Linux-Advocacy Digest #131, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Loren Petrich)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Roger Lindsj|)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (petilon)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("John Hughes")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Mats Olsson)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Scheme == Beginners language ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:09:17 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:17:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:55:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:43:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 05:54:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:51:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:07:48 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:35:42 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Sorry, DC, but you just don't understand that the average consumer is no
>>>>>>> >more going to seek out an patronize one of these little shops, than they
>>>>>>> >are going to seek out an patronize a consumer electronics repair shop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue, though, is that it's out there, local to customers, and
>>>>>>> available to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that's not the issue. Refer back to the snipped bit about consumer
>>>>>>electronics repair shops . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, do you suggest this same JoeAverage customer
>>>>>>> would ever buy Linux?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, they would, when it comes pre-installed and pre-configured, on
>>>>>>hardware integrated by the seller to run Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>>This I have to disagree with. I have a hard time coming up with a
>>>>>scenario for a home user that would purposely buy a Linux box over a
>>>>>W98 box, even if the L box were $50 less. Can you build a scenario
>>>>>for me?
>>>>
>>>> ...they don't know well enough to be aware of the distinction
>>>> between operating systems and buy the first thing they come
>>>> across.
>>>
>>>You mean an adult that doesn't know what Windows is? C'mon, jedi -
>>>you're reaching, even for you. That's absurd.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Most end users are not saavy enough to tell the difference between
>> a wiley window manager or efx or bare windows. Plus, they simply
>> don't understand what an OS is to begin with.
>
>I honestly believe you believe that.
>
>I think that's flatly and absurdly wrong, but hey, more power to you.
>
How are they going to tell? How would they know the difference
between an efx win32 variant and some Window Manager variant?
They would have to have a minimal awareness of other alternatives
and be able to scratch beneath the surface of the end user shell.
Most WinDOS users aren't like that.
Just fvwm95 can fool some of them.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:18:31 -0300
Pete Goodwin escribió:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Readability? I don't see much of a difference.
>
> 'ls' is less readable than 'dir'
In that case, use dir.
> 'cat' is less readable than 'type'
type is something else. Then again, I find "more file.txt" more
readable than "type file.txt |more".
> 'grep' is definately less readable than 'find' or 'search'
search is available, find is something else.
add this in your ~/.bashrc
alias search=grep
And I find "find" more readable than "dir /s".
> I seem to remember the UNIX shells were designed to be cryptic;
You are confusing the shell with the command names. The command
names were designed to be short, though.
> I can agree
> with you in that the DOS shell is not much better, but I still think IMHO
> that 'dir', 'type' or 'find' is a bit more readable than the UNIX
> equivalents.
Then use dir and search, and linux doesn't force cat onto any user who
would care.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:13:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Thieves are....and should be eradicated just like we do cockroaches.
>> Quotes the whole article when replying to 2 lines!
>> Incorporates the signature of the previous poster!
>> And then adds his 29 line signature to his one line reply!
>> States he is a 'Unix Systems Engineer'!
>> The subject is quite close to the mark I think. You are completely ignorant of
>> usenet netiquette. Ignorance can be corrected, stupidity is for life. Which
>> one is it?
> Neither, he's doing it on purpose, he's trolling with his huge .sig.
And making himself seem like a victim.
Rather than someone willing to take responsibility for his actions.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:17:36 GMT
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:13:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >There is no such thing as a dishonest mistake. You cannot tell a lie if
>you
>> >do not know the truth.
>>
>> I don't accept those two statements has being related by logic. The
>> second is correct, but has no bearing on the first, which is incorrect.
>
>The bearing it has on the first is in defining the word "dishonest".
>
>Again, you cannot make a dishonest mistake. Being dishonest requires the
>truth be known.
>
>> [...]
>> >Accessible would mean "can be found easily".
>>
>> In a consumer market where convenience is a major selling point,
>> accessible means "doesn't have to be looked for." As if you've never
>> read Jedi's sig.
>
>I probably have, but I certainly don't remember it. Since jedi resides in
>my killfile, I also rarely read his posts.
It would take a really rather thorough culling to completely
get rid of my ramblings...
