Linux-Advocacy Digest #484, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 22:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Alan Boyd)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Alan Boyd)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Christopher Browne)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (bytes256)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A Blast From Oracle's Past (Re: Is the PC era over?) (petilon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 21:09:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Michael W. Cocke from alt.destroy.microsoft; Fri, 12 May 2000
08:41:08
[...]
>No, Microsoft didn't invent the floppy disk. HOWEVER, sides, density, #
>of tracks, # of sectors, hard vs. soft sectoring were all variables.
>GAH!
A brief check of the help text from the DOS format command should
dissuade you of the notion that Microsoft changed this situation at all.
Once again, the convergence of development on the 3.5" form factor is a
product of the market development of PC *hardware* specifications, and
has nothing to do with Microsoft. On the other hand, the fact that you
don't have to "worry about" these things anymore is simple development
of all PC software, though on most systems other than DOS, you never had
to worry about them to begin with.
>Heaven knows, I don't like Microsoft, but even I will admit they did
>SOME good. Yes, the issue is one of hardware, but market pressure
>caused the standardization of the hardware, and nobody does market
>pressure like microsoft.
I don't even know if I can address that, its such sloppy thinking. Now
you don't seem to be crediting Microsoft with the 3.5" disk, but simply
the fact that there was a monopoly.
The PC would have "standardized" on the 3.5" floppy disk, with a short
list of optimal format specifications, regardless of Microsoft's
existence, I'm quite sure.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:18:23 -0500
Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > It is a test for non-MS-DOS versions. Joseph claimed that MS tested for
the
> > DR-DOS brand, and further claimed that they did not test internal
> > structures. This proves him wrong.
> >
> > MS tested for non MS-DOS period, not any specific brand.
>
> True. However, MS-DOS passed the tests and PC-DOS passed the tests.
> Now, which other DOS might a Windows executable program be running under
> in that time frame? How many versions of DOS were there? The answer is
> that the only other DOS *IS* DR-DOS. So while there is no "if $ver ==
> 'DRDOS' " kind of logic there isn't anything else they could have been
> testing for.
Perhaps, but there were at least two other Dos's that were in development at
the time (FreeDos (which was originally called PD-DOS) and OS/2's VDM)
Microsoft surely knew of OS/2's VDM, and probably knew about PD-DOS as well
(which had been in development for years).
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:24:17 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >Outlook passes the document to SHShellExecute, which is a function of
> the
> > > >shell. The shell then decides what to do with the document.
> > >
> > > Is this what you mean?
> > >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/shellcc/shell/Functions/ShellExecute.
> htm
> > >
> > > That's an API that is /called/ by a shell. The point is exactly that
> > > Outlook itself is functioning as a shell and thus bypassing
> > > explorer.exe.
> >
> > Indeed, and the proof is that Explorer will execute the default action
> > in the registry for the file type.
> > Outlook will execute the "open" action in the registry.
>
> According to the documentation for ShellExecute:
>
> If you set this paramater [verb] to NULL:
>
> For systems prior to Windows 2000, the "open" verb is used if available. If
> not, the default verb is used.
>
> For Windows 2000 and later systems, "open" is used if available. If not, the
> default verb is used. If neither verb is available, the system uses first
> verb listed in the registry.
>
> So in other words, open *IS* the default action for ShellExecute.
As I understand it the default is specified in the registry and that's
the action that occurs when you double click on an file. It's also the
highlighted entry on the popup menu for the file type. The default can
be, as an example, "edit" instead of "open".
According to what you said ShellExecute will use "open" if available.
But Explorer is not using the ShellExecute call. It's doing something
different so that the default verb is used. Therefore:
> > > Outlook itself is functioning as a shell and thus bypassing
> > > explorer.exe.
Did you have an argument or were you just wasting bandwidth?
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:31:50 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 12 May 2000 15:04:41 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >You can pipe an attachment to any app from Pine. I'd be astounded if
> other
> > >mailers don't support that.
> > >
> > >This is basically the Unix equivalent of what Outlook is doing.
