Linux-Advocacy Digest #126, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: OS choice ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: Why NT is shite ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (D G)
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Rob Barris)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:13:41 GMT
Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> > Total freedom includes, paradoxically, the ability to unilaterally take
:> > away the freedom of future users.
:>
:> No, it doesn't.
:
: Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding source)?
Yes, however you can't stop anyone else from giving the source away
either. You can not "hijack" BSD code.
: (honest question; haven't read the BSD license entirely yet)
Huh? The BSD license is one of the shortest licenses written. -In
striking contrast to the complex and deceiving GPL, a large (and
required) chunk of which isn't even part of the license...
:> If someone else re-uses my code in their closed source application, that
:> doesn't change the fact that *I* still offer that code for free, and that
:> *I* still offer that code in any way I see fit. This doesn't change the
:> fact that the code is already out there.
:
: You've made alterations and additional enhancements to that person's code,
: without providing those changes to others. Part of the Free Software
: movement is that everyone benefits from access to the source. If you come
: up with an enhancement based on someone else's code, your obligation is to
: give them the same courtesy with yours. The GPL sets up a system of mutual
: obligation.
The GPL's idea of "alterations" and "enhancements" is farther
reaching then common sense would otherwise dictate.
If Oracle's SQL*Plus were to use the GNU readline library, without
"altering" it in any way would SQL*Plus then be an "enhancement" of
the readline library?
Common sense says no, the GPL says yes.
Say a Flash plugin or such is written to a GPL web browser. Does
the author of the web browser really have the right (in a basic
"human rights" kind of way, not a explicit legal way) to force the
author of the Flash plugin to GPL their code?
GPL is a virus, plain and simple. It was designed, built, and
distributed to be a virus.
:> > "Do anything you want, as long as you don't stop others from doing what
:> > they want too."
:>
:> And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from distributing
:> theirs?
:
: The primary motivation with GPL was to ensure that if you make changes to
: the code, those changes go back into the source pool so others can
: benefit. (The viral nature of GPL is secondary, I think, in keeping with
: RMS's philosophy.)
You've got it backwards. The viral nature is primary; the first
part is simply the spin put on the idea to make it easier to digest.
A candy coating on a cyanide pill is still a cyanide pill. I'm sure
the Koolaid tasted great too...but it still killed everyone who
drank it.
: If you want the benefit of freedom of use (without changes), minus the
: obligation of sharing your code, use LGPL software. This is a more
: pragmatic license, and allows linking.
Agreed....however RMS doesn't, which is a problem.
:> > I wouldn't agree with claims that the GPL offers more personal freedom
:> > than BSD licensing. It does, however, *guarantee* certain freedoms to
:> > *all* users.
:>
:> No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still guaranteed
:> without the GPL.
:
: In what ways?
The fact you can't hijack BSD code or more generally, you can not
restrict the freedom of BSD code.
The ball really is in your court. "In what ways?" isn't a valid
response; if you want to challenge the idea that said freedoms are
not available without the GPL it is upto you to site explicit cases
where it fails and back it up with an explanation of how it fails.
IOW, you have presented no argument here.
:> I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
:> elses rights.
:
: By opening up the code to all and sundry, the author has allowed anyone
: else to become additional developers of his software. He also wants to
: ensure free access to that source, now and in the future.
That's just it; the GPL claims to do this, but in reality it does
exactly the opposite.
: If one of those developers comes up with a wonderful new enhancement, and
: does not share it with others, then he is not honouring the original
: author's wishes -- a part of the source tree is not freely available any
: more.
And if the original author wants to use his code in a non-GPL form,
he (effectively) can't, period.
Why? Because as "additional developers" have contributed to his
code under the GPL, his code is now forever infested with the GPL.
Even though only %1 of the code may not be "his", he's effectively
screwed. He could ask each and everyone one of those additional
developers for permission to release it under another license, but
in any practical sense it's completely and totally impossible on any
GPL code base of any history.
