Linux-Advocacy Digest #645, Volume #30 Mon, 4 Dec 00 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Whistler review. ("Eddie Dubourg")
Re: Commentary on a Windows REinstallation last night ("MH")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: What does KDE do after all ("Donal K. Fellows")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:31:52 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>>>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
>>>>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>>>>>>>> We're talking about intuition, not incompetence.
>>>>>>> Put an electric appliance in front of somebody who has never
>>>>>>> used an electric appliance before, and you'll learn that there
>>>>>>> is absolutely NOTHING intuitive about on/off switches.
>>>>>> Once again, you're hypothesizing a situation that precludes
>>>>>> intuition.
>>>> Note: no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>> They are merely FAMILIAR, not intuitive.
>>>>>> How is an electric appliance familiar to someone who has never
>>>>>> used an electic appliance before?
>>>>> PRECISELY,
>>>> Precisely why your analogy fails. You're going outside the relevant
>>>> group, namely those who use electrical appliances. Just because some
>>>> hypothetical "primitive tribesman" won't find a power switch intuitive
>>>> doesn't mean that nobody can find a power switch to be intuitive.
>>>> Familiarity does not have to be universal before something can be
>>>> intuitive to someone.
>> Note: no response.
> I've explained it 5 times already, you shit-head.
Your so-called "explanation" consists of invective, Aaron, not a logical
argument.
>>>>> shit-head
>>>> You must really be hurting for a logical argument.
>>> Just commenting on your inability to comprehend a logical argument.
>> What alleged inability? You're the one who hasn't comprehended my
>> logical argument, and you've not offered any counterargument, just
>> immature invective.
> PLease get a doctor to reroute your rectum away from your cranium.
Another one of your so-called "explanations". Practice what you preach,
Aaron.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:49:56 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:09:31
> [...]
> >*Developing* software is what cost money.
> >Which you don't get in return if you GPL it.
>
> But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
> trade secret, either. Whatever it is you do make money on has to cover
> the cost of developing, either way. Your argument is specious.
>
> [...]
> >> >The problem is that you can usually do *without* buying the support.
> >>
> >> How is that a problem?
> >
> >The companies that invested money in making dist/programs/tools that you use
> >get no money in return.
>
> Same with commercial software; you don't make the money you invested
> back, unless you sell something to make a return on the investment. You
> seem to be treating development of a product as if it were manufacture
> of a commodity. Microsoft, of course, encourages such mistaken
> thinking, very much.
>
> And while obviously this would be a more lucrative arrangement for
> software producers, your *assumption* that this is necessary or else
> software cannot be produced is, as I've mentioned, a specious argument.
>
> Try this, Ayende. Just for a few moments, try not to consider the
> market from the *producer's* perspective, but from the *consumer's*
> perspective.
>
> [...]
> >> Strangely enough, what you get for free is often less valuable than what
> >> you pay money for. Go figure.
> >
> >Ready to apply this to OS market?
>
> As soon as there is a free market in OSes, sure. Again, it is your
> inability to even conceive of an OS market not monopolized by
> anti-competitive activity which leads you to misunderstand the
> situation.
>
> Here's another perspective that might help clear the log-jam in your
> head. The GPL is an *anti-competitive* licensing mechanism. As you've
> been describing, GPLing code is *not* conducive to a free market in
> software code. It is, however, *VERY* supportive of a free market in
> software *products*. Most software publishers are not very keen on
> having to engage in the kind of super-heated competition which such a
> market presents. Too friggen' bad for them, I say. Most of them are
> just profiteers, to begin with.
>
> As I've described several times (and if Professor Lessig might actually
> have the opportunity to read this and the time to respond, I would
> humbly ask for his comments, public or private, on the matter) it is not
> possible to compete with an anti-competitive company (monopolist). You
> have to "_out-anti-compete_" them. So the direct result, more or less,
> of treating software as copyright-wrapped-in-a-trade-secret-license, is
> that the GPL has been created. And adopted, more and more, by the very
> programmers that you insist will be put out of work by it.
