Linux-Advocacy Digest #986, Volume #26 Thu, 8 Jun 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Peter Ammon)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Marty)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Gregory L. Hansen)
Steve/Mike, the Man of a Thousand Bad Disguises -was- 10 Months wasted on Linux
(Mark S. Bilk)
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (Christopher Browne)
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (Christopher Browne)
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux & MySQL vs. Windows & SQL Server (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux & MySQL vs. Windows & SQL Server (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:53:00 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:36:56 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:32:28 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >> to get any input?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not suggesting a complete absense of exchanging data. I'm saying that a
> >> >tradeoff of program interoperability for inter-machine interoperability is
> >> >favorable for home users. Heck, if you wrote a document in Product X and you
> >> >wish to share the document with someone using Product Y, if Product X doesn't
> >> >save in a format readable by Product Y, you can simply fire up Product Y on
> >> >your system and cut and paste the document across to it with reasonable app
> >> >interoperability.
> >>
> >> ...after you've bought it.
> >>
> >> "Being able to run Product X" to decode proprietary data
> >> does NOT consitute interoperability.
> >
> >I'd rather have to buy product Y and still be able to embed a spreadsheet into
> >a word processing document, than have my product X's format recognized by some
> >other machine that I'm not using. I'm a home user, remember?
>
> Yup... someone who likely has better things to do with their
> money than throw money at vendorlock when one's data may not
> have any particular need for a particular vendor's format.
Is it any less expensive or more convenient to have a second box do some work
for me? We're discussing the tradeoffs between app interoperability and
system interoperability, remember?
> [deletia]
> >> >> you would be able to work with remote machines as well.
> >> >
> >> >Ahh, but it's not spliced into the keyboard. That's the thing. It's spliced
> >> >into the OS. It talks to the window manager, figures out which menus are
> >> >visible on the window which current has the focus, looks for button labels in
> >> >the current window, etc., and builds a list of valid keywords on the fly.
> >> >With all of the different widget libraries used in X, such a thing would be
> >> >impossible to implement.
> >>
> >> There are already versions to handle the 3 most widely used
> >> toolkits. So, in the worst case you would need a deamon for
> >> each toolkit you're running.
> >
> >Yuck. How does the user know which toolkit is deployed for which app? And
>
> Just check what it's linked against. This is also handy for
> automagically distinguishing between console and X apps.
That's just what a home user wants to be bothered doing.
> >when a new whiz-bang widget library comes along, you no longer have voice
> >control support with the apps that use it.
>
> What makes you think that would be the most relevant compatibility
> issue? Although, as long as there are common protocols that can be
> conformed to it should never be a problem.
It breaks and needs to be fixed with each update. That's not interoperability
in my book. VoiceType works with any OS/2 PM application. Period.
On a side issue, where are these magical daemons going to be run? If they're
run on your box, they can affect your X session. But in order to affect the X
sessions of remote machines, it'd have to be running there as well (because
the application itself is executing remotely and it's pulling from the widget
libraries on the remote box). Not only that, but the two daemons would have
to know about each other and be able to communicate so that your remote
sessions can be controlled by you and you only. And both your box and these
remote servers would have to have one of these magical daemons for every
widget library used by the apps you're running (each of which communicate with
one another). As is often the case, you may not even have administrative
privileges on one of the boxes in question, and hence could not install or
start such a daemon yourself as a lowly user.
Application interoperability is much more important than system
interoperability for such an application, as is the case for nearly any task
that a home user will want to do. That's my point.
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2000 18:53:28 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
>
> I know nothing else about REXX, but AppleScript isn't exactly a powerful
> programming environment. Sure, it has all the logical constructs and
> variables and all, but it doesn't have the object-orientedness, data
> hiding, etc. of other environments. AppleScript really wouldn't be my
> first choice for general-purpose programming.
>
> There are enough other options, but I can't compare them.
>
In what way are other programming environments more object-oriented than
AppleScript? AppleScript has concepts of member functions or methods
(tell application "Finder" to select every item...) and inheritance (the
folder object inherits from the sharable container object which inherits
from container which inherits from the base class item). It doesn't
allow you to define your own classes in a script, though; is this what
you mean?
