Linux-Advocacy Digest #408, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION: (kiwiunixman)
Re: Ok I'll give a little...but just a little... (kiwiunixman)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mitch@dontspam)
Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4 (kiwiunixman)
Re: Time for another Lynn bait, this one's a beauty! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Ok I'll give a little...but just a little... (kiwiunixman)
Slightly Offtopic: MacOS X give Windows a bit of competition (kiwiunixman)
Linux and Small Business (kiwiunixman)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Curtis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:20:33 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LhJT5.2681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down screen,
> this
> > > > would
> > > > > give you quick shutdown.
> > > > > BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it, and
then
> > > start
> > > > > it, there is quite a difference here.
> > > >
> > > > The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a
consequence
> > of
> > > > the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you
> were
> > > > working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be
> using
> > > > don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have
to
> > deal
> > > > with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
> > >
> > > To the average user, the GUI *IS* a core process, and usually the only
> > thing
> > > they care about on a desktop machine. Who cares if the telnet server
is
> > > still running if you just lost all your work in the 5 open X
> applications
> > > you had going?
> >
> > If said desktop machine was also host to a CVS repository that was
> currently
> > being updated or hosted a printer that was in the middle of a large
print
> > job, someone would, indeed, care if the machine were hopelessly locked
up
> or
> > rebooted.
>
> It's not an average desktop machine.
The point remains that GUI sub-system failures need not bring down an OS -
As they frequently do under the Microsoft model.
>
> > > And corrupted file systems don't usually happen with NTFS since it's
> > > journaled. And I have never experienced a corrupted registry except
> when
> > > the hard disk developed bad spots.
> >
> > Key word being USUALLY.
> > You've been very fortunate in regards to the registry. I've experienced
> > registry corruption on two occasions. Both occasions involved drives in
> > pristine condition. Both were lockups that occured during service pack
> > updates. They were on separate machines that normally displayed quite
sane
> > behavior.
>
> Two occasions, out of how long time using windows? On how many machines?
I cede that such corruption is rare. My point is that it indeed can happen.
Incidents referred to:
==============
Machine #1: 1996
Compaq Proliant (Model number forgotten - One of the older ones)
Dual Pentium 166
NT 4.0 Server
Upgrade to SR3
Locked, Rebooted, Rescue Disked, Foobar. Re-install everything. A-OK.
Machine #2: March of this year
Dell OptiPlex GX1 Pentium III
NT 4.0 (FAT-16 incidentally - Not my idea - I just work here)
Upgrade to SR5
Locked, Rebooted, Rescue Disked, Acted like it was OK, It lied - Foobar two
days later. Re-install everything, A-OK
--
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION:
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:35:57 GMT
MH wrote:
> Then think real hard about WW2 for a few minutes. Done? Good.
> Now, I'm sure the all U.S. soldiers will be MORE than happy to let the New
> Zealand armed forces take over ALL peace keeping missions in the world.
> Middle East? No problem, call NZ.
Middle east is like the Balkans, a small spark can spir off a war. The
fact that for years the US backed Israel, this has pissed off alot of
Palistinians, ya never know, with the vist of the Palistinian leader to
Moscow to meet Putin, the visit may actually bring about a solution as
in the case of Balgrade.
> Belgrade? No problem, call NZ.
When Korea erupts? No problem, call NZ.
Korea will not errupt, this has been stirred by a group of
"pro-democracy" fat-cats on capital hill to justify embargo's against
Cuba and other so-called rogue states. What the US must understand is
that what is done (internal policy) by a country is their own business,
stop trying to convert countries to the so-called salvation of
democracy, at least China has the balls (and the man power) to say no.
The isolation of Cuba has only made Castro even more powerful as it can
point the finger at the remaining country unwilling to pull down it's
barriers.
> If you disapprove so much, why not simply go back to NZ? Seems real simple to me.
I am in New Zealand already, and I am quite happy. Surpisingly, we have
access to Internet, or is there the old urban-myth that New Zealand is
20 years beind everyone? and there are sheep walking around everwhere?
still there in certain countries overseas.
>
> Oh, what's wrong with the linux version of Gecko, kiwiunix-guy? Or do you
> just prefer win98 web browsing?
I have two machines, this one is gradually being shifted over to
becoming a wintel machine.
>
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> waxed endless....
