Linux-Advocacy Digest #542, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 18:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Brian Langenberger)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: Desktop use, office apps
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Alan Chandler)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (mlw)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (I R A Darth Aggie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 16 May 2000 21:11:21 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
:> Numbers good. Letters bad. Mount points very good.
: I don't see how numbers are any better than letters. I'd say that NT
: driver letters are just like the /dev directory under UNIX (although
: /dev has some slight advantages). The beauty is, we hardly ever
: reference the block device directly.
The problem I have with letters is twofold. One thing is
expandability. Once we get to 'z', then what? 'aa'?
Numbers don't lead to such kludges as the number of devices
increases.
And the other thing is that it looks silly.
Bring on 2.4 :)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:14:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Just to name one: drive letters.
>Why does one need drive letters? The only reason they exist is because
>DOS did not have a hierarchical file system until version 2.0. 2.0!!! do
>you believe it?
>
>There are so many more of these '70's quick and dirty hacks, why do we
>continue to use them? Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a
>few yourself. If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
>designing programs.
Because they are easy and simple to use? Because of backwards
compatibility?
Incidentally have you never tried the following on Windows:
dir \\fred\share\whatever.*
Did that use a letter?
You can assign partitions on NT/2000 without letters, but who uses it?
Incidentally, why does Linux still have kernel rebuilds? Is that modern by
todays standards - hardly!
Pete
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:20:04 -0700
On Wed, 17 May 2000, Todd wrote:
> However, given the richness of the Win32 API today, is there any application
> that you can think of that you couldn't do with today's Win32 API?
At what cost and to what level of perormance.
Arguing what is possible has no impact on the feasibility and
competitiveness of the result. It may be possible and even easy to write
inferior apps without access to undocuemnted APIs.
No one is challeneging that competitor's apps are impossible to make - the
argument is they are not given full disclosure to the OS and they are
obligated by the marketplace to make competitive software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:17:12 GMT
>"R. Christopher Harshman" wrote:
>>
>> StarOffice
>> Far too slow to load. We're using just the applications (launching
>> `soffice staroffice.private:starwriter` for instance, to use just the
>> word-processor without the desktop). Even on the fastest of our
>> workstations, a Celeron 466 with a brand-new UDMA/66 hard drive, it
>> takes almost a minute to load. Once loaded, it's more or less
>> responsive enough to use, but the users we've had test the configuration
>> have universally complained about the wait.
SO takes less than 10 seconds to load on my system. Something is
seriously messed up w/ your system. BTW I'm running on a 128MB 500mhz
PIII system.
On a 120mhz pentium w/ 32MB os/2 system, it didn't take a full minute;
more like 25 seconds.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: 16 May 2000 16:17:25 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"R. Christopher Harshman" wrote:
>>
>> StarOffice
>> Far too slow to load. We're using just the applications (launching
>> `soffice staroffice.private:starwriter` for instance, to use just the
>> word-processor without the desktop). Even on the fastest of our
>> workstations, a Celeron 466 with a brand-new UDMA/66 hard drive, it
>> takes almost a minute to load. Once loaded, it's more or less
>> responsive enough to use, but the users we've had test the configuration
>> have universally complained about the wait.
>
>I find SO a bit slow to load, but I'm only running on an ageing P133,
>and it takes the same time to load as you're on your celery computers.
>Does anyone know of anything that might make disk IO run really slowly
>on a linux system?
If you are running IDE in non-dma mode, it competes for CPU time
with everything else you are running. While SCSI drives are
typically not a lot faster as far as I/O goes, a busmastering
controller lets the CPU continue to do things like redraw the
screen at the same time. What does hdparm say about your
drive settings?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:23:22 +0100
On Sat, 13 May 2000 01:34:04 GMT [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
...
>Exerpted from Ken Wellsch's resume:
>
>"I first began to work with UNIX in 1980 (in my 3rd year of undergrad)
>on a PDP-11/34 running Version 6 UNIX."
>
>...
Funny you should mention that - about that time I managed to get hold
of an old PDP 11/34 at work and install a UNIX on it. It was XENIX -
written by, hold it ....
Microsoft!
