Linux-Advocacy Digest #541, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jason McNorton)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Steve White)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Craig Kelley)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:08:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
[...]
>Obviously my message is going about three feet over everyone's head.
I don't think so. I understand what you're saying, and generally agree
with you. I'd just as soon point out that your "anti-pro-Windows"
position, while one I share avidly, might equally be seen as cry of
elitism to some people, though. Particularly those who have a good deal
of investment in listening to the cry of the popular wisdom "Linux won't
be successful unless its more like Windows", which you must admit is a
valid point, even if it is misapplied more often than not.
As someone who isn't directly trying to seek profit by selling Linux
desktop systems or services, you might have a different perspective than
Roberto, who works for KDE, without either of your positions being
seriously flawed in any way.
>I am talking about making sure that we don't let this kind of garbage
>get into the base system so that it *can't* be removed, so that it
>*isn't* something that can be disabled. There are those in the
>*popular* computer press that think Corel has a great distro (because it
>works 'so much like Windows'). And as I said in my previous post, I was
>talking about Corel. I know that it's ridiculous sounding, but if
>enough people 'want' something to happen, in Linux it's just a matter of
>time before it *does* happen.
I can't see how that is supposed to be ridiculous sounding, and you make
clear your essential argument, I think, which is that pandering to the
clueless fantasies of what Joe and Jane end-user *think* they want is a
good way to destroy a valid engineering design. Please correct me if
I'm wrong.
>It's a trivial problem today, but there are a huge number of people
>bitching that that *trivial* problem should be the standard, and that
>there should be no way around that *trivial* problem. They want a
>Windows clone. And I (and I hope I'm not the only one) don't want Linux
>to just become a Windows clone. Why is that so difficult a concept?
>I'm just saying I don't want it to happen.
The hard part is in communicating what you don't want to happen. You
don't want flexibility, you don't want expedient interface mechanisms,
you don't want industry-wide conventions establishing expectations for
standard functionality? Of course you don't. I'm not saying you've
said those things. I'm saying you haven't made clear how what you want
to avoid is different from those things. I will re-itterate, I truly am
in full agreement on this issue: I don't want a Windows clone, either,
and we are not alone. But being able to say that, and being able to
explicitly describe what we do want, is not made easier by the fact that
many people are saying just the opposite.
We have to work out a more convincing argument than "I want", I think.
We can hardly expect people making money from Linux to resist
fragmentation of the kernel if it is in their better short-term
interests to demand fragmentation rather than restrict their development
of GPL software.
>As for your alienates CLI fans comment, I was speaking on the premise
>that there are a huge number of computer illiterate people that have an
>*interest* in Linux at the moment. These people are saying that the GUI
>should be integrated in the kernel, that Corel has the best distro ever,
>and that everything should be *just like Windows*. These are the people
>I am speaking against. There are some concepts that can be 'borrowed'
>from Windows. I'm not so against Windows that I fail to see the few
>good ideas that are present. I just don't want Linux to turn into a
>Windows clone. Am I really such an idiot for saying that?
No, but you have to admit that the benefit of putting the GUI, if not
(and I assume not) the GUI shell, into the kernel, does exist. If the
majority of people who want to buy or sell or use Linux want the GUI
"built in", what gives you the right to demand that they not do so?
They haven't any less right to develop Linux as an OS on the face of it;
*you* are the one demanding that fragmentation not be allowed, as if you
controlled the code.
Now, I'm being devil's advocate again, and I'm not trying to be
dishonest or insinuating about it. I'm trying to say that you are most
definitely *not* being an idiot for saying that you oppose the
integration of stuff into the kernel, and that you have a right to say
so. And I agree with you entirely, and have been called an idiot myself
for posting such views. But you've already gone a bit further than I in
some regards in developing a particular argument against it, and I'd
like to compare notes along those lines.
The putative commercial success of Linux as a product presents a clear
and present danger to the integrity of Linux as an OS, and I agree with
you entirely that we need to do something about it. I just don't have a
clue what it is we might be able to do. Can you help?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:18:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:03:18 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike Byrns
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:02:36 GMT
>> <MDJn5.11037$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8nk811$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> > Nonsense. If you feel a need to throw an ad hominem at me,
>> >> > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you, you have proven my point for me in this issue.
>> >
>> >Actually, he's proven his own point. You need to be more specific.
>> >
>> >Aren't you two nix people? Looks like the dissention in the ranks like
>> >we've always heard doesn't happen. This has been and will continue to be
>> >the thorn in the side of the various nix flavor advocates. Come together,
>> >you can't beat Windows divided.
