Linux-Advocacy Digest #284, Volume #29 Sun, 24 Sep 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Chad Myers")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (tholenbot)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (The Ghost In The Machine)
TEST---DO NOT READ (Juan Manuel Ramos)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 06:12:18 GMT
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39cd80be$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, I had occasion to visit CompUSA earlier this afternoon. Just for
> > fun, I counted the software titles for Intel and Mac platform. There were
> > 498 different titles for Intel platform machines. For Mac, 44 of which 36
> > were games.
> >
> > This proves that Macs are not well supported other than for games.
>
> Well, I just opened my MacWarehouse catalog, as well as my MaCZone
> catalo, and they were chock-full of software for the Macintosh.
Here's the list:
===================
Adobe Photoshop 4
Adobe Photoshop 4.01
Adobe Photoshop 5
Adobe Photoshop 5.01
Adobe Photoshop 4 LT
Adobe Photoshop 5 LT
Adobe Photoshop (10 other versions)
Adobe Illustrator 7
Adobe Illustrator 8
Adobe Illustrator 9
Adobe *.* (72 other products)
Oh yeah and MS Office and Claris *.* (10 products).
Quite some variety there.
> And you know what? Not a single mention of PC software anywhere!
Very odd, considering it was a Mac catalog. Of course, you Mac
people probably think that there is no such thing as a non-Mac
catalog/magazine, right?
> To the same extent that your proof makes any sense, this proves that PCs
> are not aupported at all, by anyone.
Hmm.. you're comparing a Mac-only catalog to CompUSA?
That's amusing on two levels:
a.) CompUSA is a retail store geared towards all consumers. MacWarehouse is
a catalog geared towards Mac people, so there's really no correlation.
b.) Your basically are agreeing with Bob's assertion that there is not
strong support for the Mac because consumer stores like CompUSA don't
carry much software/hardware because there's very little demand for it.
> Oh, I forgot ... you Plonked me. I guess you're going to remain in the
> dark forever about the fact that Mac software gets sold mail-oder a lot.
So does Amiga hardware. How come people aren't clammoring to buy the latest
Mac software or hardware at their local retail store? Because they're a
niche, that's why.
-Chad
mail-oder? Odor? I bet!
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:17:06 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> A "Tholen-war" is an argument that so severely degresses along
> did/didn't/did too lines that neither party recalls what the discussion
> was about, and the did/didn't/did too makes up the bulk of the debate.
Incorrect.
--
Prove that "It's time to raise the curtain on the Muppet Show tonight", if
you think you can.
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[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, 24 Sep 2000 01:22:59 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
@>@To learn about Win2k/NT? What better way than to go there? MS has a
@>@nice page on the subject that tells all about it. I'm dead certain he
@>@can find it if he looks.
@>
@> Doubtful. The MS site is very large, poorly organized, and fucking
@>slow over a modem. Not to mention that every single HTML tag on every
@>page is malformed. Why should he have to plow through a site like that,
@>when you could probably rattle off the url off the top of your head?
@
@Because he's the one that is responsible for his own life and destiny,
@not me. It isn't up to me to train him. I think Chad Meyer's (??)
@response to your question most recently was well thought out - please
@see it, too, for another perspective.
Did I say it was? Why won't you back up your arguments?
I don't think Chad's response was well thought out, so it's not an
issue.
@>@> On the other hand, it is very interesting that you continue to
@>@> refuse
@>@>to provide proof that you know the difference.
@>@
@>@I guess Microsoft knowledgebase articles on subjects that baffle him,
@>@corrections to several people on how WOW/NTVDM/Win32, DHCP, NAT, and a
@>@host of other subjects really function, all having to do with
@>@Microsoft technologies, don't count?
@>
@> You haven't posted them (or a url) in this thread. [by "this thread"
@>I mean the chain of articles I can get from the Reference header] You
@>have simply stated over and over, "Why should I?" Not very convincing.
@
@Because this newsgroup consists of more than this thread, your reply
@is immaterial.
Whatever.
@>@>You've probably written
@>@>more, and spent more time, refusing to provide proof, than you would
@>@>have providing the proof. I find it somewhat humorous. Also a pretty
@>@>good indication that either you don't know, or are afraid that the
@>@>differences aren't good enough.
@>@
@>@Oh, yes, please, just skip over all of the proof I've provided....
@>@CLund (and you) only needs to read in this forum for proof.
@>
@> Why should he have to dig through every article you have posted to
@>find the occasional gem that says more than, "Nope, I was right, you're
@>wrong"? He asked nicely enough for you to post it to this thread, and
@>if it is so obvious it should not be a difficult task.
