Linux-Advocacy Digest #354, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows 2000 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs (Steve Mading)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft releases Games console ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: KDE Hell (Yatima)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:13:29 +0000
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> I've installed it on 3 machines. It takes less time to install Mandrake
> and nearly 1000 packages (equivalent of 500 Windows applications such as
> Office, Notes, BackOffice, ...) in less time than it took to unstall
> JUST windows 2000.
>From my experience installed Windows 98 SE/Windows 2000 is about the same
time as install all the packages of Linux Mandrake 7.2
> Mandrake is billed as the best distribution for new Linux users.
> I'm a very experienced user and I like it. SuSE has more bells
> and whistles, but Mandrake make the OS more invisible.
You're a very experienced user of what? Linux? Windows?
> > >>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux
> > >> running faster than on Windows.
> > >>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
>
> The time when response **should** be sluggish is when the application
> is first being initialized. When you click the application icon,
> or select from the menu, you don't see anything for several seconds.
I stand by what I said, X seems sluggish compared to Windows. Now, maybe I
should be more specific - in this case, I was referring to KDE.
> On windows, the application starts letting you know right away that the
> application is loading, and keeps taking control of your screen to give
> you lots of informative updates.
Some Windows applications do this... but not all.
> Ironically, back as early as 1991, X11 would let you read e-mail or
> browse newsgroups while applications went through the initialization
> process, back in the days of 5 MIPs machines and 18 ms SCSI drives,
> you could read several pages while you waited. The Windows 3.1
> approach left the user "Hostage to the Hourglass" during the entire
> initialization sequence. Of course, both systems took almost the same
> amount of time to initialize the real applications, but with Windows you
> could either stare at the screen or "get a pencil and paper and make
> some phone calls".
Windows 3.1 used cooperative multitasking. It meant applications had to
yield to achieve multitasking.
Any particular reason you're referring to Windows 3.1 here? Windows
95/98/ME/NT/2000 are all pre-emptive multitasking. They don't hold you
hostage any more.
> > > It has the edge compared to Win95A the last version of Windows that
> > > Porter has run, by his own admission.
>
> I've used Windows 2000, Windows NT (WS and Server), Windows 9x,
> Windows 3.51, 3.11, 3.1, and 3.0. Mandrake pretty much has the edge
> over all of them.
In what sense? If you're talking about Linux and the CLI, I would agree
with you. If you're referring to Linux + KDE then I'd disagree.
> Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of getting into a state where the only
> way to fix it is to reinstall the software. In some cases, it won't
> even reboot. Fortunately, this only happens every 8-10 weeks, but it's
> still very annoying.
I've not seen this.
> > > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
>
> But file managers are essentially launching applications. See the
> discussion above. Windows Explorer might pop up that first "Application
> Started Icon" much faster, but you might have something better to do
> than watch the dancing jugglers. In fact, the dancing jugglers are
> simply illustrating how much of the CPU horsepower is being wasted when
> you could be using it to do something interesting like read the latest
> quotations from Chairman Bill.
Windows explorer across a 10MBit network does not display the icons until
all the file names are known. KDE konqueror tries to display the file names
as it goes, and consequently takes longer. Looks like Windows developers
have learnt something the KDE guys haven't yet.
> > Apache runs much, much faster.
>
> Actually, nearly everything runs faster on Linux once it's fully
> initialized and running. And since it's so easy to hop from screen to
> screen and application to application, and since there are almost no
> unanticipated direct interactions between applications, the system can
> easily handle that load.
What I observed was everything ran about the same speed, perhaps faster on
Windows. I've yet to see anything run faster on Linux.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 19:13:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Brad Wardell wrote:
:> >
:> > NTFS 5 allows for compression on a per file basis as well as encrption
: on a
:> > per file basis. This is quite nice to have at the file system level.
:>
:> I'd prefer such a feature at the application level for a couple of
: reasons:
:> * Allows the use of different algorithms, not just the standard system
: ones
:> * Can't be forced to encrypt or compress a file by a program (more
: control)
: And nothing prevents you from using application level programs for this.
Compression on top of Compression usually doesn't make the file
smaller, in fact the overhead of the compression scheme makes it
even bigger. This assumes the first compression was any good. If
the second compression still finds enough redundancies and patterns
to make more compression, then that is evidence that the first
compression was pretty poor. This is why I dislike automatic
compression at a low level. For example, compressing TCP/IP data
over a phone modem is silly if the modem itself already uses
compression.
