Linux-Advocacy Digest #708, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Steve Mading)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (Steve Mading)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Steve Mading)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech (The Ghost In The
Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 17 Oct 2000 18:00:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> MS itself (microsoft.com) does not use Solaris - hotmail's application
:> server does. Oh, and Solaris is shrink wrap software too putz.
: 1) It's common knowledge SUN Solaris never was nor is shrink wrap software.
When we ordered our Suns, the OS disks came in shrinkwrapped boxes.
It's not *off-the-shelf* software, but that's not the same thing.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:15:12 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> The main reason why most people use classes. Why the crude language?
> It makes people more likely to place you in the class of people who
> live in trailer parks, drinking Bud by the crate-load and calling each
> other "Bubba"...
I've been told I have a gift for sounding like a complete nut-bar
to anyone who doesn't actually listen to my reasoning. It was a
compliment. :-)
> > Do you even know what *I'm* talking about?
>
> If you were better able to express yourself, I might. There are
> times, though, when trying to pin you down is like stapling diarrhoea
> to a wall. We'd respect you more if we could identify you with some
> actual person (as opposed to some random USENET jerk who knows how to
> use a search engine) or, at the very least, an organization that isn't
> a typical front for clueless slackwits. Pointing to a few papers
> you've (co-)authored would be excellent.
Having people be able to track me down and meet me in a dark alley is
not on my list of priorities. I think I'll pass, thank you very much.
> > Prototypes versus classes is independent of anything else, including
> > static versus dynamic typing. Omega is a statically typed prototype-based
> > language.
>
> I've not heard of Omega before (it's the first language you've
> mentioned in this whole thread that's completely new to me.) How does
> the typing work. Can we have an explanation *without* handwaving
> please. A URL to a (publically visible) paper by the authors would do
Object-Oriented Programming with Prototypes by Gunther Blaschek.
Unlike Self and Kevo, Omega doesn't allow you to change an individual
object, only a whole class of objects (structural changes to objects
are propagated to every object that was copied off the prototype either
directly or indirectly). So there is no way from within the language
to create a new prototype, it's an operation of the environment.
Omega is basically a proof of concept. It's unknown (the only link
to it on Cetus Links is to Blaschek's page and it's dead), not very
useful, and deeply weird.
But you don't need to learn about Omega. Self is a prototypical
language and it also has "class" objects (called 'maps') for
efficiency reasons. Unlike class-based languages, the maps are
completely invisible to users; Self objects can change "class"
at will. Self maps are just an optimization technique, no more.
That's why prototype versus class is independent of typing.
> fine (and would probably be better than anything you could come up
> with!) Is it making each object into a type too, and treating
> derivation from a prototype object as also inducing a subtype
No, that's what Kevo and Self do. There's no way to derive a new
prototype in Omega (at least, not from within the language).
Kevo also supports operations to change all descendants and all
derived objects as well as changing only individual objects.
> relation? Does it support multiple inheritance (i.e. types which are
> subtypes of unrelated types?) How well does it scale (i.e. how well
> does the language cope when the number of objects gets up into the
> multi-million range?) Is the typing computable at compile-time?
I think so. It's the only reason why Omega was invented.
> (FYI, I have used languages where the typing was not computable at
> compile-time nor even necessarily fixed at run-time, but it is harder
> to get very high levels of performance from them since optimising away
> the type-checks is quite tough. Whether this matters depends on the
> application area.)
> > No, it's not. Nobody on the Smalltalk side does this kind of crap (*).
> > The only reason Java people do it is because Java doesn't have any
> > BlockClosure class that lets them create lambdas at will so they have
> > to fuck with anonymous classes instead.
> >
> > A Java victim has to write:
> > new Function2Arg() {public Object valueWith_with (Object a, Object b) {
>
> Why the stupidly long class and method names? To give you a straw man
> to knock over?