Don't believe me? Go ask Linus if he think he'd have a chance in
hell of even just being able to *contact* everyone that has
contributed code to the Linux kernel, let alone get them all to sign
anything.
The GPL is a virus.
The GPL is a lie.
The GPL is incredibly and intentionally deceptive.
The GPL is inherently evil.
: With regards to linking without alteration to source, that *is* why the
: LGPL was created.
Doens't help; see above about adding a non-GPL plugin to a GPL
browser. It can't be done.
>snip<
:> > You have the freedom to choose the software you use :)
:>
:> No, I don't. I have the freedom to decide to give up freedoms in order
:> to achieve some end, but so do indentured servants.
:
: Here are the choices with the current model:
:
: (1) You can provide software, but withhold the source. No-one can further
: benefit from the work you have done; development stops at you.
:
: (2) You can provide software and source without restriction (public
: domain). Everyone can do as they wish, meaning at any point down the tree,
: anyone can choose to close it off and withhold further access (becoming a
: new point (1) themselves).
Point 2 is effectively invalid. If you don't think so, I dare
you to try this hijack approach on any public domain or BSD
software.
How are you going to force all FTP sites to delete it?
How are you going to force all users to delete it?
You can't. There is no "at any point down the tree". This argument
is effectively bullshit. Full stop.
: (3) You can provide software and source, but require all future
: development do the same. Everyone can do as they wish *except* close it
: off at a future point. The software will always conform to (3) at any
: point in the tree.
:
: Take your pick. Only one of the above guarantees what rights you'll have
: at any point in the future.
You're dead wrong. This isn't opinion, it's fact.
1 can turn into 2 or 3.
2 will always be 2.
3 will always be 3.
Furthermore, BSD software != public domain, period. As such, there
is (at least) a 4th.
You say you don't understand the BSD license as you haven't read it
"entirely". It's a page long, in its verbose form. It's simple,
straightforward, and unlike the GPL doesn't try to deceive anyone or
infest their work.
--
-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: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:30:58 +0100
> "Really lazy" is shorthand for a set of behaivors that
> can characterize a set of end users. It need not be
> taken as a personal affront. It is accurate. Anything
> beyond it's literal meaning is simply the interpretation
> of the reader.
>
I think that users who hate the way their windows system
keeps crashing yet can't be bothered to give anything else
even a brief try fall into this category. If you try linux and then
decide to continue with windows because it suits your computer
use better or cannot change because you rely too much on
windows applications or because you share the machine with others
then fair enoough but just say it's too much effort like some users do is
plain lazyness - afterall, the 3 finger salute (CTRL-ALT-DEL) is easier
than an upgrade ;-)
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS choice
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:35:18 +0100
>> Only thing worse than that would be trying to warp a single-user,
>> GUI-based, proprietary PC O/S into a server....
>Sounds awful, could you even begin it imagine it? They might even try to
>warp that badly implemented x86 OS in to an even worse implementation on
>a decent architecture. What a horrible thought.
>
MS did warp NT onto other architectures (e.g. MIPS) but it flopped as users
of
other architectures have more sence than to install that crap (and so would
a lot of
ix86 users if windows wasn't force-fed to them at computer purchase time).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:24:20 -0500
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:03:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>argument that it's changing. Linux isn't ready for the masses. It
>>doesn't have nearly the variety/quality of software, it isn't nearly
>>as easy to use.
>
> That never stopped DOS, despite lingering around for 11 years
> after Apple released their GUI, 10 years after Digital Research
> and Atari released their GUI, and 9 years after Commodore released
> their GUI.
DOS got started, and came to dominate the market, early on.
Yes, *eventually* apple and others put out OS's which used GUI,
but by then, DOS had a demanding lead, and lots of software
available. I'm sorry that you don't seem to be able to grasp the
difference between capturing a new and emerging market, and
grabbing one which has already developed and is dominated by
one company.
--
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw120198 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:29:19 -0500
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:59:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (RogerB) wrote:
> Crap. For years Ms has been the only produce because
>the stores sell nothing else.