> >
> > No, the equivalent of what Outlook is doing would be for Pine to blindly
> > call "/bin/sh attachment" when you selected "view".
>
> No, the equivalent would be for Pine to say "Would you really like to do
> this, it might destroy your system. Y/N ?" Then running "/bin/sh
> <attachment>".
No, the equivalent would be
"Would you like to view this text file, it might destroy your system."
"Would you like to view this jpeg file, it might destroy your system."
"Would you like to view this document, it might destroy your system."
"Would you like to view this movie, it might destroy your system."
"Would you like to view this icon file, it might destroy your system."
"Would you like to view this source code, it might destroy your system."
"Would you like to view this virus, it might destroy your system."
By the time the user gets to "virus" they just click through without
reading the message.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:34:04 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Gary Connors would say:
>in article 8etjfd$p1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 5/5/00 12:42 AM:
>>> I think a variant of Unix running on the VAX -- I don't know if it
>>> was Ultrix, or BSD -- finally figured out that each individual page
>
>Man. Get a clue (I know I'm talking to two authors here). Ultrix runs on
>DEC's. Vax, which was made by digital, ran OpenVMS. Definitly not a Unix.
>Legendary uptimes. I used to work in a lab a few years back where Vax's
>were used as desktop machines (try writing papers with emacs and Tex!). My
>old account is still active and I logged in about 2 minutes ago and checked
>its uptime. 1251 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes. Get that kind of uptime with
>Linux!
You need to be thrashed severely with a cluestick on this one.
A notable longstanding FTP archive and Usenet site was
watdragon.uwaterloo.ca. It was, at least for much of its life, a VAX
11/785, _running Ultrix_. It used to be one of the more significant
Usenet hosts up north.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:watdragon.uwaterloo.ca/+watdragon&hl=en>
indicates that its services were subsumed by another server.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.grad.math.uwaterloo.ca/
%257Ekcwellsc/bio.html+watdragon+vax&hl=en>
[which is no longer at the original site, only cached...]
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."
...
"Before you think I am totally nuts I will say I was not the only one
to undertake that task. In fact when I got access to the VAX port of
the "hex version" of Empire, I again wrote a disassembler and rewrote
the C source from object code. I did this in my first years as a
Master's student at the University of Waterloo (on VAX 780's running
4.2BSD)."
VAXen were known to run VMS; that was what they were primarily
designed for. They were also known to run UNIX, and, in particular,
Ultrix.
--> OpenVMS is the name Digital started using when they started
selling Alpha-based systems to run "VMS."
--> The "native" OS designed for the VAX line of computers was VMS.
It was not called OpenVMS until Alpha had become the "architecture
of choice." [There may have been an overlap of a year one way or
another.]
--> Ultrix was the product name DEC used for the VAX port of BSD Unix,
so it is permissible to be confused as to whether to call it "BSD"
or "Ultrix."
--> The only other possible confusion is of whether to call the
company producing these systems "DEC" or "Digital Equipment
Corporation." At different times, the marketers "sold" different
monikers.
--
PALINDROME spelled backwards is EMORDNILAP.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:43:03 -0500
Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >Outlook passes the document to SHShellExecute, which is a function
of
> > the
> > > > >shell. The shell then decides what to do with the document.
> > > >
> > > > Is this what you mean?
> > > >
> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/shellcc/shell/Functions/ShellExecute.
> > htm
> > > >
> > > > That's an API that is /called/ by a shell. The point is exactly that
> > > > Outlook itself is functioning as a shell and thus bypassing
> > > > explorer.exe.
> > >
> > > Indeed, and the proof is that Explorer will execute the default action
> > > in the registry for the file type.
> > > Outlook will execute the "open" action in the registry.
> >
> > According to the documentation for ShellExecute:
> >
> > If you set this paramater [verb] to NULL:
> >
> > For systems prior to Windows 2000, the "open" verb is used if available.
If
> > not, the default verb is used.