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:02:44 GMT
"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>
> >> >REXX can go both ways if it wants. Usually it is simpler and less
> >error-prone
> >> >to just do it in the REXX code, however.
> >>
> >> It can control the course of a program in-flight?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> It can give a program any sized sequence of commands of arbitrary
> >> complexity?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> For AppleScript, other software acts like libraries in C -- you can call
> >> upon any function they support at any time, take in data, and make
> >> decisions based on it.
> >
> >Same here.
> >
> >> Or does it just run a program with a list of command line options?
> >
> >Does that too.
>
> Cool!
>
> I know nothing else about REXX, but AppleScript isn't exactly a powerful
> programming environment. Sure, it has all the logical constructs and
> variables and all, but it doesn't have the object-orientedness, data
> hiding, etc. of other environments. AppleScript really wouldn't be my
> first choice for general-purpose programming.
>
> There are enough other options, but I can't compare them.
Generally, I wouldn't use REXX for many of the things that I said it was
capable of. It is capable of doing anything, but some tasks are very complex
to do with it. What I have used it for, however, has been in the capacity of
a really powerful scripting language. I've written functions in REXX that
(lacking REXX) I would have had to write in C, with much less convenience,
more complexity, and greater likelihood of making a mistake.
For example, I have written a MakeMake script with it, which scans through
directories creating a GNU-style makefile with full dependency info, putting
commands to create libraries for each subdirectory, making a separate
executable for each C file with a main() function, excluding C files that are
included in other C files, ...
REXX fit the bill for that complex task perfectly, and the code executed very
quickly. I originally attempted to do the same with a ksh script using awks
and greps and it was a dog.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: 9 Jun 2000 02:06:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Gregory L. Hansen" wrote:
>>
>>
>> I know nothing else about REXX, but AppleScript isn't exactly a powerful
>> programming environment. Sure, it has all the logical constructs and
>> variables and all, but it doesn't have the object-orientedness, data
>> hiding, etc. of other environments. AppleScript really wouldn't be my
>> first choice for general-purpose programming.
>>
>> There are enough other options, but I can't compare them.
>>
>
>In what way are other programming environments more object-oriented than
>AppleScript? AppleScript has concepts of member functions or methods
>(tell application "Finder" to select every item...) and inheritance (the
>folder object inherits from the sharable container object which inherits
>from container which inherits from the base class item). It doesn't
>allow you to define your own classes in a script, though; is this what
>you mean?
Yes. Define your own classes in a script, derive new classes from
previously defined classes, hiding data and implementation details within
a class, attaching methods to a folder or variable, etc. Even functions
and parameter passing. Without some kind of provision for factoring a
problem into relatively independent peices, a large project can become
painful.
--
If I had a nickel for everytime someone said "If I had a nickel for every
time someone said..."...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Steve/Mike, the Man of a Thousand Bad Disguises -was- 10 Months wasted on
Linux
Date: 9 Jun 2000 02:11:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <8hmq24$svn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[Steve/Mike/teknite's usual spew]
>>>made up story of a Wharton grad who starts a business
>>>without researching the needs of his target market, and
>>>who can't spell "Tiberius". Sing it with me: Troll, troll,
>>>troll your boat...
>>Is it just my imagination, or do all these Linux failure
>>stories read exactly alike? Reminds me of the do-it-yourself
>>jokes in Mad Magazine or the letters to Penthouse. Just fill
>>in the blanks with a selection from the numbered choices.
>>
>>I'm waiting for someone to pop in here and tell us that this
>>guy's got the same IP address, same ISP, same proxy, same
>>version of Windows as some other well known troll.
>Yeah I believe it is. The same SBLive driver complaint.
The "Tiberious" post came from Earthlink, and the man who
calls himself Steve/Mike/Heather/Simon/Sponge/S/piddy/
teknite/McSwain/pickle_pete/Ishmeal_hafizi/etc. has posted
from there recently with his characteristic headers. In
the last month or two he's gotten several new accounts with
different ISPs that he's now posting from, in addition to
the one he's used for more than a year, AT&T Worldnet.