It was the start of a Product Management Environment for software
development based on SCCS that is still in use today! Although I was
the manager of the group that made this investment, I still did a bit
of technical work and got to be a passable UNIX user. I remember being
one of the first purchasers of an HP laser printer in the UK - I had
this (at the time) radical idea that programmers could view code not
on line printer paper but on A4 - and we used the printer to develop a
high quality documentation standard (using .nroff Macros - is that
still around?) enabling (almost uniquely in our company) my team to
produce high quality documentation to a standard (both in the quality
sense and in the conformity sense) that is only almost reached today
(particulary the conformity angle) using PCs and Word and which still
today does have the rigourous version control we were able to build in
as standard.
I have just started to play with Linux - but I am finding the
graphical user interface end a bit much. My previous experience never
had such luxury (green screens was all we had).
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.chandler.u-net.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:37:50 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ok, I've gone through the Office 2000 website, and the only thing I can
find
> > even remotely similar to what you're talking about is Office Server
> > Extensions (part of the office resource kit, which is not part of the
> > standard office distribution). OSE does indeed connect up with IIS, but
as
> > far as I can tell it doesn't use any proprietary API (other than the one
> > between OSE and Office, but then since OSE is an add-on to Office rather
> > than an OS component, that's to be expected).
> >
> > What evidence do you have that MS created special IIS API's for OSE?
>
> You just quoted it.
No, I haven't. There is no evidence of special API's for Office at all.
That's like claiming that an FTP server is a special OS API.
> > > Evidence, please.
> >
> > My NT5 Beta 1 SDK dated in 1998 that shipped with the MSDN.
>
> You're claiming that Microsoft always tells application developers
> two years in advance exactly what is going to be available? What
> about the SQLServer documention cited elsewher in this thread?
As was stated, the information had been available for 6 months in the SDK,
it just wasn't in the MSDN (which is always at least 3-6 months behind on
such things due to it's lead time and cut-off dates.)
> > I'm sure if the competition wanted to give MS source code, they would
> > consider adding it. But why would, say, Intuit want to give Microsoft
the
> > code for it's latest widgets?
>
> And if they wanted to add a system call, or even use the sourcecode to
> Windows while developing for it?
What makes you think Office developers have access to OS code? MS guards
it's OS code tightly. If anyone in any division could just peek at the code
whenever they wanted, it would be all over the net.
> > > > No, if you break up the application and OS division, it means that
3rd
> > party
> > > > developers will no longer be able to take advantage of the
Application
> > > > division written code that MS rolls into the OS. This will put 3rd
> > party
> > > > developers at even more of a disadvantage.
> > >
> > > I suppose we simply disagree.
> >
> > You disagree that 3rd party application developers will no longer be
able to
> > take advantage of code from Office that MS has rolled into the OS?
> >
> > That's a no-brainer.
>
> You snipped my side of the argument, obviously.
You quoted this material and then said you disagreed with it. If that's not
what you mean, you should quote better.
> > > > The Office developers seem to have much more leeway in writing new
> > features
> > > > than the OS division does.
> > >
> > > Writing new OS features, that is.
> >
> > Writing features which eventually become OS features. Yes.
> >
> > Things like Personalized Menu's, which originally showed up in Office
2000
> > and were later added to Windows 2000 (and probably Millennium).
> >
> > It's clear that these features are not OS features in Office, since when
you
> > turn them off in Windows 2000, Office is not effected. You have to turn
> > them off there as well. Office does it's own thing UI wise, similar to
> > writing complete custom widgets for X rather than using Motif or other
> > standard widgets.
>
> So Microsoft does have an advantage by allowing their application
> group access to the Windows group. That's all were saying here.
You keep reversing things. The Windows group has access to Application
source code. MS guards the Windows source very tightly, they're not going
to just let anyone in the company have access to it.
If the Apps division had access to Windows source, they wouldn't need to
have a completely seperate implementation in their apps. (And in reality, I
highly doubt that the OS division uses much source code from the Apps
anyways, more than likely that code is highly application specific. They
would need to rewrite it to be generic for an OS. Basicly the Apps division
floats the concept to users in the office apps, if it gets good feedback,
they write something similar for the OS).
> > > Read "Barbarians led by Bill Gates" and come back.
> >
> > Neither Gates or Balmer have the kind of shareholder clout they used to.
> > They've both sold off a great deal of stock. Unlike 10 years ago.
