Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Perry Pip)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Come on, Jedi, where are you? (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:32:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Ed Cogburn wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >
>> > Stuart Fox wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >
>> > > > No. I have a full understanding of the behavior of the individuals
>> > > > listed in my .sig, and how to keep their behavior under control
>> > > >
>> > > As a Unix Systems Engineer (whatever that is), you should know about
>> > > something called a <dr evil>"killfile"</dr evil>. Perhaps that's the best
>> > > way to "keep their behaviour under control", and avoid pissing off most of
>> > > the readers of this ng.
>> >
>> > Clue for the fucking clueless:
>> >
>> > Putting someone in a killfile doesn't prevent them from
>> > spreading lies about me.
>>
>> Clue for the really fucking clueless:
>>
>> We don't care. Your sig is a aggravation for a lot of people who are
>> *not* in your sig. Your making more enemies using it than you would
>> have to worry about without it. Do the right thing: Kill the .sig.
>
>Wrong. The individuals named (other than Petrich) all engage in
>hit-and-run campaigns consisting of meaningless red-herrings and
>out and out lies against me. I decided that rather than answer the
>charges from these assholes individually, a blanket pre-dismissal of
>their lies would be a better strategy.
>
>My .sig has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the volume of such activity against
>me,
>which is exactly what I designed it to do.
>
It has also significantly pissed off a lot of other people.
Do you really think you are the only person that matters
on usenet? Lose the sig, it's pointless drivel. It means
nothing to most of the people that read your posts, and
the few it does mean something to probably don't give a
shit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:48:30 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> >> If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
> >> >> pre-existing values come from?
> >> >
> >> >Education, mostly.
> >>
> >> Well, that would be "other people's values", then, eh?
> >
> >Not after you are educated. But yeah, at first you do what your
> >dad tells you is good, and don't do what he tells you is bad.
> >
> >> And where did> they come from?
> >
> >Their education, mostly.
>
> Well, aside from trying to make this exchange move as slowly as possible
> while you catch up to the full philosophical ramifications of your
> presumptions, is there a point to your failing to recognize the tenuous
> nature of this recursive argument?
Are you asking me if I have a hidden intention which I advance by
not understanding that my argument is tenuous? That is way too
convoluted to deserve an answer.
> There are three possibilities (as always; all dichotomies are false
> ones)
> a) People choose their values
> b) People learn their values from others
> c) People may or may not choose to learn, or learn to choose, but the
> situation is more complicated than can be understood if you accept
> either a blanket assumption of an absolute moral code OR a
> post-modernist relativity in which everyone determines their own ethics
> through pure free will.
Interesting, you accuse me of being a post-modern relativist, yet
you say post-modern relativists say everyone determines their
own ethics to free will.
Since I don't say that, I guess you must accept I am not a postmodern
relativist.
> So how would you like to proceed? A discussion of whether free will
> exists, or a discussion of whether ethics are determined by 'putatively
> universal social consensus', not personal morality? I'm flexible, take
> your pick.
I'd rather not pick one or the other, but just start ignoring you more
militantly.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:54:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Aug 2000 00:15:32 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Untrue, you offered these as a form of evidence that WinNT was responsible
>for the specific Yorktown failure being discussed.
You keep discussing the specific incident in an attempt to vindicate
NT but I am discussing both incident and the overall use of NT on the
Yorktown. The orginal context of this thread was the Navy's use of W2K
in aircraft carriers. The overall use of NT on the Yorktown is
pertinent to that original context. I don not believe the latter story
about the specific incident and I argued that, but it is have also
argued it is irrelevent in the light of the other facts.
>there is no information on what the effect(s) of these incidents
>were,
Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
"Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
resulted from NT."
The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
systems failures, he said.
That last paragraph is clearly in the context of the two above, and is
telling you the effect of the failures. To deny this is a blatent lie.
>If your reading comprehension skills were better you might have recalled
>that I have never suggested that using WinNT, or any commercial general
>purpose OS, UNIX or otherwise, was a good choice.