Running something like PKzip on a file the OS already compressed
for you is going to make it take more space, not less.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:24:38 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > So they can spend hours and hours per day posting crap on Usenet?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> you misppelled "countering lies with truth"
He was right the first time.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 19:28:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And what about when you are in insert mode? Or if you mistype and hit i instead
:of k?
That's not a good argument to use. EVERY editor sucks if you tend to
miss the keys you want to hit and hit nearby ones instead. (Damn! I
hit shift instead of enter, now everything's on one line! Damn! I hit
'\' instead of backspace, now I've added a second typo instead of
correcting the one I wanted to fix... etc)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
Date: 9 Jan 2001 19:30:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: NOTHING is intuitive....especially computers and software.
The stuff you said before the '...' contradicts the stuff after it.
If NOTHING is intuitive, then it's not possible for something
to be "especially" so - everything's "intutiveness" is at zero.
It's like saying some animals are more equal than others.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 19:47:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Bob Eager wrote:
:>
:>
:> For reasons of interest only (and because I don't have access to an
:> XEDIT manual, having only used it once or twice) would you mind
:> summarising what the ALL command does? I'm interested....
: ALL is sort of like a find all. It displays all lines containing the
: specified pattern. But instead of simply moving to a line that matches the
: pattern, it displays all lines that match. Any lines that do not match are
: disabled from being displayed. You end up with a series of lines that match
: and delimiters that show the number of lines that do not match. It makes it
: easy to see all occurrences of a pattern without the non-matching lines
: getting in the way. You can also selectively show non-matching lines above
: or below a matching line using the SHOW command.
I've never used this XEDIT. I'd like to ask something of the people who
have: In practical terms, how is this more useful than just doing
something like this in vi:
1. /pattern {cursor moves to line containing pattern}
then:
2. Do your editing of that line.
3. hit 'n' to go to the next match.
4. Do your editing of that line.
5. hit 'n' to go to the next match.
6. ...etc...
Sure, you don't see them all at once, but how useful is that, really?
How does it help those of you who use it? It seems to me that seeing
the context around the lines is much more important than seeing lots
of lines on the screen at once. Until I see the full screen of context
around the line, I don't know if I want to make a change to it or not.
In those exception situations where I know I want to make the change
unconditionally, I'll use a search/replace globally. In situations
where I want to make the same change to some of the matches, but not
others, depending on the context I see, I'll just use the '/c'
qualifier for the search/replace command (gives a confirm yes/no/all
prompt to each possible place a replacement can be done, showing a
screenfull of context around the match when asking the question.)
The reason I ask is, that if this is truly a useful feature, there's
no reason it couldn't be added to the open-source vi clones out
there. The fact that it hasn't, while other modern features like
visual selecting have, makes me wonder at its utility.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 19:53:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
:> vi
:>
:> "/" = search forwards for regular_expression
:> "?" = search backwards for regular_expression
:> "n" = repeat search in the same direction
:> "N" = repeat search in the opposite direction
:>
:> /some_pattern moves cursor to some_pattern
:> n moves to next occurance of some_pattern
:> n moves to next occurance of some_pattern
:> (repeat as necessary)
:> N move in the opposite direction
:>
: Any editor can do this. But you still have all the non-matching lines
: displayed and getting in the way of seeing what you are really interested
: in.
Why would anyone be interested in seeing and editing all the matches on
the screen in a list, without the appropriate context? If no editing is
being done, then 'grep' covers the functionality you want, but if on the
other hand editing *is* being done, then I'm going to want to see all the
context of the full screen around the match so I know for sure that I'm
making the right edit, and at that point the 'search/next/next/next'
technique available in all editors works just as well.
In other words, if I want to see a contextless list, then it's a
sitiation where I don't want to edit the lines.
I'm not trying to flame - I'm genuinely confused about the utility
of this feature - tell me why you find it useful, because I can't
see it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:12:28 -0600
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:22:05 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 07:57:36 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> (Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You will never see a Microsoft Windows Compiler installed
> >> >> in your Windows product by default.
> >>
> >> >True, you need to buy one.
> >>
> >> Ahah, more $$$ for microsoft....
> >
> >GCC is available for Windows, and there are free compilers,
>
> Free compilers ported from Linux of course. Why not just use the real
thing??
Sorry, GCC was not developed for Linux. It existed long before Linux was
even a glimmer in Linus's eye.
> >like Borlands
> >5.5 compiler.
>
> The free borland compiler comes with too few development libraries.