Gates
> > still has a significant amount, but the boardmembers no longer have a
> > combined controlling interest.
>
> Regardless, they still run the company.
And would open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits if they did anything
like split up the company without shareholder approval.
> > > > The interface is not secret. MS's Kerebos implementation is fully
> > standard
> > > > conforming. The standard allows for OS extension through the vendor
> > > > reserved parts of the ticket. The standard does not require MS to
> > document
> > > > it in order to be standard conforming.
> > >
> > > Do you realize how stupid that statement is?
> >
> > It's a true statement.
>
> So all standards must include the disclaimer: In order to remain a
> standard, you must not use reserved space in a proprietary way.
> Besides, Microsoft deson't even call it Kerberos anymore (at least
> *they* know it isn't).
What do they call it?
If a standard doesn't want customized implementations, it won't create
implementation defined fields.
> > > The *standard* doesn't require documentation in order to be standard
> > > conforming?! How can I respond to this? It's insane. The interface
> > > is a secrete for all intents and purposes of someone wishing to
> > > implement it.
> >
> > The standard provides vendor reserved fields that are defined by the
> > standard as being unique to a vendors implementation. The standard does
> > *NOT* require those fields to be documented. That's fact. Prove me
wrong
> > by quoting the relevant part of the standard which contradicts me.
>
> Here's the RFC:
>
> http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1510.txt
That document is dated September of 1993. I believe there is a newer
version.
> Why don't you show me where it guarantees that you'll have a standard
> implementation even if you play around with the local fields. Why
> can't Windows 2000 authenticate against a virgin v5 kerberos machine
> if "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification" is kerberos-standard
> (rfc1510) compliant?
There are plenty of compliant ways to make a kerberos server incompatible
with other implementations. For instance, kerberos allows the use of a
custom encryption algorithm. If both sides do not support the same
algorithm, then authentication can fail.
> How come dozens of other companies have implemented Kerberos without
> any problems?
Perhaps those dozens of other companies didn't have NT domain information to
deal with.
> How come this is _exactly_ the practice described in the Halloween
> documents?
How come MS worked with the standards committee to allow Kerberos to be
extended?
> > > > > If we want to go with Apple products, we'd have to double our
hardware
> > > > > budget and pay a hefty entrance fee. If we went with BeOS or
Linux
> > > > > (and even the Mac), we'd have to re-educate everyone and give up
all
> > > > > our specialty apps (the dearth of Facts and Comparisons would nail
> > > > > that coffin right up). WE HAVE NO CHOICE. Microsoft knows that
and
> > > > > perpetuates the situation, not with innovation or superb customer
> > > > > service, but with secrets.
> > > >
> > > > Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
> > without
> > > > a significant cost.
> > >
> > > Pretty much anything written for UNIX. It took Apple a couple days to
> > > get XFree86 running on Darwin.
> >
> > Great, but you can't run Apple applications under XFree without either a
> > translation layer or rewriting the apps (both have significant cost).
>
> That would be because XFree86 isn't MacOS... I was attempting to show
> how portable UNIX is, not MacOS.
>
> > > > > The sad thing is, Microsoft makes good products which could
compete on
> > > > > merit alone, if they'd only let them.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, something we can agree on.
> > >
> > > So why don't you push this agenda forward? Let Microsoft products
> > > compete on merit, and not through Windows' monopoly status.
> > >
> > > Splitting the company up would be one method.
> >
> > Yes, and chopping off an arm to prevent gangrene from a papercut would
work
> > too.
>
> That would create a larger papercut. Splitting up Microsoft shouldn't
> hurt the company at all, if their application developers don't depend
> on the Windows codebase (as you have asserted *many* times).
>
> > I do agree that MS needs restrictions, I don't agree that breaking them
up
> > will do anything but give them a severe handicap to allow incompetant
> > companies to compete. I (and many other people) can pinpoint the stupid
> > mistakes just about any company has made to allow it to be overtaken by
MS.
> > MS doesn't make those kinds of mistakes (they make other kinds of
course, as
> > the DOJ has proven).
