Linux-Advocacy Digest #122, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Number of Linux Users (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Processing data is bad! (2:1)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Cihl)
Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft eats Canadian bacon (TholenBotPro)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Cihl)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:34:12 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:01:32 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm not sweeping anything anywhere. I'm just stating that claiming
>> that Windows is more buggy and/or bloated than Linux is ridiculous,
>> considering that X is one of the most well-known resource hogs in
>> the more technical circles.
>
>
>That'a s good one to pick on. All GUIs are resource hogs. You would
Nah, things like GEM and system 6 were relatively trim.
Those are the sort of things that "X as a well known
resource hog" originally competed with.
To take those comments and to imply that they were made relative
to Windows is simply lying.
>simply be wrong to deny that. This is why Linux makes a muck better
>server - you don't need the GUI. In fact, you can still do GUI based
>remote admin WITHOUT a gui on the server. Isn't that nice...
...I forgot about that.
What? X is too bloated? Then don't run it: you can still do your
remote admin, even with GUI tools, without it running.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:35:09 +0100
Cihl wrote:
>
> Try the CLI at the highest resolution your monitor can handle. It
> looks really cool.
Unfortunately, I can't get SVGATextMode to give me anything better than
80x50, all I get are fuzzy streaky unsynced lines all over the place.
Oh, well
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:35:55 GMT
On 16 Jun 2000 11:39:04 +0300, Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>...
>> StarOffice is written in Java, eats a great deal of memory, and
>...
>
>Is not.
Believe it or not, it seems to be even more of a pig under Windows...
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:37:56 GMT
> : Crashes less.
>
> The above does mean that it crashes....
Duh! There is no such thing as an OS that cannot crash. There isn't
even such a thing as a *program* that cannot crash.
There is only one stable program that i can think of. You make it
yourself. Here it goes:
% touch newprog
% chmod 777 newprog
There's your crash-proof application! Good luck with it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:37:59 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:16:47 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>pac4854 wrote:
>
>> I'm beginning to get the impression that there's really only one
>> individual behind all the trolling here, and that it spends most
>> of its time getting new throwaway acccounts on free servers.
>
>My hypothesis is that there are about 3 regulars, but that 90% of the
>troll-posts come from the single individual that you describe.
Nah, I suspect that the same FUD is merely being recycled. It's
like a bad rumour that just perpetuates. One of them get it in
there head that FOO is a good thing to bash OS Bar with and it
just propagates.
You saw this sort of thing even on BBSes back before the net.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:38:57 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:49:57 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes, it is indeed sad. Anyone not seeing Linux as the absolutely best OS in
>the world, a friendly and productive environment, of exceptionally high
Repeating old lies does not constitute mere simple opposition.
>functionality, excellent in all respects, MUST be mentally deranged, or must
>be a TROLL, or must be Steve. Hmmmmmm ..........
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft eats Canadian bacon
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:39:45 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > ws.n
> > > > > > > > > et>,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > X-Face:
> > > > > > > > > > &'`TcHchf{Dv=[je~bQVYl/3/UyvgwH.r{Vp"kPk_yV^%KhO3ZAfB,^[o@
> > > > > > > > > > -d,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > i<87P$$Vh/Y8zPCSSunqSrl{%__y3k/g4/r2/VEUUlRbpn]`a6-3-3P
> > > > > > > > > > 9vSW
> > > > > > > > > > =`A*
> > > > > > > > > > ]T^O
> > > > > > > > > > z
> > > > > > > > > > uAe!\b#:+G,;/!^*a`/E'4i-0@#nV9#sW\BjGv#dq'ad0=W;kFd6u
> > > > > > > > > > X',
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Typical invective.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More evidence of your lack of X-Face interpretation skills.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > See what I mean?
> > > >
> > > > I don't see that which is not there, Eric.
> > >
> > > Non sequitur.
> >
> > Balderdash, Eric.
>
> Liar.
On what basis do you make this erroneous and unsubstantiated claim?
> > > > > > > > > I wonder how the Borg would react to this
> > > > > > > > > information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Taking posting lessons from Hugh again, Eric?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://liberty.uc.wlu.edu/~madams/3rd.of.5.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical. A URL is not a person, Chris.
