Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Steve Mading)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Steve Mading)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Aug 2000 22:50:46 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >BTW, you found my mention of "mandatory licensing" (as an example of
> >limitation or exception to the Constitution's "exclusive right" by law
> >makers) preposterous and asked me for proof in law. I gave you such
> >proof (the law used the term "compulsory licensing" and you seem to have
> >ignored it.
>
> No, I didn't think it was cogent. ;-)
>
> Just because the law uses the term 'compulsory licensing' doesn't mean
> that 'mandatory licensing' is considered a legitimate 'exclusive right'
> in the context of our discussion, you see.
It seems I wasn't clear. First, I haven't recently looked up
"compulsory" and "mandatory", but I consider them synonomous in this
context. Next, I've never believed that such licensing is a right at
all. (It is the opposite of a right, whatever that might be called: a
duty or edict or something.) The right compulsively licensed is the
right omitted by modern lawmakers from the many components of the
exclusive right mentioned in the US Constitution.
But I see from your argument below that this all is moot in the
discussion of dynamic libraries & partial programs. More below.
> >Have you modified your theory so that it has room for
> >legislatures and courts which create law that doesn't match your
> >concepts of right and wrong (whatever you call it)?
>
> That is my theory. That a concept of right and wrong (or more
> distinctly and less provocatively, a system of ethics) *must* have room
> to account for any laws. Not that it *will* account for any specific
> laws; if you're asking whether I base my ethics entirely on what is the
> law, the answer is "no".
Wrong theory. My fault. I meant your theory about law (that WAS what
we were originally talking about), not about ethics, though I know that
you consider one to subsume the other. But again, this is now a moot
discussion so I won't explain further.
> [...]
> >Could it possibly
> >BE that they have allowed unlicensed dynamic linking (as they have
> >"running") even though it is counter to your (or even the law's)
> >concept of "derivative" or of right and wrong (whatever you call it)?
>
> Yes, it could, but I didn't see it in the reference you made to
> "compulsory licensing", but with that further context, I'd like you to
> represent your reference, if you don't mind. Sorry if I'm showing any
> pigheadedness; I appreciate your candor.
I don't know what "represent your reference" means. Is that a scholarly
term? I am an engineer, not a scholar.
I'm glad to see your "yes" and that you confirm it in your second
paragraph following. I take it that you've believed this for some time,
but I did not understand that. More below.
I didn't give my reference to address dynamic linking in particular;
just to demonstrate that current law goes beyond a strict implementation
of the Constitution in regard to an author's right in his work. Current
law only grants most rights and reserves other rights as public
freedoms, some of which you might better given to the author. (Eg, the
right to exclude others use of your dynamic library because you consider
it derivative and therefore (dare I say it?) wrong.) You seemed to not
share my belief that law CAN (not "should") withhold such rights; hence
the reference.
> >I'm not asking if you think it IS (you've told us), but will you at
> >least admit that it COULD BE that they have allowed it (by 117)?
>
> Not by 117, no. Not in the way that the FSF is considering, and not in
> the way I am considering.
>
> The reason is that the "non-infringement" character of 117, I believe,
> addresses the 'utilizer'. Now, the developer can 'utilize' the code
> *while he develops*, without infringement (not that its an issue, being
> open source), but distributing his derivative work is a separate thing
> entirely. The 'utilizer' does, again, have the right to use the library
> to support the program. But that does not address the infringement
> associated with *distributing* the program, which does not fall to the
> 'utilizer' in that context. Do you see what I'm saying? 117 protects
> the *end user* from infringement. During the development, the program
> writer is the *end user*. But once he is done the act of creation (of a
> derivative work), 117 no longer protects him from a claim of
> infringement for the derivative work itself.
I think I see your point and it makes a good distinction that I had not
considered. That renders much prior discussion moot, and I apologize
that I didn't consider that on my own or if I missed a prior mention of
it. My mind might have been over-concentrating on 117 which I have just
recently read about in this forum.
