Linux-Advocacy Digest #156, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Ingemar
Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Gary Hallock)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Elvis Jefferson)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (2:1)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Elvis Jefferson)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (2:1)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Elvis Jefferson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:27:05 GMT
"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had a
> hand in selling!
Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having problem
with windows setup...how come?
/IL
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:42:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Replacing default NC_PAINT behavior is performs the same
>> >function as replacing the window manager in X.
>>
>> Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager with
>> X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
>
>Never seen Window Blinds, have you?
>
>www.windowblinds.com
Never seen anyone using it.
>> >When you say that Windows cannot
>> >support
>> >this behavior as well as unix you should note that "unix" doesn't really
>> >support
>> >it either as it runs on an X Window server and is a function of the
>> >Window
>> >Manager and the widget set.
>>
>> And you should note that such things are available on Unix, and are not
>> on Windows. You should also note that your newsreader sucks, as it
>> can't handle line-wrap even as well as real newsreaders.
>
>Really, I seem to be able to run X clients just fine under Windows.
Not without an X server add-on, you can't.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:45:06 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> This doesn't prove that linux doesn't have any problems with the tcp/ip
> stack,
> it just proves that nt has bigger problems.
Please follow the thread.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 09:49:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><snip>
>
>> What the fuck are you talking about? It is less expensive, less
>> *commercially feasible*, for me to use monopoly crapware than to
>
>Less expensive? Really? You must be a recent computer user, than.
>Ever priced IRIX?
<chuckle> I didn't mean the explicit price of the package, but the
overall 'cost', including the 'price' of incompatibility, etc.
I'm sick of arguing this stuff, actually. We've gotten it down to where
the die-hard Microsoft fans are pulling out all the stops, and the fact
is that arguing either price or capabilities in a monopoly environment
is a losing proposition. This is, of course, why we have laws against
monopolizing and restraint of trade. The rubes can't tell the
difference; even if the price is less, its more than it would be with
competition. Even if the technology is fancy, its crap compared to what
competition would provide. But there's no convincing the fanatics on
either count, because they are too naive to know the difference.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:nXOv5.1370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> There is a comment by
>> >> (IIRC) Abraham Lincoln. "It's better to be thought a fool, than to
>open
>> >> ones mouth and remove all doubt".
>> >
>> >It is better to remain silent and to be thought a fool, than to open ones
>> >mouth and remove all doubt.
>>
>> Check out the new sig, which Erik prompted me to realize I had not
>> started using in COLA, yet.
>
>I was not commenting on you, sorry if it appeard that way. I was just
>correcting Erik's quotation.
I was not confused on that point; you just presented me with an
opportunity to address the quote directly without prolonging the
discussion with Erik needlessly.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:08:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Check out the new sig, which Erik prompted me to realize I had not
>> started using in COLA, yet.
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>>
>We'll look forward to your new posting direction then. When do you expect
>to start posting moderately and accurately?
1993.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: Elvis Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:16:39 -0400
These guys also preferred the Rendition Verite to the 3DFX.
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:39:34 -0400, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,38736,00.html
>
>=====
>Graeme Devine, a designer at Id Software, which makes Doom and Quake,
>said that overall, Mac OS X is a stronger operating system than Linux or
>Windows NT.
>
>"The tools for development are extremely good, extremely finished,"
>Devine said. "Linux and NT also have great tools and there are other
>advantages, but the combination of a great server and the development
>tools make Mac OS X better than the other platforms."
>=====
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:18:45 GMT
> >> For the last 40 years we have been monitoring CO2 levels. If you take
a
> >> core of ice from the poles and compare it to the readings they match
> >> perfectly. The ice record goes back about 600K years. It is layered
> >> like a tree, you see the progression of the season in it. At no time
in
> >> the 600K years it provides us with data over has the the Earth's
> >> atmospheric composition changed so radically. CFC's don't exist until
> >> this century.
> >
> >The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
> >have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
> >changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
> >it.