>
> The free market does always win in the end. The only real question is
> whether it gets tougher for the producers, or the consumers, during the
> transition. Since GPL represents "free software", and the alternate
> approach represents "rented permission to use", I think its obvious
> which causes more pain to the consumers, and it is no surprise that you
> are arguing this point from the perspective of the producers (or, as you
> inaccurately refer to them, the programmers.)
>
> >> >Now, assuming that I make a good software, no matter what size it is, I
> >> >would hope that people can learn to use it without *requiring* my help.
> >> >Frankly, if I sell support and give the software away, I find myself in a
> >> >conflict of interests. On the one hand, one of my definations of good
> >> >software is that it's easy to use or learn.
> >>
> >> You have confused "support" with "newbie help", I'm afraid. That's not
> >> what IT professionals mean when they say "support".
> >
> >Not quite.
> >If you've an advance question, you can post it in number of places, and
> >you'll get an answer for that.
> >I don't think that there are that many questions that you can get an answer
> >to on the web.
>
> You misinterpreted my contention. I said that "support" means technical
> support (your "advanced question"), not newbie help. As you've pointed
> out, this is a valuable service, quite capable of supporting a profit
> margin, since there aren't that many questions that you can get an
> answer to on the web.
>
> The newbie help supports just as much (actually, much more) of a revenue
> stream, of course, but the competition would be much more fierce, since
> almost anyone, not just the developer, can generally do that. (And
> today, they do that generally much better than the developer, who has a
> tendency to use such transactions to deny their culpability, provide
> marketing research, and act as a sales opportunity, rather than provide
> the service the consumer desires.)
>
> >> >I know this seems like a flame, but I think that those are real concerns
> >> >when a programmer/company need to decide whatever to GPL their code or not.
> >>
> >> <*chuckle*> Your point might be a tad more believable if it weren't
> >> entirely up to the programmer whether he GPLs his code.
> >
> >That *is* what I'm talking about.
> >You think that companies don't have the same doubts about GPLing the code
> >their programmers where paid to make?
>
> I don't think I care. As far as I know, they're just a profiteer trying
> to extract exorbitant profits by limiting the availability of the
> programmer's work. I'd just as soon they did go out of business, thank
> you. They're massively inefficient, from the standpoint of free market
> production.
>
I must complain about your postings, because they encourage
my laziness. Just wait for Max to answer, find that he's
expressed in a clear and concise way what I was confusedly
thinking, no need to work out an answer! It's not fair!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:39:37 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >
> > And I agree with your comments. The Democrats haven't supported
> > the middle class in 20 or more years.
> >
> > We have become a nation of extremist parties.
> > You are either extreme rightwing or your extreme leftwing and
> > the middle ground where most of us stand is not being represented.
> >
> > This in itself is an extremely dangerous thing.
>
> Ya damn liberal! <grin>
>
> "Liberal" now is as bad as "Commie" used to be! What a world!
When you get down to it, what's the difference between them, other
than the spelling?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:43:41 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > As well they should with Daley's Chicago and all the rumors (facts rather)
> > of corruption, voter fraud, voter intimidation, coaching, etc that cost
> > Nixon the election.
>
> Where's your source on this? Where is your proof?
Daley's iron grip of Chicago is a well known fact. If you do even some
passive research, you will find numerous accountings of organized voter fraud
in Chicago. Everything ranging from dead people voting, to felons, to bribing
homeless and poor voters with cigarettes, drugs, etc.
> > Let us also remember that Nixon only litigated for at the most two weeks
> > and then bowed out. It's now over three weeks and Gore continues to
> > manipulate and piss on the Rule of Law to weasel himself into office.
>
> And the margin in Illinois wasn't nearly so close in Nixon's case, either.
> How can Gore get away with pissing on the Rule of Law? Sounds to me
> like the voting was so equal that the normal uncertainties in counting
> now become important. I've seen someone here say the margin of error
> was 5, but that sounds like a number pulled out of someone's ass.
The margin of error for the machines, or for the people?