With my new insight into your theory, I would like to discuss your
claims in the later third of your above paragraph. I know it's been
discussed before, so feel free to ignore my request.
I'd like to discuss this claim: The distribution of copies of a partial
program written to an API infringes the copyrights on a library written
to that same API when the library was written before the program.
We might need to work on the claim. Let me mention a few more things
about it.
By "written to an API" I just mean that the software matches a set of
rules with respect to how the software instructs a computer's switches
between running the program and the library and how data is shared.
I'm fairly sure that the time order is unimportant, but the given order
is most straightforward to discuss, for now.
I don't have time now to continue setting up the claim or attempting
to prove it is contrary to law, so do what you want with it and if
you care to discuss it further, I'll continue later.
> if you understood my argument fully, you would agree with it fully.
That's hard to believe, but I've made bigger conceptual changes.
> And I am so foolish, is that what you're saying? :-)
"I don't use any [anything]" is usually a foolish thing to say.
> No offense, even if a tiny bit might have been intended.
I shouldn't be suprised if you strike out; I've been lazily expressing
myself in an overly frank manner that you could easily find cruel and
offensive yourself. Your restraint and endurance are admirable.
BTW, "fligblatz" is a nonsense word. "Free" is merely ambiguous (in
many uses). Most nonsense is formed from sensible words.
> Maybe tomorrow.
Words that have made me what I am today. May I suggest that we stop
opening up to each other. It's unseemly on Usenet and probably is more
healthy if reserved for real life. Some closed-source software is better.
P.S. If I change c.o.l.a to comp.software.licensing, will you still see it?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:54:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
[...]
>...but they'll have a variety of soda products from many different small
>bottlers, and due to Coca-Cola's huge cash reserves, they can come in
>and lowball prices, doing severe damage to any small bottler who gets in
>the way.
Get in the way of what? Competition? What small bottler can get in the
way of competition?
Oh, "market share", you mean. Like if some bunch of people like
StoreBrand (tm), Coke can undersell it to get people to buy their
product. That's going to be a tough one to sell to a judge as
anti-competitive.
This isn't:
>They also have a tendency to come in and buy distributorships that
>handle competing brands, which then leads to the competing brands having
>all of those problems with getting their products out to the stores
>(Coca-Cola is currently under an order to keep them from acquiring
>smaller bottlers unless they have FTC approval first.)
I would hope the FTC never approves any such attempts to monopolize. I
think businesses growing by acquisition is inherently intolerable,
frankly.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 23 Aug 2000 05:51:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: No, but it had some wonderful moments. :-) My fave bad movie is
: Prince In Space. I guess it was that absolutely awful laugh.... :-)
I didn't get to see all the episodes, but out of the ones I did see,
my favorite was "Manhunt in Space". My favorite line was:
Guy in movie: "I'll find that spaceship!"
Crow: "Yeah, even if I have to search all three pads!"
(You see, the spaceship was invisible, but due to the way the plot had
gone, there were only three possible launchpads it could be at, and
they were all right next to each other...)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 23 Aug 2000 06:05:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Starblazer was the first Anime as a regular series televised in this area.
Same around here. Although as a kid I missed the first few episodes,
and so the series never made any sense to me until I saw it again later
on as an adult (and saw the first few episodes). I thought it was lame
that they made the spaceship look like a battleship. I didn't know that
it was *supposed* to be a battleship converted to a spaceship. I just
thought it was a really weird looking spaceship design. I suppose if
they'd just directly translated the original name for the series and
called it "Battleship Yamamoto", then it would have been more obvious
to me even though I missed the first few episodes. And I was not
familiar with the commonly used anime artwork, so parts of it just
looked badly done. (The triangle-shaped mouths, the laser guns that
look like some sort of sloppy liquid is being fired out the barrel,
the vibrating lines to show "action" is happening - all of this looked
like just badly drawn artwork to me when I first saw it. It took a long
while to realize that this was a deliberate eggageration for effect.)
