Linux-Advocacy Digest #196, Volume #35 Wed, 13 Jun 01 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and (GreyCloud)
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and (GreyCloud)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Maynard Handley)
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Colin Day)
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows (The Ghost In
The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: "Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:17:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rex Ballard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:59:00 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------4B50546AE99913E2B232DAFC
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
>Corpus Callosum wrote:
>>
>> <flame>
>>
>> Why are KDE and Gnome both attempting to replicate Microsoft Windows
>> when technologies like XML and CORBA would make something so much
>> more elegant possible?
>
>Lets give this guy the ignorant idiot award!
>
>KDE and GNOME both use CORBA and support industry standards such as
>XML.
Not only do they use CORBA, they implement an ORB. (I'm not
100% happy with this situation as the ORB does not appear to
be able to provide a socket ID for inclusion into select(),
for event management -- but I may have to dig a bit. Or I
can simply steal the code and make my own ORB.)
>It's Microsoft who refused to adopt CORBA and opted for DCOM instead.
Probably because it was more in line with their data model(s) within
Windows. Not that COM is all that pretty.
>In fact Linux supported SGML, which is much more powerful and
>flexible,
and standard, and text-based, and simple, and well-documented,
and easy to parse, and ... :-)
I'll admit, I wish I had known about SGML when it first came out.
As it is, HTML is derived therefrom.
>but Microsoft Windows 9x couldn't handle SGML very well. Instead,
>Microsoft
>sought to push XML, complete with auto-loding ActiveX controls,
>VBScripts,
>COM/OLE objects, and executables. Put simply, Microsoft didn't like
>the fact
>that SGML plugged all of their favorite security holes.
Um....how does XML include auto-loading ActiveX controls,
VBScripts, etc. etc. ? XML is merely an extension of SGML which
can be either written as:
<?XML version="1.0"?>
<STUFF>
<FOO>1.0</FOO>
<BAR>1.0</BAR>
<BAZ>1.0</BAZ>
</STUFF>
or
<?XML version="1.0"?>
<STUFF FOO="1.0" BAR="1.0" BAZ="1.0" />
or (blech)
<?XML version="1.0"?>
<STUFF>
(unreadable text crap with proper escapes for '<' and '>')
</STUFF>
and is a bit like a low-level foundation; Microsoft built a house
on top of that. :-) (A house with very strange walls.)
>
>> Why are they still coding user interfaces in C or C++ when XML would
>> be so much better?
>
>The low level objects are C or C++, and this is primarily to optimize
>the
>organization of cache and swap space of the library. You can use
>Python,
>TCL/Wish, or PERL, along with any other language that supports the QT
>or
>GTK toolkits.
Glade already supports XML for the GUI description. Unknown how
standard it is, but it's kind of a neat idea; if Gtk can plug
into it, one might get DDE on steroids. (Glade is apparently a
RAD tool for Gtk, and seems to function reasonably well, although
I'm not sure the docs are all there yet. But it feels very solid.)
>
>XML is a protocol.
Sorry; it's a file format only. Or maybe a text packet format,
which can be integrated into HTTP -- but then, almost anything
can be integrated into HTTP, with a little work (just ensure
that it's got the right Content-Length and Content-Type fields,
and you're more or less set).
But it's nice and readable, if a little verbose. Any text editor --
yes, even the much-maligned Notepad -- might be able to handle it.
Assuming the underlying data formatting isn't done in a brain-dead
way, such as in my third example above.
A protocol would include a request-response sequencing, at least.
For example, HTML is a format, but HTTP is a protocol. (See RFC2616.)
>You can write good transactions using XML
>protocol,
>but you still have to have parsers to decode the elements and stuff
>the values
>into objects.
Any file format or protocol has to be parsed and/or processed,
even ASCII text, after a fashion; most display systems are
raster bitmap based -- X, for example, displays on a rectangular
pixel array -- and an ASCII string needs to be "rendered" or drawn
using a particular font, which can be likened to a code-to-pixel block
mapping. The letter A, for instance, might map into the block
00100 = ..*..
