Linux-Advocacy Digest #367, Volume #30 Wed, 22 Nov 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Gary Hallock)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Gary Hallock)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8( (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading. (mark)
Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading. (mark)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (mark)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:11:08 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
mark wrote:
>
> X automatically fills the cut/paste buffer, thus eliminating a keystroke
> or menu operation for the user.
>
> I prefer this.
>
> Mark
Yep, so do I. I have never been able to get used to the Windows way. I always
end up using the left and middle mouse buttons and then use a few choice 4-letter
words when I find it doesn't work and have to go back and click on a number of
menus.
.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:18:25 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>and I've told myself that it looks damn unsecure. So i tried my
>experiments. Such as typing on the address bar strings of the sort
>C:\windows\notepad.exe, and having notepad popping up. That way I've
>learned that IE doesn't make any difference between opening a document
>and running an application. Now you may add boxes, warnings or whatever,
>but having a browser doing that IMO is just to be looking for troubles.
Well, I'm pretty sure I know what kind of a response we can expect from
the Winvocates. Why would you want to treat launching a program
different from launching a file? Aren't programs files? Don't you run
a program when you launch a document?
Your attitude seems to be rather hands-down and straight-forward,
Giuliano. Of course executing a program is different than loading a
document; there is never, will never, and could never be anything more
separate than these two actions, since other than the fact that we want
them to be different, we are not concerned (in the current context of
being an end-user, at least) with what the actual processes are (so long
as they are just that: executing a program or loading a document). IOW,
it is the desire to obfuscate the distinction that is most telling on
those who subscribe, knowingly or not, to One Microsoft Way, that
peculiar perspective of computing in which being stupid is a virtue, and
being smart is a liability. The operational abstractions which comprise
the actions of launching either application or file don't really have
much to do with the bits and bytes being transferred between storage and
memory and CPU. They are purposeful illusions, created because they
make computing efficient and comprehensible. No wonder Microsoft tries
so hard to convince the rubes that the illusion doesn't make any sense,
and they'd be better off without it.
Do you see what I mean?
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:13:40 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Who did that?
>
YOU did. Using one of your other identities. You are such an idiot if you
think we all don't know who you are.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:17:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You posted it yourself dumbo....
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=gary%2Bhallock%2Bibm&hl=en&lr=&safe=off
>
> claire
And where in there is my office number, building number, and phone number? All
I provided in my bio was the generic IBM site address and my email address.
YOU posted my phone number, office number, and building number.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:22:51 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So YOU are using a down level version of Partition Magic and it
> doesn't work so it's Windows and Partition Magic's fault?
>
> Get real Gary, your arguments are getting more ridiculous by the
> moment. And like "I" said, it works fine for me.
>
> Dos 3.3 doesn't support VFat either.
>
> Boy the Penguinista's are getting desperate these days.
>
> http://www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic/
>
Oh yeh, right! PM 6.0 did not exist at the time Windows ME and W2K came out. It did
not
exist when I had to use PM on Windows ME. And why should I have to spend more money
to
upgrade PM?. What can't Windows provide upward compatibility?
Your Dos VFat argument is backwards. That's called backwards compatibility. I don't
expect to be able run a new program on an old OS. But I do expect to be able to run
an
old program on a new version of the OS.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:31:46 GMT
I have no problem with that.
claire
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:02:55 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You're the one who brought it up not me.
>>
>
>What you and a number of other winvocates just don't get is:
>
> 1. Linux provides both a GUI and CLI interface
>
> 2. Some people actually prefer the CLI. I know you find that hard to
>believe but it is true.
>
> 3. It is much easier to describe in a text-only newsgroup like this a CLI
>command the all of the point and clicks needed for A GUI interface.
>
> 4. If YOU prefer GUI, fine. But just because Linux provides CLI as well
>does not make Linux any more difficult to use. YOU do no have to use the CLI
>if you don't want to.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:34:13 GMT
I don't remember doing that, but it is easy enough to find anyway.
claire
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:17:19 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You posted it yourself dumbo....
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=gary%2Bhallock%2Bibm&hl=en&lr=&safe=off
>>
>> claire
>
>And where in there is my office number, building number, and phone number? All
>I provided in my bio was the generic IBM site address and my email address.
>YOU posted my phone number, office number, and building number.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Date: 22 Nov 2000 18:38:44 GMT
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:09:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You Penguinista's have a difficult time reading for some reason.
>Maybe your eyes are worn out from reading all of those How-Not-To's.
>
>He said MENU BASED.
Not in the post I followed up to, he didn't.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8(
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:10:03 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:23:55 GMT...