Anyone else notice how the end of Babylon 5, which was supposed to
lead-in to the next series, was really just exactly the same setup
as Starblazers? Earth is in big trouble, dying, and one lone ship
of earthmen has to go really far away to seek help from aliens and
bring it back. Not only that, but the ship's big juju gun even
had exactly the same effect as in Starblazers - it was mega-powerful,
but firing it takes so much power that it leaves the ship helpless
for a little while while it recharges.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 02:18:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >And in many areas, they have a monopoly. There are large areas of the
>> >US where Coke is the only major soft drink you can get.
>>
>> "Major". That one word is what prevents Coke from *being* a monopoly,
>> which is a federal offense.
>
>I deleted the entire rest of your post, because it's based on this one
>fallacy (that you keep repeating, for some reason, even after a
>half-dozen people have given you examples of how it's just plain not
>true).
Ummm... because its not a fallacy? Could you give me something, before
repeating this another half-dozen times, to explain why you think it is
a fallacy? Something with some supporting evidence would be nice.
>> 'Monopoly' is *not* a measure of market share. It is, I
>> think, most comprehensively translated as "not willing to compete", to
>> be perfectly honest. Sure, the root is in the word 'one', and the board
>> game ends when someone owns *all* the property. But recall that the
>> term in that board game "monopoly" was used, not to refer to the winner,
>> but to anyone who owned all three of one color property. Why? Because
>> if they "had a monopoly", the could jack the price up.
>
>Right. In that local market, they had a monopoly. And by jacking that
>price up, they could abuse that monopoly power. In the board game, it's
>okay. In the real world, that's illegal.
>
>Thanks for finally figuring that out.
No, you still haven't figured it out. But since your conception of
these abstractions fits both your 'popular wisdom' of what is illegal,
and the board game, you are having trouble figuring it out, and that's
understandable. I'm willing to persevere.
There is no such thing as a 'local monopoly' in a legal sense of the
term "monopoly". The common sense of the word "monopoly" is
inappropriately applied to any company with large market share. But
that *isn't* what monopoly "means". I know if you look in the
dictionary, it will say "one company in the market" type of stuff, but
that's just a literal translation of the common parlance.
"Monopolization" is a word defined by legal precedent, not common usage,
because Congress made whatever that word means illegal in 1890. See,
they didn't put into the statute, *anywhere* a definition of what was
being outlawed, other than, within the specific text [paraphrased]
"monopolizing, and attempting to monopolize, are felonies".
So what is 'monopolizing' relates, obviously, to what is 'a monopoly'.
And here's where the problem occurs. A board game from early in the
century made that term common, and associated it with "owning all" of
something. And AT&T, as a "pseudo-public utility" made identification
of a company as "a monopoly", even more common. But all of that
occurred generally independently of the dilution through legal precedent
of what "monopolizing" meant in practical terms. And the problem is
that the two don't agree.
So now, when using the word "monopoly", we are left with a choice. Do
we use the common vernacular, casually lobbing the term at anyone who
has a decisive marketplace advantage of almost any sort, including ones
not even in marketplaces, such as public utilities, and "I'm the only
corner store in fifty miles"? Or do we use the term precisely, to
indicate what the courts have distilled as the essence of
anti-competitive activity which constantly threatens to overcome the
forces of the market and inhibit free trade, which Congress had the
wisdom to outlaw at the dawn of the technological age which makes it so
dangerously tempting to profit-seekers?
I say we're going to have to learn what "monopoly" really means, and
teach everyone else, and demand that it be known, until it is the new
"popular wisdom", because that's the only way we're going to avoid being
subject to countless real monopolies which entirely eradicated the true
free market, maintaining in its place a pretence of profit-mongering,
all because we didn't recognize the danger because "having a monopoly
isn't illegal".
