Linux-Advocacy Digest #182, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Windows NT: lost in space? (Marcello Barboni)
The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: article on Windows 2002 (pp@o)
Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 4 May 2001 11:23:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 04 May 2001 05:23:32 -0700, Steve Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Followups directed away from misc.int-property.
...followed by the entire article he hung his followup on.
Steve, this doesn't work. Followup-To: only applies to articles people
actually follow up to. Posting a complaint like this merely adds to the
message volume.
Further, you didn't need to quote the entire article...just a small section,
if any at all, would have sufficed.
In short, you merely added to the problem, not helped it.
------------------------------
From: Marcello Barboni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows NT: lost in space?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 11:31:25 GMT
http://www.wirednews.com/news/technology/0,1282,42912,00.html
No need to say more....
Marcello
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 11:31:36 GMT
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60173,00.html
(May 03, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today renewed
its offensive against open-source software
development, a move that the software vendor
said was made in response to repeated queries
from corporate users about how it's
responding to the open-source movement.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60163,00.html
(May 03, 2001) Microsoft Corp. has sparked a
new controversy by sending a letter to some
PC makers offering them rewards in return for
identifying corporate users who ask that computers
be shipped "naked," without Windows installed.
Users making such requests may have "misunderstood"
their Windows licensing agreements, Microsoft claimed
in the letter, which was issued last week to
thousands of companies that assemble PCs to sell
directly to businesses. The assembly companies,
known as system builders, were offered prizes
such as software packages, watches and cooking
grills if they identified customers seeking
Windows-less machines.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60115,00.html
(May 01, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today disclosed
that an "extremely serious" flaw in an
extension included in Windows 2000 could
allow a malicious hacker to gain complete control
of any computer running the Internet
Information Services (IIS) 5.0 software
built into that operating system.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59982,00.html
(April 26, 2001) A Microsoft Corp. technical
support server that accidentally lacked
antivirus software caused 26 of
the company's largest support clients to be
left vulnerable to the FunLove computer
virus late last week.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59697,00.html
(April 17, 2001) Microsoft Corp. yesterday
warned users that a flaw in its new firewall
and Web caching software -- billed as the
company's first product aimed purely at IT
security -- could lead to denial-of-service
attacks blocking all Web traffic from passing
through corporate firewalls.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59121,00.html
(March 30, 2001) Microsoft Corp. is warning
users about a security hole in Internet
Explorer that could be used to force the Web
browser to automatically open HTML e-mail
attachments, potentially enabling attacks in which
malicious hackers could delete data from
PCs or cause other types of damage.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59065,00.html
(March 29, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today said
it has completed a promised software update
for all of its Windows operating system releases
dating back to 1995 as part of an effort to
combat a pair of fraudulent digital
certificates that were mistakenly issued
by VeriSign Inc.
======================================================================
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO58036,00.html
(February 23, 2001) Microsoft Corp. has
identified another security hole in its
Outlook e-mail software and said a fix
is available for the glitch.
======================================================================
Although almost omnipresent on the desktop, Microsoft
seems to be thrashing just as much as their operating
systems.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 04 May 2001 19:46:17 +0800
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> But a great many [if not the majority] of end users are
Bill> peecee WYSIAWYG [you left the A for ALMOST out of that :-)].
And unfortunately, that last mile between the "almost" and "actually"
has so many hurdles in it, some of them even unovercomable.
Bill> Real WYSIWYG processors are few and far between - and use
Bill> things such as postscript displays.
So, doesn't vi (Indeed, I prefer Emacs+latex-mode+CVS/RCS, and I was
told Emacs+{AucTeX package} is much better) plus LaTeX plus
xdvi/{dvips + ghostview} qualify, then?
>> They are too used to pointing and clicking, and don't think
>> about how to approach the problem, first. Maybe the word
>> processing point and click approach has ruined them.
