Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #29 Sun, 15 Oct 00 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Astroturfing (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Shane Phelps)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing (Mike Byrns)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("al")
Re: Suggestions for Linux (unicat)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Jim Richardson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:36:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> , the Windows 2000 Server Family delivers three increasingly powerful
> > products that set a new standard for reliability and scalability. The
> > Windows 2000 Server Family also demonstrates how well an operating system
> > can be integrated with a standards-based directory, Web, application,
> > network, file and print services, and end-to-end management. This
> > combination of reliability and functionality provides the best foundation
> > for integrating your business with the Internet.
> >
>
> yeah! you are absolutely right......they do!....over Windows 95/98 that
> is.... ;)
And over reefer smoking linux skatepunks like you :-)
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 04:25:48 +1000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Word and Excel circa 1993 certainly did use undocumented functions.
> > So did quite a few of the other "big" apps at the time.
> > The "official" functions were either too slow or too clumsy, so
> > the undocumented underlying functions were called into service.
> > I suspect Norton Utilities, etc still uses undocumented functions.
>
> According to Andrew Schulman, the author of Undocumented Windows, Word did
> not use any of the undocumented functions, and Excel only made use of 3
> (IIRC), of which equivelants that were just as fast and did the same things
> were available in a documented form. Why would the code use the
> undocumented functions? Legacy holdover. Much of the Excel code was
> written for Windows 2.x, which needed those functions. In Windows 3, they
> were not.
>
I stand corrected on Word.
It's not a big enought deal to dig trough my archive boxes to find
the original articles. I have an idea I read this in one of the
programming articles in DDJ or Computer Language, not in "Undocumented
Windows". That was years ago anyway, and I'd certainly take Schulman's
book as the definitive reference.
I'm sure he gave examples of the use of undocumented functions in his
DDJ (?) series which weren't in the book.
Excel was originally written for the Mac System (probably around
System 4) and ported to Windows. I thought it might have been ported
to Windows 1. I was definitely using it on Windows 2 in any case.
The Win32 API was certainly an improvement on the older Windows
APIs, and probably allowed for vastly reduced use of undocumented
functions.
> > Using the undocumented functions was always a risk, because they
> > were liable to change with every new Windows release. Microsoft's
> > application division would have had advance warning of the changes.
>
> Tell me, how would this advanced warning make a 3 year old version of Excel
> continue to work? What everyone that makes these claims seem to forget is
> that old versions of Office still run fine, despite these supposed changes
> to undocumented API's that are used all over the place.
You misinterpreted what I wrote, Eric. MS has always been very careful
to make its own software run under later OS versions. Other software
houses haven't been as well supported. It's the fact that older versions
of MS Office apps do still work on later versions of Windows that cause
the suspicions about the Chinese walls.
MS did give fair warning that undocumented functions were liable to
change, so 3rd-party developers did know they were running a risk.
The point I was trying to make is that the OS group could tell the Office
group "function xyz() won't be supported after release 3.11, so be
careful not to use it." and the Office group could tell the OS group
that "application X is broken now that you've taken away function
abz(). Can you put it back in?". It's the functions not used by MS
software that had the risk.
There are certainly non-MS applications which have broken after
Windows upgrades (Lotus Notes is a recent example). This is
probably not malice on MS's part.
However, their behaviour towards DR-DOS has to raise doubts.
They went to great pains to determine that the underlying DOS
version was DR-DOS, and also to hide the code. If the code
hadn't been hidden most programmers would regard it as a
legitimate version checker.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:55:02 GMT
Thomas Corriher wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2000 22:38:30 GMT, Steve Mading
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (Unless you are cynically referring to the fact that
> >many humans eschew logic and accept illogical things
> >(like a self-creating God.))
