Linux-Advocacy Digest #560, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("mmnnoo")
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Zenin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Zenin)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Richard)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (sfcybear)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:10:38 GMT
I wasn't arguing that, I made a comparison showing a couple of things
that AIX has and Linux doesn't...
Of course IBM is behind Linux. They are going to make a fortune off of
it, eventually.
claire
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:38:41 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:24:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:07:24 +1300, Gardiner Family
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>thats cool. I was assuming you may have been a Windows only user who has never
>touched
>>>UNIX at all, however, I was wrong. When comparing say, Linux with Solaris,
>scalability,
>>>Solaris wins, however, when it comes to hardware support, linux has the upper hand.
>>
>>I can't say about salability, but as far as hardware support is
>>concerned, Aix is geared toward IBM hardware.
>>Linux most certainly wins the hardware support issue. It might support
>>more total pieces of hardware than Windows does (Win98 that is),
>>especially older, but still useful hardware.
>
> ...supports little things like the PPC architecture too.
>
> Also, the creator of AIX seems to think Linux is worth something.
> They're one of the biggest members of the corporate Linux bandwagon
> at the moment.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:11:47 GMT
I can't believe you are even attempting to argue support for games. I
don't even bring games into the same sentence as Linux because it is
pitiful.
claire
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:08:57 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:42:11 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Programs for families like Microsoft Fine Artist and Creative writer, Movie Maker,
>>Barneys Education games, and other games.
>
> Those are educational titles. You said games.
>
> The Loki titles more than adequately demonstration of proof
> of concept for many of the sorts of things that Linux
> currently gets flak for.
>
>
>>
>>matt
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:07:24 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [typical, Linux must do in the future what it's doing already]
>>> >never happen until the Linux community realise that users do not give a toss about
>>> >technical details, all they want is a OS that works (stable and reliable) and can
>go
>>> >down to Dick Smiths Electronics and buy their favourite game.
>>>
>>> You mean like Quake III, Unreal Tournament, Descent III, Majesty,
>>> Anarchy Online, Black & White, SimCity 3000 Unlimited, Theocracy,
>>> Myth II, Heavy Gear II, Shogo Armour Division, Terminus, or
>>> Soldier of Fortune?
>>>
>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Murphy's Law is recursive. Washing your car to make it rain doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Excellent time to become a missing person.
>>>
>>> Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks.
>>
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:14:49 GMT
Well, I like Linux alot, and I don't think the problems you're talking about
are terminal. Although Linux is perfect for my file serving and firewalling
needs, I am disappointed that Linux still doesn't have a good web browser
or news reader and that the new kernel is so late. Happy?
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39e21211$0$5790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
> Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
> Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
> Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due
to
> ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
>
> ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
> the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux
and
> Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
>
> "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database
> servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
> support [is not there]"
>
> <yawn>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:15:47 GMT
You guys are all so out of your minds it's incredible. Whatever the
semantics involved (ie:Linux is the kernel), it is a fact that Linux
is trying to compete with Windows for the desktop simply by virtue of
the number of Windows program look a likes as well as kde and Gnome.
It is also for sale in CompUSA for anywhere from $29 to about $100
depending on distro.
You can pull all the word twisting you want out of the hat but Linux
is not taking any market share away from the Windows desktop. Joe and
Jane that is. Programmers? Students? maybe, home users? Nope.
And if it doesn't get it's ass in gear it will remain a niche' system.
claire
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:54:26 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
Warkus) wrote:
>It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:28:40 GMT...
>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The underlying OS is simply a means to the end result and Linux is a
>> fine operating system. In my opinion it should stay focused on the
>> advanced market, where it is making major gains in usage, and stop
>> trying to compete with desktop Windows.
>
>Linux cannot stay focused on anything, and Linux cannot stop trying to
>compete with something, because Linux is not a product.
>
>mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:22:13 GMT
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:46:40 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:24:43 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I am not really bothered if I have to pay for software. I am also sick and tired
>>of the old argument, "Linux is free", argument, Linux, essential, is just the
>>kernel, nothing more, nothing less. Joe bloggs does not care whether it is free
>>or not, joe bloggs just wants his computer to work without any hassles.
>
> Don't be an idiot.
Name calling again?
> Of course Joe Bloggs cares if Linux is free (or rather gratis).
Evidently he hasn't gotten the message. I don't see Linux taking over
the desktop from Windows, despite it being free.
> The perception that DOS is free or that WinTel is cheap has
> always been one of DOS's key strengths against better
> engineered competitors.
