Linux-Advocacy Digest #977, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 04:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Andy Newman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Terry Porter)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Shannon Hendrix)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Shannon Hendrix)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Shannon Hendrix)
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Shannon
Hendrix)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Andy Newman)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:34:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Andy Newman wrote:
>Sockets aren't part of SsyV IPC. That'll be TLI instead.
I know. I was refering to its separate protection domain.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Nov 2000 08:28:15 GMT
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:57:46 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not to mention that Netscape is *slow*, takes 5 to 10 seconds to load on a
>> windows machine, 2 to 4 seconds on a linux machine (same machine, btw).
Gee Netscape takes about 30 seconds to load on this Linux box.
Wish it was that fast!
Only Lynx is fast (2 secs) here. Course I'm refering to non cached speeds.
>> Explorer, same machine, loads in less than a second.
>
>Bwahahahahaa!!!
>
>Sorry buddy, explorer probably takes you 2-5 minutes to load... it's
>called booting. Another 'plus' for having your browser inextricably
>knotted up in the OS.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 1 Nov 2000 01:04:44 -0500
In article <iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many multi-server load balanced Linux sites can you come up with?
> Google is a good one, but it's a rarity.
The main reason you don't see as many clustered UNIX sites is that a
single machine can do the work of many NT machines.
Microsoft's own site is a virtual masterpiece example of throwing
resources at a problem instead of using your head. A single IBM
mainframe could handle that load, and be cheaper. It would, of
course, be running UNIX. Or Linux even.
The other main reason is the blindness of the masses. I've been
watched in happen in a place, were a single UNIX machine was replaced
by a half dozen NT machines. It cost more money, required more
maintenance, and was not as reliable. But no one in charge cared.
They had complied. Nothing else mattered.
But at least they paid for it. When it died, the NT admins couldn't
find a way to fix it. But the UNIX adminds did. They grumbled, but
they fixed it: they installed UNIX on _ONE_ of them, and the others
are now on their desktops as workstations.
I like happy endings.
> Meanwhile, Look at sites like microsoft.com, barnesandnoble.com, ebay,
> NASDAQ, and hundreds of other major ebusiness sites that all run mutiple IIS
> hosts on a single site.
Microsoft has probably the largest. I'm amazed by it really.
In all fairness to Microsoft, this is a less a problem with them than
it is our current idea of lot's of little machines to do computation.
It is not always a win. Sometimes big iron works better, and cheaper.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
______________________/ armchairrocketscientistgraffitiexenstentialist
"Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a
chance to succeed." -- Vaclav Havel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 1 Nov 2000 01:19:46 -0500
In article <9vkL5.5076$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was a little unclear in that statement. I meant, if you have a single
> file on that 2.5GB removeable disk that spans the entire disk. You can
> access part of that file, but not all of it on 32 bit Linux systems. I
Not sure what you mean.
Just to debunk this, I created a 3GB tar file on my system. It
verifies and everything.
Now, ls cannot list the file because it cannot print a value that
large. I think that is stupid of course, but then it might be a
limitation of the stat call, I don't know.
I would have to write some code to see exactly what isn't right on my
system.
But obviously it's not a problem... creating large files under Linux.
I've never bothered to check on another set of utilities compiled for
large files since I went to 18GB drives and large files. I only
rarely create files this big.
Nevertheless, it's working fine.
> FAT16 is only inefficient because it uses 32k clusters for partitions larger
> than 1GB and causes lots of wasted disk space in sector slop. It's actually
> quite efficient speed-wise.
It's _horribly_ inefficient speed-wise. There are very, very few file
operations that actually run fast on FAT.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: 1 Nov 2000 01:30:28 -0500
In article <MQbL5.10328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Weevil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You seem to be confused between accessing a storage medium and accessing a
> file on that storage medium. It is obviously not "physically impossible"
> for a 32 bit system to use a removable disk > 2 GB. If it were, then
In another thread I said I could create >2GB files. I can.
However, when I was doing this before I wrote my own software, and
might have used some #defines and a static C library. Can't remember
now.
I just created a 3GB file on my system, and it worked fine. tar file.
Unfortunately stat cannot see it, and I cannot rm the file.
Interesting, since this is Debian 2.2, a recent release, and whatever
I was using before this allowed me to remove large files like that.
I'm curious enough to experiment of course, and it also seems that I
need to actually remove this file from my system... :)
I can't believe Debian wasn't built with large file support, though I
understand it comes with an older kernel. I run 2.4 and didn't test
it with large files since I've not been doing that lately.
Nuts...
