Linux-Advocacy Digest #639, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:12:41 GMT
david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
> >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
> >farmers.
>
> You are very much mistaken.
>
> At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the government
> for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the government,
> she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
>
> She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
> the process.
>
> And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax.
I don't think that inheritance taxes are wicked per se. What I do
think is that the entry point ought to be very, very high (and,
to turn over a new legislative leaf, have the entry point be
in year-indexed dollars).
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:48:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> [...]
>> >> GNOME was a reaction to the licence of libqt. It's basically
>> >> "KDE without the commercial library underneath". There are
>> >> other personal difference beyond that but that was the initial
>> >> motivation.
>> >
>> >And still, that doesn't say anything close to "KDE is a directly
>> >commercial venture".
>>
>> Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
>
>Qt is software, so no, Qt doesn't pay my sallary. If you are
>really asking whether TT pays my sallary, no, they don't pay
>my sallary, I already told you who pays my sallary.
You mentioned it briefly, and have only said that you'd already
identified it every other time its come up. But I notice you also
changed your sig to remove the affiliation with KDE. I'm more concerned
over who pays TT's "salary" than with who pays yours.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:48:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:50 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>The GPL also "limits" "distribution". I'm not clear on who "they" are.
>>>KDE are not trying to make a profit. Troll Tech ( the authors of QT )
>>>are trying to make a profit. The restrictions that the QT license imposes
>>>are for the most part less onerous than those imposed by the GPL.
>>
>>Again, I'm sorry, but that just isn't possible.
>
>It certainly is. For example, software released under the artistic license
>does not dictate to me what license I should use. However, if I want to
>use the GDBM library, then I have to use the GPL, even though I am only
>linking. SO for example, I cannot release my software under the artistic
>license.
I didn't say that it grants the developer more liberty; I said it was
not 'free software'. And I'll stand by that remark. I appreciate the
further information you've provided, as it does fill in some gaps, but
you seem to have ignored my rather lengthy comments concerning why
"onerous" is ambiguous in identifying whether software is "free".
[...]
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:48:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
>Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
>> "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
>> Reagan and Bush administrations?
>
>Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
>from a stronger economy. That's true to some extent in just about any
>capitalist society, but much more so with the US's winner-take-all
>mentality. I'd love to see something done about it, but any measure that
>could accomplish anything would be considered far too radical in the
>current political climate.
I think a gradual but steady increase in the enforcement of anti-trust
laws may be not only politically supportable but almost unavoidable,
given the current situation.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:54:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>God damn profiteering! Everybody gets to profiteer except you Max. Some day
>you'll get even with all those god damn profiteers! You probably fall asleep
>at night grumbling about all the god damn profiteers.
No, everybody seems to *want* to profiteer except me. I figure they
just don't have any confidence in their ability to provide fair value
for an honest profit.
>Sounds to me like a bitter old man without two nickles to rub together. If
>you would have ever had the chance to actually "make" a profit in your life
>you might have a different outlook on business life.
>
>Fucking profiteers anyway!!! Huge profit should to be illegal huh?
No, they should be earned. Which means that even after everybody knows
how little "work" you actually did to get them, they're still more than
willing to give them to you, because they recognize the value in your
contributions. If your profits rely on your "customer's" inability to
prevent themselves from being your "victim", then you are profiteering.
And profiteering is already illegal, by way of anti-trust law.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 09:59:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> >But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
>> >"rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the Reagan
>> >and Bush administrations?
>>
>> Continued profiteering by media conglomerates and other mega-corps,
>> mostly. The political office-holders have nothing to do with it (other
>> than that Republicans and Democrats have been fatally lax in anti-trust
>> enforcement, for the most part).
>
>cue soundtrack.........
>
>(your conspiracy theories are only slightly less comical than your
>theories on business)
They are not conspiracy theories; they are observations. I have no
delusion that purposeful intent is in any way involved in the problem.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 10:00:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> >
>> > For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>>
>> Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs are
>> cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
>>
>> > OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying
>> > workers.
>>
>> Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a general
>> sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
>>
>
>The truth is somewhere in between.
>
>Sure, owners sometimes lay off employees even when the company is
>profitable.
>
>But, essentially, an employee gets paid regardless of company profits
>while an owner's compensation is completely dependent on company
>profits. There are many, many, many examples where (at least for the
>short term), employees continue to draw a salary when the owner doesn't.
You talk like owners are generally somehow involved in things. And, of
course, they do, in the rare case that a large successful company has
owners. Corporations don't have owners; they only have investors.
