Linux-Advocacy Digest #634, Volume #33 Sun, 15 Apr 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Something cool in gcc ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Eric FunkenBush ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Eric FunkenBush ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad")
Re: Linux = CHOICE! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Dennis Yelle)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Hartmann Schaffer)
Re: Linux = CHOICE! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("J. E. Garrott Sr")
Re: Linux = CHOICE! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Something cool in gcc (mlw)
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("BJ")
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (webgiant)
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("BJ")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: 16 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Actually VB programmers have FULL access to calls like those. Had you
: actually ever programmed in a modern language you might know of such things.
What does VB have to do with any modern language?
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:40:42 -0500
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Kr2C6.3211$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> > Why don't you instead, write standard C++ like this:
> >> >
> >> > const int len = strlen(string)+1;
> >> > char var[len];
> >> >
> >> > Much easier and fully standard conforming.
> >>
> >> Are you kidding?
> >>
> >> If "string" is a variable, "len" can't be a constant.
> >
> > Not true. "len" has a const c-v qualifier, therefore it is constant to
> > the compiler. It may not be constant in the traditional sense of the
> > word, but the compiler sees it as so, and that's how the language is
> > defined.
>
> For C++, perhaps - not for C (pre-C99):
Scroll up a little. See where I said specifically C++? I could care less
about C.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:47:51 -0500
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> It is? I thought _stuff would break a rule about reservered
> >> identifiers.
> >>
> > Note that I've ever read or seen.
>
> You could be right on that one; there are reserved identifiers which
> commence with underscores; I'm not certain whether this is one of them.
> I simply avoid them as a matter of policy.
In C++, preceding underscores at global scope are reserved for the
implementation.
> > The sizeof operator uses parens, "sizeof type" does not work, it must be
> > "sizeof(type)." The sizeof() operator is both C and C++.
>
> Not sure what your point here is; sizeof('a') is valid, but produces
> different results in C and C++; in C, sizeof('a') == sizeof(int), while
> in C++, sizeof('a') == sizeof(char).
Actually, the parens are sometimes necessary, sometimes not. for instance
sizeof a; // is legal
sizeof int; // is not legal
sizeof (int); // is legal
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:49:50 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > g++ ignores namespaces. Try this:
> >
> > #include <fstream>
> >
> > ifstream i; // this should generate an error because you don't specify
a
> > namespace
> > std::ifstream i2;
> >
> > Note that both compile just fine. This is because g++ accepts namespace
> > syntax but ignores it as a no-op.
>
> No. G++ just treats the std:: namespace as global. It otherwise
> supports namespaces just fine. I've attached some code at one point in
> this thread. Compile it. See for yourself before you go spouting off
> how much you know about non-MS stuff.
In other words, g++ ignores the std namespace.
I guess I assumed it ignored all namespaces because it ignored the std one.
My mistake, sorry.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:53:30 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:52:22 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >> > VC7 will conform in almost all ways except Partial Template
> > Specialization
> >> > and the export keyword.
> >>
> >> Which makes it almost useless in a general production environment.
> >
> > For some, but as of today, very few people even use the STL, much less
their
> > own templates.
>
> I'd have to beg to differ there -- templates are widley used in some form
> or other, and if you're not using them directly, you're probably using
> someone elses.
Nope. very few people (compared to the general C++ programming population)
use templates at all. I'd say less than 10% in my experience. The vast
majority of people out there are working on maintenance of legacy code.
They're not going to introduce templates into that very often.
Hell, most C++ programmers I have met have heard of templates, but don't
know what they're used for.
> However, if the export keyword was so important that compilers not
supporting
> it were "useless in a production environment", we simply wouldn't use C++
> at all (do *any* compilers support export ?)
No commercial ones.
> Partial specialisations would be nice though.
I agree. It would, and I and others have bitched endlessly about the lack
of it. They've promised it in the next release, which they say will have a
much shorter development cycle than this release.
------------------------------
From: "Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:34:50 +0800
unicat wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>(The following are the editorial opinions of the author, no more, no
>less)
>
...