...and Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A typical GUI implementation has to manage windows and user input, in
> addition to displaying the text. It doesn't seem like it should be that
> difficult, but it generally involves creating a window, getting a pen,
> associating a font and color with the pen, positioning it in the window,
> writing the text, adding an "OK" button, defining an action to go with the
> button (close the window), placing the button in the window, displaying the
> window, and releasing the window and other objects that were created. I'm
> probably leaving out a bunch of steps here, and the number and complexity of
> the steps depends strongly on the particular GUI you're writing for. My
> point is just that it's much more complex than it first appears, even to
> write a simple "Hello World," application.
Not necessarily.
/* gnomish-hello.c -- (C) 2000 Matthias Warkus */
#include <gnome.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
GtkWidget *ok;
gnome_init("Gnomish Hello", "0.0", argc, argv);
ok = gnome_ok_dialog("hello, world");
gtk_main();
return 0;
}
That's the most minimal version I could think of. Note that it hasn't
got any events hooked up, so clicking the OK button will close the
window yet leave the application running.
mawa
--
Dinner is ready when the smoke alarm goes off.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:41:25 GMT
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:22:51 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Oh yeh, right! PM 6.0 did not exist at the time Windows ME and W2K came out. It
>did not
>exist when I had to use PM on Windows ME. And why should I have to spend more money
>to
>upgrade PM?. What can't Windows provide upward compatibility?
Because Gary, Windows (Microsoft) shouldn't have to worry about
supporting backward compatability with every piece of software that is
out there. If they did, they would be stuck in a rut and in many cases
not able to advance. That is exactly what happend with OS/2 which
tried to maintain compatability with Windows applications (Win/OS)
while MS marched on and OS/2 died.
It is also the reason why Linux is mired in old technology, like it's
file system.
>Your Dos VFat argument is backwards. That's called backwards compatibility. I don't
>expect to be able run a new program on an old OS. But I do expect to be able to run
>an
>old program on a new version of the OS.
I prefer the latest technology and if I have to upgrade to get it
that's ok with me.Linux has broken many things along the way as well
with Lib5/LibC and so forth. It's just that you guys love flittering
around hoping to be the first one on /. to find the bug and fix it.
Linux will always be living in the past. It will always be behind in
hardware support and it will forever be trying to have even a small
amount of the high quality and broad range of applications that
Windows has. Nothing but a huge influx of money and Linux going
commercial, is going to change that.
claire
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:51:12 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David Brown
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:35:50 +0100
><8up1nu$2dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>>NT has, and always will have support for multiple platforms. Just because
>>>MS doesn't ship them, doesn't mean it's not there. You are smart enough
>>>to realize this, aren't you?
>>
>>Since MS has a total monopoly on NT (obviously), what exactly is the
>>difference between "MS doesn't ship them" and "it's not there" ? There are
>>older systems out there running NT on non-x86 platforms, but for all
>>practical purposes (such as setting up a new system), NT is x86-only.
>>
>>>
>>>NT has always had >2GB file support on every platform it's yet been
>>>ported to:
>>>
>>>IA32
>>>MIPS
>>>PPC
>>>ALPHA
>>>SPARC
>>
>>I did not know that MS ever got NT running on a SPARC.
>
>They got a good chunk of Windows running on Sparc/Solaris
>when they ported IE. I'm not sure if that counts, and it's
>far from clear that anyone even bought the product. :-)
I don't know how similar the method was, but I work a product, Veritas
NerveCenter, which was "back-ported" from NT to Unix (Solaris and
HP-UX). I wouldn't say they brought a "good chunk" of Windows, but they
did bring the registry with them. You can imagine what it did to the
reliability of the product. Its quite a shame, too, because the
original code was written by Larry Wall, as NetLabs DuoManager. After
being sold to Seagate, they wanted an NT version, and had to redo the
GUI and make it client/server, anyway, so they rewrote the thing
(bug-compatible, near as I can tell) on NT, and then ported it to Unix.
Now it crashes almost routinely.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:51:23 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on 13 Nov 2000 06:03:51 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:53:18 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>Make moziila support activex, and other such standards, and I don't see a
>>>reason why you can't.
>>
>>ActiveX is not a standard
>
>I for one would surmise that ActiveX is a de facto standard.
I'd have to admit that ActiveX is the _closest thing to_ a de facto
standard that you could name. But only if you confuse the term "de
facto standard" with "most common thing". What it is, is a "monopoly
standard" (otherwise referred to, by me at least, as 'monopoly
crapware'.) But with "Java", "RPC", and a small host of alternatives,
ActiveX is merely what the monopoly crams down people's throats, using
their large arsenal of techniques to ensure that nothing else gets used
as much. De facto standards (real ones) are that because they are
solutions which the market and the industry have coalesced around.