@
@I see no reason to jump whenever someone asks for an education. As
@Chad said, this isn't comp.sys.mac.Get.A.Clue.
OK, fine. But don't expect people to believe you.
@>Certainly no
@>more difficult than sayong over and over that you already did.
@> But you haven't, and probably won't. So a casual observer will
@>probably be more inclined to believe his claim that you cannot list the
@>differences than your claim that you did and he was too dumb to
@>understand.
@> Good luck on proving him wrong. You'll apparently need it.
@
@I think those who've read this forum know the truth on the matter -
@I'm very familiar with NT/W2k, and CLund isn't. We've both proven it
@time and time again. The fact that you've (apparently) completely
@missed that proof isn't terribly interesting to me.
Where, exactly, did I give any indication that _I_ missed your proof?
Well, I don't want to make you do my homework for me, so I'll go ahead
and spoil the surprise: I never missed it. I'm just taking issue with
your silly argument.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 17:41:36 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Does Linux have snazzy FrontPage equivalent for web page authoring
Interesting! I'll be sure to have a look at this!
Chris
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Dan Jacobson wrote:
>
> > Sorry to be a pain, but just curious, does Linux have any FrontPage
> > equivalent for web page authoring and 'publishing'? Now right off the
> > bat, I want to delimit the conversation to the idealistic FrontPage, where
> > no sloppy code is produced and no 'extentions' evil incompatibility plots
> > exist--- if it actually works isn't fair game either. I hear Nutscrape's
> > equivalent has met with user frustration. What is a GNU dude to do?
> > Would it be the same for browsers, where for the moment one must violate
> > anti-M$ morals if one wants to be not losing out to the user in the next
> > carrel. P.S. I know the anti-M$ website[s] lists equivalents for M$
> > tools.
>
> You could try WebSphere:
>
> http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/hpbuilder/linux/index.html
>
> It's not free, but there is a 60-day free trial version.
>
> Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 06:58:34 GMT
Luxury, luxury. You were allowed to use your teeth.
Why we had to use our teeth to....
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:38:34 +0100, Garry Knight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, chrisv wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:44:05 +0100, Garry Knight
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>I remember sitting in my local launderette building a Forth-based OS for the
>>>Spectrum by writing opcodes into a pocket notebook (which, of course, in those
>>>days was made of paper). Ah, the good ol' days... :o)
>>
>>You think that's bad,
>
>I don't, actually. I loved every minute of it. And there's been no hope for me
>ever since... :o)
>
>>in tech school (early 80's) we each had to build
>>a simple Z80 computer. Programming this computer was done via direct
>>machine-code (of course). The really bad part was that loading the
>>program into memory consisted of flipping switches on a 8-position DIP
>>switch for each byte, followed by a press of a button to load that
>>byte in. Talk about stupid!
>
>Looks like we're headed for another re-run of Monty Python's "Three
>Yorkshiremen" sketch. "Luxury! When I were a lad we 'ad to bite code in't ROM
>wi' ower teeth!"...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:31:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:27:51 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:34:03 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Peter Ammon wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean Jeff Goldblume? The same Jeff Goldblume that has appeared in
>> >> > several Apple Computer television commercials? The one that's on the
>> >> > Apple payroll? Do you know that Apple pays big bucks in hollywood to
>> >> > get it's computers in "cool" movies like Independence Day?
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe you. Can you back this up?
>> >>
>> >> -Peter
>> >Get the "Killer Tomato" series movies. you gotta watch them all.
>>
>> Including the cartoon series? :-)
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- catchy tune, though
>Haven't seen the cartoons on tape. Got any or know where I can get them?
>Do they have any puns on the order of "Who's that ringing in the Seine?"
>The product placement jokes were all in the full length movies.
Dunno, admittedly. If memory serves, they were originally shown
on Fox, but they're probably kicking around the syndication circuit,
or mouldering away somewhere. I don't know where they are now.
As for product placement...I don't remember anything specific.
The girl tomato was rather cute, though. :-) Just don't throw
any salt her way...or was it pepper? One changed her into
a tomato, the other changed her back into a human-looking girl,
with mutant powers.
The other characters I remember were a prepubescent boy (a friend
of the girl, who was definitely post-pubescent) and someone
who was always wearing a parachute and flight suit of some sort
(Wilbur?) on the good side, and the mad -- no, angry -- scientist
who created all of the tomatoes in the first place, with his
blonde (in both senses of the word) male sidekick, who was more
of a surfer dude than a proper sidekick.
