Linux-Advocacy Digest #283, Volume #28 Mon, 7 Aug 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: How Can I contribute? (ben)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Timmy is really Bill Gates!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic. (Pan)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Jim)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
Re: Come on, Jedi, where are you? ("Mike")
Re: Corporate Linux Information (Milton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:04:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >Wow. That must be the most wrong paragraph about unix permissions,
I
> >> >have ever read.
> >> Then perhaps you misread it?
> >No, I agree with Roberto. You are confusing the sticky bit with the
suid
> >bit.
>
> Yes, I agree with both of you.
Good. Knowing your ignorance is the first step towards knowledge.
Took you way too long, though.
> The question is, why am I confusing the sticky bit with the "set uid"
bit?
Beats me. They are two totally different things. Could be that someone
gave you bad information, could be that you just didn't understand.
> I'm willing to start from scratch on
> this if we need to, but in all honesty I'm quite sure that you two
would
> have an easier time identifying how they are related as well as how
they
> are distinct more than I would.
They are related in that they are permission bits, and no more.
> >> >You are confusing the sticky bit with the suid bit, and are giving
it
> >> >aditional magic properties that are simply done with a "a+x"
chmod.
> >>
> >> Yes; the suid bit was indeed explained to me as the "sticky bit".
Was
> >> this incorrect information? Perhaps I just have the nomenclature
mixed
> >> up. Please explain.
> >
> >You were misinformed.
>
> How wonderfully informative of you to say so. Has anybody else ever
> noticed a certain reticence in Unix people to be a little cheerfully
> courteous in providing conversational understanding?
Have you noticed that every time someone says you are wrong you resort
to invective against this mythical "unix people"?
> If I wanted to
> know why my sound card didn't work with the newest kernel build, I'm
> sure I'd have a dozen geeks ready to help if I was obsequious enough.
Hopefully.
> But working with Unix workstations for seven years and getting
> relatively knowledgeable about the operational side of Unix (notably
> TCP/IP and general administration) has not provided me any correct
> information,
Apparently.
> and I have, in fact, heard other qualified persons
> apparently find no strong reason to distinguish between a sticky bit
and
> an suid bit.
Ok, let's get this straight right here. If anyone actually told
you the suid and sticky bits are the same, he is not qualified
to be anywhere near admining a real production unix-like system.
> Perhaps it is a local thing, and *undoubtedly* I was
> misinformed. But this leaves the question of why the sticky bit man
> page referenced in an earlier post was silent on what its effects
would
> be when the executable permissions are set, and why so much has been
> posted on the subject without some less contention but more facile
Unix
> person hasn't posted a few permissions illustrating just what either
bit
> is in terms of the user interface.
I fail to understand what you mean. The permission bits are a feature of
files and directories. They can be set and unset, and they can be
queried.
How the UI displays or reacts to them is up to the UI. What Ui do you
mean,
specifically? If it's the CLI, then do a ls, and the permission bits are
the things like drwxr-xrw- you see when you do ls -l. Sticky is t, suid
is s.
The UI to change them is mainly chmod.
> >> >Go to the nearest unixy system, and do a man chmod, please!
> >>
> >> Sorry, I've already done that at least seven dozen times in my
career,
> >> and didn't see anything then that caused me to recognize my error,
so I
> >> doubt I'd see it now, even if I were to spend the time reviewing a
man
> >> page for no practical purpose, which I'm afraid I'm not willing to
do.
> >> Perhaps you could be more specific about what you're referring to.
Even
> >> if the sticky bit is not the suid bit, it would still be modified
with
> >> chmod, wouldn't it?
> >>
> >
> >*sigh*
> >
> >Why do you bother entering a conversation when you have nothing to
contribute[...]
>
> Because I expect you to snip the preceding ten to forty seven lines
and
> respond with something more helpful than "sigh", and an attempt to
> castigate me.
That is a very stupid reason.
> >and refuse to learn or even read the previous posts in the thread?
Both the
> >sticky bit and the suid bit were explained in this thread. But I
will
> >explain them one more time. The sticky bit is used to indicate that
a
> >program should remain in swap, i.e. stuck in swap. Hence the name.
This is
> >done for performance. The suid bit is what you were describing.
It causes
> >the program to be executed with the permissions of the owner of the
file.
> >This does not necessarily have to be root although using suid with a
file
> >owner of root is probably the most common case. Both the suid bit
and the
> >sticky bit can be set with chmod.
>
> Thank you for yet another tiresome repetition of what I already know.
Ok, so now you know what the bits do.
> Now try to shake the cobwebs out of your skull and *listen*. Nothing
> you have said has in any way *defined* either "bit",
The bits are not definable in terms I would expect you to understand,
really.
Think of it as that there are two bites attached to each file, and each
bit is
a bit in one of those two bytes.