--
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] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:35:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when paul snow would say:
>Here is a few observations:
>
>Linux on the desktop (and as a server) requires it to beat Windows XXX hands
>down for ease of configuration, security, and management.
>
>Installing software is simply the act of constructing in storage a proper
>representation of the software. In other words, our talking about
>installing software on a computer is like a painter insisting she is
>installing a picture of a duck onto her painting. It doesn't matter how she
>does it, she is rendering the duck, not installing it.
>
>We need to get rid of install programs, on all platforms. There isn't
>another single thing we do on computers that causes more in dollars and time
>(Solitaire *is* a close second, however ;-).
>
>XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
>Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract form in
>XML and render it to the target computer system.
>
>XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
>
>XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and their
>options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be expressed
>in different ways on different computer systems to construct an operational,
>distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every web
>server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch, with
>one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
>
>This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a new
>concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
>know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side and
>view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
>the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
>make it happen.
>
> http://www.egroups.com/group/xmlos/
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xmlos/
>
>Paul Snow
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go design your "XMLOS," and be happy.
If you feel that there is some value in using Linux as the kernel for
your "XMLOS," that's well and good.
Here are a few more observations:
- There is _NO_ requirement that Linux "beats" Windows XXX; if Linux
happens to be a _useful_ OS kernel, and if systems constructed on
that kernel happen to be _useful_, they will get used.
- I suggest that you not talk about "installing ducks;" if you
actually have a point to make about installation, it will be better
made by demonstrating the point, not by making vague analogies.
- You seem to have fallen into the trap of believing all the hype
about XML. Yes, XML can be used to "express anything," but the same
is just as true of ASCII as well as of S-expressions.
If you want to use data-driven programs, I suggest you consider
looking at Open Genera, which is just such a system. If the fact
that it uses Lisp scares you, then that probably means that _real_
data driven programming is far too scary for you to be able to cope
with.
In any case, the discussion certainly belongs elsewhere than
*.linux.*.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
<http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
The people's revolutionary committee has decided that the name "e" is
retrogressive, unmulticious and reactionary, and has been flushed.
Please update your abbrevs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:36:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Matthias Warkus would say:
>It was the 24 Aug 2000 10:43:56 -0600...
>...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Take a look at MacOS X Bundles:
>[schnipp]
>> Linux is halfway there already with RPM and deb; but the ultimate goal
>> is to just get rid of them.
>
>Uh-oh, I feel another flamewar coming up on NeXTish .app encapsulation
>vs. the classic Unix way of spreading an application out over bin,
>lib, share etc...
I think that makes the mistaken assumption that people _understand_
the NeXT approach.
The flames are not likely to come as a result of people knowing about
.app and "classic Unix," and considering one or the other to be
superior.
The flames will mainly come as a result of people not understanding
_either_, and associating things with some "Star Wars-like" epic
battle between the Rebellion and the Empire...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "hex.net")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #14. "The hero is not entitled to a last
kiss, a last cigarette, or any other form of last request."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:37:11 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>
>Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8o4ina$daf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : This who XML hysteria worries me. We have people thinking that it is
>> : something other than a very inefficient text based file format. Example:
>
>As a a data storage format XML is no better than any other file format and
>it does not prevent creating none portable private data format.
>
>Remember this example:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> <!DOCTYPE RESULTSET SYSTEM "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd">
> <RESULTSET>
> <RESULT ID="0" >
> <MATCHES>0</MATCHES>
> <TIME>0.1605</TIME>
> <RATINGS>0</RATINGS>
> <MAXSCORE>2510</MAXSCORE>
> <SCORE>6947</SCORE>
> <SIZE>6536</SIZE>
> <LANGUAGE>_LANG1_</LANGUAGE>
> <DATE>957148708</DATE>
> <FORMAT>0</FORMAT>
> <MODDATE>0</MODDATE>
> </RESULT>
> </RESULTSET>
>
>
>How portable would this version of it be?
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> <!DOCTYPE RST "http://localhost/fubar.dtd>
> <RST>
> <R ID="0" >
> <F0>A</F0>
> <F1>q20e3</F1>
> <F2>e</F2>
> <F3>lsm2</F3>
> <F4>928l</F4>
> <F5>pqke</F5>
> <F6>2ksnfui</F6>
> <F7>mpqw395hg</F6>
> <F7>2</F7>
> <F8>5</F8>
> </R>
> </RST>
Indeed.