Bull shit. There has *never* been a time when MS didn't have
any competition. Claiming "they only came out on top because
the stores sell nothing else" is as stupid as the crap Ray Lopez
screams about how linux is useless. Lets stick to reality.
--
Stephen Whitis
Email replies should go to...
scw120198 (at) whitis.com
The address in the header is not valid.
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:26:49 GMT
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:> No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still guaranteed
:> without the GPL.
:
: No they are not. With BSD (for example) you can take the code, modify it,
: and keep the changes to yourself. You have gist infringed on my freedom
: to access and change the code.
:
: Your talking about YOUR freedom not MY freedom. The GPL refers to MY
: freedom.
"A man's freedom ends where the next man's begins"
I don't remember off hand who said that, but truer words have rarely
been spoken.
You have the right ("freedom") to do whatever you want with YOUR
code, including how and who you give it to if anyone.
I have the right ("freedom") to do whatever I want with MY code,
including how and who I give it to if anyone.
The GPL is talking about giving YOU MY RIGHT as to how MY code is
handled, effectively taking away MY RIGHTS and MY FREEDOM and giving
them to YOU.
But the really sad part is that it doesn't even really give it to
you, it takes them away from you as well because the GPL is a double
edged sward. -Now with my code mixed with your code, "we've" lost
any and all "right" or "freedom" to use our own code as we see fit.
We are now BOTH hostages of the GPL, our code forever infested with
the GPL.
:> I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
:> elses rights.
:
: Take a look at the "rights" GPL is trying to guarantee.
It guarantees the "rights" of the GPL, and that's it. It takes away
the rights of both the original and later developers.
--
-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: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:49:21 +0100
Tom wrote in message <8pr3tn$a0v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>The "Last Known Good" choice at boot up didn't work??
>
Nope - it only restores configuration settings and not overwritten DLL's
In the end we had to carefully work out what dll's had been trashed and
replace
them 1 at a time using the NT4 boot disks in recovery mode - this got it
working
but it still reports missing exports in DLL's after loading but everyone is
too afraid
of breaking it again to risk fixing this last problem ( it turned out to be
MSVCRT.DLL
and MSVCIRT.DLL so maybe sbs uses different versions of these 2 than true
nt4).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:33:04 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:24:20 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 19:03:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>argument that it's changing. Linux isn't ready for the masses. It
>>>doesn't have nearly the variety/quality of software, it isn't nearly
>>>as easy to use.
>>
>> That never stopped DOS, despite lingering around for 11 years
>> after Apple released their GUI, 10 years after Digital Research
>> and Atari released their GUI, and 9 years after Commodore released
>> their GUI.
>
>DOS got started, and came to dominate the market, early on.
>Yes, *eventually* apple and others put out OS's which used GUI,
3 WHOLE YEARS LATER.
It took Microsoft nearly 4 times that long to come out with
a reasonably usable GUI of it's own.
>but by then, DOS had a demanding lead, and lots of software
>available. I'm sorry that you don't seem to be able to grasp the
>difference between capturing a new and emerging market, and
>grabbing one which has already developed and is dominated by
>one company.
Bullshit.
Microsoft's "lead" was miniscule compared to the amount of
time they sandbagged on fully exploiting the 386 architecture
or delivering a viable GUI.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: D G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 11:33:24 -0700
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "D G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I'll give you the variety part, but not the quality part. The majority
> > of *nix software is of far higher quality, IMO. (Unless you equate eye
> > candy with quality.)
> >
> Personally, I'd class look and feel part of quality. In my book, quality
> isn't just stability...
Look and feel is definitely a part of quality, but it's way down on the
list of importance. Most windows programs have a nice look and feel
(not much choice if you use the windows API), but are otherwise ridden
with bugs. But, all other things being equal, you can bet I'll take the
application that looks nicer.
Acrobat reader is one example of a program that constantly crashes or
simply doesn't work on windows, but never gives me problems hp-ux.
(Haven't tried it yet on linux, since I like xpdf.)
