Linux-Advocacy Digest #860, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: I just don't buy it ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: C# is a copy of java ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:59:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_E0e5.3082$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l8ko7$7hq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> I have not made the argument VB is the "equal" of C.
>
> I think that VB shares much of the same abilities/functions of C. I think
> there is very little you can do in C you cannot do in VB. Care to address
> what I *have* said?
I appologize, My take on your statement was that was your intented message.
If that was not you intent, I am sorry.
I was considering all BASIC which is what this thread was addressing. If
you want to isolate the discussion to VB only, ok. Every programming
language has it's particular strengths and weaknesses. Some are good for
one task but not another. Some are general purpose while others are
specialized. The best programming language I have ever used for processing
data files and generate reports was RPG. But it was not flexible enough to
support today's file formats.
>From its beginnings BASIC was a good language to teach computing principles.
There were other beginner languages like that as well. Some were closer in
style to assembler language running on an emulator. Others were higher
level. Most of those languages have faded from the scene others have
remaind close to their original niche. BASIC is the exception, it became so
popular as a teaching language that there was a large body of programmers
that have at least some aquaintence with the language.
With the advent of the microcomputers in the 1970's, BASIC had its hayday.
It was a handy little language the could be burned into the ROM's. Others
did the hard work to establish BASIC as a viable language for
Microcomputers. Then Microsoft aquired MS BASIC and kept reimplementing it
into the various Micros of the time and made deals with the computers
manufacturers to burn BASIC into their ROM's. There were some exception
like with S100 based computers that ran CP/M and H8 computers that rand
H-DOS or CP/M which could only support Microsoft BASIC by paper punch tape
or on floppy disk. When dirtributed on these media it was called Microsoft
BASIC, when it was in ROM it went under names based on the computer they
were sold on. Each implementation was just different enough to make it
appear that they were not related, unless someone really got into it's guts.
Microsoft also sold a compiler for BASIC called BASCOM which was just
different enough from their interpreted versions to hide their joint
pedigree.
I believe the original IBM PC was the last computer that contained Microsoft
BASIC in ROM. As a result of all the incompatible implementations of BASIC
there was BASIC was standardized. It is interesting to note that the BASIC
offered on the IBM PC was not complient with standard BASIC rather it had
more afinity with the other 8-bit implementations of interpreted MS BASIC.
Microsoft also ported BASCOM to the PC and it was source code incompatile
with the earlier 8-bit implementations of BASCOM, nor was it compatile with
standard BASIC.
By this time BASIC was fading from the scene. Microsoft reimplemented BASIC
as QB which included some linguistic features from Pascal and C. Then to
tie BASIC into Windows, Microsoft reimplenented BASIC as VB with features
that were designed to limit the language itself to the Windows environment.
This causes VB programs to not be portable to other operating systems. This
was opposite the the prevailing trend in programming to support portability
of the programs.
As has been noted before, VB is not a language for system programming. It
is not a small language so it is not good for embedded systems. The source
code is not to portable to other operating system on the same hardware
platform. VB is not a very efficient language. Compared to C, VB has too
much implemented in the language proper, so that it can not be customized to
special situatons or be made to adapt to changing conditions with out the
direct effort of Microsoft.
While VB may have it place in modern computing, there is nothing that could
be done with VB that can not done better with C. For a project that I
control, VB would not be used. Not becaise I hate BASIC, but that it has
more problem than it is worth and limits the software developed to one
platform. Compare this to programs that I wrote for the DOS platform years
ago, they have compiled without changing any of the source code into several
dos C compilers by different vendors. They have been ported to Windows by
only recompiling. The same programs have been used in multiple unix
operating systems buy recompiling and the only modifications to the source
code was to include conditional compilation preprocessor directive to take
into account the different headers that are used for low level C I/O. That
would not have been possible with VB.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 17:35:01 -0500
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:24:28 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Particularly in a system which we want to be
>> >modular, expandable, and multi-vendor.
>>
>> Yeah - PMT does best there. The only good scenario I can see for CMT
>> is a closed-system where all variables and programs are already known
>> ahead of time. Maybe.
>
>Naaah. Every modern processor I'm aware of has PMT built right into the
>chip (prioritized interrupts), so a very, very simplified form of PMT
>would probably be easier than all the profiling and code tuning
>neccessary with CMT.
>
>Comments?
Novell Netware. <ick!>
Comments? :)
Really...familiar with it and it's CMT 'capabilities'?
