Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: C++ is very alive! (mark)
Re: C++ is very alive! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:39:04 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>
>So much for controlling myself and ignoring you as I should. :=)
>
>So far I've clarified your misunderstandings but you choose to ignore
>these clarifications because they don't suit your end. The potentially
>misleading statements are far juicier for you. :=)
>
>> >> So no linux (or beos) experience to speak of.
>> >
>> >I have no BeOS experience to speak of. I have not installed Linux since
>> >installing Win2k.
>>
>> Yet you specifically mention BEOS further down in this post - why?
>
>Why not. I mentioned installing it and removing it after two days. I
>spent hours on end fiddling with it. It's a passing experience certainly
>worth mentioning. :=) If you don't consider it worthy of mention, then
>say so and move on. Don't accuse me of blowing my BeOS experience out of
>proportion, because I didn't. I told it like it was. It's for you to
>decide whether or not you'll credit it any value.
Your previous thread lead down a road of indicating there were
applications which you've used (or functional equivalents thereof)
on all of the OSs you've used. That appeared to me to be the
main thrust you were using to demonstrate that Win2k could meet
your needs - ie., you have the apps you need. You also stated
various dates and OSs on which you'd been using them from I
think 1996 onwards (or maybe before, I can't remember and I'm
not going to look just now).
I don't see how the Beos fits in with this - only 2 days usage
is not enough time to determine whether you have functionally
equivalent apps, unless their function is amazingly simple.
These functionally equivalent apps (or possibly ports as I
suggested, although they do not need to be), were used in
some context not made clear, although you did mention the
medical profession, so perhaps that's a clue, and perhaps it
's not.
I called them magical because they ran on so many different
OSs over a wide time range, and you later went on to say that
you'd used a friend's machine and decided that they were on
that one as well (a Mac?).
>
>> >> >During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above OS's were
>> >> >installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux. I did this with
>> >> >the aid of PowerBoot <www.blueskyinnovations.com>.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see the dates further up. This lacks credibility.
>> >
>> >Look, I don't have to prove anything to you. I cannot prove anything to
>> >you in this forum. I certainly have no reason to be lying.
>>
>> You made the claim in the first place. If you can't back it
>> up, then please don't make it.
>>
>> You have lots of reasons to be lying.
>
>Like? I'd love to hear them. In a way, you've been lying yourself by
>deliberately misrepresenting me or misquoting me as I'll show further
>down.
I'm looking.
>
>> >> >Win2k Jan2000 to present.
>> >> >
>> >> >I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
>> >> >familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it offers.
>> >>
>> >> So you haven't used it, I guess you haven't had these magic
>> >> applications you previously referred to?
>> >
>> >What magic applications?
>> >
>> >You seem to be reading what you want to.
>>
>> I'm reading what you're writing. What are these magical
>> applications?
>
>You coined the term 'magical application'. I asked what you meant (see
>above) and I ask again.
I've explained this loads of times - apps which ran on all of
these OSs at the times you stated etc., etc., etc., Just read
back, it's pretty simple.
>
>> >
>> >> >BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>> >>
>> >> Which is enough time to, err, well, err, not enough to find
>> >> these 'equivalent applications' you spoke of.
>> >
>> >I never spoke of any for BeOS. Where did I?
>>
>> You mentioned it 4 lines above, not me.
>
>I said I installed BeOS once above. How does that amount to finding
>equivalent applications for it. (Lie one)
You mentioned the equivalent apps in the first place, not me.
>
>BTW, let me lay something straight with you. If I use application X in
>windows and I manage to find one in Linux that provides at least the same
>functionality with at least the same ease of use, I've found an
>equivalent application. That's what I meant when I said that. This may
>involve using ports of a some applications but this isn't true in most
>instances. I've made this clarification before but you choose to ignore
>it.
Where did you make this clarification - I really didn't see it.
>
>> >> >MacOS, I've used on my friends machines. I've tried every viable
>> >> >alternative OS.
>> >>
>> >> Your friend uses exactly the same apps as you need? I suspect
>> >> not.
>> >
>> >Our basic application needs are pretty much the same. Birds of a feather,
>> >flock together. :=)
>>
>> So what are these applications? Apparently they now run on a Mac
>> as well?
>
>There are browsers for the Mac aren't there? There are e-mail clients for
>the Mac aren't there? There are WordProcessors for the Mac aren't there?
>There are CDR tools for the Mac aren't there? There are image editing
>applications for the Mac aren't there? etc. etc. They don't have to be
>exact ports of the apps that I use in Windows for them to be useful to me
>you know? Why are you being so silly on this?