Bill> They sometimes don't think a lot about what they write :-)
B'cos those 3d menus, animated dialogs, sounds, color icons, etc. are
too distracting. I agree with some people who think LaTeX is better
because it lets you concentrate on what you write and how to organize
your writing. (The author can simply leave the tedious formatting,
layout, bibliography list generation, ... to LaTeX, which has a good
reputation and record of doing these correctly and prettily.)
--
Lee Sau Dan ���u��(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: 04 May 2001 19:56:03 +0800
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Never really used LyX, but I suppose this is close: I have
>> written a simple letter in LaTeX (+vim --- it *has* to be
>> vim). Hell, it's a damn sight easier to use than Word once
>> you're used to it.
Tom> Very true.
Especially when you have and old file that can serve as a template for
new letters. It's so much quicker to write a letter with such a
template than to start Word and struggle with it.
>> In fact I've just completed a 23 page document for my degree
>> using LaTeX, wih plenty of embedded pictures, tables, lists and
>> equations. I shudder to think how well it would have worked
>> under Word.
Tom> It shines on the really large documents, too. Did a 1500 page
Tom> one a while back. (Word2000 choked miserably on it. Tables
Tom> screwed up and headers mangled after every repagnation. Even
Tom> WordPerfect8 for Linux did a better job than Word.)
You still haven't mentioned LaTeX fragments generated by programs ---
useful for generating tables and length lists which have to be updated
from time to time against their source. Results generated by
simlation programs can also be easily formatted as LaTeX fragments to
be included in the similation reports.
--
Lee Sau Dan ���u��(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: 04 May 2001 20:09:02 +0800
>>>>> "The" == The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The> Contrariwise, Word is extremely good at being a
The> quasi-standard format.
It's "good"... until you discover that:
1. It changes (gets repaginated) whenever a person open it. The
repagination result would differ according to that person's printer
settings, page settings, margin settings, set of installed fonts,
etc.
2. Even when you just open it for reading, those stupid features such
as Auto-Corrupt (misnamed in Word as "auto-correct") would always
change the document as you wander around the document with cursor
movement keys.
So, these are good "features"?
I'd prefer Postscript. It's platform independent, device independent
(if generated properly), WYSIWYG with Postscript previewers such as
gv, Gsview, won't change each time it is opened, won't change as you
browse around it, can be manipulated (printing 4-on-1, selecting pages
from it as saving these pages into a new file, including selected
pages into another document using the EPS format), and many other
advantages.
Yes, most PC's don't come with a Postscript viewer installed. But as
long as there are *free* postscript viewers (ghostscript, with
gv/ghostview and Gsview frontends) freely downloadable from the
Internet, can't Postscript be made the standard?
If people can say "This page is best viewed with IE/Netscape browser;
download these FREE (=$0) browsers [here]" when they write documents,
why can't we do the same for documents? "This document is best viewed
with GNU ghostscript; download it freely from
http://www.ghostscript.org/ AND REDISTRIBUTE it at will"?
The> LyX uses TeX or LaTeX, which is
The> actually a standard,
LyX designers are very clever here. Rather than re-inventing the
wheel, they take what has been working well (robust, proven, elegant,
pretty output) for a decade or two.
The> but no one outside of academia knows it
The> yet. :-)
No one except computer scientists knew what the "Internet" was 10
years ago. (A bit exaggerated.)
No one except Bell know what a telephone was...
--
Lee Sau Dan ���u��(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:20:11 -0400
On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>> On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> [...]
>>>>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>>>>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>>>>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>>>>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>>>>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>>>>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>>>> No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>>>> library's API are known, nothing more is required.
>>> In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
>>> this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
>> In practice, not in theory. You've been told this several dozen times
>> now, and it's obvious that you're a fuckup without a clue. We don't
>> need any more demonstrations, Maxie.
> And as has occurred in the past, repeating that 'I've been told several
> times' is still just trying to squirm out of the fact that what I've
> been told has simply missed the point, and you're looking more and more
> like a trolling asshole by failing to grasp that. Not to mention the
> grade-school attempts to annoy me by mangling my name. If I were in
> sixth grade, I would be SO mad at you.
