Linux-Advocacy Digest #339, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IE ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Mig)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:25:52 -0500
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> IBM produced OS/2 2.0 rather soon after the split. Frankly, there is no
> comparison possible between OS/2 2.xx and Windows 3.xx, and certainly
> not between OS/2 3 and 4 and Windows 9x. Infact, OS/2 was the perfect
> workstation O/S that Windows would like to be.
OS/2 was NOT the perfect workstation OS. It had no security, for instance.
It didn't allow multiple users either, nor did it perfectly isolate memory
(better than Windows, but not as good as Unix or NT).
> > > Perhaps you're confabulating their use of SMB from LanManager for NT
> > > networking. OS/2 3.0 code is "Warp", and MS never had anything to do
> > > with that.
> >
> > No, it's just confusing because of the way the names got tangled.
> >
> > This is before the project that would be called "OS/2 Warp"
> > started. Microsoft was working on what was *then* supposed
> > to be the next major revision of OS/2, and it was a far more
> > ambitious project that Warp was.
> >
> > Naturally, once that went off to become NT, IBM started
> > a new project to product the next OS/2 revision, and
> > also a next-generaction OS project of their own, called
> > "Workplace OS".
> >
> > These never used any of the code that had
> > been written for Microsoft's OS/2 3.0 project.
> >
>
> Don't try to talk about things you know nothing about. It makes you look
> even more silly.
Actually, he's completely right. I have here a copy of PC Magazine dated
January 1991 which talks about the split between IBM and MS and clearly
states that MS was working on "Portable OS/2" which was to be called OS/2
3.0 while IBM was working on OS/2 2.0.
> After the split, IBM produced OS/2 2.0, 2.1 and 2.11. All these versions
> of OS/2 were vastly superior to the Windows NT versions of the day.
No they weren't. OS/2 2.0 wasn't portable, didn't have security, didn't
support SMP, and had almost unuseable multimedia. It wasn't until much
later that MMOS2 became halfway decent.
> "Warp" was OS/2 version 3 and came out in 1994, at the time putting
> Windows 3.5x to shame. Microsoft followed with a revamped Chicago (with
> several last-minute alterations to the desktop to mimick some of Warp's
> features) and called that Windows 95. Features of "Workplace OS" (which
> was never more than an idea-frame) saw the light of day in Warp 4, WSeB
> and - recently - in Serenity Systems' eComStation, the latest version of
> OS/2.
Workplace OS was an actual product. I talked to the lead Workplace OS
developer at Comdex in 1993. He assured me it was a cool product, and would
include such things as "personality modules" to allow it to run multiple
OS's simultaneously, among other things.
BTW, Windows 95's desktop was finalized long before warp was ever released.
In fact, the GUI was eseentially unchanged for the last 18 months of Windows
95's beta cycle.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:27:58 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d9jho$87a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You can access the device independent printer layer in Linux using
> >> (f)printfs. In windows, you have to use the GDI to get to the device
> >> independent printer layer.
> >
> > Okay, haven't thought about that one. You can do the same on Windows, I
> > believe, can't you?
>
> I don't think so. I thought you needed GDI calls.
Only if you want to use the GDI's layout. You can send data out the prn:
device all you want.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:29:23 -0500
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hAUJ6.11050
> > One day, in the near future, Apple will simply cease to support OS 9. AS
> > they dont support serial ports, ADB, etc. As they moved to the PPC from
> > the 68K family. Apple has a history of being able to move forward, and
> > drag the rest of the industry with it.
>
> You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> backwards compatibility baggage.
And THEY control the hardware. Now think about what MS goes through.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:09:37 +0200
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9d83de$q36$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > > Nah! FUD!
> >> >
> >> > You qouted the whole articles for *two* words?
> >> > And what was FUD about it?
> >>
> >> GPL is a viral thing... totally untrue.
> >
> > Really? Show me how I can incorporate GPL code with any other code
without
> > turning the whole thing to GPL?