> [snip]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ok I'll give a little...but just a little...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:47:00 GMT
Regarding the opinion about Redhat, I don't understand the big hype
about Redhat? it is a shite distribution with bugger all features and
grossly overpriced compared to SuSE 7 Pro, the configuration tool with
SuSE (yast2) would hit Redhat's third rate config utils for a 6 (cricket
talk) and Corels config util is like Shane's Warnes bowling, bloody hard
and confusing.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:37:17 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> OK OK.. you guys (and Claire)are starting to disappoint me. Since i am a
>> Mandrake 7.2 user also i want to bite you two guys a bit (And i have been a
>> mandrake fans since the 6 series).
>
>
> I don't like biters, but......
>
>
>
>> Why the heck does Mandrake not allways release the CD-rom so that you cant
>> switch CD's
>
>
> I don't seem to have this problem. Under SuSE I had a problem if I
> played an audio CD, the next operation on that device (/dev/hdc) would
> fail unless I opened and closed the door.
>
>
>> Why did they wait for KDE2 (i find KDE2 -especially Konqueror- wonderfull
>> and great) when its not completely ready - some icons are missing and
>> themes are not there (Where do i import my GTK themes to KDE2??) - should
>> have waited for 2.01 or release earlier.
>
>
> Seems to me that Mandrake tends to be cutting edge in just about
> everything. SuSE seems to have X down to a science and they seem to be
> first with display/ monitor drivers. At least Mandrake gets things
> pretty much working, RedHat is a disaster in my opinion with so many
> basic bugs in each install I have to wonder if they ever test it
> before release.
>
> To it's credit, if you register with Mandrake they offer to send the
> released version of kde on CD to you for free.
>
>
>
>> I could mention lots of annoying little things. What Mandrake need to do is
>> to be more conservative (thats why im going to try SUSE on another machine).
>
>
> I prefer conservative when it comes to the odd stuff like RAID or
> Reiser. When it comes to "show-off" stuff like a nice clean, fast
> desktop or support, no matter how limited, for hardware, I'll go with
> the cutting edge every time. If I were interested in running some back
> room server I would have different priorities for sure.
>
> As far as themes are concerned, it is my understanding that themes are
> different in kde 2.0 and that themes are not quite as easy to
> implement under 2.0. I might be wrong about this though.
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: mitch@dontspam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 25 Nov 2000 02:16:21 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>c++ is one of the most convoluted, hard to use, easy to make bugs in,
>>complex, and unsafe language there are.
>
>Completely baseless claim. It's considerably safer than say C
It is hard to say it is safer than C, when the same basic data
types is common to both.
in C++ you can mix and match the primitive datatypes in the same
manner as with C.
C++ is based on the same weak foundations that C is based on.
>THe amount of manual memory management required is fairly minor and easy
>to encapsulate in automatically managed data structures.
>
in theory.
>
>>no wonder Java,
>
>Hahahahahaha ... no thanks. I write programs to do statistical analysis on
>brainscans, and the last thing I want is an ugly interface and dog slow
>software.
>
for the majority of software, portability and robust software are more
important than slightly faster execution (which Java is also gaining
grounds as well).
>That's funny, where's all the java software ?
it is everywhere. go out more and you will see it. go to DICE
and type Java and click return.
>
>The memory management is not a silver bullet and it is not without
>a price. It results in applications that run considerably slower than
>their C++ alternatives.
>
again, for many many applications, a robust and bug free application,
is more important than slightly faster, and more buggy application.
Java speed for most applications is more than sufficient.
>And the lack of proper support for generic programming constructs means
>that javas collection classes are considerably more error prone than
>those in C++ (javas fail at runtime, not at compile time. They rely on
>the C++ equivalent of dynamic_cast)
>
It is true that compile-time checking is better than run-time checking,
but so far, having used Java collection classes for some time, I see
no problems with run-time checking. many languages use run-time type
checking, such as smalltalk. No one is claiming Java is perfect, but
it is a better language than C++, that is for sure.
>>Even C is a better choice than C++.
>
>Better choice for what ?
I assumed for writing software? May be that is why C is used for
almost all system software, and C++ is not. With C++, one spends
more time fighting the language itself, and its complexity.
People are more productive using simpler languages. I have programmed
in both C++ and Java, and I am much more productive in Java than C++.
And many programmers I know also found the same effect after switching to
Java.
For system programming, use ansi C.
For applications, use Java.
Mitch
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:55:27 GMT
Below is a fairly complete analysis of Linux 2.4 for the Intel Plaform:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-11-23-017-06-NW-LF-KN
Looks like a complete kernel overhaul, USB support, new devfs and loads
of performance improvements, looks very promising.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time for another Lynn bait, this one's a beauty!
