Linux-Advocacy Digest #343, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? (Jacques Guy)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Osugi)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Stuart Fox")
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Stuart
Fox")
Re: programming languages and design (FM)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Chris Sherlock)
Re: programming languages and design (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: programming languages and design (Jacques Guy)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:50:28 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is Linux some kind of a joke or something?
> I mean I instaled Redhat and it looks like shit. No games, no support
> for my video card. No support for my soundcard or any of my USB
> devices...
[snip]
Tim! Tim! You're back old sport! ***smooooooch***
But, but... what's happened to your wonderfull
speallign czecher? Oh... pleeze bryngue itt baq,
oled koqq, prittye pliese, wee thy scream on top?
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 06:59:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Osugi wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Not that windows cannot go for long periods without crashing - it
can,
> > especially if you turn it off regularly. Just that Linux shouldn't
> > crash with the frequency you claim (ie more than windows).
>
> I don't want to quibble, and I realise that Windows 98 can run for a
> long time (it will degrade though) but if you are turning it off
> frequently then that really isn't going for "long periods", is it?
>
I knew someone would notice that. I didn't intent for that the way it
sounds, really. What I meant was that windows would crash less during
use if you reboot it occasionally. So when a friend or coworker tells
me that windows hasn't crashed on them in two or three months, I always
ask how often they turned the computer off in that time. Invariably,
they say "oh, every day" or something similar.
But the reality seems to be that windows 9x will, as you mention,
degrade, the longer you go between reboot. When playing games in win9x,
I sometimes reboot between games if even one little thing out of the
ordinary happens, just to lessen the possibility of a mid-game crash.
Linux, as we all know, doesn't suffer from this sort of problem.
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:20:05 +0100
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39d2b0ef$0$12088$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qt3ej$rnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:39d2080d$0$26550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Plus, a lot of networks have TCPIP *and* NetBEUI flying around them.
> I'm
> > > not sure which one Windows uses if both are installed and running, but
> I'm
> > > betting that in Win95 at least it's NetBEUI.
> >
> > Windows uses whichever one is selected as the default protocol first,
and
> > then tries the other protocols if it can't open a connection with that
> > protocol.
>
> Which is which one, by default, in Win95 ? I don't have any machines here
> that old to check (in any case, all our machines are configured to only
use
> TCPIP).
I believe Win95 selects TCP/IP as default (it's been a long time since I
actually worked with it). Of course, if you install NetBEUI first, then add
TCP/IP later, NetBEUI will stay as the default until you change it.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:32:45 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > It's especially difficult for them to fix the problems when they don't
hear
> > about them. I would reckon that most problems with MS products go
> > unreported, and the machine simply gets rebooted. That's not to say
that MS
> > doesn't get to hear peoples reaction to products like Win98, I'm pretty
sure
> > they do, but if you're trying to reproduce a bug in the lab, you need to
> > pretty accurate information - not just "it froze".
>
> It's all well and good saying that people perhaps ought to report, and
> give more accurate info on bugs, but who has time? If I reported every
> time win98 needed rebooting, I'd never be off the phone!
I'm not saying it's not difficult, especially with something as crappy as
Win9x, especially considering the vast array of software that runs on it,
dll hell and other such problems. But... if you have bugs and want them
fixed, they need to be reported. MS aren't pyschic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 28 Sep 2000 07:27:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Backward compatiability is a flaw? I'm confused. If you are trying
>to imply that this is bad because C *allows* confusing code, I'd
>disagree. It's not the language's job to make code feel pleasant and
>in good form - that's the programmer's responsibility. C *allows* bad
>form, but it also *allows* good form. That's far more desirable to me
>than a system that ONLY allows "good form", since what constitutes
>"good form" is a matter of opinion, and my opinion rarely agrees
>with that of the language designers.
Well, but it's not as though these low-level features
actually allow C programmers to do powerful things. C
pales in comparison to languages like Scheme, ML, which
are not only more elegant, but also much more powerful.
>: [2] Pointers -- more rope to trip over. (Rope can also be used
>: to tie recalcitrant programs together, though, so it's a
>: flaw *and* a feature.)
