Linux-Advocacy Digest #66, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("John Hughes")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (sandrews)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (sandrews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:09:13 +0100
"Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lso8i$nlq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:21:39 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >"Serge J.Luca" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.microsoft.com/solutions/ecommerce/lycoscs.htm
> > >
> > >Because Microsoft audited them, and they had a couple more
> > >copies of word installed than their receipts showed, and
> > >Microsoft gave them two alternatives
> > >
> > >1) Go to court, and even if we fail, YOU will have such high
> > >legal bills that you will be out of business, or
> > >
> > >2) Let us dictate your Information Technology decisions.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >So, guess what Lycos did?
> >
> > You have proof of that or are you just frustrated that the whole world
> > doesn't share your hate of Microsoft?
>
> I share his hate or Microsoft.=)
>
I suggest you both hop along to your nearest shrink. There must be something
this cruel world can do for you!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:05:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Drazen Kacar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Florian Weimer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >There are many broken incarnations of make(1) out there. No surprise
>> >that sometimes, developers say "we don't care about that, take GNU
>> >make instead, it works".
>>
>> And its free. Where's the surprise? I would think "it works and its
>> free" would be enough to convince anybody to use something, wouldn't
>> you?
>
>Depends on what "it works" mean. For example, Sun's make has rather nice
>debugging features, ie. when make complains about something in the
>Makefile, you can find the problem with minimum effort. With GNU make it's
>not nearly so easy.
Features can be copied. It is code that cannot be copied. Adding this
to GNU is most obviously both preferable and easier than trying to
control Sun's make.
>Now, if you have a source where GNU make works fine
>on some architetures, but it produces bewildering errors on yours,
>I suppose you'd like to be able to correct the problem in 5 or 10 minutes.
>If you have to use GNU make, you'd probably have to spend much more
>time. These things happen.
Hey, I'm not being a hard-ass. To me, this all seems a good reason to
use the GPL whenever and wherever you can, not an argument that it
always has the least bewildering errors.
>OTOH, GNU make has some features which Sun's make doesn't have, so it's
>not easy to decide which make implementations to support. But "it's free
>and it works" is not a convincing argument, because it doesn't "work"
>by itself. Somebody has to produce correct Makefiles.
That is, however, an engineering question. It is a sorry state of
affairs if engineering questions are made by copyright law and thereby
licensing choices, rather than capabilities and operational choices, I
agree. Seems I've heard that argument before, though; something about
the government designing software. I didn't like it then, and I don't
like it now. Some choices are tough, and some are only options, not
choices.
GNU is always the best choice yes, even when its broke, and it should,
by its nature, always be the easiest to decide to use when supporting a
make implementation. Its free and it works seems incontrovertible,
because "free" doesn't mean no cost. It means if it doesn't do what you
want, that's your fault, nobody else's. And as you've indicated, that
can sometimes be a mighty high price. But the cost of liberty is
eternal vigilance, and the cost of a free *and* functional make is using
it because "its free and it works".
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:10:18 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> GNU is always the best choice yes, even when its broke, and it should,
I wouldn't say that's always the case: the BSD license is better in some
cases.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:12:48 GMT
On 28 Jul 2000 18:20:18 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>: That's all Unix is at it's core: a bunch of components
>: operating on loosely structured text files.
>
>Only if you include /usr/include/*.h as loosely structured text files.
...he said while posting to Usenet, quite possibly while
using an HTTP interface to do it...
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:13:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard L. Hamilton in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Said Florian Weimer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>>Of course, this isn't an issue anymore. Nowadays, traditional Unix
>>>vendors advertise the existence of Linux compatibility layers.
>>
>> Perhaps, but its no more based in reality than any other "compatibility
>> layer" markitecture.
>
>Is that a cynical way of saying that such things are seldom totally
>transparent? No, they're not perfect, but typically they're good
>enough to be usable in enough of the common cases to do the job.
No, it is a very serious way of pointing out that integration,
emulation, and development is in the details, not the block diagrams.
There is no such thing as a conscious abstraction layer. And the
throwing around of "layers" in software and networking is problematic in
the extreme, in my perspective. If some vendor's Unix is partially
Linux compatible, and does so by using additional software, then they've
added software for Linux compatibility, not a "Linux compatibility
'layer'".
Is it emulating Linux? Is that a discrete process? What are the
strategic initiatives for zeroing out the difference between that Unix
and Linux? These are real question that block diagrams don't explain at
all, they merely (and purposefully) obfuscate them.