ActiveX, on the other hand, is merely what's left when Microsoft has
prevented market competition from allowing the industry to use anything
else.
>It's not a particularly secure one, though -- although recent
>advancements might at least mitigate the user trying to
>use untrusted applets.
>
>(I'm also not sure how well documented a "standard" it is.)
So it can't possibly be a standard of any type, and referring to it even
casually as a "de facto standard" is counter-productive, if not merely
inappropriate.
[...]
>>No, it doesn't "run" on Solaris, it crawls.
>
>You would too, if you had to drag along half of your
>own operating system along for the ride. :-)
>
>(At least, such is my understanding. I suspect that Microsoft
>could port IE to Linux, but why? :-) )
This is software. Any computer can be programmed to do anything. In a
free market, the automatic presumption that it has to do something
_well_ adds the requisite dose of reality to that idea. In a monopoly
market, it means that you get a lot of crapware used strategically to
prevent competition.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:40:26 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan Hinojosa wrote:
>Why are things so hard? I just want to install my Xircom Multi-function
>card. I have myself reading http://pcmcia-cs.sourceforge.net/ when I
>should be able to click on a driver and let it run, or run a console
>driven program. There are so many caveats with each individual "distro"
>that I can only hope for some kind consistency. I am far from idiocy, I
>am proficient in java and C++ but reading what I have to do to install
>this thing is making me nauseus. Am I using the wrong distro, is there
>a de-facto distro that I may use. I do not want to spend a lot of time
>making my modem/network card to work, I'd rather be writing code. I
>really want to make this thing work, so if you have any ideas to make my
>life deservingly easy with this OS I would much appreciate it.
>
In debian the pcmcia stuff is part of the standard install, so you
don't need to do anything, it's already there. I just plug the
cards into the slot and they work.
A zero second install!
Mark
ps.
Are you a real person, or another personality of claire/keys/heather/
steve/hepcat etc.?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:41:42 +0000
In article <8vh16r$gqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I rest my case.
>
>That you're a complete idiot, computer illiterate, a shitty sound engineer
>(if one could even call you that at all, I suspect you merely put together
>cute mpegs for peoples birthdays, dont you), and a useless person?
>
In a previous personality, I though claire/steve/heather/cat etc., was
an NT admin - can anyone else remember?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:48:39 +0000
In article <8vejaq$8e8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><snip!>
>
>: Perhaps, for the MS Office user, it would be important to
>: remove virtually all the packages from the machine in order
>: to only leave a browser, word-processor, spreadsheet and
>: presentation package.
>
>If we really want to make computers easy to learn for
>nontechnical folks, that would be a good start. Other
>improvements would be the elimination of a windowing
>interface (only one app in use at a time that takes up
>the whole screen), the simplification of all tools
>(nontechnical folks never need all the features of
>the average word processor, simply by virtue of being
>nontechnical people), and a great deal of feedback
>concerning what the computer expects at any given
>time.
>
>Kids and technical computer users don't need this
>level of hand holding, but the average nontechnical
>MS Office user would benefit, I believe. It wouldn't
>take much to make such a Linux system, either.
>
I've been musing over this and have reached the conclusion
that you're absolutely right. (Clever me, eh...). I
think you may have effectively invented the
Office Appliance (tm Mark Kent) as opposed to the 'Network
Appliance' of which we hear so much.
I agree that linux would make a sound basis for this. Is
this the sort of thing which Hill House Hammond have been
using for some time?
>In short, I think the biggest threat to technical and
>nontechnical users alike is the notion that one size
>of OS or application will fit all.
>
Yeah - take a quick look at Bob Cringeley's comments
on Comdex - it's quite amusing (of course) and closely
related to this thread.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:51:14 GMT
On 22 Nov 2000 18:38:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:09:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>You Penguinista's have a difficult time reading for some reason.
>>Maybe your eyes are worn out from reading all of those How-Not-To's.
>>
>>He said MENU BASED.
>
>Not in the post I followed up to, he didn't.
Everybody seems to miss the menu part, I wonder why?
Maybe because it doesn't work correctly?
claire
Path:
bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmasters2!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!144.212.100.101!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Sender: "Dan Hinojosa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Unverified)
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-gatewaynet (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<8vc3ko$sa5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:09:00 EST
Organization: WebUseNet Corp http://www.usenetserver.com - Home of
the fastest NNTP servers on the Net.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:08:47 -0700
Xref: wnmasters2 comp.os.linux.advocacy:391931
X-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:32:00 GMT
(bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
That worked thanks. Buy why not menued copy-paste?
