Linux-Advocacy Digest #540, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 13:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (BcB BcB)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls
Re: The Power of the Future! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: To all you WinTrolls
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BcB BcB <youdon'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 11:50:00 -0400
Sorry but I just have to reply to this
It seems to me that what claire is saying and what reality is are two
different things
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We don't want compilers.
reality: I'll never develop a thing
it takes a mind to use software
it takes a greater mind to develop it
> We don't need 200 different text editors.
reality: I want to be mainstreamed to notepad nightmare.
> We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
> that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
> programmers..
reality: I wish to pay through the nose for libraries that only take little
time to develop myself (and see the first reality) and bloated
software.
> We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
reality: I would rather wade through a company's graphically "enriched"
website to download a trial version
> We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
>
> We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
> Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
> free memory.
>
> This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
> resurrect playing around with text files.
reality: I don't what to know how my computer works. I just want it to
display the cute paper clip.
>
> We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
> If you choose to clone it but can't clone it completely, including all
> ease of use features, don't bother at all. it will only make you look
> silly. The current crop of mp3 players are a good example. Damm things
> can't even remember the song directory.
reality: two examples 1)notepad nightmare and 2)MSDOS Prompt
(why MSBOS starts in the windows directory I'll never know and yes
they still are directories not folders)
>
> We are willing to pay for quality software that works out of the box.
> And Windows has plenty of it.
reality: I am willing to pay an arm and a leg for quality software that
could be free just because you don't want to type
./configure
make
make install
>
> Example: Norton Internet Firewall, BlackIce, Zonealarm (free BTW).
> Compare this to trying to set up a firewall under Linux using
> IpChains, ipforwarding and such....What a waste of time, as well as a
> potential security risk for those setting it up that don't know what
> they are doing.
reality: I don't know what, say, a baston host is, I'll never know and don't
bother teaching me cause I don't even what to learn how to
configure a firewall. Just do it for me. Give me Outlook and
I'll stop applying for Sys Admin positions.
>
> Sorry but my data is worth $30.00 or so, to have a professionally
> designed program that works out of the box and is easily customized.
> Also I don't have to scour the net for config scripts that may
> actually compromise security. The products I use, and pay for, are
> used by corporations everywhere, and if a flaw should arise, and they
> do, a fix is released....
reality: I'm happy living in a "buy now - pay for an "upgrade" later" world.
>
> Browsers?
reality: I thought IE what the internet
>
> Netscape, says it all. Even Windows users think Netscape sucks.
reality: Netscape != IE therefore sucks
>
> Email?
>
> Anything like Eudora yet?
reality: I can't find freshmeat.net's app index
> Sorry but I don't feel like configuring sendmail today, or any day for
> that matter.
>
> Linux still lags far, far, far, far, behind Windows and this is
> evident by the number of sales of Windows ME.... Why would people pay
> for what really amounts to a minimal upgrade instead of getting Linux
> for free?
> They are not interested in Linux, that is why.
reality: They do not know as much about computers to run a real OS; they
aren't even willing to try; I'm a billionaire and am simply
buying WinME so that I can give a statistic here.
> >
> Linux has had it's day in the press, let's do every desktop user a
> favor and put it out of it's misery once and for all :)
reality: If linux has had its hay-day then why am I putting it down?
Because I'm scared that I will actually have to learn about my
computer and use linux.
>
> I along with everybody else in the world would LOVE free applicaitons,
> but not at the price that running Linux involves.
reality: Give me blue screen of death and ignorance.
>
> claire
>
To be honest, I have nothing agains Win** or Win** users. If they like
it and are happy using it then great for them. It doesn't happen to be my
cup of tea. So things are available for windows that aren't for linux that
I wish where ie Borland C++ Builder. However, these are minor as I make
due and am happy using other products ie kDevelop. And this will soon
change. Having said that I never-the-less love linux - even down to the
little things like using the tab key in the console. I find it more
intuitive and easier to use then windows which is as you are implying the
god of user friendly.
well there is my 2 cents.
BcB
P.S. why is it that you troll? why not just promote Win** in
comp.os.windows.advocacy (if it exists) or somewhere else? why must you
come as a missionary and try to convert us pagans? and do you really think
that you will convert us with posting like that?
--
In the land of penguins
If you write a book about
failure and it doesn't sell
then is that a success?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 11:54:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >In the U.S. at least, your actions are all considered to be lawfull by
>> >default unless the action is documented as "unlawfull" by the
>> >government. You stated quite simply
>> >
>> ><quote>
>> >"You do realize that by so editing a newsgroup, you take on the role,
>> >and
>> >thus the legal responsibility and liability of a newspaper owner, don't
>> >you?"
>> ></quote>
>> >
>> >I provided a link right to the U.S. code which states that it does not.