> though they have
> (yet again) _described_ them in a way I recognize and agree with. Now
> WHAT ARE THEY?
Bits. Ones or zeroes.
> Sure I can read the man page available at
> http://www.softlab.ntua.gr/cgi-bin/man-cgi but so can you, and
> supposedly you'd understand more of what might be cogent to my
> confusion.
>
> I'm not trying to seem angry, I just get every bit as frustrated as
you
> do with the problems of communication. I'm anticipating someone
posting
> the representation of the bits in the UI, which I believe are part of
> the permissions,
I fail to see what the "are" in "are part of the permissions"
refers to. Please rephrase.
> but I'm certainly not going to go out on a limb and
> post anything so technical myself with assholes like you guys around
to
> leap on any potential mistake I might make.
Well, at least we would be assholes who know what we are talking about.
You know, when someone says you are wrong, it's not a personal attack.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:14:18 -0400
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > > >On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:55:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >() wrote:
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >>>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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm afraid you're too far removed from real life, 'dc'.
> > > > > > > Not only don't most adults know what "Windows" is, they
> > > > > > > don't really care at all, either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't worry, big brother is going to MAKE us all care what an
> > > > > > operating system is when the price doubles and the features
> > > > > > are stripped. All for the benefit of the stupid consumer who
> > > > > > can't make the right choice (according to the DOJ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Increased competition leads to higher prices and fewer
> > > > > features?
> > > >
> > > > There is no competition, and competition cannot be "legislated
> > > > into existence"
> > >
> > > It worked for long distance service.
> >
> > No it didn't, whats better about long distance service?
>
> It's substantially cheaper.
>
> What the anti-antitrust people don't seem to understand is that having
> an industry controlled by a single corporation is essentially the same
> as having it controlled by the government. Anyone who supports the free
> market must support antitrust.
What you don't seem to understand is that the computer industry has never
and CAN NEVER be controlled by a single corporation.
You and Netscape, and the DOJ just can't bring yourselves to admit that
Microsoft has always gained market share by providing a superior product.
>
> > Besides they're all merging again.
>
> There is still a substantial amount of competition. And now local and
> long distance companies are moving into each other's markets, which
> should make for even more.
>
> > Explain how the government can
> > legislate competition in intellectual property licensing. Maybe by
> > handing the rights to the Microsoft's intellectual property over to
> > 10 other companies and setting licensing territories?
>
> Maybe the government could just force Microsoft to stop using its OS
> monopoly to lock the competition out of the market?
>
> > > > There's plenty of alternatives but no real competition in the
> > > > quality arena.
> > >
> > > Are you really claiming that Windows is the highest quality
> > > operating system out there?
> >
> > Well... I just finished a two day exploration of Mandrake 7.1
> > (Linux), needless to say...it's got nothing on the elegance and speed
> > of MS Win2k.
>
> Say what you like about Linux. Windows is not a quality product by any
> means. It's no more than 'good enough.'
>
> > > > The governments plan is to strip Microsoft of their property
> > > > rights and force them to divulge the Windows source code, at the
> > > > same time inserting themselves as the final say on new product
> > > > development at Microsoft. This as a result of the only anti trust
> > > > case in history NOT driven by customer complaints.
> > >
> > > You're blatantly lying again.
> >
> > Moi?
>
> You've totally misrepresented the government's breakup plan.
History will prove that it's actually the governmenty who's misrepresenting
their "breakup plan".
------------------------------
From: ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Can I contribute?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:10:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Hello,
> >> >
> >> >I am working for a company which already have open sourced device
> >> >drivers and applications for linux. We have certain kerna patches
> >> >and device driver enhancements that we like to contribute to Linux
> >> >community in general. Who should we contact? Thanks for any
> >> >pointers!
> >>
> >> Contact you're butholl.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> >Before you buy.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >well...i use linux @ home and windoze @ work and for games. i think
> >windows is mostly intolerable and linux rules!!!
>
> I think Windows rules and Lixun is dum.
that's nice!
> >
> >but, i had to say that tim's comment, tho rude to a serious request,
was
> >funny as hell!!!!
> >
> >'contact your butthole' LOL!
> >
> >oh yeah yeah..im using windoze...cuz im AT WORK
> >
> >--
> >
> >
> >
> >refuse to crawl
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
>
--
refuse to crawl
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:07:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Traditional behavior is that if the execute bits are set, then
> >> >the text remains resident in core.
> >>
> >> This seems related, but distinct, from the explanation I got, which
was
> >> that the sticky bit (with execute bits set) dealt with access
> >> permissions. The easiest example to use would be "traceroute", or
the
> >> old "etherfind". These programs require root permissions to run.
But
> >> if you set the sticky bit with the owner of the file being root,
then
> >> anyone can execute them.
> >
> >That's the "Set User ID" bit.