>>
>> We already have, in the server arena. Mind you, Windows is trying
>> to catch up -- and in some respects succeeding -- but the various
>> Unices had the server market before NT was even born, AFAIK.
>>
>> Considering its late start, NT is doing rather well -- but I doubt
>> that will last, especially in light of the sillier bugs or design
>> deficiencies evidenced by Microsoft's crown jewel, Office, which
>> allow for the exploitation of the address book and the destruction
>> of data to spread email viruses. (Some of these aren't in
>> Office itself, mind you, but in the graphical shell Office uses
>> to fire off e-mailed executables -- or perhaps in the communication
>> between the two.)
>>
>> And then there's the issue of a server requiring a video card.
>> Unix can be put on a box with one serial port, or perhaps nowadays
>> an Ethernet connection. This reduces hardware costs (albeit
>> low-func video cards are very cheap nowadays) and even possible bugs
>> caused by buggy video drivers (which might be more important).
>
>The cost isn't the video card..it's the fact that you then need to
>purchase video cable, and a video display (or plug a whole bunch into
>an expensive console switcher...)
You're right; there are a number of issues regarding the video card
that may not be related to the card itself. I hadn't considered
that.
Maybe somebody can do a combination video/Ethernet card. This admittedly
rather silly combo would allow for the Ethernet transmission of
video pixels -- or even metafiles -- to another host, which would
connect thereinto and display the pixels or metafiles.
The reason this is silly, of course, is because X Windows already
does this and does not require additional hardware. But I wouldn't
be surprised if someone's already thought of this and tried to sell it.
I'll also note pcAnywhere, which is a software solution, as well.
This seems to work very well -- but again, it's a solution which
was solved long ago in Unix land by varying means (telnet/ssh
and X's inherent network transparency, mostly). I suspect that
X is also more efficient.
There are times when it's good to reinvent the wheel and improve
its functionality, but this probably isn't one of those times... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random video card here
------------------------------
From: Jason McNorton <[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, 21 Aug 2000 16:12:10 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> JS/PL wrote:
> > A harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible.
>
> what part of "CONTRAINT OF TRADE" do you not understand?
The word "contraint"..
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:13:44 -0400
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > mind setting your line length to 70 columns or thereabouts, so that
> > people can read your posts...
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/faq/part1/
>
> Read the part about signatures before you complain about other's
> posts...
>
my .sig doesn't interfere with readability.
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:22:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> People can bitch all they want, and the rivers will keep flowing
>> downhill :-)
>
>until the U.S. Army corp of engineers build dams, install flow regulators
>and pumps to make the water flow to reverse it normal course because enough
>moron with influence wanted it that way.
Ka-SLAM! I think I join Nathaniel in feeling that you've very well
characterized the argument. Nobody is saying, of course, that sometimes
that's a good thing to do. But it generally depends on who you ask, and
people who were using the land productively before the gov't came and
flooded it "for their own good" have a right to demand that this kind of
thing not be done without their input.
>> I have NEVER seen this. Where did you see it?
>
>Take a look in the back posts in alt.linux, take a look at the industry rags
>and take a look at a thread in this NG that you were a part of a little
>while back.
Uh-oh. Was Roberto caught trolling again?
[...]
>But we have what we want, we are happy with it. What we don't want it to
>have it taken away.
Well, you know what his response is going to be. That nobody's taking
anything away from you; you'll still be able to use old kernels, or
write your own. The emptiness of this position is not necessarily
obvious at first glance, so you can understand why trolls keep bringing
it up over and over again. Not that everybody who has done so is a
troll; I've used it myself to refute those same trolls' claims on
occasion. The key, of course, is being able to tell when it is
appropriate and when it is not.
Here's my thoughts on that: If it is used as an excuse for ignoring the
desires of a consumer, it is empty. If it is used as an excuse for
ignoring the desires of a producer, it is irrefutable. This also
explains why developers like Roberto (I mean that as a characteristic,
not an ad hominem attack) tend to have trouble deciding when its
appropriate; they are all consumers, as well as producers. There is,
indeed, an elitist movement within open source software (and in the end
it is a good thing, so long as it does not lead to second-guessing of
business markets) that says that there should be no consumers who are
not producers. This is the underlying "communist/socialist" aspect,
occasionally considered "hippie/flower-children", to OSS. Its true, of
course, and something that, in fundamental principle, any hard core
Republican conservative or libertarian objectivist must agree with;
everyone *should* be a producer, as well as a consumer. But the only
way that is even remotely possible is with completely free software and
completely free markets. That doesn't mean "unrestrained by laws", of
course, but unfettered by restrictions on liberty.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:16:07 -0400
Larry Brasfield wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Larry Brasfield wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <8nrgod$rsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > [snip]
> > > > The point I believe I'm trying to make, is that if Microsoft's behaviour
> > > > only becomes illegal when they are a monopoly, why should actions they
> > > > undertook before they were ruled one, be accountable, when the line between
> > > > monopoly and not monopoly is not simply a line in the sand that everyone
> > > > knows when it is stepped over ?
