Linux-Advocacy Digest #773, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused (Steve Mading)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:23:31 GMT
The following is a good explanation of the X Windows system,
I'm merely clearing up some pedantic technical points. :-)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 30 Aug 2000 23:31:50 GMT
<8ok5h6$j7e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Is there an equivalent in the Windows world to an X server? Just so
>: that users coming from a background of Windows (like myself) can grasp
>: the idea little better.
>
>The problem is that UNIX (which Linux is a version of) doesn't split
>things up along the same boundries as Windows does, so the analogies
>are never quite right. But here's an attempt.
>
>X server ---> A program that does all the video, keyboard, and sound
> manipulation. It *contains* device drivers for those
> things, but it also does all the window drawing primitive
> functions (like the GDI), and it does the remote network
> stuff so that a program on a remote machine can display
> on your own machine. (Like Citrix WinFrame, which I assume
> must have gotten the idea from X). The X server does *NOT*
> decide the relationship of windows to each other (for
> example the fact that this window is on top of that one, or
> the fact that this window is an icon while that one is
> maximized, or the fact that that window over there is the
> one that the keyboard is typing "into".)
Actually, it does decide which window occludes whom, but the
window manager has the option of changing that order. (Modern
window managers reparent anyway, which means the root window actually
sees the window manager framer windows as its immediate children,
usually -- not the actual top-level clients. In any event, X has
to keep track anyway, so it can refresh properly.)
Note that the most recent window opening is put on top, if I'm
not totally mistaken, subject to later adjustments of course
(XChangeWindowAttributes(3), XUnmapWindow(3), XMapWindow(3),
XMapRaised(3)).
>
>X client ---> A program that is running in an X server. i.e. a GUI app.
> It is called a client because it communicates its calls
> to the server via network packets rather than through a
> direct function call. While this system seems weird, it's
> what allows X to be remotable. The X server treats local
> programs and remote programs the same exact way - it talks
> to them through the network. (But it might not physically
> end up on the network. A smart OS's TCP/IP implementation
> should realize that the data is destined for the same
> computer, so it never needs to go out onto the network
> card or modem. All of this is invisible to the X server
> and client, though. They think they are talking over the
> network to each other.)
I think X also opens a Unix socket -- I'd have to look -- which
is also local. Shared memory might also be used.
/tmp/.X11-unix/X0 looks slightly suspicious that way. :-)
>
>Xlib ---> An API that handles all the low-level calls, so that a
> programmer writing an application never has to deal with
> the network code. He just calls APIs in Xlib, which in
> turn translate into network communication with the server.
> The Xlib is used by the X clients.
>
>X toolkits ---> A more high-level abstraction written on top of Xlib.
> Xlib is rather clunky to deal with directly, because it
> is so low-level. (It might know how to draw boxes,
> fonts, colors, and lines, but not how to take those and
> turn then into (for example) a menubar.)
The Intrinsics -- libXt -- and libXmu, whose precise name I forget,
handle widget foundations and the resource database (an interesting
idea which hasn't really been fully exploited, IMO -- mostly because
it's a tad complicated to handle).
However, I'm not sure if Gtk or Qt uses them (Athena and Motif do).
> There are
> several X toolkits available - Gtk, Qt, Athena, Motif,
> and several others I'm probably forgetting to mention.
> An X toolkit is a library that is used by an X client.
> You can usually tell which toolkit a programmer chose
> to use by how the program looks on the screen. (Or,
> at least you can once you become familiar with them.)
> Which toolkit to use is something the programmer chooses,
> and you can't plug in a different one as an end-user
> (they have different APIs)
>
>X window manager --> This is the hardest thing for a Windows person to
> understand, because no analogy exists in Windows.
> In X, there is a special X client (application)
> called the "window manager". This program doesn't
> have it's own window on the screen, but instead it
> handles all the interaction between the other windows
> on the screen. It is in charge of what the frames
> around the windows are like (the title bar, the
> resize corners, minimize/maximize button, etc) It
> is also in charge of telling the X server which
> window is focused (has the keyboard), and what is
> the stacking order of the windows (which is on top
> and which is on bottom). It is also in charge of
> what happens in the root window (background screen).
> The window manager decides how windows move and how
> they get resized. Basically it does all the
> miscelaneous tasks that are outside the
> responsibility of any of the individual GUI apps.