>
>And PCs sans-Windows could be located easily. It required the enormously
>mentally taxing task of opening a computer magazine.
>
>Anyone dropping a few grand onto a purchase without doing basic research
>deserves everything they get.
What research do you do before buying a large TV or a refridgerator?
Do you ever buy such an appliance mail order from a vendor you have
never heard of before and can't directly interact with?
I know Electrical Engineers with more consumer saavy in their pinky
than you have in all of you that will avoid purchase that require
"the enormously mentally taxing task of opening a computer magazine".
A healty free market should not require purchasing out of state.
[deletia]
>> Evidence indicates, quite strongly, that your theory of a
>> competitive cause of Linux's unavailability in the consumer market is,
>> at best, without merit.
>
>Evidence indicates that even today, Linux is unpopular in the consumer
>market. This is despite the generational leap in interface and usability it
>has made in just th last 12 to 18 months.
Linux has low marketshare.
That has little to do with popularity.
>
>Evidence strongly suggests Linux was not available to the consumer market
>because it was not in demand.
It also has to deal with network effects such as application
compatibility and device driver availability.
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
--
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: [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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:21:32 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:47:34 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Wenham wrote:
>>
>> Curtis Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deletia]
>> > Hmm, I guess, at this point in the game, we need to define "real
>> > creativity." Would not the concept of replacable Window Managers
>> > qualify? Or skinability, as we have in KDE and GNOME/Enlightenment?
>>
>> I think that "skins" are too trivial to be counted. They don't add
>
>"skins" are for airheads who want to try to impress people that they
>can make their computer "do something"
"skins" can fix the absurd initial UI design decisions
made by the developers...
[deletia]
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Lindsj|)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:23:14 GMT
In article <fBgh5.9733$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mats Olsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8m40bk$5t8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
>> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
>
>That's a competitor from IBM rebutting the findings of
>http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_26.htm.
So, most of the people with any knowledge will be working for some
compeating company. Do you always assume that people lie? Anyway, what
he is saying isn't that the results were abtained by cheating (the
high scores were achieved by running the test), but the numbers might
be missleading. Wait for the next newsletter, if Compaq think he is
wrong, they'll probably have someone refute his findings.
Analogy: You want to buy a really fast car to impress your friends. So
you shop around and see Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari, etc. They are all
very fast, some doing more than 200 mph. But then you see the rocket
car used to break the sound barrier. It is THE fastest car around, but
would it be practical to use? "Sure my car is faster than your I'll
show your. All I need is miles and miles of flat dessert, some very
flammable propellant, a large crew to get the car ready, no wind,
absolutely no rain, etc." So the car is THE fastest, but a lot of
impractical conditions has to be met in order for it to operate.
Roger Lindsjö
------------------------------
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:00:27 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:41 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
>
>This article describes the bug in a beta of Windows 3.1 which
>caused a spurious and unintelligible (but harmless) error message
>when you installed on DR-DOS. It was fixed prior to release.
Maybe you can explain to us why this mere "bug" was encrypted and why
it attempted to disable debuggers then? This looks pretty deliberate
for a "bug", particularly since other code around the block in question
is not so protected.
And if DR-DOS really was incompatible, why did they disable (but not
remove) this code in the retail version?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:29:12 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>> >and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something goes
>>
>> ...damn that Intel deciding that the hardware having no real
>> clue or control as to what is going on in system is a bad idea.
>
>Look at Plug N Play and tell me which is better. I prefer labotomized
Actually, I've never had PCI fail me in this respect.
I've run out of XT resources but that's a more fundemental
design flaw in PC's rather than a flaw of PnP.
It's a quite solvable problem if you design with it in mind.
It's not necessarily a Windows-ism as you seem to think.
>jumpered hardware myself. At least of the decision making is left up to the
>user, and it's within the user's grasp to fix the problem easily.
>
>Amusing that you are commenting on this as if it were the first time you've
>read it. I guess I shouldn't find that surprising.
Given the choice between Software Engineering and Electrical
Engineering, I will take the EE solution as that discipline
can at least be seriously refered to as engineering.
>
>> >wrong (not if) there are now 12 more layers of complexity in my way to work on
>> >solving the problem. In the old Slackware days, I used to find the exact
>> >script or configuration file in no time flat, make the change, and I was done.
