Linux-Advocacy Digest #128, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 17:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Yannick")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: Windows+Linux=True
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:15:31 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:46:29 GMT, Yannick wrote:
> >
>
> >Does RPM have an automatic repair functionality (not that useful, of
course,
> >but still...) ?
>
> It has a "verify" option. If something's hosed, you can re-install the
> files.
Yes, I think that corresponds to the option found, in particular, in Office
2000 programs
"help" menu.
MSI also have a special feature on those points that launch an application
(start menu shortcuts, for instance, and perhaps also COM entries in the
registries, although I'm not sure about the latter) : Imagine the Word
directory has been wiped out, when you select "Word" in the start menu, it
will detect the files are missing and restore them from the MSI package.
This, of course, can be considered not useful (what with admins installing
the programs and setting up proper securities). But it has some use on those
case when you install some software yourself and don't want to take the time
to set up the permissions so as to prevent yourself from removing the
program, in that case the auto repair might come useful, although this is
only comfort.
>
> > and also that possibility to advertise optional
> >functionality with on-demand installation ? And the package
transformations,
> >allowing multiple package customizations while reducing HD space ?
>
> I don't know what you mean by the above.
Since I don't know which one you refer to, I'll detail both :
- on-demand installation lets you install some menu options, shortcuts,
etc... referring to elements that are not really installed until you invoke
them. This is a way of "advertising" the possible functionality of the
application while saving disk space for those you do not invoke.
- package transformations. The goal here is to customize the package. Take
office, for instance. By default, the MSI package will ask you questions
(interactive installation) about what you want to install. Now suppose
you're the sysadmin. You want to decide what elements are needed for each
category of users, and perform an automatic installation of those packages.
For each category of users, you build a transformation of the MSI package
describing the actual setup options. This transformation is not a new
package, it really is the definition of the transformation : when you
install with the transformation, it uses the original MSI package. Thus, if
you have ten different categories of users with different needs, you'll only
have one big MSI file and ten much smaller files describing the
tranformations.
Now you set up everything so that the install starts when your users log off
on friday evening and shutdown their machines after completion.
(All the information here is based on a presentation of MSI package and a
discussion with a sysadmin some time ago. I hope I have not made mistakes,
they shouldn't be big anyway).
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:15:59 +0100
> > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
tropical
> > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
> > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
> > >
> > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
> > >
> > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it since
they
> > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
> >
> > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
> > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
> > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
> >
> > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
> > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
> > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
> > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
> > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
> > to it.
>
> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
>
> Name ..just...one.
My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
> > For example, human beings possess the power to change the climate in
> > a matter of days; if there was a full scale nuclear war, winter
> > would almost certainly follow within days and last for years.
>
> When have we done this?
Noone's saying we have.
>
>
> >
> > It's the same problem with genetic engineering. A migration of genes
> > from the Arctic Char to the tomato can happen; however, normally
> > that would take several million years. We managed to do it in less
> > than ten. The rapid change in the genome means that other species
> > that are parasitical/symbiotic/competitive with the tomato only have
> > a very short period of time to adjust, if they need to.
>
> That is not CLIMATE, fool.
It's an example to illustrate how humans can enact change over a vastly
shorter timespan than would have normally occurred.
>
> >
> > Now, let's suppose that someone makes an alteration to wheat that
> > makes it very successful. The new more successful wheat crowds out
> > the older varieties quickly because it is far more able to survive
> > in its niche. However, there's one problem with this imaginary
> > wheat; the change has also rendered it inedible to humans. What do
> > you do then?
> >
> > Jack
> > Montreal PQ
> > CANADA
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
What the hell are you trying to prove? Your overly long signature seems to
suggest you have a problem with insecurity.
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:07:51 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XXkv5.355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> aaa...c'mon! command line interfaces is much harder to learn than a GUI
> based one...
> (altough i have to admit...i really like the Bash shell in Linux,
specially
> the tab-completion)
>
> /IL
>
> > Which brings up the eternal question: who determines of a given
interface
> > is easy to use or not? Why do people keep insisting that a graphical
user
> > interface in the style of Windows or MacOS is easy to use and the
command
> > line is not user friendly? There are so many things that are easy from
> the
> > command line but so difficult from the graphical user interface.
> >
> >
>
>
Here is an example that I have used, reused, and starting to abuse.
Consider this situtation: You have a directory
/usr/share/corporate/documents filled with a large number of compressed text
files, your boss (user name boss, hostname bigboy.corpnet) wants you to
extract all the word from those files put them on sepperate lines, sort
them, no words duplicates, put the resulting wordlist file in the shared
directory /usr/share/dictionary/corporate with the name all.words, email him
a copy of the wordlist, the wordlist also need to contain all the words in
compressed wordlist files now in /usr/share/dictionary.
