Linux-Advocacy Digest #56, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Ville Niemi")
Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Ville Niemi")
Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Ville Niemi")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Bob Lyday)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Ermine Todd")
Re: [Q] linux on mac? ("Rich C")
Re: ms image change ... micro-er soft-er ("Rich C")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:01:50 -0400
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:10:01 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>How do you address the issue of the loss of control of the appearance,
>quality, performance, and behavior of the software to the whims of thoses
>who developed the rendering software AKA browser. How do you also address
>the issue of the program's user interface going haywire should a minor
>upgrade via a service pack cause the renderer to no longer render the
>program's user interface the way that the programmers of the program had
>intended?
>
What's there to address? You just described the normal relationship
between platforms and applications.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 11 Sep 2000 19:01:13 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Not really, a rational person would observe that if these apps are only
>>running on one OS then we have no basis for a comparison. From what was
>>described, if these same apps were running on Unix the ship would have
>>also been dead in the water.
>
> From what was said, rather directly, that is not the case. It may have
> been presumption on the part of Redman or whoever that the apps wouldn't
> have failed so disastrously on Unix, based on a consideration that such
> a bad design would have been apparent to people who are capable of
> programming on Unix ...
Your willingness to comment on subjects you are ignorant of is only
matched by your ability guess ot wrong. The developers are quite familiar
with Unix, they are not a Win32 shop.
> ... Either way, it is the fact that we have no basis
> for a comparison against Win32 that I so loudly and stridently point out
> that Windows and all Microsoft software is crappy. If there were a
> competitive environment, I wouldn't be saying that, for two reasons: 1)
> I wouldn't have to; everybody would recognize it themselves, and 2)
> crappy software doesn't survive in a competitive environment, so there
> would be no issue to begin with.
Naive, ex. AOL.
>>> ... Maybe it just comes down to the 'pointy
>>> clicky' happy horseshit on Microsoft platforms encouraged idiot
>>> programmers who make dumb errors ...
>>
>>Doubtful, one of the benefits of open source is that the tools available
>>under Linux are also available for Win32. Not to mention the fact that
>>many Win32 tools can be used with or without GUIs, mixed and matched with
>>the open source tools, etc. You seem misinformed regarding Win32
>>development.
>
> You've tried this tact before, I think ...
Thank you for clearly labeling a guess. I don't recall having this type of
conversation, or any other, with you before.
> ... Its arm-waving, at best. I've
> never said that Win32 cannot implement what is available on Linux, nor
> vice-versa. Nor have you ever said why programs developed on Win32 are
> so notoriously crappy ...
Untrue. I have said that Win32 has an abundance of crappy software
because it is the mass market environment, and that if Linux became the
principle mass market environment it would also have an abundance of
crappy software. The commercial pressures of releasing a software product
often lead to skimping on the quality assurance side. Linux is free of
much of this pressure and with a largely Unix oriented customer base it
doesn't have an audience that is overly attracted to eye candy and long
feature lists. The problem is not the OS itself, the problem is an
audience that tolerates deficient applications. Good software can be
written for both WinNT and Unix.
> ... you're observations don't account for that
> information. Perhaps you'd prefer we ignore the information itself,
> because it makes Windows look good?
>
> You seem misinformed regarding the real world. Or should I say "what
> the real world would be like if there were a competitive market instead
> of a monopoly." Perhaps we've reached the point where so many people
> have had so little experience outside of the industry as controlled by a
> monopoly that there's little chance anyone has any ability to reason
> anymore.
Again, you guess wrong, I am quite familiar with Unix. I am merely not
religious about OSs or environments.
>>> ... maybe its that the platform doesn't
>>> elegantly handle app failures ...
>>
>>You now seem extremely ignorant of Win32. Structured Exception Handling is
>>very powerful, and it may be used from many languages.
>
> You now seem entirely delusional. Are you trying to tell us that
> Windows handles application failures well?
If an application does not supply it's own exception handler the default
WinNT handler will terminate the app. If an application uses Structure
Exception Handling internally it is not unlike C++ exception handling.
However since it is provided by the core OS it is available to any
language that can use the Win32 API. The exceptions range from processor,
to OS, to users defined exceptions. The handlers have the ability to
handle the error themselves, pass the error to a higher level handler, or
to continue execution.
>>> ... Maybe its simply that the 'arcane'
>>> mechanisms of Unix are not merely more complex, but robust, and
>>> encourage good design. I don't know and I don't care ...
>>
>>I agree with both, you "don't know" and you "don't care".