I only asked what these apps were.
>
>> >> Indeed - that's what I was referring to.
>> >
>> >When I say seriously use, I mean, actually did meaningful work with it.
>> >I've however done more with Linux that many people have done with
>> >Windows.
>> >SLRN, Mutt, StarOffice all running. I couldn't get my scanner to work the
>> >I installed it, I configured it. I had WordPerfect, The Gimp,
>> >last time I tried so that's about when I backed off. I also generally
>> >didn't feel comfortable with the apps I tried. This is in contrast to
>> >OS/2 where the apps were generally better than the Win95 offerings at the
>> >time. I can't say the same now, since Win32 applications are now vast in
>> >numbers and some really great picks are out there if you look for them.
>>
>> Again, lots of words, but no apps referred to.
>
>Really? :=)
That's an interesting cut resulting in an amazing misquote. I do
not see apps being listed which run on OS/2 and eg., Linux. I've
stil not seen when you were supposed to have used Linux either.
>
>> What are these apps,
>> you've managed to list some Linux ones, but you've still not said
>> at what point in your diary that linux was even installed, or which
>> one or whatever.
>(Lie Two)
>
>I did say, but you choose to ignore this. Let me see if I can quote it
>for you.
>
>You:
>
> According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used
> win9x, OS/2 and then Linux.
>
>My response:
>
> This is how it went:
>
> Win3.1 1994-1995
> Win95 1995-mid1996
> OS/2 mid1996-mid 1998
> WinNT mid1998 to Jan2000"
>
> During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above
> OS's were installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I did this with the aid of PowerBoot
> <www.blueskyinnovations.com>."
>
>Do you want more clarity that? You are neither reading nor interpreting
>correctly.
>
>I then said:
>
> I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
> familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it
> offers.
And I get very confused again - 4 times here and above you say once.
Which is correct?
>
>I did just, i.e., clarify that for you.
>
>Now, concerning BeOS, this was my initial statement:
>
> BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>
>From that simple statement, you're now asking me what equivalent
>applications *I said* I installed in it when I made no such claim. (Lie
>three)
No, I said that you didn't have time to check for any equivalent apps
in the time you had it there.
>
>In fact it's so amusing what this has come to, let me requote all of what
>I initially wrote that started this whole thing.
>
> Mr. Presumptuous strikes again. I migrated from Win9x to OS/2 in
> 1996 because I disliked Win9x. It was too damn unstable and OS/2
> provided a better environment to work in. A better shell.
>
> I put aside all the Windows apps I was using and bought OS/2
> equivalents. I learnt how to use them. I also learnt OS/2
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> itself.
>
>It's that word there 'equivalents' that set you off. I have clarified
>what I meant above and you choose to ignore the clarification.
>
>I then said:
>
> Linux provides a better solution today than OS/2 did in 1996.
>
> If Win9x were all that MS offered, I'd either be still running
> OS/2 or now running Linux. There's no doubt whatsoever in my
> mind about that.
>
>You ignored that part since it doesn't suite your anti-winvocate
>obsession crusade. :=) Not to mention your accusing me of claiming that I
>migrated from Linux to Win2k when it came along.
Er, no, I didn't, it just doesn't really say anything.
>
> Win2k irons out a lot of the hangups I had with NT. I installed
> it in January and am yet to experienced a system lockup or BSOD.
> Do I need better stability that this for my purposes?
So when did the Red Hat come and go? You're amazingly quiet
on the dates for this, and yet apparently able to be quite
specific for the other OSs which appear in some kind of order.
At one point you say you've had linux 4 times, at another you
say you've had it once.
Even your dated list doesn't actually show the NT5 installation
date.
>
>Now tell me; how in heavens name does that testimony on my personal
>experience with Win2k's stability, amount to this being the ONLY reason
>why I use Win2k over any other OS? You see, this is the sort of very bad
>interpretation of what I wrote that get's you into so much difficulty.
>You must not assume. It makes an ass out of you.
I cannot see not having had a BSOD yet as being a good reason to
select an OS. I still see that statement and I still think
that it is less than rational. You seem to be defining stability
here as 'it hasn't happened yet'.
>
>> >Another important thing. Can I now sample sound from various input
>> >devices in Linux. I sample music from my tuner, old vinyl's and tapes. I
>> >then burn them to CD. I didn't see any means of doing this in Linux. This
>> >is a recent requirement over the last year and a half or so. :=) I do
>> >this quite easily with DartPro (ever heard of it)?
>>
>> Does this mean that you've been using Linux over the last year,
>
>No it doesn't. How could that statement imply this. I also said in one of
>my previous posts:
So when did you use it?
