Linux-Advocacy Digest #83, Volume #26 Tue, 11 Apr 00 23:13:34 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux for a web developer (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux for a web developer (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (Craig Kelley)
Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article for
commentary) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (abraxas)
Re: Programming Languages ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Mike Marion)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Mike Marion)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (ZnU)
Re: Linux for a web developer (Mig Mig)
Re: Why so little discussion of the Netscape 6 preview on c.o.l.a? (Mig Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Apr 2000 14:49:52 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
[snip]
> >> It's not near as simple. It involves locating the SAM, attempting to
> >> extract the passwords from it, hoping it isn't encrypted, and then
> >> hashing through them and hoping everything works.
>
> > ... or you just boot up with the setup CD and re-install. When it
> > asks for the Administrator password you want, just type it in.
>
> Assuming that the CD rom is bootable and that some MCSE lemonhead
> hasnt disabled it in the name of 'security'.
>
> And even then, I refuse to do such a thing. Its an extremely stupid
> method to recover data from an event that shouldnt have been possible
> in the first place.
Well, I never said it was a smart way to do things. :) Microsoft
historically likes the three Rs:
Restart
Reboot
Re-install
They form the core set of functions that a MCSE must know how to do
(IME). If something "funny" is happening to a Windows machine, then
the "solution" is almost always one of these. My resident MCSE even
went out and bought all new floppy drives for the machines in the lab
because the old ones were "malfunctioning". It was hard to keep a
straight face while he experienced the same problems with the new
drives (it was/is an NT bug in which Windows 9x and Linux can read a
floppy but NT cannot read the same one).
So, it is not surprising that in order to recover an Administrator
password the solution is to Re-install the software, and have fun
trying to get the registry back into proper shape.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:53:52 -0600
William Adderholdt wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > William Adderholdt wrote:
>
> Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that when you
> are programming, you are producing a procedure for the computer
> to follow.
Almost . . . as Jim pointed out elsewhere, and I agree, the use of a
computer does not change the intrinsic nature of the operation.
You are still programming, even if the actual processes are not executed
by a computer.
> A specific task that a computer operator performs can be
> described as a procedure. This makes sense, as I've seen a number of
> "troubleshooting guides" that are printed using a flow chart, and I'm sure
> many step-by-step instructions on how to perform a specific task could
> also be represented this way. Since you are producing a procedure to make
> the computer perform the task, you are in fact programming the computer.
Yep.
> I have two objections with this:
>
> 1) This sort of "programming" is done when operating pretty much
> any device, and no computer is really required.
Correct. As above, programming does not require a computer.
> By the above
> definition, I could say that when I am doing a repair on my house
> that I am in fact "programming" my box of tools.
I would say that you are programming, but that in this case, it is you
who executes *ALL* of the operations, where with a computer, part of the
processing is performed by the computer.
Couldn't you diagram/write/describe the process of fixing your house as
a "program"?
"What's on the program today?"
> This definition
> just doesn't fit what people normally mean by programming.
Oh, I agree. Consider the negative results, however, of letting what
"most people mean" control the direction of scientific reasearch, and
industrial development. . .
Remember, once upon a time, "everybody believed" that the world was
flat.
Believing that the act of "using" a computer is intrinsically different
from "programming" maybe the first hurdle to overcome in the process of
designing the next generation of user interfaces.
> To me,
> programming requires that the algorithm itself, not just each
> individual operation, be performed by the computer.
Which kind of implies a persistent store.
> 2) You waited a bit too long to make your position clear. This
> newsgroup was getting quite agitated just trying to figure out what
> you meant when you said that "every interaction with a computer
> is programming." :-)
That delay was deliberate. I was trying to separate the chaff from the
wheat. I've already been plonked by two people . . . much to my relief,
as in this discussion, their input was not useful.
> > It seems that, so far, you definition doesn't work the way you seem to
> > want it to. I'd say that for the definition you seem to want to create
> > to work, you'd have to add in the requirement of storing the complete
> > set of instructions in a persistent store first.
>
> I agree that a persistent store of some kind is necessary, but that
> seems to be implied in the definition. How could the machine access
> the algorithm if it wasn't stored somewhere?
Isn't the algorithm already stored, in every case: in your head?