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:56:15 +1200
> One, that was not my problem, it was a quote from the usual
> windows newsgroup where beleaguered users cry for help. I'm
> not so stupid as to have IE gobble up 60M of my hard disks.
I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to help you out. I took you at your word
when you said "Sorry for spamming so many newsgroups on this problem.....but
could use some
help with a problem...." Of course I now realise you were posting someone
elses post verbatim without acknowledgement and that it was them asking for
help, not you.
You're right though. It does look suspiciously like "Sir" is "Claire Lynn"
(when I read the "Sir" post I noticed how similar it was, and the headers
are very suspicious).
Even so this level of "debate" is rather tiresome. Possibly it is because
Windows advocates no longer have any superior technical merits to expound
(my workstation is Windows 2000 by the way, but I have a Linux server
sitting beside it, which provides file sharing, Apache, PHP and MySQL
services).
Thinking back a year or so these Linux limitations were stated ad nausea by
Windows advocates: No Journaling; Inferior SMP performance; No commercial
support; Inferior GUIs; ... (and I'm sure people can think of a lot of other
limitations).
There's a lot less for people to complain about now.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ok I'll give a little...but just a little...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:02:16 GMT
>> Ok... So now go and enjoy your Turkey day and make sure and hug your
>> mom or wife for getting up at 6am to start the miserable bird :)
>
>
> I'm vegetarian.
Me too, you could aways mold a block of Tofu in the shape of turkey :)
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Slightly Offtopic: MacOS X give Windows a bit of competition
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:08:36 GMT
Just went into Wellington yesturday to Magnummac to try out Mac OS X
Public Beta. Fast, stable and easy to use, now, if Microsoft gets it's
ass into gear and churns out Office 2001 Carbonized, it will become a
real hit. A great combination of proven technology (UNIX) and ease of
use (MacOS GUI) has resulted in very good OS that will propell Apple
into the true main stream consumer areana.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux and Small Business
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:17:55 GMT
Linux and small business in New Zealand, follow the below link:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/inl/index/0,1008,379158a1896,FF.html
Seems like a great alternative for small businesses, considering how
much they save by using Linux.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:30:18 -0500
"pete@nospam" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw says...
>
> >
> >I would love to have the time to write an OS. It would be fun. I have
> >written a few embedded kernels for Z80 products, doing it in C++ would
> >make it really fun.
> >
>
> you sure have a weird taste for what is fun.
>
> c++ is one of the most convoluted, hard to use, easy to make bugs in,
> complex, and unsafe language there are.
Arg!!
This is how this whole thread started. This is an emotional response,
not one based on fact.
>
> if you love to spend all your nights in the debugger, then I see
> why you think c++ is fun.
Perhaps you would, but I seldom spend any time in a debugger.
Occasionally I do to walk through to visually inspect the code in
operation, but it is rare that I need a debugger to find a problem. I
use a debugger about one a week. I can find more problems with bench
checking algorithms and printf.
>
> no wonder Java, in only 5 years, have now more programmers using it
> than C++ (which has been around for about 15 years now). Programmers
> in Java are more productive, and produce more robust applications.
I can't understand the reason why anyone would use Java. I like C/C++
because it can have a close relationship between what is written and
what is executed. When writing algorithms that can be important,
sometimes I even drop in assembly if need be. I don't particularly care
for the syntax over anything else.
Java, on the other hand, is an interpreted language. Yes, I know and
have heard the argument, "Its not interpreted, its compiled..." sorry,
it isn't compiled it is interpreted. Compiling a language to a series of
byte codes is all well and good, but you are still interpreting those
byte codes. Java's compilation stage is no different than many other
interpreted language's parsing stage.
>From an engineering point of view, interpreted languages have a job, and
compiled languages have a job. Operating systems, drivers, low level,
and high performance software must written in a compiled language that
has a close relationship between syntax and output. Since any construct
which can be written in C can be written in C++ with the same
performance and machine code relationship, I would choose C++ because if
the things which can be done in that environment over C.
Trivial applications can be written in almost anything. I have seen
pretty impressive programs written as shell scripts, TCL, and others. I
have yet to see anything which performs well and functions properly
written in Java.
I met a guy who loves Java, he thinks it is the greatest language ever.
He wants to do everything in Java. I have to laugh at him. Who cares
about the language? That is not what engineering is about. You choose
the language which is appropriate for the task, and when the language
does not make a difference, you choose what you are most comfortable
with.
Java has all the tedium of C++. And I write tedium in a good way. C++ is
tedious because it has a close relationship between syntax and machine
code. Computer machine code is tedious. Java's tedium is pointless
because while it feels like you are coding for a processor, you are
actually coding for an interpreter. If you are going to code for an
interpreter anyway, should not an interpreter do more of the tedious
work for you?
