Linux-Advocacy Digest #925, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (phil hunt)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Craig Kelley)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Giuliano Colla)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Courageous)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Phillip Lord)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Mike Zulauf)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Bob Lyday)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:58:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Actually i went through a lot (I mean A LOT) of musical
>> >instruments before I 'settled' on guitar. A short list:
>> >Violin (which stemmed into Viola and Cello), upright Bass,
>> >Electric Bass, Guitar, Piano, Harmonica (OK, some would
>> >say that doesn't count), Saxophone, Flute, and Drums.
>>
>> Yeah, that's a lot! A confess to playing (badly) the violin
>> for several years (kind of school thing) and the Clarinet for
>> a shorter period. Wasn't really very good at either. Wasn't
>> the harmonica one of John Lennon's instruments? (I can feel
>> a flame war starting from that... at least maybe in some other
>> group, anyway).
>
>The keyboard in any of its incarnations from the piano to today's midi
>keyboards have always been by intrument of choice. But now my hands are not
>so up to it anymore, I have played the mouth organ which I taught myself to
>play by ear. But I don't care to wear it out too much since the harmonica
>has been in the family going back several generations. I am not sure if it
>is late 1800's or early 1900's (before World War I) but either way I would
>hate to see it ruined. So my favorite intrument to day is the computer
>driving a midi sequencer, and I still use my keyboard through it's midi
>interface. It is pre GM but it sound great!
>
>
I've recently considered purchasing one of the 'guitar to
midi' converters so that I can 'record' some of my guitar
music. (I know to hard-core guitar players this sounds
like blasphemy). But thus far I haven't found one that
gets the guitar sound right. I have also considered
purchasing a modern keyboard to hook up to my computer,
but I have a piano, and probably wouldn't find much use
for the electronic version beyond playing 'piano' sounds,
so it seems kind of pointless. MIDI can be cool, I've
heard some people do amazing things with it. But it just
doesn't seem to fit with me and my playing style. I guess
I'm more of a 'give me something I can beat the hell out
of' kind of player. Hmm, that might explain why I'm on my
thirteenth guitar in the past few years.:-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 5 Sep 2000 16:01:30 GMT
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:57:31 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>Uh, you are full of strange ideas, aren't you? Perhaps you should
>realize that Matthias'work at TT was no secret. Everyone involved
>in the "scene" knew it. Did you know that Miguel de Icaza, founder
>of GNOME owns Helix Code, a company that sells GNOME?
Oooohhh ... I guess that means that GNOME is "commercial". Perhaps Miguel
is actually using GNOME as a front for his sinister profiteering operation,
and he'd secretly planned to found Helix Code prior to founding GNOME.
Rather than substantiate my absurd conspiracy, I believe that Max is obliged
to both provide me with a case, and prove that my assertion is false (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:37:36 +0100
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:41:40 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Humans act selfless towards people they recognise as genetically
>close. You're more enclined
That's "inclined"
> to favour your children than your
>brothers and sisters,
If this is true, it is not because you are genetically closer to
your children than to your siblings (if you are, you've been practising
incest), but because your children are younger than you whereas your
siblings are about the same age, so your children are likely to have
more reproductive years ahead of them.
(There are also other factors that may cause an organism to favour
siblings above children, for example if an animal didn't know
which children it was the parent of, but did know who its siblings
were).
> whom you'll favour more than your nieces
>and nephews, and so forth. There's ample evidence that people
>_do_ favour their offspring, or nepotism wouldn't be a problem.
Indeed.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
"Something has gone wrong with your computer. Don't worry your silly little
head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a paperclip to
look at instead."
-- Windows2007 error message, extrapolated
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 5 Sep 2000 16:14:38 GMT
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:24:11 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>I think I recall a thread where you supported the exact opposite
>position. Can you?
The thread basically goes like this --
(1) I claimed that Max was guilty of slander (*).
(2) Max claimed that I was accusing him of lying
(3) I claimed that to slander, you must either lie or be ignorant. To
clarify, I said that I believed that he was ignorant. In
particular, this means that ignorance is not a valid defence
against libel
(4) Max apparently ignored my claim and repeated the falsehood that I
was accusing him of lying. I'm not clear whether he was implicitly
asserting that ignorance is a defence against libel or whether he
was just arguing by repitition.
(5) I restated my claim that ignorance is not a valid defence against
charges of libel, and this time I offered a compelling hypothetical
example, by arguing that if I accused him of being a sex offender, my
conduct would be indefensible even though I didn't know that he wasn't.