>
> Well hell you can't provide proof of other claims you make so you drop
> those threads so to a new one you go. You know an asshole like yourself
> wouldn't know cursorary evidence if it hit you in the face. The pga tour
> doesn't produce cfc's, ergo it isn't at fault. The are a by product of
> aerosols though and guess what, they have only existed in the last
> century. Care to try again? So why do you not like having the truth in
> front of you?
Jason, give up -- you're dealing with Germer and that akin to talking to
very slow-witted stone wall. Put him in your killfile and be done with it!
-Joe
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:11:00 GMT
> It's a good thing Apple finally has a decent OS but unless Apple ports
> it to x86 it's doomed to join the likes of.. well... the current MacOS
> and BeOS PPC.
>
> I actually don't see why Apple is so scared of x86... I'm sure their
> cultists... or... loyalists rather... would still pay the fruit tax
> and pay 25-50% more for a Apple PC over a Dell PC.
The PPC platform is better technically than the x86 platform (eg it
doesn't *still* have cruft like the A20 gate hanging around). If I was
going to upgrade my computer, I would consider Linuxising a Mac of
sorts. As it is, I have no need to upgrade at the moment (a P133 is
easily powerful enough for most of the things I do).
Also, there would pobably be little point in porting macos X to x86
since there are plenty of good and ingrande OSs already, it would have
to work hard to displace them. It is probably not worth the effort for
them.
> I bet a lot of PC users would consider buying a x86 imac. In the end,
> it'd help them a lot more than it'd hurt them.
I don't see how. There's plenty of good mac software out there,
especially if you put a nix like OS on it :-)
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K | Edward Rosten
Acorn DFS | Engineer and Z1 advocate
Basic | fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:54:27 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 16 Sep 2000 23:14:44 GMT...
...and Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And I don't know how you
> can say that programmers don't hate users with a straight face
> when on this very same thread there are posters complaining
> about Real Lazy users, which apparently includes everyone who
> isn't willing to spend hundreds of hours finding and learning
> about features that should by all rights be right in front of
> them.
Do you honestly believe that these posters are programmers?
> Agreed. But many, many more choices would be completely unreasonable
> and even nonsensical. The shell could easily maintain a list (in a
> user-accessible manner) of associations (though "index" has no
> extension, so it wouldn't work) and then ask which one the user
> wants at run-time; much like bash currently does filename completion.
>
> You'd type
> $list\ of\ songs.playlist
> and press [tab]
> then it would fill in the line with
> $xmms list\ of\ songs.playlist
>
> and if there was more than one option then it would display them all,
> just like filename completion
This shell exists, its name is zsh. Maybe you should have a look at
it. Nice, but I'm too comfortable with bash to switch to zsh
altogether.
> Many years ago, someone proposed for HURD (maybe it was VSTa)
> that a user could replace the standard execution server (the
> process that creates a new process based on a program) with a
> more complex server that understood different executable formats
> and maybe even the need to run a program under emulation.
This is a bit like Linux's support for "misc" binaries. If correctly
configured, you can run Java programs, dosemu DEXE files and such from
the command line. Should be easy to extend so you can run MAME ROMs
and whatnot, too.
> At one point they emphatically state that 3Dsia is not just a filesystem
> viewer, that it adds a lot of functionality that the filesystem does not
> have. This is correct, but all it proves is that the standard Unix file-
> system is broken and that it lacks the functionality that it should have.
Unix's approach is providing small, functional and stable units of
functionality which pile up, one on top of the other, to provide as
much or as few functionality as the end user needs. You want all of it
in one monolith. I think that is more than a bit unwise.
> Unix counting on processes being one-off means that it's not possible
> to shut down the computer and retrieve the processes you had (with all
> of their state) after you reboot. By all rights, I *should* be able to
> reboot my machine right now and get back all of the machine state I
> left it in (including an open text editor window, and all the text I
> have typed in so far). None of this "saving" something *somewhere* and
> then manually retrieving it; I already know where my email is, it's on
> my monitor right in front of me! Why should this be destroyed just
> because I want to switch OSes for a moment?