> > Where is the GPLed browser using Gecko?
> > Where is non-GPL KDE application?
>
> Look, someone goes to the effort to write some SW that you want to use.
> The original author wants to make it free for everyone by using the GPL.
> That is their choice. You are free to add to their SW and even sell it
> (the GPL doesn't stop you). Don't you think you should honour the desires
> of the original person? If you can't accept it then write your own code
> and don't use theirs. I find this discussion about the GPL to be pathetic.
> It is a licence that some SW developers want to use so that everyone can
> use and enhance their SW knowing that everyone may benefit.
A> The GPL *does* stop me, check the part about giving for free binaries &
source in it.
B> I don't have a problem with forcing changes to the code that you wrote to
be open under the same license. In fact, I think it's a good thing if you
want to OS your code. I have a big problem with forcing *other* code to be
free as well, just because the FSF thinks it's a deriative. The FSF
defination of deriative includes just about *anything*. I'm surprised that
you don't have to use GPL tools to list the files that are GPL, in fact.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:13:36 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:51:39
> >OK, there were too many points in there to reply to individually, so I
shall
> >endeavour to summarise my arguments and that which I can understand and
> >accept form this discussion.
> >
> >It has been agreed that there are two very different types of web.
>
> I think it has been agreed that there *SHOULD* be two different webs. I
> did not mean to suggest that there was some easy dichotomy which can or
> should be applied.
>
There are, it's called Internet2.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:12:10 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Nah! FUD!
> > > >
> > > > You qouted the whole articles for *two* words?
> > > > And what was FUD about it?
> > >
> > > GPL is a viral thing... totally untrue.
> >
> > Really? Show me how I can incorporate GPL code with any other code
without
> > turning the whole thing to GPL?
> > Where is the GPLed browser using Gecko?
> > Where is non-GPL KDE application?
> >
> > http://www.openave.net/community/features/inoc.shtml
> >
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.technocrat.net/964911538/index_html
> > +konqueror+license&hl=en
>
> I think a lot of people get mired down in the details without realizing
> the whole forest in front of them. I got most of my software thru Sun
> which has GPL code in it. Sun had libraries that mix with GPL code and
> still sells it. In the code however, is a mention of GPL. Maybe Sun
> pays a small royalty to the programers?? I don't know, its what I see
> that I have on hand that tells me GPL isn't a problem. Most of the GPL
> software that shipped with Sun OS was on a separate CD. Sun does not
> support that software as they didn't write it and you have to read the
> docs that came with it. Also, look at IBM.
> The thing I sense of the spirit of GPL is to prevent MS from taking it
> and owning it and charging a high price for it. As long as companies
> give it away or give credit and pay royalties for it thru special
> agreements I see no problem. The best thing to do for a lone-wolf
> programmer to do is see his lawyer if in doubt.
> Why do I see so many Linux distros that have some good programs provided
> written with GPL code for sale?
Because people are nice.
I could *demand* you to give me your GPL code, both as binary & source, and
you would have no choice but to comply, and the only thing you could charge
me for is S&H.
My problem with GPL, again, is not that it prevents embracing & extending
the code, that I consider as a good thing. I don't like the fact that you
can't *use* it with any other code.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:24:00 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > one *huge* weakness of pascal is that it interprets vectors and arrays
> > of different sizes as wholy different types. thus if you make a
> > procedure to handle strings of lenght 10, you need another, distinct,
> > procedure to handle strings of length 11.
> >
> You don't need any such thing, because strings are
> dynamically allocated and handled differently, but as far as
> vectors and arrays are concerned, an array of length 10 is
> actually a different type than an array of length 11: what
> will you do with the 11th element if only ten have been
> defined?
Use the Ada's way, an array carries it size with it.