Doesn't the computer access the algorithm by reading it, one instruction
at a time, from it's human input devices?
> I can't think of a good way of defining a "single computer operation."
The only thing I can come up with is useless, too . . . hence my
unwillingness to base any meaningful definition on "single operation".
> I looked it up in the dictionary, which only says that it is "a single
> step performed by a computer in the execution of a program."
>
> But I think we've wrangled with definitions long enough here. I think
> we understand what everyone is saying by now. :-)
Wanna bet?! :-) :-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: 11 Apr 2000 17:03:19 -0400
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:28:41 -0400, OOrkis wrote:
>I'm a begining web developer; what are the benefits (if any) for a web
>developer to switch from WIN98 to Linux (which distribution would u recomend
>?) ?
(*) Linux ships with some decent text editors
(*) Linux ships with the leading web server, Apache
(*) Linux ships with perl, PHP, and more SQL databases than you can poke
a stick at.
In conclusion, Linux has all the stuff you'd expect to find on a webserver,
and Win98 doesn't. To test dynamic content, you really need a webserver
platform, a webclient platform is not sufficient.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: 11 Apr 2000 17:06:23 -0400
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:44:02 +0200, Mig Mig wrote:
>I wouldnt recommend switching to Linux if you want to do web development
>with it. The tools needed are not there... actually not even an editor of
>the quality of HomeSite exists..and of course graphic tools like
You are confusing "web development" with "click and drool", "web design"
and "content editing". They are different.
Real web developers write all their code in perl.
Quality editor ? Text editors are much more powerful than these idiot-friendly
click and drool things. However, there's Composer for those who really
must click & drool.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Apr 2000 15:06:18 -0600
"Joseph Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows will remain the dominant corporate operating system because it has
> some features/frameworks that would make it easier for enterprise wide
> computing. For instance, DAO, ADO and COM. These frameworks that to the best
> of my knowlede only exists on the Windows platform put them at an advantage
> over the competition. For corporate IT managers what matters most in an OS
> is not its quality or performance. I wouldn't say that this doesn't matter,
> but its just not the most important. What is the most important is whether
> or not its serves your enterprise needs for: database access, network
> support and distributed computing. ADO and DAO serves the purpose of making
> database access easy to accomplish in Windows systems. COM is Microsoft's
> model for interprocess communications and distributed computing. ADO and DAO
> gives you an extra layer of abstraction when dealing with your database.
> This means that you don't have to worry that much about lower level details
> when making a program to manipulate your database. Your data could be on a
> server in the next room or located in some little known server somewhere it
> Timbuktu in doesn't matter. You can access your data in the same fashion.
> Another advantage of DAO and ADO is the standardisation of data accessing.
> This means similar programs which also uses DAO and ADO can talk to each
> other via COM. This allows for rapid application development which also
> matters a lot in the corporate environment. From the above reasons, I think
> the enthusiasm over Linux and overly optimistic and overhyped. Microsoft,
> because of its better supporting frameworks and protocols still has the
> upperhand as far as the big corporate guys are concerned.
How did us UNIX users ever manage to create the world's largetst
network (ie, distributed system) without all these buzzwords?
It boggles the mind...
:o)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Now well OT Communism v Marxism (was: Introduction to Linux article for
commentary)
Date: 11 Apr 2000 17:11:03 -0400
On 11 Apr 2000 18:42:41 +0100, Richard Watson wrote:
>Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Unfortunately it's difficult to disprove a theory that's
>never really been tried.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to try a theory that is essentially utopian.
>Maybe if they'd had a stab at communism at some point they might've
>been better off. This is the downfall of Marx's theory. The initiators
>of the revolution never actually give the power to the proletariat.
This indeed is the problem. Marx believes that the means ( usually violent
revolution )justifies the end, but he doesn't realise that when you poison
the means, the end follows suit.
IMO, where Marx really screwed up was with the idea that a "class war"
was necessary or even desirable. The countries that come closest to getting
what Marx wanted are leftist democracies, and the changes were evolutionary
( as opposed to revolutionary ) and invariably came about by way of a
democratic process.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
Date: 11 Apr 2000 17:14:08 -0400
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:32:17 GMT, Joseph Wong wrote:
>over the competition. For corporate IT managers what matters most in an OS
>is not its quality or performance.