>
> One place that this "window manager" feature shows
> up is in what happens when an application is hung.
> In Windows, when an application is hung, the window
> is stuck on the screen. You can't move it, resize it,
> minimize it, maximize it, or anything. That's because
> in Windows each application is in charge of it's own
> movement and resizing, and the application is hung.
Unless one multithreads, of course -- which probably should be done
on Windows by default. :-) (I doubt anyone bothers, unless they
need to multithread for other reasons.)
> In X, a hung application can still be moved, resized,
> minimized, or maximized because the window manager is
> in charge of that, not the app itself. (although the
> app won't redraw correctly when you do this, so it will
> still be a big blank area inside the window, but you
> can at least get it off to the side out of your way.)
>
> There are a plethora of choices for window managers
> in X. Right now the most popular two choices are
> Kwm (from the KDE project) and Enlightenment. Other
> choices are wm (windowmaker), fvwm (feeble virtual
> window manager), olwm (openlook window manager),
> motif, twm, and probably others I'm forgetting.
>
> Note that often the window manager is written in one
> of the X toolkits (mentioned above), and gets its look
> and feel from that toolkit. Kwm is built on Qt.
> Gnome wm is built on Gtk. Motif wm is built on Motif,
> and so on.
>
> The window manager is a choice that can be changed
> by the user. In fact, sometimes it can be changed on
> the fly while X is still up.
Depends on several factors; the file .xinitrc has to be coded so as
not to exit if the window manager dies, for example, assuming there's
not a separate session manager in use (I use startx, so I don't
know a lot about sessions). I like to fire up an xterm and type in
'fvwm' on my hope machine; if I want, I can switch easily by exiting
the window manager (there's a menu entry for that) and I get my
xterm back and can type in the new one.
(Side point: a bit of thought went into the "save set" concept in X,
which is of interest only to window managers. Suffice it to say that,
if a window manager iconifies a window and then dies,
the window comes back uniconified, which may lead to a mess o' windows,
but that's probably preferable to losing it entirely.)
>
>"the GUI" --> This is a term that is really, really fuzzy in X-windows.
> With all the choices of toolkits and window managers, it
> becomes hard to define just what counts as "the GUI".
> Is the toolkit the GUI? Is the window manager the GUI?
>
> In general though, when you take one X toolkit, a bunch
> of X clients written in that toolkit, and a window manager
> written in that toolkit, then throw them all together in
> one package, you get "a gui". There are several GUI
> projects to choose from:
> 1 - KDE, which comes with Kwm, and the Qt toolkit, and
> a lot of apps written in Qt. This is free (of cost).
> 2 - Gnome, which is usually used with Enlightenment, and
> the Gtk toolkit, and a lot of apps written in Gtk. This
> is free (of cost).
> 3 - CDE, which comes with motif wm, the motif toolkit,
> and a lot of motif apps. This is mostly used by
> commercial Unix companies, and is expensive to purchase
> for your own use. You probably won't use it.
> 4 - Openlook - Used to be used by Sun. Not supported
> anymore. Contained olwm, and openlook toolkit.
>
> Note that GUIs can be mixed an matched. If you are running
> a mostly KDE system, for example, you can still run some
> Gnome apps in it when you want to, and visa versa.
>
> The KDE and Gnome projects, while they are competing for
> acceptance, seem (on the surface) to be competing in a
> friendly manner. They spend a lot of effort to make sure
> that their systems are compatable with each other so you
> can run a mix of their apps at the same time, and cut and
> paste between them and so on.
>
> KDE is based in Germany, with a lot of European contributors,
> and Gnome was based in - well, I'm not sure where it was
> *based*, but the main guy working on it is from Mexico, and
> it tends to have a lot more U.S. contributors than KDE.
>
>"themes" --> This is pretty much the same thing it is in Windows. You
> can download themes that alter the look and feel. The
> difference is that in X you pick a theme for the window
> manager and a theme for the X toolkit seperately. Or to
> put it another way, you theme the insides and the outsides
> of the windows independantly of each other.
>
>"pager" --> This is a special type of application that lets the user
> flip between desktops (pages) on the screen.
>
>"sticky" --> A window is said to be "sticky" when it stays on the screen
> all the time no matter which page (desktop) you switch to.
> It is handy to make a window sticky if it is a small window,
> like a CD player or a clock.