> What you call a weakness is the reason I love it. When
> you're dealing with a large project with many developers
> involved, a strict type checking is the only way to produce
> a robust code. You don't need to follow all the lines of
> code to find the error: you just look at the declarations to
> locate the potentially dangerous situations (as
> inappropriate dereferencings and such). I know that it's
> annoying to write extra declarations (which don't produce
> any code, BTW), but it's better than parsing a few hundred
> thousand lines of code in search of a few silly mistakes.
Okay, what language are we talking about here?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:30:59 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001
> >On Mon, 7 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49
> >>> Maxie:
> >> [...]
> >>>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
> >>> That�s like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
> >>> of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
> >> I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby"
would
> >> be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
> >> ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
> >
> >If you think that, then you're more deluded than I thought. A copy of
> >"The Great Gatsby" is a copy of "The Great Gatsby", not a description
> >of same. A description is one level removed from the thing itself and
> >is "about" the thing.
>
> It certainly isn't the description you would expect to get if you asked
> merely for a description. Yet it is the most complete description you
> could possibly have. Your observation about descriptions being "one
> level removed from the thing" is understandable, but I would point out
> that a "label" is also "one level removed from the thing". It is
> obvious that some labels would be more or less descriptive than others.
> My point is that you are right that any label or description is not the
> thing itself.
>
> Yet, if someone were to ask me, "What is the Great Gatsby?", I can think
> of no more complete answer I could give him than to hand him the book.
> My point here is that there is a rhetorical level which your statement
> is true, but that is mere philosophy. In the real world, it becomes
> pedantry. The API is nothing but its description.
So, shotting you is in fact, according to you, merely describing you how it
would feel to be shot?
Do you think that I could get away with such claim by any reasonable man?
> >This is where I disagree a bit with Ayende: I believe that an API can
> >be an API without documentation, but that it's not necessarily usable
> >without that documentation. If the items in the API aren't documented,
> >however, they're not part of the agreed-upon "contract" between the API
> >and the program.
>
> But now this draws a distinction between what "is" the API, and the
> contract the API presents. This falsifies the idea that the API is the
> contract. But, then, we know the API is nothing but "its contract";
> this clearly shows that APIs are metaphysical objects, they don't really
> "exist" the way real things do. Real things would include contracts,
> descriptions, and books. What really does exist is libraries, and
> programs, and whether they can interoperate.
Think of the API's functions as the contract header's, useful, but not to
any usable degree without the rest of it, the spesification.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:36:16 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:26:49
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The GPL does not allow for any non-GPL'd part, making no
distinction
> >> >> >about between component types.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet when I point out that neither does copyright, you seem to miss
the
> >> >> point. Why is that?
> >> >
> >> >Because copyright allows you to obtain the right to use two different
> >> >things separately, under different terms, and use them together as
> >> >is the case when you obtain a program that uses functions from
> >> >a dynamic library or source code that you link yourself to a library
> >> >which you are allowed to use. The FSF wants to claim that your
> >> >right to use one component is somehow affected by the other. Unless
> >> >you copy something that you don't already have the right to copy there
> >> >is no basis in copyright law to support that claim.
> >>
> >> You're switching who and what you are referring to with "use" too often
> >> for me to make sense of that. If you base your work of authorship on
> >> someone else's work of authorship, it is *derivative*. Is that somehow
> >> *too* simple for you to understand?
> >
> >Not too simple, just untrue in the programming case. Code calling
> >functions
> >from another library is not a derivative of that library any more than a
> >playlist
> >is a derivative of the songs mentioned. [...]
>
> Okay, I can live with that. Code calling functions from a library are
> not a derivative of the library. That doesn't prevent the program from
> being derivative of the library, according to the FSF's position. You
> disagree with that position, and you have made the position very
> comprehensible. I certainly consider it a reasonable position, when you
> state it like that. I still consider it mistaken, based on a
> metaphysical concept of copyright which denies the reality of the
> conflict between software and copyright which makes it a defensible (and
> thus legally correct) position. Just because no literal copying is
> going on does not prevent infringement from occurring.
Fair use clauses are a wonderful things.