> >
> >Runs the executable under the ID of whoever owns the file.
>
> In the six years that I have been working with Unix workstations
> regularly (if not routinely), I have on occasion heard people refer to
> what I assumed was supposed to be the suid as "the sticky bit". How
do
> they differ?
Read the thread. The suid bit is what people say when they write
"the suid bit is...". The sticky bit is the one described as
"the sticky bit, instead...". Particular instances of the descriptions
will vary slightly. There are at least 5 of each.
> I'd appreciate any help I can get clearing up my confusion.
I'm not betting on that, myself.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Timmy is really Bill Gates!!
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:22:08 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> rfisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Nobody else could possibly be in such a state of disarray, denial and
> >stupidity.. He must be using an M$ spellchecker too.....
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >
>
> I am not bill Gaits?
Um, are you really asking a question? Get yourself checked out there
TIMMAY!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:23:45 -0500
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up, compleat with a
> COMMAND prompt.
> >
> > Enough!
> >
> > It is not a DOS box. A shell on Unix is not a DOS prompt. I know that
> > no matter how many times it is said, Windows users are not going to
> > believe that a Unix shell is not a DOS prompt and they aren't equivalent
> > in any way other than both being command lines (and that does not mean
> > they are equal). But the two are not equal.
>
> Excuse? I'm a Windows user, and I know full well that an xterm is not a DOS
> box.
>
> Sorry, where did you get this idiotic notion that all Windows users are
> completely unaware of such things?
Well, I shouldn't have implied "all" with my statement. What I meant
was most are not going to believe that a Unix shell is different from a
DOS prompt. Ask around, I think you will be suprised how often this
statement is proven.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic.
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 08:35:30 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The numbers are fairly consistent with those that I've been finding in
our counter logs @work ( though we are definitely an eye-candy type of
site ). There is some issue of logging programs ( like Netscape's
website garage ) not reading data for all of the available browser and
os options ( poor job of regex if that won't read opera, lynx, amaya, et
al ). There is also an issue of basic honesty, When I used website
garage for a brief period of time, netscape was represented as
accounting for roughly 50% of our total traffic. When I implemented our
own system, we founf that it was more like 70->30 in ie's favor.
mlw wrote:
>
> So we are talking about traffic to a narrowly defined group of web
> sites. The group being defined as very limited web pages on low end ISPs
> or web providers.
>
> Does the traffic in this segment of the web represent the traffic on the
> whole? I don't know, but I would opine not.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: 07 Aug 2000 15:35:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > > > > >On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:55:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > >() wrote:
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > >>>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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm afraid you're too far removed from real life, 'dc'.
> > > > > > > > Not only don't most adults know what "Windows" is, they
> > > > > > > > don't really care at all, either.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't worry, big brother is going to MAKE us all care what an
> > > > > > > operating system is when the price doubles and the features
> > > > > > > are stripped. All for the benefit of the stupid consumer who
> > > > > > > can't make the right choice (according to the DOJ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Increased competition leads to higher prices and fewer
> > > > > > features?
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no competition, and competition cannot be "legislated
> > > > > into existence"
> > > >
> > > > It worked for long distance service.
> > >
> > > No it didn't, whats better about long distance service?
> >
> > It's substantially cheaper.
> >
> > What the anti-antitrust people don't seem to understand is that having
> > an industry controlled by a single corporation is essentially the same
> > as having it controlled by the government. Anyone who supports the free
> > market must support antitrust.
>
> What you don't seem to understand is that the computer industry has never
> and CAN NEVER be controlled by a single corporation.
Not that M$ hasn't done everything it can, including breaking antitrust
law, to prove otherwise.
> You and Netscape, and the DOJ just can't bring yourselves to admit that
> Microsoft has always gained market share by providing a superior product.
And your blookage continues even further into absurdity.
> > > Besides they're all merging again.
> >
> > There is still a substantial amount of competition. And now local and
> > long distance companies are moving into each other's markets, which
> > should make for even more.
> >
> > > Explain how the government can
> > > legislate competition in intellectual property licensing. Maybe by
> > > handing the rights to the Microsoft's intellectual property over to
> > > 10 other companies and setting licensing territories?
> >
> > Maybe the government could just force Microsoft to stop using its OS
> > monopoly to lock the competition out of the market?
> >
> > > > > There's plenty of alternatives but no real competition in the
> > > > > quality arena.
> > > >
> > > > Are you really claiming that Windows is the highest quality
> > > > operating system out there?
> > >
> > > Well... I just finished a two day exploration of Mandrake 7.1
> > > (Linux), needless to say...it's got nothing on the elegance and speed
> > > of MS Win2k.
> >
> > Say what you like about Linux. Windows is not a quality product by any
> > means. It's no more than 'good enough.'