Yes, having a monopoly is illegal. Trying to get a monopoly, getting
it, keeping it, using it, doing anything but letting it go away if you
happen to find yourself with it, is illegal. That part is not
questionable, because it is clearly stated by court precedent. The part
that the legal decisions can't do is translate that into the common
vernacular. What is "a monopoly", in the most accurate, consistent, but
mostly, *practical*, sense?
A monopoly is a company that tries to increase its market share on
purpose. But that's a bit too restrictive (and certainly too
reactionary); it doesn't include Section 1 violators. We can't go
calling them "restrainers", so we ought to extend our "common language"
definition to them, too. So a company that tries to decrease somebody
else's market share, on purpose, is also a monopoly.
In short, a monopoly is anyone who doesn't want to compete. The obvious
choice for such a company is to try to get a very large market share,
and then work to keep it. An ethical company would, instead, try to get
more customers, and work to keep them. Or maybe try to make more
profits, and re-invest them.
It is illegal to monopolize.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:40:06 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nvd23$3m0
> Here's the irony. Bill Gate's first Operating System was actually
> Xenix, a variant of Version 6 UNIX. When Gates offered IBM an OS,
> he already had Xenix in his back pocket (he'd been selling it to
> Tandy for almost 2 years).
Yes, the first OS that they developed. Still it was a liscensed Sys V port
if I recall correctly.
> Only a few people at IBM and Bill Gates will ever know whether IBM
> was actually hoping to get their hands on a UNIX clone without paying
> royalties to AT&T (who they viewed as a competitor) or if IBM wanted
> to keep the PC as dumb as a rock to prevent Xenix machines from
> displacing the Series 1, System/360, and possibly even the DOS-VS
> and System 370 market.
Microsoft paid royalties to AT&T.
> > And you don't think MS provides source code
> > liscenses to strategic partners?
>
> I know that they did provide source code to DEC (which may have
> had something to do with admitting in an interview that Gates found
> the source code to BASIC in the dumpster of his former employer
> (CCC) - code which was copyrighted by DEC and for which DEC was
> never paid royalties.
Lots of people have NT source code liscenses. Bristol, Mainsoft, Compaq,
IBM, the US government...
BTW, gates never said he found the source to BASIC in the dumpster. IIRC,
he said he fished out OS memory dumps.
> At one point, HP got a 'port kit' and found the process of porting
> NT such an ordeal that they decided to stick with UNIX on PA_RISC
> and sell NT on Itel/AMD/Cyrix boxes only.
No... HP got into bed with Intel via IA64. They didn't want to take the
time to port NT to PA RISC when they would all be switching to what was to
become Itanium.
> Attempts to port NT 3.51 to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, and 68000 were so
> bad (lack of ISV support) that NT 4.0 was only ported to the ALPHA.
> And now, Windows 2000 isn't even available on the ALPHA.
More lack of knowledge on your part Rex. The NT4 CD shipped with MIPS,
ALPHA, and PPC as well as x86. 3.51 didn't have an Alpha port, and
considering that NT was *DEVELOPED* on MIPS and ported to x86, it makes your
statement even more ludicrous.
> > They do.
>
> They do, they have, and for enough of an incentive (like a huge
> percentage (say 20%) of your company) they might do it again.
> Even Paul Allen is betting against Microsoft (Transmeta, LinuxWorld,
> and other Linux Friendly ZDNet publications). And he's dropping
> Microsoft stock like soap in a cold shower.
Sorry, Microsoft SEC filings do not show that Microsoft owns 20% of the US
government, Mainsoft, or Bristol.
> > > I believe the NE2000 driver was running on
> > > Linux before it was available under Windows 95.
> >
> > Microsoft shipped a generic NE2000 driver with Windows 95. Sorry.
>
> But Windows 95 was shipped the last weekend of August 1995. Linux
> had a working NE2000 32 bit driver for Slackware, Yddragasil, and
> SoftLanding as early as mid 1994.