>
> Most people who believe in (accept) the existence of God,
> would in most cases, be more logical than those who dispute
> the existence of God. They normally don't go about attacking
Isn't it wonderful how Americans can remain so thoroughly
ignorant, clueless on the internet?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 06:04:54 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> >> "I don't believe classes should exist in the system at all.
> >> New objects should be created by copying prototypes." Richard.
>
> (I have no idea what Richard means by this.)
Read up on Self (the prototypical prototype-based language) at
http://www.sun.com/research/self/
Classes break object-orientation because the behaviour of objects
is stored in a completely different object from what's supposed to
be the object (it's stored in a "class" object).
> >> Consider classes to be objects that don't belong to a class.
> >
> >You don't know what the hell you're talking about Roberto. For one thing,
> >you betray an astonishing ignorance of what "object" means.
>
> Besides, java.lang.Class has a class instance of its own.
> Appropriately enough, its name is "java.lang.Class". :-)
>
> Even int has a class...named "int". Can't find it using
> Class.forName("int"), though; one has to use Integer.TYPE.
> And Integer.TYPE.newInstance() throws an InstantiationException.
If you can't instantiate it then what makes int an instance
of that class ??
Besides, "int" is not an object, it's a type. Individual
ints might be considered objects if they had a class but
they don't.
> (It's a wart on an otherwise fine language.)
ROTFLMAO. There are so many other warts, it makes the whole
language ugly. And there is absolutely *nothing* in Java that
hasn't existed in Smalltalk for years and years and years;
sometimes even decades.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 02:14:24 -0400
Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Static66
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:07:26 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Keep ducking and weaving Loren!! You don't like hearing than
>> > >> "visionary" Algore is a rich,poluting,beltway boy do you???
>> > >
>> > > Something you right-wingers normally pride yourself on being.
>> >
>> > HaHaHaHa yes we are all rich, poluting bastards..Still not coming to
>> > terms with reality are you...
>>
>> Thank you for admitting what you are.
>I'm not sure wich is more pathetic, his poor attempt at sarcasm, or your not
>catching/admitting it was so.
Chad,
Your comments tell us that you are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
-- that means you are an asshole. Go away and stay away.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 06:23:10 GMT
lyttlec wrote:
> MS had to change the name. Now its Microsoft Certified Software
> Professional.
No. They didn't. It's not changed at all. See
http://www.microsoft.com/trainingandservices/default.asp?PageID=mcp&PageCall=mcse&SubSite=cert/mcse&AnnMenu=mcse
> You can't hold yourself out to the public as an Engineer
> unless you have completed 4 years of college, had 4 years experience and
> passed the EIT and PE tests.
Wrong. Only in Texas. And Canada. And there are "engineers" at Corel working on .NET
:-)
You must produce a statutorial argument of this assertion. Please post one. I've held
an engineer title for a more than a decade without a related degree, 4-year
experience (
early on ) or any FE /EIT / PE crap. Those are for Civils, Mechanicals, Electricals,
and
Chemicals. Not ITs.
> If you do insist on using the title MSCE,
> then you can be held personally liable for all damages everytime a
> system in your charge crashes.
Nope. The certifier is only in TX.
> My advice to anyone using the MSCE on business cards : DON'T!
My advice? DO. You get a 100K job on simple to administer systems! Whoo hoo!
Downside? You get a pager and a notebook like everyone else.
------------------------------
From: "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:49:49 +1000
Reply-To: "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sbacc$n4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8sasjl$dho$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:04:24 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >A picture claiming to show former monoposoft employees begging
> for
> > > food...
> > > > >An image from a site dedicated to spreading the "truth"-
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/street1.html
> > > > >
> > > > >Don't let this happen to you. Learn linux now ;-)
> > > >
> > > > You sure that picture wasn't really of Linux investors??? Red Hat
> is
> > > > down what, 90% from it's high?
> > >
> > > I guess your not bright enough to see the windows logos. eh?
> >
> > I guess your not bright enough to see that it's had a real bad "fake"
> job
> > done on the original graphic. It probably did say Red Hat originally.
