Linux-Advocacy Digest #144, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea (Jim Broughton)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:21:06 GMT
alt.flame.niggers removed from newsgroups.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 15 Sep 2000 16:28:00 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
I'm not sure how you mean the term "communist", although it's clear
that Linux code is owned by everyone and is not saleable -- which
means it's owned by no one. (In practice that's not quite true;
Linus and one of his cohorts -- I forget his name -- track and
manage the patches that come in for the Linux kernel proper.
In a very real sense, they own the process, and the code, but
are definitely performing a community service (commune and community
being two words derived from the same root) by making it available
to everyone else, and of course others are free to use the code
pretty much as they see fit, within the limitations of the LGPL,
which AFAIK are less restrictive than those of the GPL.)
>
>>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.
So from whom is Linus Torvalds stealing? Whom is he killing?
As for crack-smoking, I don't see the relevance.
>
>>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.
True.
>
>>(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.
Unknown, really. However, "easter egg" hunts have been known
for quite some time -- the Amiga had one or two in its system;
Excel has or had a DOOM-like flight simulator buried within
its code. There are probably a few others -- maybe a lot of others.
I suspect these sort of things are mostly an artifact of the egos
involved in creating the system; after all, it's kinda fun to
know that one has been involved in the creation of something. :-)
On a more sinister note -- the IE4 installation, back in 1997 (98?),
changed a large number of files and the hehavior of the entire system.
(The beta even changed the number of mouse clicks for launching icons
from the desktop from 2 to 1! That quickly got changed back in the
final version...). Now, it's fairly obvious that, were one dependent
on the old behavior, that the new behavior of the system icons, just
because of this install, may differ -- and that may be detrimental to
someone using the published DLL entry points -- assuming there were
any -- of the replaced items.
One might call this "a monster egg". :-)
>
>>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.
Actually, I think the Indians of old were mostly targetting
homesteaders/settlers, defending their lands. But we digress.
(As for "munky", I can think of two or three replacements for that
term, none of which are particularly complimentary to Native Americans.
However, the precise meaning eludes me.)
>
>>
>>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.
True, although how much government is an interesting question in itself.
It may ultimately depend on each and everyone's integrity in conducting
their affairs; if no one stole, the police wouldn't need to enforce
laws against stealing, for example.
Of course, human beings being what they are (introspection is but
one of the qualities of intelligence!), theft will occur, should
circumstances permit.
Are you suggesting that the proliferation of Linux is thievery
against Microsoft? That would indeed be an interesting supposition,
although it's far from clear whom Microsoft should sue -- perhaps
Linus Torvalds, for being the instigator, with a number of co-conspirators,
as many as they can identify -- I'm probably one of them in fact,
although my contributions so far have been miniscule and confined to
the WinE project. (Perhaps Microsoft should sue WinE, FreeDOS,
and Freedows as well.)
>
>>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.
The balance between labor and management is an old one; the ideal labor
world is probably one where they do a minimum of labor for a
maximum of pay -- in other words, paying lots for doing nothing, a
highly communistic enterprise. By contrast, the ideal management world
might be one where there are no costs at all and things magically get
done and they make pots of money (not unlike leprechauns, I guess :-) ).
Between these two admittedly ridiculous extremes, one gets the current
situation -- and the situation may vary between areas, as well; consider
that common laborers, such as those loading things onto and off trucks,
are highly unionized, whereas software development engineeers, to my
knowledge, have yet to form any sort of union.
>
>>
>>>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.
Perhaps you can detail this set of CEO's who have gone out of
business?
I'm curious.
>
>>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.
Correct, for a standard kernel, AFAIK.
>
>>>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.
That particular pathname doesn't exist. However, it's clear
that the philosophy of Linux -- lots of little text files -- may
be confusing to some people; Windows has a gigantic monolithic
registry which is apparently much more comforting (since it's
well-hidden and accessible only by a certain protocol) to
certain minds. (Note that Windows 3.1 had lots of .INI files of its own.)
It's also improving in the Linux world, as the text files almost
always accept comments, which makes the files self-documenting.
>
>>
>>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.
Correct, as far as I know, although it might be just because
of the video card (there are no intrinsic issues I know of
regarding the processors). I am not familiar with the Radeon DDR card,
but it's highly likely that XFree86 has problems with it, assuming
it's a brand-new card. Windows of course would have no difficulties
at all -- maybe; I've heard horror stories about Win98.