--
DG
e-mail is: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the Z's--they're what I do when I read SPAM!)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:38:28 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:13:41 GMT, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>:> > Total freedom includes, paradoxically, the ability to unilaterally take
>:> > away the freedom of future users.
>:>
>:> No, it doesn't.
>:
>: Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding source)?
>
> Yes, however you can't stop anyone else from giving the source away
> either. You can not "hijack" BSD code.
>
>: (honest question; haven't read the BSD license entirely yet)
>
> Huh? The BSD license is one of the shortest licenses written. -In
> striking contrast to the complex and deceiving GPL, a large (and
> required) chunk of which isn't even part of the license...
>
>:> If someone else re-uses my code in their closed source application, that
>:> doesn't change the fact that *I* still offer that code for free, and that
>:> *I* still offer that code in any way I see fit. This doesn't change the
>:> fact that the code is already out there.
>:
>: You've made alterations and additional enhancements to that person's code,
>: without providing those changes to others. Part of the Free Software
>: movement is that everyone benefits from access to the source. If you come
>: up with an enhancement based on someone else's code, your obligation is to
>: give them the same courtesy with yours. The GPL sets up a system of mutual
>: obligation.
>
> The GPL's idea of "alterations" and "enhancements" is farther
> reaching then common sense would otherwise dictate.
Then common sense is flawed.
It is quite easy to use software to create "barbed wire" fences
on the "open plains". Free Software seeks to limit this. There
is real value in this sort of policy. The market is stunted by
the sorts of artificial monopolies that crop up.
Given the marginal cost of software replication, there really is
little value in giving potential robber barons corporate welfare.
OTOH, unless you intend to use a shared bit of code to artificially
restrain the free trade of your customers, there really isn't much
value in attempting to use some shared bit of code as if it were
your own personal property.
>
> If Oracle's SQL*Plus were to use the GNU readline library, without
> "altering" it in any way would SQL*Plus then be an "enhancement" of
> the readline library?
No, it would be a derivative work.
That is why most libraries are not licenced with the GPL and why
GNU readline is an aberration that primarily exists as an isolated
example for people such as yourself.
[deletia]
GPL is not the total extent of copyleft.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:40:15 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:30:58 +0100, Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> "Really lazy" is shorthand for a set of behaivors that
>> can characterize a set of end users. It need not be
>> taken as a personal affront. It is accurate. Anything
>> beyond it's literal meaning is simply the interpretation
>> of the reader.
>>
>
There are many users that can't even fully exploit Windows
due to the fact that they are unable or unwilling to explore
the system or really learn how to use it.
>
>I think that users who hate the way their windows system
>keeps crashing yet can't be bothered to give anything else
>even a brief try fall into this category. If you try linux and then
>decide to continue with windows because it suits your computer
>use better or cannot change because you rely too much on
>windows applications or because you share the machine with others
>then fair enoough but just say it's too much effort like some users do is
>plain lazyness - afterall, the 3 finger salute (CTRL-ALT-DEL) is easier
>than an upgrade ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:35:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sandman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Barris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Stop playing games. You said NeXTStep (AKA OPENSTEP/Mach) uses a BSD
> > > kernel. It does not. It uses the Mach kernel. It does use BSD
> > > Utilities just like OS X. In fact OS X is just that, NeXT with a
> > > candy
> > > colored shell.
> >
> > NeXT couldn't run MS Office, or Adobe Photoshop.
>
> And niether can MacOSX as of yet. It does do it in a emulated
> environment,
> something easily achieved on the NeXT platofrm aswell.
But even NeXT never got full blown commitment from big vendors like
MS and Adobe. Getting them to do Carbonized apps (example, Mac Office
2001) is a political victory, being able to run their old ones
transparently is a technical one. Apple has both, NeXT had neither.
> > So there must be more than a candy coated shell yes ?
>
> There is, but not much. Apple did buy NeXT for a reason, MacOSX is it.
An Adobe-license-free display technology (Quartz/CoreGraphics) ? NeXT
wrote that? Nope. That's but one example.
