Linux-Advocacy Digest #537, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
linuxgames.com 3D Benchmarks (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Free ISP for Linux? (Tony Atoms)
win32 API critiques (was: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???) (Jonathan Thornburg)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ("MH")
win32 API critiques (was: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???) (Jonathan Thornburg)
Re: Free ISP for Linux? (Tony Atoms)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Off-topic Idiots, i.e., Tholen (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("Chad Myers")
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 14:17:14 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linuxgames.com 3D Benchmarks
A list of VERY comprehensive and exhaustive benchmarks comparing Windows
to Linux, Linux to Windows, NVidia to Matrox to 3DFX etc.. have fun!
http://www.linuxgames.com/articles/nextgen3d/
Oh, Todd, yes the Linux scores are lower, but do 10 FPS at 100 FPS
really matter? :)
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: Tony Atoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: chi.internet
Subject: Re: Free ISP for Linux?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 07:18:16 -0500
In article <NzeE5.5334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"NO SPAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do any of the free ISP's work with Linux? How about with "Wine"? (the
> Windows emulator that comes with some Linux installations).
>
I used freewwweb.com for a while. The connection method was not platform
specific. Of course, it may have been a bug. ;D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Thornburg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: win32 API critiques (was: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???)
Date: 9 Oct 2000 14:20:27 +0200
In article <8rpciu$isp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Each OS has its own paradigms in its design. Win32 is just different to what
>*you* or *they* are used to -- but rather than spend the time to get your
>head around it and actually try to understand *why* it was done that way,
>people go "Oh God! Totally unworkable API! Argh! Mummy!"
See
Diomidis Spinellis
"A Critique of the Windows Application Programming Interface"
Computer Standards & Interfaces, 20:1-8, November 1998
http://kerkis.math.aegean.gr/~dspin/pubs/jrnl/1997-CSI-WinApi/html/win.html
for a careful critique of the Win32 API:
Abstract:
The architecture, interface, and functionality of the Windows Application
Programming Interface (API) make it difficult to master and use
effectively, and contribute negatively to the safety, robustness,
and portability of the applications developed under it. The API is
structured around a large and constantly evolving set of functions and
is based on a problematic shared library implementation. The provided
interfaces are complicated, non-orthogonal, abuse the type system,
cause name-space pollution, and use inconsistent naming conventions. In
addition, the functionality of the interface suffers from inconsistency,
incompleteness, and inadequate documentation. Application developers,
programming tool vendors, and Microsoft should face the above problems
and provide appropriate solution
--
-- Jonathan Thornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/~jthorn/home.html
Universitaet Wien (Vienna, Austria) / Institut fuer Theoretische Physik
Q: Only 7 countries have the death penalty for children. Which are they?
A: Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan[*], Saudi Arabia, United States, Yemen
[*] Pakistan moved to end this in July 2000. -- Amnesty International,
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/2000/AMR/25113900.htm
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:34:28 GMT
Zenin wrote:
>
> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
> : It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's easily
> : clonable. In fact it has typically been seen as contrary to their
> : interests. The various Unix vendors, for instance, have <yet> to create a
> : common Unix standard set of system API's.
>
> POSIX? The Single UNIX Specification?
Which is honored in the breach, if at all. In fact, so far as the US
government is concerned (for purchasing decisions), NT is POSIX
compliant
>
> --
> -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".
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:46:41 -0400
Just a little piece of advice. If you're going to set yourself up as a
resident expert.
You need to at the very least do a couple of things.
Get a spell checker or learn how to spell.
Might want to take a little English as well. The spellchecker won't catch
'loose' in place of lose.
Get your fact straight and be able to back them up.
You've failed on all of the above. Your posts are of no use except as a
momentary source of amusement.
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What technical background do you have? probably none, Who are you? a
> nobody! What education level do you have? none. Before you crap on about
> issues that you have no background knowledge, get some of this knowledge,
> then post a valid and informative post. Unless you wake up to reality,
> the only person you are kidding is yourself. If you came into this
> newsgroup and had 30 years of computer experience using
> Windows/UNIX/LINUX, Sysadmin, Tech support and other various IT orientated
> tasks, 1. you would actually make valid points. 2. people may actually
> take you seriously.
/*----------------rest of 'experts' rant clipped-----------------------*/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Thornburg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: win32 API critiques (was: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???)