If you're working inside a GNOME or KDE session where all of your
programs understand and support session management, your vision is
already reality.
mawa
--
Echtnichttollfinder!
Sitzplatzerkämpfer!
Neuwagenschoner!
Leiserülpser!
------------------------------
From: Elvis Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:21:33 -0400
Is MacOffice 2001 carbonized?
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:35:24 GMT, Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Getting them to do Carbonized apps (example, Mac Office
>2001) is a political victory, being able to run their old ones
>transparently is a technical one.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:29:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >No, according to fact. Sun pulled out of ISO standardization, then said
>> >they would seek standardization under the ECMA, then they pulled out of
>> >that. There were several very critical emails sent by duped ECMA members
>> >that invested lots of time and effort into the standardization process,
>only
>> >to be blown off when Sun pulled out.
>>
>> Which ECMA members, specifically?
>
>Well, the ECMA Secretary General Jan van den Beld for starters.
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2454077,00.html
>
>"Van den Beld describes Sun's refusal to participate as "an enormous waste
>of experts' time and companies' money" over the last two years. "
Sun standardizes their technology when it has matured to the point it
can support a competitive market.
"Sun noted that ECMA has formal rules governing patent protections;
however, at this time there are no formal protections for copyrights or
other intellectual property. "
http://java.sun.com/pr/1999/12/pr991207-08.html
>> Sun has been the most active member
>> of the ECMA behind 4 of the last 5 standards from that body. They
>> pulled out of the ISO standardization process because the ISO recently
>> (at, according to Sun, Microsoft's behest) changed their rules,
>
>Really? So now the ISO is a puppet of Microsofts. Wow. That's a new one.
I don't go in for conspiracy theories that oversimplify complex issues.
>I guess that means every ISO standard is now a vehicle for Microsoft.
>Right?
Everything that Microsoft is involved in is a vehicle for
monopolization. (Note that this statement does not conflict with the
previous one, above.)
>> and they
>> pulled Java out of the ECMA standardization process for the same
>> reasons.
>
>Really?
>
>http://www.idgnet.com/crd_sun_93027.html
>
>"The 11th-hour move came as a surprise, because ECMA's treatment of
>copyright issues is well-established, and the deal to standardize Java
>through the group was struck in June, according to van den Beld.
There seems to be some contradiction between 'well-established', and
'formal'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:19:05 GMT
> Wow, Win2K took a good thrashing.
>
> Isn't Tux a kernel with webserver stuff included ? I thought it was
bad
> practice to include stuff in the kernel, well, at least it was when MS
did
> it.
IIRC, Tux is a module, so it can be removed. If you don't want a kernel
webserver, then you can easily remove it. With the in kernel things in
NT, you generally have no choice---it stays. It does make sense to put a
webserver in the kernel, if all the computer does is serve web pages. If
it's part of a bigger server, the stability risk probably isn't worth
it. But you have the choice between stability and speed.
> Since, we are to live in the present, I believe that it's a good thing
now
> that Linux does it, it's a good and modern thing to, even if the admin
has
> to pray that his webserver doesn't tank, or some really funny stuff
will
> occur. :)
If the computer is only a webserver, if the server software or the OS
tanks, what does it matter, either way, the machine stops serving web
pages until some watchdog restarts it/the server. I wouldn't use it for
anything mission critical, though.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K | Edward Rosten
Acorn DFS | Engineer and Z3 advocate
Basic | Cult Leader: fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:30:35 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Then why don't you run it instead of tinkering around with pseudo
> > UNIX systems?
> Well, lets see now:
>
> 1. We have a need to be able to run the same code on the PC as well as
> S/390. Linux just makes that a little easier.
> 2 We have a need for speed. OS/390 Unix support is not that fast.