Here is a single line command for unix that would do it:
zcat /usr/share/corporate/documents/* /usr/share/dictionary/* |
words | sort | uniq |
tee /usr/share/dictionary/corporate/all.words |
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Here is the new dictionary"
If you don't want to wait for the command line to finish you could queue it
as a batch job by entering.
echo '
zcat /usr/share/corporate/documents/* /usr/share/dictionary/* |
words | sort | uniq |
tee /usr/share/dictionary/corporate/all.words |
mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s "Here is the new dictionary"
' | batch
How would you do this task as simply and quickly in a GUI environment?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:19:47 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00091516520001.03276@pc03...
> El vie, 15 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> If you want me to act as a representative, contact me in the ways
> >mentioned
> >> in the page. This is all personal, here in this group.
> >
> >What do you mean by "This is all personal, here in this group"?
>
> That all I write is personal, not in behalf of KDE.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Has this always been you position? When you join into a user-to-user
discussion do you enter it as just another user? Or do you tend to still
handle youself as more than just another user in those situations?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: 15 Sep 2000 16:28:00 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>alt.flame.niggers removed from followups.
>
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on 3 Sep 2000 19:19:36 -0500
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Its' Labar day now and every Commy-loving Lie-nux Commy and his
>>dog that cappitollists paid for think's that working peopal bilt
>>this cuontry all by themselfs but let me teal you peepal tht they
>>coulda'nt done it without capptittallists and there monney.
>
>An interesting, if poorly-written from a techical sense, idea.
>(You do need to work on your diction, sir. No doubt others
>have pointed this out many times.)
>
>There is the possibility of consideration of the idea that Linux
>is built on a foundation which Microsoft propagated -- in other
>words, Linux is only there because Microsoft and Intel were there
>first on a piece of hardware that would otherwise have been swamped
>by the likes of Apple (which was at the time, an even more
>proprietary and closed system, albeit more user-friendly),
>Commodore Amiga, Atari, and others -- all of which were closed
>systems, with limited potential for modification by the end-user
>outside of the parameters intended by the manufacturer/developer.
>
>By contrast, the IBM PC was a relatively open system, complete
>with published source code for the BIOS! (This was back in
>about 1985 or so, perhaps.) Anyone could modify the hardware,
>and frequently did (the PC clones). Whether this was intentional
>on IBM's part or not is debatable -- most likely, it was not.
>
>However, to draw the conclusion that one must purchase Microsoft
>on such a system is a bit strange, even were the original idea
>true -- and it's not clear that it is. For starters, there was
>DR-DOS, PC-DOS, 4DOS, and a few others at one point; these were
>MS-DOS competitors. Other specialized systems may also have been
>in existence at some point -- and of course game writers could,
>and frequently did, either made their games directly bootable
>from floppy, bypassing DOS more or less completely, or contracted
>with someone to write a DOS extender (DOOM is such a game) that
>allows for certain issues within DOS, such as the conventional
>memory mess, to be ignored.
None of them were Commy except Linux.
>In an ideal world, Windows wouldn't care. As it turns out,
>Windows *does* care, and MS-DOS does, too. (See Andrew Schullman's
>work _Unauthorized Windows 95_ for proof of this admittedly
>bizarre-looking concept. Be warned that this work is laden with
>large amounts of debugging data, but it's an interesting read.)
>
>>Labar is just a commoddity like the masheans it opporates.
>>Without Cappitol it just sits thear like a stuppit hoarse or a mual.
>>People that want labarers to halve all the power want us to be like
>>country's whear poeple like to kill each other all the time,
>>like Kosovo thoas peppel are fucked up aren't thay? But hear inthe
>>US, we halve LAWS. And LAWS protect all teh smart peeple with the
>>monney from all the stuppit broots out thear that want to take it all
>>away and blow it off on hookers and beer and destroy society.
>
>Now I'm getting slightly confused. To be rather pedantic about it,
>laws are meaningless without enforcement -- but I am unaware of
>laws that protect "smart people with the money from all of the stupid
>brutes out there".
Thear are laws agenst stealing, and laws agenst murdor, and laws agenst crack-smoking.
>Laws protect everybody; they protect the "stupid
>(but hard-working) brutes" who save their money from the smart
>criminals who might take it, too. (Not that criminals are all
>that intelligent, by and large; the smart ones don't get caught,
>but the even smarter individuals don't have to commit crimes,
>since they would be in demand and get paid top dollar in
>legitimate enterprises.)
>
>At least, they're supposed to. I don't know if they're entirely
>successful.
If their not succesfull, then their not vary smart.
>(I will also note, as an aside, that there are
>certain laws that do in fact protect very specific individuals,
>and are carefully written so as not to call them out by name.
>I do not care for these laws, myself -- but they're there.)