I do recall that but quite franlky I really don't think you knew what
you were talking about. You suggest using a "embedded solution where
you apply power and the system is there in a second or two" We aren't
even talking about embedded systems, were talking about operater
consoles. I mentioned that in my response, with an elaboration of the
difference and examples of what I have seen used in similar situations
and you snipped it all out. Also, it is quite clear from the article
that one or more database servers is used for the Smart System, which
can be a separate platfrom from the consoles, as long as the clients
can interract thru some established protocol.
If you wouldn't recommend a general purpose commercial OS, then tell
me what would you recommend to be used for an operator console to a
smart system like that on the Yorktown?? The requirements would be a
GUI that enables operation and maintenance personnel to fully manage
the systems, inlcuding schematic displays of real time system status
and health monitoring, command and control displays, access to
databases and any other applications needed. For all of these you need
an OS that is good for developing highly specialized custom
GUI's. Absolute reliability is not required bacuase you will have
multiple consoles, so if one console is down, you can access the
system from another console or by alternate means. As long at it isn't
so bad that operaters are pissing at the consoles all the time.
Also, what would you reccommend for a highly reliable and available
database server. What is most widely used today for high reliability
databases? Again, a single machine may go down, but all the data must
be available say 99.999% of the time. I would like to hear what you
recommend.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:01:55 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> >>
> >> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I had said
> >> >> >> >Well, let's apply the standard you expect of others, for a change.
> >> >> >> >Explain me! Tell me! What? You don't explain the way I like?
> >> >> >> >Fool!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What the hell are you talking about?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well, that is the general attitude you have. Remember chmod?
> >> >> >You ask people to explain, and when you fail to understand,
> >> >> >you insult. Well, moron, explain again! better!
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I asked for an explanation of the permissions, not chmod, the
> >> >> command used to modify them.
> >> >
> >> >I only use chmod as a reference to the discussion. It obviously
> >> >worked.
> >>
> >> Actually, it didn't 'work' at all in the regard I take it you mean.
> >
> >It was meant to let you know what discussion I was referring to.
> >You seem to be now referring to the same discussion. That's what I
> >wanted. It worked. Stop arguing stupid stuff. Please.
>
> It isn't stupid stuff, but I know what you mean. It is important
> because it identifies how you were misrepresenting the argument by
> inaccurately identifying what I had asked for an explanation about.
I didn't say you asked for chmod. I just mentioned chmod expecting it
to kick your memory the right way. It worked. It was purely functional.
[snip (yes, it is stupid stuff)]
> [...]
> >You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
> >of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
>
> The affects are an abstraction;
Oh, no. The effects are very concrete. They cause some electrons
to go to one state instead of another.
> the visual presentation, while
> meaningless in your perspective, is all that the person who doesn't
> *already understand* has to attempt to understand the abstraction, and
> therefore what the discussion was about, what my request was, and why
> the explanations I was getting were less than helpful.
What can I say? No. a "t" is useless to understand what the abstraction
is. It can only help you see if it's active or not.
> >A representation of the effects would be something very different,
> >such as a view of the memory mapping of a running program. Which is
> >something you probably will never see.
>
> And never need to see, as I already have the abstraction of what the
> sticky bit *does*; the only point of confusion which was supposedly
> being discussed was why I had it confused with the setuid bit.
That's reason for introspection, not for a usenet post.
> Not why it was different, but why it wasn't known to be different.
The reasons for your ignorance are uninteresting.
> The answer
> is that either is rarely something that comes up a lot for the majority
> of Unix users, and they are both represented by changes to the execute
> bit in the permissions.
You still don't get it. No, the execute bit is not changed.
Sigh.
[snip]
> [...]
> >So, you see a "t" in a directory's permissions, and you know you can
> >only delete your own files, without being told that. Yeah, sure.
> >So much for the uselessness of our answers.
>
> That happens quite rarely even for people with much more experience than
> I.
It happens every day, to every unix user. You may not know it,
though.