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 23:56:58 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> >> It was a comparison of performance. Why wouldn't it describe something
> >> about the relative performance?
> >
> >I think that I've stated that already, but nevertheless ...... for
> >(experienced) Windows-programmers it is well-known that the
> >QueryPerformanceCounter() is not suitable for fine-grained performance
> >measurements, as it has been implemented in a circumspect way, and,
> >according to some reports, can take more than 1000 CPU cycles to complete
on
> >some hardware. Ordinary Windows applications does not suffer from this
> >problem though, as they rarely use this function in production code. So
that
> >QueryPerformanceCounter() takes considerably more time to complete than
it's
> >Linux equivalent, is not necessarily proof that Linux will outperform NT
on
> >a general basis.
>
> They were neither measuring, nor has anyone claimed, that this
> measurement alone is necessarily proof of anything.
If you trace this thread back to the beginning, you will find that someone
did exactly that.
> >But I will agree that it does not exactly further the opposite claim
either
> >... :-) If the NT developers can make such a hash of a simple thing,
then
> >God knows what other stunts they may have pulled.
>
> And the benchmarks tend to extend that argument rather convincingly.
> Ironic, huh? :-)
>
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Not really sure what you mean, but never mind ....
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:59:43 +0100
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>Then why has Sony adopted Linux for their Playstation 2??
<Netiquette>
First, would you mind trimming your responses and investing
a few nanoseconds of time as a courtesy to this newsgroup ?
Thank you.
</Netiquette minor flamage;>
I'm fairly confident Sony has adopted Linux because Linux
is a quality Operating System; however I don't see Sony Linux
available from my regular suppliers of Linux distributions,
and it still does not detract from the fact that Linux distributions
are generally weak in the boom, boom department.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:02:25 +0100
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<9d8s1i$dj2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>>>Since when does microsoft throw in a show case game for free??
>>
>> They do NOT throw in the proverbial old kitchen sink - per Linux.
>
>No, they just make you pay for every piece of software that you get
>over and above the barebones OS. [snip, rhetoric]
So the people that package Windows are realists ?
cf. Linux distro makers who think 'more is more'.
>etcetcetc
>
>You've actually got the nads to tell us that bundling software with
>the OS is worse for the consumer than forcing them to pay for it?
I've got the nads to acknowledge that Linux is not *yet* a gaming OS.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 00:03:06 +0200
> I worked for a networking group producing routers for a couple of years.
> Never had too many problems configuring Windows. Lots of fun configuring
> routers.
BS.. there are nothing than problems configuring Windows for networks.
>> I think that the complexity is less of an issue than the way that
>> Windows forces one to impliment it.
>
> It has IP address, mask, gateway, DNS etc. What else do you need?
Reboots, uninstalling components, reinstalling components, editing the
registry.
> I put together a simple network at home with Windows with apparent ease.
> Enter Linux and things got complex.
Funny.... everyone i have observede - including complete Linux newbies get
stuff working first time with Linux.. cant say the same for Windows.
>> Numerous reboots, it failed to detect the NE2000 isa card, and
>> I had to enter the parameters by hand. At least Windows95 found
>> them in the past.
>
> I've had no problems with the two PCI cards with Windows but lots of fun
> with Linux.
>
>> It may just be me, I think I've become spoilt by Linux ?
>
> There are two ways I could take that... 8*}
You full of it and do not know what you talk about. Ive been working with
this on Windows for 5 years (mainly PPP connections) and am sick of
reinstalls , registry hacking etc. These guys are not even capable of
implementing their own standards - just look at what they have done with PPP
- cant even implement "their own" RFC's in their products.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:03:56 GMT
Steve Sheldon wrote:
>
> I don't know, the ability to lie and make stuff up seems to be endemic of
> the Linux advocate. It has some psychological basis in wanting to justify
> to one self that you made a good decision, even though you have severe
> doubts.
You sound as bigoted as the Linux advocates you so denigrate.