>The author would like to advance a pet theory. It's all Microsoft's
>fault.
It is related to my article, "managing obsolescense".
>
...
>with nearly the same look-and-feel
>as MS Office. It will process MS office document formats, and runs
>equally well under Windows and Linux,
>and is being given away for FREE in perpetuity.
copying will not make much money in the end. It will be obsolete
immediately after a product had come out. So you are copying an
obsolete product.
Not that I care but people around me do care. I am still satisfied with
DOS and WP 5.1 and yet others use something else.
...
>thrashing they have long deserved. The first blow is for IBM to spend
>over $1billion on Linux
>development this year.
so much for being free.
>
>As Microsoft does a long slow fade into irrelevance, there will be a
>liitle pain for the current
>users of Windows, but it will be quickly replaced by enthusiasm. As the
>constipating plug of Windows
>is removed from corporate IS departments, a flush of new creativity will
>ensue as technical personnel
just prove it. No need to shout about it.
>suddenly feel free to explore more creative and innovative ways to build
>servers, networks and protocols.
>Which will result in another rush of capital spending, and we will begin
>anew the virtuous cycle
>of economic growth.
>
MS and INTEL had been successful in this arena, and they will still
continue to succeed if they continue their current management philosophies.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Linux = CHOICE!
Date: 16 Apr 2001 01:08:49 GMT
Matthew Gardiner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: True, and isn't it great when a distro makes a really fucking awful
: distro you have the opportunity to goto another vendor, and you can keep
: changing until you find one that suites your needs. Hmm, I wonder if
: the Wintel clan can do that, NOPE!
Even better. If you are using Slackware you can install it by several
different methods and Slackware allows creative methods for when normal
methods fail.
I like Slackware becuse it offers a choice of a normal install or a manual
install. Sometimes, you have no vhoice except for a manual install. Only
Slackware allows manual install as readily. Other distros due to lame
packaging of software make a manual install excessively difficult.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:10:24 -0500
"franek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I could never understand this enamoration with HTML-based interfaces.
There's a good case
> for using HTML in a normal web-based environment, but why the hell one
would want to use
> this crude and slow method in a standalone system is beyond me.
Well, there are a lot of reasons why one might want to do this.
1) rollout of new versions is effortless. Just install the new pages,
scripts, etc.. and it just works the next time they load a page. You can do
this by centralizing the apps in a traditional environment as well, but then
you have to get everyone to exit their processes and reload. This isn't
something you would want to do automatically because users might have a page
up for a specific reason, and killing it on them could be disasterous.
2) You can use very low-end hardware for terminals (win 3.1 boxes even).
3) If you have Macs, PC's, Unix machines, etc.. they can all use the same
app without changing it, and without resorting to Java.
4) You get nice features "for free", such as the ability to open multiple
windows effortlessly and show different information, the ability to use the
"back" button to go back to previous data, etc..
5) You can let your sales staff access the information on the road easily
(and again, you don't have to get them to load new versions of the apps or
force them to download large apps when things are updated, etc..)
Of course many of these things can be done other ways, but HTML just makes a
lot of it easy and simple to implement.
> Maybe they're influenced
> by Microsoft with their huge "innovations" like "look at your desktop as a
web page"! Wow.
> End of desktop as we knew it. What you need on a factory floor is an
industrial
> air/water-tight enclosure with a freaken touch screen (which you can
purchase either built
> into the strengthened box itself--there are products like that--or as a
hardware add-on)
> and then a normal, fast-responding gui like Qt, or anything at all really.
Just make sure
> your buttons are really HUGE, so that you can easily poke them with a
gloved finger. Btw,
> these pokes come through as mouse clicks, so, programmatically, it is
kinda mouse-driven.
Depends on the kind of factory it is. If it's a PC assembly line, the
terminals aren't in very heavy duty environments. Also, the system is used
by more than just people on the shop floor. It's used by sales staff, order
entry people, RMA people, accounting, HR, inventory, shipping/recieving,
etc...