>>
>>> ... All I know is
>>> that systems developed on NT suck more, much more, on the average, than
>>> systems written on Unix. It all comes down to the same thing: a lousy
>>> OS.
>>
>>Actualy you are still in "don't know" and "don't care" territory.
>
> Quit your trolling. Make your case or shut your trap. I'm sick of
> having to defend my right not to be as ignorant a moron as the stupidest
> person in the industry. And I HATE when fuckheads like you have nothing
> to say but just love to hand-wave, ankle-bite, and misrepresent what
> I've said. Get yourself some reading comprehension skills, sonny.
The ignorance and misrepresentation is on your side. You demonstrate an
ignorance of WinNT and yet you attempt to comment upon it, grossly
misrepresenting things along the way. Your above troll only rises to about
D+. It could have been a good solid C if you had refrained from mentioning
trolling, raising the subject only makes your efforts more transparent,
and the cursing is definitely a losing gambit.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: 11 Sep 2000 19:03:00 GMT
Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Microsoft creates backdoors in their closed source
> software, (not that I'm saying such, but it *is* closed-source
> and such a trick wouldn't be hard to pull off), wouldn't
> Microsoft have more power than our own government?
The military and various Universities have access to Microsoft source code.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:06:38 -0400
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:16:54 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> No, the question was whether IE could be removed from today's Windows
>> without damaging the product. The answer is no. Microsoft didn't lie.
>
>Windows 98 was not available yet. Window 98 SE was not available yet.
>Windows ME was not available yet. Windows 2000 was not available yet. Only
>Windows 95 and before was available, it was Windows 95 that was the subject
>of the lie.
>
Actually, to be precise, it was Win95 OSR 2.x that was the product in
consideration, since the original Win95 didn't integrate IE. Also in
consideration was the then-upcoming Win98. My argument still applies.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:07:15 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pj9ui$kmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZB2v5.69549$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Many many many developers do -- but not usually in shrink-wrap products
> that
> > you can buy in stores (exceptions being PDA synch software for the
palm).
> > Outlook is useful to bind to for *INTRANET* work.
> >
> > Besides... how do you think that the ILoveYou virus worked? :)
>
> Is that a benefit of programming that way? I can see the promotional
slogan
> now, "Program using these Microsoft scantioned methods and help Mellisa
say
> I love you to your customers too.
Technology can be used for good or evil.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:12:45 GMT
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti
viestissä:8pj32v$gvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:nU7v5.318$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > By your definition drug dealers are good people simply trying to make a
> > living in a capitalist system. They too use unethical and illegal
methods
> to
> > market products that are known to cause problems for people.
> >
> Some probably are. Why not include tobacco salesman in that, or perhaps
> booze barons? Both products are known to cause (serious) harm or death.
> How many people out there think what happened to MS was fair, yet still
> smoke (illegal tactics, products that are proven to cause actual physical
> harm)? Both involve choice on the part of the consumer, yet they still
> choose to do it.
Who said I don't? Tobacco is addictive, you know, so the choice is not
precisely free. Alcohol is also addictive. Microsoft products cause
dependencies...
Ville
------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:12:45 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti
viestissä:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:38:43 GMT, Ville Niemi wrote:
> >
>
> >By your definition drug dealers are good people simply trying to make a
> >living in a capitalist system. They too use unethical and illegal methods
to
> >market products that are known to cause problems for people.
>
> I agree that Windows 98 is a POS, but it doesn't kill or physically harm
> its users when used as intended. ( unlike say Tobacco or hard drugs )
>
> The reason that selling drugs is illegal has nothing to do with the
methods
> used to market the products ( actually, legalisation would help promote
> fair competition ) -- the reason is that the products in question cause
> physical harm to the user.
>
> --
> Donovan
So do tobacco and alcohol... And many industrial chemicals... And cars...
Seriously, I wasn't talking about legislation just comparing business
practices.
Ville
------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:12:46 GMT
> > True, but what's your point? The theory is what the law is based on,
isn't
> > it?
>
> Which is a bad idea in itself. The law should be based on reality, not an
> abstraction.
Sorry, but laws based on entirely on the material reality are not practical.
Laws depend on an underlying abstraction of right and wrong. Laws not based
on abstraction would be effectively random, and random law is worse than
having no laws at all.
> > Just because the implementation is imperfect doesn't mean the theory is
> > not relevant. In fact, the purpose of such theories is to help people
gain
> > understanding that allows them to improve on the status quo.
> >
> > Are you an American, most seem reluctant to admit that their right to
free
> > market isn't really working very well, while you go to the other extreme
> and
> > say that since it isn't working we should give up and let the companies
do
> > what they want.