It comes with a CRT, and you can use STLPort with it for a standard C++
library. The MS Platform SDK is freely downloadable to give you the Windows
headers and link libraries. Heck, you can even download the Free version of
OWL, borlands old C++ framework for Windows. It's all there.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:07:38 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > http://www.ultimatetv.com/
>
> So, how come tivo is popular, but nobody's even heard of this one?
MS just launched it recently. There's also ReplayTV, which isn't Linux
based either.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:13:20 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:F6z66.24836$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > This is precisely how you'd do it. The software is here:
> >
> > http://www.simtel.net/simtel.net/msdos/tcpip.html
>
> However, that's not much use if you've got ONE blank machine, an MSDOS
boot
> disk and a Windows CD.
Huh? If you've got the windows CD, just boot off it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:18:37 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> J Sloan wrote:
> >
> > Mart van deWege wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, I haven't got the link handy, but it should be on the web
> > > somewhere. Building a fully functional UNIX clone out of Minix
> > > was *exactly* what Linus set out to do.
> >
> > He was inspired by Minix, and wanted to do something similar,
> > but the design of Linux was radically different. For a short time
> > Linux made use of the Minix file system, but rapidly outgrew
> > those training wheels and discarded them.
> >
> > Technically, Linus used "The design of the Unix Operating
> > System" by Maurice J Bach for his direction on Linux.
> >
> > BTW the debate between Linus and Dr Tannenbaum, the author
> > of Minix, was famous - let's just say that the design philosophies
> > of Linux and Minix had deep and irreconcilable differences.
> >
> > At the risk of pointing out the obvious, time has proved Linus correct -
> >
>
> Which probably frosts Tannenbaum to no end...
[entire context except grossly incompetant .sig snipped for a point]
Why do you suppose it is that Aaron is only capable of making stupid
comments on other peoples facts (without snipping any irrelevant text),
rather than coming up with logical, well thought out statements of his own?
I'd wager that 90% of aaron's posts are one or two sentances with 100x more
quoted material.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 15:13:09 -0500
In article <93fpsj$fmi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Bob Eager wrote:
>
>:>
>:>
>:> For reasons of interest only (and because I don't have access to an
>:> XEDIT manual, having only used it once or twice) would you mind
>:> summarising what the ALL command does? I'm interested....
>: ALL is sort of like a find all. It displays all lines containing the
>: specified pattern. But instead of simply moving to a line that matches the
>: pattern, it displays all lines that match. Any lines that do not match are
>: disabled from being displayed. You end up with a series of lines that match
>: and delimiters that show the number of lines that do not match. It makes it
>: easy to see all occurrences of a pattern without the non-matching lines
>: getting in the way. You can also selectively show non-matching lines above
>: or below a matching line using the SHOW command.
>I've never used this XEDIT. I'd like to ask something of the people who
>have: In practical terms, how is this more useful than just doing
>something like this in vi:
> 1. /pattern {cursor moves to line containing pattern}
> then:
> 2. Do your editing of that line.
> 3. hit 'n' to go to the next match.
> 4. Do your editing of that line.
> 5. hit 'n' to go to the next match.
> 6. ...etc...
>
>Sure, you don't see them all at once, but how useful is that, really?
>How does it help those of you who use it? It seems to me that seeing
>the context around the lines is much more important than seeing lots
>of lines on the screen at once. Until I see the full screen of context
>around the line, I don't know if I want to make a change to it or not.
>In those exception situations where I know I want to make the change
>unconditionally, I'll use a search/replace globally. In situations
>where I want to make the same change to some of the matches, but not
>others, depending on the context I see, I'll just use the '/c'
>qualifier for the search/replace command (gives a confirm yes/no/all
>prompt to each possible place a replacement can be done, showing a
>screenfull of context around the match when asking the question.)
Well, for example, if you have 200 lines containing the variable
'foo' and you want to change 20 of them then repeatedly hitting
'n' quickly gets tedious. This is of course assuming that you can
recognize the lines you want to change without the context of the
surrounding lines, but in my experience this is often the case.
The changes you want to make may not be the same on each line, so
you can't do this with any sort of global change.
Another example would be to very quickly check the syntax of every
instance of a certain function. Again, there might be hundreds,
and it's *much* faster to check these lines by the screenful rather
than hopping repeatedly from line to line.
In addition you are not limited to one match. You can refine your
view by successively hiding or unhiding lines according to various
unrelated criteria. In the end all I can really say is that when
I used Xedit I used the ALL command *often*!
>The reason I ask is, that if this is truly a useful feature, there's
>no reason it couldn't be added to the open-source vi clones out
>there. The fact that it hasn't, while other modern features like
>visual selecting have, makes me wonder at its utility.