No. Because instances of BlockClosure/BlockContext respond to messages
value (no parameters)
value: (one parameter)
value:value: (two parameter)
...
valueWithArguments: (takes an Array of parameters)
so in order for Java code to be as readable as Smalltalk code, you have
to declare those long-ass function names every time. And "anonymous"
classes aren't very anonymous if you have to name them.
Smalltalk users know that naming variables "temp" is for C/C++ losers.
> I think we are talking about completely different things. You're
> talking about classes without names, and I'm talking about classes
> created completely dynamically at runtime (i.e. where the text that
And why the hell would you want to do that if you're not writing a
system browser or somesuch?
Besides in Smalltalk,
CharacterArray subclass: #Text
instanceVariableNames: 'string runs '
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: 'TextConstants '
category: 'Collections-Text'
isn't a declaration or template, it's an actual expression using the method
#subclass:instanceVariableNames:classVariableNames:poolDictionaries:category:
(You tend to actually write descriptive names in Smalltalk.)
I can easily write,
Object subclass: (Prompter prompt: 'What class name do you wish?') asSymbol
.....
.....
and then I can add my own methods by sending #addSelector:withMethod:category:
This is something that ST has had for two decades. Getting giddy over it
makes you sound so ... /provincial/.
> defines the behaviour of the classes/objects is not known at the time
> that the environment that those objects run in is created.) If the
> environment is to preserve its own integrity in any meaningful way[*],
> the conversion of said program text into entities within the
> environment is a highly privileged operation. However, Java does
> provide an object which you can invoke a method upon (passing in
> appropriately formatted data) which will give you back a class (if it
> likes it, of course.)
>
> We don't seem to be generating much light right now. So let's pick a
> different area to lock our horns over. Let's pick Distributed
> Applications, and let's use CORBA as our underlying protocol (it has
> mappings into both Java and Smalltalk, I gather.) Post up a little
No, it doesn't. CORBA is full of C-isms. In any case, I don't know
CORBA nor did I ever want to know it ....
> application that implements a few method calls using this, with object
> A calling object B (looked up from a directory server) which then
> calls back into A using a reference to itself that A passed to B.
>
> Donal.
> [* C++ doesn't. This is one of the things wrong with C++ for large
> scale programming. ]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: 17 Oct 2000 18:11:21 GMT
[Post re-ordered for human readability AGAIN. Despite the
precedent set by terrible Windows newsreaders, humans don't
read well in middle-endian order.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On 12 Oct 2000 01:46:07 GMT, Steve Mading
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>For what? I still think the practice of deliberately confusing
:>pseudonyms just to troll with anonymity is vain and rude. I
:>was merely pointing out that we have no idea which pseudonym
:>is the 'real' you, assuming that any of them are at all.
: So try arguing the point instead of the person.
That's a completely orthogonal issue. The issue here is that
some people pretend to be two people so that they can lie
and pretend to be seperate individuals supporting each other's
points. Why do you feel the need to cheerlead yourself? Afraid
your points can't stand on their own merit? Or is it an attempt
to avoid killfiles out of some sort of vanity?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:25:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Hasler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:51:56 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Jerry L Kreps writes:
>> I wish this real name policy was universal!
>
>How do you propose to authenticate those "real names"?
Credit records, requiring a credit card number and bank account.
What else? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- suuuuure, that'll go over *real* well
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: 17 Oct 2000 18:26:22 GMT
Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I am no win advocate or Linux advocate, however, if I were to design an
: OS these are some of the features:
: 1. Linux Kernel
: 2. Standardised GUI, either, MacOS or Windows like interface
: 3. Simplified Library structure similar to what Amiga had (ie,
: icons.library, fonts.library, printers.library)
: 4. ReiserFS as the file system
: 5. A windows interpreter, when a program makes a call it goes through a
: filter (like wine) and matchs the windows dll call with the UNIX
: equivilant.
: Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
: very stable. Windows, easy to use and administrate. By combining the
: power of a UNIX core and the simplicity of the Windows GUI there would
: be a balance between simplicity, functionality and flexibility. (a
: concept very similar to the MacOS X project).