IMDB has now reminded me of the names of these characters, and
that the series was made in 1990, and that the boy delivered pizza.
(It's an off brand -- and on more than one occasion, Wilbur's
culinary concoctions were very off, as they didn't use tomatoes,
presumably because of Gangreen's possible involvement therewith.)
Dr. Putrid T. Gangreen (What a name! No wonder he's evil...)
Igor (his sidekick)
Wilbur Finletter (the guy with the parachute)
FT (the little fuzzy mutant tomato who was discarded
by Gangreen and adopted by the good guys)
Chad (I think this is the kid)
Zoltan (?)
Whitley White (male TV newscaster, for laughs, I guess :-) )
Tara (the very female tomato)
Apparently Wilbur was lifted from the 1978 movie; the others don't
show up. ("Dr. Nokitofa"? One wonders what *he* did.)
Bizarre. :-) But then, so were the movies (they made more than one??),
as I understand it. (Maybe we just like bizarre movies.
_Killer Klowns from Outer Space_ must have sounded like a good idea
at one point to somebody, but...??? There's also one I have
somewhere which has four tall women dressed in black who were
ostensibly some sort of space siren/vixen/something, but I can't
remember the title now; I have it on tape somewhere.)
Ahem...back to Independence Day...I'll admit that the idea of throwing
a human virus into an alien ship's computer system struck me as
being this side of silly at the time, and it still does. Unix,
for example, is remarkably resistant to virii (even Win95 would be
hard to infect from a Mac virus, without very careful engineering
and knowledge of the fact that the virus should infect Win95),
and infecting the Space Shuttle's flight computers -- which are
very stupid by today's standards, but ultra-reliable -- seems
to me well nigh impossible. (Presumably, shields and weapons
control would be as tightly protected on the alien spacecraft.)
Good thing, too. Imagine the havoc if one got a
smiley-face and some music on a visual panel display, instead of
critical flight data such as airspeed or engine power! :-)
NASA would probably die of embarrassment, and the shuttle crew
might simply die. Somehow, I doubt this would be A Good Thing. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who still can't get that tune out of his head
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:32:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Kooy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:08:56 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 09/21/2000 at 05:52 PM,
>> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > The point is that Apple is widely associated with a lifestyle and
>> > mindset. Packard Bell is not.
>>
>> Just for grins and giggles, I had one of our high school computer teachers
>> ask 11th graders what they though of when they heard the word, "Apple".
>> Only 6 of 87 said computers.
>
>Just for grins and gigles, did you ask the same group what they thought
>of when the heard the word 'Warp'? Let me guess - a 100% turnout for
>OS/2? Not.
Maybe IBM should get William Shatner to advertise for them. :-) :-)
>
>ck
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- if Priceline will give him up
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:33:25 GMT
In article <6Xgz5.15462$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And you know what? Not a single mention of PC software anywhere!
>
> Very odd, considering it was a Mac catalog. Of course, you Mac
> people probably think that there is no such thing as a non-Mac
> catalog/magazine, right?
>
> > To the same extent that your proof makes any sense, this proves that
> > PCs
> > are not aupported at all, by anyone.
>
> Hmm.. you're comparing a Mac-only catalog to CompUSA?
>
> That's amusing on two levels:
> a.) CompUSA is a retail store geared towards all consumers. MacWarehouse
> is
> a catalog geared towards Mac people, so there's really no
> correlation.
> b.) Your basically are agreeing with Bob's assertion that there is not
> strong support for the Mac because consumer stores like CompUSA don't
> carry much software/hardware because there's very little demand for
> it.
You're being a dodo here....
CompUSA is a retail store geared toward the 90%tile cosumers. They give
shelf space to what sells. Of course they will stock more WIndows titles
than Mac titles.
MacZone and MacWarehouse are catalogs that specialize in the Mac market.
They have tons of titles for the Mac ... about as many titles as CompUSA
has on the shelves.
So the point, dear dodo, is that if you have a Mac, don't despair at the
apparent lack of software for it. Just pick up a MacWorld at the grocery
store and check out the zillions of ads in the back for places that sell
Mac software mail-order.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:35:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joe R.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Sep 2000 02:21:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:26:04 +0100,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > dc wrote:
>> >>On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
>> >>>support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
>> >>
>> >>This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
>> >>perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
>> >>product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
>> >>(meaning, NT and ME)?
>> >
>> >I'm having trouble with the phrase 'rest of computerdom' which I assumed
>> >would mean what people actually use, not NT and ME.
>>
>> For better or worse, that is what most people actually use.
>
>Most people use NT and ME?
>
>You're out of your mind (what little apparently remains).