He has some kind of obsession to post the same set of lies
about Linux over and over again, many thousands of times by
now, to c.o.l.a. His new accounts are an attempt to disguise
himself better; previously he just used lots of different
names, some with hotmail accounts, but usually posted from
AT&T. Now he's also learned how to alter some of the header
data, and he's begun to use X-No-Archive, the mark of the
worst sort of Usenet liar.
Apparently he wants to make it seem that dozens of people
are dissatisifed with Linux and complaining about it, when
it's only him. But even when he manages to change most of
the headers, the things he says and the way he says them are
still unmistakable.
Last year he also posted a number of very emotional anti-gay
diatribes to c.o.l.a, mostly focussed on anal sex; he's a
Fundamentalist "Christian":
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=590061261
"No wonder they are dying of aids..Good riddence.....and
no loss."
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=594068952
"It is a sickness that God is dealing with via AIDS."
>When the linux SBLive driver matches the capabilities of the
>Win9X version the traffic on cola is going to half I reckon.
I don't think he'll ever stop unless he gets some very serious
psychological counseling. To go to all the trouble and expense
that he does to carry on a totally unconvincing charade, and
constantly make an utter fool of himself in front of the whole
world, seems to indicate that he has severe emotional problems.
>What is a Wharton BTW ? I assume its some kinda university.
The Wharton School of business and management, of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania. Highly regarded in those circles.
http://www.wharton.upenn.edu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:13:12 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Leslie Mikesell would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> And Linux is not Unix.
>>> >
>>> > Why not?
>>>
>>> None of it's code is owned by the people who own the trademark.
>>>
>>> Les Mikesell
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> So BSD, SunOS, Solaris, AIX(maybe), HPUX, etc are not UNIX?
>
>BSD isn't, in spite of those who might claim that bsd defines
>unix. The others contain licensed code derived from the
>AT&T original. Actually these days using the trademark involves
>passing a test suite, but as far as I know, all versions that
>have paid the fee and passed are based on the original in one
>way or another.
I thought that OS/390 passed the test. And it's decidedly not
a traditional UNIX...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #186. "I will not devise any scheme in
which Part A consists of tricking the hero into unwittingly
helping me and Part B consists of laughing at him then leaving
him to his own devices."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:13:13 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Sanders would say:
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> And Linux is not Unix.
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> None of it's code is owned by the people who own the trademark.
>
> So BSD, SunOS, Solaris, AIX(maybe), HPUX, etc are not UNIX?
BSD isn't; none of the parties involved have seen fit to have it
validated for standards conformance, and aren't paying fees to license
the trademark. The claims of "really being Unix" tend to be based on the
fact that the folks that wrote BSD 4.4 were (largely) the same folk that
wrote BSD 4.3, back when many BSD systems _were_ licensed as UNIX systems.
SunOS likely is, based on past standards; it's not actively licensed
anymore.
Solaris definitely is; Sun licensed the trademark.
AIX I'm not sure about; I'm not sure that IBM is licensing the (tm).
HP/UX is very likely a licensed UNIX.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/unix.html>
Share and Enjoy!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:13:16 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>Challenge: I'm building a network. 500 users. I already have all the
>parts except the host, which can be a Win2k Server, an AS400, or a VAX.
>Give me your best price, with supporting documentation to include make &
>model, features, and performance statistics, on a Win2k Server for my
>500 users. And someone else give me a price on an AS400 for the same
>role. I can already get the stats, etc. from IBM; they have nothing to
>hide.
Note that VAXen are no longer readily available; if you're talking
about a "VMS box," the _new_ hardware represents Alpha hardware,
running OpenVMS.
It's most entertaining that you left all variations of UNIX off the
list, and, quite frankly, I almost approve, in that it means that
responses can no longer say:
"Oh, but I had a hard time installing Linux."
But for this to fit on comp.os.linux.advocacy, there probably ought to
be _some_ mention made of some UNIX-related choice...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Warning: Dates in calendar are closer than they appear.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & MySQL vs. Windows & SQL Server
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:24:04 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <393bfbf1$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nemenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi there!
> >
> > I'm trying to pursuade my employer
> > to use Linux & MySQL as a database for
> > high performace production environment
> > with multi gigabyte dataset.
>
> Let's try to sort out the problem you are trying to solve.