: feel free to reply, no flaming please.
Well, the problem is that you are going to get a lot of people
who disagree (myself included) with the premise that the Windows
GUI is good. It's got a lot of things about it that irk me:
- Doesn't have user-pickable focus and raising policy, it's
hardcoded to: click-to-focus, and auto-raise-on-focus. This doesn't
mesh well with how I want to work. I like to be able to type into
one window while view a different one on top of it (So I can, for
example, compose a bit of code while looking at the relevant on-line
manual)
- Gui isn't natively remotable - requires an expensive add-on.
- Ships with fonts that are ugly for fixed-width work, such as I
spend most of my time doing (editing source code). (Xfree86 has
ugly proportional fonts, I'll admit, but I spend more time with
fixed-width programming stuff, so that doesn't hurt me much.)
No, this isn't a flame. I'm just pointing out that making something
mandatory is going to meet with a lot of complaints if it's not
something that's universally loved. It would be a good idea to
have such an OS bundle as you describe ONLY if the Windows GUI was
one option of many, not if it was effectively required.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:42:48 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Your incoherence is mounting. You are the one that said that classes are not
> necessary in object oriented languages. Yet, you claim that all objects in
> languages that have classes should belong to a class.
And let me guess: you STILL don't understand that, do you?
Can you show a contradiction? Of course you can't but can you at least
TRY to show one? It might give me enough data points to figure out what
you're blathering about and explain your own thinking to you.
> I just repeated things you said. Happily now you understand why I saw what you
> wrote as nonsensical.
Provide quotes along with explicit transformations of my words into
your nonsense.
> >And you claim to understand the incompleteness theorem ??
>
> Indeed I do. Care to argue about it?
You don't seem to understand rudimentary logic so why should I engage
in the masochistic exercise of arguing anything serious with you?
> If language can have classes as language constructs, and language can not have
> classes as language constructs, languages possibly can have objects that beong
Great, now you're using two different meanings of "language" in the same
sentence. Assuming you're making any sense (to yourself, you certainly
aren't making any sense to anyone else).
> to classes and objects that don't. It's just a matter of syntax. It will
> probably be a sucky language, but it will be a language.
Huh? Are you SERIOUSLY implying that I have argued that C++ does not exist?
What are you blathering on about? My position on the thread can be reduced to:
1) C++/Java dose X, and
2) X *must not* be done, therefore
3) C++/Java can't possibly be OO
> Check the dates of the two posts, the one I replied to and the one I quoted.
> Less than two days apart, IIRC.
And I never said that I had changed my position in that article, just
on the subject. I *did* accuse you of being too stupid to ferret out
any inconsistencies in my position and to me this *seems* to exclude
the possibility of your being right in your accusation that I was
inconsistent between those two articles.
> >> You assume the language tries to be completely object oriented. Such is not the
> >> case with, for example, C++.
> >
> >C++ isn't AT ALL Object Oriented.
>
> Opinion. Oh, what an easy thing to have.
Isn't it? Now, if the wizard just gave you a brain, maybe you'd have
what's required to come up with an intelligible one.
Hey, if you missed the article where I explain to Donovan exactly why
Java and C++ are not OO ....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:53:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:22:53 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:39:49 +0100
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote
>> >> on Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:57:40 +0100
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> >> According to Yahoo (and "SHELL EXTENSION CITY"), the DOOM System
>> >> >> Administration Tool is at
>> >> >> http://www.cs.unm.edu/~dlchao/flake/doom/
>> >> >> which timed out when I tried to fetch it. I know of no mirrors.
>> >> >
>> >> >I got 200k/s out of that site :-) If you want a copy email me, and I
>> >> >could email it to you.
>> >>
>> >> Might have been a temporary glitch; it's working fine now.
>> >
>> >
>> >I've just turned it in to a useful tool --- it can't kill itself.
>> >
>> >install the sources.