01010 = .*.*.
10001 = *...*
11111 = *****
10001 = *...*
on a simple 5x5 font; this block is then shoved in the right place
on the bit rectangular pixel array. It might be stored as something
like '5 5 0010001010100011111110001', although I'd have to look up
the specifics for .pcf, and there's a lot I'm leaving out, like
leading and baselines.
>You also need serialization of objects to convert
>object properties
>into XML streams. These are built into CORBA. SOAP is a good
>protocol, but
>you still have to tie it to the business rules.
I'm assuming you're referring to IIOP, but that's not XML nor is
it readable by the casual user. But it does work reasonably well.
I hope IIOP can be mapped into XML at some point -- if it hasn't
been, already.
>
>You can often do trivial binding to trivial databases using ODBC to
>XML, or
>having databases that generate XML. But when you are dealing with
>complex
>business logic and finite state machines, you need something a bit
>more
>complex than SQL with a "Return as XML" option.
>
>> Consider this: Imagine an XML markup language for defining user
>> interfaces using GTK or QT. Tags might look something like this:
>>
>> <button name="cancel" inheritThemes="yes" text="Cancel"
>> onClick="some::kind::of::object:address()"/>
>
>You could do this, but you would probably rather use the GTK language
>bindings.
>oops, I'm sorry, you're referring to that proprietary Microsoft
>language.
>
>> Then every user interface including the desktop could be declared
>> in XML. Users could customize interfaces or write.. get this.. whole
>> new ones that draw upon the functionality of multiple applications!
>
>How many hours did you study the GTK and QT manuals to decide that
>this
>couldn't be done? How many Weeks did you study the Microsoft C# and
>.NET manuals to come up with this clever concept.
And how many weeks before Microsoft comes up with a clever dodge to
ensure that user-written XML doesn't conform to their XML parser? :-)
>
>> Imagine being able to write your own XML interface definition to
>> merge, say, a seperate mailreader and web browser together! Or a
>> code editor and a debugger?
>
>You seem fixated on using XML exclusively, as if that were the only
>method of describing a complex scripted interface. The fact is that
>UNIX has had scriptable configurations since X11R3, and what is
>amazing
>is that now that Microsoft has "Innovated it" you think it's the
>greatest
>thing since sliced bread.
It is, for non-X users. Of course, ideally Microsoft would have
used X anyway -- it's a lovely engineering solution, very robust,
network-transparent, beaten on to death, and engineer-friendly.
(I'm not sure about user-friendly, although it depends on the user;
some users are highly intelligent; others might win a debate
with a bedpost.)
>
>I had nearly every desirable feature of Windows 2000 in 1991 on my
>Sparc 5.
>I had similar features on my RS/6000. Every time I went back to
>Windows 3.0
>or Windows 3.1 it was like going back to the stone-age. And Windows
>NT 3.51
>was even worse since even the Windows 3.1 software didn't run on it.
>
>Even with Windows 2000 PRO, you are still limited to only 1 desktop, 1
>GUI
>user, and 1 MDI Application instance at a time. Perhaps XP2 will have
>some of the advantages that Linux sported in 1993. Possibly in 2003?
One advantage Window has now: a near-monopoly on the desktop.
One wonders how such a distasteful collection of bodges, hacks,
workarounds, and kludges got to be top dog in the minds of the users,
as opposed to the more robust engineering solutions such as X and CORBA.
(I'm ambivalent about NFS versus SMB, myself. NFS at least works,
but both seems a bit flaky.)
>
>We've been using scripted configuration back when Microsoft Windows
>2.0 was
>still using tiled windows. In fact, UNIX offered the advantages of
>"Terminal
>Server Edition" without the memory overhead, back in 1989.
Probably before that, even -- after all, I was using Unix in college
with terminals concentrators back in 1980! Granted, they were text
terminals, but they had all the basics: email, scripting, program
development (C, mostly), even instant messaging after a fashion
(no, not IRC; that came later; this was either 'talk' or 'write').