>
> Often, you can combine an optimal set of options to provide
> the results you really want while still managing risks and
> getting a high Return on Investment.
>
> You wouldn't try to pull a 10 ton trailer with a Honda Civic
> and you wouldn't use a Kenworth Tractor for your daily commute.
>
> MySQL is very useful for read-mostly databases that can be managed
> as one or more relatively simple queries. MySQL with Web servers
> is very efficient because you can issue multiple requests to multiple
> databases or tables - concurrently if you wish, and aggregate the
> responses as you generate the response.
>
> MySQL is NOT a good place to do massive updates to multiple tables
> at the request of multiple concurrent users. Don't use it to
> file the checks!
>
> Progres is a bit slower, but is good for simpler transactions that
> don't require complex large records and complex joins.
>
> DB/2 is a good industrial strength database that provides good
> beefy load-hauling ability. DB/2 is also designed to cluster
> quite well as well.
>
> Sybase is well liked because it supports stored procedures and
> cursers. It's also popular because it's very similar to SQL Server
> (Microsoft obtained SQL Server from Sybase), but it doesn't support
> all the nasty garbage generated by Access databases (which is where
> most SQL Server solutions seem to originate). So much the better,
> you really want to clean up the code as soon as it moves into a
> multiuser environment anyway.
>
> Oracle 8i is a nice internet solution with reasonable licensing,
> but to get the really good stuff - you need to go to a commercial
> distribution - and that gets expensive.
>
> Also, you can often boost performance of simple lookups - especially
> when doing a webServer/mod_perl solution by using simple DBM calls
> (perl hash arrays).
>
> It's ironic that most people think of UNIX as a database engine. For
> almost 15 years, database vendors couldn't get a foothold because
> standard UNIX tools were easier to tune for really high-performance
> environments. During much of that time, UNIX was used for things
> like statistics collection, fast switching, and real-time reporting
> that would disintegrate most traditional relational databases.
>
> A typical network monitoring system recieves and summarizes 20-30
> datapoints per sample, with 1 sample per second, by 100,000 sampled
> systems - as much as 2-3 million samples per second, and reports
> the results in real-time. Tools like PERL, awk, and grep could
> create useful content and tools like GNUPlot, stripcharts, and
> other plotting systems could be used to chart the statistics, and
> tools prolog could be used to analyse potential problems and provide
> solutions even before the problem was identified by users.
>
> > I'm thinking about setting up a cluster
> > of Linux servers to do that.
>
> Actually, you should be able to manage quite a bit of this type
> of information without resorting to a Linux cluster - unless you
> are just going for fault tolarance and disaster recovery.
>
> > The alternative, of course, is Windows and MS SQL Server.
>
> Also you may want to look at some of the other UNIX variants.
>
> > Anyone uses MySQL on Linux on production web sites?
> >
> > Any help would be appriciated,
> >
> > -- Matt
> >
>
Check out the recent issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal. It compares
MySQL and SQL Server, and tells where each one is best used.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & MySQL vs. Windows & SQL Server
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:29:12 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> >
> > In article <393bfbf1$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Nemenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi there!
> > >
> > > I'm trying to pursuade my employer
> > > to use Linux & MySQL as a database for
> > > high performace production environment
> > > with multi gigabyte dataset.
> >
> > Let's try to sort out the problem you are trying to solve.
> >
> > Often, you can combine an optimal set of options to provide
> > the results you really want while still managing risks and
> > getting a high Return on Investment.
> >
> > You wouldn't try to pull a 10 ton trailer with a Honda Civic
> > and you wouldn't use a Kenworth Tractor for your daily commute.
> >
> > MySQL is very useful for read-mostly databases that can be managed
> > as one or more relatively simple queries. MySQL with Web servers
> > is very efficient because you can issue multiple requests to multiple
> > databases or tables - concurrently if you wish, and aggregate the
> > responses as you generate the response.
> >
> > MySQL is NOT a good place to do massive updates to multiple tables
> > at the request of multiple concurrent users. Don't use it to
> > file the checks!
> >
> > Progres is a bit slower, but is good for simpler transactions that
> > don't require complex large records and complex joins.
> >
> > DB/2 is a good industrial strength database that provides good
> > beefy load-hauling ability. DB/2 is also designed to cluster
> > quite well as well.
