Linux-Advocacy Digest #878, Volume #26 Sun, 4 Jun 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Linux User Counts, - time for an update ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Marc
Schlensog")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Marc
Schlensog")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Marc
Schlensog")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Marc
Schlensog")
Re: Linux is so stable... (Terry Porter)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (David Steuber)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 4 Jun 2000 05:32:05 -0500
Let's see, after reading everythign you wroet I see that you have provided
exactly 0% content. Absolutely no refuting facts, no facts whatsoever
actually. You've provided NOTHING to further this thread or replies to my
documented comments. You are too lame to debate... i mean, try at least,
don't just give up
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hbcf1$2tpu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >> Solaris is B2able. AIX is B1able. VMS is B1able. None of these
> > operating
> >> systems are secure to this extent without massive hardware and software
> >> contingencies, period.
> >>
> >> And neither is NT.
>
> > B1able without hardware changes? True true.
>
> NT isnt B1able at ALL, dresden. Care to explain to the class exactly why?
>
> > Ahhhhhhh - your mistake. Unlike other OSes, NT is able to reach C2
> > certification withOUT any changes to hardware; i.e., any box that will
run
> > NT4 can be made C2 certified. Get it? Dont' believe it? Go read the
report:
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html -
read
> > the detailed 193 page PDF and you'll find NO hardware changes. You are
wrong
> > again.
>
> I'm amazed. I'm really truly amazed. You must have gotten your MCSE out
> of a cereal box.
>
> > No, you are wrong. and I have posted a link to prove it - unlike you who
> > just harrasses without any proof
>
> Your stupidity has actually brought a tear to my eye, dresden.
>
> >> Wrong. It is only C2 certified with a very specific vendor's very
> >> specific hardware. You dont know what youre talking about.
>
> > Wrong again, Yes, to have actual piece of paper it would have to detail
that
> > specific configuration HOWEVER to meet C2 certification you just need
> > software changes, NOT hardware.
>
> I see.
>
> >>
> >> > Unforunately, since neither the government
> >> > nor MS have unlimited funds, they only tested the configurations that
> >> > needed to be tested.
> >>
> >> You just made that up.
> > HAHAHHAAH - comin from you? the ultimate make up BS artist? hahaha
>
> Hahaha.
>
> >> You're a liar, you have no idea what youre talking about, youre
pathetic
> > and
> >> youre very, very stupid. I'll bet youre in someones IT department,
arent
> > you.
>
> > From someone who thinks "IT" is funny - that is hilarious. No,
abracadbra,
> > you've been proven wrong at every turn and yet you continue to troll, go
> > home and suck straws...
>
> Suck straws?
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 4 Jun 2000 05:33:09 -0500
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
> >I wont' go point by poing
>
> Obviously not; you'd have to answer things you likely wouldn't want to
> answer.
Um, no. I just believe that if you read the document and accompanying PDF
you'll note that no hardware changes are requird and if you read the specs
on the hardware you will find nothing special about them. I am able to
refute point by point but why bother when it's easier to point to the actual
reference document as the ultimate source of information. What would you
like clarification on?
>
> >but you should educate yourself further on how
> >exactly a C2 is obtained and what exactly is required and you will find
> >specifically that for NT the solution is entirely Software based, no
special
> >hardware is required. You may not want to believe this but it's true.
Read
> >http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html and
go
> >into the detailed PDF for more.
>
> I am quite familiar with the material at the TPEP site; it simply does
> not say what you want to spin it to say.
>
> The page you reference _does not_ indicate that "no special hardware
> is required."
>
> It instead states that "The hosting hardware for the Windows NT platform
> in the evaluated configuration includes single processor and
multiprocessor
> versions of the Compaq Proliant Server models 6500 and 7000, and Compaq
> Professional Workstation models 5100 and 8000."
>
> It certainly does not say anything to agree with the notion, mentioned
> below, that:
> "You could put it on any box with the right requirements (locking
> cabinet, etc) and pass."
>
> _That_ represents ignorant nonsense, but obviously that's one of the
> points you didn't wish to "point by poing" answer.
>
> >W2K is currently in testing along with a
> >submission of a particular kernel revision of Linux - wanna wager who'll
get
> >certified first?
>
> Obviously the spoils can go to those that have the most money for bribes.
> The question is not really of much importance for any of those that
actually
> care about _using_ certified systems, but is rather primarily of
importance
> for marketing spindoctors of whatever persuasion.
>
> >And what would it matter, by the time linux is certified,
> >who'll be using that old kernel anymore?
>
> Obviously, those that require a certified system.
>
> There are systems still running using 1.0 kernels, after all.
>
> There is at least one system out there still running Multics, which was
> a B2 system back before Microsoft was founded.