I dunno; 100 million units is awful hard to argue with.
Or is it 200M now? I'd have to look. (Mind you, that encompasses
Win 3.1 all the way to Win2k -- which is an NT evolutionary derivative
anyway, further confusing things; I guess the marketeers didn't like
"NT" anymore :-) ).
Personally, I wish Linux had 100M copies. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- it's growing fast, though :-)
------------------------------
From: Juan Manuel Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TEST---DO NOT READ
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:15:05 +0200
TEST TEST TEST TEST
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:45:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Sep 2000 03:39:56 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>lyttlec wrote:
>>
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >
[snip for brevity]
>> > I'll have to try dividing by 0 on both operating systems the next
>> > chance I get. :-)
>> >
>> > [.sigsnip]
>> >
>> > --
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random NaN here
>> I just did a program with lots of divide by zero for both Windows95 and
>> Linux. It just printed out the values of 1/sin(x) where x would pass
>> through 0. The first time under Linux, the application died but not the
>> OS. A change got it to print NaN and continue. Under Windows95 (using MS
>> VisualC++ 5.0) neither died, but I got a garbage number.
>In the process of doing the above I wrote the following program :
>
>// hello.cpp
>// prints hello world
>
>
>#include <iostream.h>
>#include <string>
>#include <math.h>
>using namespace std;
>
>inline void pr_message(string s = "Hello Russ!")
>{cout << s << endl; }
>
>int main()
>{
> pr_message();
> for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++){
> cout << 1/sin(i)<< endl;
> }
>}
>
>It compiles and runs with g++, and Borland C++ Builder 4.52 and others,
>but under VC++ 5.0 I get lots of errors saying such things as "std is
>not a namespace" and that "<<" does not have a right hand operator of
>type string.
I know; we have to deal with that as well.
#define __STL_NO_NAMESPACE 1
at the top of your file should work around that, or you
can just prefix 'std::' to string everywhere.
A bit dumb, I know; no other OS we port to has this problem.
>
>Anyway, when I get all versions to compile and run :
>g++ gives inf as the result of divide by zero ( it should if I read the
>standard correctly)
>
>Borland gives a "divide by zero" message and dies. The application dies,
>but not the OS
Well, there you have it, folks; programs generated by Borland's compiler
can't divide by 0 without crashing. :-)
Mind you, I suspect exactly this sort of thing in the case of
the Yorktown. The OS remained unaffected, but the app croaked.
I think the popular press can't tell the diff between an app crash
and an OS crash. (It's not their area of expertise, admittedly.
So what? I would probably be terrible at writing bylines. :-) )
>
>VC++ prints 1.#INF.
>
>What gives? I don't expect the Borland to be correct, as it is too old.
>But does the gnu project and I read the standard wrong or is it MS?
Looks like it's a Borland-specific problem, at this point -- or
perhaps the program's creator simply didn't think to wiggle something
correctly to prevent app crashes upon div by 0 errors. I'd have
to look -- I have Borland C++ 4.51 here.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:46:49 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:45:36 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >To do good design, you have to abstact over /all possible/
> >implementations of your design.
>
> People who say things like that tend to not have ever had to implement
> their designs.
Or they're researchers. Come to think of it, most research OSes
are based on /exactly/ that kind of thinking.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:52:08 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:50:16 GMT,
> Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >And hey, I'm fine with hobbyists writing crap software so long as they
> >never distribute it ....
>
> Gee, guess we'll just have to set you up as, oh, what shall we call it? I
> know!, "Minister of state software" and everyone will just have to get their
As long as we're on the topic, I wouldn't mind 'World Dictator' either.
> programmes approaved by you...
> on second thought, nah!
That's right, for a moment there I forgot about the bureaucrary!
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 08:02:55 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> And OO is quite different from math, anyway, IMO; Unix was OO before
> the concept existed; one merely open()s a file, not caring whether
> it's a disk file, a remotely mounted NFS file, an AFS file (if that's
> still around), a Samba-mounted file, a device driver such as /dev/tty1,
> or even an image of memory (/dev/kmem)! Ditto for read()ing,
> write()ing, close()ing, lseek()ing, etc. ioctl() might care, but
> that's used less often.
Except that this doesn't go nearly far enough; which is exactly why
Denis Ritchie worked on Plan 9. And even though Plan 9 is a lot more
consistent than Unix, it isn't perfectly consistent; you can't fork
a new process just by reading and writing files in the proc filesystem
in Plan 9.
Further, open() is fundamentally contrary to OO, which is probably
why Ritchie went out of his way to explain that Plan 9 is *not* OO.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
