Linux-Advocacy Digest #652, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:44:33 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:43:08 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 14:00:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JS/PL wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
>> >> > > > > spending it for them!? How absurd!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
>> >> > > > healthy and educated.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
>> >> > > democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to
>> >> say
>> >> > > 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of
>> >> 100
>> >> > > poor that need a hand.
>> >> >
>> >> > Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you know?
>> >>
>> >> I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself have been pleny
>> >> broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone - especially "the rich" for my
>> >> problems though, I blamed myself.
>> >> If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own fault. I was
>> >> broke and jobless in 1980 and figuring out who to blame when President Regan
>> >> held up page after page of the help wanted ads on national television in
>> >> response to a question on why so many people were out of work. And he was
>> >> right.
>> >
>> >Ever notice how the democrats will claim that those are
>> >"dead end burger-flipping jobs" and at the SAME TIME claim that
>> >"nobody is qualified" for those same jobs.
>> >
>> >They can't have it both ways.
>>
>> Sure you can.
>
>How many burger-flipping jobs are there that "nobody is qualified for"
>???
Ever try actually LIVING on a job of that sort?
An unrealistic wage doesn't count. Pages full of ads for such
jobs are not useful to anyone ultimately.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:48:43 GMT
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:52:59 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps the developer doesn't WANT me to know what they are going to do
to
> >my computer's storage in order to install their program. Well, in that
> >case, I don't want their product. I am sick and tired of having a dead
> >machine because some stinking DLL or registry setting is screwed up, and
I
> >haven't got any reasonable way of figuring it out. In fact, I have such
a
> >laptop (a four week old, top of the line Dell with a dead Windows 98)
> >sitting right over there in the corner.
>
> Oh, so you're trying to solve the *Windows* install problem. Oh, I see
> now. Well, that *is* a problem. Not for me, as I avoid Windows, but
> apparently for lots of people. And while the install problem isn't
> just a Windows problem, that system does seem to do things less well
> than others.
Oh, so all those hours I spent installing stuff on Solaris was really
Windows?
The point is that we need to get over the idea that installing is part of
the abstractions that the OS provides. That mindset prevents us from
developing technologies (such as those I am describing here) that can
install across platforms.
The only thing such a facility needs is really basic I/O and access to
stroage. This is a great application for Linux. So I have a Windows
laptop. I think I would be far happier if when it ran, it did so because it
was properly constructued and maintained from a facility running under a
simple, bullet proof Linux. The same facility could maintain my Solaris
box. And my other Linux boxes. Why not?
Say I have DB2 defined in abstract, as I suggest. Then I could "render" an
installation on Linux, or render an installation onto NT, or onto Solaris.
DB2 also provides server versions, client versions, versions for embedded
systems, etc. All of these can be viewed as different renderings of the
same DB2 product, in abstract.
No, all these versions don't have to be on the same CD. XML provides
linking (as does about any other structured format now days). And besides,
with DVD, and a reasonable subset of targets, it just might have them all.
> Since you posted this to a bunch of non-Windows groups, I should point
> out that here are existing system-level installers for Linux and
> FreeBSD that more or less provide what you want. They will give you a
> list of files that are to be installed, tell you what other packages
> this one depends on (and in some systems they will install those for
> you too). The file formats are documented and tools are provided to
> extract various information. You can extract all the components and
> install them by hand if you want, if not the software keeps a database
> of what is installed where so you can do upgrades, a clean uninstall
> (modulo files that the program creates at runtime), get verification
> that files have not been tampered with, and the like.
Can I use FreeBSD to manage my Windows system? Linux? Solaris? Does Linux's
install program work if Linux isn't operational? Can I use these installers
to define DB2 in one abstraction so that it can be expressed on a number of
different targets? And once I do have a properly configured system, can I
back up that configuration information in a way that will allow me to
replace that box in the future, with one running a different OS?
Yeah, in the old days of the early 90's we didn't have to worry about this
stuff. Two months to bring up a new box was just fine, since only 20 people
in the company needed access to that machine. But now I have everyone that
needs these boxes, and their distributed applications.
The same old, same old, only done bigger and better just isn't enough.
> These programs are not perfect, but they are vastly better than the
> one's I've seen for Windows. Perhaps you should look at these before
> you go off redesigning the world in XML. You might get some good ideas
> at least, even if they don't do everything you dream of.
> >My point is we have gotten past the idea that the writer is responsible
> >for laying out each page in a document.
>
> We have? You'd better explain that concept to the 75% of webmasters
> who think HTML is a page-layout language.
So you think the guys that write the content also design these pages? You
think people write in HTML? Or do you think they might use tools to render
those documents into HTML for page layout?
Clearly, you *aren't* a writer.