> > > >
> > > > "A URL"? How rich.
> > >
> > > Of what relevance is this remark?
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
Then why did you ask, Eric? Posting for entertainment purposes again?
> > > > > > > > Typical erroneous pontification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prove it. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How ironic.
> > > > >
> > > > > See what I mean?
> > > >
> > > > What you mean is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> See what I mean?
Argument by repetition again, Eric? Ineffective.
> > > > > > Meanwhile, you have still failed to answer the question.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic.
> > > >
> > > > See what I mean?
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> >
> > What's "ironic" about it, Eric?
>
> Don't you know?
Illogical. Meanwhile, you have predictably still failed to answer the
question. How typical.
> > > > > > > > On the contrary, quite logical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is "logical" about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More evidence of your lack of decent logic recognition skills.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you didn't answer the question, Chris.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > On the contrary.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Incorrect.
Poppycock.
> > > > Just because your lack of decent reading comprehension skills
> > > > prevented you from locating my response doesn't mean it wasn't there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Typical erroneous presupposition of a lack of decent reading
> > > comprehension skills.
> >
> > On the contrary, there was no erroneous presupposition, as proven by your
> > failure to locate my logical response.
>
> See what I mean? Meanwhile, you continue to stroll down irrelevancy
> lane.
How ironic, coming from someone who routinely strolls down irrelevancy lane.
> > > > > Taking failure to answer
> > > > > question lessons from Dave "Master of Failure to Answer Questions"
> > > > > Sutherland again?
> > > >
> > > > Illogical, as I have neither taken posting lessons, nor have I failed
> > > > to
> > > > answer questions.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > Don't you know?
>
> Taking failure to answer question lessons from Dave "Master of Failure
> to Answer Questions" Sutherland again?
See above.
--
"You're erroneously presuming that I'm being pedantic."
-- Dave Tholen
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:42:17 GMT
I can make Linux self-destruct very effectively!
1) Make an adapter-card with a relay on it;
2) Stick a big chunk of plastic explosives on the card;
3) Write a driver to trigger the relay when you want it to;
4) Self-destruct Linux!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:42:59 GMT
On 16 Jun 2000 11:40:00 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on 15 Jun 2000 10:56:18 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[deletia]
>>
>>>And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or
>>>PNG (forget GIF's! their "pollitacolly incorrect",
>>
>>No, they're patented. Anyone who writes a GIF generator may be
>>required to pay royalties.
>>
>
>humm .. I"ve saved in GIF with GIMP ... dont' see
>what the problem is ... maybe he couldn't figure out
>the fact taht it needs to have the gif libs compiled in
I can't imagine a situation that he didn't manufacture for
himself (unlikely since he likely doesn't have the saavy)
where that would be the case.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:47:41 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:23:41 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <394853fe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:8i8drh$oet$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> so forth) were being augmented with keyboard shortcuts, which is
>subverting
>> the idea of using a GUI. Mr. Smith obviously realized that using keyboard
>> commands would be faster and more efficient.
>>
>> So, following MY logic, the GUI has its uses, but for experienced users,
>and
>> for certain applications, the really useful GUI also incorporates certain
>> features of a CLI. Once these commands are learned, the GUI sometimes gets
>> in the way.
>
>Please demonstrate why a keyboard is *not* a "feature" of a GUI.
If those keyboard elements present are not pointed to by
information easily obtainable from the graphical elements
of the interface then they are quite arguably bits of CLI
bolted onto a GUI.
>
>I suppose you think a mouse can't be a feature of a CLI, either ?
They violate the 'ease of learning' aspect of WIMP.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 16 Jun 2000 12:51:37 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
[snip]
> >I suppose you think a mouse can't be a feature of a CLI, either ?
>
> They violate the 'ease of learning' aspect of WIMP.
For everyone? How so?
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:51:20 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:15:32 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8i9qu6$70t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> You are attempting to compare the speed (efficiency) of a GUI vs. a CLI.
>By
>> using "keyboard shortcuts" you are using keyboard commands and NOT
>graphical
>> commands (clicking buttons in a dialog box.) This subverts your
>comparison.
>
>Clicking on a button is no more a graphical command than pressing a key that
>activate the button on screen. GUIs are about how the information is
>*presented*.
