Linux-Advocacy Digest #279, Volume #30 Fri, 17 Nov 00 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Andy Newman)
Re: RedHat BugList Summary (LuisMiguel Figueiredo)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: OS stability (Stuart Fox)
Re: Linux Sux (Squeedge)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Stuart Fox)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux Sux ("Frank Van Damme")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:18:49 -0500
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:00:03 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I maintain a
> >Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego Mindstorms
> >for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
> >
> >The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
> >emotional dislike for C++.
> >
> >I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
> >a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
> >compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
> >are probably bad form anyway.
> >
> >This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
> >engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this point
> >many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make sure the
> >right decisions are made.
> >
> >Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
> >(excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
>
> In comp.lang.c, the question "is C++ a superset of C" has been
> discussed to death, and the result is a unanimous "no".
> For more information, please check out some of the posts
> by Kaz Kylheku on Deja, especially the thread with Bjarne.
>
> For a long time, C++ was shoved down the throats of
> many researchers who are not primarily software developers.
> I mean, for instance, scientists who did all their work
> in Fortran. I have personally seen the effects of this.
> I have been there when company executives gave the order
> to migrate to C++. What happened? Well, a lot of guys
> had to take classes, and then re-write all their code
> in C++. This paradigm of "reusable C++ code" (which is
> mostly bullshit) gripped everyone's imagination. Well, guess
> what. Now that the C++ rave seems to be quieting down, those
> same scientists scrapped their C++ code and are going back
> to Fortran. Why? Show me C++ constructs which have
> achieved the kind of code re-use as the Fortran subroutine.
> Some of these subroutines have a 30+ year history of
> being re-used by thousands of people.
>
> So, from a psychological perspective, it is to be
> expected that some form of backlash against C++
> is exhibited by those that were burned by it. And
> I don't know any group of people who's lives were
> made more hellish by C++ advocacy than Fortran users
> and numerical methods specialists. Perhaps, during the
> course of their commercial careers, something
> similar happened to a lot of OSS developers.
>
> Funny thing is, those same executives who were once
> forcing C++ on everyone are now doing the same thing
> with Java.
Self-appointed dictators never learn...as they never suffer from
their poor judgement.
>
> --
> Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:21:38 -0500
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > Why use a junky editor such as notepad on Linux when there are
> > >so many better editors available?
> >
> > If I want a quick & dirty text editor, notepad is my choice.
>
> If I want a quick and dirty gui text editor under windows,
> I'll download a decent one.
>
> It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
> company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
> editor. With all their massive resources, they still
> haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
> fuctionality.
That's because Micro-sheep are too stupid to demand better.
> --
> Don't think you are. Know you are.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:15:38 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>And not too long ago, we had some guy, "Richard" who was convinced that
>Smalltalk was the one true language (he wanted to write an operating system
>in Smalltalk).
But it is already an operating system. He didn't get it did he.
>C++ does not have a monopoly on stupidity or bigotry.
Unfortunately there's plenty to go around.
------------------------------
From: LuisMiguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
Date: 17 Nov 2000 09:09:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Myers) wrote in
<6pRQ5.9352$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Well, I'm sorry you're so delusional then. The numbers are plainly
>obvious.
>What? Have you even looked at the numbers? Win2K has like a 3rd or
>less of the exploits that Red Hat alone has.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Most of the Red Hat's bugs are not security compromises are configuration
bugs. And since they don't include Outlook they have a safer OS.
BTW list those numbers. Red Hat sucks but... but Win2K it's even worst.
Why? Allmost a GB of footprint; Drivers not working; Bugs; So much used
disk space and almost no programs; no compilers; poor management scheme;
very expensive; USB not working properly; Very bad performance; Memory
shredder; CPU waster; should i go on?
Red Hat seems to be working like MS. Releases without being tested. It's
not a pretty thing to see...
Thats why Debian is always a good choice.
I *don't* hate MS or Bill but i believe they should have better solutions.
+--------------------------------+
|elmig |
|http://www.alunos.ipb.pt/~ee3931|
|Luis.Figueiredo AT pt.bosch.com |
+--------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:16:42 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:56:28 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> Chad Myers wrote:
|>
|> >
|> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> > news:1dMQ5.154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|> > >
|> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|> > > news:MCIQ5.8699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|>
|> > > Hmmm.... rpm -qilp wine*.rpm
|> > >
|> > > four
|> >
|> > Oh that's MUCH better.
|> >
|> > Why not just rpm -l wine*.rpm?
|> >
|> > Why do I need FOUR, count them FOUR, arguments just to list the contents?
|>
|> Because, Chad, you are an unimaginative idiot as usual.