Are you trying to tell us that reliability "doesn't matter" ? I'd say that
it is pretty important.
Have you heard of something called "CORBA" ? UNIX does most or all of the
things you are rambling on about. Yes, you can do "distributed computing"
and "database access" with UNIX, it's not windows-only. Your IT manager is an
idiot.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:09:14 -0600
CAguy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:57:54 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No...in that case the 'algorithm' is being executed in your brain,
> not by the computer. By your logic the simple act of flipping a
> light switch is programming...gee, I didn't realize a light bulb was
> actually a computer..silly me.
A switch is *PART* of a computer.
In the above example, the complete system does indeed include a computer
. . . you.
And, in fact, you've demonstrated that "programming" is not an operation
that requires a silicon or gallium arsenide based, electricity using,
magnetic storage based machine. . .
> >It seems that, so far, you definition doesn't work the way you seem to
> >want it to. I'd say that for the definition you seem to want to create
> >to work, you'd have to add in the requirement of storing the complete
> >set of instructions in a persistent store first.
>
> His definition is exactly right in my opinion. A series of instuctions
> in machine readable format executed in a definite order.
In that case, "every interaction with a computer is programming" . . .
unless you are trying to say that a mouse click is not machine readable
. . . or are you claiming that the order in which you enter your mouse
clicks into the machine is not in a definite (non-random) order?
> Whatever that GUI button does is pre-programmed..you are just the
> operator
Didn't you plan (design a program) before clicking that GUI button?
If I write some C code that simply and only calls a library function, am
I using the computer, or programming? If the former (using), then is
writing a C program "using" the computer, not "programming" the
computer?
> >Yup. Seems that the requirment for persistent store is what you are
> >looking for. Since pressing one-control-record on a VCR gives the same
> >information you give to it (minus stopping time) if you were programming
> >it to record a show, then it seems the only real difference is the
> >persistent store.
>
> Yes, a 'persistent store' is a requirement for programming a computer.
In which case: "every interaction with a computer is programming" . . .
since users have a persistent store into which they store programs
before executing them.
> The instructions it executes have to be stored somewhere, and it
> can't be in 'your' brain.
Why not?
> That is the whole point of computers..is it
> not?
Nope. If the instructions have to be stored in the computer . . . then
you've effectively said that only computers that are not now, never have
been, and never will be used by people in any way, shape or form are
computers.
People are always part of the system, unless you are describing
theoretical, and hither to useless, computer systems.
> >Strange, as this whole discussion seems to have boiled down to: running
> >a batch job is programming, running an interactive program is
> >not-programming. . . and even in the old days, programmers who witnessed
> >the transition from batch to interactive realized that the only real
> >difference between the two, was the speed of turn-around. ;-)
>
> Ok, I can see that your really do understand this...you were just try
> to be provocative :)
Yes, I really do understand this: "every interaction with a computer is
programming".
So far, the obvious results of this discussion are: GUI's are badly
crippled. The next generation of user interfaces must fully incorporate
the concept that using and programming are the same thing.
Obviously, the next generation user interface will have the equivalent
of "lint" and "compiler errors and warnings" as a minimum, but if
possible, they will be proactive, producing "speculative" programs that
are specified by close, intense observation of the working habits and
patterns of specific users.
> For the record, I wouldn't consider HTML to be programming for the
> same reason I don't consider a simple text file to be programming.
Urrmmm . . . put the word "creating" in there, and I'd strongly disagree
with you. The process of planning, then executing the neccessary
instructions to produce the result required to satisfy a given goal is
programming.
The type of the result is irrelevant to this discussion.
> They both contain stylistic tags that give the computer clues
These are not "clues", these are "instructions".
> on how
> to render them. I don't consider a tag to be an instruction in the
> programming sense.
Why not? What happens when you remove the tag? Does the computer still
display the table as a table if the table tag isn't there to instruct it
to display that data in tabular form?
HTML is not a Turing complete language, but is incontrovertibly a set of
instructions.
However, the discussion re: HTML and Turing complete languages is
irrelevant to the original assertion: that "every interaction with a
computer is programming".
