products.
>
>> Where's the Exploder for BeOS? What about Solaris x86? Howabout Tru64?
>
>Microsoft has zero obligation to support other platforms. What do you
>think--they are a charity or something?
The availability of IE for Solaris/SPARC and not for Solaris/x86 _is_
pointedly interesting...
--
"There are three kinds of program statements: sequence, repetition,
and seduction."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:20:35 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 12:36:49 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Strip away all of the 3rd party code from Windows, and how much of the
>code that is left is actually Microsoft's?
void bsod(void *ptr_to_hex_junk){
...
}
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:27:06 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donn Miller would say:
>mlw wrote:
>> There are other issues as well, comments like these will be made public:
>>
>> "/* This should break lotus 123 */"
>> "/* Hack to allow powerpoint to access private bitmaps */"
>> "/* This should break notes */"
>> "/* NSA paid big bucks to this back-door */"
>> "/* netscape engineers are weenies */"
>> "/* This is a big ugly hack, fix it in next version? */"
>
>Well, I think MS would look for these comments and remove them. But,
>think of how many lines of code of Windows are actually Microsoft's.
>MS can't just release the source code as-is, because a lot of it
>belongs to 3rd-party vendors: Symantec for disk utils and virus
>checking, Spyglass - Internet Explorer (which is really a modified
>version of SpyGlass Mosaic, BTW), and numerous other vendors.
On the other hand, in those cases where MSFT bought out the vendors,
they _do_ own complete rights to the sources...
>Strip away all of the 3rd party code from Windows, and how much of the
>code that is left is actually Microsoft's? Another point: There's
>probably too much interdependency on 3rd-party code to just simply
>compile a working system with what you'd have left. You'd need that
>code just to make Windows function.
This is precisely why Mozilla has taken two years to get anywhere.
NCC had to rip out Motif, RogueWave, RSA, and other vendors' code
from the code base in order to release just what belonged to NCC.
That left something of a "worthless hulk."
It's not clear at all that there's _all_ that much code from "original
Mozilla" in today's Mozilla; with the drastic loss, and dramatic need
to reimplement, it became obvious that lots of other chunks of it
needed to be _redesigned_, and hence, today's Mozilla is completely
unrecognizable as being related to the one of 1996...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #46. "I will not grow a goatee. In the old
days they made you look diabolic. Now they just make you look like a
disaffected member of Generation X."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Lee Sau Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where is PostScript support??
Date: 30 Apr 2000 01:30:49 +0800
>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Besides, in my field it's regarded as
Stephen> curteous to include some photos of the organisms under
Stephen> study, which is out of the question using xdvi.
Convert the photos to EPS (Postscript 2 supports JPEG compression!)
using the GIMP or xv and voila!.
Stephen> It's
Stephen> difficult changing the size of a single page without
Stephen> changing it for the rest of the presentation.
You mean enclosing the contents of that signle slide inside a pair of
"{\small " and "}" is _difficult_? And so is using "{\tiny " and "}"?
Stephen> The layout
Stephen> of a slide does not need to be as uniform as the text in
Stephen> a printed article, and occasionally you _do_ want to have
Stephen> the flexibility of positioning the various elements by
Stephen> hand.
I agree, basically. However, whenever I found I need the above trick,
I would think again about that side: am I putting too much on one
single slide? Would it be better to split it into two? If so, how?
Or am I not precise enough? Very often, I found it more appropriate
to make the split, instead of using "\tiny ".
--
Lee Sau Dan ���u��(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A split?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:39:57 GMT
I have some comments on this proposed split.
What they need to do is bust Microsoft up into
4 major chunks.
#1. Microsoft Operating Systems.
#2. Microsoft appliances.
#3. Microsoft Development tools and Databases.
#4. Microsoft Internet mistakes.
Then the government should MANDATE that #2, #3 and #4 be cross
compatible
with OTHER operating systems.
If we can mandate internet collectiveness and also
collectiveness in the format of stored information {Microsoft
proprietary WORD format},
then we SHOULD mandate a POSIX compliance across the board for all OS.
No more API secrets which prevent other companies from being competitive
with
Microsoft.
Frankly, I think they could all just save time to declare UNIX as the
UNIVERSAL OS and be done with what will be and what will not be.
This seems to be the judgment of Microsoft itself as it heads more
towards
UNIX and away from lunacy.
But YES, 2,3, and 4 should all be forced to be NON-PROPRIETARY!
There is a growing concern amongst Taxpayers that the Governments
continual investment in Microsoft Propriety development tools such
as Visual Basic in conjunction with the requiring of proprietary
licenses
to be optioned to work on such tools is illegal in nature.
That is to say the Federal Government has been giving points to
applicants who have Microsoft Certifications over people don't.
Experience has been swept away in lue of Certifications.
As you have to PAY Microsoft for your Certification, this
is yet another example of how Microsoft has Defrauded the American
people.
IN this regard Microsoft is a discredit to the United States and
is dragging the United States image down amongst other foreign powers.
And this doesn't even cover for the political damage suffered via
the back door issues.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 17:37:19 GMT
On 29 Apr 2000 10:10:15 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8ee05h$sen$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>That fads definitely suck people in. While I myself
>>do not like Linux at all, I will acquiesce in saying
>>that it is indeed quite useful. However, what makes
>>you believe that people swarming all over Linux is
>>any less silly than people swarming all over Windows
>>v3? Most of the non-technical users of Linux are
>>not using it because they need it. They are using
>>it because it's cool to use it, and many of them
>>oddly perceive themselves to be "smarter" simply by
>>using it. It's pretty sad when people define their
>>own aptitudes by the operating system they use, but
>>they often do so nevertheless. :-\
>
>This is totally a fabrication by Stephen Edwards for the
>purpose of anti-Linux propaganda. Linux users everywhere
>*say* that they use it because it's more reliable, more
>versatile, and more elegant -- pleasing to the eye and the
>mind -- than MS Windows.
>
>For Edwards to claim, without any proof whatsoever, that
>they really use it because of some other reason, is very
>simply a lie. It's one of his favorite lies, which he
>repeats frequently.
>
>The intended effect of Edwards' lie is obviously to dispar-
>age Linux users as neurotic egotists in the eyes of the
>Usenet audience, so that members of the audience will not
>want to associate with them, and therefore will be discour-
>aged from using Linux.
No, Edwards is just subconciously describing himself in an indirect way.
>Edwards has never revealed why he posts so much lying propa-
>ganda, for so many months,
It's obvious. It's his own emotional insecurity.
Perry
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Apr 2000 18:06:43 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, WickedDyno
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
||In <8e7m4j$n6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger
||<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|||In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|||
|||
|||: "David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
|||:|
|||:| There should be parties in the streets! BillG should also be tried for
|||:| crimes against humanity. Because of his blind ideology to put every
|||:| one out
|||:| of business with HIS vision of the future. Thank God, that this type
|||:| of
|||:| global tyranny was stopped!
|||
|||: Absolutely.
|||
|||: The nerd is a megalomaniac.
|||
|||True nerddom requires technical saavy.
|||Linus and Alan can be nerds if they so desire.
|||But Bill Gates? He's just a magalomaniac that *looks* like a nerd.
|||
|||Calling BillG a nerd is an insult to nerds everywhere...
||
||Absolutely true; except, Gates doesn't look like a nerd, he looks
||like some unwashed street people in an expensive suit.
||
||Guido
||
|
|How would more than one unwashed street person fit into a single suit?
Virtual reality? Very popular in Redmond; or, so I'm told...
Guido
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