I don't in any way downplay the amount of effort that has been
absorbed from NeXT's work, but to ignore how much work Apple has put in
also strikes me as shortsighted or uninformed.
Rob
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 15 Sep 2000 18:44:00 GMT
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Game developers, as a rule, never liked Macintosh because it failed to
>> > support many technologies available on Windows -- technologies that made
>> > their programming easier and more productive. Now game developers can
>> > use OpenGL on both platforms (and linux too if you count MESA :-)
>>
>> Somewhat misinformed. Implementing compatibility layers for DirectDraw,
>> DirectSound, and Direct3D on top of DrawSprocket, SoundSprocket, and
>> OpenGL (RAVE too sometimes) has been a pretty successful solution.
>
> Like I said, ...
I interpretted your "never liked" to mean "did not target". Thanks for
clarification.
> ... Macintosh failed to support many technologies available on
> Windows. Instead game developers had to hand code translation layers
> between the Microsoft proprietary APIs and the Apple proprietary APIs.
> You don't see too many folks writing directly to those Apple proprietary
> APIs. Since MacOS didn't support OpenGL until recently I think it will
> be awhile before Apple games are any more than just "ports" of Windows
> games.
OpenGL is irrelevant in this regard. Some companies can spend the money up
front and do simultaneous development (costs less), some companies decide
to spend the money on the back side and do a port (costs more, but less
risky, PC flops don't port). It has much to do with the resources of
whoever is paying the bills and the faith they have that the game will be
a hit, and little to do with technology.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:00:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> >Being stuck on Windows now, I've discovered that "quick view" is quite
> >useful in many of these cases (but these need to be enable for each
> >file type).
>
> That rather defeats the point now doesn't it.
Well, they are enabled by default for several file suffixes. I don't
know if it came that way in Windows or if it was done when an app
was installed.
> Similarly, you can claim that just as well for Windows. There
> is nothing keeping a windows programmer from tossing the entire
> set of interface guidelines straight out the window.
Except that it's rare. There's the desire to get the official
Windows logo on your box for one.
But a big difference is that older apps on Windows die, and get
replaced by later versions or other products. New programs and
releases tend to follow style guidelines better. On UNIX, old
programs stick around for a long time - sure, a new KDE app will
look and feel like other KDE apps, but an old Motif app won't.
> No, this sort of thing has been available for quite awhile.
> Actually, the newer facilities aren't anything more than
> a more extensive version of what X has had available all
> along.
Well, foreground/background were available from the start, but 3D
styles, additional colors, icon sizes, font families, etc, weren't
there, and thus aren't standardized. That's what I meant about
"relatively later idea".
> >allowed to use the "Works with Window 95" logo unless your app used
> >the desktop properties for its look).
>
> I'm not sure it would occur to most computer users that software
> doesn't work with Microsoft's current OS. So I'm not entirely
> sure this has any relevance at all.
Is 1995 so long ago that we forgot? If you didn't have that logo,
users assumed you were still a Win3.1 16-bit app, and purchased a
different app that had the logo instead. I overheard several
customers at some stores ask each other "does it have the Windows 95
logo"?
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:55:52 -0500
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:35:24 GMT, Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sandman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Barris
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > Stop playing games. You said NeXTStep (AKA OPENSTEP/Mach) uses a BSD
>> > > kernel. It does not. It uses the Mach kernel. It does use BSD
>> > > Utilities just like OS X. In fact OS X is just that, NeXT with a
>> > > candy
>> > > colored shell.
>> >
>> > NeXT couldn't run MS Office, or Adobe Photoshop.
>>
>> And niether can MacOSX as of yet. It does do it in a emulated
>> environment,
>> something easily achieved on the NeXT platofrm aswell.
>
>
> But even NeXT never got full blown commitment from big vendors like
>MS and Adobe. Getting them to do Carbonized apps (example, Mac Office
>2001) is a political victory, being able to run their old ones
>transparently is a technical one. Apple has both, NeXT had neither.
Except that Apple *doesn't* have both - Office 2001 is a pure 9.04 app
- not Carbon.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
