Linux-Advocacy Digest #626, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 09:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (mlw)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Dave)
Re: Giving up on NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 08:09:56 -0500
Robert Morelli wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Robert Morelli wrote:
> > [lots snipped]
> > > > > If you ask a typical UNIX bigot
> > > >
> > > > I take offense to "UNIX bigot"
> > >
> > > If you read everything I write, I think you'll realize that I don't condemn
>UNIX or its
> > > advocates wholesale. I am generally favorable to UNIX and its users, gurus,
>etc.,
> > > but I give no one an uncritical nod. I condemn a particular attitude which the
>word "bigot"
> > > captures appropriately. If you use UNIX but aren't a bigot, the term doesn't
>apply to you so
> > > you have no reason to take offense, unless you ally yourself with every UNIX
>user.
> >
> > Oh, please. I don't buy the excuse.
>
> Fine, then. Fuck all UNIX users. It's all the same to me. You're the one whose
>feelings
> are hurt.
>
> > > > > why
> > > > > you can't load a file into Emacs by dragging a file object onto the Emacs
>window, he'll
> > > > > smugly answer that UNIX people wouldn't use such a capability even if it
>were there. These
> > > > > people are actually proud of their insularity and lack of sophistication.
> > > >
> > > > Judging everyone that uses UNIX by one person being flip is stupid.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure why you assume that I base this statement on a single experience.
>I work
> > > at a university, where UNIX is quite common. In any case, the important
>question here
> > > is, if this is not a typical attitude then why in fact doesn't Emacs have the
>capability
> > > I mention and why aren't UNIX users angrily demanding it? For that matter, why
>did it
> > > take 19 major iterations (that's right, 19, no typo) before it got scroll bars?
> >
> > Emacs does not matter. It is but one application in a world of
> > applications. The views and actions of RMS with Emacs has little impact
> > on the whole UNIX arena. If you don't like emacs, don't use it. I do not
> > use it.
>
> Emacs does not matter?? Hey, you better duck.
>
> Well, let's go from there. I still need some manner of converting keystrokes
> into text files. What UNIX application that is capable of drag and drop do you
>suggest I
> use? I'd be eager to know, since I myself have posted that as a question in Linux
>newsgroups
> three times in the past and I've never received an answer. If you'd like me to post
>some
> transcripts of the responses I got, you'll see lots of examples of the attitudes
>I've
> been criticizing. The typical response is: what do you need drag and drop for when
>we have
> filename completion in the minibuffer? I don't want to lose filename completion. I
>liked it
> 20 years ago when I first started using computers. But what's the answer to my
>question?
There are types of drag and drop. Even the great Windows makes this
distinction, drag and drop of simple text data, and drag and drop of
objects. I can highlight text in a window and drag it to a command line
window under NT (Did you all know that? Try it), and I can highlight
text in a text Window and middle click it on ANYTHING on X. X has been
able to do this BEFORE Windows even had the notion of drag and drop (btw
it first appeared in Windows 3.1 as a closed API). So when you say UNIX
is snobby because it does not implement "new ideas" you should research
your statements better.
It should also be noted, UNIX had mice before the PC, sound before
Windows, a graphical environment before Windows was released, and just
about anything that Windows does, UNIX had first with an API that has is
probably still supported and capable of handling the demands of the
future.
As for the dragging and dropping of objects, this is not "easy." Most
applications under Windows do not support it. I can not drag a word
document to my cadd program unless the cadd program can understand the
native, or rendered formats in which the object will be passed. Yes, the
'BIG' companies doing Windows stuff do, but most of the $100 million and
lower companies do not.
KDE, CDE, Gnome, FVWM, etc all support a drag and drop of UI objects.
Applix, StarOffice, and several others support drag and drop of objects
they understand.
So you harp on drag and drop as something that UNIX does not do. It
does. As well as the run of the mill Windows program. Does it do it as
well as MS Office? Of course not, MS is a monopoly and they put things
in Windows to support office. Other vendors use these API's when they
can, but for the most part drag and drop is a methodology of making the
world work with MS office. I still have my Windows 2.0 SDK documentation
that has an appendix about extension to Windows for MS-Word. They have
sort of hushed up about that sort of thing in the last decade.
>
> By the way, have you folks ever seen the movie "Blast from the Past?"
>
> > > > > Mind you, I'm no Windows advocate. But I'll at least give Microsoft credit
>for one thing.