Which says nothing about *VENDORS* testing their windows drivers under
Linux, which is what your original statement was about.
> And by 1995, there was another new company - Caldera. It was formed
> by some of the Novell people who were upset that Novell had agreed
> to cancel it's workstation initiative if Microsoft agreed not to
> deploy NT as a server.
Considering that MS had deployed NT as a server 3 *YEARS* before Caldera was
formed, that seems highly silly.
> Keep in mind this was NT 3.5/3.51. Some of those folks were backing
> Linux as a workstation platform back in 1994.
NT 3.1 had a server version.
> > ???? Lower level MFC???? Gezus Rex,
> > stop while you've got SOME credibility.
> > MFC is not an API in any sense of
> > Windows (it's a class framework) and
> > there's no such thing as a "low level MFC API"
> > even if you're stretch the
> > terminology to loosely accept MFC
> > as some sort of API at all.
>
> I have some old C++ manuals that were published in 1992 that would
> be quite a bit different from anything you've read.
I was developing on C++ in 1991. Sorry.
> You see, back in the "really old days", you had to code your windows
> and objects at an incredibly low level. You had to do your own
> initialization of all of the variables, you had to do your own
> message passing, you even had to create your own queues. In fact,
> you didn't really even have threads. This was back in the days
> of Windows 386 and Windows 3.0.
>
> Of course, UNIX and the X Consortium had just come out with the
> R3 release of X11 which contained "Widgets". Widgets made programming
> GUIs much easier. About the time Windows 3.1 came out, X11/R4 was
> touting not only X11 but the resource database (like the registry),
> that could be initialized using app-defaults files). Microsoft
> responded by including the .ini files for a new application programmer
> interface called Microsoft Foundation Classes.
Fascinating.. but what does that have to do with the fact that you made
statements about "Low level MFC API's", something which doesn't exist.
BTW, there's no such thing as ".ini files for a new appliication programmer
interface called Microsoft Foundation Classes". .ini files are
configuration files and have nothing to do with a programming language.
> Under X11R4, communication between clients such as text editors or
> drafting tools and clients such as window managers had been
> stanadardized. Microsoft came out with it's own higher level API
> for Windows 3.1 under Visual C++ version 2 that included OLE objects.
> You could still code to MFC, but you were strongly encouraged to
> use the OLE interfaces instead. Eventually documentation for MFC
> was dropped entirely.
What the hell are you talking about? Name this mysterious "higher level
API". Visual C++ version 2 included no API's other than direct Windows and
MFC. It shouldn't be hard for you to give us the name of this so called
API.
> When Microsoft was preparing for the release of Windows NT (3.xx),
So descriptive. 3.xx... that covers a tim spean of 3 years.
> they were hoping to eliminate the use of shared memory in DLLs (since
> NT would give each program it's own memory). This is when COM was
> introduced. It was also introduced in Visual C++ version 3.
Bullshit. COM was introduced in Windows 3.1, in 1992. Fully a year before
NT was released, and guess what? Visual C++ version 3 does not exist. They
skipped from 2.2 to 4.0. You jus tmake this stuff up as you go along, and
you don't quit when your backed into a corner. Just make up more stuff.
> Microsoft realized that too many people were making "portability"
> toolkits for C++, and decided to offer their own programming language
> that would help them create a captive developer base that could be
> herded by ignorance instead of by incentives. They came out with
> Visual Basic. It was in Visual Basic that COM was formalized.
ARGH!! Visual Basic was released in 1991! 2 *YEARS* before Visual C++ was
even a product and about the same time as MS's *FIRST* C++ compiler was
released (not C, but C++). That was MS C/C++ 7. No such "portability"
toolkits for C++ existed then.
> > IPC cannot cause deadlocks in and of itself.
> > If your apps don't use any kind of synchronization
> > (such as a semaphore or mutex), then the deadlock is
> > your own fault.