In some respects, I think that the term "layers" should have a
moratorium waged against it, just on general principle. It arm-waving
or hand-waving, and little else.
>The alternative is for everything different to either wither away
>and leave their customer base in the lurch, or give away all their
>goodies in the hopes that The One True (and Free, of course) OS
>would emerge and lead everyone to the promised land.
Adding Linux compatibility features or Linux compatibility functions or
Linux compatibility code or services or processes or even *capabilities*
is fine. Its the phrase "compatibility layer" I have problems with, not
enhanced interoperability.
>It would take
>one heck of a sales job to convince a company that wasn't either
>starting from scratch anyway or on the down slope (SGI) to go that route.
It would, in fact, take a heck of a lot of an education to convince any
company to avoid using anything but the most rigorously honest and
forthright and truthful information concerning their products. I'm not
a fan of "sales jobs" in their entirety, in the common parlance.
[...]
>In a situation where portability is at a premium, free tools have the
>advantage that you can probably take them along with you to new platforms
>easily enough; indeed, they will probably already be there ahead of you.
Viola. From free tools to free software.
[...]
>That does of course place some burden of _discipline_ on the programmer
>to know what's in a standard and what isn't, and to avoid (or
>encapsulate and provide for alternatives) extensions if portability is
>a concern. But that makes for better code anyway IMO, 'cause they've
>thought a bit more up front about what they're doing.
Huzzah.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:19:19 GMT
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:10:18 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> GNU is always the best choice yes, even when its broke, and it should,
>
>I wouldn't say that's always the case: the BSD license is better in some
>cases.
...for the Robber Baron, not the end user.
Then again, I would be happy if they only LGPLed their
filters. Those are the parts that create network effects,
not the rest of the beast...
>
>--
>Rich Teer
>
>NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
>
>The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
>regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
>
>Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
>URL: http://www.rite-online.net
>
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:16:33 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >You can't even be bothered to test a simple 10-line program,
> and
> > > > > > > >yet, you expect us to believe your other exhortations?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Come now, we're not nearly as stupid as you, punk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, that's true, but he was providing a quick-and-dirty
> example of
> > > a
> > > > > > > concept, and his code illustrated the solution. He might be
> stupid
> > > (and
> > > > > > > I'm anxious to learn more either way), but he is merely a
> "punk", at
> > > > > > > best, for not actually testing the scratch-code he was using for
> a
> > > > > > > simple example. I'd like to hear a more telling argument
> > > confronting
> > > > > > > his other exhortations, if you've got one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More to the point, he thinks that string-variables are an
> appropriate
> > > > > > solution for binary data.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I just did it cause it was quick and dirty but you constantly
> ignore
> > > > > that. Fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Strings are assumed to terminate at any byte that is all 00's.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. You are wrong. Ahhh mr programmer man, you are so limited in
> your
> > > > > knowledge and skills and it shows. Basic is not hampered by zero
> > > > > termination. I can include ascii 0 values in my strings all I want,
> > > > > anywhere, without any ill effect. You'd know that if you were a real
> > > > > programmer...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you talking about \0 = nil or "0" which is 0x30. There`s a large
> > > > difference.
> > > > the former is a nil and the latter an ascii "0". The nil is a
> > > > non-displayable
> > > > character how does that hamper the C language? You sir know nothing
> > > > about
> > > > programming in C. What you have shown is that you use and are
> > > > comfortable using
> > > > a script "kiddy language". I would not embarrass myself with such a
> > > > language.
> > > > Learn how to program and USE a REAL programming language!
> > > >
> > > > Another luser, running a luser os, scripting with a luser language =
> > > > microsoft.
> > >
> > > another complete fucking idiot trying to sound smart.
> > >
> > > Dude, ascii 0, zero, as in not the letter O you silly wanker. Yes, I
> friggin
> > > well know the difference and you are a complete moron for even
> considering
> > > otherwise. If you had even a remote clue about programming in BASIC
> you'd
> > > know exactly how much effect putting a ascii zero anywhere in a BASIC
> string
> > > has: Fuck All! as in nothing, nada, zilch zero. Good - I hate elitist
> types
> > > who think that cause they struggle to produce something in C that that
> makes
> > > them superiour to us cranking out useful working code in VB in 1/4 the
> time.
> > > Give me a break... Embarrass yourself? How about learning the basics of
> > > basic before pretending to give any lessons - you only expose you
> stupidity
> > > and ignorance.
> >
> > You are the moron, You are attempting to talk about asciiz string.