(6) Max, having lost the argument and being too vain to admit it,
proceeded with an irrelevant and illogical line of discussion,
accusing me of calling him names ( his grounds being that my
hypothetical was actually a covert and sinister means to insult
him through a back door, despite my condemning this hypothetical
act as morally and legally indefensible ).
(*) After mcjr pointed out that slander only applies to spoken defamation,
I conceded that it would have been more correct to use the word
"libel".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05 Sep 2000 10:17:48 -0600
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <8p0fb3$26d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > In many companies that would require a complete overhaul of DNS
> and
> > > > re-addressing of their workstations. Many places I have worked did
> > > _not_
> > > > all their MS stuff to one network, Unix and Mac to another. Poor
> > > design,
> > > > Maybe, but this is the REAL world and not everything is clean or
> > well
> > > > designed. The SysAdmin that forgets that is in for big problems
> > > rolling
> > > > out W2K's DNS.
> > >
> > > We do it with a couple of lines in the login script
> > > if "%OS%=="Windows_NT" cscript ntdns.vbs
> > > else cscript win9xdns.vbs
> >
> > ??? you miss understood... What if you have BOTH Unix and Windows
> > _already_ on the same set of IP addresses with the SAME domain
> > configured?
>
> What if? Big deal, you script the changes.
>
> >A LOT of time needs to be spent RECONFIUGRING MANY installed
> > clients! DHCP might help IF and ONLY IF you were already setup with
> > DHCP! You keep talking as if you do have a large installed base that
> is
> > perfectly setup. that is NOT the case in many sites! Many sites have
> > WIndows AND Unix on the same IP segment, on the same Domain with ALL
> > info HARD CODED (no DHCP). It would be a nightmare to reconfigure the
> > network the way you discribe! Why should I have to worry about what
> OS I
> > am running to set up DNS??? Shouldn't DNS be STANDARD????
>
> Where did I mention DHCP? I mentioned changing the DNS settings for
> all Windows based hosts globally & unattended by a few lines in a login
> script, hardly a burden on a sysadmin.
Where does that login script go? It certainly can't reside inside the
domain login scripts, because at that point you've already setup your
DNS. Installing a custom logon script on each and every client is
very much a burden.
DDNS is resolved during the DHCP "phase".
> If you really want DNS to be standard, feel free to point your *nix
> boxes at the Windows 2000 DNS. However, the resistance of *nix
> admins to give up control of the DNS is why I suggested a Windows
> based subdomain.
That's exactly what Microsoft wants everyone to do. It's stupid and
thoughtless. Microsoft is basically saying, "if you want to use
Active Directory then you're going to have to restructure your domain
to accomodate multiple NT DNS servers". They also have a monopoly on
the desktop and only support directory services based on active
directory. This all *obvously* leads to the simple conclusion that
it is a ploy to take control of DNS.
Call me a conspiratist, but it's true. I use Windows and really enjoy
many features it offers -- but DNS integration into AD is completely
unwarranted; it offers *no* benefit to Microsoft other than the
political.
> I can't see the nightmare scenario you suggest. It is trivial to
> rollout changes of this nature to all Windows based hosts with
> minimal effort, and no client visit required. If all you need to do
> is change Windows based machines, the technologies are all already
> there, you just have to understand how to use them.
Do elaborate.
> As for DNS being standard, it really doesn't matter what you point
> at as long as it works... Windows 2000 based DNS is minimal admin -
> set and forget and clients register themselves (or are registered by
> the DHCP server) - as opposed to updating a text file.
Sure, trust the entire structure of your company to an OS that's only
been out for 4 months.
(and you still haven't shown a *technological* benefit gained by
spending all this money on Windows 2000 server and CAL for every
machine that talks to it *and* buying at a minimum 2 new server boxes
so the AD can replicate)
In short: Why? What's the motivation?
> Like I say in another post, if you want to simplify the DNS, use BIND
> 8.1 (?) or later on your *nix box to provide the DNS infrastructure for
> Windows & *nix. There's more than one way to skin a cat, whichever
> fits your infrastructure best is going to be different for each
> instance. Where I work, we simply set up a subdomain nt.mydomain.com,
> forward everything else to the *nix DNS & no problem. I have yet to
> see a problem with this.
But what benefit have you gained? What's the point of spending all
this money and *splitting* your domain structure? (other than to
further sales of Windows, that is not an acceptable motivation)
--
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: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 18:21:18 +0200
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Just to save you the effort, 'sfcybear'.
> > > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > I tried to follow the discussion, even if I'm not really
> > expert on networking issues. What I got is that in order to
> > have a standard network feature like DNS work with W2K you
> > must figure out how to do it, then modify something, install
> > something, write scripts etc. in other components of the
> > network. In my textbook knowledge, the basics of networking
> > are that you may interconnect different users and servers
> > without anyone being aware of what are the insides of the
> > other, in order to avoid countless problems. That's
> > something having even a standard name: "interoperability".
> > If Microsoft has achieved to foul that with W2K, the only
> > conclusion is that W2K is crap, not a debate on how to make
> > this crap work.
>
> The only thing you should have got from this is that there is no one size
> fits all DNS solution when using Active Directory. It will all depend on
> your existing infrastructure, and how you choose to use what you have. The
> discussion about scripting resulted from Matt throwing up red herrings.
You appear not to grasp the point. Why there should be a
"solution" to a DNS issue (I mean with something which is
software and not crap)?
If a solution is required then a problem exists. IOW Active
Directory creates an interoperability problem, I can't say
if out of incompetence or out of malice.
Now I don't know what Active Directory is, I don't need it
and I don't care. Most likely it is another of those
amateurish MS concepts which bring compatibility problems,
security problems, starts working only after 15th release
and in order to have a decent level of security you must
painfully disable it or install a security patch each other
day.
So, assuming that I don't want it, can I use a W2K server
without caring about it or not?
If I can then the simplest solution instead of fouling up
all my network is not to use it. If I can't then my previous
conclusion still holds. A system which includes a new
network feature, however useful, which makes it incompatible
with existing networks as they are is crap.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:33:22 GMT
> Except that by the time a partial birth abortion is done, the baby could
> just as easily have been delivered and, in some cases, lived a normal
> life.
Just read up on this. False statement. The vast majority of "partial
birth" abortions are done before the fetus is viable. It's quite a
misnomer to call these "partial birth" abortions.
C//
------------------------------
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: 05 Sep 2000 16:40:15 +0100
>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefaan> Genes carry information that can cause creatures to behave
Stefaan> in a certain way across generations.
Possibly. The way in which behaviour is affected by genetics
is poorly understood at the moment. This is particularly true in the
case of humans.
Stefaan> Thus, behaviour that enables the creature to reproduce
Stefaan> better than a creature not carrying the gene (or
Stefaan> combination of genes) in question will result in more
Stefaan> instances of the gene (or combination) in future
Stefaan> generations.
Humans have an embracing society however. Most of the
information that I use to ensure my survival comes from what I have
been taught and not what I inherited genetically from my parents. We
can pass down information far quicker than we can pass down genes. My
parents were born just pre WWII. Think of how different the world was
then. I am far from convinced that genetics has got that much to say
about the way that our society is, except in the very broad sweep. Our
genes probably tell us that staying alive is a good thing. However as
many societies have shown us even that can be overcome.
Stefaan> even though the combination that gives us the need to
Stefaan> classify fellow humans as closer or further removed from
Stefaan> ourselves is as strong as in ants.
I am far from convinced that we have this "need". Even if
we do the responses that we give towards those who we have classified
as different may well be a product of society.
Stefaan> There's ample evidence that people _do_ favour their
Stefaan> offspring, or nepotism wouldn't be a problem.
No actually there isn't. Not in humans. There is ample
evidence that people favour those who they think are their offspring,
or those who adopt as their offspring, but this is an entirely
different thing.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Zulauf)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:43:23 -0700
In article <8oou48$1917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(abraxas) wrote:
> You're wrong, Netscape doesnt ever crash systems running X. It has
never, ever
> happened to me, and it has never, ever happened to anyone I know, with any
> version of netscape and any version of XFree, accelleratedX and metroX.
You are
> completely incorrect.
You obviously don't get out much.
I haven't seen it for a few years, but netscape used to _regularly_ bring
down the Suns in my department. It usually happened when it was being run
at the same time as a meteorological analysis program called GEMPAK, but
not always. I even have posted about this in the past, if you'd care to
check out my story. It got so bad that we were forbidden to run the two
programs at the same time.
More often (and more recently) it would bring down X, but leave everything
else running fine. I've seen this on Linux as well.
Mike
--
Mike Zulauf
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:43:59 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Guiliano Colla wrote:
> >
> You appear not to grasp the point. Why there should be a
> "solution" to a DNS issue (I mean with something which is
> software and not crap)?
> If a solution is required then a problem exists. IOW Active
> Directory creates an interoperability problem, I can't say
> if out of incompetence or out of malice.