[snip]
> >> >The main result of applying the sticky bit, as it was told to you
> >> >many times, are that the executable image stays in swap, and the effect
> >> >on file creation and deletion. The ls output is not important at all.
> >>
> >> To you, perhaps.
> >
> >This sums it up. You must be trolling. I can't believe you actually
> >say this seriously. Let's put it this way: if the important thing
> >the suid bit does is put a s in the permissions, it would be a hell
> >of a lot simpler to implement.
>
> That depends on why you're asking the question. Your perspective is so
> far removed from someone who is trying to learn these things to begin
> with that you may unknowingly but aggressively prevent them from being
> able to learn. I didn't say what the setuid bit does is totally
> unimportant in all regards but the visual display of permissions; I said
> it was unimportant in the context of the discussion in most other
> regards than the visual display of permissions, since that is pretty
> much all most users will ever see of it. When someone asks "what is the
> setuid bit", an answer that combines the visual (concrete)
> representation with the functional (abstract) purpose is going to go a
> lot farther in promoting understanding, and so the alternative is,
> essentially, promoting ignorance.
You have it backwards.
The functional purpose is not abstract. The visual representation,
though,
is an abstraction of the real implementation of the bit.
> >> In distinguishing the sticky bit from the setuid bit,
> >> and in clarifying that they are not at all related, it seemed rather
> >> definitive. They could, after all, have been in the same position, just
> >> as either shares a place with the executive bit.
> >
> >Notice that although they share the position with the x bit, you can
> >still say if the x bit is set or not. They are not the same as the x
> >bit, either. So, if they can share a position with a bit and be
> >differnt, they could also share (or not) a postion with each other and be
> >different.
> >
> >The position they use makes no difference one way or the other.
>
> Which only makes the issue more confusing for those not already familiar
> with it.
Not for someone who is trying to understand.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:55:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:52:06 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:52:26 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Perry Pip wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >And how many were there in the original Transcontinental Railroad.
>> >I thought they went through Wyoming instead of Colorado to avoid
>> >the high Rockies.
>>
>> Soemthing like 14 but it really doesn't matter. First of all,
>> railroads back east in the mountains were built across the best
>> possible passes as well, not the highest mountains. Secondly, it is
>> not simply a matter that one terrain is more difficult than another
>> (which it is), but also the fact that the terrains are radically
>> different. For example in the east you might build a bridge accross a
>> river. To do that you have to build peirs into the banks and under the
>> water in a terrain that consisted of soil and mud with underlying
>> granite. In the west you might build a bridge across a canyon. To do
>> that you have to build peirs into steeply sloped canyon walls made of
>> sedimentary rock so soft an experienced rock climber wouldn't want to
>> brave it. To deny that building the transcontinentals were engineering
>> accomplishments that were the first of their kind is utterly naive of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> what really goes into civil engineering.
>
>Was is so different from previous practice that no private firm would
>have done it?
Again you keep asking the same questions over and over again to the
point of being obstinate.
When you do something that is for the first time their is a learning
curve. In the world of engineering that means a much higher
cost. Engineers call that cost 'up front cost'. There were also other
factors affecting the 'up front cost' of the transcontinentals. In
this case, the shear length from the West Coast to populated areas in
the Great Plains. Private companies were afraid to make that
investment in 'up front cost' to get across the terrains of the West.
>I'm not posting this for your entertainment.
And I'm not here to post the same ideas over and over again to someone
who refuses to understand simple concepts in engineering and
economics. You are taking this conversation around full circle and
repeating the same questions over and over again. If you differ with
my opinion, say so and make an arguement to back it up, instead of
directing questions at my opinion and ignoring the answers I give you.
>If private companies would
>not have made that investment, should the government have done so?
Another question that you have repeated numerous times. I will try to
answer it more elaborately for you:
1) Military benefit: Better ability for the U.S. to protect it's borders.
2) Benefits to democracy: A much safer speedier means of transportion to
Washington D.C. for representives of California and other States,
necessary for equal representation of these states in our political
system.