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:30:18 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I'm mostly thinking of Mac OS 4.2 and 6.00.004, as that's where the bulk
> >of my Apple experience lies. I haven't used Macs much in the last five
> >years, but my comments are still entirely valid, and will remain so even
> >after everyone is using Linux on their desktop. It wouldn't surprise me
> >if it was a Linux which allowed adjustment to just how pre-emptive the
> >multi-tasking is.
>
> It would be impossible for Linux to support non-pre-emptive multitasking,
Technically, that may be true due to some requirement vis-a-vis the
timer interrupt being the only way to run the scheduler, but in theory,
it should be possible to run Linux in a stripped down mode in CMT mode.
> because Linux programs almost never call sched_yield(), and therefore,
> Linux without preemptive multitasking would only be able to run one
> process at a time, like DOS.
Um . . . no. Linux processes yield the processor every time they make a
blocking I/O kernel call, so you'd still see multi-tasking behavior,
albeit with a very chaotic time slice . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:37:59 -0400
WesTralia wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When your are using a diskless "thin client", and all your software is
> > > > > supplied over the net from the servers public key cryptography is no
> > > > > protection. That is the vision of .NET.
> > > > '
> > > > GAG! I remember when Sun tried that 10 years ago, and that was
> > > > with only ONE segment of ethernet between the workstation and the
> > > > server.
> > >
> > > Imagine that through the internet with millions or even billions of users
> > > all connecting to the same set of servers!
> >
> > I think we should keep quiet about this, let the Microsoft lemmings
> > buy into it, and watch them all go fucking insane when they realize
> > that their ability to bring up Word is entirely dependant upon the
> > speed of the network between themselves and Microsoft.com
> >
> > And watch a lot of company presidents get the axe for buying into
> > this, despite warnings from their IT leaders.
>
> Remember the original idea behind Microsoft's MSN? MSN was supposed
> to become an online community that would rival the likes of AOL.
>
> Guess what MSN is today? It's nothing more than a washed up webpage
> sitting in the far reaches of the WWW!
>
> Wanna take a guess where .NET is going to wind up?
It has a fundamental flaw. Widespread commercial success guarantees
computational failure for all customers.
Hehheheheheheh
>
> -wt
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:42:07 -0600
richard harlos wrote:
> Window-bashing? I *LUV* that sport! :)
I have a friend who replaced the standard MS startup sound on his
machine with the sound of a window being broken . . . hey, sometimes
even Windows users don't like Windows. . .
So as a joke, I modified my config to play the MS sound every time
somebody logged into the box. One minor mistake: I forgot to limit that
to local logins, so one day my wife was sitting next to the computer
when I logged into my home Linux box from a machine a work . . . the MS
sound plays, and she just about has a heart attack!
;-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:52:12 -0400
David Brown wrote:
>
> This discussion has got way too long to continue as it stands - I suggest a
> big snip, and a change of format before continuing.
>
> <Snip>
>
> I have no arguement as to what MS has done - you can quote as many examples
> of illegal or immoral behaviour, and I will agree with every one. MS has
> done very little real software development, has made few "innovations", and
> produced very little software of high quality (it has done some good stuff,
> but in proportion to its size, there is very little). This will be
> considered as facts by all but the most ardent of BG groupies, so there is
> no need to discuss more details here.
>
> Consider the following points:
>
> 1) When discussing where MS would be, we are really talking about where BG
> would be.
In a more aware world, in jail.
>
> 2) BG is a meglomaniac. He wants power and money, and has a much stronger
> drive to achieve that ambition than most people.
Precisely why he should be in jail.
> 3) He is very resourceful. He is an excellent marketer and salesman. He is
> intelligent (I don't want to discuse how intelligent, but he is certainly
> not stupid). He understands the computing market and market forces.
However, these are merely means to an end. He doesn't hide
the fact that his ultimate goal is control of everybody else..
EVERYBODY...everyone who conducts a financial transaction,
anywhere on the face of the earth.
Will they call it Windows666?
>
> 4) He wants to get rich fast, and has no scrouples.
>
..which is why he should be in jail.
> In the real world, where no body bothered about the illegal practices of MS
> (although they were convicted at one point, the "sentence" was basically to
> promise not to do it again, and even that was never enforced), the easiest
> path to success was through crime. Competition would only have slowed him
> down, so it was eliminated in whatever way was most convenient at the time.
>
> In our hypothetical world in which crime is not tolerated (including crime
> by other companies, so that no one else could use the old MS's tactics),
> this would not work. But we can be reasonably sure that, given the
> characteristics 2) to 4), BG would succeed at making a rich and powerful
> company. He might fail, but he would not give up easily. Without the help
> of crime, this company (MS, or whatever it were called) would not be in
> nearly the same position as MS today, but it would still be a solid,
> successful company. It may even be several semi-independant companies.