Nope. People want applications. Windows has them and Linux doesn't,
and I'm not talking about geek stuff.
claire
>[deletia]
>
> Besides, WinDOS is the essense of hassle.
But it sells a hell of a lot of games.
> That's why console gaming is a more lucrative market than PC gaming.
Wrong again.
Console gaming overall is cheaper for the person playing the game. No
pc to buy or keep updated with the fastest video, disk and memory, but
I can buy a Nintendo on Ebay for not a lot and happily be playing
games..
claire
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:23:32 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rtqq8$1lap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's 4096
> >> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to W2K
> >> running on 32 processors.
> >>
> >> Yep.
>
> > Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and nuked
> > all the competition?
>
> Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
TPC doesn't meter "web solution"s, it meters transactions for all
sorts of things. Namely, financial transactions, manufacturing transactions,
just about any type of transactional processing etc. What exactly do these
beasts do if they do not process anything? Granted some due science
and mathematical calculations, but is that all? Why would transactional
processing metrics not apply to them.
> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are fully
> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
But they haven't?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:25:21 GMT
You should know by now that I don't use Win2k.
You should also know by now that I think the Linux installs are better
than any Windows product I have used. especially Mandrake and Caldera
and SuSE.
After reading the somewhat vague, out of date and generic How-To's he
will be wasting his time asking the same questions in the Networking
group.
claire
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:49:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:56:11 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>RTFunnyM or the How-To's.
>>
>>There are thousands of them so you should be busy for a while.
>
>I would have expected something from you more along the lines of:
>
>[1] Buy two copies of Win2k.
>[2] Use the RH6.2 as a coaster for a coffee mug, as you wait
> for the install, which should take 5 minutes at most anyway.
>[3] Install the two copies of Win2k.
>[4] Reboot.
>
>:-)
>
>(Disclaimer: I happen to like RH 6.0 and 6.2, so don't take
>this too seriously. But I'm surprised you didn't take this
>opportunity to push what you obviously think is a
>far better operating system. [*] :-) )
>
>(Disclaimer #2: There are a number of HOWTOs, but he'd not have
>to read all of them; the ones that appear relevant are the
>Networking howto, the DNS howto, the Printing howto,
>the Apache installation instructions, and possibly the howto
>on how to rebuild the kernel whose name I forget offhand, since
>he's going to have to add the 'ne.o' module for the NIC; he
>won't get far otherwise. :-) )
>
>>
>>claire
>>
>>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:16:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I have 2 PCs that I'd like to setup together to
>>>learn Apache webserver, printer server and DNS. Can
>>>someone help me please.
>>>
>>> I have 2 NIC cards (NE2000), 1 hub and Rhat Linux 6.2.
>>>
>>> Can someone give me the step-by-step procedure?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>Leo
>>>
>>>
>>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>>Before you buy.
>>
>
>[*] I reserve judgement at this time as to whether W2k is "far better"
> than RedHat. I use Redhat, but I have yet to touch W2k. I
> use NT4 on a regular basis, however, and am not horribly fond
> of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:27:41 GMT
Not at all. My comments were not directed at engineers and programmers
nor were they directed at Linux in the server market.
Joe computer and Jane computer at home with their AOL account and 248
names in their AOL buddy list.
You guys are the one's trying to send the discussion that way.
claire
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:04:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 03:20:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Amazing, so six programmer types (which includes engineers and other
>>geek types) respond and try to defend their beloved Linux by splitting
>>hairs and playing semantics.
>
>So are you saying that programmers and engineers should be forced to
>use consumer-level tools because "90% of consumers do"?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:28:37 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
John Lockwood wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:50:04 -0400, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, this whole discussion seems to be based on a false assumption.
> >Notepad does work on Wine. And I run Lotus Notes under Wine every day at
> >work.
>
> OK, fair enough. If I've posted something inaccurate, I apologize.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
Actually, I think the inaccuracies come more from Max. He wants to think of
himself as a Linux advocate but then makes up crazy thinks like "Notepad
doesn't work under Wine, therefore Win32 is crap". He really gives the rest
of us a bad name.
Wine does have a long way to go, but I remember, not that long ago, when the
only thing that I could get to work was Solitaire. Now some very useful apps
such as Notes work quite well.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:33:01 GMT
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It may not be considered stable, but then win98, by the same standards
> > isn't
>
> 2.4.0-test9 has been much more stable for me than Windows ME (and Windows NT
> 4.0/sp6 at work). I've never had to reboot my machine running 2.4.0-test9,
but I
> have had to restart both the WinME and Windows NT machines more times than I
can
> count on one hand last week.
