Linux-Advocacy Digest #951, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451794 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: what's up with Sun? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Phillip Lord)
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Bernd Gehrmann)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Bernd Gehrmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451794
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:10:59 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
proof of his continuing lies. He hit the 200 postings-since-late-May level.
196> Tholen misthole (oh, wait, that's redundant!):
196>
196> No, Tholen, it's another point on which you, Tholen, are decisively wrong...
Typical pontification.
197> Tholen tholes:
197>
197> No, Tholen, he's spot on. Shame on you for not realizing that.
Even more pontification.
198> Tholen tholes:
198>
198> Because you don't know any better.
Classic invective.
199> Tholen tholes:
199>
199> Prove it, if you think, Tholen.
199>
199> Tholen's one of those users of a bunch of os's who entetains himself in an
199> OS/2 newsgroup.
Liar.
199> He has actually stooped as low as to lie about people commiting libel.
Incorrect.
199> Typical.
Even more pontification.
200> Here's today's Tholen digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
200> proof of his continuing lies,
What alleged lies, Malloy? What alleged "proof" did you supply?
200> but engaged in his "parrot" mode again.
Even more pontification.
200> Typical. To the digest!
200>
200> [Nope, nuthin'!]
200>
200> Thanks for reading!
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
And the question of Slava's that he continues to ignore:
Message-ID: <N8On5.61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 20:11:34 +1000
"Why do you post exactly the same thing in each one of your
'digests', and then hypocritically accuse Tholen of not saying
'anything of value'?"
--Slava Pestov
"[who is this "Slava," Tholen, one of your sock puppets?]"
--Joe Malloy
And proof that Malloy still lies:
"Notice how he *doesn't* post from his work account"
--Joe Malloy, 2000 August 31
] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Tholen)
] Date: 26 Aug 2000 05:37:32 GMT
] Message-ID: <8o7l2s$sr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"he had a little chat with TPTB, you see."
--Joe Malloy, 2000 August 31
There is no "TPTB" here, Malloy, nor was there any "chat"
with any similar group of people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: 6 Sep 2000 14:09:35 GMT
In article <9%at5.50425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? Wow... well, better get rid of the DoD's certification scheme
> then -- as it's obviously the biggest pile o' crap in existence.
While that *is* a good assessment (:^) you should bear in mind that
there is a whole hell of a lot more to security than these
certifications.
> The precise certification given is MEANT to be on a system which is
> NOT network connected. It's meant to show that the system is
> reasonably immune from physical attack.
Each certification only covers a specific configuration; make any
substantive alteration and the certification isn't so much void as
*meaningless*. Something that advocates on all sides could do with
remembering...
Donal.
--
"[He] would have needed to sell not only his own soul, but have somehow gotten
in on the ground floor of an Amway-like pryamid scheme delivering the souls
of kindergarten students to Satan by the truckload like so many boxes of Girl
Scout Cookies." -- John S. Novak, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:25:52 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> > > I think you getting a little tangled, up untl this last message of yours
> the
> > > question has been about Trolltech suing, not being sued as you have
> > > transformed the discussion just now.
> >
> > I know that in the original argument the "threat" was TT suing
> > harmony.
> >
> > However, I am also aware that for such a suit it makes no sense
> > to talk about anti-trust, as Max is doing.
> > After all, who would TT sue, if the alleged monopolist is TT itself?
>
> Someone injured by Trolltech's alleged violations of antitrust (or equivlent
> laws), who also has the desire and resources to persue the matter.
Why would TT sue someone injured by TT? Read what I ask ;-)
The point is: TT can not be at the same time be the only one threatening
to sue
and the monopolist, and the suit be about monopoly!
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:30:27 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> > We have a president of KDE e.V. but that position has
> > absolutely no power on anything regarding software,
> > he is just there to do paperwork.
>
> Who is he?
I would have to ask, really.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:32:56 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:55:33 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>Note to Roberto: KDE *was* a commercial enterprise;
> >
> >Nonsense. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong ?
> >
> >> Troll Tech made it
> >>so when they hired Matthias,
> >
> >Wrong. You may as well argue that "Linux is commercial" because
> >"Transmeta hired Linus" and "Redhat hired Alan Cox".