> > a asciit 0 is NOT an O it is a zero with a hex value of 30. An ascii
> > nil
> > which is a hex value 0 (not O damn it) will terminate a string. It
> > farted up
> > basic string when I was using a technique called string packing (this
> > was
> > using GeeWiz-BASIC. You probally don`t know what string packing is.
>
> No, you are the moron. I said it right. I know what a ascii zero terminated
> string is and I know the fucking differnece between an "O" (letter O) and
> "0" (digit 0) - and I know which are hex 30 and 0 -- idiot. Are you that
> confused? READ what I WROTE before embaressing yourself. I wrote accurately
> but you didn't read it right. idiot...
> AND, you CAN put a ascii value 0 (hex value 00) in the middle of a basic
> string and it will NOT terminate the string.
Yea, whatever you say windows luser
--
M$ Windows is aptly named, after all, it's easily broken, and
offers little
security, just like the glass ones...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:21:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Florian Weimer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> There are many broken incarnations of make(1) out there. No surprise
>>> that sometimes, developers say "we don't care about that, take GNU
>>> make instead, it works".
>> And its free. Where's the surprise? I would think "it works and its
>> free" would be enough to convince anybody to use something, wouldn't
>> you?
>
>Nope, because it also has the negative side of "it's not included with
>the system." Because it's not included with the system, and because it
>can't be bought from a large vendor, it can't be supported -- and
>there's no one to lay the blame upon if it does cause failures.
>
>Not that *I* consider such a reason good enough, but I've seen such
>reasoning stop the use of GPLed software dead.
It's not included? You don't get GNU make in a typical Linux distro?
That sounds outrageous to me. But I suppose it might be reasonable for
the PC crowd. Should a corporation be formed, perhaps, with investment
of interested parties, to support GNU 'make'? I'm floundering, of
course, because I'm not sure how developers get these things done, but
if a "third party" were responsible for 'make' itself, and provided some
"special dispensation", as it were, in allowing it to be used widely in
non-GPL stuff (whatever those issues are), do you think it would
encourage enough support for GNU 'make' that software developed would be
"pre-Linux" compatible? It would only be feasible if the role of that
corporation were restricted to non-profit development of 'make' itself,
to ensure it didn't become an MS-style "standards submarine".
Otherwise, it would just be "leveraging" GNU into the marketplace in a
way which would defeat the purpose.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 20:26:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:15:26 -0500,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yep, that's the only way we will wake up and see humanity is not 'in
>control' here. Nature is.
Of course, if Nature is really in control, then she must of enabled us
to fall asleep in the first place. So maybe there's a reason??
>Yes, and I also see that as we move farther outward in space (and I hope
>that this does happen), we will co-operate more and more with
>eachother. I think as we begin to see just how insignificant the human
>race really is in the totality of the universe, we will work together
>towards common goals, rather than against eachother in competeing
>goals. Of course, I also agree that we need to avoid going into that
>"cosmo-pathetic" line of reasoning. This is in fact already an issue.
>I read slashdot a bit and there have been a few recent debates about
>"contaminating" some of the outer planets and moons (Jupiter and it's
>moons in particular) when we 'crash' a satelite on the planet. What if
>there is some small form of life already present on the planet/moon and
>we send our satelite into the planet/moon and some of the microbes that
>rode up from earth spring back to life and wipe out (on a microscopic
>scale) the life that is already present.
Well, when scientists are sending microbe detection equipment up,
you'd think they would be bright enough to clean any microbes off the
equipment before they send it up.
>This has been proven to be
>feasible by the longevity of some biological samples taken from a camera
>that was left on the moon for three years and recovered. The microbes
>came back to life and began multiplying in the lab.
Mold spores can survive the extreme conditions of space, but cannot
germinate without a food source (they are not photosynthetic). So if
they grow on a Jupiter moon there has to be at least some bio-material
there to begin with. The moon itself is a special case. When they sent
men there, the obviously took microbes with them.
>Do we really want
>to start wiping things out before we even discover them?
We did that to the Native American Indians Didn't we?-( And microbes
played a big (but not the only) role in that. so it is definitely an
issue to consider.
>Or will we get
>there in a few decades/centuries and think that the life we actually put
>there ourselves is proof of life beyond our planet? More questions.
>But we need to be careful about it.
Sure, but beleive me, anything that people on Slashdot can think of,
scientists have already most likely considered. Hell, many Slashdot
readers don't even read the articles before they comment on them:-)
>Ah, OK. Sorry 'bout the rant. Religion has always been a bad thing in
>my life.