>
> I don't even think it'll give them a handicap at all. This is
> conjecture, of course, but look at FileMaker and Palm as good examples
> of companies which need freedom to innovate. Apple spun off Claris
> (which became FileMaker), and it actually started making money. 3Com
> plans to spin off the Palm division (they may have already done so,
> I'm not sure), because ever since they bought the company it hasn't
> done as well.
>
> Case studies abound about whether or not spinning of divisions will
> help them out.
>
> > Most of MS's competitors fell behind because they took "wait and see"
> > approaches to new technology, such as going GUI based (Lotus 123 and
> > WordPerfects downfall) or going 32 bit (Lotus again with WordPro and
pushing
> > 123 even farther back, Borland (for instance, Delphi did not go 32 bit
until
> > 1996), etc.
>
> This is ancient history, but since you brought it up:
>
> The Commodore Amiga ran circles around DOS, had cheaper hardware and
> at least as many applications at it's peak. People didn't buy it
> because IBM/Microsoft was the "safe" bet. The Amiga was better than
> DOS, Windows, GeOS and any other x86 GUI that I had seen in *every*
> category.
>
> Microsoft isn't in it's position today because of excellent software.
>
> > Many other companies took the stand of "Let's wait until the OS ships,
so we
> > don't have to follow a moving target", while MS was more than happy to
> > follow the moving target with their apps.
>
> LOL
>
> Yes, that's exactly what Commodore did... *sigh*
>
> --
> 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] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 16 May 2000 16:28:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Just to name one: drive letters.
>>Why does one need drive letters? The only reason they exist is because
>>DOS did not have a hierarchical file system until version 2.0. 2.0!!! do
>>you believe it?
>>
>>There are so many more of these '70's quick and dirty hacks, why do we
>>continue to use them? Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a
>>few yourself. If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
>>designing programs.
>
>Because they are easy and simple to use? Because of backwards
>compatibility?
>
>Incidentally have you never tried the following on Windows:
>
>dir \\fred\share\whatever.*
>
>Did that use a letter?
Fred went to work somewhere else, and it's Mary's box now. You
had 20 programs configured to find data there. How long will
it take to fix them all. When someone else takes over your
box and the server also changes again, how will they know that
all the references have been updated in all the right places?
With a mount point it is one change, and everything referencing
it stays the same.
>You can assign partitions on NT/2000 without letters, but who uses it?
>
>Incidentally, why does Linux still have kernel rebuilds? Is that modern by
>todays standards - hardly!
They are optional. Still the optimal way, but for people who don't
care about tuning, modules work fine and don't require a reboot.
Does NT still require a reboot after an IP address, netmask, or
name change? Modern or just silly????
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:40:13 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > And I can sell my computer (and OS) and the applications that go with
it.
>
> You do not OWN any MS application therefore how can you sell something you
> don't own? You cannot not BUY MS software.
You own the liscense. And you can sell that (or otherwise transfer it, but
it must go with the hardware if it's an OEM version).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:40:56 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST* December
of
> > 1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't
exist in
> > InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
> >
> > The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
>
> Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation in
> 1989 - two full years before 1991.
That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:29:48 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Syphon wrote:
>
> >> Ever Wonder why there are very few 1.x version Linux applications?
> >> Reason is they are too scared to commit to anything...Bunch of back
> >> room hackers they are....
>
> >As oppose to MS, which will gladly list alpha quality products as v. 3.0.
>
> Which brings up an interesting question --- is there *any* currently
> shipping MS product with a 1.x version number?
>
> Or does anyone know anybody who ever productively used a version 1.x
> MS product in the last ten years?
Microsoft "Bob?"
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:28:27 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:30:58 +0200,
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 16 May 2000 20:42:36 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> ><SNIP> A lot of stuff </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> >Still expecting Charlie's documented evidence.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> AFAIK, Charlie never claimed to have any evidence. It's his own
>> >> personal experience, and you haven't proven him wrong.
>> >
>> >No. He said that WinNT/2k is a blue screening mess that can't handle a
>heavy
>> >load. I don't recall him saying that it was his opinion or experience,
>he,
>> >IIRC, passed it as a fact.
>>
>> Go back and read his posts. He said it was his experience.
>
>http://x38.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=623812631&CONTEXT=958508246.1730
>936833&hitnum=10
>
>Charlie wrote:
>
>"Okay. Microsoft is a blue screening mess which can't handle a load.