> > > > > In their own bumbling, incompetent way, they have been gradually -- very,
>very gradually --
> > > > > adopted paradigms from other systems (of course, always implementing them
>in a half assed
> > > > > way). Their philosophy is one of extreme conservatism in that they never
>introduce anything
> > > > > original and have no vision of going beyond existing paradigms. But neither
>do they limit
> > > > > themselves by bigotry. I have some sympathy for Apple, because even though
>the Mac is weak in
> > > > > many respects, the company did have vision. They introduced the Newton
>about a year before MS
> > > > > cancelled its first incarnation of the WinCE API (called WinPad). And in
>the late 80's they
> > > > > conceived of Pink (aka Taligent) that would go beyond anything then (or now)
>in existence.
> > > > > Unfortunately, Pink was an expensive failure. As a fall back, they have
>now adopted a UNIX
> > > > > foundation for future versions of their OS. That's not too exciting a
>vision, but it does
> > > > > solve the immediate problem of getting decent multitasking.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for UNIX, I have to say that there has been a general complacency to
>remain with very,
> > > > > very good implentations of a 1970's computing paradigm. UNIX still thrives
>because for
> > > > > many purposes a very good implementation of simple, old fashioned ideas is
>superior to a weak
> > > > > implementation of something more sophisticated. I do find it a bit of a
>depressing
> > > > > philosophy though and in some cases deeply frustrating.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone that thinks "old fashioned" has any place in UNIX has not been
> > > > paying attention. The issue is reason. Make a good case for different
> > > > metaphors and paradigms and they will be implemented and introduce into
> > > > standards before Microsoft's first rip-off.
> > > >
> > > > Many of the things that pass as programming paradigms in Windows are
> > > > simply bad ideas. To adopt them simply because they are new would be
> > > > foolish. Does this mean that things are rejected out of hand? Of course
> > > > not, but if it is a bad idea, it shouldn't happen.
> > >
> > > Well, there you go. That's the kind of dismissive, insular attitude I'm
>talking about.
> > > Back in the 80's DOS users used to talk about mice and screen graphics as
>useless, frivolous,
> > > ... It was a combination of ignorance and envy. You don't mention anything
>specific as a "bad
> > > idea," so let's stick with the drag and drop example. What is so bad about
>drag and drop?
> >
> > I said programming paradigms, not UI devices. No one ever said "drag &
> > drop" was not a good idea. My paragraph had to do with what passes for
> > software design under Windows. DDE, COM, ActiveX, DirectX, these are all
> > examples of poorly thought out, badly implemented crap. The fact that
> > they are constantly changing the API, or obsoleting them proves MS has
> > no idea how to design software. Just picking up the crap the MS spews
> > out for the sake of doing it is a bad idea. Define the end-result
> > functionality desired, and design good portable way of doing it. That is
> > the UNIX way. That's why programs designed 15 years ago can be compiled
> > today with little modification. Try, I dare you, to compile a Windows
> > program code base from 15 years ago, it won't work.
>
> This is just a diversion. You agree that drag and drop is a good idea. The
>question is
> why doesn't UNIX employ it where it's appropriate?
It does.
>
> New UI ideas require new programming paradigms. If you want to be able to embed a
>worksheet
> in a wordprocessing document, you need some kind of desktop component object model,
> like
> ActiveX. ActiveX may be garbage, but UNIX has not had anything comparable,
>garbage or not.
> CORBA is a distributed object framework that could be a foundation for that, but
>the fact is that
> it wasn't used that way. Java has a number of relevant technologies that actually
>go beyond
> what native Windows has, but by the same token you often hear Linux advocates
>disparaging
> Java, as if that would somehow bolster the OS.
The problem with drag and drop in Windows is that it is a myth. I can
not drag a picture to CodeWright, I can not drag text to PaintShopPro.
Drag and drop requires coordination between 'N' vendors. I can drag in
drop in Linux about as often as one can drag and drop in Windows.
ActiveX is a very bad design. Period. The issue is documented
intermediate formats, data exchange formats and code sharing
methodologies. ActiveX does not help you for that. ActiveX is nothing
more than a way to implement a .DLL interface for various components. It
does not even do a good job at that.
>
> Of course, GNOME and KDE are building ActiveX type functionality. The GNOME and
>KDE developers
> are not the people I'm criticizing. But the truth is that those systems are fairly
>recent, they
> are playing catch up to Windows, and frankly the look and feel is copied too much
>from Windows
> 98. Of course, the open nature of these projects and the care that is being put
>into their
> design already makes them more flexible and powerful in many ways than Windows.