>
>And here in 2002, we have things that Microsoft still doesn't want you
>to
>know about. I'd tell you all about them, but they still haven't paid
>me
>for the last 47 "innovations" I've presented over the last 15 years.
>
>> Don't like how the menus work in
>> your application? Open a text editor and change them!
>
>Take a look at a directory called "App-defaults". Granted, it's
>1980's
>technology, but it still provides so many of those wonderful features
>that you have just been introduced to in the BETA version of XP.
And nobody knew about it. I'll say one thing about X: it's a great
environment but gets lousy publicity. :-)
>
>We also have full scripting in LISP, a predecessor to XML with very
>similar
>notation, and several other GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE/Open Source window
>managers.
I'll admit, S-expressions aren't too hard to work with.
>
>Microsoft didn't even try to hide the fact that they are using GPL
>software.
>They simply plugged in a SAX parser (also open source), and gave it a
>new
>trademark. I suppose they even tried to patent it. :-)
Ye gods. I hope not!
>
>> It would also be much easier and more flexible for app authors since
>> they literally would not have to worry about the pains of X and GUI
>> programming... they could just write their XML to call their event
>> functions through an ORB of some kind. Applications could even
>> be controlled over the network via CORBA or something similar.
>
>Gee, this sounds very much like the Python interface to GTK or Qt.
>You are fixated on Microsoft's use of the overpopularized XML moniker.
>
>The real question is whether Microsoft will let you create real
>scripts
>in XML.
XML doesn't do scripts, although there might be an interpreter.
(XLST?) Heck, ASCII doesn't do scripts either; that's what bash is for.
>
>> That would be like, totally 2001 man!
>
>Yawn. Actually, we abandoned that approach a about the time of Xview.
>A simple hierarchal script was pretty effective, but you get so much
>more bang for the buck when you use object oriented scripting
>languages
>like
....?
>
>> But instead the KDE and Gnome teams are sitting there listening
>> to Totally 80s trying to duplicate Windoze and coding UIs in
>> C and C++ that look and feel like Windoze when even M$ is
>> gradually moving towards something like I mentioned above.
>
>Keep in mind that Linux has over 200 scripting languages available,
>including XML/SOAP. By using C and C++ to implement the low level
>shared library, they could plug their GUI toolkits into almost all
>200 languages without rewriting anything.
>
>Some of these are compiled languges like Java, others are interpreted
>languages like PYTHON or TCL (plenty fast for most modern
>workstations),
>and others are compile-and-run like PERL. Furthermore, they can be
>interfaced using CORBA, shared libraries, or just static calls.
>
>By the way, there's a language called smalltalk-80 which might look
>surprisingly familiar. But then again, Bill stole it from Steve who
>stole it from Xerox. But Xerox GAVE the technology to the X
>consortium.
Interesting. Is this what lead to SQUEAK (http://www.squeak.org)?
>Furthermore, Xerox gave other features to UNIX that Mac and Windows
>are still not allowed to use.
>
>If you'd like to see what Microsoft will be offering in 2010,
>get a copy of Mandrake 8.0 or SuSE 7.1 with the 2.4 kernel, the
>EASEL desktop, the KDE Desktop, and the full suite of applications
>all configured and ready to run on your desktop.
>
>> Taaaaake onnnnn meeee.... take on me.... taaaake meeeeee
>> ooooon! ... I'lll beeee goooone...
>>
>> Love shack! Baby, Love shack!
>>
>> </flame>
>
>--
>Rex Ballard
>It Architect
>http://www.open4success.com
>--------------4B50546AE99913E2B232DAFC
>Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="rballard.vcf"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="rballard.vcf"
>
>begin:vcard
>n:Ballard;Rex
>tel;cell:973-723-4008
>tel;work:973-723-4008
>x-mozilla-html:FALSE
>org:IBM Global Services;EAI National Practice
>adr:;;491 Valley Rd;Gillette;NJ;07933-2111;USA
>version:2.1
>email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>title:Cons IT Architect
>fn:Rex Ballard
>end:vcard
>
>--------------4B50546AE99913E2B232DAFC--
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 44d:19h:48m actually running Linux.