|>
|> Maybe you are querying a FILE; maybe you are querying an ALREADY INSTALLED
|> PACKAGE, maybe you are querying WHAT PACKAGE OWNS WHAT FILE on the
|> filesystem, or any other numerous query options you COULD use IF your OS
|> had a DATABASE DRIVEN SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WHICH windows DOES NOT
|> HAVE.
|
|<sigh>
|
|Listen, moron, I've said three times now, what if I just want
|to list the contents of the RPM package?
|
|Four command line arguments?
|
|This just typifies the obscurity and lack of any thought to usability whatsoever
|in Linux development.
|
|Your response only polarizes this position, throwing Linux into the ever
|downward spiraling through process that any user who can navigate through
|this endless web of inconsistent and hopelessly unusable loosely associated
|utilities is not worthy of using a computer in the first place.
|
|It's that arrogance which will guarantee that Linux will never succeed.
Oh font of all wisdom, we beseach thee, show us the correct way to rewrite
RPM's arguments.
Please don't remove any existing functionality.
Currently RPM can:
List all currently installed packages,
Report if a specific package is installed,
Query an installed package for;
- installation scripts,
- files installed,
- dependancies,
- description of package,
- + more,
Query an uninstalled RPM file for the same properties given above,
(this can also be done to files on remote web and ftp servers),
Verify the current installation against the original RPM file,
- this can to detect any corruption.
Install a new package from a local RPM file, or from an RPM file on a web/ftp server,
Upgrade an existing package (optionally do an automatic check for
earlier versions, and skip upgrades of packages that are not installed),
Remove an existing package (this checks for other packages that depend on
the package being removed, and will not remove packages with dependancies
unless given permission),
Check the signature on cryptographically signed packages,
Create new RPM packages from source/binary files,
Cryptographically sign packages.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:50:44 GMT
In article <8v13kn$ji9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have a problem with the points I have been trying to make let's
> here them! My claim based on netcraft is Linux and Unix are more
stable
> than W2K.
Subjective.
That a Linux box is not insecure JUST because it has been up
> for a year (good security practices keep it secure).
Which you can't prove.
>That the poor
> showing of W2K is not based on the instalation of SP1.
Which you can't prove.
>That the poor
> showing of W2K is not based on people testing the hardware every 3
> months.
Which you can't prove.
>That the poor showing of W2K is not based on clustering (Linux
> and Unix cluster and are not so degrated).
Which you can't prove.
>If you care to disscuse these
> points the fine. If you want to insult me because you do not like
what I
> say, please killfile me or do not read my posts.
If you want to raise some actual valid points, then fine, we'll discuss
them. What you've raised is largely conjecture, based on figures
collected by Netcraft.
The only person that has ever made it to my kill file is Aaron Kulkis,
you're far less annoying than he is. Keep it though, you've still got
a chance.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Squeedge)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:06:53 GMT
LOL !
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>DOESN'T SUPPORT HARWARE.
>WON'T INSTALL ON MODERN SYSTIMS.
>DOESN'T WORK WITH PRINTORS OR MADAMS.
>SKANNERS DONT WORK.
>CAMRAS DON'T WORK.
>HAS NO SOUND.
>DOESN'T RUN GAMES.
>HAS 100 DIFFERNT EDITERS BUT NO DECENT BROWSER.
>IS BUILT BY LUSERS FOR LUSERS.
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
>LINUKS SUKX.....
>
>LEE
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:16:16 GMT
In article <ctrQ5.8445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:iZnQ5.20551$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Microsofts WTS uses a protocol called RDP, while Citrix Metaframe
uses
> > ICA.
> > > Citrix clients understand both RDP and ICA.
> >
> > Is there some trick to it? I had a win2k server configured for
> > administration
> > via TS and couldn't get a Citrix client on Linux to connect.
>
> Hmm... this might be because you need to have the RDP client installed
> before the ICA client so that the ICA client can use the RDP
protocol. This
> might preclude using RDP under Linux since there is no RDP client for
Linux.
You shouldn't do. The RDP client has never been required by the ICA
client IME.
>
> I've used the Citrix client under Win9x, but had the WTS client also
> installed.
I've done it without the RDP client installed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:55:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
> emotional dislike for C++.
Well, I can't say I dislike C++. I'm just not all that impressed with
it. Right tool for the job and all that, I guess. I just haven't done
anything that's really needed all the functionality that C++ is
supposed to offer.
That said, I haven't really had a chance to get into Qt or GTK-- yet,
but when I do, if they turn out to be a bit more elegant than GTK+
(which shouldn't be hard), I might start coding with C++ more. Still,
I'm constantly impressed by how much you can get done with C, and often
in ways that are simpler than I'd need to with C++ (did some basic text
manipulation and file i/o that you'd think would be easier with all the
C++ streams, but turned out to be a simpler and quicker task for me
using C).