> >Let's get over the idea that each developer has the responsibility for
> >laying out my storage.
>
> In his copious spare time, the developer will program so that you can
> install any components anywhere and it'll still work.
>
> Clearly, you *aren't* a developer.
My point: In his copious spare time, the developer could specify what their
programs require.
Building components so they can install anywhere is simply increasing the
number of valid representations for the program. This is what we do now
(And have done because *I am* a developer) and it is often a waste of time.
Bottom Line:
I spend a good bit of time reading through install instructions and manuals
and filling out options (as documented) to make part A work with part B over
connector C to server D where E is running on port F and supplying service
G, etc. etc.
These are not usually Windows boxes, but sometimes they are. I end up
typing, clicking, and pushing lots of information into all these programs.
We get something wrong, we pound and pound, reinstall, reformat, click,
poke, and pull. And we get things running. Change something, and we do it
all over again.
You might be the one developer who never deals with configuration
information. Or who thinks learing how to do this on every system, and
(doing it over and over) is just a great way to build up job security. But
I think it is a waste of time.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:51:24 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:40:48 -0400, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
>> [...]
>> >So is it theft for rich people who pay tons of money into the fund and
>> >get less back (in absolute dollars) than other people, because their
>> >incomes disqualify them from getting full social security benefits?
>> >
>> >Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I don't get
>> >back all that money in the form of government services? [...]
>>
>> No. That's called 'government'. You don't "buy" government when you
>> pay taxes; you pay for government. And it is, unfortunately, an
>> expensive proposition. I am certainly going to advocate any reasoned
>> and feasible reduction in the expenses of government. That isn't a
>> matter of making reactionary demands, though; it is a matter of applying
>> social conscience and rigorous ethics.
>
>Then would you disagree with ZnU that it would be "theft" if someone who
>paid into the social security fund never got any social security
>payments when they retired?
It's no more theft than any other tax, the benefits of which you
rarely if ever actually experience.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:53:03 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:08:07 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> Nope.
>>
>> All that would be required is a flat rate and a
>> really big standard deduction.
>>
>> Besides, there's nothing inherent in tax brackets that's
>> dishonest... unfair mebbe, but not dishonest.
>>
>> Dishonest is the student loan interest deduction & a few other
>> bits of smoke and mirrors that are either too restrictive to
>> be meaninful to anyone but the very rich or very stupid.
>>
>
>You might want to check the rules for the student loan deduction. IIRC,
>the deduction phases out at less than $100 K in income. So the "very
>rich" are exactly the ones who _can't_ use it.
You neglected the "very stupid".
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:54:33 GMT
On 26 Aug 2000 04:40:38 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:09:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>>> I believe he made his position clear in other threads. Mr Kulkis is an
>>> industrial feudalist. He believes that education is the responsibility
>>
>>Wrong. I oppose feudalism.
>
>What aspects of feudalism do you oppose ?
>
>>> of the parents, and if children have stupid parents, the chances are
>>> that they are stupid as well ( since according to Kulkis, your IQ is
>>> determined by that of your parents ) and since they are stupid, educating
>>> them would be a waste of taxpayers money.
>>
>>Hey, if parents don't want their own offspring to do well,
>>then their genetic lineage should be allowed to fulfill that wish.
>>This eliminates the whole branch of losers from the family tree.
>
>Thanks for making my point.
>
>>> This mindset is a convenient crutch for those who oppose social mobility --
>>> you simply declare the poor to be stupid and hence "justifiably" poor,
>>> and the children of the wealthy to be more intelligent, hence "entitled"
>>> to inherit positions of wealth and power in society.
>>
>>Name *ONE* welfare-state program which has made superior students
>>out of ghetto and trailer park trash....
Tarhe Elementary School, Lancaster Ohio.
>
>The world isn't neatly partitioned into wealthy and
>enlightened philosopher-kings and a group of stupid, disgusting bums.
>If it were, I'd be forced to file you under the latter group for fear
>of insulting the former.
>
>Are you really such an insufferable moron or are you just playing dumb
>to amuse us ?
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:00:14 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:05:48 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>> >>
>> >> Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs are
>> >> cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
>> >>
>> >> > OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying
>> >> > workers.
>> >>
>> >> Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a general
>> >> sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The truth is somewhere in between.
>> >
>> >Sure, owners sometimes lay off employees even when the company is
>> >profitable.
>> >
>> >But, essentially, an employee gets paid regardless of company profits
>> >while an owner's compensation is completely dependent on company
>> >profits. There are many, many, many examples where (at least for the
>> >short term), employees continue to draw a salary when the owner doesn't.
>>
>> You talk like owners are generally somehow involved in things. And, of
>> course, they do, in the rare case that a large successful company has
>> owners. Corporations don't have owners; they only have investors.