>
>>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.
Also correct, for certain values of "good". :-)
A lot of utilities have been written for both systems; many of them
are highly useful, many of them are junk, many of them are in between.
It's clear the Windows ones are far more popular, because Windows is
far more popular (this doesn't mean it's better, just far more popular).
>
>>>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.
I see; interesting. Perhaps other users can document their
opinions thereon; it's clear that Linux will simply not work
on certain equipment, however, whereas Windows can, simply because
Windows has the drivers and Linux does not. (Note that the console
driver of Linux uses established VGA standards; the X server is
probably the one you're having trouble with, which means one gets
text, but no graphics.)
Contrariwise, Linux can function on equipment that Windows cannot
(IBM's S/390, for one; Amiga, for another).
I will also note that the Blue Screen Of Death on an NT box throws
up a large amount of information, whereas a Linux kernel panic
merely throws up a cryptic message ("Splunge!" is actually in
the source). However, it's not clear house useful the BSOD is
(I'm not an NT kernel developer, after all!), whereas panic()s in
Linux are at least searchable within the kernel source code, as a
last resort; usually, it's pretty obvious, though.
The Windows95 BSOD (I don't have anything newer) is nearly useless.
At best, one might glean an address.
>
>>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
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 20:24:24 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:11:53 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> I guess you could write an "openfile" command that does this using the
>> existing functionality. The reason why no one's written such a thing is
>> more lack of interest than anyone else.
>
>Which is quite telling. But it's not a big surprise that programmers
>wouldn't be interested in helping users, even if they are (technically,
>not mentally) users themselves.
No no no ... you're just not getting it. I mean that there is a lack of
interest among both users and developers. If there was a lot of interest
in this from users, someone would implement it.
It would not be that hard, since the infrastructure to do it already exists.
>And writing an "openfile" command would not be sufficient for
>consistency. The shell would still treat "executable" and "non-
>executable" files in completely different ways for no justifiable
>reason whatsoever.
There is a perfectly good reason -- one type is meant to be executed
and one type isn't.
You don't want the shell "handling" file types unless it is explicitly
told to do so. THis would lead to shell scripts breaking in a million
places.
>There is no conceptual reason between executing a program
>and opening a file.
What do you mean by "opening a file" ?
> In both cases, the shell is ordered to process
>an object so it must 1) identify the object type, and 2) find the
>associated process.
You do not want one process running for every file type. This would
burn a lot of resources. If you wanted to use a server-like architecture,
you would need something like inetd so that you don't have processes
running that are not doing anything ( besides eating memory ).
But this would be a major security liability, and an unnecessary one.
Let's try to zero in on what you're talking about here though -- I
take it that you want a shell that handles ./file by opening it with
the right program ? You'd need to design a new shell if you wanted
to do this.
> In some OSes, the creation of a process
>from a program is done through a separate server process
>and the identity between opening and execution is obvious.
OSes such as ... ?
>> The people who care about file
>> associations usually prefer to do this kind of thing via a GUI.
>> And the problem has been addressed at the GUI level.
>
>You wish.
What do you mean ? How is the above false ?
>> Well if that's what you want, just don't close the program ( duh ! ). I
>> don't see the benefit of forcing the user to leave the program open.
>
>That's because you've never heard of Persistence before.
Yes, I have. I just don't see why it's necessary or even useful in this
context.
>> Well yes, there is. Even a web server typically starts a seperate process
>> for every user. There is no clear benefit to running everything in a single
>> process.
>
>There is in running everything in a single *task*. A single input queue for
>one. And instead of creating a new process for each user you can create
>a new thread instead.
(1) What is the advantage of this ?
(2) Again, this is an enormous security hazard.
> The important thing is that users don't have to know
>anything about starting processes; whether a new process is actually
>started is an implementation detail completely invisible to the user.
I don't see how you have to understand anything about "processes" to
use KDE, for example.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Overclocking" Is A Bad Idea
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:27:46 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Semiconductor chips are designed and tested to have safety
> : margins in voltage, temperature, clock rate, etc. Running
> : a chip beyond its specifications throws the margins away,
> : so that changes in any of those parameters may cause failure.
>
> I would add that CPU is often *not* the performance bottleneck for
> common tasks (although it may be in certain situations). Overclocking
> even by a significant amount will not help performance measurably
> except for CPU-bound tasks, and, as Mark pointed out, it increases the
> risk of temporary or permanent system failure.