>
> >"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when abraxas would say:
> >> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> NT, as an OS, is C2-able.
> >> >
> >> >Solaris is B2able. AIX is B1able. VMS is B1able. None of these
> >operating
> >> >systems are secure to this extent without massive hardware and
software
> >> >contingencies, period.
> >> >
> >> >And neither is NT.
> >>
> >> Of course, the _entertaining_ factor is that NT is only secure at the
> >> _lowest_ grade of security evaluated by the Trusted Product Evaluation
> >> Program. There is no _less_ secure system currently evaluated.
> >>
> >> >> The hardware it's on is merely a small part of
> >> >> the total security and design of the system.
> >> >
> >> >Without the hardware, it is not C2 certified, period.
> >>
> >> Indeed. Security is not a matter of throwing features in; it is an
> >> emergent feature of the entire system, and can only be evaluated in
that
> >> context.
> >>
> >> >> NT was designed for security and it's reflected by it's
certification.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, it was designed for STABILITY. Thats why they chose the VMS
> >kernel
> >> >right off the bat.
> >>
> >> ... And the fact that, despite supposedly being based on technical
> >> _advances_, NT is _vastly_ less stable than VMS, is suggestive that it
> >> is a failure in that too.
> >>
> >> >> Access control lists with explicit Deny and object auditing for
every
> >> >> object and many other advanced features of NT's design allow it to
> >> >> easily achieve C2 certification.
> >> >
> >> >Thats not the only thing. And it wasnt EASY. You have no idea how
> >> >that auditing went or how long it took.
> >>
> >> Entertainingly enough, Harris Computers got one of their UNIX systems
> >> evaluated at either B1 or B2, with much the same GECOS ACL system
> >> that Linux uses.
> >>
> >> [After all, it's only liars with agendas that claim that UNIX _doesn't_
> >> offer ACLs; while there is only so much you can do with chmod [xxx]
> >> file, it _does_ represent a scheme for access control, and involves a
> >> list of attributes.]
> >>
> >> >> It was only tested on those four boxes because it doesn't really
> >> >> matter about the box.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong.
> >>
> >> I'm reasonably sure that the properties of the BIOS matter; I expect
> >> that the properties of the video card, which has access to memory,
> >> matters.
> >>
> >> Beyond that, I'll remain skeptical in both directions...
> >>
> >> >> You could put it on any box with the right requirements
> >> >> (locking cabinet, etc) and pass.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. It is only C2 certified with a very specific vendor's very
> >> >specific hardware. You dont know what youre talking about.
> >>
> >> Indeed. The test is the test, is evaluated by the NSA, and I somehow
> >> can't see them agreeing that
> >> "Put a locking cabinet on it and you'll pass!"
> >>
> >> >> Unforunately, since neither the government
> >> >> nor MS have unlimited funds, they only tested the configurations
that
> >> >> needed to be tested.
> >> >
> >> >You just made that up.
> >>
> >> I certainly expect so.
> >>
> >> >> This is a weak FUD-ized argument designed to help Linvocates sleep
> >better
> >> >> at night.
> >> >
> >> >You're a liar, you have no idea what youre talking about, youre
pathetic
> >and
> >> >youre very, very stupid. I'll bet youre in someones IT department,
arent
> >you.
> >>
> >> I would hope not... But suspect that hope has the potential to be
> >> disappointed.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, "IT department" offers a fairly wide scope of
> >> opportunity. Almost always large enough to offer openings for people
> >> who are remarkably clueless.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> "I don't do drugs anymore 'cause I find I get the same effect just by
> standing up really fast." -- Jonathan Katz
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 4 Jun 2000 05:35:09 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hbc8k$2tpu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Brian:
>
> > Rethink something you think you know (then look up the details to see
I'm
> > right):
> > Any NT system can be C2 certified, the only changes required are in
> > software, not hardware.
>
> Wrong. You do not understand what C2 certification means, which is not
> surprising, since you do not understand linux kernel numbering, SU, the
> difference between NT5 and W2K kernels, and very likely how to tie your
> own shoes.
of course you've done NOTHING to prove ANYTHING. All you do is rant and make
up shit and document nothing. I've seen nothing to demonstrate a diff from
NT5 to W2K. You dont' understand C2 or you'd not contest these remarks. Go
away troll.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 4 Jun 2000 05:37:02 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8h8fkp$pgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8h5oi9$16v9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Even more wrong, NT is *not* C2 certified. We've been over this
> >> hundreds of times, and chad is still spreading the same lie. Oddly,
> >> its the same one that dresden spreads. Dresden, why dont you explain
> >> to us just exactly what you have to do to NT (service packs, hardware,
> >> etc) to get it to be C2 certified.
> >>
> >> If you would be so kind.