> I didn't start using Windows until 3.1 was released, and even then hated it
> until Win95 was released then I found it tolerable. I've been Linux free
> since 1996,
Then you don't know much about it.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:06:01 GMT
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This is a common problem. I find many MS bashers like to bash
> >MS and all Windows because of the poor experience they've had with
> >Win9x.
>
> Plus all the MS operating systems that preceeded it, each of which I
> paid good money for only to find it was yet another poorly-designed
> piece of junk.
>
> >They seem to feel that Win2K is the same thing somehow. They've
> >obviously never used it and so they can't talk about it.
> >
> >You really should try Win2K. Microsoft got it right this time.
Not quite, but they're making progress.
> Sorry, 18 years of dealing with Microsoft has left a bad taste in my
> mouth. And my butt hurts.
And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
application control model. It is still possible for one
app to lock up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually
respond enough to let you kill the offending app.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:07:28 +0100
Peter K�hlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>> Windows 2000 Professional fits on 1 CDROM. Some Linux distributions
>> require 2 or 3 CDROMs, because of the tendency of distributors to
>> 'throw in' superfluous material, eg. the awful games.
>>
>So what you are telling us it is A Good Thing(tm) that W2K fits on 1 CD
Yes.
One of the selling points used by most Linux distributors is the fact
that the OS ships with 00s of packages, however many of the packages
are absolutely superfluous and of a poor quality.
The games are merely one very good example of this Linux problem.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:42:32 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
> >On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
20:23:30
> >>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> >>>> unless the function is documented?
> >>> Of course it would work. The problem would be that you wouldn't know
> >>> what it does.
> >>> Similar to standing on an elevator, when the floors' buttons has no
> >>> numbers, or any other identification.
> >> How much you want to bet that I can quickly get to the floor I want,
> >> every time?
> >
> >If the numbers aren't anywhere on or near the buttons, and they're not
> >necessarily wired in an ascending or descending order, then you're not
> >going to get where you expect to quickly -- or at all.
>
> "If... if... if...." What's your point?
There are no numbers, the buttons are in no particular order, and any or all
of them might fill the elevator in poisoned gas, is that better description?
Oh, they are also pressure sensitive, so you are going to be *very* carfeul
about the time and strength you push a button, too.
> >>> You know *how* to use them, you don't know what they will do.
> >> Many function calls are "self-documenting", in that respect, aren't
> >> they?
> >
> >Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>
> Many functions, yes or no. There is no reason to quibble about
> "sometimes", since we are only talking about "many", to begin with. Get
> it?
>
> So what's your point?
Nearly all of them don't.
Just *look* at the C standard library.
void *memccpy(void *, const void *, int, size_t);
void *memchr(const void *, int, size_t);
int memcmp(const void *, const void *, size_t);
void *memcpy(void *, const void *, size_t);
void *memmove(void *, const void *, size_t);
void *memset(void *, int, size_t);
char *strcat(char *, const char *);
char *strchr(const char *, int);
int strcmp(const char *, const char *);
int strcoll(const char *, const char *);
char *strcpy(char *, const char *);
size_t strcspn(const char *, const char *);
char *strdup(const char *);
char *strerror(int);
size_t strlen(const char *);
char *strncat(char *, const char *, size_t);
int strncmp(const char *, const char *, size_t);
char *strncpy(char *, const char *, size_t);
char *strpbrk(const char *, const char *);
char *strrchr(const char *, int);
size_t strspn(const char *, const char *);
char *strstr(const char *, const char *);
char *strtok(char *, const char *);
char *strtok_r(char *, const char *, char **);
size_t strxfrm(char *, const char *, size_t);
Without looking at their documentation, what does each of this function do?
*I* would've to look, and I used to program in C extensively.
Hell, I still have to look up functions that I use constantly, to verify
edge cases and the like.
I can *assure* you that figuring out what each of this function does is
going to be tiresome, dangerous, and never complete process.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