>Actually, what I don't like is the fact that references have no
>syntactic indicator down in the body of the function - they look
>like normal value variables in their syntax.
>This is not to say that references are bad - they added better
>type checking, but one thing I always liked about vanilla C was
>the visual obviousness of pass-by-value vs pass-by-pointer, which
>forced the programmer to think, "This isn't really the variable
>I'm modifying, I can tell because I can see the de-reference in the
>expression, I'm actually modifying what this thing points at."
>That visual clue goes away with C++ references.
If you prefer to think at that level, it becomes extremely
difficult to build and use higher abstractions. Of course
C++ references are really just automatically-dereferenced
constant pointers so they don't help you that much. Saying
that pointers are more useful than C++ references doesn't
really tell much. You're comparing a kludge in one language
with another kludge in the same language.
>: [14] Constructors MUST declare initializer lists (the bit after the ':')
>: if they want their fields initialized! Otherwise, one gets
>: garbage, even from those classes which have a default constructor.
>: (At least, in some implementations; I haven't checked g++ lately.)
>?? You can initialize things there, or down in the body of the
>constructor - I don't understand the complaint.
No, you can't initialize member objects in the body of the
constructor. Those objects would have been initialized and
you would be initializing new objects and copying them to
the member variables.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:07:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
>
> Again, we run aground of the 'popular wisdom' meaning of "monopoly"
> versus the actual meaning, the legal one. What makes a company a
> 'monopoly' is not market share, but use of market share to control
> prices and exclude competition. If you're trying in a back-handed way
> to say that your cable company is monopolizing, that is a different
> issue. Microsoft has broken the law, and has already been convicted.
>
The real price of Windows hasn't been going up though - as compared to,
say, the real price of my local cable access. Not to mention that I can
in fact buy other OS', even for Intel - but no matter how hard I try, I
simply cannot buy from a different cable provider.
Why is that? In the MS example, we have a company with no legally
protected access - just good marketing that has driven it to the top of
it's niche. With cable, we have US law protecting my provider, no
matter how crappy their service.
>
> You confuse "what the market will bear" with "what the customers will
> put up with." "What the market will bear" only works when there is
> *active* competitions, providing consumers with a number of *convenient*
> alternatives. What Microsoft can manage to charge when they have a
> pre-load lock-in is irrelevant; it constitutes, in fact, monopoly
> pricing, no matter how low it is. The question isn't "is the price
> high?" The question is 'is it one penny higher than it would be if the
> customer could choose a feasible alternative rather than pay it.'
>
The market here wants a standard for interop more than it wants
competition. There were other viable options in the late 80's prior to
the rise of Windows. In fact, Apple had the first decent GUI system,
and the early advantage.
As to the height of the price, when you get to the point that you can
figure out optimal prices let us all know; we will want stock tips.
>
> Why? RedHat bases their prices on what the monopoly is charging, not on
> what customers are willing to pay in a competitive market where one
> vendor doesn't control 90%+ of the installed base.
>
Hmm ? the base installation runs less than $50. How much lower do you
suppose it can get and still be profitable?
>
> >If you want to make a change to a different platform, start at home.
>
> Why? That's the most expensive way to do it possible. How about I wait
> for the millions of corporate desktop PCs to prove the product and bring
> the price down, first?
>
Gee, you are demonstrating for all of us why the market wants a
standard, and yet you just don't see it...
> >
> >The free market is one that has minimum government interference.
>
> The free market is the one that has competition.
>
a free market is not guranteed by law. Based on US law, it's encouraged
certainly.
But the only real monoploies here are those that the government allows
and protects (by law)
-- postal service
-- cable service
-- RBOCs
etc.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 09:09:46 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > One thing: why do have the people on Usenet post under a handle? Not
> > willing to stand
> > behind your statements?
>
> In that case, if "standing behind your statement" is your reasoning. Why do
> you ONLY post under a real sounding name. Prove who you are with each post
> if you are under the illusion that it you to stand behind your statement.
> Why not post your name as well as a scan of an official ID , personal
> references, social security number, work number, photos, credit
> report...etc... Or are you not willing to stand behind your statements?