The result of that interaction is irrelevant to the assertion.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 11 Apr 2000 21:15:51 GMT
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Yes, HTML *IS* a set of instructions. The <table> tag instructs the
>> >computer. What, however, is your point?
>>
>> No, HTML is *NOT* a set of instructions,
> How so?
Because that would nessesitate the infinite regression of reason on
this issue:
If anything that instructs a computer is a programming, then I, by
pressing one key on the keyboard and watching the subsequent character
produced in a text editor, am a programmer by definition. If I am a
programmer by definition, I can put that on my resume:
"25 years programming experience"---I started with teletype terminals
in my mother's computer lab when I was 5 years old.
With this experience, it should be no problem to land myself a sweet
job with a place like ILM, no?
But it is a problem, and therefore the original defintion is not
'programming'. The real world does not reflect this perspective.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:15:45 -0600
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> HTML and RTF are not really programming languages,
I would say that they *ARE* programming languages, but they are not
"Turing Complete" programming languages.
> So what is a programming language? Good question. And it's
> probably going to get a lot weirder before everything shakes out.
A programming language is any language you can use to give instructions
to the system that is to execute those instructions.
Sub-classes of "programming language" include "Turing Complete"
languages.
Obviously, super-classes of "programming language" include such things
as English, which can be used to do more than simply give instructions.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:20:57 -0600
Jim Dabell wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > >
> [snip]
> > > HTML is not something
> > > that can be executed in a meaningful way, just parsed.
> >
> > Ok, so my browser isn't executing HTML? So just exactly how did the
> > HTML cause a different set of bits to be displayed on my screen?
> >
>
> No, your computer isn't executing HTML.
> It's information
Every computer instruction is information.
> and not an algorithm.
Instruction is not the same as algorithm. A computer can and does
execute instructions that do *NOT* consitute an algorithm.
> The algorithms for changing your screen are spread over the
> browser, shell, OS and video card.
Yep.
> The information that the algorithm
> in the browser works on is the HTML.
And the HTML constitutes instruction to the computer.
> *Please* understand the difference between the two concepts.
I do. You don't.
Please look up the definition of "algorithm" in a computer science text
book. Not all programs, are algorithmic.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:32:58 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
> I don't think that the ability to recover the root account on linux
> from a boot floppy or single user mode is any sort of security risk.
> Well, to put it more exactly, I'm not terribly concerned with a
> machines' physical security so much as I am with network security.
When it comes to security and data on a computer... once a person has physical
access to the box, you can basically throw out all that security. That's why
mission critical servers should be kept in computer rooms that have limited
access.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The Tuxomatic 2200(TM) with patented Gates-Be-Gone(TM) gets rid of blue
screens in a flash! It forks! It blits! Look at those fantastic pixels!
It surfs the web! You could even host an ISP with it!"
-- Matthew Sachs on Slashdot
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:27:29 -0600
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:06:58 -0600...
> ...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Of course that is not programming, not anymore that changing the
> > > content of a memory cell is programming.
> >
> > Ok, now I know what you believe . . . but I still don't know why. Why
> > is modifying the contents of a memory cell not-programming?
>
> Because it does not create the implementation of an algorithm
> anywhere.
Irelevant. Programming != creating algorithms.
There are a great many programs that are not "algorithmic".
> Sprinkling ink on paper isn't writing either, or is it in
> your opinion?
Did you plan on how to get that ink onto the paper? Did you plan how
many drops of ink, and where they are should be placed in order to
accomplish your goal? Did you define a stopping condition?
> > Ok, so my browser isn't executing HTML? So just exactly how did the
> > HTML cause a different set of bits to be displayed on my screen?
>
> Your browser does not execute HTML.
Fine. I understand your assertion. It just doesn't work . . .
> Execution involves concepts such
> as addresses and control flow.
Location in the HTML stream: address.
Control Flow: Where and how on the screen to display a bit of data.
> Your browser parses HTML, which is a
> data structure, not a program.
Programs are data structures. They are data, they are structured data,
they are data structures.
In fact, some simple programs have exactly the same struture as an HTML
program: a directed, acyclical graph.
More complex programs, of course, are DCG's . . .
Non-algorithmic programs are DCG's with no stopping point.
