Linux-Advocacy Digest #276, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Chris Wenham)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:04:27 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>IMO, UNIX is more weakly typed than your system. You really can open a
> binary in a text editor if you want to. So it doesn't matter if the user
> does something wierd with an "extension". However, in your system it
> does.
No, it fucking *DOESN'T*. And if you think weak typing is
irrelevant then you don't understand *anything* about the
subject under discussion.
If an object has name extension ".photo" then it *MAY* be
opened with *ANYTHING* the user chooses. But if he types
into the shell
$vacation.photo
he gets a list of relevant programs, like you get with tab completion:
zgv xv gimp
and if there is only one option then it fills it out on the command
line and runs it.
In a GUI, a user can STILL drag and drop ANYTHING they
fucking want onto ANYTHING else, and if the application
developer doesn't deserve to be tortured slowly then the
application *will* try to process the object as valid input. It
may fail and that's All Right. What name extensions *do*
change is the icon displayed and what happens upon double-
clicking.
But I've explained all this before, you just thought it was
"irrelevant" and now you come up with this stupid idiotic
nonsense about how you can't open a file you want with
the application you want in a weakly typed system. Have
you ever fucking used a weakly typed programming
language?? Then don't you see the fucking relevance of
the fact that in such a language I can name my variable
anOrderedCollection and it could contain a string and
be processed *AS* a string if I wanted it to?? It's bad
PRACTICE, just like it's bad practice to name a text
file with the extension ".photo"!!
> >There is absolutely NO legitimate reason to be able to write
> >timestamps!
>
> I might want to write the modification time. I can do it manually ( by
> changing the file and changing it back ) anyway.
<rolleyes> This is so fucking stupid.
How the hell are you going to change a timestamp to "last year"
without physical access to the server on the other side of the
planet or any kind of access to the layer under the filesystem??
Being able to set a timestamp to NOW is *NOT* the same thing
as being able to write a timestamp. Fuck, THINK for a second!
> >MUST be read-only! The same goes for all other timestamps;
> >you have to make them read-only in order to guarantee they
> >have valid data.
>
> Nope. There's no reason not to allow writes to modification time.
<sneer> Of course there is, but you haven't read what I wrote.
> Ha ! THere's a flaw already. If you've been thinking about it for
> three years, and still haven't been able to cough up anything of
> merit, then that's a flaw in itself...
And I'm supposed to take your advice that "just go out and code"
is some kind of sane advice because you know so *very* much
about design?
> > If you're a programmer
> >and you make such an assumption about the OS then you deserve
> >to be flogged.
>
> It's not like it's impossible to have a scripting language without
> building it into the kernel.
It's just inconsistent. And scripting *isn't* good enough.
> >1) make it work,
>
> Which means avoid error prone languages
Which means write in a high level language that
lets you be productive.
> >2) make it correct,
>
> Which means avoid error prone languages
Which means write in a high level language that
lets you express the design cleanly and doesn't
bog you down in minutae and irrelevancies that
bloat code and just multiply the chance of making
an error.
> >3) make it fast.
>
> Which means pretty much rules out smalltalk.
You're such a fuckhead. You're just hyping C++ for some insane
reason. Not everyone likes nor needs type safety, just like not
everyone needs formal methods! Or are you going to say that
EVERYONE should prove their software in the lambda calculus??
> > systematically de-OO the code, or write
>
> If you're going to de-OO the code and forgoe the benefits of OO, why
> bother using smalltalk in the first place ?
Because if de-OOing code can be done /systematically/ then it can
be /automated/ so I'll never have to actually deal with non-OO code
at all.
And writing in a high-level OO language means that the code is
written faster and more likely to be correct. But you don't care about
that because you have "type safety" to catch a MINISCULE and
INSIGNIFICANT class of errors for you!
------------------------------
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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:08:50 -0000
Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : It's a license; get over it. All licenses restrict your rights and/or
: : access to code in some fashion.
:
: Surely not. What about a license that says:
:
: ``This program - and its source code - are hereby placed in the public
: domain.
:
: This means you can do whatever you like with them.
:
: Modification, redistribution, commercial use, passing the code off as
: your own - it's all fine by me.''
:
: ?
That's not a license, it's a declaration. It's also a bit risky, in
the sue-happy USA.