I would argue that if not for M$'s criminal behavior, then today it
would be a marginal company with less influence than Apple.
Digital Research had surpassed M$ and was offering a superior O/S
for significantly less money, while providing full compatability with
all legacy MS products.
DR had better programmers, and unlike M$, didn't have a contractual
agreement with SCO which would prevent them from developing a Unix
product.
Running DOS as a Unix process is fairly trivial.
> So how would this new MS achieve its success? It cannot break the law, and
> the law is designed to promote competition and protect the consumers. It
> cannot force its software on people through illegal contracts - it must
> compete for its market share. There are many ways to do this, and you can
> be sure that, given characteristic 4), BG will avoid competion where
> possible. But unless the laws are critically lacking in substance, there is
> no doubt that the new MS would have to compete fairly in some markets
> (whether it be competing directly for consumers, or for OEM support, or for
> developers support).
The simplest way to rein in Microsoft is the forced divestiture of
all M$ stocks by BG, Steve Baaaaawwwwwlmer, and other cretins, and
removal of these people from the Board of Directors.
Alternatively, just put the whole lot of them in jail, and the
stock holders will replace them, and fire the assholes.
>
> Now, please let me know if there is anything you strongly disagree with in
> points 1) to 4). I think they are general enough to be considered valid
> both in the real world and in the hypothetical law-abiding world. Then
> think about my conclusions, which are based almost solely on these facts.
> Then re-read them and think about them some more. Then write a reply. Read
> through that reply, delete all the details of what MS has done wrong and all
> the "you're wrong because I'm always right" parts, and explain exactly what
> is wrong with my reasoning.
Gates and his crew are pathalogical criminals, and should be locked
up, hanging by their toenails.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:35:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8laim5$jf4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Mjcr,
>
> > Do you have many swamps down in Nw Zealand? I am asking because it
sounds
> > like the Swamp Fox, a famous american warrior of the American Revolution
> > would fit right in with your defence forces.
>
> No. It's generally a beautiful country with quite a lot of forest (or what
> we also call "bush").
>
That is what I thought, I guess he will have to dry his boot and take on the
new handle of the Bush Rat instead of Swamp Fox. <G>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:58:09 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Matthias Warkus in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >This issue is adressed by multi-threaded X servers, where your mouse
> >handling thread is just a couple of pages; on a sufficiently
> >sophisticated system, you can tag those pages as "keep in core no
> >matter what".
>
> Is Linux such a "sufficiently sophisticated system"?
Yes. Unix implemented the "sticky bit" as part of the file permissions
field, to tell the kernal to do just exactly that in the late 1970's.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 21 Jul 2000 23:07:40 GMT
Andy Newman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: And consider someone who didn't want all those extra \r's whacked in
: front of all the \n's in the carefully generated data they're sending
: to the printer.
Like I said, my method would be fucked up. While not an issue with my own
computer, it sure would be in an office LAN where someone will want to print
fun formatted text.
In my case I named the script "lprint" to differentiate it from lpr itself.
That way, I could code up a proggie to print stuff independant of the homebrew
script if I get un-lazy enough to sit back and code in C. (:
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:06:03 -0400
David Brown wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> >> Ah, Pascal. I have fond memories of my first proper programming
> >> language...
> >
> >Are you insane?
> >
>
> He did say "my" first proper programming language, not "the" first. Given
> that Pascal *is* a proper programming language (and you would have to have a
> pretty wierd definition of a p.p.l. to exclude Pascal while retaining more
> than a small handful of seldom-used languages), Donal is expressing a purely
> personal memory. It is hardly something that could be argued with.
Yeah, it hit me about 2 hours after I sent it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:07:25 -0400
Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> Russell Wallace wrote:
> >
> > Tim Kelley wrote:
> > > The problem is if you start adding features it will be unreliable
> > > ... that's the point. There is very little for FAT to keep track
> > > of so it does not have much data to corrupt.
> >
> > So it does come down to reliability vs features after all? Then give me
> > reliability :)
>
> ummm ... I don't think so. There are some very basic features
> one needs in a file system, such as permissions. Yet as basic as
> this is, it adds a great deal of complication. FAT isn't as
You're kidding. An extra 1 or 2 bytes per file header.
> reliable as you think it is. It's a piece of shit. I can't
> believe we're even having this discussion.
>
> This conversation is over
think again.
>
> --
> Tim Kelley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