>
> Precisely! This is exactly the problem. The OS does so little
> that the applications begin depending on shared memory to communicate
> between threads and between processes.
Precisely what? Are you sure you're not schitzophrenic?
> Again, a bit of history:
I can do without the history lessons. They have no relevance to the
discussion.
> NT 4.0 provided strict memory management, but also allowed threads
> of Windows 95 applications to use the "shared memory trick" through
> special coding. Although it was strongly discouraged, developers
> could create the equivalent of their shared memory (now implemented
> in VXDs on Win95 but not available under NT's protected memory),
> by creating a "pseudo-driver" as an "executable library".
> Unfortunately, each OCX was still "home grown", which meant that
> there was still no standard for IPC.
STOP making this shit up Rex. It's not true. Not in the slightest.
Windows NT and 95 have always supported shared memory. All you had to do
was mark a segment of your PE executable as shared, and multiple instances
of the program will use the shared memory. You didn't need VxD's, nor did
you need OCX's. Additionally, you could ALWAYS map shared memory with the
memory mapped file API's. Always. Since day 1. On top of that, the OCX
specification wasn't even CREATED until nearly 2 years after Windows 95 was
released. (not strictly true, the first version of the OCX spec had severe
limitations on what you had to support, since it was designed only to give
Visual Basic extension controls. 19 late 1996 they genericized the spec
(now called OC96)).
> At this point, Microsoft proposed the use of DCOM as a means of
> communicating between fully memory protected processes (as you said,
> using a loopback through localhost). The performance was so bad
> that most developers either stuck with home-grown IPC or third party
> IPC (MQSeries) or just linked everything into DLLs linked by a small
> exe, usually written in Visual Basic.
More lies. MS has never proposed any such thing. I will repeat. Win32 has
*ALWAYS* had shared memory, Unix-style pipes, named pipes, and numerous
other mechanisms to do IPC on a single machine. Hell, Memory mapped files
even work across networks if you want them to, so you don't even *NEED* DCOM
to do memory sharing between machines.
> Certainly the biggest player in this IPC market has been MQSeries.
> They did very well because they provided a means to quickly get
> messages passed between processes on the same machine (local queue
> manager), or between machines, with little more than an alias.
> This allowed developers and vendors to split large, complex
<beating head against a wall> I give up Rex. Whatever world you live in
bears no resemblance to the real one.
> > Not with the OS. Sorry, you just don't know what you're
> > talking about here.
> >
> > All of this is irrelevant though, since you claimed that these were
> added
> > later. You're backpeddling Rex.
> >
> > > Eventually, the ISVs revised all of their applications to support
> > > the new APIs, and usually had to distribute them freely. Many
> > > vendors also opted to load the older versions of some of the DLLs.
> >
> > And which specific API's were those? Come one, name them.
Note, no response. I will bet you won't respond to my request for these
"higher level OLE API's" you talked about either.
> > > > DCOM is much slower because it's used between machines,
> > > > over a network. Not between processes on the same machine.
> > >
> > > It's not practical to use DCOM between processes on the same
> > > machine, but it is possible. When you have two processes which
> > > are independent, they can be connected via in-proccess,
> out-of-process,
> > > or networked objects. When you wanted independence to the point of
> > > being able to change the components at run-time, you had to at least
> > > go out-of-process. Behind the covers, you were running DCOM over
> > > Winsock.
> >
> > You can change componenets at runtime with in-proc DLL's as well.
> Ever
> > heard of CoCreateObject?
Also no response.
> > CORBA Client GUI objects... CORBA didn't even have a component
> architecture
> > until CORBA 3, which was very recently.
> >
> > > Many of the features of COM, such as drag-and-drop, dde, and
> embedding
> > > are not supported for X11 interfaces.
> >
> > Because those are desktop features, not distributed features. They
> don't
> > work in DCOM at all, even between windows machines.
More silence...
<rest deleted since there is nothing but silence>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