[select one]
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
The Internet routes around censorship.
This is a pithy statement. Please watch where you pith.
Most advice is free. Sometimes, it's worth it.
Most advice is free. Sometimes, it's worth it.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:57 -0700
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > Well, let me throw this one at you, how do you feel about the fact that
> > here in America, somebody under 21 can buy a gun and serve his country,
> > but he/she can't even walk into a friggin' bar and order a beer? Where's
> > the American freedom there?
>
> It is preposterous, and such laws are a result
> of the liberal mindset. That law was as recent
> as the 70's, IIRC. The reason why laws like
> that one get put into place is because of
> a lack of patriotism, and pride. People just
> apathetically allow these idiotic politicians
> to do their own bidding, without saying a damn
> word.
>
> > I've heard several Canadians talk about warning people who take a trip
> > into America about how to act with the police: be extremely obsequious.
> > In Canada apparently, the police act as a force that exists to help you,
> > they are friendly, courteous, helpful etc. They don't automatically
> > assume you are guilty of a crime like here in the states. American
> > police are seen as jack-booted thugs who have stop and search your car
> > if they feel like it, without a warning.
>
> In Arizona, I know that some police officers
> are complete assholes, who only do what they
> do because they are control freaks. But there
> are many others who are civically minded, who
> do what they do because it is their calling.
>
> Such attributes cannot really be painted with
> such a broad stroke. There is corruption
> everywhere, unfortunately. I know that Joe
> Arpaio is heavy-handed, but his intentions
> are to send a message to criminals, and
> the morons in the courts who let them off.
>
> I like Joe, but he does have an intimidating
> way about him, and other sherrifs are kind
> of following his suit, which might be
> contributing to the image you described.
>
> Speaking of AZ, and corruption, I'll be
> first in line if there is a recall election
> on McCain.
>
> > If anywhere should be put on the pedestal of freedom, it should be
> > Denmark.
>
> > So while I do have a certain amount of pride in this country, part of me
> > is pissed off as hell about the apathy people display when they tout the
> > "freedom" of America when that's not entirely the case.
>
> That is EXACTLY the kind of viewpoint
> that I wish more people had.
>
> People in this country are apathetic, because
> that is how the liberals want them to be.
>
> Liberals in this country want you to think
> that you cannot make it without them. They
> want people to think that more govt. == more
> freedom. The reason for this is simple: they
> want job security, and they want control,
> because that leads to... you guessed it, more
> money in their pockets. After all, it's our
> money... why the hell should we have it?
>
> For example, have you noticed that Daschle and
> Gephart have STILL been going on and on about
> "Global Warming"? Have you heard that it was
> discovered that the temperature measurements
> around the globe were highly flawed when that
> "conclusion" was reached?
>
> It turns out that the trawlers and ships that
> were taking the readings were taking them from
> the rear of the crafts... well, the water gets
> warmed from the engines back there.
>
> I'll post a URL to the story if I can find
> it again. Kinda makes you think.
>
> You should be pissed off... I'm just as pissed
> off as you are about such nonsense... you're
> much more patriotic than you give yourself
> credit for. :-)
I'm with you on this. There is a saying "Those that willingly give up
their freedoms for security don't deserve to be free."
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:21:24 -0700
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:49:09 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Ignorance must be bliss in the US, hence the reason why so many
> >groups/nations just want to blow the crap out of the country.
> >
> >Have you ever been outside the US once? maybe you should realise the world
> >doesn't stop at the shores of the US.
> >
> >Matthew Gardiner
>
> Hey, don't destroy his fantasy that the universe revolves around
> America.
Well now,... lets see what happens to the world economy if the stock
exchanges went belly up. Think your country is immune??