> >
> New Zealander. I don't think we should let the companies do what they
want
> either - that would be an extraordinarily bad idea. There are companies
far
> more evil than Microsoft out there though, and I think wasting time on MS
is
> pointless. Why not go after the polluters, or the people who do serious
> harm to the world we live in?
BECAUSE, this is the wrong newsgroup.
Ville
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:37:35 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
"Keith T. Williams" wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pj6m5$l6j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In alt.destroy.microsoft Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
> > > lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
> > > is diversionary nonsense.
> >
> > What do you think happens to all the RAMs, Hard-disk, casing, diskette's,
> > CPUs that get thrown out when the next offering from the Dark Lords
> > require an upgrade?
> >
> > You think wholesale waste of the earth's resource feeding the Redmond
> > behemouth is good for the earth's environment?
> >
>
> Nobody is forced to UPGRADE, if what you have works for you, keep it.
MS does indeed force you to upgrade if you want to keep getting the
same functionality. That is one of the reasons why they are so evil.
--
Bob
Microsoft.com corrupt! Boot Chairman Bill? (Y/Y)
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:14:58 -0400
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Keith T. Williams" wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8pj6m5$l6j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In alt.destroy.microsoft Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
> > > > lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
> > > > is diversionary nonsense.
> > >
> > > What do you think happens to all the RAMs, Hard-disk, casing,
diskette's,
> > > CPUs that get thrown out when the next offering from the Dark Lords
> > > require an upgrade?
> > >
> > > You think wholesale waste of the earth's resource feeding the Redmond
> > > behemouth is good for the earth's environment?
> > >
> >
> > Nobody is forced to UPGRADE, if what you have works for you, keep it.
>
> MS does indeed force you to upgrade if you want to keep getting the
> same functionality. That is one of the reasons why they are so evil.
How does that work? I'm still using '95 (sr1), and still have the
functionality that
it had (yah, yah, i know...) out of the box... '95 hasn't degraded at all,
it's
still as bad as it ever was (there you go), but I haven't felt any need to
upgrade
to the latest and greatest. I admit to having put W2K on for a test (on a
233MMX/32M
junk machine... ) but it's off now and Corel Linux is in it's place..
Keith.
> --
> Bob
> Microsoft.com corrupt! Boot Chairman Bill? (Y/Y)
> Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:27:45 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
You have to read through the court orders regarding the denial of Sun's
motions ... the Judge states his reasons for denying the motions and cites
these factors.
I agree that these aren't final and are still subject to change and that
there are a number of issues still to resolve - but surely you can agree
that Sun has lost the majority of the issues straight out?
--ET--
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tdgu5.12127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ulxboKfGAHA.64@cpmsnbbsa07...
>
> > "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:LKWt5.11092$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] linux on mac?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:33:45 -0400
. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pj21f$c0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8pgu4t$1jt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Anon Y. Mous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > if i install linux on a mac, how difficult is the conversion?
> >>
> >> It depends on what you mean by "conversion". LinuxPPC has become
> >> (after quite a long time) incredibly easy to install. Same for
> >> Yellowdog. Theyre both redhat based.
> >>
> >> You of course wont be able to run any of your mac software, but
> >> it could be argued that that is a Good Thing (TM).
> >>
> >>
> > Perhaps the hardest thing would be converting that cyclops mouse to
> > something with 2 or 3 buttons. You need to middle click to paste in many
> > Linux apps. You can simulate a third button with 2 buttons, but how do
you
> > simulate a third button with only one?
>
> Use your brain...how would you do it?
*I* wouldn't do it, as I try to stay as far away from MACs as possible.
>
> The way its usually done is with a keyboard replacement; i.e. middle click
> would be 'ctrl click' and right click would be 'alt click'. You can of
> course get three button mice for macs, in case you didnt know.
>
>
Hmm........modifying keycode tables and gpm parameters??? That sounds like
something a new convert from MacOS to Linux would be happy to tackle.
Besides, with all the Linux window managers these days emulating windows
functions, alt and ctrl are usually assigned other functions (such as
selecting groups of objects.)
Of course I had no idea that there were 3 button mice for macs.....the
newest mac I've seen had the old cyclops mouse and no USB (as mentioned by
another poster.) Glad to see Mac users are improving their manual dexterity!
;o)
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ms image change ... micro-er soft-er
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:36:41 -0400
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I Still agree with Dennis Miller, Bill Gates is a persian cat away from
> being a Bond Villain.