>
> Its not nonsense and I'm not wrong, and your a rude person for insisting
> it is. KDE became what *I* consider a 'commercial enterprise' when it
> became incestuously linked with a commercial enterprise which would
> profit from its success. Not just the founder of the KDE project, but
> several members of the project are Troll Tech employees.
Ok, but you do realize that as long as you just define things to mean
whatever they want, you can say anything is true, right?
If you bother sharing that special "definition" of yours, I will
be happy to agree or disagree. I just assumed you were wrinting
english, silly me.
[snip crap]
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:37:00 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Look, Max, many commercial companies are involved with Linux. Redhat
> > hired Linux kernel developers. IBM has Linux kernel developers working
> for
> > them. That does not make Linux a 'commercial enterprise' . Similarly,
> > KDE is not a 'commercial enterprise' just because some of the KDE
> > developers got hired by TT.
>
> I am not arguing the commercial or non-commercial nature of KDE. I would
> like to address the compaison of kernel developers to KDE developers
> mentioned here. I don't think they are quite comparable at all. Consider
> this: KDE is dependent on Qt, correct? Qt is the primary (only?) product of
> Trolltech, right?
Wrong. Or half-wrong. There are several versions of Qt, some have no
connection to KDE.
> Linux kernel developers are working for RedHat:
> Is Redhat the sole provider of a product that the Linux kernel is dependent
> on? No
[snip other similar analogy]
> KDE developers are working for Trolltech:
> Is Trolltech the sole provider of a product that KDE is dependent on? YES!
>
> That is one critical difference in these cases.
Is TT a multi-billion dollar company? No. Is RH? Yes.
There is another difference.
Differences are dime a dozen, you should say why you believe that
particular difference is important.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:36:43 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Ecrt5.903$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So if i were to call them up for a licence for a closed source player for
> linux they haven't got a reason to refuse, if they do object it means they
> have *other* interrests in blocking linux
> Hmm...
You have to pretend (or not depending on your situation) that you
have enough $$$ for the license as well.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:34:49 GMT
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>snip<
:> : Also, i find it a violation of human rights that they wish to keep
:> : something out of the public, expecially since there are laws that say
:> : that reverse engeneering is allowed in order to be compatable with said
:> : program/data (in Belgium anyway)
:>
:> The issues are mostly in the US, which has exceptionally brain damaged
:> ideas on computer law and IP. The US allows companies to
:
: ROFL
:
:> *patent* fundamental laws of nature and mathematics (algorithms),
:
: And you guys accept that??
Not willingly.
The tech guys typically think it's patheticly stupid.
The suits think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Remember, attorneys in this country mostly make money from fighting
each other and billing it to their clients. The US is sue happy;
everyone wants something for nothing, and the attorneys' milk us for
it all the way to the bank.
:> which is really all the DVD encoding methods are and thus why the MPAA
:> can make such a big stink about it.
:
: IOW, if *I* were to make a player based on DeCSS they can't do shit about
: it? Or can they?
No idea. I'm not sure how international patents, copyrights, and
trade secret laws hold on this kind of issue.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:37:45 GMT
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> It's not a question of cost, it's a question of risk. The MPAA uses DVD
:> encoding to artificially restrict access as they see fit. No matter what
:> you might offer to license their encoding, if your use or intentions
:> might in any way jeopardize their enforcement of such restrictions, you
:> will not get a license.
:
: So if i were to call them up for a licence for a closed source player for
: linux they haven't got a reason to refuse, if they do object it means they
: have *other* interrests in blocking linux
Who are you? Why should the MPAA trust you, contract or not?
They have plenty of reason not to trust you, simply because they
have no reason *to* trust you.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: 6 Sep 2000 14:43:32 GMT
In article <%cet5.551$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sparc doesnt run more than a few percent of the worlds servers
Ah, but *which* few percent? Sure, there are loads of PeeCees running
a little server software with low utilisation. But the heavy-duty big
fsck-off servers (on which lots of crucial parts of the 'net and many
businesses depend) are usually something else, and Sun has a healthy
share of that market. Not all servers are equal in importance...
Donal.
--
"[He] would have needed to sell not only his own soul, but have somehow gotten
in on the ground floor of an Amway-like pryamid scheme delivering the souls
of kindergarten students to Satan by the truckload like so many boxes of Girl
Scout Cookies." -- John S. Novak, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: 6 Sep 2000 14:33:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have. Perhaps it has advanced, but last I evaluated VNC it was
> painfully slow over local 10baseT. I shutter to think what it might
> be like over a 56k...X over a 56k would be considerably faster, and
> that's sad...