>
> People who really know what they're doing, and know the risks, can
> sometimes benefit from slight overclocking, but the average user
> should definitely NOT try this. Getting more RAM, building a leaner
> kernel, and eliminating unnecessary daemons will give far more
> performance "bang for the buck" for a pretty substantial majority of
> people.
>
> Joe
Overclocking in an of ifself is not BAD. If done properly with the
correct selected hardware overclocking can be a viable solution to
an otherwise expensive upgrade. With the newer pentium III coppermine
chips overclocking is a very reasonably easy thing to accomplish.
You need a motherboard capable of very small incremental core voltage
increases and decent Front Side Bus speed increases. An Intel BX chipset
is also highly disirable. A good AGP graphics card that can handle higher
clock rates is also a must. The most limitig factor in all of this is your
memory sticks. PC100 SDRAM is an iffy thing as some can and some cant be pushed.
PC133 is the ideal. (wish I had some of them). Anyway I currently have
a pentium III 550 overclocked to 682 this is with a core voltage increase of
1/10 of a volt and an FSB of 124. It runs rock solid and has been for over
6 months.
I will admit that OLDER hardware is rife with problems in overclocking
ability while NEWER hardware is much more overclocking friendly. I would
also point out that the HIGH end pentium III chips are already maxed out
as they come from the factory (900 mhz or higher). The ideal overclocking
pentium III coppermine chips are the 550 600 and 650.
We gamers just love to push our machines to the max to get better gameing
performance. The side effect is that it works with linux and results in a much
better X windows performance. Also linux games receive the same benefit as their
windows counterparts.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 20:36:06 GMT
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:43 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> Cut the nonsense. Linux ( in particular, KDE ) has file associations,
>> and if you actually used Linux, you would know that.
>
>Only problem is that I don't use KDE, and *KDE* having file
>associations is not the same thing as Linux having them.
It's the GUI's responsibility to handle these associations IMO.
I don't see how Windows has a different policy. Does it have
a command shell from which you can open files ? ( Let's momentarily
forget that the dos shell is almost unusable ... )
KDE is not the only GUI that has this. GNOME does also IIRC. If you want
to use a GUI with very limited functionality, then go ahead and do so,
but if you want to do that, don't complain about the limited functionality.
> I should
>be able to run a file in the shell without specifying any program
>so long as it has only one association. And nothing KDE does
>can change the fact that I can't.
See the manpages for "magic" and "file". The fact that there doesn't
exist a command shell that automatically handles file types is due to the
fact that no one seems to want one. It's not a design limitation.
>> The only users who are "lacking control" are the ones too lazy or
>> stupid to learn how to use the features provided.
>
>The only thing you're proving is that programmers do indeed
>hate users. You certainly seem to.
You're paranoia is misplaced. What is true is that programmers do not
react positively when users bash them for writing free software.
Especially when they've just had a bad day ( which I had when I wrote
that ).
>Here's a clue, shitehead; users have better things to do than
>finding all the arcane, bizarre and arbitrary ways to do what
>should be obvious and automatic. MIME types? Kfm? Give
>me a fucking break.
On a machine that has KDE or GNOME installed ( most distributions ), it's
"obvious and automatic".
>> If I refuse to learn how to do file association under Windows, it doesn't
>> work very well there either.
>
>Wrong. When you install applications, they inevitably try to
>associate themselves with certain file types.
These are built into the GUI system, not the kernel. It's the GUI's
responsibility to implement this stuff. That's why you can't "execute"
a word document from dos and have it open word.
There are also GUIs that can and do associate file types for Linux. If
you're not using one of them, well that's your choice, but it definitely
is a conscious choice since all the distributions I know of install
KDE or GNOME by default.
> When you open
>a file of an unknown type, Windows associates that file with
>the application you choose. There is no way to avoid associa-
>tions in Windows without jumping through a lot of hoops. I
>haven't even seen associations in Unix.
You haven't looked very hard. In KDE, files are automatically opened
with the correct program. You can right click and modify the types
if you like. I believe GNOME has the same kind of functionality.
There is no such functionality in the command shell -- again, I
suspect that this is because no one cares. You are the first
person I've heard dream up such a thing, and I've been hanging
around several Linux forums ( user and developer ) for the last
three years or so.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