Yup. And if you are never presented with the information that
"key foo" == "command bar", then that part of the interface is
effectively just a CLI where you're essentially on you own in
terms of learning what mnemonics mean what.
That is contrary to a GUI/WIMP where the visual enviroment gives
you cues and limits your choices.
>
>A Graphical User Interface is just that - it has absolutely zero to do with
>how you then manipulate said interface.
>
>For example, where is voice control going to fit in ? CLI or GUI ?
[deletia]
Keyboard shortcuts in general are imbedded CLI. This is not a
bad thing.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jun 2000 10:46:27 -0600
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about
> that is "one network card ought to be enough for anybody!"
Linux has been using multiple NICs since before NT ever came out!
If you're refering to the Mindcraft tests, please go and re-read them
and come back with a valid opinion on the subject.
[super omega-snip]
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:53:14 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:15:36 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yup, they are "gung-ho" about interoperability *between their own
>> products*, just not with other vendor's products or standards-based
>> products.
>
>That's not so. MS goes *much* farther than any Unix does to
>interoperate with other vendors products.
I disagree. And since you offer not justification, I won't either.
>> Their server was _not_ easier to use for an ISP,
>
>I didn't say "for an ISP". The real problem is with
>end user support.
Anybody but MS would have had to be concerned with how their server
side was viewed by the ISP's who had to install it to make their client
viable.
>The problem to be solved here is giving end users
>their own web pages, which they can maintain themselves.
Yes, which they could have done _without_ making special enhancements
to their or anyone else's web server. They chose not to do that for
reasons that have nothing to do with end-user or system manager needs,
and everything to do with their need to conquer a new market by
leveraging an existing one.
>You say "tie" as if it were a bad thing. I certainly don't think it is,
>not in this case.
I disagree. It was not necessary and did not bring anyone any benefit
except for MS.
>They wanted to sell IIS by giving it better features than the
>next product.
Frontpage is not sold as a feature of IIS. There is no need for it to
be such and no other client uses those special features of IIS.
>Nonsense. Distributing your client for free is childs play.
Getting people to download and install it isn't though. Bundling it
with Office is a lot more effective as far as actually getting it onto
the desktop.
>> A normal company, one without a river of cash flowing in from other
>> sources,
>
>That's a "normal" company?
Yes. A normal company does not have an 90% gross margin on products
with a 90% market share to support development of new products. A
company with these things has special responsibilities, according to
the law.
>> They would
>> have had to make the server side compatible with the ISP's existing
>> servers,
>
>Bad idea. You can't sell your server if you do this.
But I thought the idea was to help the end users, to solve a problem
that needed solving, and thereby succeed? Now you're saying that the
idea is to sell servers to people who don't really want them.
>It must be supportable, yes, or it won't be used. I think MS managed
>to acheive that, more or less.
They managed to achieve use in spite of it not being very supportable.
Customers calling support every day is a strong incentive. It seems
that it wasn't made very clear to the customers that their ISP needed
to support this neato new gadget.
>> But MS could get millions of copies of their client out there
>> through bundling deals and lowball pricing, making this an untenable
>> position for most ISP's to take.
>
>It's not exactly "untenable", it's just a disadvantage not to have
>FrontPage or something like it, if your competitors have it.
Something like it isn't good enough if most of your customers already
have the monopoly-produced product.
No, they're not holding a gun to your head. You can always choose to
go out of business by supporting a competing product.
>> What are they selling? A web-publishing tool? A web server? Yes,
>> both,
>
>No, just a web server. The web-publishing tool is free.
It was originally $100. So why didn't they distribute the tool
through ISP's that bought the server? Why did they give it to the
general public?
They know why. I know why. You are the one lacking clue here.
>It's fair and honest and *commonplace*. What MS has done here
>is completely ordinary; you are the one demanding radical
>strange policies of MS here.
Nobody else has done this. You are simply wrong. It is common to give
A something in order to get _A_ to buy something else. It is not
common to give A something to get him to pressure B to buy something.
>> Yes, they were latecomers to the game. Their product was not ready,
>> which is why ISP's did not want it. How that happened is irrelevant.