Last I heard, the national average of voter error was somewhere between
1 and 2% which means about 1-2 million voters in err. If you look in the
counties in question in Florida, they averaged 1-2% (Miami-Dade had something
like 1.4% IIRC). Ironically, a Republican county, Duval, was something like
5%, yet Gore's "Count All Votes" crusade doesn't seem to be concerned about
them.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Eddie Dubourg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:01:11 -0000
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a2694a1$0$44724$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:.....I snuck a copy of linux into a partition I resized with partition
: magic (nothing like it in unix world of course)
[ObNitPick]
..Other than Partition Magic itself, of course!
PQmagic v5 comes with linux binaries (sorry, not OSS yet..)
E
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Commentary on a Windows REinstallation last night
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:10:47 -0500
> Hello,
[massive snippage of usual lintrolling]
> well, there is my rant.
> have fun with it
No thanks. It's not worth a first look.
Goodbye.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:00:23 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Note that these "more accurate counts" are only happening in largely
> > Democratic counties, and even specific precincts in those counties. If
> > we had a full state-wide recount (which we shouldn't have had any hand
> > recounts in the first place, since the law has yet to allow for them in
> > Florida) we would find that Bush is still the winner.
>
> If one assumes that erroneous counts are truly random, then a recount
> in any given precinct would only rarely change the results. Of course,
> this assumes that the precincts are large enough that extremes in either
> direction are unlikely.
>
> So, when you say that a full recount would yield Bush still being the
> winner, you are almost certainly right. However, the same statement
> can be made about a Dade-only recount, though the certainty of being
> right would be a little less, since smaller numbers are involved.
Scientifically, yes. However, we know that the hand recounts in these
counties has become something very far from accurate and impartial.
Bending, twisting of ballots, popping out of chads, etc. Not to mention
the three Democrats sitting on most of the canvassing boards that seem
to think that every ballot not explicitly cast for Bush is a Gore vote.
http://www.drudgereport.com/bro.htm
This is an acount of Commissioner Gunzburger in Broward County changing
the standards as she goes to get more Gore votes. It also details her
bending and twisting the ballots.
JUDGE LEE: Number three.
COMMISSIONER GUNZBURGER: I see a clear vote for Gore. It's like a
garage door.
MR CARROLL (Republican Attorney): I ask you not to bend the ballot,
please.
GOVERNOR: Don't bend the ballot.
MR. POZZOVLI (sic) (Republican Attorney): You may not bend the ballot.
JUDGE LEE: I agree that's a vote for Gore. (Broward County Canvassing
Board, Esquire Deposition Services, November 23, 2000, p. 1516)
> > In Duval county, a Republican stronghold, almost 30,000 ballots were
> > thrown out due to the same things the Democrats are complaining about
> > in Dade and Broward. Why aren't the Dems concerned with those votes getting
> > counted?
>
> Because it is the Republican's job to follow up on their interests.
Of course. You and I understand this, but how come no one has told Al Gore?
How many times have you heard, "Every vote counts, and every vote must be
counted!". Which means, roughly, "Every Gore vote in these three select
counties matters and to hell with the rest of the country!".
> Furthermore, if the place is a Republican stronghold, perhaps the tally
> for the Republicans was so high that the results of 30,000 votes would
> not change the total result in Duval county.
But they might find a few hundred more Bush votes to strengthen his lead.
> > Please don't fall for the Democrat mantra that all votes must count, they're
> > just interested in counting enough selective ballots to give them the
victory
> > and sweep all the other Bush ballots under the rug.
>
> No, they're just hoping that Lady Luck will somehow uncover enough more Gore
> votes. The odds are against it.
It's unfortunate, though, that they want to count only these 10,000 some votes
but the other 95% of the uncounted ballots get thrown out and don't count!
I bet, if you did a full, statewide recount, you would find that Bush won by
a much sizable margin. The Republicans know this, but they didn't want to
drag the country through a lengthy and questionable counting process. The
Reps knew that it would be a circus. I guess they underestimated Gore and
believed that he wouldn't want that either. They guessed wrong, they
should've known that Gore has been Clintonized and will stop at nothing
(even breaking or bending the law) to get his way.