> >
> > Sybase is well liked because it supports stored procedures and
> > cursers. It's also popular because it's very similar to SQL Server
> > (Microsoft obtained SQL Server from Sybase), but it doesn't support
> > all the nasty garbage generated by Access databases (which is where
> > most SQL Server solutions seem to originate). So much the better,
> > you really want to clean up the code as soon as it moves into a
> > multiuser environment anyway.
> >
> > Oracle 8i is a nice internet solution with reasonable licensing,
> > but to get the really good stuff - you need to go to a commercial
> > distribution - and that gets expensive.
> >
> > Also, you can often boost performance of simple lookups - especially
> > when doing a webServer/mod_perl solution by using simple DBM calls
> > (perl hash arrays).
>
> Check out the recent issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal. It compares
> MySQL and SQL Server, and tells where each one is best used.
Or is it Oracle? Agggh, try www.ddj.com!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 02:43:22 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:53:00 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:36:56 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:32:28 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[deletia]
>> >> >interoperability.
>> >>
>> >> ...after you've bought it.
>> >>
>> >> "Being able to run Product X" to decode proprietary data
>> >> does NOT consitute interoperability.
>> >
>> >I'd rather have to buy product Y and still be able to embed a spreadsheet into
>> >a word processing document, than have my product X's format recognized by some
>> >other machine that I'm not using. I'm a home user, remember?
>>
>> Yup... someone who likely has better things to do with their
>> money than throw money at vendorlock when one's data may not
>> have any particular need for a particular vendor's format.
>
>Is it any less expensive or more convenient to have a second box do some work
>for me? We're discussing the tradeoffs between app interoperability and
>system interoperability, remember?
"interoperability" as you define it is somewhat meaningless.
Passing off some imbedded binary data to another application
and making it look like it's all integrated is slight of hand
not "interoperability".
This is doubly so given the WinDOS cultural bias against
the individual choice when it comes to such tools.
[deletia]
>> >> There are already versions to handle the 3 most widely used
>> >> toolkits. So, in the worst case you would need a deamon for
>> >> each toolkit you're running.
>> >
>> >Yuck. How does the user know which toolkit is deployed for which app? And
>>
>> Just check what it's linked against. This is also handy for
>> automagically distinguishing between console and X apps.
>
>That's just what a home user wants to be bothered doing.
...and just what makes you think the end user would have to be
bothered with the mechanics of this? The tools are there, the
automation facilities are there, the programers are there.
However, these facilities are stil available to "those that
don't want them" should they prove useful to them or someone
else who may be providing "free tech support" for them.
>
>> >when a new whiz-bang widget library comes along, you no longer have voice
>> >control support with the apps that use it.
>>
>> What makes you think that would be the most relevant compatibility
>> issue? Although, as long as there are common protocols that can be
>> conformed to it should never be a problem.
>
>It breaks and needs to be fixed with each update. That's not interoperability
That sounds more like a damnation of MS Office style applications
and OLE rather than anything Linux/Unix related.
>in my book. VoiceType works with any OS/2 PM application. Period.
>
>On a side issue, where are these magical daemons going to be run? If they're
>run on your box, they can affect your X session. But in order to affect the X
That's rather the point now isn't it? (much like something such
as Plugin or efx).
>sessions of remote machines, it'd have to be running there as well (because
>the application itself is executing remotely and it's pulling from the widget
>libraries on the remote box). Not only that, but the two daemons would have
>to know about each other and be able to communicate so that your remote
>sessions can be controlled by you and you only. And both your box and these
>remote servers would have to have one of these magical daemons for every
True. However X clients have been doing this sort of thing for
nearly 20 years and Unix is quite capable of handling many small
process communicating with each other. The challeges aren't quite
as impressive as they might sound from a less client-server oriented
perspective.
>widget library used by the apps you're running (each of which communicate with
>one another). As is often the case, you may not even have administrative
>privileges on one of the boxes in question, and hence could not install or
>start such a daemon yourself as a lowly user.
>
>Application interoperability is much more important than system
>interoperability for such an application, as is the case for nearly any task
>that a home user will want to do. That's my point.
That's what OEMs, VARs and Distributions are for.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