You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology) kernel
built in 2000 to an OS built in 1996 and a psuedo-32-bit OS with a poor version
of PME (yes, I don't think Win9x is anything other than a consumer OS for
gaming and small home tasks)?
What about Windows 2000? Afraid to compare it because you know Linux doesn't
hold a candle to it?
Let's try to compare apples to apples, please. NT 4.0 is better than Linux
2.0 or 1.2, but that's not saying much.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:35:10 -0000
Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
:> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
:> [...]
:> >It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's
:> >easily clonable.
:>
:> Blah blah blah.
:>
:> >In fact it has typically been seen as contrary to
:> >their interests. The various Unix vendors, for instance, have <yet> to
:> >create a common Unix standard set of system API's.
:>
:> I guess POSIX doesn't count.
:
: POSIX is too basic.
Which is why we have UNIX98 as well. It also helps to define
*which* POSIX spec you are talking about (NT doesn't even try
to comply with a large amount of POSIX).
: The point he's trying to make is, even though people say Unix is Unix is
: Unix, there are still apps that only work on HP-UX, or Solaris, or Linux.
: If they have a common API, why is this the case?
95%[1] of the API is the same. The other 5%[1] is different, mostly
drawn along SysV vs BSD lines (except for Linux, which is its own
special version of hell...).
The incompatibilities aren't bad and are even scriptable without
much problem (GNU autoconfig, etc).
: What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
One day? When was the last time Linux *didn't* have highly
incompatible distributions? A.out/ELF? libc vs glibc vs misc
versions thereof? Kernel revs? The brain damage that is Linux
/proc?
The hundreds (yes, hundreds...) of different Linux distributions are
at the same time both one of Linux's greatest strengths and greatest
weaknesses.
Only the ignorant would try and define Unix by Linux's history.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:39:12 -0000
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In comp.lang.java.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: : What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
:
: The GPL.
LOL...it hasn't helped yet...
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:39:46 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
> Chicken and egg problem: Where did the class object that does
> the instantiation come from? Face it, at some point in the
> chain you have to instantiate objects "out of thin air", to
> avoid an infinitely recursive situation.
Of course you don't. Classes, and many other objects (eg, all
globals), exist in a Smalltalk system without ever having been
instantiated. They can be found in the ST image when you turn
on the system. Maybe they were instantiated from some class
(a class called "class" maybe?) during a previous activation
of the image. But then again, *maybe not*! Maybe the image was
constructed from outside of itself, and talking about how an
image is constructed is akin to talking about what happened
before the Big Bang!
Btw, you *do* have circular definitions in Smalltalk. Details
vary in different dialects, the following holds for Squeak:
The class Object (*)
is the unique instance of class 'Object class' (**) which,
is an instance of 'Metaclass' (#) which,
is a subclass of 'ClassDescription' which,
is a subclass of 'Behaviour' which,
is a subclass of Object!
The class Object
is a subclass of the class Proto-Object which,
is a subclass of the object 'nil' (##),
is the unique instance of 'Uninitialized Object' which
is a subclass of 'Object'.
*: which holds the instance methods common to all Objects
**: which holds the instance methods of the Object class;
the "class methods" common to all objects
#: every class has a metaclass so you might as well make
a class to describe them all
##: nil denotes nothing (not 'nothing' but /nothing/) and
every uninitialized variable has that value
In Self, classes don't exist, only objects. And objects have
existed in the Image since the very first activation of that
image. Where did they come from? This is a deep philosophical
question that objects ponder while they're not responding to
messages; some have proposed that a mythical god-like object
called an Image Builder put the very first objects in that
image from, get this, *outside* the Image. Isn't that the most
ridiculous thing? Of course, saner objects ask who created
the very first Image Builder object! And then there are the
solipsist objects who maintain that the whole Image is a
dream inside the mind of an object which for unknown reasons
is called The Computer .... And of course, none of this
explains where the Fundamental Laws Of Images (like that
every pointer points to an object header) come from.
> : So I should probably have said that humans have no experience
> : dealing with both classes as classes and classes as objects
> : simultaneously.
>
> That's not true either. For example:
> Reptiles are cold-blodded. (reptile as an objectless class).
> "Reptile" comes before "Snake" in the dictionary" ("Reptile"
> is a word, an object.)
That's not even the same word !!