>
>"iconify" --> Minimize.
>
>"focus" --> This term means "The window where the keyboard typing goes."
> Windows would call it the "Active Window". The window
> manager indicates which window "has the focus" by changing
> its border color, or changing the look of the window's border
> in some other way (like changing the shading so the buttons
> are "innies" instead of "outies").
> Note that, the window with the focus doesn't necessarily
> have to be the window on top. Sometimes it is handy to be
> looking in one window that's on top, while typing something into
> a window that's behind it (like when you are reading a web page
> while typing something about about that web page into an e-mail
> message to a friend.) There are three main choices for
> how to make focus change:
>
> 1 - click to focus (like in windows)
> 2 - focus follows mouse. Whichever window has the mouse
> pointer in it is the one that has the focus, even if
> you never clicked there.
> 3 - sloppy focus. Like focus-follows-mouse, but if the
> mouse is moved out of a window and onto the background,
> the focus stays in the old window until the mouse is
> moved into a new window.
>
> The window manager can usually be configured to do whichever of
> these you prefer.
>
> Focus is controlled by the window manager (see "window manger"
> up above).
>
>"raise" --> This term means to bring a window up to the top (uncover it
> all the way). There are a few main ways this can be done,
> which way is typically configurable for the window manager:
>
> 1 - autoraise on focus. As soon as the window gets the
> keyboard focus (see above, "focus"), then it gets
> raised to the front too. (This, combined with
> a focus setting of "click to focus", emulates the way
> Windows does it.)
> 2 - click to raise - anywhere. Any click anywhere in the
> window will raise it to the front.
> 3 - click to raise - only in the border. Clicking the
> interior of a window will not raise it, but clicking
> the border frame or titlebar will. This is handy if
> you want to be able to click on widgets in a window
> without having it come to the front.
>
> Raising is controlled by the window manager (see "window manger"
> up above).
>
>
>My preferred settings are "sloppy focus" with "click border to raise",
>but this takes a lot of getting used to.
>
>
>Well, that's all I could think of for now.
Isn't that enough? :-) But good exposition, and the few comments
I did think to write I had to erase because you cover them a bit
later on!
My virtual hat off to you. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random X window manager here
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:30:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 06:50:48 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Microsoft had an unfair advantage by way of copyright.
> >
> >Uhuh... right...
> >
> >> They controlled an essential facility. That isn't success
> >> by being 'better' but success by natural monopoly.
> >
> >Look! Over there! It's Linux! Oh and there! Solaris! and Beos! Obviously,
> >Microsoft is not a natural monopoly, as there are other operating systems
>
> So then, where are the apps?
http://freshmeat.net/
> Where are the device drivers?
They're there. Just depends on the exact hardware you have whether it works
or not right now. Same applies to Windows 2000 by the way.
> >produced by other vendors, and given enough time/patience you can write
one
> >*YOURSELF*.
>
> In other words "building a national phone network" is not a
> barrier to market entry? Sorry, but those that actually make
> those kinds of decisions have dissagreed with you for over a
> century now.
The two are incomparable; look at Linux. It was done *for free*. There are
plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI. What are the barriers to
entry? Please describe them. Currently all you seem to be able to do is say
"Look over there! Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as if
saying that is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the barriers?
Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a phone
network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of years. OS's? Maybe a
couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe more. Depends on the scope.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:27:03 GMT
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What I find funny is that according to IDC, 80% of the Fortune 500 use ASP
: and MS SQL with IIS as their total web platform.
: True, there are probably a lot of cheap Apache servers out there set up by
: who knows who, but the big boys use Microsoft. We are a Fortune 500 company
: and use only MS web servers.
The thing is, a lot of Fortune 500 companies don't make use of the web
as much as smaller companies. Fortune 500 is the "old money" in the
business world, with old ideas - this means their websites are often
pointless advertising and marketing. Go look at what the high *traffic*
sites use - it's mostly Apache.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:31:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 31 Aug 2000 10:44:51 GMT
<8olcv3$8is$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Steve Mading wrote:
>:>
>:> It seems to me that in this type of situation, the installer
>:> should generate a random, but usable, password from some very
>:> simple scheme, ("Roll a d46, 1-26 equals A-Z, 27-36 equals 0-9,
>:> and 37-46 is the punctiation marks above the numbers", repeat for
>:> 8 characters). Then it could tell you what this password is during
>:> the installation program. Is there any product out there that
>:> uses this technique?