--
"Meddle not in the affairs of Wizards, for thou art crunchy, and taste
good with ketchup." -- unknown
______________________________________________________________________
Charles Shannon Hendrix s h a n n o n @ w i d o m a k e r . c o m
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: 1 Nov 2000 01:33:10 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OTOH, A closed source vendor, or it's employees, OTOH, can do anything
> behind closed doors with no public scrutiny. Thus, you must trust
> integrety of the vendor, it's employees, and their security
> policies. You can never have your own independant security audit of
> the product you use. You are at the mercy of the vendor.
In fact, sometimes corporate policies of treating their programmers
like numbers can backfire. When they don't let a developer take
credit for his work (ala Warner-run Atari 20 some years ago), then
they also often don't get the blame for the bad things they do.
--
"Meddle not in the affairs of Wizards, for thou art crunchy, and taste
good with ketchup." -- unknown
______________________________________________________________________
Charles Shannon Hendrix s h a n n o n @ w i d o m a k e r . c o m
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:42:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sockets aren't part of SsyV IPC. That'll be TLI instead.
I was actually referring to the separate protection domain it uses.
And nothing to do with TLI.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:11:04 -0500
Jason you asshole, either prove me wrong (prove there is a demostrateable and
severe enough-to-measure productivity hit for the user of OS2 because the
low-level cache can't access memory above 64K, when the user is running OS2
native multi-threaded programs, and the real-world work is/is not balanced
with the productivity gains of multi-tasking other work (programs) -- whether
used/not used in a worker-oriented (work-as-he-chooses or works-best) mode
that is not limited by the software design.
Simplified just for you: prove that your point matters in anyway, shape or
form in the real world of work by the OS2 user.
Or you can finally shut up and go play with yourself! -- Which is probably
what you do best anyway. You have spent the past year boiling over bullshit --
instead of growing up an interacting with other people in real life. If you
did, perhaps you would learn to see the forest from the trees.
In <8tmkjn$141$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/31/00
at 02:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <39fe2e88$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In <8tl8lo$ajm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/31/00
>> at 01:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>
>>>In article <39fe1d3d$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In <8tk10o$ib4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/30/00
>>>> at 02:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>>>>
>>>>>Who's the one that is obsessed and angry? You are frothing :-). I only
>>>>>mentioned this in passing when bringing up the kind of person you are in
>>>>>response to the getting paid comment. You never did provide a reason why
>>>>>your cheerleading is different from anybody others. You make baseless
>>>>>attacks and don't like it when you are called on it. Tell me Ed, why should
>>>>>anybody not believe you are petty, immature etc.. when your best lines are
>>>>>grade school insults and claims of being paid because you don't like the
>>>>>message?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No I'm not frothing at all. I just say what I mean and I mean what I say --
>>>>You're a complete asshole. I could use other words, but there is nothing else
>>>>in the English language that quite means the same thing when one is trying to
>>>>break through to a moron who refuses to listen to reason. The other problem
>>>>is that you're just like the other asshole who chimed in. You think direct,
>>>>accurate and concise words that point to your personality defects show anger
>>>>-- when in fact it only means I can express the reality here. Even though you
>>>>are too dense to understand it.
>>
>>>So I'm an asshole for being right when sticking to the conversation topic
>>>then? I'm understanding now. And Ed, you use words like asshole constantly
>>>because your vocabularly isn't exactly ripe with much else. You seemed to
>>>have chimed in to a few conversations with not much else but irrelevant
>>>off-topic information or claims that you can't provide proof for.
>>
>>No. You an asshole -- for carrying a grudge for nearly a year now . The fact
>>that you are now complaining without end that I have called you an asshole for
>>this behavior -- is proof that you are what I call you, e.g. "Asshole." I
>>could use bigger words, but there is no indication that you would understand
>>them.
>>
>I would consider somebody to be an asshole that was wrong about a subject and
>never admitted to it. Remember when you said earlier in this thread that you
>never claimed that OS/2 overcame hardware problems?
>http://x60.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=596562408&search=thread&CONTEXT=972958734.160628801&HIT_CONTEXT=972958420.159383593&HIT_NUM=529&hitnum=0
>http://x60.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=597133173&search=thread&CONTEXT=972958734.160628801&HIT_CONTEXT=972958420.159383593&HIT_NUM=529&hitnum=39
>The second one, which is between you and somebody else is particularly funny.
>That is where you claim that OS/2, "can overcome" what is being talked about.
>The person replying, Dave, points out that OS/2 may have an advantage over 95
>if it loads bottom up rather than top down but that it isn't overcoming the
>hardware.
>>Furthermore I have no intention of trying to prove anything. After all you
>>just whined the other day that you are great EE engineer. Even though in the
>>year that has gone by you could have designed and verified your own test to
>>prove me wrong -- but all you have done is bring up the same old crap numerous
>>times about how I injected myself into your little war with someone else.
>>
>>Go away little boy. Your time in life has not come yet -- and if you don't
>>smarten up it never will.