> 3. We have an interest in satisfying customer requests that all platforms
> (RS/6000, AS/400, S/390, P/390, PC with x86, PC with IA64) have the same
> interface and the same look and feel.
> 4. Linux is much easier to install and administer than OS/390. I was
> able to install Linux quite easily with no previous experience installing an OS
> on S/390.
I see. It is your unfamiliarity with OS/390 and UNIX systems that
is holding you back.
Yours in Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:35:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >That's like saying "You're free to do anything you want, as long as you
>> >don't do any of it here".
>>
>> No, it *is* saying "you're free to do anything you want, as long as it
>> doesn't prevent me from being free to do anything I want."
>
>No, it's not. The GPL doesn't give YOU any rights to do things with your
>own code that you don't already have. It only gives you rights to do things
>with MY code.
Not if you don't GPL your code, it doesn't. If you do GPL your code,
the GPL does, in fact, give me (the owner of a copy) the right to do
things which I don't already have. These would include copying and
creating derivative works.
>> >HTML 4 is a W3C standard.
>>
>> No, it is a W3C specification. It doesn't become standard because
>> someone *else* says it is. That's not the way interoperability works.
>
>This statement simply makes no sense. By your definition, there's no such
>thing as anything but a de-facto standard.
The word 'standard' is, as most words are, multi-faceted. Your
hesitance to interpret it in this context is noted, though I'll point
out that you seem to have approximated it correctly. I'd be willing to
bet that you have a warped idea of what 'de facto standard' means, to
begin with.
>> >> SGML isn't anything more than "hey, if you embed tags in a text stream,
>> >> you can, like, *do* stuff with it." It doesn't have any problems
>> >> because it doesn't provide any solutions, by itself.
>> >
>> >No, Max. SGML is *NOT* this. That's XML. SGML is a markup language for
>> >professional publishing. It was around before HTML and is very
>extensive.
>> >Know what you're talking about before you comment on it.
>>
>> I do, and you don't. SGML is the super-set on which HTML is based, and
>> is not directly implemented *anywhere*. Other publishing mechanisms,
>
>Really? I guess that's a shock to the hundreds of companies with SGML
>tools, such as:
I'm sure you meant to include a list, but no bother. Had you completed
the paragraph without interrupting, you might have been able to properly
characterize what an 'SGML' tool is, and possibly gain some
understanding of the complex world of technical standards. Not all
standards are equal in status, completeness, or methodology.
>> many non-standardized, are based on SGML, since it is little more than a
>> basic idea of a 'markup language' (using embedded tags) by itself. You
>> are, as many newbies do, confusing the idea of XML with the
>> specification for SGML. Have you ever read the SGML standard itself? I
>> have. Using '<>' to embed tags inside of text is hardly a new idea;
>> standardizing it was important, but not very noteworthy. Most of the
>> discussion of SGML is related to the more recent (c. 1992) definition of
>> XML.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:38:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I do, and you don't. SGML is the super-set on which HTML is based, and
>> is not directly implemented *anywhere*. Other publishing mechanisms,
>
>Really? I guess that's a surprise to the hundreds of companies with SGML
>tools, such as:
>
>http://www.isogen.com/demos/groveview.html
>
>http://www.corena.no/product/lcdm.html
>
>http://www.datalogics.com/products/default.htm
>
>> many non-standardized, are based on SGML, since it is little more than a
>> basic idea of a 'markup language' (using embedded tags) by itself. You
>
>"basic idea"? I don't understand how you could call a document the size of
>the SGML specification "basic"
Simple; I've read and understood enough of it to know. It takes a
tremendous amount of verbiage to clearly elucidate rudimentary concepts.
SGML is a standard which specifies the basic rules and mechanisms of 'a
markup language'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: Elvis Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:41:01 -0400
Another socially undeveloped software developer.
>> I'm a developer for real-time stock-exchange software, and I prefer it,
>too.
>> Think again, CHUMP.
>..
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