3) Industrial benefit: Opening up the west to the industrial
revolution in the East, providing resources to the east in return for
finished products to the West.
With political, social, economic and military isolation, California
may have someday had a perfectly justifiable reason to secede from the
Union. (Unlike the South, which had an utterly stupid reason). Lincoln
wanted to keep the country unified. I think he made a good
decision. That's my opinion.
>> You haven't made one practical suggestion on what could have
>> alternatively been done that could have had as much benefit as the
>> transcontinentals.
>
>Railroads in more populated areas, for one.
What was needed at the time was railroads to interconnect populated
areas separated by vast distances and difficult terrains.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:55:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:04:03 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, then a lot of people lie to themselves.
Ok. But how do you know you're not lying to yourself?
>Most of the US population doesn't see any contradiction between science
>and Creationism.
>
Do you have survey on that? Most people I know see many
contradictions. I just want some emperical data. You don't expect me
to take your word for it do you?? You could be lying to yourself.
>> Regardless of what it means, your point is completely fucked up. It is
>> not for elitist psychologists and social scientists to tell people how
>> to live their lives as you seem to suggest.
>
>Of course, just like it's not up to doctors to do the same ...
>
As far as I can tell, I haven't had any Doctors tell me how to live my
life. Thay have only made suggestions, and even that for a fee.
>> >Wrong, cretin. I said that all LARGE BUSINESSES and most small ones
>> >are psychopaths. And this is obvious from observation.
>>
>> Provide a reference backing up your claim then.
>
>ANYONE with a half-way functional brain that understands
>what the word "psychopath" means would IMMEDIATELY be able to see
>why that is so. You might as well be asking me to provide a reference
>to support the assertion that beach sand is white-yellow.
>
There are photographs of the sand proving the color. There should be a
study or something affirming what you claim. Otherwise, it is no more
scientific than religion.
>You presume yourself some kind of authority!
Hell no! I'm just wondering why you act as if you are.
>Haven't my
>deconstructions of your personality and my dozen or so insults not
>clued you in to the fact that I just don't give a fuck??
>
Yes. And I think you are doing so because you believe it is in your
best self-interest to be an asshole.
>In a healthy family PERCEIVED self-interest is consistent
>with the interest of the family. But perceived self-interest has about
>as much to do with self-interest as someone's dream of a pickup truck
>has to do with the reality of a bulldozer. Even in the *extreme*
>situations where a person cannot separate from physical reality or
>from our species, it is still in the self-interest of that person to
>be an asshole who acts CONTRARY to the interests of our species. This
>is the exact opposite of what you claim.
>
So then you do believe being and asshole is in your true self
interest, and this is why you act like one.
>The model is:
> people are wildly irrational, and
> people are not very self-interested
>
I see, but you are self interested and thus you act like an asshole
which is what you think is rational.
>This model characterizes >> 99% of human behaviour.
>
Is this what you are going to do your thesis on some day?? Have you
collected any supporting data yet??
>I certainly can't prove them to you.
Or anyone else, unless you get some supporting data.
>Maybe if you took a couple courses in philosophy and psychology,
>or even merely spent some time /at/ a university, you'd be able
>to distinguish the two. Then again, maybe not.
>
I did spend some time at a university. Probably before you were
born. And I took courses in both.
>> And since when did philosophy have an implicit monopoly on defining
>> morality and rationality?
>
>A couple of millenia. At least as far back as Plato and Aristoteles.
>
So they claim. Religions claim things to, and have at least for a few
millenia, so they claim.
>Religions like to claim a lot of things.
>
Yes, and so do philosophers. I don't blindly follow either.
>This was a thread between ignorant people until I jumped in.
Of course.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:03:40 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Coming from the man that believes the effect of the sticky bit
> >> >is a "t" that appears on his screen every once in a while.
> >>
> >> Indeed, that is the only effect which the sticky bit has ever had for
> >> me, and for many others who have posted on this matter, by their own
> >> declaration.
> >
> >Nonsense. Have you never created or deleted a file in /tmp?