I think a snake or a ferret would be more his style.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > In an effort to soften its image, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates makes
> > > his appeal that M$ should have the same deregulated freedoms as any
mom
> > > and pop operation. He unveiled Microsoft Brand Jams & Jellies.
> > >
> > > http://www.ridiculopathy.com/index.php?display=20000824
> >
> > Cute puppy. This would be an excellent pic for a caption contest.
> >
> > My submission would be:
> >
> > "Get this damn thing off me....it just pissed on my Armani suit!"
> >
> > --
> > Rich C.
> > "Great minds discuss ideas.
> > Average minds discuss events.
> > Small minds discuss people."
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:38:53 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:01:50 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:10:01 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>How do you address the issue of the loss of control of the appearance,
>>quality, performance, and behavior of the software to the whims of thoses
>>who developed the rendering software AKA browser. How do you also address
>>the issue of the program's user interface going haywire should a minor
>>upgrade via a service pack cause the renderer to no longer render the
>>program's user interface the way that the programmers of the program had
>>intended?
>>
>
>What's there to address? You just described the normal relationship
>between platforms and applications.
...which is why it's a BAD idea to relegate the user's
default shell to "just an application" rather than a
more stable part of the core OS.
Some of us have Unix interface tweaks that have served us
across multiple Unixen, multiple microprocessors and/or
decade(s) of use predating any useful version of MS WinDOS.
The "but an easy & consistent interface is paramount" argument
works both ways.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:39:45 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:07:15 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8pj9ui$kmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:ZB2v5.69549$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > Many many many developers do -- but not usually in shrink-wrap products
>> that
>> > you can buy in stores (exceptions being PDA synch software for the
>palm).
>> > Outlook is useful to bind to for *INTRANET* work.
>> >
>> > Besides... how do you think that the ILoveYou virus worked? :)
>>
>> Is that a benefit of programming that way? I can see the promotional
>slogan
>> now, "Program using these Microsoft scantioned methods and help Mellisa
>say
>> I love you to your customers too.
>
>Technology can be used for good or evil.
That's quite a childish view actually and why Microsoft products
and Microsoft users are so prone to being randomly exploited.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 20:41:59 GMT
On 11 Sep 2000 17:16:20 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Sep 2000 17:05:01 GMT, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>All-in-all, it felt like it was running in some sort of
>>emulated environment rather than as a native app and I
>>deleted it from my system within the hour. So yes,
>
>IIRC, they ported several APIs, so it feels like an "emulated environment"
>largely because it basically is.
Reimplementing an API is not, or rather should not consitute,
an "emulated enviroment". It's not like we're talking about
something on the order of converting x86 instructions to sparc
ones...
[deletia]
Exploder probably runs faster under SoftWindows Sparc.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:38:12 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jerry Shekhel, a known liar and spreader of FUD for undisclosed
corporate interests, using one of his net personae of "Seán Ó
Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:32:48 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >What foolishness, that queston as hand was is it possible for Windows 95 to
> >run without Microsoft Internet Explorer.
> >
>
> No, the question was whether IE could be removed from today's Windows
> without damaging the product. The answer is no. Microsoft didn't lie.
Hi Jerry. Long time no see.
You know, this whole usenet thing is a bit like a soap opera. Blanche's
husband is lost at sea, and she remarries, but actually her husband
survived somehow, but lost his memory for a long time and finally comes
back.
Well, various stuff like that. But the recurring thing is that every
character comes back. Eventually.
BTW, heard from Jerry Coffey lately? I heard tell he done picked up and
headed out west fer a spell.
You seemed to have left clja for a long time. Did you head out west too?
Start a sheep farm?
Though actually, I notice you were hanging around on clla for a good
while. Did you not realize that this thread was getting cross-posted to
clja as well?
As a big conoisseur of this soap opera, the one thing I always wondered
about your Donnchadha character is his motivation. You see Seán Ó
Donnchadha loves C++ and thinks that Windows NT is the cat's meow, but
all his usenet participation is on .java.advocacy and .linux.advoacy.
Except recently, since about April, in which he left java advocacy to
concentrate his attentions on .linux.advocacy.
So that particular soap opera character is kind of contradictory, isn't
he? Maybe you could shed some light on the character's motivations,
Jerry?
Cheers,
Jonathan Revusky
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:01:53 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Technology can be used for good or evil.
>
> That's quite a childish view actually and why Microsoft products
> and Microsoft users are so prone to being randomly exploited.
Really? Care to provide a more adult one?
Simon
------------------------------
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:00:48 -0700
"Jonathan Revusky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... ...a ton of off-topic crap.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