> >
> > For Windows 2000 and later systems, "open" is used if available. If not,
the
> > default verb is used. If neither verb is available, the system uses
first
> > verb listed in the registry.
> >
> > So in other words, open *IS* the default action for ShellExecute.
>
> As I understand it the default is specified in the registry and that's
> the action that occurs when you double click on an file. It's also the
> highlighted entry on the popup menu for the file type. The default can
> be, as an example, "edit" instead of "open".
The application is free to override the default, which is what Explorer
does, unless no default action is set, in which case explorer uses open or
under Win2k, the first verb if open is not available.
> According to what you said ShellExecute will use "open" if available.
> But Explorer is not using the ShellExecute call. It's doing something
> different so that the default verb is used. Therefore:
ShellExecute is provided by the shell (explorer) and is the same function
that the shell itself uses. It's simply exported for other apps to use as
well. In fact, the function ShellExecute lives in Shell32.dll
------------------------------
From: bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:31:48 GMT
In article <8f3siq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff) wrote:
> In article <8ert80$r4c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> >My point is quite simply put: XWindows does not best meet the needs
of
> >the average Linux user. It is far more complicated than necessary.
>
> I think you have a budding mistake here. It's based on the untruth
that
> user's stand pat in their level of understanding or usage of a system.
> While a use may not initially use all the functionality of a system,
as they
> become knowledgeable they start to use more features. Being
shortsighted and
> only targeting the novice/average user creates an environment of
frustration
> for advanced/expert users which a fair number of currently
novice/average
> users will grow into.
>
> BTW explain both 'complicated' and 'necessary'. The merit of the
above
> statement relies on the definitions of these terms.
>
Complicated: More than what is necessary
Necessary: what is actually required
> >And then it leaves out important functionality that people want.
> >(Standardized controls,
>
> Sigh. Wrong level of abstraction. It's like saying that all
automobile engines
> must be standardized so that folks can drive. X11 is an
infrastructure on
> which desktop environments built.
>
> And of course the standard problem with standard anything that is
presented
> to a user: How do you incorporate all the features that satisfy every
user
> that will ever use the 'standardized' system. Well you end up with
two
> equally unpleasing ends: Either you don't satisfy all of the users, or
> you create a system that can be customized thereby breaking the very
standard
> you're trying to create. It's a no win situation.
>
> So instead of 'Standardized controls' which is guranteed to fail for
any
> desktop system you propose, try 'Standardized default controls with
> custumization' and you get closer to the target. Customization is
critical
> because most users don't remain at the same level of compentency
throughout
> their usage of a system. If that were the case we'd all still be
novices
> wouldn't we?
>
Actually that is what i wanted anyway. Windows and Mac offer builtin
controls, but that doesn't mean that programmers have to use them.
> > High performance,
>
> This is usually a very ugly Catch-22: creating a high performance
system
> necessitates placing that system where it can do real damage to the
very
> system it's trying to enhance. For example the NT 3.51 GUI system was
outside
> of kernel space. It wasn't high performance. M$ then inserted the GUI
into
> the kernel which made the system much less reliable.
>
That means that you can't write high performance user mode apps and
that my friend is extremely untrue. If it were true, then it would
reveal extensive flaws in the OS itself.
> Also you need to define high performance. What exactly are the
features
> necessary for high performance. Also high performance for the average
user
> and high performance for a gamer are two totally different things.
While X
> may not have enough horsepower for 3D gaming, explain why it doesn't
have
> enough horsepower for the average browsing and office type tasks?
>
Do you expect users not to want to do gaming with their computers?
> > easy installation, etc.)
>
> Installation is so lame I get tired of discussing it. X with its
setup tools
> are more than adequate for an knowledgeable installer. Novices
shouldn't
> be doing installations. Period. Why? Because then it either requires
so
> steep a learning curve that it frustrates the novice, or it requires
a system
> so complicated and fragile that any unmet assumption leads to
installation
> failure.
>
What good is a program if you can't install the damn thing?
> I can set up most any box with X in less than 10 minutes with the
maximum
> resolution and colors allowed by the video card and monitor. It's
easier
> and faster for me to do it than to frustrate a novice with the task.