>
> Even C is a better choice than C++.
And, alas, we are back to this point. If you would go back and read the
210+ posts in this thread, you would not post such a ridiculous
sentence. We have argued long and hard for a week, and (Russ Correct me
if you disagree) that it is not as clear cut as your simple 8 words want
to make it.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:40:08 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > mlw wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > > At last we can pull this thread back to the original premise:
> > > >
> > > > C++ is not strictly an OO language, it is a super set of C with a rich
> > > > set of features which facilitate OO design.
> > > >
> > > > The whole point is that procedural code can be written just as easily in
> > > > C++ as in C, but the big win are the features of C++ which are not part
> > > > of C.
> > > >
> > > > A procedural approach can be used with C++, just as in C, but "inline"
> > > > are officially part of the language and variables can be declared
> > > > anywhere in the scope of the brackets. C++ offers better type checking
> > > > and function overloading and a lot of features that are compile time
> > > > based. Code compiled as C++ code has NO degradation than if it were
> > > > compiled as C code, but can be more efficient because the compiler is
> > > > smarter.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to write OOP software, which, if designed correctly, can be
> > > > more efficient and easier to maintain than OO C code, C++ is the only
> > > > way to go.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > >
> > > OK, lets agree that one procedural language is as good (in general) as
> > > another.
> > > Lets also agree that you can use C++ as either a procedural language or
> > > a OOP language.
> > > Now, on a distributed open source project such as Linux ( or GNU) for
> > > example, how do you enforce conventions that result in understandable
> > > code? One contributor uses the procedural subset, another uses an OOP
> > > subset, there are dozens of conflicting class hierarchies, etc.
> > > With C its a non-problem. There is an established C culture with lots of
> > > extant proven code and an (mostly) agreed upon objective way of judging
> > > code. (Code gets rejected because it isn't "elegant". Most C programmers
> > > agree that it wasn't "elegant" :) That does not exist with C++. But
> > > again I ask, If you are going to use C++ as a procedural language, why
> > > not just use the simpler C?
> >
> > I reject the implication that since C++ provides more features it is
> > thus harder to maintain a project. It isn't true. Project coding
> > guidelines are always the ONLY way to enforce project consistency. One
> > can, and should argue, that since C does not support many of the
> > constructs which make software development easier, it is actually harder
> > to keep consistency with "C." Look at the GTK, it is a disaster of
> > idiosyncrasies and coding guidelines which could have been a lot easier
> > and more efficient if done in C++.
> >
> > Why not use the "simpler C?" because it isn't. Take for instance:
> >
> > inline int test(int val)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> > main()
> > {
> > for(int i=0; i < 100; i++)
> > test(i);
> > }
> >
> > You can't do that in C. C++ supports many constructs which make standard
> > procedural code "better."
> >
> Why not? My compiler with optimizations on will unroll the loop giving
> me 100 copies of test(i) :
> code for test(0)
> code for test(1)
> etc.
The 'inline' keyword is not supported in ANSI 'C' and may not be
portable. The declaration of 'int i' will also not compile.
> > And again, if you are going OOP, then C++ is clearly the only choice
> > when compared with C.
> >
> > >
> > > I disagree with your statement that C++ is a superset of C. If it were
> > > then all C++ compilers would compile all C programs, no exceptions. But
> > > enough of that.
> >
> > C is a super set of C, but enforces a more rigid language
> > interpretation. Strict ANSI C will compile with no problems, with just a
> > few exceptions: (An the exceptions are rooted in common C practice)
> >
> What?
> I have a strict mathematical definition of "superset". If C++ is a
> superset of C then all valid C code is valid C++ code, but valid C++
> code may not be valid C code.
OK, if you want to be pedantic about it it needs a few variances to be a
perfect subset, but I would argue that it is hardly any more different
than the differences between compiler vendors, and better yet, they
known differences.
>
> > (1) Global variables must be declared once, and "extern" for the public
> > definition.
> > (2) Character constants are chars, not ints.
> > (3) Enums are themselves types, not ints.
> >
> My favorite : variant definition of void
> plus otheres.
Describe the difference in 'void' I've heard you mention it a couple
times and do not know what you mean. If you mean that 'void *' is
actually more type safe, I think that is a warning in ANSI C.
