Linux-Advocacy Digest #748, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Tholen invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split (Marty)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (Marty)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (Marty)
Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla ("Yannick")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (lop@l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:40:04 GMT
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <93uY4.4222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > This seems an oversimplification; I don't think they'll drift apart-
> > there are strong pressures for compatability.
>
> We've seen this happen the in the real world.
Well, yes, but I don't recall HTML getting all *that*
bastardized. Sure a bit, but there are limits to how far
that kind of thing can go..
> > And of course, this is specifically about web browsers; these
> > conclusions do not obviously translate to other products.
>
> Sure it does. It applies to file formats, APIs, etc.. If the market is
> divided into enough segments there's always a pressure to be compatible
> with the rest of it that just isn't there otherwise.
It seems to me your analogy will work only when I can't usefully
put a new feature in my product that *only* my users will use.
If I don't have to get my competitors to support my innovations,
surely that makes my job a lot easier.
[snip]
> > This is not transparently bad; one can argue that progress is a good
> > thing, and that improvements to the protocols should be encouraged-
> > even if it is inconvinient for the little guys to keep up.
>
> There are ways to make improvements that won't destroy the competition.
> Somehow the PC makers all manage to make their hardware faster without
> breaking compatibility with each other.
Sure. But consider how long we all had to live with ISA because they
couldn't agree to move beyond it. Lord knows they *tried*, but
they couldnt' seem to do it.
Just going *faster* is easy.
> > It is often claimed that The Big Browser Company will introduct
> > *gratuitous* changes that do *not* represent improvements but
> > are mere incompatibilities. This is not a viable strategy, which is
> > probably why we don't see it happening. If the changes are just
> > useless, they will go unused- why cut yourself off from *any* browser
> > if there is no benefit to be gained thereby? If the changes are just
> > incompatibilities, then users won't use that browser, because it won't
> > read existing web pages.
>
> These changes do happen, but they're more subtle than the kind of thing
> that totally breaks compatibility. Witness the JavaScript
> implementations in IE and Netscape.
Well, to the extend that they do not break compatibility, they do not
cause vendor lock. To the extent that they do, they alienate customers.
It's lose-lose. To make this work, you've got to offer incompatible features
that users want. Then they'll use them- and then you've got them. :D
> > For the Big Browser Company's strategy to work, they must
> > *improve* the 'standards'.
>
> Not really. They just have to 'embrace and extend." Microsoft does
> plenty of this, and Netscape too did it when it had a large enough chunk
> of the market.
Embracing and extending works only if it represents improvements.
Netscapes changes *were* improvements; they allowed vastly nicer
web pages to be constructed.
[snip]
> > If there is a standards *body* that can vote changes, then improvements
> > are possible, but still rather difficult- any company that would find it
> > difficult to support a given improvement would wish to block it.
> >
> > IMHO we are better off with at least *some* big pushy companies that
> > are willing and able to 'extend' standards.
>
> Again, take a look at the PC hardware industry. Admittedly democracy is
> never quite as efficient as dictatorship, but there are other benefits.
I'm very underwhelmed by the PC hardware industry. They are
*still* using 8086-derived hardware. It's awful; we've known better
ways to do this stuff for *years*.
[snip]
> > And it seems to me that having a choice between 57 browsers, all
> > of which are exactly the same in every important respect, is a pretty
> > useless sort of choice.
>
> They'd all render the same HTML and run the same JavaScript, but
> significant differences could exist otherwise.
This kind of thing is more true of non-browser software. Browsers are
unually dependant on shared data, in the form of web pages.
But if significant differences can exist otherwise, then it would seem
that the little browser makers are not as vulnerable to the Big
Browser Company as you might thing; it can get pushy about
standards but they have apparenlty got some latitute in the form
of thes significant differences- whatever they are.
> > Of course, that argument applies mostly to browsers, where features
> > are generally only useful if web pages support them. But still.
An important qualification this; pardon me if I leave it in.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:42:34 GMT
EdWIN wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Malloy writes:
> > >
> > > > The Tholen tholens:
> > >
> > > Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
>
> How ironic coming from someone who writes "allleged."