In general, I agree with the poster (Mr. Stutts). In practice, I'm not
so sure. After watching how much harrassment a bozo like pvdl is
willing to dish out to people he doesn't like, I can certainly
understand the desire for anonymity
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:50:05 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
What video card do you own. What version of RedHat did you install. USB
is in the 2.3 series kernels, and 2.4 will *definitely* support it.
No games? Quake, Unreal Tournament, Heavy Gear, SimCity 3000,
Civilisation: Call to Power and more are there! Sure there aren't as
many as Windows has, but this is changing as development gets underway.
Why would you want to return to the 80's to run Linux? What about GNOME
and KDE?
Chris
Incidently, why would anyone want to be known as "The Whore"?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is Linux some kind of a joke or something?
> I mean I instaled Redhat and it looks like shit. No games, no support
> for my video card. No support for my soundcard or any of my USB
> devices...
>
> This has to be a joke?
>
> Why should I return to the 1980's just to run Linux?
>
> Linux is a piece of shit....
>
> The Whore...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:00:57 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
I guess that's because in Australia if it doesn't run Windows,
non-technical managers don't want to know anything about it.
Which is a *very* great pity because I feel that Linux is a much better
O/S than Windows. Plus, the "server" version <grin> doesn't have any
stupid restrictions like the amount of people that can access it at one
time.
Chris
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qsc0j$fgd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:39d1af94$0$26539$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:39:01 +1000, Chris Sherlock
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >My point was that most people in an office network who use Windows
> tend
> > > > >to rely on the NetBEUI protocol to communicate with each other.
> > > >
> > > > No, they rely on TCPIP (NetBIOS) to talk to each other. I haven't
> > > > seen a NetBEUI network in real life, ever. The only place I've ever
> > > > seen it is Microsoft exams.
> > >
> > > I sincerely doubt that. Most all small workgroup type networks will be
> > > using NetBEUI (an environment it works quite well in). TCPIP requires
> > > actual setup to use - IP addresses or a working DHCP server whereas
> > NetBEUI
> > > is just plug in and go.
> >
> > When I worked in NZ, the company I worked for did quite a few small
> networks
> > (10-15 people, 1 file server), and they were all exclusively TCP/IP.
>
> Most small businesses I know of (10 or so people) just use NetBEUI because
> its so easy to setup.
>
> I am in Australia though - it might be a bit different in the US where 'net
> access is a lot cheaper and more ubiquitous.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:04:06 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
To regional areas which have traditionally had very very poor access
(mainly through old phone exchanges). I think that they are offering
some country users the use of satellite links.
ISDN links cost too much. How much do people in the US pay for an ISDN
link, BTW?
Chris
Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:44:48 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >
> >"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:07:25 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I sincerely doubt that. Most all small workgroup type networks will be
> >> >using NetBEUI (an environment it works quite well in). TCPIP requires
> >> >actual setup to use - IP addresses or a working DHCP server whereas
> >NetBEUI
> >> >is just plug in and go.
> >>
> >> I agree that NetBEUI is plug in and go. I disagree that a lot of
> >> people are still using it. People nowadays have access to the
> >> internet - and consequently, they (almost) all use TCPIP.
> >
> >I think it might be a difference in environment. Net access here in .au is
> >nowhere near as cheap and easy (and hence ubiquitous) as in the US - ergo
> >less small networks that also attach to the Net thus less TCPIP based
> >networks.
>
> I thought the government down there has some kind of program going to
> spread Internet access across the length and breadth of Australia.
>
> >Plus, a lot of networks have TCPIP *and* NetBEUI flying around them. I'm
> >not sure which one Windows uses if both are installed and running, but I'm
> >betting that in Win95 at least it's NetBEUI.
>
> Windows uses whatever is set as the default. If that doesn't work it
> goes down the list of installed protocols and tries them until it gets
> to one that works or it runs out of protocols to try.
>
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
> http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 28 Sep 2000 08:24:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donal K Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Uninformative statement; after programming C++ a root canal
>> is pleasant.
>
> Why is it? C++ is a very well designed language.
C++ is a hack to add OO to C.