And those that think that using XML will magically eliminate all the
compatibility problems of the world seem to have missed that the world
already rejected a fairly much isomorphic data representation, namely
Lisp S-expressions:
(setf document
'(xml ((version . 1.0) (encoding . "iso-8859-1"))
(doctype ((resultset) (system "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd"))
(resultset
(result '((id 0))
(matches 0)
(time 0.1605)
(ratings 0)
(maxscore 2510)
(score 6947)
(size 6536)
(language "LANG1")
(date 957148708)
(format 0)
(moddate 0))))))
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html>
Well, I wish you'd just tell me rather than trying to engage my
enthusiasm, because I haven't got one.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:45:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:19:40 GMT, Andre Ervin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> >> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back
> >> > > > > > > instead of spending it for them!? How absurd!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping
> >> > > > > > the poor
> >> stay
> >> > > > > > healthy and educated.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a
> >> > > > > 50 year old democratic slogan than anything. Not even
> >> > > > > worthy of argument except to
> >> > > say
> >> > > > > 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the
> >> > > > > five out
> >> of
> >> > > 100
> >> > > > > poor that need a hand.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you
> >> > > > know?
> >> > >
> >> > > I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself
> >> > > have been pleny broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone -
> >> > > especially "the rich" for my problems though, I blamed myself.
> >> > > If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own
> >> > > fault.
> >> >
> >> > It's your fault that you grew up poor, had almost no
> >> > opportunities to better yourself, struggled through a piss-poor
> >> > educational system geared more toward keeping you disciplined
> >> > than teaching you important skills, and can't find a job that
> >> > will help you get the skills you need to get a better-paying
> >> > job? It's your fault that the odds are stacked even higher
> >> > against you with such a background to make it _to_ a college,
> >> > much less _through_ one? It's your fault that perception means
> >> > a lot in the job market, and you may not fit the perception?
> >>
> >> No but.... It's only your fault that you let those minor
> >> distractions hold you back. The fact remains, no one owes the
> >> person in the example above a damn thing. No matter how bad you
> >> think you have, it can (and probably will) get worse, it's just a
> >> matter of what YOU do about it, not what someone else is going to
> >> do about it.
> >
> >Oh, for cryin' out loud...
> >
> >Minor distractions??? You really think those are minor
> >distractions???
>
> The term "minor" might certainly be disputable but the fact remains
> that they are distractions and not infact barriers. It's not the
> barrier, it's the person. There are those that overcome the current
> 'barriers' as they aren and those in the past that have overcome
> even greater 'barriers'.
The problem is that most people can't manage to overcome the
"distractions" of poverty, so they end up poor. In contrast, anyone born
into an "elite" family has their success virtually guaranteed, even if
they're not very bright (take a look at George W. Bush).
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 03:45:27 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mlw
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
>>not a new concept in operating systems.
>
>It might replace programs (programs are interpreted data in their
>own right, after all -- to the right interpreter, such as an x86
>micro, a JVM, or even a BASIC environment), but it sure looks
>hard to manage, although not too hard to generate.
It only "replaces" programs if it can express programs itself.
Note that providing the ability to _embed_ programs is not that;
that merely replaces one language with another.
>But why can't we use a schema/data approach? Something like:
>
>first 8 bytes - magic signature number, just because
>byte - endianity
>byte - user-defined version ID
>2 bytes - number of fields
>field descriptor byte: 0=short, 1=long, 2=float, 3=double,
> 4=zero-terminated string
>field name: zero-terminated string
>field descriptor byte:
>field name:
>...
>
>(The floats would be in IEEE format, which is the one 680x0 and
>80x86 micros use -- and possibly a large number of other computer
>systems.)
>
>Surely somebody out there's thought of a standard for this.
There's not one; there's several.
Leaping to mind are:
a) IIOP - the Internet protocol defined for CORBA that does
essentially what you describe, albeit a _little_ differently;
b) Casbah's LDO (Lightweight Distributed Objects)
>Or one can use a chunky format, something a la Amiga's IFF,
>where data is in chunks, understood by each program. Chunks
>could even have DTD-like structures if necessary.
>
>But nooooooo....we get to clutter up what is essentially a
>data-centric stream with a lot of framing clutter. Unless
>I'm missing something in the DTD spec which allows for the
>specification in binary of all of this data...?
I think WAP provides some such mapping...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/corba.html>
"What did we agree about a leader??"
"We agreed we wouldn't have one."
"Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