> >>
>
> > your continued denial of even the most clearly documented and well
proofed
> > facts of reality document your non-stop attack of ANYTHING related to
MS.
> > You have no common sense, let alone the ability to even properly pick a
> > debatable subject.
>
> > NT has been C2 certified. This is a fact. It is undebatable. You know
> > exactly where to find the info as it's been repeated often. If you
actually
> > knew anything of the process you would not pretend to act suprised at
the
> > fact that the test is very specific in it's configuration for a very
valid
> > reason but that does NOT in any way invalidate it's own conclusion!
>
> HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA!!!
>
> Oh dresden liar, you cute little IT professional, once again you have
> no idea what youre talking about.
>
> What youre saying is that if I take a windowsNT 4.0 CD, put it in this
> here computer, install windowsNT4.0 on it, ill have a certified C2
> system.
Nope, I did NOT say that and I do not claim that. You knwo that but are
purposely being offensive. I can give you the URL to teh document on the MS
site that tells you EXACTLY step by step, starting with a NT4 CD and blank
hard drive how to get to a C2 certified ("evaluated") configuration. It's
not hard.
<snip lame attempts at flamage)
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 00:18:43 +0200
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
8hbr5a$38c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
> Know and understand your opponent.. a google search on Drestin
> Black reveals lots of interesting stuff.. some interesting and some
pretty
> scary stuff
Yes.... I gotta admit...... very insightful.
Hey Dres, what is BloodBath?
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:28:26 +0200
aleander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dnia 30 May 2000 15:20:36 -0500 niejaki
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wypstrykal:
> >Keep going - I'm sure you can manage 1 error per thousand lines
> >if you work at it.
> Hey... I've seen 1000 lines of code working at first compile...
> the guy who wrote it was quite cool - everything on paper first,
> then put all into a file, double checking every line... it
> took some time, but it worked!
Hmm, there goes a saying:
No non-trivial program is bug-free. It doesn´t mean
it doesn´t compile the first time, but that there are
certain functions, that don´t behave the way they should.
BTW, would you stop posting HTML?
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 10:46:42 +0200
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> post the deja url chump...
>
> my claim is clear, you are trying to blur it cause you are wrong, again.
>
> MS business practices have nothing to do with the performance of the W2K
OS.
>
> funny how you have no support in your counter nor has anyone else
disagreed
> with me.
>
You know, what´s funny, Dres? That everytime Matt (I presume that´s
sfcybear´s RN)
is throwing his (or is it actually yours) statement@you, you´re starting
getting jumpy,
unable to utter a single word, that seems to even remotely make any sense.
Regarding the second part of your post: Nobody is going to prove you wrong,
because everybody got sick and tired of your little conversation with Matt.
BTW: policy has something to do with performance: imagine you got 20
computers but only one W2K-license: then only one computer is able to run
W2K (legally), thus cutting the performance by 95%. Chew on this, Dres.
[Dres, learn to post!]
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux User Counts, - time for an update
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:02:03 +0200
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Snip]
> Document these numbers.
Dres, you´re so bright. One is giving you numbers, and you still want
proof?
What do you want? Do you want it black on white hardcopied with a
TOP SECRET stamp on it? Rex was giving more proof in one post than
you ever did in your whole Usenet-career (?). Awright, I was exaggerating
a bit.
BTW, how stupid, to pick on ones .signature.
But that´s Dres, as we know and love him (sort of).
What would comna be w/o Dres?!
[snip]
> have millenium in another, and another beta OS from MS in yet another.
It's
> an excellent test bed.
Another beta OS from M$? What might this be? M$-Linux? DOS 10.0?
Hey Dres, guess what: this time _I_ want proof. Names, Dres, *names*.
[Snip]
Marc
PS: Ah, Dres don´t have no signature, na na na naaaaaa na!!!!
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:53:50 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Until you get all the dependency problems...
What dependency problems? YaST is taking care of it automagically.
rpm itself is giving you the missing packages.
>
> No thanks, I prefer the Windows way..Works everytime for me.
When you like to...
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:57:11 +0200
FUCK!!!! Is Tim really *that* stupid? Or is he just fooling us?
He is indeed behaving like a 5-year-old.
Multiple desktops with fish... and clouds... and a nice
shiny intel-logo... isn´t that nice?
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
SAVOR ME!!!!!!!!
Lord, send brain from heavens!!!!!!!
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:02:03 +0200
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Stupid Shell tricks may seem 'cryptic' or 'primitive' to
> you but they allow me to do things with my desktop
> enviroment that just leave Windows users like you drooling
> and stupified.
Yea!
[being snippy]
> No, Unix has a variety of shell interpreters that can be
> interchanged (something DOS can't do) and they may or
of course it can.... you have the choice between command.com
and 4dos... and if you like to, you can even write your own
shell interpreter (who would do this in the first place?)