> Most C code will compile fine with C++, the exceptions being
> borderline constructs which are probably bad form anyway.
Well, I couldn't get a program using sprintf() to compile under g++
with the <string.h> header file. Now, I could either (a) get into the
intricacies of wrapping the header files, (b) spend too long trying to
find the proper header files, leafed through the manuals that had all
these great objects and methods but didn't go into how to use them
together properly (using an strstream object for a filename in a loop),
or (d) just recoded the thing to not take advantage of C++ i/o, file
streams. (d) worked pretty quickly for me. Of course, I'm just a
hobbyist, so some basic things aren't all that obvious to me, and I'm
sure to a seasoned C++ programmer this is a trivial problem. I guess no
programming language can save ignorance, but there you go...
Similarly, I was trying to get into OpenGL programming, and tried to
compile a bunch of programs using the Borland C++ Builder compiler and
then gcc (I dual boot). Granted, these are different platforms at work,
but it brings up another issue, that there's more documentation and
resources available for common tasks for C programmers, or so it seems
to me, anyway. Once again, just a hobbyist speaking.
> This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
> engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this
> point many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make
> sure the right decisions are made.
What are the arguments that you hear? Are there any you can't refute?
> Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
> (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
Okay, for beginning programmers, I think C is better. Sure, you can
learn C++ without ever having to dip into C, but it just feels like C
is more unified a language than C++ is. Once again, in the case of text
manipulation, there are a bunch of different objects built to make
things easier (strings and stringstreams, for instance), but if you try
using some of these things in conjunction with each other, it can get
very confusing to a newbie.
Also, I think there is just more documentation out there for C, and I'm
talking in terms of extraneous things like CGI programming, OpenGL
programming, GTK+ programming, etc. Haven't found any C++ CGI
programming books (granted, I only found two for C in the mess of PERL
books); haven't found any C++ OpenGL books -- the ones I'd found were
mostly written in C and didn't go in depth into how to compile things
using C++ (leaving a newbie hobbyist like me pretty confused); have
found only one reference that has a GTK-- programming chapter, but
that's just a single chapter (SAMS C++ for linux in 24 hours or
something) compared to several entire books put out about GTK+
programming using, you guessed it, C. However, to be fair, more books
about QT programming are popping up, so a Linux GUI C++ developer isn't
left out in the cold.
There, I'm sure that's enough ignorance to invite an argument, no? Fire
away...
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:26:55 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:RUwQ5.4392$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > >>> You realize, of course, that for a four processor Dell, currently
> > >>> Linux beats NT on SPECWEB99 almost by a factor of three.
> >
> > >> With the web server running in the kernel. That's no victory.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because no one, in their right mind, would use the web server in the
> kernel except for "cheating" on benchmarks.
>
>> It's basically the same as IIS using NT's Sendfile.
> WTH are you talking about?
NT has a system call named Sendfile that lets the kernel (or
'executive') take a file and sends it out on a network connection.
Very useful (or just fast, really)for static content web pages.
>>> that Tux is only capable of handling static pages. Not very useful
>>> today.
>> Why not?
> Because almost everyone uses dynamic content. Well, at least most,
> if not all,
Almost everyone uses static content as well. They aren't mutually
exclusive, you know.
My conjecture is that the most bandwidth is consumed by static
content, in particular images, pdf files, zip (and other archive)
files, postscript (and other binary format) documents, movie clips,
and so on.
>> Most content is still static.
> In business or personal? In business, you are completely wrong.
I don't think I am. Why do you think so?
Anyway, dynamic content sites tend IME to be limited by the database
behind it, not by web server capacity. Thus, it makes perfect sense
to choose a flexible server like Apache, instead of a fast server,
like Zeus, and spend time optimizing database access instead.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:48:49 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> DOESN'T SUPPORT HARWARE.
>WON'T INSTALL ON MODERN SYSTIMS.
An Epox 7KXA and AMD K7 Athlon 800 sure isn't a modern system.
>DOESN'T WORK WITH PRINTORS OR MADAMS.
Suppose you mean "MODEMS".
> SKANNERS DONT WORK. CAMRAS DON'T WORK.
usbview
>HAS NO SOUND.
All flavors of creative labs sb's supported, sure. Haven't tried any
others yet. Gnome, KDE and Enlightment have system sounds, if that's what
you mean.
>DOESN'T RUN GAMES.
Quake, sin, Simcity 3000, flight gear, descent,...
>HAS 100 DIFFERNT EDITERS BUT NO DECENT BROWSER.
Konqueror, Netscape, Opera,...
>IS BUILT BY LUSERS FOR LUSERS.
Let's not take this one personally.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> LINUKS SUKX.....
>
> LEE
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