Maxie, it doesn't miss the point -- it drives to the heart of your
ignorance, yet you manage to remain ignorant.
> Guffaw.
This translates into "I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm
going to keep making a fool of myself by pretending that people who
actually deal with this stuff every day know less than I do."
>> Copyright has nothing to do with functionality; [...]
> That depends on what you mean by "functionality"; a program that does
> not function is a random array of text, and copyright might cover it in
> theory, but obviously you'll have some trouble licensing it to anybody.
This is an irrelevance -- like just about everything ELSE you try to
claim about copyright. A program that does not function is NOT a random
array of text, and copyright DOES cover it in practice. You also elided
the ways that I pointed out that a non-functional program might still
be useful (and therefore potentially saleable).
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:20:47 -0400
On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> 02:36:26 -0400;
>> On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:51:00
>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>>>>> Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
>>>>>>>> .jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
>>>>>>>> on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
>>>>>>>> was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
>>>>>>>> start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
>>>>>>>> to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
>>>>>>>> first test is run.
>>>>>>> That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
>>>>>>> clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
>>>>>> Here is a perfectly legal API:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> My consideration regards real APIs, not "legal" ones, or any other form
>>>>> of thought experiment.
>>>> That is a real API.
>>>> It's just expressed in a language neutral language.
>>> I'm afraid you've opened up a can of worms with "language", there. Do
>>> you consider ASN a 'language'?
>> For the moment, I'm going to have to assume that you've typoed there --
>> and you meant ASL (American Sign Language). If that's not the case,
>> then you'll have to explain what you meant by ASN.
> Abstract Syntax Notation.
Interestingly, I found something that claims to be a compiler for ASN.1.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:24:38 -0400
On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>> On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>>>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. (See below.)
>>>>>>> Quit being a troll, goofball.
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> It says that he wrote the specification. Perhaps the little bit of
>>>>>>>> batch file putzing that you've done hasn't introduce you into the
>>>>>>>> concept of a specification separate from the implementation. This is
>>>>>>>> quite common in C++ and in various other languages (Ada, PL/SQL, etc.).
>>>>>>>> Yes, you write some code; no, it isn't functional without a body (the
>>>>>>>> implementation). It's an API to the functions within that package.
>>>>>>> No, it is documentation for the API to the functions within that
>>>>>>> package. Get over your abstraction error, and get back to me.
>>>>>> No, that wasn't documentation, that was API. [...]
>>>>> Please define the difference.
>>>> An API is not an API if it doesn't have function specifications. There
>>>> is usually documentation on the API that describes *what* (not *how*)
>>>> things are done on data passed into the function. The documentation,
>>>> however, is not the API.
>>> Metaphorically, you might be correct, as I understand your point.
>> There is no metaphor in what I said; what I said was fact.
> I never said that you used a metaphor. Is English a native language for
> you?
"Metaphorically" is the adverbial form of the word "metaphor." Your
statement strongly implies that my statement is metaphoric (e.g.,
symbolic, and not real). Therefore, my statement was perfectly
correct.
>>> But
>>> when someone wants to know "what is the API?" the answer is
>>> interchangeable with the documentation, is it not?
>> Not really. The API is the interface definition code; the API
>> documentation is the documentation that describes the API.
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Whatever you say, Oh Namer Of Things.
This translates into "I really don't know what he just said, so I'm going
to pretend that he's the fool -- and laugh at him."
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:28:17 -0400
On Fri, 4 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>> On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>>>> It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
>>>> craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>>>> irritating.
>>> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>>> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>>> exist in any way.
>> For the nth time, this is false.
> For the nth+1 time, your contention is flawed.
You believe it's flawed; you don't have enough education or information
or smarts to be able to prove it. You're left with merely trying to
claim that something is flawed. Stop lying.
>> The program may not be *functional*,
>> but you can definitely write such a program. [...]