>> >
>> >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html
>>
>> And allows only 'good faith' efforts to prevent offensive, obscene, or
>> harassing messages, not editorial control, as you would be invoking were
>> you to decide you don't like the messages I've authored and want to
>> prevent them from appearing on the interactive computer service you are
>> providing as a common carrier.
>
>Here's what I get from it your dimness:
>
>1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
>treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
>by another information content provider.
>
>(What part of this don't you understand? )
The part where it has anything to do with what we're talking about. If
you want to avoid being treated like a publisher, you have to avoid
publishing. That means you are not at liberty to pick and choose who's
posts appear.
>(2) Civil liability
>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
>held liable on account of -
>(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
>access to or availability of material that the provider or user
>considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively
>violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not
>such material is constitutionally protected; or
>(B) any action taken to enable or make available to
>information content providers or others the technical means to
>restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
>
>Then in section (2) I see the words "or otherwise objectionable".
And I see the words "good faith", which you obviously don't have, or you
wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion.
>If I deem your post objectionable, it's my right as the owner of the forum
>to get rid of it. "Whether or not your statements are constitutionally
>protected".
>
>It's really pretty easy to understand. And deleting in no way causes me to
>(IN YOUR WORDS) "take on the role, and thus the legal responsibility and
>liability of a newspaper owner"
If that's what you think passes for 'good faith', then I'd suggest you
stay out of the interactive computer service business.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:53:30 GMT
Yes.. The site comes up with a generic message about it being down and
it not being do to my account as well as "All of Hotmail" not being
down, only the part I need, my mail. A lawyer must have written that
page.
It came back up last night though.
claire
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:05:37 +0800, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What kind of crap is this?
>
>Hotmail wasn't down... have you checked your ISP ??
>
>-Todd
>
>>
>> claire
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:55:48 -0000
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:49:41 +0200, Serge Luca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have a look at www.tpc.org
Then notice how many pieces a NT toy has to be split into to
compete with similar single systems from IBM.
[deletia]
--
Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Auction:
A gyp off the old block.
Auction:
A gyp off the old block.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 11:58:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >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.
>
>I didn't describe Win32 as uinworkable, Max. Don't ascribe quotes to me that
>I didn't make.
Then perhaps you should be willing to do the same:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 01:50:01 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy you 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!"
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 12:02:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>It is not the OS vendor's responsibility to make their system API's
>easily clonable.
Blah blah blah.
>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.
I guess POSIX doesn't count.
[...]
>> 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.
>
>How is the win32 API anti-competitive? Saying so doesn't make it so.
How it is pro-competitive. Saying it doesn't make it so.
>At the time it was introduced, keep in mind that the MacOS and OS/2 had
>been out for longer periods of time (not to mention BSD, which had been
>around forever).
I'm not concerned about the time it was produced; you are trying to
objectify the API in appropriately. Win32 is anti-competitive crap
because that's what Microsoft wants it to be. As for how it is
anti-competitive, the most obvious example to come to mind is that it
includes web browser functionality, implemented with the specific intent
of preventing competition.
>> >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.
>> 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.
>
>How? All it indicates is that mapping the Win32 API to the X Window
>System API is hard.
So that would be one thing that makes it crap; its inconsistent with the
industry standard. ;-\
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:04:26 -0000
On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 01:31:36 GMT, Steven W. Mentzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I just had another handful last night on my 2k box. It was stable for awhile,
>>but I wanted to try my Hauppage WinTV card again since Hauppage came out with
>>some newer drivers awhile back. I was using a Pinnacle Sys Studio PCTV in the
>>mean time, but the Hauppage always did have a slightly better picture. Boot
>>up, open a capture app.. bang. BSOD. Recommended fix: disable ACPI (IRQ
>>conflicts) which requires a full freaking re-install of 2k to accomplish!
>>
>>Same hardware config used on same box under linux: Rock solid.
>>
>
>This is a badly written system-level driver. The OS isn't at fault in this
>case.
>
>Now, if the glue chip drivers (BX,i820,i840) system drivers that ship with
>Win2k were at fault, then I can see a real problem with the OS.
>
>But the fact that hauppage doesn't know how to develop a Win2k driver doesn't
>make Win2k bad.
>
>I can develop a linux block driver that will panic the kernel in a few minutes.
>Does that make linux bad?
Certainly not because it is a false strawman.
You are attempting to compare active sabotage to an attempt by a
company to support an OS that it is pledged to support. This is
also within the context of a Linux driver written and supported
only by hobbyists.
--
Never pay a compliment as if expecting a receipt.
Tuesday After Lunch is the cosmic time of the week.
The story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been
changed to protect the innocent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:08:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:46:40 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Compare that to "spirt" versus "spurt" - not a typo but someone who spells
>> words as they sound, not very safe for English. "spirt" is not even a word.