> Unfortunately, some compilers make a *very* bad implementation. Even
> worse, those compilers are popular.
I do not care about that. C++ is full of features that are *almost*
right, but which have been mucked up so that certain styles of
programming became easier, so opening the door for making things
crufty and difficult to maintain. And for some reason, C++
programmers take full "advantage" of this.
Cast it out into the pit, I say! Its good features fall far short of
overcoming its flaws...
> However, I still believe C++ is a wonderful language for software
> development.
You don't get out much (in programming language terms, that is) do you?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
Date: 28 Sep 2000 08:26:47 GMT
In article <00092712401800.25712@pc03>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El mié, 27 sep 2000, Donal K. Fellows escribió:
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Why do you want an icon to have focus? To delete it pressing DEL?
>>> If you gonna click it, you may as well drag it to trash, or
>>> Ctrl-click it.
>>
>> I thought Ctrl-click was (related to) the standard way of forcing a
>> copy of an object. Or is KDE ravingly different from the rest of the
>> world in this matter?
>
> That's ctrl-drag.
> Ctrl-click does the same thing on every GUI I know: selecting the icon.
So why were you mentioning it in relation to deletion, so confusing
this bear of little brain...?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 28 Sep 2000 09:09:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> Not quite. You have to do something better than someone else has done
>> before. This is trivially satisfied if your niche is unexplored, but
>> being first is not the only route to success. (NB. The definition of
>> "better" is famously variable... :^)
>
> The problem is that most people consider "being 100% backwards
> compatible with what first" to be implied by "better". :-/
The world is a multivariate place, full of stupid idiots unable to see
past the ends of their noses.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 28 Sep 2000 08:56:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a clue: psychopath does not imply human, it only implies 'being'
> and corporations fulfill all of the criteria of beings.
According to Webster's, a psychopath is a mentally ill or unstable
person; especially : a person having a psychopathic personality. And
psychopathy is a mental disorder; especially : extreme mental disorder
marked usually by egocentric and antisocial activity. Obviously,
since organizations are not people, they cannot be psychopaths (it
follows directly from the definition.) However, they can behave in a
manner that would be indicative of psychopathy if it was exhibited by
a person.
For someone claiming to have a formal logic training, you are
remarkably sloppy with your definitions. You must be a mathematician.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 28 Sep 2000 08:44:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The unit of selection (in the evolutionary sense) in operating systems
> design isn't the system call; it's the Abstract Concept or Design Prin-
> ciple. And with that in mind, WinNT qualifies as Unixish, if not outright
> Unix. They're just too similar when you look at the big picture. Plan 9
> is an evolutionary step beyond Unix but it's still evolved *from* Unix.
> Even microkernels are only a *miniscule* evolutionary step (and not even
> in the right direction) away from traditional OSes since the whole idea
> of the microkernel is just "replicate the system/app programmer divide
> within the kernel itself"; a trivial step with trivial consequences.
OK, if that's your line, what's stopping you from defining your New
World Order and wiping us poor old "stick-in-the-mud"s clear off the
map. Come on! Get coding...
Donal (Anyone wanting to change the world had better be prepared to *work*...)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- This may scare your cat into premature baldness, but Sun are not the only
sellers of Unix. -- Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:29:01 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> C++ is a hack to add OO to C.
And (oh, I am going to start a language flame war! Quick,
my asbestos armour) in the words of Philippe Kahn (remember
Borland?) "C is a disease".
> Cast it out into the pit, I say! Its good features fall far short of
> overcoming its flaws...
Yeah, verily! My first (and only) love was Simula 67. But she died...
eventually I married (Turbo) Pascal(e), and she got better with the
years,
especially when she turned 5.5. But she never agreed to collect the
garbage, like Simula did. So, after many years of mitigated bliss,
I left her for... Euphoria! And she collects the garbage! And she
lets me address the whole of memory! And she just recently learnt
to work under Linux!
http://www.rapideuphoria.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:48:07 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
COBOL and BASIC. Perhaps you now see why I like C and C++?
Chris
FM wrote:
>
> Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I find C and C++ to be extremely elegant in the way that they do things.
>
> Damn. What other languages have you used?
>
> Dan.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