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <copy & paste woes snipped>
>
> : Thanks you crazy bunch of penguins.
>
> Try highlighting with the left mouse button and pasting with
> the middle mouse button. No extra keystrokes necessary.
> It should work practically everywhere in X.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:52:27 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Christopher Smith in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >I'd be surprised if programmatically referencing shortcuts was any different
> >from programmatically referencing any other shell object, as well.
>
> I'm surprised, quite frankly, that you don't know this concretely.
> Nevertheless, the point is moot; programmatic references are not the
> issue. It is one of simple definition. Your "shell object reference"
> shortcut is an API, with nothing specific behind it. It could be a PIF,
> it could be printer, it could be a ppp dialer, it could be a simple
> alias. It might be some strange file with .lnk in the extension (when
> viewed in DOS) that refuses to load at all into any program, include a
> text editor.
>
> A Unix symbolic link, in complete contrast, is not simply an abstraction
> in an API. It is a function of the file system, a part of the operating
> system, as well as a transparent mechanism accessed through a
> standardized API.
>
[snip]
I interfere with the discussion just to provide some factual
informations.
1)
A Linux box, with KDE desktop (just to take a practical
example) offers the following features:
a) Softlinks (alias symlinks)- directory entries
indistinguishable from the others, (except with special
test) which point to a different entry in any directory. By
any point of view (user, shell, application, remote access,
etc.) they're just directory entries.
b) Hardlinks - Duplicate directory entries, which point to
the same file. They're completely indistinguishable, meaning
that the same file may have two entries in two different
directories, with different name, different owner, different
rights, etc. Only the kernel keeps track of that, because
deletion of a hard link doesn't imply deletion of the file,
until all entries have been deleted.
Points a) and b) are standard Unix features.
c) Resource files for KDE operation. (.directory and
*.kdelnk)
They provide the following information (in textual form,
easily edited):
Name (=list of localized captions) so that a translated name
is shown
Comment (=list of localized hints) to provide a short
explanation
Type (Application, Device, URL etc.)
Icon
Pathname of the executable (If appropriate)
Data types supported (If appropriate)
etc. etc.
They may be considered equivalent to shortcuts (in that they
provide the same functionality and have the same limits) but
they sum up both shortcut informations and registry
informations. An added functionality is the capability of
supporting different languages, just by selecting the
desktop language and logging in again.
Like shortcuts they're just files, which can be used only by
programs aware of their existence and of their structure.
Gnome Desktop uses a different set of resource files, with
different options and different capabilities.
However, as all those features are only related to human
interface desktop, well designed applications don't care,
and may run in any environment without a blink.
2)
A Windows box with Windows desktop offers the following
features:
a) Shortcuts - binary files containing part of the
informations listed for KDE resource files.
b) Registry - Virtual filesystem containing the rest of the
informations listed for KDE resource files (some human
readable, some encrypted), except the capability of
localization "on the fly".
Registry contains other configuration informations, which
are of no interest in this discussion, focused to shortcuts
and links.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 18:59:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >and I've told myself that it looks damn unsecure. So i tried my
> >experiments. Such as typing on the address bar strings of the sort
> >C:\windows\notepad.exe, and having notepad popping up. That way I've
> >learned that IE doesn't make any difference between opening a document
> >and running an application. Now you may add boxes, warnings or whatever,
> >but having a browser doing that IMO is just to be looking for troubles.
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure I know what kind of a response we can expect from
> the Winvocates. Why would you want to treat launching a program
> different from launching a file? Aren't programs files? Don't you run
> a program when you launch a document?
>
> Your attitude seems to be rather hands-down and straight-forward,
> Giuliano. Of course executing a program is different than loading a
> document; there is never, will never, and could never be anything more
> separate than these two actions, since other than the fact that we want
> them to be different, we are not concerned (in the current context of
> being an end-user, at least) with what the actual processes are (so long
> as they are just that: executing a program or loading a document). IOW,
> it is the desire to obfuscate the distinction that is most telling on
> those who subscribe, knowingly or not, to One Microsoft Way, that
> peculiar perspective of computing in which being stupid is a virtue, and
> being smart is a liability. The operational abstractions which comprise
> the actions of launching either application or file don't really have
> much to do with the bits and bytes being transferred between storage and
> memory and CPU. They are purposeful illusions, created because they
> make computing efficient and comprehensible. No wonder Microsoft tries
> so hard to convince the rubes that the illusion doesn't make any sense,
> and they'd be better off without it.
>
> Do you see what I mean?
>
Yes, unfortunately I see it all around!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