>
>As for how Linux fits into all this? I'm not sure. Linux is
>a labor of love, that much is clear -- that might account for
>its higher quality initially; however, now that it's become
>a corporate interest as well (IBM, for starters, supports Linux now),
>it's quite possible to get higher quality yet. That might sound
>strange, but IBM's good at pickiness, and they also know that
>anyone else can propose a patch as well to this very open system,
>so aren't about to slip in anything stupid, such as an intentional
>crash if one of their competitors' cards is put into a machine.
>At least, not if they want to continue existing as a
>hard-driving law-abiding corporation. (And they've learned
>their lesson, too -- IBM had their day in court regarding
>certain monopolistic practices of their own regarding mainframes,
>if I'm not totally mistaken.)
>
>Microsoft, by contrast, could hide mountains of crap in their
>proprietary system.
Why would thay? It would caust them monney.
>While hackers can find them (hex dumps
>aren't that hard to generate, even if they are now illegal under
>new "anti-reverse-engineering" laws), it's clear that Joe
>User isn't going to look very hard, but might trip over one
>by accident. (Or on purpose; there are people out there who
>hunt for "easter eggs" -- and find them!)
>>
>>If it wasant' for capitlists, you'd all still be living on farm's,
>>working 20 ours a day and then you'd half to fite off the primait
>>Indions the other for hours and you think that 12 is bad?
>
>"Primate Indians"?
Munky poepal with bo's and arro;s that shoot cappitolists.
>
>The Native Americans will probably hotly dispute that -- and I
>certainly hope that they do so! (I am not Native American, myself.)
>
>Sheesh.
>
>>And the
>>governmant wouldnt of got rid of the indions withotu cappitol
>>either they wood of just let them run all over the plaice and
>>we'd halve a MESS today but the capittolists said NO
>>THEAS STUPPIT INDIONS ARE CAUSTING US MONNY GET RID OF THEM RITE NOW!
>
>Um, you're getting *really* confusing here. Capitalists aren't
>supposed to lean on their government; their primary concern
>is selling in a relatively free and open marketplace.
But they nead LAWS or they won't be abal to sell annything it'll all get stolen. So
you ca'nt have
annarky you half to have governmant.
>To suggest that capitalists leaned on the US government to
>"get rid of the Indians" is wildly simplifying what was
>(and still is) a highly complex and dynamic situation
>(and, in the past, a bloody one).
>
>One would hope that in the Naughties [*] that we've progressed
>beyond simplistic "cowboys and Indians" nonsense. (Note that
>"cowboys" have more or less disappeared from the lexicon too;
>"ranch managers" or "ranch employees" might be a substitute.
>Also, the homestead is now more or less the corporate farm,
>and Native Americans don't sit around in reservations any more, they
>work and play with the rest of us. Signs of the times, I guess.)
>>
>>Commy union's are gettign what they want now becoze thear is a
>>labar shortadge (we halvent replaced it all with tecknollogy yet),
>>and all they reelly do is make everyboddy pour even the workors.
>
>It is not clear that unions haven't outlived their usefulness.
>However, they were originally formed to seek redress for the
>abuses of capitalists, or perhaps to counterbalance the monopolistic
>employers with some monopsony of their own -- resulting in higher
>wages for their members, much like a monopoly can raise their
>prices for selling their product.
>
>Of course, there are issues with higher wages -- for starters, they
>raise the cost of creating the product, which gets passed on
>in part to the consumer (the rest gets eaten by the corporation).
>
>>They make company's worhtless and noboddy want's to by there stalk
>>so thay half to sell it real cheap. We half to get rid of union's
>>and there stupit dimmands for higher wages and job securety.
>
>"Stupid demands"? Why are they stupid?
They caust monney, whitch make's company's stalk drop like a rock.
>
>>Lixnu is getting stronger to, because company's don't realize how
>>mutch munny their losing when they don't run Windows.
>Perhaps it's because the CEO's are realizing how much money
>they are losing when they DO run Windows --
All the CEO's that are lissening to Linux zellates now are going out of bisness.
>after all, a
>server that blue-screens doesn't serve too well! (It's not
>too clear to me that a BSOD can be rebooted from after a
>set time, either, although watchdog cards could presumably
>be installed if necessary.)
Its' not clear that a Kernal Panic can be rebooted from ether.
>>They halve so mutch monny they don't know what to due with
>>it, so they make all there workors diddle around with Linux
>>all day, and they make Microsoft's stalk go down the toob,
>>wich makes everyboddy lose monny, because who doesant own
>>Microsoft stalk except Linux zellots and those stupit
>>peopel at McDonnalds that always get the order rong.