> BTW, I think C++ did right in making Enums types rather than ints
Yes, everyone seems to think that, because almost everyone did things
like:
typedef enum {...} Fubar;
> > These differences are fairly trivial, and much less than those between
> > ANSI and K&R, and often time less than those between "C" Compiler
> > vendors. (And C allows many more variations between vendors, than does
> > C++, yet another reason to use C++)
> >
> They aren't trivial if you have a large program to port. The Enum and
> void differences have been big pains for me, but all have caused me
> problems. Too many managers buy the "C++ is a superset of C" argument
> and estimate projects as if that were true.
And, at the first post of this thread I added a caveat about "backwards
compatibility."
>> Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
>> (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:47:25 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:58:50 -0500;
> >T. Max Devlin wrote...
> >> >> >That's a nice broad statement that makes you look good and MS fans look
> >> >> >bad. :=) Care to give some practical examples?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ever tried to adjust your file associations? Ever tried to organize
> >> >> your desktop, only to have Windows "forget" where things are supposed to
> >> >> be? Ever sent someone a script that would configure their computer for
> >> >> them as a launchable email attachment? These are off the top of my
> >> >> head. Feel free to check Deja News for T. Max Devlin; I'm sure you'll
> >> >> find plenty more examples. I'll try to keep the thread updated with
> >> >> immediate examples as I come across them.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, yes & yes.
> >>
> >> I was asking Curtis. I knew you'd just handwave, thereby strengthening
> >> my suspicions that you are an inexperienced kid, despite your eagerness
> >> to claim a great deal of intricate familiarity with Windows.
> >
> >Yes, I've adjusted file associations without difficulty.
>
> And you still don't recognize how badly implemented it is?
I get by quite OK with it.
> Well, you're
> not a professional technologist, so I guess that's quite possible.
Indeed. :=)
> Let
> me tell you; there were tons of complexity which you luckily managed to
> avoid in those experiences when you adjust file associations "without
> difficulty". I'm glad it worked out for you, but it merely indicates
> that your adjustments were rather trivial.
You think it's luck.
> >Yes, I've rearranged and organised my desktop. Windows always remembers,
> >unless it was shutdown unexpectedly as with a hang. However, I haven't
> >used Win9x since early 1996 so I haven't been having unexpected shutdowns
> >when using WinNT or 2k since I've been using them.
> >
> >The last thing? No I haven't done that.
>
> Yes, I knew that, too.
>
> [...]
> >Is there any practical reason for me to know more than I do presently.
>
> Yes. The practical reason is that you don't know for what practical
> reason you will need to know more than you do presently.
:=)
> >I
> >make associations without difficulty.
>
> Relatively speaking, I assure you.
>
> >I realised that I can only
> >associate one default application with a particular filetype. An annoying
> >limitation at times. However I can associate multiple applications for a
> >particular filetype. Being able to associate applications on a per file
> >basis is great but not a show stopper for me, meaning that I will not
> >drop Windows and it's advantages to embrace that functionality in another
> >OS.
> >
> >Anything else?
>
> Yes. What do you do if the file type doesn't already exist?
Short of taking to the registry, there's no easy way of doing that.
Could you give a practical, productive reason for wanting to create a new
file type that doesn't exist?
> Or if you
> wish to change, not the association of an extension to a file type, but
> the file type to the application?
Hmmm. Again, up the creek. :=)
> Or if you want to re-arrange which
> extensions belong to which pre-existing file types? (This last would
> be, for instance, if you wanted multiple extensions to remain part of
> one file type, and multiple extensions to change to a different file
> type.)
Problems yet again. I'd have to do a complete rearrangement of the
extensions. Deleting and recreating the associations. Applications tend
to spare me this sort of headache at the OS level. I can handle the
associations of extensions to file types via these application
interfaces. Winamp allows me to do this .... ACDSee ..... PMView ....
TextPad ..... NoteTab pro .... Netcaptor .... Paint Shop Pro. The
applications, who's extension associations matter to me.
You may wish to comment on the fact that 3rd party applications have to
be dealing with the mess. No problem. I agree. But pragmatism prevails
and the ends are what matter to me in such a situation.
> [...]
> >I only really care about the end result.
>
> Well, the end result sucks, whether you've personally encountered a
> reason to recognize it or not.
:=) I like that. I'll take your word for it. :=)
> >Any particular OS you use will
> >never be perfect.
>
> And monopoly products will never be competitive.
>
> >You choose the one that offers the best balance for
> >your needs, monopolies and all being considered. :=)
>
> If you consider the monopolies, you end up having to either throw out
> the balance of your needs, or just avoid any consideration at all, and
> go along with the monopoly. :-(
Is that what you had to do. Poor fella. :=)
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