------------------------------
From: Dennis Yelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:34:29 -0700
Charles Lyttle wrote:
[...]
> I agree with the lawful part, I'm not too sure about the ethical part.
> Intel has pulled some pretty dirty, but legal, tricks.
Where can I find out more about these tricks?
Dennis Yelle
--
I am a computer programmer and I am looking for a job.
There is a link to my resume here:
http://table.jps.net/~vert/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann Schaffer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: 15 Apr 2001 21:35:26 -0400
In article <_DrC6.3490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"franek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I could never understand this enamoration with HTML-based interfaces.
>There's a good case
>> for using HTML in a normal web-based environment, but why the hell one
>would want to use
>> this crude and slow method in a standalone system is beyond me.
>
>Well, there are a lot of reasons why one might want to do this.
> ...
all the reasons you give describe a thin client arrangement, i.e. a client
that only does the user interaction and communication with the server. that
doesn't mean it has to be html
hs
================================================================
"The cheapest pride is national pride. I demonstrates the lack of
characteristics and achievements you can be proud of. The worst loser
can have national pride" - Schopenhauer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Linux = CHOICE!
Date: 16 Apr 2001 01:39:58 GMT
Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: That's because with Windows it just works and there's no need to hop
: vendors.
Close but no cigar. If you make a tarball of an OEM bare95 install, it will
not necessarily work on another computer. I found out the hard way when I
tried out that bare95.tar tarball on my NEC laptop. The tarball works properly
only on the Packrat Bell desktop.
What does work is a virgin copy of Windows 3.1. I once had an IBM PS1 computer
but it turned out that I saved the data from its original hard drive. I
installed the Windows 3.1 on my old used laptop. Why it works is simply bevuse
it's brain-dead like DOS. But 95 is just brain-alive enough to not allow such
transfers, vertainly in the case of OEM distros.
What really blows chunks is that an OEM will NOT provide a valid serial number
for a virgin 95 install, despite having a CD with both the OEM distro AND a
virgin 95 distro. My Packrat Bell album has both, but I can only use the
Packrat distro.
The bottom line is that you are _almost_ right. Yes, a virgin distro of
Windows * will work but not necessarily an OEM distro. The same will be the
case with of Nt, ME, XP, etc.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "J. E. Garrott Sr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 18:43:06 -0700
David Ehrens wrote:
>
> Please see the following for the theology of editors:
>
> http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/
>
> Read and repent!
Cute. But I still like vim. :)
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Linux = CHOICE!
Date: 16 Apr 2001 01:53:37 GMT
Ed Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The choice of multiple alternatives at several different levels like the
: installer, the GUI admin tools, the users desktop, the group of apps in
: a particular distribution, the mixture of GPL vs proprietary, the focus
: of the patches and tunings applied to the standard kernel.
: All those choices at those and many other points are why we will always
: have multiple distributions and will eventually see multiple offerings
: from each distribution vendor.
For some people, the choice of distro comes to the install itself. For that, I
like the BSD-like install with Slackware. I tried Red Hat but didn't like the
install becuse it's not flexible. Others will disagree. <donning asbestos
space suit>
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something cool in gcc
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 22:17:58 -0400
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> int main( int class, char *new[] )
> {
> int public = 0;
> short private = 0;
>
> return 0;
> }
That is so f%$^%ked up that it is funny. Cool example.
>
> That should compile clean under C. It shouldn't compile _at all_ in C++.
> If C++ is a superset of C, it follows that C programs should compile in
> C++.
>
> How about this, if you don't like that one:
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
>
> int main()
> {
> double *ptr = malloc(100 * sizeof *ptr );
> if ( ptr ) free ptr;
> return 0;
> }
>
> In C, you do _not_ cast the return of malloc; doing so can mask potentially
> fatal errors. In C++, you _have to_ cast the return value.
>
> In C, sizeof('a') == sizeof(int); in C++, sizeof('a') == sizeof(char).
>
> The list goes on.