>
>Stockholders are all co-owners of the corporate bank account.
>
>When that account is bleeding like a stuck pig....so are they.
Actually, they are insulated from liabilities.
That's the whole point of a corporation.
Plus, the value of a corporation may or may not be related to it's
solvency or profitability: especially these days.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:02:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Hanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:50:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truckasaurus
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:59:26 GMT
>> <8o2rlp$2t2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >In article <8njlh8$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II) wrote:
>> >
>> >> All hardware sucks. All software sucks. Anyone who
>> >> states otherwise for anything has blinders on.
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> I would submit that the original comment above (with your very
>> concise rebuttal being a nice touch :-) ) is far too vague to
>> effectively answer. What does it mean that "hardware sucks"?
>> Some hardware is *supposed* to suck (vacuum cleaners :-) ). [*]
>>
>> I'm not sure if the same can be said about software, admittedly,
>> though tools such as FTP suck down data from websites.
>> Of course, this is probably the wrong meaning of "to suck".
>
>I think it might be a sexual reference. I could certainly use the
>little day brightener, but I've carefully looked around my whole
>computer and for the life of me don't know where to insert... oh, never
>mind.
I have no idea whether this is legit or not, but...
http://www.fufme.com
(the only word that comes to mind is ... Bizarre!)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:00:53 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:17:22 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Unfortunately society does have an interest in making sure that
> > > >> these kids grow up to be productive citizens instead of
> > > >> criminals. Yes, it
> > > >
> > > >A fat chance that will happen.
> > >
> > > A perfect example of Mr Kulkis's opposition to meritocracy, and his
> > > firm belief that the children of the wealthy are "entitled" to
> > > rule. The basic accumption is that if your parents aren't filthy
> > > rich, you're "stupid" and don't "deserve" an education.
> >
> > One doesn't need to be "filthy rich" to get an education for your
> > kids.
>
> One would if education was privatized, as you advocate.
>
> > Hell, in some inner cities, cash-strapped parents are paying TWICE
> > for education..once through property taxes, and AGAIN to put the kid
> > into a local catholic school so that the kid will actually be taught
> > the essentials.
>
> They wouldn't need to pay twice if the public school system was properly
> funded.
Detroit Public Schools have the HIGHEST per-pupil funding in
the state...and yet, are in the lowest 5-percentile.
Why is that?
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:02:03 -0400
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
> > capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
> > anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
> > devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
> > third-world nation.
>
> Russia?
Russia is not a 3rd world nation. Some say 2nd world, some
say 1st world.
>
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:09:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christopher Browne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:45:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
>would say:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
>>>not a new concept in operating systems.
>>
>>It might replace programs (programs are interpreted data in their
>>own right, after all -- to the right interpreter, such as an x86
>>micro, a JVM, or even a BASIC environment), but it sure looks
>>hard to manage, although not too hard to generate.
>
>It only "replaces" programs if it can express programs itself.
>Note that providing the ability to _embed_ programs is not that;
>that merely replaces one language with another.
>
>>But why can't we use a schema/data approach? Something like:
>>
>>first 8 bytes - magic signature number, just because
>>byte - endianity
>>byte - user-defined version ID
>>2 bytes - number of fields
>>field descriptor byte: 0=short, 1=long, 2=float, 3=double,
>> 4=zero-terminated string
>>field name: zero-terminated string
>>field descriptor byte:
>>field name:
>>...
>>
>>(The floats would be in IEEE format, which is the one 680x0 and
>>80x86 micros use -- and possibly a large number of other computer
>>systems.)
>>
>>Surely somebody out there's thought of a standard for this.
>
>There's not one; there's several.
Doesn't surprise me too much. :-)
>
>Leaping to mind are:
>a) IIOP - the Internet protocol defined for CORBA that does
> essentially what you describe, albeit a _little_ differently;
>b) Casbah's LDO (Lightweight Distributed Objects)
I'll have to check out IIOP. Another obvious one -- albeit it's
not clear it's documented yet -- is Java's persistence format.
(Is it specced to be JVM-compatible?)
>
>>Or one can use a chunky format, something a la Amiga's IFF,
>>where data is in chunks, understood by each program. Chunks
>>could even have DTD-like structures if necessary.
>>
>>But nooooooo....we get to clutter up what is essentially a
>>data-centric stream with a lot of framing clutter. Unless
>>I'm missing something in the DTD spec which allows for the
>>specification in binary of all of this data...?
>
>I think WAP provides some such mapping...
I don't know WAP from THWAP, admittedly. :-)
Is this on the www.w3c.org site?
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/corba.html>
>"What did we agree about a leader??"
>"We agreed we wouldn't have one."
>"Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