Date: 9 Oct 2000 14:49:25 +0200
[[Newsgroups trimmed to only those that are _relevant_...]]
In article <8rpciu$isp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Each OS has its own paradigms in its design. Win32 is just different to what
>*you* or *they* are used to -- but rather than spend the time to get your
>head around it and actually try to understand *why* it was done that way,
>people go "Oh God! Totally unworkable API! Argh! Mummy!"
See
Diomidis Spinellis
"A Critique of the Windows Application Programming Interface"
Computer Standards & Interfaces, 20:1-8, November 1998
http://kerkis.math.aegean.gr/~dspin/pubs/jrnl/1997-CSI-WinApi/html/win.html
for a careful critique of the Win32 API:
Abstract:
The architecture, interface, and functionality of the Windows Application
Programming Interface (API) make it difficult to master and use
effectively, and contribute negatively to the safety, robustness,
and portability of the applications developed under it. The API is
structured around a large and constantly evolving set of functions and
is based on a problematic shared library implementation. The provided
interfaces are complicated, non-orthogonal, abuse the type system,
cause name-space pollution, and use inconsistent naming conventions. In
addition, the functionality of the interface suffers from inconsistency,
incompleteness, and inadequate documentation. Application developers,
programming tool vendors, and Microsoft should face the above problems
and provide appropriate solution
--
-- Jonathan Thornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/~jthorn/home.html
Universitaet Wien (Vienna, Austria) / Institut fuer Theoretische Physik
Q: Only 7 countries have the death penalty for children. Which are they?
A: Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan[*], Saudi Arabia, United States, Yemen
[*] Pakistan moved to end this in July 2000. -- Amnesty International,
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/2000/AMR/25113900.htm
------------------------------
From: Tony Atoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: chi.internet
Subject: Re: Free ISP for Linux?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 08:01:51 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Atoms
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <NzeE5.5334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "NO SPAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Do any of the free ISP's work with Linux? How about with "Wine"? (the
> > Windows emulator that comes with some Linux installations).
> >
> I used freewwweb.com for a while. The connection method was not platform
> specific. Of course, it may have been a bug. ;D
That is to say, they may have "fixed" that by now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:50:36 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 03:16:15 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>>
>> Marty wrote:
>> >
>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>
>Sorry David, you lose.
>
>Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>
>"[repetitive comments snipped]"
I agree with this post.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots, i.e., Tholen (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:50:38 +0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 11:36:10 GMT, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>Tholen tholes:
>
>> >> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>
>> > Sorry David, you lose.
>> >
>> > Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>
>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>
>Don't preach what you practice, Tholen.
>
Fetch me a beer, tholen.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:04:13 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p89E5.8645$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:oh%D5.27548$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > MS knows that they're the best and that their competitors are falling
> > on their faces due to really poor management, leadership and
> > lack of visiion (Netscape, Novell, Corel, Apple, etc). The only way
> > MS can keep competition in the market is to give money to it's
> > competitors. It's pretty sad, really. MS doesn't squash anyone, it
> > just lets its competitors blow themselves up.
>
> How can anyone still claim this when the facts have come out in
> court?
Those "facts" are not that at all. That whole trial was a joke and
it will be made apparent in the appeal. The "Findings Of Fact" which
was more like a "Finding of Jokes" claimed that MS had no competitors.
Neither Apple, nor IBM, nor the entier Open Source movement provided
any competition whatsoever, which is a complete pile of crap.
Any objective observer would see who poorly run and worthless that
whole dog and poney show was. Even the Supreme Court has seen it
isn't even worth its time because it is so full of holes, the
first appealate court to see it would smack it down immediately--
just like they've done with every single other judgement "Sleepy"
Jackson has handed down. Even Sleepy himself has claimed that
it probably won't hold up.
> > > TPC-C is one of the most misused benchmarks in the computing world.
> > > They are also very often completely contrived (i.e. some of the early
> > > TPC-C results done by Oracle and DEC).
> >
> > Uh-huh. So when Unix is at top, they're accurate, but when Windows
> > takes the lead, suddenly they're irrelevant.
>
> No, but any benchmark becomes irrelevant when the application it
> is supposed to be testing gets optimized just to run the benchmark.
Like I said. When Windows tops the charts their must be something
wrong, right? They cheated or they manipulated or hell, they just
bought out the entire panel of judges, right?