I have had people tell me they like the way KDE works better than
Windows. Well, if KDE and Gnome have copied Windows, and Windows copied
Mac, and Mac copied PARC, does it matter?
>
> Now, ActiveX is definitely garbage. That can't be overemphasized. At the time
>ActiveX was first
> being pushed on the market, OpenDoc was a serious challenger. There was
>speculation that
> MS deliberately "misdesigned" ActiveX to make it hard to code, so that Windows
>developers
> wouldn't have the time to use both OpenDoc and ActiveX. I'm not so sure that's true;
ActiveX and other API sets that come from Microsoft are designed for
MS-Office components. They are then published for others to use. ISV's
all then have to make their stuff work Like MS-Office. This is
unsubstantiated, I grant you, and ignore it if you do not believe it.
> I tend
> to accept the obvious explanation, that Microsoft's developers lacked the
>competence, and
> were under time pressure to boot. But UNIX people have no time to be smug about
>this. To
> come back again to the original issue about development tools, Microsoft has since
>spent years
> trying to make it easy to use ActiveX with its development tools. That's not
>something that's
> ever going to happen in a cross-platform class library. So you can go on with the
> rationalizations and excuses and hurl all the abuse you want at Windows, but the
>net effect is
> to just waste time and delay the advance of UNIX. If UNIX developers don't address
>this
> gap, it'll be a long time before Linux catches up with Windows on this front.
I don't buy that drag and drop works all that well under Windows. It
never works they way you expect, too many applications ignore the window
messages, so, Linux has more time.
>
> > So you see, in UNIX, we make s^&%^T to last here. In Windows, you are on
> > the upgrade train that costs $200 bucks a stop.
> >
> > As for UI design and innovation, my hat goes off to some of the guys
> > working on UNIX, have you seen enlightenment? I don't use it, it is
> > still too unstable for me, but it is way cool.
>
> Pretty recent stuff.
>
> > > > > But, fortunately I don't think that's really the end of the story. There
>is a new energy
> > > > > among the younger developers of Linux and the traditional UNIX sense of
>community still
> > > > > prevails. I believe that open, vigorous communities are ultimately more
>creative and
> > > > > productive than closed systems. For this reason I expect Linux to break
>free of the depressing
> > > > > legacy of complacency and I see it as the most promising system for the
>future.
> > > >
> > > > I think you don't see what is happening. UNIX and thus Linux are not
> > > > "old and stodgy" by any measure. It ain't Windows, no way, but some fun
> > > > and exciting stuff is happening. Good GUI apps are coming, and many of
> > > > the GUI apps in Linux are better than the run of the mill Windows apps.
> > > > I will grant you the $100 Billion dollar software company apps are not
> > > > on Linux, yet, but Linux has better implementations for the $100 Million
> > > > dollar software company apps.
> > >
> > > You say that I don't see what is happening, but then go on to reinforce what I
>just
> > > said. Good GUI apps are on the way (but mostly not yet here) because there is a
> > > shift to a more modern attitude.
> >
> > In reality, UNIX may not be more "modern" than Windows, but it is more
> > advanced. Windows was designed to run on two floppies and an 8088. UNIX
> > was designed, years ago, for large computers that have very similar
> > capabilities as the ones we currently have.
> >
> > Velvita is more modern than many other cheeses, but, it is not better.
> > Velvita uses more modern processing techniques in manufacture, but that
> > does not make it better either. One can hardly dispute that Windows 9x
> > is the velvita of operating systems.
> >
> > > The original question was whether there will be
> > > development tools for Linux of the same quality (or better (!)) as the leading
>Windows
> > > development tools.
> >
> > The subjective words in this sentence is "quality" and "better." From
> > the perspective of many, they are already better. If you want a GUI
> > development system, those are coming.
> >
> > > I don't know, but it does look promising. Borland for instance
> > > has always been known for first class tools and they have JBuilder on Linux and
>are porting
> > > C++ Builder. It remains to be seen whether these tools really stand up to their
>Windows
> > > counterparts, and whether the Linux market supports their continued
>development. This
> > > last point is not just a question of market size; it leads us back to the
>attitude issue.
> >
> > There is no borland anymore.