> >
> > > > > The governments plan is to strip Microsoft of their property
> > > > > rights and force them to divulge the Windows source code, at the
> > > > > same time inserting themselves as the final say on new product
> > > > > development at Microsoft. This as a result of the only anti trust
> > > > > case in history NOT driven by customer complaints.
> > > >
> > > > You're blatantly lying again.
> > >
> > > Moi?
> >
> > You've totally misrepresented the government's breakup plan.
>
> History will prove that it's actually the governmenty who's
> misrepresenting their "breakup plan".
Only if M$ is free to rewrite it after the truth is forgotten.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:41:26 -0400
"Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > You and Netscape, and the DOJ just can't bring yourselves to admit that
> > Microsoft has always gained market share by providing a superior
product.
>
> And your blookage continues even further into absurdity.
No one WANTS an alternative to Windows therefore there is no market for one.
There are plenty of alternatives and has been for QUITE a while. As is
proven by the fact that Linux can't even be GIVEN away.
More choices are a mere 2 clicks away from the front page a very popular
outpost on the internet:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
Unfortunately for you, almost ALL of personal computer users much prefer
Microsoft Windows. No government strong-arm forcefulness or courtroom antics
to remove that basic American freedom of choice will change the fact the
consumer has resoundingly given Microsoft "the nod" of approval.
You see...if there WAS a better product, it would have a buyer. I'm sorry to
say - there's not a better product even on the horizon. Get used to it.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Come on, Jedi, where are you?
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:46:36 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mmgo3$2gu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > --------------------------8<-------------------------------------
> > GUI applications are event driven. On X, that usually means that
> > the toolkit filters the events and reacts to some, by triggering
> > callbacks, or in Qt/KDE, by emitting a signal.
> >
> > The first obvious problem with putting DnD in a separate library
> > is, of course, WHAT would go in that library?
> >
> > Let's consider drop. Drop happens when a certain atom is passed onto
> > one of the application's windows. Those atoms are catched by the
> > toolkit's event loop.
> >
> > Then, the toolkit must trigger the application code through a callback
> > or a signal. I can't see how ANY of this can be moved away from the
> > toolkit, unless every toolkit had a universal mechanism for messing
> > with its internal event loop from the outside. Something like Xt
> > on which to base the kits would probably do it, but it's, in this
> > day and age, totally impractical to achieve (consider how many
> > toolkits would need BIG internal changes).
> >
> > Something very similar happens on the drag.
> >
> > The final result is that the functionality can not be moved away from
> > the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all current
> > toolkits. Which will not happen.
> >
> > So, it's impractical.
> >
> > Now, was that enough of an answer for you?
> >
> > I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
> > ----------------------------->8-------------
>
> > --
> > Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
I can't believe it either. Nonetheless, you've highlighted (again) the
problem with multiple Unix GUIs. Without sharing the underlying
infrastructure, applications written for one will be unable to run with full
functionality under another. The more basic problem is that X falls far
short of delivering the full infrastructure needed to support modern GUI
applications. Application developers are faced with the prospect of either
writing their own infrastructure, which excludes all other applications from
interoperating with theirs, or using the infrastructure provided by one of
the other GUIs. So far, it seems that most applications write for the lowest
common denominator, X, and provide their own infrastructure.
This provides portability, since X is underneath the Unix GUIs anyway, but
it also means that the infrastructure provided by the GUI is lost. Quite
frankly, I'm hard pressed to see this changing any time in the near future.
That's not to say it won't: every time I read about Miguel de Icaza (who is
heading up the Gnome effort), I'm impressed with him. Some other Gnome
developers are less than stellar, though, and don't seem to share Miguel's
vision of Gnome as somewhat more than a simple X application launcher.
But an even more basic question is this: why doesn't the Unix community
modify X, and add the requisite functionality to the existing, common base
layer? That would provide a common foundation for Kde and Gnome, and would
allow applications to take advantage of the infrastructure no matter which
GUI was being used.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Corporate Linux Information
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 11:49:44 -0400
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 03:31:51 GMT, Steven DeFino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>> I run a small set up in India. I wanted some
>> information on Linux deployment. Please suggest a
>> source. I am not a techie
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>Here are a few good ones, but basically enter
>"www.linux?????.com/org/net where ?????? is any logical word that could
>follow and there is probably a decent site there.
>
>http://www.linuxdoc.org
>http://www.linuxworld.com
>http://www.linux.org
>http://www.linuxpertise.com
>http://www.linuxplanet.com
>http://sunsite.auc.dk/linux-newbie
>http://linux.cnet.com/linux
Here's another good tip -> try adding /linux to any major computer
distributer's URL.
www.ibm.com/linux
www.sgi.com/linux
www.hp.com/linux
www.compaq.com/linux
www.dell.com/linux
Hope this helps,
Milton
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