>
>IN FACT, the only time you can associate the word load and Microsoft
>together is when you say 'PANTLOAD'. Because you'll have a pantload when
>you found
>out YOUR server just blue screened about 650 users during month end."
>
>Draw your conclusions from there.
I am not defending Charlie's temperment. But if you go back and read
his other posts you will see he says he has experienced BSOD's under
Win2k. You even resonded to one of his posts aknowledging that you
don't doubt his claim:
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624036331
>> >I said that some corporations disagree, and wether they have ties with
>> >microsoft is irrelevant to me.
>>
>> Availability of server farms do *not* prove non-existance of BSOD's
>
>I didn't say that there were no BSODs. I say that these corporations
>believed that NT/2K can handle the load, hence, their use in their big/high
>availability sites.
And what is "the load"?? Some people, maybe Charlie, have applications
that require single machines to handle heavy loads. In those cases,
BSOD's are not acceptable.
>> within the farm. Finiancial ties to Microsoft give these companies
>> reason to put up with BSOD's. So IMHO, those sites prove nothing.
>
>Well, they apparently succesfully use WinNT/2K to host big/high availability
>sites.
Sucessful in the context that at an extra cost they appeased Bill
Gates, and hope to get a return on that investment.
>You are free to think otherwise.
>
>Can we call it quits now ?
>
As soon as you realize all you have proven is that W2K can be used in
a Web farm, where stability of single machines is not that much of an
issue. You haven't proven or disproven anything in regards to the
stability of W2K on single machines under heavy load.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:45:02 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Then please quote the statement that MS innovates with undocumented
API's.
>
> "The governments proposed regulations are
> completely unwarranted and outside the scope of
> the case. They in fact were proposing taking away
> our valuable intellectual property and making us
> disclose it to our competitors -- simply not
> allowing us the R&D resources to continue to
> invest in the kinds of innovations that have made
thepersonal
> computer industry so valuable to consumers.
The words "undocumented" and "API" do not appear in that statement.
> > Wait, you just said they were undocumented. How could they be
undocumented
> > if MS documentes them.
>
> The concept of time confuses you. MS designs and uses a new API in the
> OS, at a later date they document the API.
How can MS use the API before they've written it? The SDK's are available
to the public long before the API is complete.
> > You're contradicting yourself. Are you saying they're only undocumented
> > when Microsoft designs them? DUH!
>
> Double DUH. When the MS Applications group designs the API for their
> application it is an undocumented API - unless you can tell us how a
> competior can have equal access. I'm sure your contorted explanation will
> amuse us all.
It's not an API when they design it, it's simply a function of their app.
The thing you're forgetting here is that the OS features that end up in the
OS are completely different implementations. You can see this for yourself.
For instance, change the gradient titlebar of the OS, then load up Word 95
and notice that Word 95 uses a completely different color. Turn off
personalized menus in Windows 2000 and notice that they're still on in
Office 2000. They're completely different implementations. The app is not
using an API at all to do them, they are implemented internally to Office.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 16 May 2000 21:35:31 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On 16 May 2000 16:25:25 -0400,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
+
+ > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
+ > I R A Darth Aggie <no-courtesy-copies-please> wrote:
+ > >On Tue, 16 May 2000 01:44:54 GMT,
+ > >Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
+ > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ > >
+ > >+ i have done that, but i am still not satisfied. how many 19 or 20
+ > >+ pixel high, unscaled, monospaced fonts with a full complement of
+ > >+ normal, bold, slanted and bold/slant variants are there? none as far
+ > >+ as i can tell.
+ > >
+ > >Well, on my system, you've got a choice of Courier (Adobe), Courier
+ > >(Bitstream) and lucidatypwriter.
+ >
+ > He said he didn't want scaled fonts, although I don't understand
+ > why. The postscript and truetype fonts are going to be scaled
+ > unless you convert them.
+
+ the reason i do not want scaled fonts is that they generally suffer
+ from severe raster damage. diagonal lines do not look like lines but
+ instead resemble sawblades or lightning bolts. i don't want a crappy
+ looking font.
Unless I completely mis-understand the nature of postscript and truetype
fonts, that shouldn't matter. You're not scaling a bitmap, but description
of how to draw a character.
Scaling a bitmapped font will give the results you describe.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