Give me a break. They submitted their results, they were audited
just like everyone elses. They won, fair and square and nuked the
compeitition because of a superior product. Why can't you just accept
it instead of making up lies?
> > Seems like every trusted metric in this industry suddenly becomes
> > untrusted when Windows dominates it. It's the typical Head -> Sand
> > ideology that most Unix advocates and Microsoft haters take. They
> > just can't comprehend Microsoft kicking Unix's butt in almost
> > every area.
>
> They have good reason not to trust anything Microsoft does. They have
> learned from history, something you seem unable to do.
Man, you probably believe that the U.S. Government is actively communicating
with aliens too, right? Give me a break.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:11:39 GMT
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rqa8v$iosbq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> At work I develop audio device drivers for Windows. So, no matter what I
> >> do, my interest in Windows isn't going away any time soon.
> >>
>
>
> Are you sure that Loki ported quake as I thought I read somewhere that ID do
> at least some of their development on linux then port the end product to
> windoze?
Other way around. Carmac has said how much he loves developing on NT.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:17:25 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > I have a real X-Windows implementation in XFree86 instead
> > > > > > of a slow emulator like Exceed on NT,
> > > > >
> > > > > Point of pedantry, Exceed is not an X emulation, it is an
> > implementation
> > > > > of X, though it is a bit slow.
> > > >
> > > > Either way, Win2K Terminal Services beat them both.
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't.
> > >
> > > -Ed
> >
> > Yes, it does.
>
> No, it doesn't
>
> It needs more resources.
>
> how well would it run on a P133/72Meg ?
> Don't tell me how many people don't care about that, because that
> happens to be my computer, so I care very much if it won't run well on
> that.
As the server or client? The Client is designed to run on Windows CE
handheld devices. It would fly on a P133. It barely uses any
resources on a modern PIII. It uses about 3.8KB of RAM.
> Here's another reason. i'm on a PC running NT4 at the moment.
> Fortunately for me, Exceed makes it look like I'm running on a Sun
> Ultra10. Win 2K terminal server can't do that, since it doesn't run on
> Suns.
The point was, Win2K Terminal Services off more features, better network
utilization (i.e. less network traffic), are faster, and run on any
client with a web browser. Yes, it only connects to another Win2K box,
but hey, if you want efficiency, you'd be using Win2K anyhow. If you
want to connect to legacy boxes, then that's what eXceed or Reflection
are for.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:19:28 GMT
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I am fine and dandy with my copy of SuSE Linux 7, however, I simply stating
that
> unless a large number of users discontented with windows is made noticable to
> microsoft, things will never change.
The point is, it did change, a long time ago. Win2K is the most current
version of this high performance, highly scalable, stable and secure
implementation
of software.
Perhaps you should pull your head from the sand every couple years and verse
yourself on the current state of technology before opening your mouth like this
and simply embarassing yourself.
-Chad
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > Gardiner Family wrote:
> >
> > > calm down claire, maybe I was a little rude in my response. However, the
thing
> > > I keep hearing is, "Windows is not stable", my response, "change OS's",
there
> > > response "why should I?", with the attitude, "Why should I?", windows will
never
> > > improve until customers start telling Microsoft with their purchasing
power that
> > > they want improved stability, un-bloated software and reliabilty.
> >
> > Maybe you should get Windows 2000.
>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:30:17 +0100
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What technical background do you have? probably none, Who are you? a
> nobody! What education level do you have? none. Before you crap on about
> issues that you have no background knowledge, get some of this knowledge,
> then post a valid and informative post. Unless you wake up to reality,
> the only person you are kidding is yourself. If you came into this
> newsgroup and had 30 years of computer experience using
> Windows/UNIX/LINUX, Sysadmin, Tech support and other various IT orientated
> tasks, 1. you would actually make valid points. 2. people may actually
> take you seriously.
>
While we're on the subject, what are your answers to the above questions?
What makes you a self appointed expert?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 13:40:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> > David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >> Marty wrote:
>
> >> [repetitive comments snipped]
>
> > Sorry David, you lose.
> >
> > Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>
> Practice what you preach, Marty.