It was done deliberately. I believe that AD was set up to only
network with Win 2K clients. That could only have been deliberate.
>
> Now I don't know what Active Directory is, I don't need it
> and I don't care. Most likely it is another of those
> amateurish MS concepts
Actually it is a relatively old concept. I think Novell maybe started
it and had the best implementation. The Novell version is still way
ahead of the MS AD though all the whore media is raving about AD. I
think that is one reason why the EU is investigating Win 2K; it is
deliberately made to be one of the most anticompetitive MS products
ever.
which bring compatibility problems,
The compatibility problems are deliberate.
> security problems, starts working only after 15th release
> and in order to have a decent level of security you must
> painfully disable it or install a security patch each other
> day.
>
> So, assuming that I don't want it, can I use a W2K server
> without caring about it or not?
I doubt it; not sure though.
> If I can then the simplest solution instead of fouling up
> all my network is not to use it. If I can't then my previous
> conclusion still holds. A system which includes a new
> network feature, however useful, which makes it incompatible
> with existing networks as they are is crap.
Well, that is the MS way.
--
Bob
Microsoft.com corrupt! Boot Chairman Bill? (Y/Y)
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 08:40:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >
> > Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > [...]
> > >> You're confabulating, as Eirik did, the idea of TT suing on
anti-trust
> > >> grounds,
> > >
> > >Where do you get the idea of TT suing on antitrust grounds????
> > >The only sue involved here is a copyright violation one.
> >
> > 'Embrace and extend' is an anti-trust issue, not a copyright issue.
> > That is the point. It gets around copyright by treating it as a patent
> > that can be made obsolete, essentially. Its monopolization, not
> > infringement. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
>
> And how exactly would TT get sued about monopoly, for embrace and
> extend done by MS? You are getting so convoluted you can't understand
> yourself.
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.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:18:15 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > We now also know that Matthias is both the founder of the KDE project
and an
> > employee of Trolltech.
> >
> > In addition to that are there or have there been any other connections
or
> > relationships between the KDE project and Trolltech, either directly or
> > indirectly? If so, what are they?
>
> They give us some network services (DNS, and maybe they host something).
> We have signed a few legal documents between KDE e.V. and TT, which
> are related to the KDE Free Qt foundation.
> TT hired a few KDE guys, starting a couple of years ago.
> Many of us consider some guy at TT a friend, and (I assume)
> viceversa.
Thank you, for your belated honesty in this matter, that does concur with my
findings.
These details do cast a new light on your earlier statements, not favorably
for you position though. It is now clear that there were multiple
interactions above and beyond Trolltech being the provider of Qt and KDE
being its consumer. This means that the KDE project had all the more to
lose than was previously admitted had it alienated Trolltech by switching to
using an alternate of Qt.
As the saying goes, an appearance of a conflict of interest IS a conflict of
interest.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:02:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No. KDE has no "head", really. We are run by comittee,
> and proud of it ;-)
Who is the chair? Since when and for who long?
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:21:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > It might have crossed somebody's mind, at least, when I was
> > being ridiculed for, well, several weeks, it seems, for asking questions
> > about KDE, and at many times it seemed solely with the purpose to
> > illustrate how reticent certain posters were being in appearing less
> > than forthright about any possible relationships between the two that
> > might raise a question about TrollTech, based on KDE, and for saying
> > "KDE is a commercial project", and being accused of slander, and
> > spending more time than any human should ever spend in the particular
> > pursuit defending having called a company by the name of the product it
> > sells, that it would perhaps be somewhat appropriate, in fact, to inform
> > me that 'Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project, is a TrollTech
> > employee.'
>
> Why? That's someting between him and them. And it's no secret.
As, I stated elsewhere in this thread:
As the saying goes, an appearance of a conflict of interest IS a conflict of
interest
------------------------------
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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 09:40:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:52:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> >OK then may I offer a couple?
> >
> >The Standard C Library and the standard iostreams classes of C++. On
many
>
> Both of these have something in common -- they are standard libraries.
> ( meaning ISO standards ). This isn't really the same as Qt, which is
> a vendor product. A fair comparison would be something like MFC or
> OWL
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.
Establishing the ANSI and ISO stardard for the C Library was pretty much
just a codification of existing pratice and resolving some cross platform
issues. such as the single portable representation of NULL.
Prior to the process different libraries could define NULL as
#define NULL 0
#define NULL (char *)0
#define NULL (unsigned char *)0
Now it is
#define NULL ((void *) 0)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