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maynard Handley)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:17:13 -0700
In article <x9EV6.79268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen Fuld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wait a minute here. Let's take a step back. In response to Maynard's
> original question, I pointed out that there are several third party packages
> that purport to do pretty much exactly what he wants. They do this by
> "cloning the disk" across any one of several interfaces, after a floppy or a
> CD is booted into the new (presumably blank) machine. Yes, you may have to
> fiddle with the drivers for some non standard peripherals, but for the most
> part, it is supposed to be painless. In Maynard's original post, he talked
> about his e-mail environment and, if both systems use standard control
> modems, this should work easily. Then someone asked if I had actually done
> this. I haven't, but someone else said they have and it worked pretty well.
> We then got off into a whole bunch of Linux stuff and other packages that
> don't work and other even less related things, but I believe that Maynard's
> original request was answered affirmativly, even if the answer was buried in
> other rants :-(.
I still don't see how cloning the disk solves my problem.
I don't want an IDENTICAL copy of machine A on machine B. After all,
machine A is running an OS from 2 yrs ago on a CPU from 4 yrs ago. I want
a "conceptually" identical copy, but with the OS and hardware targetted
bits replaced. This means doing the right thing with all the pre-loaded
apps along with shared material like fonts and DLLs plus, of course, the
registry.
Perhaps you felt it was implied that I could use this cloning tool to
shift stuff from say a Win98 box to a Win XP box, but to me it is not at
all implied that this would actually work satisfactorily.
Maynard
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:24:42 -0700
Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If it wasn't for the U.S., Adolf and
> > Hirohito would have wiped your country
> > off the face of the Earth.
>
> Right. And, if the Brits hadn't sat tight on their own against the
> Axis for two years, while the US stayed out of the conflict until the
> Japanese attacked them, then Europe would have been overrun by the
> Nazis. Do you have any idea of the pounding that Britain took, and
> the bravery required to hold a much stronger enemy at bay?
>
> > Why does everyone keep talking about how the
> > Soviets defeated the Nazis? That's utter
> > bullshit. The Soviets spent more time shooting
> > their own people for cowardess and treason than
> > they did killing Nazis.
>
> No-one is claiming that. What they're saying is that the Soviets
> managed to occupy a significant fraction of the Axis's resources, and
> this weakened the enemy.
>
> > The fact is, if Europe hadn't dragged us into
> > their little conflict, they would have been
> > overrun. They were in quite poor shape once
> > we got into the game. From that point, we
> > called the shots, and kicked 3rd Reich ass.
>
> You accuse others of being ignorant and arrogant, and yet you come out
> with this crap. You really have no clue.
>
> First, Europe did *not* drag you into the conflict - you got involved
> because you were attacked by the Japanese. Second, WWII was not won
> by any party alone, but by the *allies*. The US would never have won
> it on their own, and in particular if Britain hadn't stood fast then
> the war in Europe would have been over before the US decided it was in
> their interest to become involved.
>
> > But too many Euros have far too much ego
> > to admit that someone else actually saved
> > their asses.
>
> No, most `Euros' are very well aware of the major role played by the
> US in rescuing us in WWII. What pisses us off is the revisionist
> picture you paint that somehow you did it all yourselves.
>
> The infuriating thing about your style of American patriotism is the
> dogma that what makes America great is the American Way. The main
> reason why the US enjoys such prosperity is that you have a huge land
> mass with a wealth of natural resources, thousands of miles away from
> any serious aggressor.
>
> You believe you have a moral superiority that entitles you to preach
> to the rest of the world. You pretend - some of you even believe -
> that your military interventions are for the sake of idealism, whereas
> your foreign policy is dictated by self interest, just like every
> other country. You expect unconditional gratitude when your actions
> benefit us, and tell us to get stuffed when they don't - and you feel
> free to tear up international agreements whenever it suits you.
>
> > Really? How long have you lived in the U.S. yourself?