My fiance is ex-catholic. I've heard it all:-)
>Spirituality (in a good sense) and (organized) religion do
>seem to be exactly opposed to each other at the moment. Maybe, when
>religions come back to the idealism that founded them (Christians begin
>helping others again instead of insulting them for not already believing
>as they do, getting over the idea that only 'they' are right) this can
>change. Maybe, but again, I'm not holding my breath.
As long as you have the 'organized' part of organized religion, you
are going to have human political factors. And being the preacher or
'guru' is a really powerful ego-trip.
>Actually, I meant that as a joke, but a telling one. It's funny, but I
>can see it happening. With the way I question myself, and the way I
>accept changes in myself and the things around me, I can definitely see
>myself doing that. Right now, hell no! Ten years from now: it's one of
>those theoretical possibilities that I wouldn't deny could happen.
If I were to know today who I am going to be ten years from now that
would take away the fun of discovering it when I get there. And there
are still things to discover about who I am today anyways.
>It's just that politics (even small time politics, like office politics)
>has never been able to hold my interest. I can't kiss ass, unless I see
>a valid reason for it (and I don't consider promotions from ass kissing
>a valid reason). I can't suck up to people, unless I feel they honestly
>deserve it. That's always been a 'problem' (in other people's view of
>me) in me. I judge people based on the way they treat others, the
>accomplishments they have actually made, and the way they act. I don't
>look at a guy and say, "Whoah, he's the boss. I'd better be especially
>nice to him." I judge them as I see them. If my boss is being an
>idiot, I tell him so. Probably keep me fairly low in the heirarchy
>(?sp) of things, but what the hell? I can deal with that. Politics to
>me is about that sort of thing. I can't do that (at least not now).
>Maybe someday I will be able to. But certainly not now. Certainly not.
I can't give you any concrete advice here. But there are different
ways you can tell some he's an idiot. What I find works for me is
realizing that I am an idiot myself some times. Sure, my boss has
faults, but I have them too. When I approach my boss, or a higher
level manager, in a forgiving non-threatening way, i.e. acknowledging
that I am not perfect either, they generally listen. But if I am
condescending in any way, they feel threatened and become closed
minded. It is also important for me to understand that there are
things out of my bosses control as well, and not blame him personally
for that. Of course, this won't always work. If your boss really is a
*total* idiot, and can't listen to anyone at all, then your best bet
is to find a new boss.
Perry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 16:23:23 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> sandrews wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > sandrews wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > > >You can't even be bothered to test a simple 10-line program, and
> > > > > > > > > >yet, you expect us to believe your other exhortations?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Come now, we're not nearly as stupid as you, punk.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, that's true, but he was providing a quick-and-dirty example of
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > concept, and his code illustrated the solution. He might be stupid
> > > > > (and
> > > > > > > > > I'm anxious to learn more either way), but he is merely a "punk", at
> > > > > > > > > best, for not actually testing the scratch-code he was using for a
> > > > > > > > > simple example. I'd like to hear a more telling argument
> > > > > confronting
> > > > > > > > > his other exhortations, if you've got one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More to the point, he thinks that string-variables are an appropriate
> > > > > > > > solution for binary data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, I just did it cause it was quick and dirty but you constantly ignore
> > > > > > > that. Fine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strings are assumed to terminate at any byte that is all 00's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong. You are wrong. Ahhh mr programmer man, you are so limited in your
> > > > > > > knowledge and skills and it shows. Basic is not hampered by zero
> > > > > > > termination. I can include ascii 0 values in my strings all I want,
> > > > > > > anywhere, without any ill effect. You'd know that if you were a real
> > > > > > > programmer...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ASCII (0) is also known as "NULL"
> > > > >
> > > > > no dumb dumb, only sometimes - in databases a NULL doesn't equal anything
> > > > > and doesn't equal ASCII zero at all. Have you never worked in a database
> > > > > before?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually the true value of a "NULL" is implementation and machine
> > > > specific IF you
> > > > want to get technical.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > The ASCII symbol for 0x00 is NUL. It has been this was for 35 years.
> > >
> >
> > Which is different from NULL, I am discussing NULL here, Have a look
> > at K&R.
>
> We're not talking about that. We're talking about ASCII NULL
Ok, I was just messing with desitin, It doesn`t take much to set
that
pee brain off 8^).
--
M$ Windows is aptly named, after all, it's easily broken, and
offers little
security, just like the glass ones...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