> > >
> > > I believe that any attempt at criminal conviction
> > > under the Sherman anti-trust act, applied to the
> > > so-called "Microsoft monopoly", would have to fail
> > > on constitutional grounds. Getting "monopoly" to
> > > refer to winner-takes-most situations is quite an
> > > achievement in stretching a vague concept, but it
> > > is still too vague to constitute fair notice of
> > > the sort that deflects constitutional challenges
> > > to vague laws used to deprive people of property
> > > or liberty.
> > >
> >
> > What part of "OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE" do you not understand?
>
> Anybody smarter than a half-wit can see that my
> post concerns the definition of "monopoly". I do
> not recall claiming anything about "OBSTRUCTION
> OF TRADE". Perhaps you could show otherwise.
A monopoly which doesn't abuse it's position in the marketplace is
legal.
A monopoly which obstructs trade IS illegal.
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:23:06 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plenty of people have suggested that Gates and company
> should be locked up or worse and that they are now
> known criminals.
Fortunately, our courts don't work that way. Don't concern yourself with
rumors, unless you work for Wall Street.
> I have read that law. The provisions under which
> Microsoft has been prosecuted require that it be
> found to hold monopoly power.
Congrats, that's exactly what the Judge found -- MS held monopoly power.
Case closed!
steve
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:24:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8n9sh9$jc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>>
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> People can bitch all they want, and the rivers will keep flowing
>>> downhill :-)
>>
>>until the U.S. Army corp of engineers build dams, install flow regulators
>>and pumps to make the water flow to reverse it normal course because enough
>>moron with influence wanted it that way.
>>
>>> I have NEVER seen this. Where did you see it?
>>
>>Take a look in the back posts in alt.linux, take a look at the industry
>rags
>>and take a look at a thread in this NG that you were a part of a little
>>while back.
>
>Your problem is that you think the industry rags matter. They don't.
>Ziff-Davis/ZDNET attempts to derail Linux have been an utter failure for
>instance.
>
>These publications,along with their "editors" and "journalists" have found
>out to their regreat that Linux users are nothing like the Amiga and OS/2
>users were. Fuck with us and we'll hand you your head back on a pike and
>take pride in doing so.
>
>Just ask Bob Metcafe and quite a few other Mircosoft shills who made the
>mistake of trying to pick a fight with the Slashdot Crowd.
Ooh, ooh, tell me stories. I want to hear more about all of this.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Aug 2000 15:26:02 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
>
> >Free software doesn't always make sense (the classic example is video
> >games)
>
> It might even make sense for video games, believe it or not.
> The classic example is DOOM -- the reason is that most of the value
> is in the data for the game (textures, rooms, and even weapons fire),
> not the software proper.
Yes, but who's to know if id software would have been around to make
Quake2 and Quake3 if Doom had been given away for free.
> Unreal, Quake, and Unreal Tournament are the same way; one could
> also visualize similar issues with Heretic/Hexen, The Wheel Of Time,
> and various other "derivative" games, which use the same underlying
> 3-D engine (not to be confused with 3D Realms, who coded up a
> completely different engine for Duke Nukem 3D, but who, AFAIK,
> switched to the Quake engine for Duke Nukem 3D II or whatever --
> I haven't kept track, admittedly).
There is a difference between being extensible and being open source.
The WADs and qpaks were all going through a well defined API (well,
mostly, but let's not quibble); The possible exception being glQuake
-- but let me explain my assertation. Most games have a lifespan of
about 6 months and open source just doesn't seem to move that fast;
either open source developers like to have really good code, or they
go through long, long, long betas. :)
> I know there's a Linux version of Quake's driver program that's
> freeware, for example (and Quake III for Linux is somewhere out there
> as well -- I've seen it on store shelves, though I haven't looked
> recently); linuxxdoom is out there that allows Linux to play DOOM
I have all the Quakes for Linux. You should buy one to support the
cause! http://www.lokigames.com
> There's also WinE; Unreal is almost playable under it. (Almost,
> because my sound isn't quite working yet for some reason.)
> I'm also given to understand there's a version for Linux there
> as well.
UT is available for Linux, you can download it if you have the Windows
version.
> >-- but I firmly believe that all non-niche software (and a
> >significant number of niche software projects) will be free in the
> >future.