> >
> > Tell me, how is it that you can know about every
> > single person here, what they think, and how they
> > feel... you must be Jesus Christ returned.
>
> Can't speak for Matthew, but I lived for a year in Canada, with
> frequent trips to the US. The level of ignorance and
> small-mindedness, even among the educated classes, was frankly
> appalling. Even Britain does better in this respect.
>
> Finally: don't get me wrong - I don't hate Americans or the US. There
> are many things about the US and about Americans that I admire. It's
> just absurd when Americans accuse Europeans of being clueless about
> the rest of the world.
>
> --
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
How come there is a quote from Winston Churchhill before Germany invaded
any European country ... (to the effect) "We'll wage war with Hitler
whether he wants it or not" ??
I think as an academic you can find this somewhere in some obscure
archive.
--
V
------------------------------
From: Colin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:34:43 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Who the fuck came up with a term like that?
>
> It's pretty standard. Anyone who is a militant rabid defender
> of something is generally called a <term>inista.
>
> -c
<term>ista Sandino, Sandinista; Peron, Peronista, etc. The suffix "ista"
in Spanish is analogous to "ist" in English.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:28:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:06:19 GMT
<fvvV6.430992$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> More likely it's a combination of factors. The Windows system is
>> adequate for desktop use, and is rich in functionality -- when it
>> isn't crashing. By contrast, Linux is excellent for server use,
>> and is also rich in functionality -- but the two aren't compatible,
>> which cases some problems in a mixed shop. (However, things like
>> Samba help.)
>
>> How much does desktop reliability factor into theoretical language
>> research and/or compiler design? Not a heck of a lot, I'd say.
>> Although it doesn't help when the computer BSODs right when you're
>> about to put the finishing touches of a project. But many Windows
>> tools have autosave -- a bodge to get around a problem -- and
>> therefore this isn't quite as damaging as it could be.
>
>> Then again -- there are those with horror stories of losing half
>> a day's work, and I for one have been lucky. So who am I to say?
>
>clearly you are not a seasoned unix user, otherwise you will utter
>otherwise. Unix with tools like bash,perl,apache, grep and syslog
>is far more powerful than windows.
The tools bash, perl, apache, and grep have all been ported, so this
isn't that much of an issue (the bodgework to work around C:\
et al, however, makes life interesting) -- as for seasoned Unix user,
I've been using variants of Unix since about 1980. But you're
right; Unix offers a customizability that Windows simply cannot
match -- if one knows how -- by relatively simple scripting.
Even X has been put on Windows -- multiple times. It's not clear
how seamlessly integrated it is at times, though -- but Cygwin's
XFree86 is at least free. Tools such as Hummingbird's eXceed
and Xwin32 (I forget who makes it) and Mi/X (which is shareware
avaialable from Microimages) are also available.
One must ask, if Windows is the dominant platform on the desktop,
why such tools exist on the general market (as opposed to a specialized
development effort and/or a custom job). Makes me go "hmm.....".
>It encourages personalism,
>in way things are done. You are given as many options as it is
>possible, thus allowing for flexible environment.
>
>Windows on other hand is great for games, limited text composition
>and some image manipulation. Macs are far better at last two,
>so leaves Windows as a game platfrom with most games written for.
I'm not even sure Windows is that great for games -- although it
depends on whether one wants frame rate, stability, simplicity,
or ubiquity. As for text composition -- what makes Windows so
great for that? TeX is far better, although not quite as
friendly (LyX helps) to the casual user.
I'll agree that Macs are probably better at text composition
and image manipulation -- though I haven't looked at their toolbox
lately. But they basically started desktop publishing (at least,
to the non-university user; presumably TeX was kicking around
before the "Peanut" debuted), and the iMac self-contained demo I
have seen is quite attractive and hints at some things (motion blur)
that Windows can only dream about. Whether these are useful things
is not clear to me personally. :-)
>
>So Dennis is an avid gamer, eh?
>;-)
Who knows? I don't. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random essential liberty here
EAC code #191 44d:06h:20m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