>
>: Why dod that?
>: JUST PROMPT THE ADMIN FOR A PASSWORD.
>
>I assume from this you are also implying, "...and refuse
>to install if the password is obviously a bogus choice that
>was typed in to get through the install" (nil string, "aaaaa",
>"1234", etc) If that is what you had in mind, then yes, that
>makes more sense.
>
How do we tell if it's bogus or not? Mind you, one obvious way
would be to comb through the dictionary (possibly using ispell,
possibly using /usr/dict/* directly) for known words, and to
do some elementary checks such as requiring each password to
have a minimum of 6 characters, and at least one of each of
uppercase, lowercase, and digit.
Or whatever PAM uses -- I've run into this once or twice
if I use passwd as a non-superuser (superusers can do what they
want :-) ).
I do note that the last time I installed RedHat, it prompted for a
root password, and it even might have opined to the user that
it shouldn't be something obvious, like one's first name,
the word 'manager' (old VAX/VMS days), or 'password'.
But I don't remember the details now.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:36:20 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:51:57 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >
>> >>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
>> >>that support the *same* API.
>> >
>> >Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of interest ).
>> No, Trolltech has made legal threats.
>
>Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:41:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[...]You probably
>have installed some software along the way that has ignored the installation
>rules and replaced internet software. The IE5 install will fix it.
LOL! Anybody who buys this advice at this point is a moron, I swear.
Most computer illiterates would even know that "internet software" means
"Microsoft crap-ware" and the way IE5 'fixes' it is to break everything
else, so long as MS software-cum-federal-offense works to maintain the
customer's lock-in.
Admit it, Mike; you *must* be an astroturfer, to try to get away with
such mind-boggling deception and ignorance.
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:41:48 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:35:41 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:%Mpr5.403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
>> > > >> sequentially install various versions of a software product
>> > > >> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
>> > > >
>> > > >Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows
>upgrade
>> > > >products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an
>> upgrade
>> > > >product.
>> > >
>> > > Nope.
>> >
>> > Prove your point. "Nope.", just doesn't cut the mustard.
>> >
>> > You can install on a "bare" machine with all current upgrade products.
>> Just insert
>> > qualifying media when prompted.
>>
>> Aha! but what if you own a comcrap, or a packard hell? You probably won't
>> *HAVE* the qualifying media, because they put all that crap on their
>restore
>> CD's
>
>The OEM licence isn't transferable anyway. So even if you could take your
>compaq restore cd and install the OS on a different computer you'd be doing
>it in violation of the license agreement. That's why Full OEM versions cost
>40 bucks.
NO, OEM versions cost $40 because they are giving a deep discount
to a volume buyer. The 'non-transferability' of the licence is
actually quite disputable. (first sale doctrine)
However, even that excuse doesn't deal with the end use that has
upgrade a Compaq and might want to wipe it for some reason.
>
>Full non-oem versions are transferrable to any machine (or person) so long
>as only one copy is installed.
So, the question remains: do you get a 'more useful' install media
for $99 from Apple or don't you?
Those of us that don't fall into that same neat little arrangement
that Apple users do (having a box implies an original licence) are
the one's most likely to be annoyed by licence manager shenanigans.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:49:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Joe Kiser wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, fungus
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > ...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
>>
>> Kinda OT, but does the upgrade install over Win95?
>
>The upgrade or full versions of Windows Me and Windows 2000 Pro both
>will upgrade Windows 95 back to the first version.
The *Win95 upgrade*, which costs fifty dollars *more* than the Win98
upgrade, as well as the full version, costing more than any other
previous version of DOS/Windows, despite the painfully lacking demand in
the market, will upgrade Win95.
Whatever concessions Microsoft is giving Sierra On-line to have you
astroturf for them, it isn't enough. You are *way* too obvious. You're
either lacking in integrity, ethics, or intelligence when you post this
kind of "not quite a lie but lets obfuscate anyway" crap.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:51:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[...]So you all bitch about how corrupt Microsoft is
>when it's really an industry wide corruption (and a government corruption, etc.)
>Seems the only folks not corrupt are the Mac and linux users :-)
The "industry wide corruption" is called 'a monopoly'.
>Either way. That's the way the world works. Get used to it. [...]
Microsoft's been convicted. Get used to it.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