>>
>> If you can't do that in Redhat, what happenns the next time you
>> for some reason need to move to a slightly variant other Unix?
>
>Let me put this in a way that makes it absolutely clear:
>I have a day job. I get paid for said day job. I get paid well for said day
>job. What do I do when I'm working at this day job? I write Unix software.
>The software that I write for which I get paid very well has to run on 9
>(that's right NINE) platforms all of which claim to be a form of "Unix". I
>don't have any problem with variants of Unix.
If that is indeed the case then you have nothing to whine about
with respect to more contemporary ease of use interfaces in Linux.
Your comments and claims are inconsistent.
You must have loads of fun with SCO.
[deletia]
I only expect Windows users to grouse about their user interface
being changed in some trivial manner.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:30:14 -0700
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nope. The data is redundantly distributed. SQL Server 2000's
> transactional replication provides for loose consistency
Do you know what the term "loose consistency" means? It means
transactions will be correctly reflected -- eventually. It is
anything but real-time.
What this means is that if a machine goes down your system
has NO ACCESS to up-to-date information that was on the
crashed machine.
> If one of the servers in the MS cluster fails everything keeps
> on running too. Since everything is replicated.
No. With replication you are not guaranteed to have the latest
information. Replication is very slow. Please go to Microsoft's
web site and read up on "transactional replication" before
spouting more nonsense.
>> If you really can't see the difference then you're beyond
>> hope.
>
> There is no difference besides the fact that Oracle and nix
> can't do this.
The difference is huge. If a Sun machine that is a part of
the cluster crashes, the surviving machines have access to
the exact data that the crashed machine was seeing. (Not
via slow replication.)
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:36:04 GMT
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > All I was saying is that I would consider C to be more of a mid-level
:> > language. (Some of the features of a high level language while
:> > retaining many of the benefits of a low level language).
: C, by the standards of its day, was a "high level language."
: Today, and in retrospect, it's more of a portable assembly
: language, IMO.
Not really. Compared to fortran, LISP and algol, C is quite low level.
Check out:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ferguson/adw/programming_languages.shtml
for a basic language history.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:37:02 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:37:00 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> > But we have window managers. Okay, that's cool. But what else is
>> > there? :-)
>>
>> What else do you want exactly?
>
> Software that's completely separated from user interface code, where
> UI logic isn't even compiled into the binary or linked dynamically.
Sounds like mpg123, or mkisofs, or cdrecord or various shared
libraries for manipulating common standard datafiles.
>
> If a program needs a search query it should make a demand to a UI
> broker. The broker then decides whether to ask for that by popping up
> an interruptive dialog box with a little text field an a cute
> "Search" button; or flashing a light on a panel in the corner of the
> screen and waiting for the user to speak it into a microphone; or
> prepare a temporary web page with the field and the "Search" button
> and put it in a ToDo queue that the user eventually gets to; or
> present a tree of pre-defined search queries because it's a kiosk
> setting that shouldn't take free-form queries; or whatever.
That sounds like precisely the sorts of decisions that
should be made by the application developer regardless
of what lower level interface they are using to build
the functional components.
>
> The programmer of a word processor or CAD program or MP3 player
> shouldn't spend any time deciding what the layout of her pop-up menus
> ought to be, where buttons ought to go, what the icons should look
> like or which is better: Motif, QT or GTK?
That's the beauty of sourcecode access.
Although, I'm not sure I would want an interactive graphics
manipulation package with too many layers of overhead involved.
Your model works rather well for various mp3 players already though.
>
> I don't think I can create a prototype with existing programs that
> take stream input and the reason is because they don't define /what/
> data they're expecting and what they output. Those details are
> remembered by the user when he pipes the output of one to the other
> and can prepare the arguments and switches ahead of time.
Either that or the tools can send and recieve recognizable
data sent in common well known and standardized formats.
>
> If I built progarams like this from scratch today (or outfitted
> existing ones) I might use XML to define expectations for input and
> the structure of the output. In fact the project I work on for my
> employer is almost this vision incarnate: XML documents define what
> is expected to come from the user. But we haven't had time to write a
> module that would assemble an HTML form (it's a web based
> application) on the fly based on that XML - I still have to write
> those by hand.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:44:48 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8m45hl$vtj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
> > centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
> > opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
> > day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
> > transactions."