>
> > Let us not also forget about the 60,000 ballots in Oregon, 40,000+ in New
> > Mexico, 100,000+ in Iowa and 85,000+ in Wisconsin. Not to mention the
> > several hundred cited, documented, proven incidents of Democratic fraud
> > in Milwaukee alone that cost Bush thousands of votes and would've enabled
> > him to win the state.
>
> You've been listening to Rush, ain't ya?
What does that have to do with anything? These are facts, please check your
information sources. There were several reports of these things on the
major five news networks.
>
> > Shall we talk about the 5,000 felons in Florida who voted for Gore?
>
> Jumpin' off the deep end, here!
This is proven. Shall I find you the links? Fox News and CNN both
reported on this over the weekend.
>
> > Or the 30,000+ illegal alien Mexicans who voted in California?
>
> Whom did they vote for? Says who?
Well, given the trend, 32,000 or so voted for Clinton in '92, so
I would fathom a guess and say they voted for Gore.
There have been documented accounts of Democratic campaign workers
going into burrows and threatening aliens with deportation if they
didn't ride along from precinct to precinct and vote over and over
again for Clinton. It's out of the standard Democrat playbook.
> > Or
> > the 60,000+ deceased democrats who voted nation-wide (probably more)?
>
> Another unsubstantiated guess, with a gratuitous "probably" thrown in.
Well, in the 1960 election, an investigation into the misgoings-on in
Chicago revealed that over 10,000 deceased votes had voted world wide.
In 1992, there were some 50,000 deceased votes. The 60,000 number I gave
is very low, I'm sure. I'm sure nationwide it was over 100,000.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:04:44 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > The sad part is, the legal system WAS designed to handle crybaby losers
> > like Gore, however, the Gore lawyers, the almost entirely Democrat
> > controlled election system in Florida, and 7 Democratic activists -- er
> > -- FL Supreme Court Justices managed to ursurp the Constitutional election
> > power from the FL legislature and make a mockery of the Rule of Law.
> >
> > But then, this is nothing new for the Democrats, take the Impeachment.
> > Clinton and Gore are bullet proof. Laws do not apply to them, so they
> > can bend it and stretch it to however they see fit. It's unfortunate
> > that there are so many willing accomplices willing to throw conscience
> > to the wind and do whatever he says no matter the Constitutional
> > ramifications.
> >
> > The really, really sad part is, the American public is too ignorant to
> > understand it, let alone get angered about it. A large portion of them
> > think Hilary is right when she wants to do away with the electoral college.
> > If it were her druthers, she'd abolish the Constitution all together.
>
> I'd stop listening to AM radio if I were you. Start reading newspapers.
> Find some good history books. Start looking into the shenanigans of
> your own party.
Can you so blindly dismiss the truth?
Can you not see what is going on, or what has gone on? Unfortunately, you
are one of the ignorant Americans I was referring to. You seem fit to
dismiss the obvious because it's not something you want to be confronted
with. Please note I'm not attacking you personally, or calling you stupid
or anything like that. I'm just saying that there are many people out there
too busy to be concerned with how their government is being systematically
overturned right under their noses.
It wasn't three days after Hillary was elected and she wanted to change
the Constitution. There is a pattern here...
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:06:34 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qxGW5.42558$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:n%DW5.9403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:r2zW5.41622$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> <trimmed>
> > >
> > > As opposed to investigating the links between the comunist chinese and
> GHWB
> > > Sr. in relation to the granting of Favored Nation Trading Status shortly
> > > after Tienenman Square.
> >
> > Or Clinton granting them permanent MFN status on the anniversary of it?
> >
> > China had had MFN status for awhile. GHWB bowed to the corporations, yes,
> > but at least he didn't completely sell out the entire nation and its
> > security like Bill Clinton has. Clinton has not only given them perm. MFN,
> > but also given them sattelite missle tracking capability, thus giving them
> > ICBMs which are targeted at San Fransico, thank you very little. He's
> given
> > them many more missle and deployment technologies. He's ensured the Lippo
> > Group's domminance in markets such as low-sulfur coal (Federal park in the
> > middle of the desert in Utah, give me a break!), millitary equipment, and
> > espionage (Los Alamos!?!). It's a far cry from the precedent that GHWB
> > followed to the precedent that Clinton is setting.