> may not be text based. All features of the OS besides the
> shiny happy desktop are available from the 'text shell'
> whereas a Win9x DOS instance by itself is nearly totally
> crippled (no devices, no networking, no multitasking).
Yip
> >>[Thack!]
*Ouch!* What was that for? =)
> Anything that seeks to be like Windows 95 which is itself
> a poor copy of other interfaces, is a 'bad immitation' by
> simple inheritance.
>
> Fortunately, Unix is not limited solely to such GUIs.
It is not even limited to a GUI (or even a terminal),
contrary to Windows.
[.sigsnip]
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 12:07:31 +0200
> In Windos the mouse is an arrow. Only geeks use UNIX where the mouse
> is a "charactor devise".
Where the mouse is *what*??? A <translate> character device </translate>???
Did you ever see X? <childish_behavior> We also have arrows.
</childish_behavior>
You shouldn´t confuse it with character-mode apps like the console or even
DOS-mode in M$-world.
BTW: regearding your behavior: see my previous post.
Marc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is so stable...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 4 Jun 2000 18:47:48 +0800
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 09:28:27 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No-Spam (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Please write something substantial next time, your etchings are
>>ambiguious to the max.
>
>If I could work out if there was a log on shutdown, I'd post that. It's
>kinda difficult to catch anything as it flys past on the console.
There is always a log.
>
>>You saw a stack trace.
>>What was it ?
>>Are you saying umount, seg faulted and dumped core ?
>
>Yep!
Hmm, which ?
Ive never seen a Linux app do a stack trace, I think your confused with Windows.
Linux apps produce core dumps.
>
>>This kind of complaint can be so easily manufactured.
>
>Are you saying I made it up? Why would I want to do that? To make Linux
>look bad? Are you really dumb enough to believe that just because I favour
>Windows, I'm going to lie about Linux!
No I'm not dumb enuff to believe that, but I see your tone, and it's typical
Wintroll 101.
Are you that stupid you think it isnt obvious ?
Don't be so offended, we get a lot of Wintrolls here, and your a new arrival.
>
>>You mount a network drive, then disconnect that network and unmount
>>the drive. Umount complains.
>>
>>Yes something went wrong all right, you pulled the coax!
>
>But that isn't what happened. For some reason umount died on shutdown.
>
>>Goodwin, you're a troll, not bad as trolls go tho.
>>
>>Please try harder in future.
>
>Oh I see because I'm a troll that means you can discount what I say, is
>that it?
What did you really say ?
I see only ambuguity, sarchasm and complaints. And now of course, fake
indignation.
Standard WinTroll 101 fare.
>
>Pete
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 4 hours 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:59:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
' >As long as the standards for interoperability are conformed to, then
' >multiple APIs are fine. My point is the job of programming an
' >appliaction needs to be made easier for the developer. You say a good
'
' This is why I think Troll is barking up the wrong tree
' with their business model.
I have no opinion on that. I'll just wait and see. I do find Qt to
be well documented and easy to use ( so far ). And I do like the KDE
desktop. KDE2 is shapping up to be very nice. At the moment, I see
myself wanting to take advantage of the KDE2 environment. If Troll
turns out to be a bunch of evil beings that sabotage my work in some
way, I'll drop them like I did Microsoft. I used to be an MSDN
subscriber. I used to be a Win32 advocate. I've jumped ship once, I
can do it again.
' >dev environment is important. I agree. The programmer needs to be
' >more concerned with the domain of the application than with the
' >underlying system details. I'm not a Linux snob. It is fine with me
' >that *BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc are also supported by the toolkits
' >and development environment.
'
' As long as there is a 'suitable' dev enviroment that supports
' the toolkit in question and interoperability is a reality
' instead of merely theoretical then it's not quite so critical
' for those devtools to be deployed on a particular pet platform.
KDevelop is supposed to support both KDE and GNOME development. I
haven't used it though. I must have something wrong with me as i am
using the GNU tools XEmacs, GCC, et al.
There is also GLADE, but I haven't tried it either.
Have you personally used GTK+ or GTK--? How do you find the
documentation for these toolkits ( particularly GTK-- ). I like to
have good documentation to work with. I also prefer to program in C++
over C. This preference is similar to preferring a Porsche 911 turbo
over a Ford Pinto for daily driving.
I grew up programming for Windows in C++. My experience with
Linux/Un*x is still sorely lacking. However, I expect that to
improve. I like the open nature of the source, and I have found that
people are much more helpful in comp.os.linux.development.apps than
people ever were in the microsoft.* hierarchy. Regardless of which
desktop environment[s] people go with, the GNU/Linux culture is a much
friendlier place.
Threre are exceptions of course, but I won't name them ;-)
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