The
> novice only wants to use the computer, not administrate it.
>
> Installation is a non issue. I'm sick of seeing it discussed as a
real issue.
>
> >
> >Don't shoot the messenger...revolutions have to start somewhere.
>
> There's no substance to justify having a new regime. It's almost like
someone
> wants to kill the king simply because he's old. But I'll take a old,
wise,
> effective king over an unproven young upstart any day of the week.
> Especially a old king that has the ability to adapt as times change.
>
> Please come back and define your buzzwords, then we can talk about
dethroning
> X.
>
Unfortunately the very architecture of X is so old and backwards that
it is in many cases impossible to add modern features.
A GUI architecture would benefit everyone involved.
I would start such a project, but I don't have the time to do it and
give it the attention that it needs. If someone is willing to start or
has started such a project, I would gladly help in its implementation.
I am a seasoned programmer and I am not afraid at all of getting my
feet wet.
If anybody out there wants a revolution I'll help them out!
> BAJ
>
--
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll. -Led Zeppelin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:45:02 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > It is a test for non-MS-DOS versions. Joseph claimed that MS tested for
> the
> > > DR-DOS brand, and further claimed that they did not test internal
> > > structures. This proves him wrong.
> > >
> > > MS tested for non MS-DOS period, not any specific brand.
> >
> > True. However, MS-DOS passed the tests and PC-DOS passed the tests.
> > Now, which other DOS might a Windows executable program be running under
> > in that time frame? How many versions of DOS were there? The answer is
> > that the only other DOS *IS* DR-DOS. So while there is no "if $ver ==
> > 'DRDOS' " kind of logic there isn't anything else they could have been
> > testing for.
>
> Perhaps, but there were at least two other Dos's that were in development at
> the time (FreeDos (which was originally called PD-DOS) and OS/2's VDM)
> Microsoft surely knew of OS/2's VDM, and probably knew about PD-DOS as well
> (which had been in development for years).
Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft was preemptively checking
for them as well? They could change radically (in terms of what AARD
was looking at) before they were released. They might never have been
released. No. The only thing they could have been looking for was
DR-DOS.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:46:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 12 May 2000 14:21:54 -0500 <8fhlki$2iva$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Solaris on Sun hardware works.
>>
>>Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
>>
>>Is there a need to say any more?
>
>Not when you can't even get that part right.
> Want some Sun parts that don't work?
Would one of them be that port of Internet Explorer perchance? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to
work strangely.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: A Blast From Oracle's Past (Re: Is the PC era over?)
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:57:58 -0700
JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But I'm curious, o time traveller. Just what was it that you
> thought was going to replace that "excruciatingly complex and
> buggy OS"?
A CD-ROM. Exactly what's on the CD-ROM is not something users
need to know or care about. All they know is that when they
turn the machine on they get a web browser.
They can then happily visit their favourite news site, order
stuff online, send e-mail, chat with friends, etc. No DLL
conflicts to worry about, no disk defragmenter to run, no virus
scanners to install, no backup software to run, no corrupt hard
disks due to power failure, no "safe mode" to confuse you, no
device drivers to update, no screwing up your system by
accidentally dragging and dropping Windows folder to C:\temp.
Find out more about it here:
http://www.thinknic.com/
The nic boots from the CD-ROM drive. Don't ask what OS it runs
because it is invisible. (Do you want to use an OS, or do you
just want to browse the web?) To upgrade the system, just
replace the CD-ROM.
It couldn't be simpler.
Now a lot of users want to use CAD software to design rockets,
prepare legal documents containing hundreds of pages, etc. The
nic isn't for those people. Those people will be better off
with a PC.
The nic is for people who don't want to know what a DLL is. It
is as simple as a remote control, yet as powerful as a PC if
all you are interested in is the Internet.
And guess what, a lot of new computer users are only interested
in the Internet.
I predict Microsoft will soon copy the idea of booting from a
CD-ROM, or go out of business.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