>
> I'll agree, although at some point software will be a lot easier
> to develop because of automatic code-generation tools which make
> our current crop look like hard-to-control behemoths. For example,
> one could envision specifying entire algorithms instead of variable
> assignment constructs and control statements -- such is already
> partially available for the C++ Standard Template Library, although
> the number of algorithms is a bit limited (no 2D or 3D handling,
> for example). Java and C# might have even more possibilities,
> to say nothing of more "esoteric" languages [*] such as Eiffel,
> Smalltalk, Draco, Rexx, Python, Tcl, SQL, and Lisp/Scheme/etc.
Amen.
> And then there's BASIC. Who knew it would evolve to a full-fledged
> web development tool (ASP), complete with subroutines with formal
> parameters and lots of ActiveX widgets that can just plug and play?
> It's not the best, admittedly (Java is IMO better), but that doesn't
> make it total junk.
Well, Microsoft works it's hardest to make it's visions reality.
[snip]
> >I used to run a BBS on a C64 with 3 1541 (well, one was a clone, but
> >anyway) at one point. We did online gaming with ModemWars.
> >
> >It was very slow. :) (but fun)
>
> I still have an old 1200 lying about. To think that was state of the
> art at one point...wow, what a difference a decade or two makes.
> (I don't remember when I got it; probably mid-to-late 80's.)
The Amiga 1200 didn't come out until the 90s :)
> I'm an Amiganite, myself -- or was -- but it's not my first machine
> (that honor goes to either an old FORTRAN batch computer somewhere
> in Austria, or old Wang programmable calculators).
I had an Amiga 500 myself. I long for the days of walking into a
department store and seeing tons of software for many different
platforms. It almost makes me ill to only see Win32 software out
there (even Mac people have to go to specialty shops or online to get
their stuff).
> >> Cool. So call it even?
> >
> >Sure. Linux is better at many things and Windows is better at many
> >things as well.
>
> I will point out that, as of right now unfortunately, Windows
> has more desktops -- a *lot* more -- but Linux will catch up
> (unless BSD or other "openware" systems get in the mix as well,
> in which case things could get interesting; porting from Linux
> to FreeBSD isn't as hard as porting from NT to Linux, though).
True, to some extent. Personally, I've "paid" for 2 copies of Windows
NT Workstation 4.0, 3 copies of Windows 95 and 2 copies of Windows 98
that came "bundled" with hardware and/or software packages. The
numbers of installed Windows platforms isn't very clear.
> So Windows is "better" in that it has more mindshare. But Linux
> is definitely getting a lot of free press right now (CNN last
> Saturday, for instance, did yet another short expose on Linux on
> its Science and Technology Week). With luck, they'll pull even
> and everyone will be winners. :-)
Yes, but the media does as much (if not more) harm to Linux by hyping
it up for things it isn't ready to do.
> [*] These are the languages I know of off the top of my head.
> Eiffel (www.eiffel.org)
Strange, that's the second time I've seen that mentioned today. My
old coworker (who now lives in Germany) reccomended it to me.
> Lisp is deeply embedded in Emacs, and still useful;
> Scheme is a derivative thereof but I don't know the differences.
Scheme is more of a real LISP interpreter whereas Emacs has more of a
tainted version of it; although neither are "pure" LISP engines.
> Tcl and Rexx are interpretive languages, used primarily for
> scripting; both are easily embeddable in existing apps.
I can't stand TCL due to the extensive mis-use of eval() calls; REXX
was a very cool language (funny how Amiga was so very cool for it's
time; too bad Commodore murdered it via lack of initiative).
> Python is another, of which I know little except that RedHat
> codes in it for installation.
Python is a very cool language, even if I think that the lack of block
delimiters is a huge mistake.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:27:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen Patterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:15:00 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>BASIC = Beginners All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code, a language
>for learning to program.
>
That's the official acronym, of course.
"Boring And Stupid Illogical Crap" might be another one. :-) :-)
Classical BASIC, as far as I know, also did not have true
subroutines with parameter passing; all it had were GOSUBs,
which did little more than save the PC for later RETURN.
(Certainly the dialects I worked with once upon a time did not.)
Microsoft Visual Basic does have a 'SUB' now, of course, and parameter
passing. It even has objects -- although I don't know if it has
structure declarations (to be fair, neither does FORTRAN and that
was a very popular language, at one point), and the objects
themselves appear to be primarily intended to handle COM/COM+/DCOM.
(Or whatever they're calling it this week.)
Whether that improves the language -- I don't know. I try to avoid
it (and have so far succeeded, for the most part).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- LET BASIC$ = "DEAD": REM ove it from our code base! :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