>
> I have not installed Linux since installing Win2k.
>
>Would you please remember what you read? Or do you remember as it's
>convenient to you?
Does that mean you have Linux on the machine still? It really
is not clear. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I haven't installed
Linux on my server for about 4 years, but that doesn't mean
it's not there.
>
>> but now
>> that Win2k is here, it's just so much better? This reads as I noted
>> above to me.
>
>Oh, hush now. This incessant need for you to read negatively in my
>statements to suit your agenda, is getting tiresome.
>
>Would you please answer the question if you can, because I'm genuinely
>interested. Can I sample old vinyl and tape recordings, clean them up and
>burn said samples to a CD in Linux?
There seem to be a large number of audio apps available, so I would
have said yes, I think that you probably can but I have not actually
done it. In fact, I put my SME pickup arm Garrard 301 and Shure V15/v
away 'cos the kids kept trying to trash it.
>
>> >> >because I've never had it doing everything that I'd want to do with my
>> >> >computer. If you've found decent sanctuary in Linux, I doubt you'd
>> >> >migrate to a MS solution since Linux is improving.
>> >>
>> >> You mentioned finding equivalent applications, you seem to be
>> >> backing away from that.
>> >
>> >As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe
>> >me, that's your prerogative.
>>
>> You made the claim, not me. I think you can't prove because you
>> haven't actually done what you claimed.
>
>You aren't reading and assimilating. You're being stubborn. You're
>twisting my words to suit your anti-winvocate agenda. Most of all, you're
>ignoring my clarifications!!!! What *is* your problem?
I want to know what these apps were which were available at all of
these times, and I also would like to know when you actually
did have linux, and if you still do, 'cos I really can't tell.
>
>> >> >> I really couldn't imagine making a rational OS decision on whether
>> >> >> I've _yet_ had a BSOD.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, come on Mark, don't play the ass and say something like that.
>> >>
>> >> You made the suggestion, I find it rather silly.
>> >
>> >I suspect you're a kid or something.
>> >
>> >English isn't perfect.
>> >
>> >Look, if what I suggest implies something silly but could have a more
>> >meaningful meaning within the context of what I'm saying, I expect you to
>> >take the cue. But of course, since you're all riled up to play the
>> >difficult, asinine kiddy, you choose the silly interpretation to
>> >capitalize on. Furthermore, I clarify the situation, and you insist on
>> >carrying it further. That's a very weak way to argue and it only earns
>> >disrespect as you now have with me.
>>
>> You've not clarified this at all. You specifically stated that you'd
>> 'not yet had a BSOD' and listed this as a good reason for using Win2k.
>
>I did just that. Now explain to me how that translates to being the only
>reason why I use Win2k over the other OS's. I guess, only in your biased
>head, it would.
I didn't say that it was. I merely said that as a reason for making
any decision, it is very poor.
>
>> Where is this clarification?
>>
>> >
>> >This is my last post directly to you on this matter. Of course, like a
>> >typical kiddy and in true form, you'll very likely say that I'm backing
>> >out because I can't stand up to your questioning, but as I've said to Max
>>
>> I've some kiddies of my own, 4 and 6 years old. I'm rather older than
>> that and may be older than you.
>
>Oh dear. This only gets worse. If you were indeed a kid it would reflect
>better on you. :=(
Why?
>
>> I suspect you're backing out because you don't have the information
>> to back up your claims.
>
>:=) There's nothing to back out of. All this is really pointless.
What is the point of advocacy - why do you come here anyway?
>
>> >> >I only brought that up because the Linux advocacy mantra is 'oh it's so
>> >> >stable .... I've never had an unscheduled reboot in XXXX days" :=)
>> >> >Stability and reliability are two very important ingredients, both of
>> >> >which I have no problems with, when running Win2k. Does that mean that's
>> >> >all that concerns me and the only deciding factors? If you wish to play
>> >> >the ass then that's what you'll think.
>> >>
>> >> Linux is extremely stable. This is one of its major capabilities.
>> >> Of course, if these apps which you need but never mention are not
>> >> available, then that might be a problem. According to your timetable
>> >> above you've not actually run Linux at all, but then in a separate
>> >> para you imply that maybe you actually might have had some Red
>> >> Hat. Which rpm was doing your package thing, then?
>> >
>> >Wow! But I can't remember. Do you expect me to remember that?
>>
>> I expect you to be able to give me some clue as to what magical
>> package was available for all these different systems at the dates
>> you claim. Or some functional equivalent. I still haven't seen
>> the answer.
>
>I covered that already.