> >
> > Strange to see Fungus posting references to a pro COM+ site.
> >
>
> Strange thing that your quotation does not appear on the referenced
> page! Where did you find it? I guess it is somewhere on the site, but
> not in the article (issue 27) anyway.
>
> Regards,
>
Browse around the rest of the articles. Its a good site.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mats Olsson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:47:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:05 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>
>>> Win2K can take the heat too. www.tpc.org
>>>
>>
>>http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
>
>"We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
>centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
>opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
>day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
>transactions."
For those that wonders where on the world this comes from, it's
from http://www.objectwatch.com, ie the home page for ObjectWatch.
The article of interrest is in issue_27, written by a clustering
gury by the name of Greg Pfister, and he tries to explain why things
are not as simple as they are.
Of course, I'm sure that noone is really surprised that the article
in question isn't discussed by Jen.
>Strange to see Fungus posting references to a pro COM+ site.
Well, in the real world, there are in fact some people who are
interrested in how things really work, rather than spouting contentless
nonsense on newsgroups all days. Thus, ObjectWatch may well be pro-COM+,
but they obviously feel that their integrity is strengthened by people
with different opinions.
Weird, I know.
/Mats
------------------------------
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:44:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Curtis Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But I can also see your point, at least in terms of philosophy; UNIX
> > has traditionally been a "toolkit" type of environment, with small
> > tools/utilities that can be piped together in order to solve a
> > particular problem, but has lately been following the Windows
> > Monolithic "everything including the kitchen sink" approach to
> > packaging solutions.
>
> Now you've reminded me else of something annoying.
>
> In a way it's not as easy to follow the same "pipe together"
> philosophy with a GUI. How do you pipe the output of "grep" into a
> dialog box?
Have you ever looked into TCL/TK? It was designed for exactly such
problems, and represents carrying the afore-mentioned UNIX pholisophy
into the GUI world. With TK, one can fairly easily put a GUI front end
on a command-line tool, and capture output from a command-line tool.
With such capabilities, one can conceivably "pipe together" until the
proverbial cows come home.
-- snip --
> > Hmm, I guess, at this point in the game, we need to define "real
> > creativity." Would not the concept of replacable Window Managers
> > qualify? Or skinability, as we have in KDE and GNOME/Enlightenment?
>
> I think that "skins" are too trivial to be counted. They don't add
> functionality nor do they change the user interface (you don't change
> a door by painting it a different color).
Agreed, but it still does represent *creativity* at some level, does it
not? Also, is it not conceivable that, trivial though it may be today,
skinning could evolve into something useful?
-- snip --
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:56:09 -0500
"John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lqhh5.3763$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You make your entire argument based on file name extension? Geez.
> >
> > NT can use .html files as well, you know. Check netcraft if you don't
> > believe it.
> >
>
> Lycos doesnt run WIndows 2000 because it cant run as .html.!! Oh the
> evidence for the FUD isnt getting any better is it?
What color is the sky in your world?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:56:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the servers
>> that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
>>
>> How come no Lose2000 machines?
>>
>>
>> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
> Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
>
> Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> heaviest tasks.
>
Like Word 2000's grammar check?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Scheme == Beginners language
Date: 31 Jul 2000 12:56:48 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It was designed, itself, to teach the rudimentary concepts of
> conditional processing. "If...then", and little more.
>
> The problem is there's no middle ground for the common user. You either
> have something entirely broken, or you have a "real" language, where you
> have to start worrying about *design*.
Use what the professionals use when teaching programming: Scheme
It can be used interactively to let beginners play around with
conditionals, etc. Yet it can still be used as a "real" language to
develop complex programs.
Some people are afraid of Scheme either because the syntax is unfamiliar
or because they've used it in a course that taught advanced concepts.
However, for beginners any syntax is unfamiliar, and the advanced
concepts don't need to be taught.
ObLinux: Debian GNU/Linux ships with several free Scheme
implementations. NT doesn't ship with any, as far as I know.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