--
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:11:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, James Stutts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:17:27 -0500
<8q6ls3$35m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8q5dhg$1sst$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>>
>> >> Sounds like the difference between W2K and W98 are all
>> >> "beneath the hood".
>> >> WHich means the Win GUI still sucks the bowel movements of a flyblown
>> >> carcass.
>>
>> > That must explain why so many window managers attempt to replicate it.
>>
>> "So many" being two. That sure is alot.
>>
>
>Out of how many?
Well, lessee.
There's twm -- this is about as basic as it can get. (Personal
opinion: yuck. But it has a light footprint. :-) )
There's uwm, if it's still around. (There may even be two. I
remember the old one, which used to be part of the X source code.)
There's fvwm, which I use.
There's fvwm95-2, which is one of the ones that replicates Win95.
There's KDE's window manager (I don't know what its name is --
kdmdesktop? kdm? kde?). That replicates Win95's wm, to some extent.
There's gnome-wm. That also replicates Win95's wm, to some extent.
There's Enlightenment.
There's gwm, if that's still around.
There's olwm and olvwm. I don't seem to have them on my system, but
these are OpenLook holdovers, and probably still available.
That's 3 out of 8, and I can't say I've listed all of them. (3 out of 5,
if one discards the "old" ones.)
Whether the replication of an item indicates it's junk or not is
not clear to me, but it does indicate that those who are familiar
with Win95 will probably be familiar with those that do replicate,
and they can then tweak things later, if they're so inclined.
The Win32 protocol is junk, though. :-) (Totally different issue.)
>
>JCS
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 10:58:46 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Sep 2000 19:27:25 +1100,
J.C., in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:00:57 -0500, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"J.C." wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:44:12 -0500, James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> ><snip>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Sounds like the difference between W2K and W98 are all "beneath the hood".
>>> >> WHich means the Win GUI still sucks the bowel movements of a flyblown
>>> >> carcass.
>>> >
>>> >That must explain why so many window managers attempt to replicate it.
>>>
>>> Suppose it must be the familiarity thing (fvwm95 for example.)
>>
>>But why? So many anti-Microsoft folks are quick to tell you how
>>abhorrent the Windows interface is. Familiar or not it should not be
>>replicated if they feel it that bad.
>
>Windows users who use linux and like the Windows interface == fvwm95 install
>
>Windows users who use linux and _don't_ like the Windows interface == _no_
>fvwm install
>
>Could it be any clearer?
>
>
>--
I am not a fan of the windows UI, I use Windowmaker, it's a lot
diff from the Win9X paradigm. It's nce to have a choice :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:27:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 19 Sep 2000 23:30:12 GMT
<8q8su4$mce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15 Sep 2000 23:32:09 GMT:
>:>
>:>Irrelevant, since Windows copied the start menu idea from X windows'
>:>root menu in the first place, and it copied the taskbar idea from
>:>the iconbox available with so many X window managers.
>:>
>
>: Uh...pedant point, X doesn't *have* a root menu; that's
>: a function of the window manager the user is currently running.
>: The X Windows System proper might have an example window manager
>: (I'd have to look), but doesn't require it for operation, although
>: from the user's point of view it might look very crippled
>: as windows would not be movable under user control.
>
>True, but I have yet to encounter an X window manager that
>*didn't* have such a menu.
Twm's "start menu" -- actually its desktop menu -- doesn't start
from the bottom icon bar. Neither does fvwm's (as opposed to
fvwm95's).
I am using HP-UX here at work and its window manager doesn't really
have a start menu, either -- although it does have a number of inset
triangles in its icon bar (at the bottom) which, when pressed, pop
up little menus of their own, as opposed to the one big menu from
MS Windows' "Start" button.
>Technically, X windows can't
>resize windows either without a window manager, but I wouldn't
>go around saying "X can't resize windows". The window manager
>is sort of assumed to be included when you say "X windows"
>(note I didn't say "X server".)
Actually, X can easily resize windows without a window manager.
Look at XMoveResizeWindow() and XResizeWindow(). :-) Of course,
these are usually called -- at least at the top level -- from
a program or from the window manager. A program can also request
its windows be placed in a certain fashion using XSetWMNormalHints()
or XSetWMProperties(); four of the hints are the (x,y) position
and the width and height of the window. The window manager
will get an XPropertyEvent, XResizeRequestEvent, or
XConfigureRequestEvent, and deal with it as it sees fit.