>
>Don't be a fool, Drestin (though it is hard for you, I know). Look at
>your keyboard. What key is directly to the left of the 'U'?
I think you meant to the *right* of the U -- the letter to the *left*
of the U is in fact Y. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random QWERTY (quirky?) pedantry here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:11:20 -0000
On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 09:10:17 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> And if you don't realize why spending 65MB of it on the friggen' _OS_
>> pisses people off, you don't use your brain very seriously, do you?
>
>Oh, it's SUCH a terrible thing that's happening here!!!
>You pay more for your gas, you pay more to heat your home, you pay more to
Those are necessary expenses. For quite a few people, even in the
USA, such things take precedent over luxury items such as extra
RAM to support a bloated OS. Even if your money isn't quite that
tight, there's sure to be something else that you would rather
(or perhaps a normal person, which you seem have lost touch with)
spend your money on.
>take your wife\gf out to eat...what's the diff? That happens every time you
Choice. Freewill. Things like that.
[deletia]
Not everyone is made of money. Even those of us who are have
different priorities. We're not all obsessed or addicted to
our home computers. There are other things in our lives.
--
I didn't get sophisticated -- I just got tired. But maybe that's what
sophisticated is -- being tired.
-- Rita Gain
The days are all empty and the nights are unreal.
Integrity has no need for rules.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 12:13:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Lockwood in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:22:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>>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.
You've confused me with somebody else. I don't hate the Windows API; I
hate Microsoft for developing it predatoraly as a lock-in method to
concretize the barrier of entry to support their illegal monopoly. This
is what makes the API crap; not how hard it is to work with. Though I
haven't heard many good things from non-fanatic developers. I am
certainly not involved in the WINE project, though, so my feelings for
the API or the company are quite beside the point.
>>>>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?
No, I'm talking about the difficulties avoiding it, working with it,
porting it, or emulating it.
[...]
>>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?
I'm not a developer, just an advocate.
>>>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).
There are a lot of reason it is crap. Some might be seen as technical,
but I view even those as caused by development with the intent to
monopolize, rather than to improve the product.
>What do you mean by crap?
The standard vernacular; a piece of shit.
>Clearly you don't mean that programmers can't use it -- you seemed to
>for awhile but now you've retreated from that.
No, I haven't 'retreated' from anything. Yes, many competent
programmers have stated that the Win32 API is a horrendously convoluted
pile of crap, but clearly it is not unusable. Merely unavoidable.
>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
Personally, I don't understand why the WINE team is even bothering to
try to do it, and if they are going to do it, they ought to just
decompile Windows. But then they'd need money for lawyers, because even
with the Sega, Vault, Lasercomb, and Sony decisions clearly showing
their right to do so, Microsoft would still sue them.
>>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.
You have a disfunctionally narrow view of the issue. All the API had to
be in order to succeed was lacking competition, which was handily
provided by criminal activity, quite separate and distinct from any
technical usability.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:14:54 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:49:41 +0200, Serge Luca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Have a look at www.tpc.org
>
> Then notice how many pieces a NT toy has to be split into to
> compete with similar single systems from IBM.
That still doesn't explain why IBM didn't produce a system that matches or
surpasses those pesky NT toys. I'm quite sure that the IBM guys are thrilled
to be trashed by in both *price* and *speed* department by a toy OS ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:18:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
[...]
>I'd have to conclude that it's the WINE programmer's fault in not understanding the
>CreateWindow() interface and how to properly create a default window class of "EDIT".
Whatever. That's simply more detailed evidence of how crappy Win32 is,
if the WINE programmers can't even get these rudimentary things to work
correctly.
[...]
>You should have anticipated my response to this before you wrote it Max. I think that
>the Win32 API is a many splendored thing with optimizations and nuances under the hood
>that could not have been duplicated by the WINE part-timers in the few years they've
>been working on it.
They're not trying to duplicate the API; they're trying to support it.
Its MS's software that they're trying to duplicate, and the
'optimizations and nuances' in the code shouldn't have anything to do
with it.
>Had they coded the support for the system DLLs correctly by
>testing and documenting their behaviors and the emulating them through thousands of
>test cases they might have had a chance but they seem to have the same problem as you
>and the rest of the Linux and Mac faithful have -- they underestimate Windows and
>think that they can do better without ever taking the time to fully understand it.
>That's just foolish.
They underestimate Windows, all right, and how much anti-competitive
effort went into its design and development. Like many application
developers who thought they could compete with Microsoft applications,
they are finding out that 'churn', obfuscation, and counter-productive
complexity make it all but impossible to support the Win32 API, unless
you're just foolish, and go with One Microsoft Way.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