> And
> > "Will write Linux applications for food"
>
> Pathetic, just pathetic. Can't you do any better than whine "is not".
> you sound like a 3 year old.
>
shouldn't that have been WINE
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 02:50:41 -0400
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
I hate to say this, old friend, but you'e pretty much the poster boy for
the kind of user that is holding linux back from wider acceptance.
Doing away with the CLI would not kill Linux, and it wouldn't
mean rewriting a thing. You would simply be invoking the current
command set through icons and menus within X-windows.
To avoid a flame war, though, let me modify my original proposal.
What if the CLI-oriented, vi-edited config file, mysterious,
arcane, hard-to-configure Linux were left intact, and got distributed
as "server" linux or "hard-head" linux.
Then a new distro could be created that included a beefed-up gui,
and automated config tools, called something like "friendly" linux
or linux-"lite".
The no-life cultists who enjoy being intitiates into the secret knowledge
of UNIX internals could still play with the "hard" version, and make snide
comments about those too weak to use it.
The other 99% of the population could adopt the "lite" version, and create a
user
base big enough to attract decent software development, like more games and
office productivity software....
"David M. Butler" wrote:
> unicat wrote:
>
> ...Please tell me this is a joke... alright, here goes...
>
> > 1) We need to kill off the "Cult of UNIX" mentality.
>
> First off, regardless of who's pushing a CLI and who's not, there will
> always be a choice. As of right now, using KDE 2.0 betas, the most I
> actually HAVE to use the command line for is to do my ./configure's and
> 'make's when compiling source for something... I'm sure I don't really
> have to use the CLI for that either, I just happen to prefer it. Quite
> honestly, I don't see the need to know much at all about the command line
> with the current desktop environments available.
>
> > 2) We need to completely eliminate the command line interface.
> > That's right. Get rid of it. Anything that can't be done from a
> > GUI isn't worth doing. Remove ed,vi,emacs,vim, telnet, rlogin, rsh,
> > and especially getty from the distribution package completely.
> > Run ppp on all serial lines by default. PCs are cheaper than VT100s,
> > and we can use X-windows over ppp instead of curses. To
> > replace telnet and rlogin, use an http link and HTML pages that
> > use cgi to run commands.
>
> Oh boy. I think this would be the easiest way to kill Linux. Not only
> would just about every *nix utility in existance have to be rewritten, but
> the entire structure of the operating system too... you'd be far better
> off writing a new OS if this is what you want. As of right now, you can
> choose command line or graphical environment. What's convenient about that
> is that the plethora of utilities already designed for the CLI can be used
> with a frontend plopped on top to make it user friendly... no need to
> remove the originals.
>
> > 3) We need to add superior functionality to the Linux GUI, like
> > the "Halflife" game, with openGL and 3-D icons for linux functions-
>
> I can see I'm not going to like this...
>
> > a) A restaurant. F'rinstance, you boot linux, and you see a first
>
> Ick...
>
> > b) An office building. You find yourself walking down a hallway,
> > each door leads to either a room or another hallway. Rooms are
> > directories with representational 3-D icons for files (like a TV
>
> Ack...
>
> > We could produce a tool like a .wad file editor to allow users to
> > customize the 3-D environment.
>
> Geh.. This sounds like a lot of annoying "building exploration" to get to
> an application... I tend to think something like this is best left to
> either A) a game, or B) a highly sophisticated VR setup in the future...
>
> This would annoy the hell out of me, and I think, quite frankly, that there
> would be a lot of people that would be more confused by going around the
> corner and through the door to activate something, than to click on the
> icon.
>
> > 4) DWIM, or Do what I meant -
>
> Er... great concept I suppose... I'd love to see how you'd implement
> something like this for everything in an OS... Browsing the web? Software
> that doesn't word things exactly the same? How do you expect this to work?