I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
postings.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:05:07 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Oh, Max. You say that "WINE can't even get ... NOTEPAD to work
correctly" and
> >then turn around and say "Win32 is a complete piece of shit, and MS ought
to be
> >taken out and shot just for pretending its a useable API"? And you claim
that
> >you present logical arguments? WINE emmulates Win32. Windows runs
Notepad
> >fine. WINE does not. It would appear that the problem exists in WINE,
not with
> >Windows or the Win32 API. Application programmers have proven that Win32
is a
> >very usable API by writing more programs for it than any other OS API
while there
> >are virtually no programs that run correctly on WINE, by their own
admission.
> >WINE like Linux has a very long way to go on to be any kind of challenge
to
> >Windows on the desktop.
>
> <Grin>
>
> You missed the argument completely, Mike. Yes, I said that Win32 is a
> piece of crap, because WINE emulates Win32, and the WINE programmers
> can't support Notepad, a positively trivial Windows program. There was
> nothing illogical about it. You may have so studiously avoided the
> inference that you simply missed it. With all the depth of your
> knowledge of software, you're telling me you don't think that this
> illustrates that Microsoft software is crap, and the Win32 API is crap,
> that it can't be supported by rational programmers trying to support
> that API, and finding themselves unable to get anything to work better
> than Microsoft?
Shouldn't be too hard to use the same "logic" to "prove" that POSIX is
"crap".....
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 07:03:57 -0700
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:22:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said John Lockwood in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:41:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ha. Hardly. Win32 is just a piece of crap, is what you mean, where
>>>even competent programmers can't get anything to work because of
>>>Microsoft's obfuscation, churn, and counter-productive
>>>(anti-competitive) design methods. Wake up and smell the coffee.
>>
>>On the contrary, Win32 is easy enough for even a fairly junior
>>programmer to master after a reading of Petzold. I know because I
>>started my career programming in Win16, and Win32. For that matter
>>the latter simplified things a great deal.
>
>You're still looking at it from the wrong side. We're talking about
>implementing Win32 from the OS side, not using it for application
>development.
Granted, writing a layer to emulate the API completely is a harder
task than using it. Even harder still for someone who hates it as
much as you do.
>
>>>It is their way of doing business, not anyone's inability to program on
>>>more than one platform, which makes Win32 appear to be a "totally
>>>unworkable API."
>>
>>I don't get how either one makes Win32 an unworkable API.
>
>It makes anything technical about it secondary to the problems involved.
>Too bad the monopoly also makes it unavoidable.
You're still talking about the difficulties in porting it, right?
>
>>Win32 is an
>>API for programming Windows, that either works in that environment or
>>doesn't. For the most part, it does, although granted there are many
>>annoying differences between NT and Win98 despite the common monicker
>>"Win32".
>
>Win32 is a documentation of 'whatever the hell random and bizarre
>anti-competitive crap' that Microsoft writes, and then retroactively
>faces the industry with trying to use.
Have you ever used it?
>
>>If Microsoft is a lousy, anticompetitive company, or if Win32 doesn't
>>work on other platforms -- neither one of those makes the API
>>unworkable.
>
>I didn't describe it as unworkable; that was Simon Cooke, who was,
>characteristically, building a straw man. I said it was crap. And both
>of those things you mentioned are the same thing, and the reason Win32
>is crap. The evidence it is crap is the fact that WINE can't even get
>the simplest text edit functions of the API to work, though any
>programmer can get it to work in their apps using any flavor or Windows.
Well, you say crap a lot. This non-trivial in size, non-open-source
API being difficult to port, you conclude that it is "crap" (which is
quite non-descriptive technically). What do you mean by crap?
Clearly you don't mean that programmers can't use it -- you seemed to
for awhile but now you've retreated from that.
I would argue that any non-trivial, event driven API for which there
were no source would be a fair challenge to port. This doesn't sep
>This indicates clearly, I think, the fact that the Microsoft's software
>is crap, and the Win32 API was designed to support anti-competitive
>strategies, not good software. Its crap.
There's nothing clear about it. Whether the Windows API supports good
software (it does; I'm typing on some) and whether the source code is
unavailable for it are entirely different issues. The API is not
"designed to support anti-competitive strategies". On the contrary,
in order to succeed, the API had to be quite useable.
What's anti-competitive about
BOOL SetWindowText(
HWND hWnd, // handle to window or control
LPCTSTR lpString // title or text
);
?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