> >
> > > I expect the traditional UNIX folks won't flock to C++ Builder. They'll go on
>happily
> > > using gcc and Emacs. But if Linux does grow, there will be lots of Windows
>refugees
> > > who will require something providing the modern conveniences of their old home.
> >
> > I am, in fact a Windows refugee. However, I respect UNIX for what it is,
> > so I do not blindly want to add things that Windows had, simply to have
> > them. The one thing that UNIX really really needs, is the notion of a
> > DLL. A shared library is not a dll.
> >
> > Also, you imply egcs is a bad tool, why? Because it is command line?
> > Look at visualc++, it uses the command line "cl.exe" to do its compiling
> > exactly the same way any other gui development environment would do it
> > under UNIX with egcs.
>
> gcc is not a bad tool. Nor is Emacs. They are simply incomplete. For that matter,
> so
> are the Windows IDEs. As was pointed out by another poster, most of the
> Windows IDEs actually call command line utilities, or at least provide command line
> utilities that carry the same functionality. It's just that they also provide a lot
>more.
That poster was me.
>
> As for quality, it's quite likely that gcc stands up to the commercial command line
>compilers
> quite well. In fact, there is a credible rumor going around that Microsoft is
>internally porting
> gcc to WinCE because they can't get the same performance and code size gcc gives
>with their own
> compilers.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. They have their own cross compiler. If MS is
porting gcc it is because they want gcc on WinCE.
>
> > One last thing about IDE environments. They usually have a two or three
> > year usage per developer. New developers use IDEs because they make
> > things easy for them. As the developer gets more experienced, they
> > notice how restrictive the IDE becomes, sooner or later they abandon the
> > IDE because it slows them down.
> >
> > You may argue this point, and that is OK, but it is true. An integrated
> > development environment is usually the equivalent of training wheels.
>
> You know what? I agee and I don't usually use those IDEs. I actually prefer using
>Emacs
> together with command line tools! The integrated editors don't usually match Emacs
>in
> flexibility, etc., and on the whole Emacs is preferable. But that's me and that's
>partly
> because I've been using Emacs for 20 years. It's perfectly legitimate for a serious
>developer to
> demand the features present in a full IDE. Those companies sell hundreds of
>millions of dollars
> of that stuff every year, and it's not all to kindergarten programmers.
I do not know a single developer with over 6 years experience who uses
an IDE. Mac dudes excluded, because, hey, they are using Macs.
> When I say Emacs is
> preferable, I don't condemn every feature and UI device that Emacs lacks. If I
>didn't actually
> prefer Emacs, this stuff wouldn't bug me. I'd just be happy using Windows and
>never think
> about it.
I don't like Emacs, and everyone tell me I should.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 07:12:05 -0600
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 03:38:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I didn't say it wasn't.
Maybe I misunderstood you. Germer clearly believes this, however, and
I thought you were agreeing with him. My apologies.
<huge snip>
This was a very good description of modern OS memory management.
Win2000 does the same thing.
>
>Now one can can go on all day about hardware caching, but I really doubt if
>hardware caching was or could make the 25%-30% speed differences.
Hardware cacheing is CPU *instruction* cacheing. It makes a *huge*
difference. Try disabling the cache in your PC's BIOS sometime. It
will slow a PIII 500 to 486 speeds!
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:23:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 14 Mar 2000 11:48:58 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Joseph wrote:
>> > So, MS decides to release a console, and the PC market is suddenly
>> > gone? Get real.
>>
>> You go tell Bill Gates.
>
>Gates wants the set-top box market bad; it's the obvious place
>for net access to go. So far all Microsoft attempts at that
>market have been total failures, but maybe if it plays games....
Must..........resist.........obvious........comment......... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 13:55:19 GMT
In article <38cdfa06@news>, Rich Cloutier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as standards go, [DnD] needs to be done at the LOWEST COMMON
> DENOMINATOR ie, XFree86, so that every graphical program can conform
> to the standards, whether it be KDE, Gnome, or Fred's Desktop
> Environment.
No, it goes in at the toolkit level so that no matter what display
hosts your Linux session, you can use DnD! Furthermore, supporting a
DnD protocol, especially one as rich as Xdnd (which is used by both
KDE and Gnome,) takes quite a lot of work to do even after you handle
the basics of actually talking the protocol, since you need to deal
with all the user activity during the drag, etc. Hence it is doubly a
natural for the toolkit level, e.g. Qt and GTK[-+]*.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