(Note that "the" window manager is a bit of a misnomer. While
a server can have at most one window manager running at a time
(X has an interlock on the root window to prevent confusion :-) ),
there's no reason a system can't have multiple window managers installed,
with the user able to switch between them. Most users probably don't
bother, though.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:36:23 GMT
>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, my intellectual argument against using Macs is that they are largely
> unsupported, proprietary oddities far from the mainstream of the real
> computer world. Apple product users are the hermits of the 21st Century.
That's not an argument, intellectual or otherwise. That's an opinion.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:37:04 GMT
References trimmed back a bit.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:15:07 GMT
<vidy5.31222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Marty writes:
>
>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
>Where did that come from, Marty?
>
>>> Marty writes:
>
>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
>You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
>>>>> Marty writes:
>
>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>
>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>
>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>
>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>
>> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>
>You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
[rest snipped]
Can we please argue about something a little *less* important here? :-) :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- or is this alt.fan.fozzie-bear.horrible.bad.stupid.jokes
or something? :-)
------------------------------
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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:52:44 -0500
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:52:21 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>@On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:43:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>@(C Lund) wrote:
>@
>@>In article
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>
>@>> LOL. It isn't for me to prove my knowledge whenever you ask, CLund.
>@>
>@>Then don't expect anybody to think you have any knowledge.
>@
>@Sorry, CLund, but whenever you have a question on basic, basic
>@principles, you need to head on over to www.microsoft.com to educate
>@yourself.
>
> He's not asking you to educate hime--he's asking you to back up your
>claims. Take a look back at
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
>said, "Your lack of knowledge is apalling." You seem to be implying
>that he didn't know something.
Yes - that would be him admitting he doesn't know a thing about
Win2k/NT.
>In that case, it is your responsibility
>at the very least to narrow down the search criteria.
To Win2k/NT?
>Telling him to go
>to www.miscosoft.com doesn't do it, since that encompases much more than
>he asked for.
To learn about Win2k/NT? What better way than to go there? MS has a
nice page on the subject that tells all about it. I'm dead certain he
can find it if he looks.
> On the other hand, it is very interesting that you continue to refuse
>to provide proof that you know the difference.
I guess Microsoft knowledgebase articles on subjects that baffle him,
corrections to several people on how WOW/NTVDM/Win32, DHCP, NAT, and a
host of other subjects really function, all having to do with
Microsoft technologies, don't count?
>You've probably written
>more, and spent more time, refusing to provide proof, than you would
>have providing the proof. I find it somewhat humorous. Also a pretty
>good indication that either you don't know, or are afraid that the
>differences aren't good enough.
Oh, yes, please, just skip over all of the proof I've provided....
CLund (and you) only needs to read in this forum for proof.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:04:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:50:28 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:34:36 +0100, Stuart Fox
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
>>> > >support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
>>> > >bitch because it's gone.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they
>>complain
>>> > about
>>> > the support for their hardware being removed -
>>>
>>> Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
>>> that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
>>> people to try linux.
>>
>>MS has precisely fuck all to do with whether your video card is supported.
>>Your hardware manufacturer decides whether to write the driver, not MS. MS
>>may bundle the driver, but they certainly don't write them...
>
> It is infact, Microsoft's OS and device driver interface.
>
> Unless you can come up with some compelling reason why MS
> should break with the past and make all of those older Win9x
> drivers unusable, you're just making feeble excuses for M$.
It would not be unreasonable to go with a new driver model that
doesn't support VxD's, which are similar to the TSR's (and have some
of the same problems) of the bad old DOS days.
Of course, this breaks everything dependent on VxD's. Not good.
One would hope that Microsoft made a token attempt to contact the
manufacturers with a warning about this issue, as opposed to
merely plastering a warning on a webpage somewhere, deep in their
websystem.
Also, Microsoft has been making noises about merging the Win/DOS and
the WinNT lines for years now. I wish they'd just do it already,
but legacy issues keep cropping up. :-) This may be one of them,
although how one screws up a perfectly good generic 640x480x16 VGA
driver is beyond me.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert senseless bickering here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