> > You once again misunderstood my question: whether or not HTML is Turing
> > Complete is irrelevant, as the question was, how is the *ACT* of writing
> > an HTML document not-programming?
>
> The act of writing an HTML is not programming because the act does not
> involve implementing an algorithm in a programming language.
Hmmm. . . so neither English, nor the language you use in your own head
to plan and describe things, is a programming language?
Generally, people claim that they are *SUPERIOR* to computers, not
inferior to them.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:35:37 GMT
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
> : Thankfully, its been decided that the databases on that box be switched
> : to UNIX; probably solaris. We wont have this problem again.
>
> Excellent choice. Can't go wrong w/Solaris && Oracle, that is, unless
> you've got retards running the systems (like a certain large auction site).
Another plus being if the box does get into a braindead state for some reason,
if you have remote access to your network, and a proper (and secure) way to get
to the serial port of the server, you'll be able to do any admin work you need
just as if you were sitting at the box (except in the _very_ rare instance of
the Sun not responding at the prom level either).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The Tuxomatic 2200(TM) with patented Gates-Be-Gone(TM) gets rid of blue
screens in a flash! It forks! It blits! Look at those fantastic pixels!
It surfs the web! You could even host an ISP with it!"
-- Matthew Sachs on Slashdot
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:37:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:23:24 GMT, Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Rex Riley wrote:
> >> Linux is a decent OS. Anytime, anyone, anywhere can download a free
> >> copy of LInux. When they can load that free OS onto a platform of
> >> their own design and enter the marketplace with a new product, with new
> >> capabilities and new services never before seen on the face of this
> >> planet ± that's innovation.
> >
> >What "new capabilities and new services never before seen on the face of
> >this planet " have been enabled by Linux? And why can't these "new
> >capabilities and new services" be enabled by Mac OS X or Windows or some
> >other OS? Just because these OSes are owned by a single corporation?
>
> NeXT/2000 and Windows aren't efficient enough or cheap enough.
> QNX, the OS you should really be comparing Linux to in this
> area, has the efficiency part down better than Linux but is
> expensive.
QNX? QNX!?
Sorry. That's one of the most absurd things I've heard. Ever. Exactly
how is Linux like QNX? QNX's two big selling point are "real time" and
"true microkernel architecture." Neither of these have anything to do
with Linux.
Actually, Darwin is much more like QNX than Linux.
> [deletia]
>
> While this by itself isn't innovative (really), it does allow
> those system integrators who might innovate with some embedded
> device tighter margins.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:00:58 +0200
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:44:02 +0200, Mig Mig wrote:
>
> >I wouldnt recommend switching to Linux if you want to do web development
> >with it. The tools needed are not there... actually not even an editor of
> >the quality of HomeSite exists..and of course graphic tools like
>
> You are confusing "web development" with "click and drool", "web design"
> and "content editing". They are different.
Youre probably right... i just dont imagine using Windows 98 for
webdevelopemt.. ive tryed it.. So i just guessed on page building of some
kind
> Real web developers write all their code in perl.
Do they?
Then i must confess that i mostly use PHP and plain C. I even know people
that use DreamWeaver on Windows for big sites (5 mio hits/week)... but they
are probably not "real web developers"
> Quality editor ? Text editors are much more powerful than these idiot-friendly
> click and drool things. However, there's Composer for those who really
> must click & drool.
I think you should give HomeSite a try and then say the same. F. ex. Emacs
is in no way near the speed or functionality (unless you code it yourself)
of the combo DreamWeaver/HomeSite.
You should know better than posting nonsens about what "real web
developers" do and should use.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why so little discussion of the Netscape 6 preview on c.o.l.a?
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:05:05 +0200
Cihl wrote:
> > He can since its the only standards based browser.. in a couple of months
> > Netscape have a fantastic product out and hes ready. Use Mozilla/Netscape
> > it will be a killer in both computers and web enabled devices!
>
> I hope MoZilla will take their time to bring us all a killer-app browser, and not
> rush things just to get it out into the public. Remember, there's no commercial
> interest involved here. (i think)
Not directly commercial but certainly a strategic interest for AOL. Lets
face it, the vast majority of internet users dont really need a computer
(dont even know how to use one), they just need some device to browse, read
mail etc - For this there is no need for computers.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