Take that up with Dave "allleged" Tholen.
> > > >>> We sic Tholen onto you.
> > >
> > > >> Who is "we"?
>
> Don't you know?
Why not ask Dave Tholen?
> > > > The *real* question is how sic [sic!] is Tholen?
> > >
> > > How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> Classic invective.
On the contrary, I was merely pointing out the lie which was told.
> >There is no evidence in his posting of your claim that he just wrote
> > "that".
>
> Incorrect.
Where is the evidence, Edwin? Why, nowhere to be seen!
> > Seeing things that aren't there again, Tholen?
>
> Posting for entertainment purposes again, eh Malloy?
I see you failed to answer the question. No surprise there.
> "Let all who oppose the OverMind feel the Fury of the Swarm!"
Why?
> -- Infested Kerrigan, aka The Queen of Blades,
How ironic, coming from Edwin (aka little boy).
> StarCraft.
Illogical.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Evidence, please.
> Before you buy.
Having trouble completing a sentence?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:44:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Bob Hoye writes [to Eric Bennett]:
>
> > Don't you know? How ironic coming from the most prodigious Tholen
> > emulator.
>
> What makes you think that Eric Bennett is emulating me at all?
Don't you know?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:45:35 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hoye
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Don't you know?
>
> Don't I know what, Bob?
See what he means?
> > How ironic coming from the most prodigious Tholen
> > emulator.
>
> What is allegedly "ironic"?
Perhaps you would know if you had not butchered the context.
> > Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
>
> How ironic.
Not at all, Eric.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:49:52 GMT
Let me give my clear opinion on the point.
* Mozilla, as far as I know, has some sort of automatic bug tracking that allows
you to report bugs with some technical info to the development site. This can
account for lack of speed and bigger footprint in a really significant manner.
* If you want my opinion about Netscape 4.x, it is clear and precise : destroy
Netscape 4.
I've been developing webpages using only the W3C recommendations as a source of
information, and found that, also IE is far from implementing the standards fully,
Netscapes is far worse. I've discovered a bug in Netscape 4.7 that simply kills the
principle of separate CSS files, because it prevents you from having your CSS files
in a different directory than the dir. of your current page. Which forces you to use
integrated CSS, thus increasing the webpage's size and destroying the ability to
choose your CSS file. Netscape 4.7 thus killed an entire aspect of the CSS standard.
(Whereas it worked just fine on NS4.6 and NS6.). All the web developers I've seen have
been shouting at Netscape 4 after a week of work.
* From what I've heard and seen (and on this relies the validity of the following
points),
it seems as if Mozilla/Netscape 6 has been
brought much closer to the standards, in particular the DOM standard (allowing
to do neat things with JavaScript while removing the need for separate
scripts for NS and IE).
Which means :
- those who prefer IE can do whatever they want.
- those who do not prefer IE, or that cannot use it because they are not running
Windows, MacOS or Solaris, are now very close to get an up-to-date real browser.
Which means : if you are to use a Netscape-like, use Mozilla or Netscape 6, and destroy
Netscape 4. Once we're rid of NS4, we will be able to start creating real websites. The
memory consumption, should it remain greater in the end, is worth the technical
enhancement.
Yannick.
Christopher Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >On Sat, 27 May 2000 00:46:46 GMT, Christopher Wong
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
> >>>Christopher Wong wrote:
> >>>> button. I know the usual explanations: not yet optimized, built
> >>>> with debug info, ... etc. But somehow, people believe that
> >>>> Mozilla will have a small footprint and good performance. In the
> >>>> absence of any concrete proof whatsoever, I would like to hear
> >>>> reasons why such belief exists. There must be some facts that I
> >>>> am missing so far. I am eager to hear them. (no, "blind faith"
> >>>> does not qualify).
> >>>
> >>>I believe that Mozilla is currently built with all libraries
> >>>statically linked. This was done for the beta to avoid dependency
> >>>problems. The final release copy is supposed to be built with
> >>>shared libraries making it much smaller. I'm not sure, but it is
> >>>also likely that the beta was built without optimization and with
> >>>debug enabled.