>
>BTW, you didn't answer my question. Do you expect me to remember the rpm
>package or not. Do you think it reasonable that I would forget
>considering this was over a year ago.
I said that I expected you to remember or be able to give some hint
or clue as to what it was. That's a *yes*, but with reasonable
fuzziness to allow for normal memory failings in real people.
I was trying to be reasonable!
>
>> >> >> I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
>> >> >> Win9x in 1996,
>> >> >
>> >> >A lot.
>> >>
>> >> you cut the 'and which were also available for'...
>
>Now that I've reread my posts, would you care to do the same and show me
>where I said "and which were also available for". I can't seem to find
>it.
No, I said that and you cut it. You said the bit about using
functionally equivalent packages (or whatever the exact wording
was).
>
>> >A more decent question would be what applications were available for
>> >OS/2. If I'm labelled as being a Winvocate as you did later, I'll not
>> >waste time writing those down. My knowledge of those are a given being a
>> >Winvocate and all. :=)
>>
>> That was not the question, nor was it your claim.
>
>My original claim was stated above, which has been clarified. Will you
>persist?
>
>[..]
>> >I'll leave the Windows applications from way back then alone, OK? Not
>> >worth mentioning. :=)
>> >
>> >> and you missed (ie., cut) 'and also available for'
>
>Where did I cut 'and also available for' from.
All the places I put it. But I've added it back.
>
>> >> >> Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
>> >> >> up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
>> >> >> distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
>> >> >> available apps?
>> >> >
>> >> >Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
>> >> >gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that you're
>> >> >stating?
>> >>
>> >> So, to put the words back - what were these applications which
>> >> you claim were available on Win9x, had functional equivalents
>> >> on OS/2 (all this in 1996), and at some undetermined point after
>> >> 1996 had equivalents on Linux, and apparently have equivalents
>> >> on Win2k today?
>> >
>> >Are you still referring to apps that were ported from one OS to the
>> >other. I never meant this if that's what you meant. Anyway, I already
>> >listed the main applications that I went out of my way to try in Linux.
>> >These were some of the apparently viable replacements to what I'm using
>> >in Windows at present.
>>
>> I am still waiting for this list of magical apps which was
>> available for all of those systems at the times you claim.
>
>I have already clarified what I meant by equivalent.
So what were they called? This is a really *trivial* question
to answer.
>
>> >When I'm not liking what I'm seeing I don't go any further. I'll choose
>> >to learn Linux itself more, when the applications I can run appeal to me
>> >more, making the whole change worth my while.
>> >
>> >Linux carries with it a steep learning curve if you wish to have to
>> >administer your machine and run your apps, i.e., use the platform. If I
>> >don't like the apps, I will not waste my time getting down and really
>> >dirty with the OS.
>>
>> My 4 and 6 year old kids have no problem with Linux at all.
>
>I wouldn't expect otherwise. Mine wouldn't have a problem with any OS you
>place them in front of either, considering the context in which the OS is
>being used.
My 6 year old likes setting up and playing multi-player doom games.
>
>> With
>> all your claimed experience of all these OSs over this huge period
>> I would expect you to be capable of running anything.
>
>That's not a huge amount of experience. That's only 5 years of computing.
>:=) Are you now going to claim that I said I have a huge amount of
>experience with the OS's I've had the opportunity to run at some point?
>That would be typical of you.
No, but you've said you've run every not entirely obscure OS which
has existed over the last 5 years. That's pretty impressive,
and far more than most people ever do.
>
>> >> >> I'm kind of suprised you haven't worked Solaris in somewhere.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
>> >>
>> >> I'm still surprised you didn't try to work another OS in
>> >> there somewhere. Maybe cpm?
>> >
>> >I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
>> >
>> ><reads any better now?>
>>
>> Perhaps minix, or one of the BSDs?
>
>Nope. I've never even seen those running either. :=)
>
>[..]
>> That's better, thanks.
>
>What's better? :=)
You didn't cut my key words.
>
>> >BTW, I'm not a Winvocate. I'll defend Linux when appropriate. It's just
>> >that there's so much crappy generalisations being made about Windows,
>> >that I'm busy enough talking about them. Afterall, I chose to use Win2k
>> >and disagree that it's merely unstable monopoly crapware. :=)
>>
>> Ah, yeah, you used to use Linux, but now that Win2k is here, win2k
>> really rocks, right?
>
>Using Windows, doesn't make you a Winvocate. Ask T. Max about it. He
>posts here using Forte' Agent. Saying that Win2k is a better solution
>than Linux as a desktop OS and defending this claim doesn't make you a
>Winvocate. There's way more to Windows and MS than using Win2k as a
>desktop OS. In fact, it's really a minority of individuals that use
>Windows as a desktop OS, that use Win2k. Most use Win9x/ME.