It is being added to Vim, and was in fact the most requested
enhancement for Vim-6. (Check out www.vim.org).
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 20:14:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
:>
:>
:> Why should I need a MANUAL to use a damn terminal????
:>
:> Again.....the very notion that one should need a manual for a terminal
:> is indicative of the sorry level of programming standards at IBM.
:>
: Now you are just being dense. You do not have to read the 3270 manual to use a
:3270 or to use
: xedit. You DO have to read the manual if you want to write a full screen editor
:such as
: xedit. If you read the manual then you might understand what the xedit developers
:had to deal
: with. Unlike a VT102, the 3270 is not a character device. It is a structured
:block
: device. xedit does not see the characters as you type them. All of the insertion
:of
: characters is done by the 3270 device. You can write an entire screens worth of
:data and
: nothing is sent to the processor. Nothing is sent to xedit. Not until you hit
:the Enter
: key. xedit is not involved in any way with insertion of characters as you are
:typing them.
: NULLS ON is an attempt to bypass the limitations of the 3270 device. It is not
:perfect and can
: have negative side effects. THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT THE DEFAULT. Too many users
:would be
: screaming if it was.
I really hate defending Aaron, because he's just as annoying as Tholen,
but both the 3270 AND the XEDIT software were designed by IBM, and
therefore in an argument about whether or not IBM's software
standards are bad, it doesn't matter which is responsible for
quirky behaviour - they are both IBM's doing, and they both have
to do with software standards, even the terminal (You might not
think of a hardwired, non-CPU style of terminal as 'software', but
that's not what's under the discussion here - it's the protocol for
how to talk to that terminal, and that protocol, designed on paper,
as a series of bytes to send back and forth that have symbolic meaning,
counts as a software standard in my book - it's a standard for how
software using the terminal will have to be designed.)
The fact that the 3270 *protocol standard* was designed to be
incapable of communicating spaces actually entered by the user
when those spaces appear at the end of a line of text is a bad
*software* standard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:28:46 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:36:55 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <3a59915f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I prefer WindowMaker, myself. It seems like KDE has everything in
>> it but the kitchen sink, and it IS a pretty nice desktop
>> environment. Yet, it lacks the simple features I use most, such as
>> the ability to switch virtual desktops with the keyboard.
>
>Ctrl+Tab
You can also assign arbitrary keybindings to anything you want (just
like windowmaker) so you can have different bindings for each desktop
<alt>-1 through 4 if you like.
Not that I needed to tell *you* that :)
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 20:22:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
:> So, in other words, the idiotic behavior of IBM XEDIT is due to the idiotic
:> behavior of the IBM 3270 terminal, which is determined by the idiotic software
:> written by IBM programmers.
:>
: Close, except for one critical point you missed. The 3270 terminal is hardwired.
:So
: you can blame the hardware if you want, but not the software.
The design of a protocol *is* part of software design. And what
is making the 3270 behaviour bad here is that *protocol design*,
not the hardware implementation of it. It doesn't matter if it
got *implemented* with hardware or software, the protocol itself
counts as software design. The mistake was made long before
anyone ever started discussing how to actually implement the 3270
terminal. The behaviour was mandated by the original protocol spec.
The notion that it is "correct" to be unable to distinguish between
blanks typed by the user and blanks not typed by the user is the
mistake.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 20:26:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Then why do you keep chastising me for not getting XEDIT to run in
: a sane, predictable fashion because I didn't read the 3270 manual?
: It' helps not to contradict yourself within the space of 2 posts.
He's not contradicting himself. There is a difference between
knowing how to use something and having an argument about whether
it is good or not. His stance is that reading the manual is only
needed to be informed in the argument. It is possible to use the
editor and remain ignorant of 3270's stupid design.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 20:31:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Richard Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The network and the host machine isn't involved in any of those things.
: Only when the Transmit key or selection function keys are hit is any
: sort of signal sent outside the terminal itself because the base UTS is
: intelligent enough to interpret the field descriptors that the host
: painted on its screen.
That behaviour is only acceptable if you don't care about the ability
to be interactive.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 9 Jan 2001 20:37:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Richard Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: As the programmer who maintains the mainframe text editor that many in
: my programming group use (UEDIT on OS2200), I've decided that adding a
: configurable item is vastly preferable to hard-coding behavior because
: I've seen a number of occasions where my own preference set disagrees
: quite strongly with the preferences of some of my coworkers.
Aaron wasn't complaining that the behaviour was configurable. He
was complaining that the default should be the other way 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