>> >
>> >open pr_process.c
>> >change line 733 so it says "kill -s SIGINT %d" as opposed to "kill -9
>> >%d"
>> >open i_main.c
>> >put in these lines before D_DoomMain() :
>> >
>> > static struct sigaction act;
>> > ...
>> >
>> > act.sa_handler = SIG_IGN;
>> > sigfillset(&(act.sa_mask));
>> > sigaction(SIGINT, &act, NULL);
>> >
>> >Now that it can't kill itself, it is much more useful.
>
>> One can also compare m_pid to getpid(), of course; that might
>> be slightly simpler. :-) But it's a thought.
>
>Could do. I only spent 5 minutes on it (a couple of simple greps). I
>think it syes the system() call to invoke ps. A little inefficient IMO.
>I think they should fork of a wrapper to ps and communicate with pipes
>to prevent it jerking around too much.
Or scan /proc directly, perhaps, looking for all numeric "directories".
/proc/self might be looked at, too, if that's more convenient to do
so during the scan than getpid(). (Depends on how it's set up.)
/proc/self will probably show up as a symbolic link.
One good thing about 'ps' -- it's portable to systems that don't use /proc.
Not an issue for Linux, but might be an issue for portability.
>
>
>> Mind you, I'm going to have to work on it a bit; apparently
>> the patches don't match up with my sources (I'm using "BOOM",
>> a modified DOOM engine that has some very nice features,
>> most notably a variable-sized view window).
>
>I'm using lxdoom/lsdoom. It's very nice. I think I have boo under DOS.
>Does that allow looking up/down with the mouse and mouse aiming?
Boom allows for mouse aiming, but does not look up and down,
as far as I recall (I'm at work).
>
>
>> I'd also like to combine the two. DOOM when I want to play,
>> but DOOM -sysmanage or something equally silly when I want
>> to play system manager. Or something equally silly.
>
>It is quite good fun slaughtering xeyes!
Or xlogos, or other such things, I suspect. :-)
>
>
>> Looks like I've a little work ahead of me. Oh well. :-)
>
>
>It's always best to su to someone else before playing otherwise... bye
>bye X!
A good tip to remember. :-) Of course, ideally one could walk the
process tree (one doesn't want to kill any ancestor) and premark
those processes that are special. There may be some issues with that,
mind you.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 17 Oct 2000 14:02:09 -0500
"Thomas Lee [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39eb733a$0$75251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >
> >"Thomas Lee [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <39ea184b$0$14033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin Black
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >> >After reading this:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/stripper.html
> >> >
> >> >I have decided I really DO want to work there!
> >>
> >> Sadly - I sure never saw any of it...
> >>
> >
> >neither did I but I'd go back to find the woman in the FM pumps :)
>
> I've seen women dressed like this in every big company I ever worked for
> (and some smaller ones too!). It's nothing new.
Oh, agreed - but I liked her attitude ;)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:03:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JoeX1029
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 17 Oct 2000 00:02:40 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Why does everybody *inist* on trying to use Linux for the common taks of a
>desktop. Do you take your kids to school in the Ferrari??
Heh...I would have used "Mack Truck" or "highly experimental but robust
modified Hummer", myself -- a Hummer can go anywhere, and a Mack Truck
can carry (almost) anything. At least, that's the idea I get.
Compared to Linux, Windows 95 looks like a beat-up old Chevy Chevette.
(98 and WinMe look like they've replaced the body with that of a
Ferrari, but the chassis is still the Chevette. Windows NT and Win2k
look like 1-ton pickups, with nice side artwork. :-) )
>Linux is not and
>should not be a desktop system, it's a server/dev/wrkstatn system. Moreover,
>why in the hell are you coping the OS that you switched to Linux because of?
Why indeed?
I'm perfectly happy at home with my fvwm "workspace", which actually
is little more than a window manager with a little color and a place
to put a clock and a system load indication (xosview). I might write
my own window manager someday, though.
KDE isn't bad, either. Reminds me of my old job (HP-UX/CDE)
in a way.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote 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
******************************