> Find a non-programmer who calls a random bunch of characters that do not
> perform function "a program". Why would you even bother writing a
> program that is not functional? Just trying to 'cheat' copyright law,
> without actually getting into any trouble?
You elided the reasons both here and in another post. Try reading for
comprehension, for once.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:31:36 -0400
On Fri, 4 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
> 12:28:48 -0400;
>> On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>> library".
>> Neither statement is necessarily true.
> Nothing is necessarily anything; a library is not necessarily a library
> (it could be an application with an API), and a program is not
> necessarily a program (it could be a 'plug in').
>
> But after you get over that and start figuring out how to use language
> correctly, you'll find that this doesn't prevent anything from actually
> being true.
Here's some Kaopectate -- you need it, or you need to at least stop
your rectal-cranial inversion.
A library *may* be derived from a program (e.g., a program could be
turned into a library), or a program may be derived from a library
(e.g., a program could be a mere shell for a library). This does not
mean that derivation is necessarily a given because of an API
relationship.
Not that you'll understand that any more than you've understood
anything else factual.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:34:11 -0400
On Fri, 4 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:12:41
>> Maxine:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
>>> [...]
>>>>There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
>>>>ways to do it.
>>>Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
>>>work.
>> If it's an implementation of the API, it will work as the API says.
> Nice tautology. I guess you never realized its unfalsifiable, did you?
> Unfalsifiable tautologies are worse than useless in this kind of
> context.
It's not a tautology, but an axiom. Axioms are by definition
unfalsifiable.
>> If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
>> implementation.
> Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
> metaphysical integrity?
Metaphysics not required, fuckup.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:39:33 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Yes but LyX actually needs one as it produces a file to be converted to
> >postscript then printed, does it not? Word goes straight to the printer.
>
> So to speak; presuming the document is not mangled by a "bad printer
> driver" that needs to be reinstalled (!) and the computer does not
> crash.
On Linux or Windows? 8)
> Meanwhile, you've forgotten again that 'sending' the file 'from' LyX to
> be converted and then 'sent' 'from' the convertor to the printer is all
> a single command in Linux, thanks to Unix's elegant and efficient
> 'pipes', something MS is unable to comprehend, let alone match.
Is it a seperate step the user needs to perform or does it all happen
behind smoke and mirrors?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:43:25 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> MS uses a different communications mechanism: DCOM/COM+/ActiveX.
> It's not a direct comparison -- and the details look a bit ugly
> (to be fair, CORBA has an IDL which doesn't look pretty either),
> but it can be used for IPC, or perhaps ICC (inter-code communication;
> in some cases, the code is in another process).
DCOM/COM across nodes is based on RPC. You can also use RPC directly if
you don't want COM.
> NT (and presumably Win2K) also have named pipes, with a slightly
> peculiar (but perfectly logical) naming scheme: \\.\pipe\pipename.
> I suspect NT will have cross-system named pipes (also known as
> 'sockets' to those of us familiar with TCP/IP) Real Soon Now.... :-)
Yep, NT has had pipes for ages. Not the same as the command line pipe,
but then NT doesn't need you to use a command line.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: pp@o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: article on Windows 2002
Date: 4 May 2001 04:51:25 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Glitch"
says...
>
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/567993.asp
>
>Is it just me or does Microsoft have trouble figuring out a consisten
>naming scheme for their operating systems?
I think this naming confusing is all over. Windows comes with a new
name every month, and Sun can't figure what version numbers to give java,
one time they call it java 2, and one time java 1.3, but it is really version
2 and also 1.3. Sun also changed the OS name from Solaris 2.6 to 7, but
SunOS is really Solaris.
and with windows, we now have win95,98,98 second edition, 98 ME, NT 4.0,
win2k, winXP, win2002, win .NET, this is just for the OS names, their
products names is even worst.
It is must be hard to give simple version number to products, something
like 1,2,3,4,5.... yes, must be really hard.
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 14:50:03 +0200
A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that the
majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on your
opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find it rather
lame.
Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling case
for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
majority of posters here.
Mikkel
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