You wait until you try X over 9600 baud (yes, I've done it. Never,
ever, ever again!)
Donal.
--
"[He] would have needed to sell not only his own soul, but have somehow gotten
in on the ground floor of an Amway-like pryamid scheme delivering the souls
of kindergarten students to Satan by the truckload like so many boxes of Girl
Scout Cookies." -- John S. Novak, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:43:45 GMT
James Kanze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin wrote:
:
:> Unix has been a "network" centric operating system since day
:> one.
:
: Not true. Networking was cobbled on to Unix (unlike the case of NT).
How do you figure? It wasn't networking as we know it today, that
came later in general, but networking there indeed was.
: But who cares? Unix networking, Unix windowing, and Unix security are all
: hacks that have been cobbled onto an OS which wasn't designed for them.
How do you figure? Do you know *anything* about Unix system design
or history?
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: 06 Sep 2000 15:57:43 +0100
>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As I said perhaps. I am not sure of any really clear cut cases
>> of behavioural patterns being caused directly by genetic
>> variation.
Stefaan> There are cases of similarity in behaviour being caused by
Stefaan> close genetic relationship, ergo the converse is probably
Stefaan> true also. See for instance:
Stefaan> (I probably cited these already sometime ago in this
Stefaan> newsgroup.)
The twin studies that I have seen have never been terribly
convincing. I will still with perhaps....
Stefaan> Correct, and this is why most of the traits that are
Stefaan> genetically determined were acquired when we were still
Stefaan> walking across the African savannah.
>> I wonder how the variability in these genes has been maintained
>> from such a distance.
Stefaan> It's not that long ago in terms of the existence of our
Stefaan> species (what's roughly 7000 years compared to at least 2
Stefaan> million?).
7000 years is plenty of time to gain or loose variation within
a population, particular if there have been migrations, with
associated bottlenecks at the same time. The Finnish population for
instance shows a very low level of variation as the result of a
migration which happened, within the last 1000 years I think.
>> The point is that something being "affected by our genes" is only
>> meaningful if we have variation. Behaviour is clearly
>> "determined" by the genes in one sense. Our brains are produced
>> of protein, the protein encoded by genes, and our brains
>> determine our behaviour. Whilst this may be true, its entirely
>> useless.
Stefaan> Interesting. We know that particular genes cause particular
Stefaan> physical effects (like trisomy). In this case, there is
Stefaan> obvious, and consistent, variation in the behaviour of
Stefaan> those so afflicted, across cultures. There's no reason not
Stefaan> to believe that particular behavioural traits can be linked
Stefaan> to the genes.
Trisomies produce large scale pathological changes throughout
the body. I am not sure that you can extrapolate from this to general
human behaviour. Also its not clear why a behaviour results from the
trisomy. So for instance individuals from an agrarian society who have
a club foot tend to be reclusive, poor, and more liable to criminal
tendencies (clearly I am making this data up!). Does this mean that
the gene causing club foot, is linked with one encoding criminal
tendencies. Obviously not.
Stefaan> Note that this _also_ applies to behaviour induced by the
Stefaan> environment. Accepting that certain (less desirable)
Stefaan> behaviour is determined by our genes does not justify it,
Stefaan> or make it anymore acceptable than when it would be caused
Stefaan> by outside influences.
We can agree on this.
>> We can ask "how much of the variation in behaviour is due to
>> variation in the genes, and how much due to variation in the
>> environment". If this variability has not survived since the
>> savannah, then there is no question that we can meaningfully ask
>> here.
Stefaan> It's not variability, it's fundamental characteristics I'm
Stefaan> talking about. We all smile, and smiling is in all
Stefaan> likelyhood a genetically determined trait, like walking, or
Stefaan> developing self-consciousness, or counting (see:
Without variation within the genes there is no way to
determine what is causing what, and its not really meaningful.
So for instance we can ask "how much of the variability in
the height of the population is due to genetic variation?". Sensible
question. However "how much of a person's height is caused by the
genes and how much by the environment", is just meaningless. Without
their genes a person has no height, and without their environment they
have no height.