> >>
> >>Thanks for responding, but I see that you did not answer my
> >>question. Why do people ASSUME it will be lean and mean? Anyone else?
> >
> > For one, packagers have the option of RIPPING out anything
> > that is not directly related to browsing html pages. Having
> > dynamic library linking should help 'trim' things up too...
>
> I've seen a lot of excuses and speculation now, but not really a real
> good answer to my question. Consider this: the Opera tech previews
> were/are in much worse shape than Mozilla is now, and had Qt
> statically linked in. Yet they were (when they ran) much faster than
> Netscape 4.x (let alone Mozilla), and had a memory footprint about a
> third of Mozilla's. I can understand expectations that the Opera
> browser will be small and fast. I do not understand why such
> expectations exist for Mozilla when no evidence support them.
>
> Chris
>
>
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:49:22 GMT
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <8go49c$13k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande�"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message
> >:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> > Spelling Camp. ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote: "Now it's
> >> >> time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> >> >
> >> >"puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
> >>
> >> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Eric? I wonder what Cornell
> >> would think of this use of their network resources?
> >>
> >> > He spelled it correctly.
> >>
> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> >Don't you know ?
>
> Of course not, as it has yet to be proven.
Now this is where you separate the professional Tholen emulators from the
rest. A real Tholen emulator would never admit to not knowing something under
any circumstances. Do try to keep up, WickedDyno.
------------------------------
From: lop@l
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 29 May 2000 12:55:21 -0700
In article <8gub3a$qur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>As a result, a *lot* more coding gets done. Sometimes the resulting code
>is crap --- so what, scrap it, redo it from scratch, with what you have
>learned from the mistakes you made the first time around. You can do
>that four times, and *still* get the good version before the person who
>does 15/85.
>
One can eliminate many unneccessary code iterations by spending more
time in the analysis and design stage.
Imagine a civil engineer building a bridge, then finding out near the
end that one end is shorter than the other, then blowing it, and starting
again.
There is nothing wrong with re-writing the program again the second time,
I've done that many times. The first time one learn things they could
not have seen before. But still, carfull analysis and design at the
start will always product a much better product the first time.
Looking at the linux and open source software I see very little of
that, very little in terms of analysis and design documents for some
very complex programs. Even looking at the source code, very little
documentation. I mean design documentation. Every programmer keeps the
design (if there is one) in their head, becuase that way they feel
smarter.
For a small program this can be OK, for larger programs this will
eventually come back and bite you.
>Of course, such programming behaviour is completely impossible in a commercial
>environment, where you have deadlines to meet and the client wants progress
>reports all the time. You can't go to your client and say "Well, you know,
>the program version we demoed to you last month --- turned out we had
>made some fundamental mistakes at the start, so we are restarting from
>scratch". It just won't do. The client would think you wasted your time,
>and their money.
>The scary part is that quite often, the paying customer would be far
>better off if you *could* say that. I know of a project that has cost
>many millions of dollars already, and which will cost many millions more,
>be late, and never work quite reliably. That's because they made a
>fundamental mistake in the way they designed their database, right at
>the start. But you can't say that to a client after the client spent
>millions of dollars, so instead they continue putting band aids everywhere,
>and the project is limping along.
>
>The nice thing about linux (as well as university studies ;-) is that there
>is no shame in admitting you screwed up. Last year, I completely rewrote
>the program for my PhD thesis --- as a result of running into limitations
>of the original design. I am now starting to run into the limitations
>of the current implementation, so if I wanted to take this thing any further,
>I would probably look at what I learned, and rewrite again.
>The thing, however, is --- I could never have come up with the design for
>even the current implementation, let alone the next one, when I first started.
>It takes time, experience and experimentation to find out what one might
>*want* to do. And sometimes the new ideas on what one wants to do do not mesh
>with a design that predates them. Such is life. You try to avoid it, you
>try to design everything as generic and versatile as you can, but sometimes
>some later ideas cannot be accomodated in the design.
>
>Bernie
>--
>All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others
>George Orwell
>English novelist, 1903-50
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