> >
>
> In the immortal words of Pete Townsend.
>
> In with the new boss,
> Same as the old boss,
>
>
>
> > > > 3) Exposure of their fear-tactics to be nothing but lies.
> > > > Democrats have been claiming for years that if the Republicans
> > > > get power, that the result will be concentration camps for
> > > > blacks, and elderly kicked out into the streets to starve to death.
> > > >
> > > > 4) Republican control of the education system, resulting in reforms
> > > > that start to re-introduce actual EDUCATION in inner city schools.
> > > >
> > >
> > > By removing any funding for the systems. Good choice that one.
> >
> > Typical Democratic fear tactics. "The children will starve without
> > school lunch programs!". Give me a frickin' break.
> >
>
> I'd rather give them an education.
So you think that the Republicans just want to strip education from the
children? Give me a break!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:12:00 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yQJW5.509$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > The sad part is, the legal system WAS designed to handle crybaby losers
> > > like Gore, however, the Gore lawyers, the almost entirely Democrat
> > > controlled election system in Florida, and 7 Democratic activists -- er
> > > -- FL Supreme Court Justices managed to ursurp the Constitutional
> election
> > > power from the FL legislature and make a mockery of the Rule of Law.
> > >
> > > But then, this is nothing new for the Democrats, take the Impeachment.
> > > Clinton and Gore are bullet proof. Laws do not apply to them, so they
> > > can bend it and stretch it to however they see fit. It's unfortunate
> > > that there are so many willing accomplices willing to throw conscience
> > > to the wind and do whatever he says no matter the Constitutional
> > > ramifications.
> > >
> > > The really, really sad part is, the American public is too ignorant to
> > > understand it, let alone get angered about it. A large portion of them
> > > think Hilary is right when she wants to do away with the electoral
> college.
> > > If it were her druthers, she'd abolish the Constitution all together.
> >
> > I'd stop listening to AM radio if I were you. Start reading newspapers.
> > Find some good history books. Start looking into the shenanigans of
> > your own party.
>
> We don't need AM radio to spin what's happening. Anyone with a brain can
> discern it even by watching liberal-biased network news and that paragon of
> American intellect, USA-TODAY (Content? Nahhh...Give the rabble pretty
> pictures)
>
> The trouble makers in the Republican party generally get taken to the
> woodshed and spanked until their carreers are over. Newt Gingrich was forced
> to leave for shear hypocracy. Blasting Clinton for infidelity and boffing a
> young assistant all the while didn't set well with anyone. Clinton lied
> under oath and got a pep rally. (I couldn't care less about the blow job
> that prompted it. The only problem I had with it was his obvious lack of
> taste. Hell, if I were President and needed my pipes blown so badly i'd risk
> jeopardizing the Presidency and my legacy...I'd at least find a PRIME piece
> of ass to do it with!)
heh.. no shit. Perhaps that was part of the whole deal? Not only is he brazen
enough to get it in the Oval Office, but by a fat chick too!
It's interesting to note that Ronald Regan (and probably Jimmy Carter and
John Kennedy for that matter) would never step into the Oval Office without
a suit coat on.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:20:47 +0000
Craig Kelley wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>> I agree that you can do OO in a procedural language, but I don't agree
>> that you can do it in the limited pipe-this-into-that paradigm.
>>
>> I don't even think that you can flexibly use pipes in a procedural
>> fashion.
>
> But it happens all the time.
And furthermore, for much real programming, the simple IPC model
offered by pipes is better than the more sophisticated ones that are
made available through the likes of sockets and CORBA. There is a
*lot* more that can go wrong with bi-directional communication, and
it is much harder to optimize...
Donal.
--
"[He] would have needed to sell not only his own soul, but have somehow gotten
in on the ground floor of an Amway-like pryamid scheme delivering the souls
of kindergarten students to Satan by the truckload like so many boxes of Girl
Scout Cookies." -- John S. Novak, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