I agree with the whole of this para. So why don't you tell me
what these apps are, and back up your claim regarding the desktop
OS question? Otherwise, you are, in my view, Winvocating.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:55:09 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > One of those filesystems is FAT, so if you believe the previous
> > > poster (against all known evidence) that FAT is better than
> > > ext2 - well, you can use it in Linux.
> >
> > IIRC, UMSDOS linux are unanimously known to suck.
>
> What do you mean by this statement?
The UMSDOS setup actually installs linux in a big file on
the FAT file system. It works but is very slow. You
can just mount a separate FAT partition if you want one
but the filename restrictions will be annoying.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:58:39 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vratq$5edhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows exists only
> > because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product, and
> > therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
>
> Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market rules.
What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
without paying for a copy of windows?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:03:39 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vqtv1$56ngn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Personal conclustion.
> I've several cases of ext2 dying on me.
> I've never had a case of FAT or NTFS dying on me, and I have seen people
> abuse it to the full extent of the word.
> File getting corrupted, yes, but never the entire FS.
This must be from very limited experience. I've had 2 NTFS's become
corrupt to the point where chkdsk would not fix them, and no e2fs's
that e2fsck wouldn't fix if you run it manually. I've never trusted
FAT much, so every time chkdsk mentions cross-linked chains or
the like, I just assume it is hopeless and reformat. DOS is just too
dumb to know or care if the FS is corrupt.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 19:51:38 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Salvador Peralta wrote:
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>I'd like to make another COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR Linux,
>in specific GNU/LINUX - ALA DEBIAN.
>
>People worry about some of the silliest stuff these days.
>There are people who are worried Fortran will disappear!
>There are people who are worried Cobol will disappear!
>There are people who are worried Pascal will disappear!
>There are even people who are worried C++ will disappear!
>
>FEAR NOT! GNU/GPL MAN IS HERE!@
>
>If there ever were a GOLDIES - OLDIES - COMPILER MOLDIES -
>it would be here at DEBIAN. Any language you have learned
>if the GNU has made a compiler for it, that language will
>be here for another 10,000 years at least!
>
>So, when your faced with that $2,000 VB Professional renewal or
>those $6,000 a seat MF blues, remember you can go to a place
>where everybody knows your name - DEBIAN!!!!
>
>And if that isn't enough for you, even shitty development tools
>such as Visual Basic will probably be GNU'ed soon!
>
>In fact, I'd have to say by 2010 they will probably have all the
>major languages GNU'ed and be out on street corners lookin to
>pick a fight with the next guy to pop his head up.
>
>It's either that or the 4gl makers are in big trouble here.
>
>Charlie
:)
mark
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:08:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>Kernel developers, at least Linux and BSD kernel developers, use C not
>C++. Anyway, I hope he wasn't limiting "software engineer" to kernel
>developers, since they are but a tiny minority of the people developing
>software and not everybody doing databases or web sites is a dumbass.
>
This is true with the exception of Hurd. Hurd is all C++ code.
>No, I don't want to write a kernel in Java, but then I also don't want
>to write web applets in C++. This just outlines my point about using
>the right tool for the job.
>
My point really was MLW was making references to material
related directly to writing kernel's.
Memory management and memory searches / CPU intensive discussions...
These are all issues of kernel writers.
>I have a problem with defining "software engineer" as "one who uses
>certain tools". Equally skilled people working in different areas will
>naturally use different tools, even while working from the same base of
>theory. There is a reason so many computer languages exist, and it
>isn't only because some people are too inept to use C++.
>
I don't think MLW was attempting to tie the term Software Engineer
with C++. He was attempting to tie Software Engineer to kernel
developer only. Hardly any of his discussion could be tied
directly with C++ more than it could Kernel development issues.
The implication in that is C++ is a better tool to use if your
going to be a Software Engineer and this links us back to his
preference for perhaps HURD. I'm interested in HURD and would
like to try and use it next year when it's more developed.
In some companies the term Software Engineer could relate to
peripheral designers who write code for tasks like communications
features for the internet. These communications system accent the
main business system.
Thus - many cell companies are looking for Software Engineers as
it doesn't really fit the standard business model. There was
a company up the road here which did work for the Navy's new Sonar
systems and they were looking for Software Engineers to program
their boards. EG.
>
>>There are also about 5 different types of "dumbshit" out there.
>
>At least that many <g>.
>
>
>--
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
I am dumbshit #3. Standard Business person.
Who are you!
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