I can see your points, but that does not preclude it from being a superset. C++
enforces much more type checking than C.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "BJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:07:56 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9aqu7h$co0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > After that, I like CLI based commands because I know what I want to do
and
> I
> > can type it. A GUI based system requires an added step of navigating the
> > various menus and dialog boxes that seem to get in the way of what I
want
> to
> > do.
>
> Read the help files.
> You have to do it anyway for CLI applications.
>
Going to the "Help files" is a waste of time. The assholes at M$ don't
speak English!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (webgiant )
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 02:17:42 GMT
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:41:29 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"roger$@a" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rex says...
>>
>> > If you are a student who
>> >would like to learn the principles of UNIX, if you are the secretary
>> >of a non-profit and want
>> >to put up a web-site, or if you just want to chat and e-mail, Linux
>> >has some
>> >really great tools to do this.
[snip!]
>> >Some people like it because they like having the power and stability
>> >of a UNIX system.
>>
>> win2k is VERY stable. The stability claim is getting too old now.
>> need to find a new one.
>
>Tell that to the space crew up above. NT crashed quite often. Only the
>Russians know what their laptop is running and it didn't crash.
>
>> In summary:
>> -----------
>> The Linux KERNEL is good. No one can argue about that. But to have
>> an OS for the end user has nothing to do with the KERNEL. The
>> main problem with Linux as and end user, is that there is no overall
>> guiding strategy and design to drive it. Each linux group decide to make
>> something as they please, a new Linux flavour is out each month. We now
>> have 75 Linux distro and counting. No standard way to do anything. From
>> application installation to printer setup to configuring the network.
>>
>> It is like being in the kitchen with 20 cooks making one big dinner. Each
>> want to do the dinner their own way.
>>
>> Unless this is fundemantly chaned, linux will never compete with windows
>> on the desktop. windows still claims 90% of the desktop. The reason is
>> simple. It is simple to use and consistant in the way it works.
>>
>> Making something simple and easy to use is something the Linux advocates
>> find very hard to understand. Users do not want 20 different ways to do
>> the same thing. Users want the OS to hide the complixity of the machine
>> from them. Users want an OS that is easy to configure and manage and use.
>>
>> So far, windows is winning in this area, if it were not, it would not
>> have 90% market share. (of course, you will blame this on MS marketing,
>> right?)
>
>Right now I get pleas for help in the home windows area. Always have to
>defrag their hard drives, boot up in Dos, do a scanreg /fix, and a
>scanreg /opt. Depending on the user you have to do this about once a
>week on various brands of hardware. I do not call this reliable. Now
>people are asking "Is there another machine out there that doesn't use
>Microsoft?" Yes, either get one with linux pre-installed, like HP, or
>buy a Mac.
>
>Windows is winning only because of marketing strategy and the usual P.T.
>Barnum effect.
>
>If you don't want to run games, get a 64-bit Sun Blade 100 for $950 with
>Solaris 8.
>If you want to run games there is the PCI card for $400 to plug in to
>run windows.
Ironically, you could also--in a high-end system, of course--get
VMWare or Win4Lin plus Windows98 for a bit less than $400 and run the
whole thing in Linux for less than $400.
------------------------------
From: "BJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 21:27:10 -0500
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:30:53 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
>
> I first came across the GUI in the form of an early Apple computer in an
> electrical store in Glasgow, Scotland in the early 80s.
>
> I remember fiddling with the mouse, occasionally getting some response,
but
> the double-click process isn't intuitive, and I gave up largely
> unimpressed.
>
> The GUI isn't intuitive at all, without instruction or training, and
double
> clicking doesn't help. KDE's single click is less unintuitive for the
> newbie, what's more natural than one click on an icon to run the app?
>
> Peter
True!
With Windoze everything is under a menu somewhere. The problem is knowing
which of the many menus you must go to before you find what you are looking
for. As for "help", it is totally worthless. From a user's standpoint, I
can page through a manual 100 times faster than I can look in Microsoft's
help files. If I am using WORD, and I don't realize that the people in
Washington use the word "bullets" instead of outline, in their vocabulary,
I can look in their stupid "help" files forever.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