> Here's an example:
>
> Website forms can ask for First name and last name, or just full name, or
> just an alias, etc. etc. Is the OS supposed to magically fill this in for
> you? Even prompts in different software are different, and there would
> have to be a significant amount of recoding and compiling for all apps
> available for Linux to work this way...
>
> Personally, I'd be annoyed with this as well, unless it was just something
> I could right-click on and choose from a list of possibilities. Having the
> computer fill in the blanks for me isn't always what I want, especially
> when I'm... oh.. I dunno... registering something for a friend... doing
> anything at all that doesn't involve typing the same exact response to
> something that's worded the same or similar.
>
> > d) Run a background process once an hour to check the integrity and
> > consistency of all configuration files - and fix them so they work.
>
> ...this would involve the OS knowing exactly how each application's
> configuration file is setup... This would mean extreme standardization and
> limitation of what's allowed in a config file. If the operating system
> doesn't know what something like "APX_Side_Aspect=5" means in a config
> file, how will it fix it?
>
> > e) The ten year old test - If 90% of ten year old kids can use an
> > application without training - it's user friendly enough to be DWIM.
>
> Actually, I find that 10 year olds with no computer experience will figure
> things out faster than someone older with no computer experience. It just
> depends on what's around while they're young.
>
> > 5) Put all files in an associative index which provides the user with
>
> What are you trying to do with this one? Allow a user to say, "I would
> like to see the picture I took of my grandmother" to the computer and have
> it pop up, or what? Other than the "keywords" aspect you mentioned, the
> same functionality comes out of having a PATH set or keeping similar things
> in the same directories (ie. photos in the directory called PHOTOS)
>
> > Easy to do? No! But worth doing if we really want Linux to win!
>
> Win what? Are we in a battle? Linux won't die if Microsoft still
> exists... there is nothing to "win". The suggestions you made would quite
> easily kill Linux, however... or at least it would create a branch of the
> Linux source that would be completely ignored.
>
> D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:06:47 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:23:36 GMT,
Richard, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El lun, 09 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >Steam, yes. Ice and water, no. No more than a bunch of monomers
>> >are a plastic. The functional unit of water isn't the individual
>> >water molecule, nor is this the case for most ice states.
>>
>> Water has been considered, loosely, by chemists as a polymer, but it is not
>> strictly one. And indeed ice is cristals of H20. Just ask your friendly chemist.
>
>Except that "crystals of H2O" isn't H2O anymore than "a chain of monomers"
>is a bunch of monomers.
If Ice crystals aren't H2O, care to name exactly what the chemical is?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:48:43 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 03:48:44 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "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.
>>
>> Actually I'm quite surprised when an X windows app DOESN'T CRASH! It's
>> like - click the icon and pray.
>> I'm about ready to create shortcuts to some "pid" files just to make it
>> easier to run.
>
>Hell, typing "startx" is usually an leap of faith...
>
>-Chad
>
>
Interesting, in 5 years of using Linux, on a daily basis, with machines (mostly
x86) from PPC mac clones, to x86pcs to the occaisional non-intel system, I can
say that X works well, that crashes of non-alpha apps are rare, and that X
itself has proven far more reliable than the M$ stuff I deal with from time to
time. As for startx, dunno, for several years now, xdm and now kdm are the
normal way of loging in for me.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:25:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:45:42 GMT,
Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On the plus side, GWB doesn't own a polluting Zinc mine, which is under
>> consideration by the state of Tennessee to close down due to toxic runnof that
>> Gore hasn't cleaned up despite several citations.
>
> I thought that environmentalists were all economic saboteurs.
>
> And it is not for nothing that Libertarians have been described as
>Republicans who smoke pot.
>
I am a little confused as to what your response has to do wrt Mr "Earth in
the Balance, but zinc mining profits in my checkbook balance" Gore.
What do the libertarians or the republicrats have to do with Gore polluting a
river in Tennesee?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