You're the one who pointed out that "a reptile", "the reptile",
"this reptile" and "that reptile" were completely different from
"reptile" by the simple prepending of an article to the word.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:30:41 GMT
In article <39e21211$0$5790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
> Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux
creator
> Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the
next
> Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000
or
> early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original
due to
> ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
>
> ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued
that
> the open source development model is superior to the closed,
monolithic
> models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both
Linux and
> Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
>
> "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and
DNS
> services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database
> servers or online transaction processing. The independent software
vendor
> support [is not there]"
Hmm, Maybe she should talk with the people at oracle, IBM, Dell...
>
> <yawn>
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:40:54 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hJtE5.50506$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%coE5.27950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Rumors and FUD of "undocumented" or "secret" Win32 APIs that only
> > Microsoft uses or creates are merely that... rumors and FUD.
> >
>
> You seem fairly knowledgeable about this stuff, so I can only conclude that
> you're lying. I might have thought you were honestly mistaken if you hadn't
> demonstrated some knowledge in past messages. And anyone who knows anything
> about Windows programming, knows that there's a TON of undocumented stuff in
> there.
Undocumented kernel "stuff", but I've yet to see ANYONE provide a shred
of evidence, other than idle/ignorant conjectures like previous in this
thread, of "undocumented" or "secret" ***WIN 32 API*** functions.
Much of the kernel is undocumented because it is... well, proprietary.
Do a spy trace of Office. You will see no "undocumented" or "secret"
kernel calls.
> If you've spent any time at all developing for Windows, you've run into it
> yourself. Therefore, you must be lying. What I don't understand is....why?
Well, I've been developing for the past couple years, full time for the past
year or so and I've been nothing but impressed by the thoroughness of
Microsoft's API declarations.
OTOH, Oracle (which is one of the other pieces of software I have to deal
with) has shoddy, inconsistent, and incorrect documentation. Finding anything
worth while in their "documentation", which looks like a kindergarten project,
is impossible.
I can't comment on much else because I haven't delved ino anything as deep
as I have with Windows.
> > Besides, how come every other OS is allowed to package and include
> > browser technologies in their OS, but when Microsoft does it, it's
> > bad?
> >
> > I see almost everyone (KDE, Gnome, Apple/MacOS, Be, etc) including
> > browser-style or browser-dependant technologies into their GUIs.
> >
> > This is a feature enhancement. I know of very few GUI-using people
> > who can do without their browser-style file viewing (with the
> > Back,Up,Forward,Favorites style interface). This did nothing
> > to hurt competition (namely Netscape). Netscape had already
> > shot themselves in the foot several times, ignored the trends
> > of the market, continued to bilk their customers without giving
> > them any new technology, refused to improve their browser
> > (Netscape 4.x? Give me a break, that has to be among the worst
> > software ever written), etc. They killed themselves, MS had
> > nothing to do with it except for building a better browser.
>
> Microsoft destroyed Netscape the same way it has destroyed all competition
> it has ever faced.
False. Any objective person would look at the poor state of Netscape software
and could plainly see they drove themselves into the ground by slow
movement in the market, sitting on a poorly designed product and throwing
lawsuits at Microsoft while seemingly uninterested in improving their
own product or, let alone, competing. You're just sore and you need to
think of anything to throw at Microsoft.
This was, and still is a rediculous claim.
> Through illegal, anti-competitive, underhanded, and
> downright evil practices. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and a whole bunch
> more, ought to be in prison. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Ah.. I see. Completely unable to see anything objectively. You've been
so Slash-washed that you can't even think on your own?
Why so much hatred? Did you too lose your job to a more talented,
more productive (and therefore less expensive) Windows developer?
> You really, really ought to be ashamed of yourself.
That means nothing coming from you and your extremist wacko position.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:42:38 GMT
"John Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:39:29 +0200, "Fr�d�ric G. MARAND"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Can you seriously write that ?
> >
> >Or add something like "..part of the time" .
> >
> >John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:25:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >[...]
> >> 1) Windows works.
> >[...]
> >
>
> Well, given that I develop on NT day in and day out, and it crashes
> infrequently enough that I'm not annoyed by it, I'd say that "Windows
> works" is fair. Doesn Linux work better? All by itself, yes, but not
> when one adds XWindows.
DOS rarely crashed *AT THE COMMAND LINE* too. So what?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:44:16 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:23:04 GMT...
> ...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is of course Linux.
> >
> > Nope. The future is BeOS!
>
> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> incapable of.
Provide a stable, reliable GUI?
Don't forget about the 3D cube rotating with the movies
playing on it! <grin>
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