>
>Surely you don't mean that. Perhaps you mean 'it is irrelevant unless
>I can use it to potray MS as evil'?
No, I mean the fact that they had good support for Netware was
irrelevant to ISP's, who wanted good TCP/IP support. The fact that
they spent resources on Netware doesn't matter to the ISP.
>What makes you think it is likely to break with the next service pack?
>Most things don't.
I won't go down the list. You've heard it and have excuses for all of
them I'm sure.
>Anyway, it's better because you aren't limited to Unix. Anyone can
>write these client modules and put NT computers on their network.
What about the other way? What if I want to put Unix servers on a
network with NT clients? It can be done, but only because someone
reverse-engineered the PDC/BDC protocols.
>With "open" standards, you are just committing to Unix.
No, you are committing to standards. If that means Unix, so be it.
There are lots of choices about where to get my Unix. There is only
one choice about where to get NT.
>This is no better in princinple than committing to OS/2 LAN Manager
>would have been.
Er, NT networking uses the same protocols as LAN Manager with lots of
enhancements. You can still use the LANMAN protocols. What were you
saying again?
>> Yeah, right, they care deeply about interoperability, and they document
>> things so well that it is trivial to implement a compatible version.
>
>I don't say "trivial". It's possible.
With a large amount of reverse engineering effort. That's not at all
the same as publishing a spec.
>> That's why there are so many non-MS clients for Exchange. That's why
>> there are so many non-MS PDC and BDC servers.
>
>Now I don't know much about Exchange. But I *do* know there's a
>documented API with which you can provide your own domain
>controllers. If no-one has done it, maybe that's because no-one
>feels it is worthwhile to go up against MS and NetWare both.
So, I can make my own domain controller that runs on NT? Oooh, that's
useful, when MS bundles one.
I don't know of any API that lets a Unix client use the full
functionality of Exchange. If the wire protocol were documented, that
could be done.
Basically, MS documents those parts that they need to document to help
people convert to their products. That is all. They do not care about
running in mixed environments long-term, although they do pretend to.
>"True interoperability" to you seems only to mean "works with
>Unix.".
Not so. I mean "works with other stuff".
>Using Unix wire protocols will not buy you compatibility
>with MacOS or NetWare or any other OS but Unix.
The fact that other companies use proprietary protocols is not the
issue. The fact that Unix protocols are documented should not be
counted as a strike against Unix.
>Windows it itself irrelevant to vendors who wish to interoperate only
>between other platforms. They become relevant only when you bring
>Windows into the mix.
Yes, that is the Microsoft world view in a nutshell. MS is the center
of the universe and all those other annoying companies can just go talk
among themselves.
>> If a third party wants to make a client for Exchange that runs on Unix
>> or VMS or VM, they have to know how to talk to Exchange over the wire.
>I don't know Exchange well enough to say. I know this is not true
>of other things MS has done.
What? How is a Unix box going to use Win32 API calls to talk to
Exchange? What you know about Exchange doesn't matter, nor does the
fact that you can get at many (but not all) of the functions of
Exchange through standard protocols.
The question is how to do it. The answer is, you can't. The reason is
that the Win32 API does not exist on Unix, but that is the only
documented way of talking to Exchange.
>Perhaps we're smarter than Unix developers. :D
Fuck you. 8->
>They [doj] have an interest in perpetuating and expanding their
>beauracracy; concentrations of market power are at most opportunities
>for this.
And here you were accusing me of spouting conspiracy theories.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:53:04 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:20:56 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You are attempting to compare the speed (efficiency) of a GUI vs. a
>> CLI. By using "keyboard shortcuts" you are using keyboard commands
>> and NOT graphical commands (clicking buttons in a dialog box.)
>
>The graphical interface is on the screen, not in the mouse.
>
>The only people who insist that GUIs use mouse-only commands are
>desperate CLI junkies who are hopelessly trying to keep up the facade
>that CLIs are inherently "more efficient."
If the interface you are using bears a strange resemblance to how
you would effectively use a DOS version of Word Perfect, then it is
indeed really just a CLI sanitized for your peace of mind.
>
>They're not. They're only somewhat faster for very specific operations,
>and massively slower for alomst everything else.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
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
******************************