>
>You want fries with that mangled sentence? :-)
>
>As for corporations having so much money to throw around learning
>a new OS -- let me suggest that there are a fair number of
>dotcoms (I am currently employed at one) who want to ensure that
>their hardware and their employees (and their money!) are doing
>their very best. One would hope that Linux is sufficiently
>polished (it's getting there) so as to allow employees to get
>their actual work done, be it development in C++, Java, or
>whatever, without worrying about whether their operating system
>is going to Bite the Big One.
Keap hoping. Linux isan't their yet. Linux make's you eddit
/etc/rc.d/netstat/rc.inittab or it'll stop working.
>
>It also helps that the OS scales nicely from a tiny 386
>to a gigantic IBM S/390, with a lot of systems in between.
>Can Microsoft do that?
Linux can't even scail to a dual-processer Pentium III with a Radeon 64MB DDR video
card. Windows beats the
pant's off Linux on that kind of a system.
>And there's a lot of Unix code out there, that can be readily
>ported to Linux, and vice versa. (Linux code could be ported
>to NT, as well -- but it takes quite a bit more work; NT code
>can be ported to Linux, but that takes even more work, and a
>lot of supporting libraries as well.)
All the GOOD code is for Windows.
>>Meanwhile, the CommyLinux CommyVirus is gettign put
>>in place, and pretty soon we'll all half to surrendor
>>to the Commy's because if we don't our computors will
>>crash and itl'l be like Y2K with no ellectrissitty and
>>all that Capitol has done for uss wil be destroyed.
>
>You're seriously suggesting that Microsoft is a better solution
>for crashes than Linux?
Yes.
>While I do have some worry about the 2038 problem (time_t values
>aren't supposed to be negative), that's a ways off, and by then
>we'll hopefully all be 64-bit, anyway.
>
>Linux is quite ready for 64-bit -- it's running on Alphas now
>without any trouble. Microsoft Windows NT, by contrast, has to
>run in a special 32-bit mode, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>And from what I've seen of the base Windows API, I'm not all
>that hopeful. (Side point: Windows still can't properly display
>timestamps from future-time files -- a minor issue if one's
>network has clock skew.)
>
>[*] I've yet to see a better term for years ending in double-zero --
> certain Hanna-Barbera cartoons such as Dick Dastardly in
> "Wacky Racers" notwithstanding. :-)
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misspelling here
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:28:28 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> I have not used Internet Explorer that much either. My perfered http client
> is Lynx. It does use the common unix key sequence "/" for that purpose.
> However, since it is not a graphical user interface program, there is no
> menu or dialog box to see the name of the function each time you use it.
Well, it's not difficult to find in lynx. It's even called "search" as
opposed to Netscape "find". "Search" is the term Roberto used. Here are the
last three lines from lynx:
-- press space for next page --
Arrow keys: Up and Down to move. Right to follow a link; Left to go back.
H)elp O)ptions P)rint G)o M)ain screen Q)uit /=search [delete]=history list
^^^^^^^
Gary
------------------------------
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: 15 Sep 2000 20:30:10 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 09:44:25 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>As an offical representative you are expected to be (according to the page
>"authors of articles about the KDE project, interview partners or speakers,
>please contact a representative listed below. "
It doesn't say to contact them in COLA. You should assume that people
speaking in COLA are speaking for themselves and not as representatives
of their companies, or groups that they are affiliated with.
>being asked questioning about KDE. In this light none of the questioning
>was out-of-line
It's only out of line if you expect him to represent KDE in this forum.
> and expecting complete and accurate answers from you is not
>unreasonable.
In a different context, it's certainly reasonable.
What is not reasonable is expecting him to provide the answers in an
advocacy forum to spare you from doing your own research in some sort
of argumentative pissing contest.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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 16:00:37 -0500
Rob Barris 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.
NeXT was heavily backed by Adobe. It's onscreen and print redering
engines were all Postscript. The "PDF"-based 2D graphics in OSX are
just that warmed over and renamed to buzz. So far I'f not found that
Office 2001 is Carbonized. I've heard it both ways right in this
group. Care to shed some light on whether it will be Carbon or
Classic? I don't consider running classic apps to be anywhere near
seamless from what I've seen. Looks more like the hacks that OS/2 did
to run Windows apps.
> > > 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.
What does the license have to do with the technology. NeXT used
Postscript for 2D onscreen and print rendering years ago. I think the
licenses have changed, not the technology.
> 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.
Apple made a soft-Mac type emulator (Classic), an API abstraction layer
/ virtual machine (Carbon), added QuickTime and some nice new purty
cullers n stuff.
The native API remains NeXT (Cocoa) and includes EOF, PDO and
WebObjects. The 2D rendering is still Postscript (no matter what you
call it), it's still Mach and BSD, etc.
It's more like NEXTSTEP AKA OPENSTEP/Mach "V" than Mac OS X. I wonder
how much sooner Mac users would have had this and how much farther ahead
they would be a Jobs were never forced out? MacOS is dead. Long live
OS X!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