> >Have you never printed on a unix queue?
> >Have you never sent or received email on a unix server?
> >
> >It may be the only one you NOTICED, though.
>
> A good point. Abstract, and outside the scope of the discussion we've
> been having, but a good point nevertheless.
Ha.
> [...]
> >> Yes, its quite cogent in itself in many regards, eh?
> >
> >I must confess cogent is a funny word for a argentinian.
>
> Why is that? It just sounds weird, or does it mean something else in
> your native tongue?
It sounds an awful lot like a colloquial term.
> I'm not trying to bait you, but it occurred to me
> that "a argentinian" sounds weird in English, though I'm not sure if
> that's a lingual or a typographical error.
Hmmm... should I add a "n"?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Come on, Jedi, where are you?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:07:26 -0300
Mike escribi�:
>
> "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8mrq1j$nbn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <wRAj5.69417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8mmgo3$2gu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> ...
> > > ... Nonetheless, you've highlighted (again) the
> > > problem with multiple Unix GUIs. Without sharing the underlying
> > > infrastructure, applications written for one will be unable to run
> > with full
> > > functionality under another.
> >
> > You mean X and other alternative GUIs? Which ones would those be?
> > AFAICS, X is the standard, even if by default.
> >
> > > The more basic problem is that X falls far
> > > short of delivering the full infrastructure needed to support modern
> > GUI
> > > applications. Application developers are faced with the prospect of
> > either
> > > writing their own infrastructure, which excludes all other
> > applications from
> > > interoperating with theirs, or using the infrastructure provided by
> > one of
> > > the other GUIs. So far, it seems that most applications write for the
> > lowest
> > > common denominator, X, and provide their own infrastructure.
> >
> > You missed the solution actually used: use a toolkit, put the
> > infrastructure there.
> >
> > > This provides portability, since X is underneath the Unix GUIs anyway,
> > but
> > > it also means that the infrastructure provided by the GUI is lost.
> >
> > I don't think I follow. What functionality, provided by what, is lost
> > when who does what?
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> To an isolated application, the choice of a library, or toolkit, or
> whatever, wouldn't matter, and for some things, like menus and custom dialog
> boxes, it wouldn't matter. But, if I want to write applications that use
> drag and drop, as the poster I was responding to mentioned, or shared
> devices, like printers, or common dialog boxes, or CORBA, or other shared
> objects and services, then I'm kind of stuck. As far as I'm aware, X
> provides none of those things.
Of course not. If you want to print, use the system's printing
services. If you want common dialogs, they come with the
toolkit. If you want CORBA, get an ORB.
> But the common layer underlying both Gnome and KDE is X. That's what
> prompted the question of why the additional infrastructure supplied by KDE
> and Gnome isn't folded into X, rather than implemented separately.
Because it doesn't belong there, for the most part. X has a purpose,
and providing CORBA ain't part of it.
> So, you can put your infrastructure into a toolkit, but I can't really share
> that infrastructure with other applications (like using the same clipboard,
> or doing drag and drop, or embedding objects from other applications) unless
> they use the same toolkit, or there is some mapping between different
> toolkits. Mapping seems simple in concept, but is often difficult in
> practice. Maybe that mapping is in the plans, but judging from the exchanges
> here, I'm doubtful.
Of all the examples you give, only embedding is not feasible today.
> A more subtle issue is the user experience part of the UI. Guidelines have
> been published for KDE, and probably for Gnome as well, but subtle
> differences can confuse things in a hurry. One obvious example is something
> like a print dialog box. Even if the API is the same, if the UI isn't, then
> it's confusing for the user.
The users have lived with having different common dialogs in MS Office
from
the rest of windows. Most never notice until you show them.
> Without the common infrastructure or mapping, it seems to me that it's
> implied that an application will be strongly tied to a particular desktop,
> and that the interoperability with applications written for other desktops
> will be limited. In other words: if I'm running KDE, then I want all of my
> apps to support KDE.
Well, you can want it, that doesn't mean you need it. ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