I suppose you could ask this sort of question by crossing
different primates (chimps also smile, but it has a different social
meaning), but its not clear what environment you would raise them
in. And I think it would be hard to get approval to cross humans and
chimps even if you could do it.
Stefaan> But we select people. It's not really important _why_ we
Stefaan> prefer some people to others, the verifiable fact is that
Stefaan> we do so.
No its very very important why we prefer some people to
others. I have heard enumerable bigots justify their position by
resort to the same sort of inalienable biology that you are
using. "Its just nature that we hate blacks and gays". I know that you
are not doing this, but this is where I think your reasoning leads.
Stefaan> But nonethess quite often operates on basis of real or
Stefaan> perceived genetic closeness (cfr immigrants sticking
Stefaan> together in their new country).
Because they share a common culture and possibly language. And
often because the common culture of the majority population ghettoizes
them.
>> That we have family units, with children often bought up by
>> parents is unsurprising as its reflects fundamental
>> biology. However the way in which the family unit works differs
>> widely from society to society. The US nuclear family is in no
>> way God given nor universal.
Stefaan> And favouring one's offspring (through passing on
Stefaan> posessions and positions) is a universal human
Stefaan> characteristic, and hence unlikely to be the sole result of
Stefaan> social convention.
"Universal human characteristics" are often much less
universal than they seem. As I have said before I think that this is
based upon a relationship that is formed between people rather than
one which is genetically predefined. Otherwise adoptive parents would
not also favour their children.
>> The only assertion that I have made, and that I would stick by is
>> that if you want to look for explanations of society, look for
>> them in society, and not in genetics.
Stefaan> Stating that the reason why society is as it is can be
Stefaan> found in society is not very productive, and has too many
Stefaan> overtones of people blaming their own inadequacies on their
Stefaan> environment (like, I was born A-OK and then my parents,
Stefaan> school, friends... ruined my character, so it's not my
Stefaan> fault :-).
Indeed. There again people blaming their own inadequacies
on their genes could do the same thing. Worse still the rest of
society can use peoples genes for the same thing, like "the reasons
why blacks or woman do not earn as much is because of their
genes", rather than understanding the class structure of our society,
and attempting to reform that.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 10:59:31 -0400
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Me: BTW, because Windows had shipped with a componentized IE for
>> >> quite a while before the case went to court, MS is *ENTIRELY*
>> >> correct when they say that removing it is impossible without
>> >> damaging the product.
>> >
>> >Then how come some guy pulled it off? (i don't remember his name, i read
>> >it in login (french mag))
>>
>> He didn't. He may have invented a scheme for modifying Windows so that
>> no part of IE remained installed, but the result was a damaged
>> product.
>
>It depends, he proved it *can* be done, M$ claimed it was impossible => they
>lied.
>
No. MS claimed that it was impossible to remove IE without damaging
Windows. They were absolutely correct.
>
>Wether or not this means the windows installation of that guy was therefor
>"damaged" is not relevant
>
It is entirely relevant given the "without damaging Windows" portion
of Microsoft's claim.
------------------------------
From: Bernd Gehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:40:42 +0200
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yes, they are ANSI and ISO standards NOW. But they were not when I first
> encountered them. When I first worked with the Standard C Library not even
> ANSI C was in the works. Even though is was not a formal standard, it was a
> defacto standard, you could take any C program that was not coded to take
> advantage of any platform specific features and used only standard C
> Librarys functions and function provided by the program itself and it could
> compile on almost any C compiler of that time.
That's a tautology. Of course, if you don't use any platform
specific functions, you can write a cross-platform program.
The problem was that before POSIX, the common subset of all
C libraries was so small that you could write very few
actually useful programs. All the C libraries which came
with different Unices had a common subset because they were
all derived from the very same source code, namely the code
from AT&T and BSD. So here it is not appropriate to talk about
different implementations, but different variants of one
implementation.
Bernd.
------------------------------
From: Bernd Gehrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 16:42:31 +0200
On 5 Sep 2000, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Interesting comment. I'm inclined to agree, the kits are close enough
> in design that a wrapper would be possible. I'm not sure how easy it
> would be though, since Qt's signal/slot implementation is somewhat
> artificial ( it uses macros )
Not really. It uses (empty or almost empty) #defines to
mark signals and slots for the meta object compiler, but
no macros.
Bernd.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