>I'm not an EE and I just provided proof for you lies above.
>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't expound on your asinine cheerleading whine, because its the only
>>>>thing you can point to that even resembles cheerleading (and then its only in
>>>>your mind). It was close to year ago, and not a cheer. It was a salient point
>>>>that ou just happen to not like, because it made the little game you were
>>>>playing essentially moot. I also mentioned this before -- but you are too hot
>>>>headed to read or perhaps your pea brain just didn't get it.
>>
>>>Your lost. Your cheerleading is your pro-OS/2 stance. I have as much
>>>evidence as you have for anybody else being paid to support a product so you
>>>must be paid using your logic. See how that works Ed?
>>
>>You are using a one-time comment from a year ago to point to me as a
>>cheerleader! And you whine that I must have been paid to say it? What else
>>should we think of the college boy with the big EE who uses a one-time year
>>old remark to prove his point -- that you are young and dashing and brilliant?
>>The fact is you are an idiot with a grudge, e.g., an asshole! You ought to be
>>spending your time with one of th 15 thousands chicks there, yet you're here
>>with your whining and pissing like that is going to prove you are right. If
>>you were a complete person you would be doing something different.
>>Something's not right with you kid and its time you went looking for it.
>>
>You make no sense. You just attack, attack, attack with no logic to your
>arguments other than a grudge. I just proved a lie and have gone after you
>for not providing proof for a claim. If you think the time it takes for me
>to compose this message somehow takes away from my social life it must be a
>reflection of your own life. I do hang out with many "chicks", in fact two
>"chicks" bought me a ticket for my birthday to go to a concert this Thursday
>night with them.
>>
>>>>The rest of your stuff is simply bullshit and you know it -- or if not, then
>>>>you have a genetic defect. Now, I think the Boys section is in another
>>>>newsgroup. You and the other fool should go there and play. When you get a
>>>>full set of working brains and stop carrying grudges around, comeback.
>>
>>>What grudge? Being right about the topic at hand and then questioning your
>>>logic for being sure that others are being paid for having viewpoints not
>>>favorable to yours? You still haven't pointed to evidence that proves that
>>>people are being paid to post.
>>
>>You are whining about this like M$ is Lilly White and never does anything
>>wrong. If you don't think that M$ pays people to spread the word according to
>>Gates, then you are a bigger asshole then I had thought.
>>
>>Go away little boy. Your time hasn't come yet -- get a girl and stop whining.
>>
>You really have a problem. I haven't mentioned Microsoft at all, I told you
>to provide proof. I'm aware of Microsoft's tactics in the past and present
>but I think that they would have more compentent people than the ones you
>feel are being paid. You really think I'm rooting for Microsoft since I'm
>against you? That sums you up all nice and neat.
>>
>>-
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>-----------------------------------------------------------
>>
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:28:29 -0500
Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:39fe2f7b$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>> >"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> At least within the government and military, we can't be towing ships
>> >> around harbors just because NT craps out. Now they've got something
>> >> worse to worry about. There is much more at stake not just here in the
>> >> US but around the world.
>>
>> >*sigh*
>>
>> >This old bit of FUD, again.
>>
>> >It wasn't NT that crapped out, you dolts, it was the database crapping out on
>> >a divide by zero. Apparently the guy running the database for the Navy
>> >thought it should behave like a pocket calculator and return zero. Some
>> >people never learn...
>>
>> You mean it was someone elses fault that the NT crashed -- and didn't have any
>> built-in way to recover from the error?
>The APPLICATION (you know, a program) had an error in it. NT never crashed.
>There was nothing in the article that ever stated that the OS crashed (except
>some ignorant military guy they interviewed who said the whole thing crashed,
>but it was obvious he was speaking from ignorance).
I don't know which vessel you are talking about, but the USS Yorktown was dead
in the water and towed into port -- and YES -- it was NT that crashed.
>Trust me, Linux/Unix applications have errors too.
They haven't sunk and billion dollar vesselsand killed the crew -- which is
exactly what would have happened to the Yorktown in war time.
>They could've built an app that monitored the server process and restarted it
>in the event of failure, but they didn't.
>Another example that the development firm was incompetent.
>Another example is that when the server puked, all the clients did as well
>which meant they were all dependent upon the server and didn't try to retry.
>This same thing could've and probably would've happened on any platform
>because it was the APPLICATION's fault.
>-Chad
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:48:27 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for the earlier "premature transmission"...
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >The 10% number is a figment of your imagination.
>>
>> No, it is the results of my research and experience, which I'm going to
>> have to point out is not limited to only examining the ethernet itself,
>> but dealing with the "whole network".
>
>Then you worked with out-of-spec networks. If you stay in spec, you
>never lose or corrupt packets, so the high level protocol timeouts and
>error correction mechanisms never come into play. An ethernet with
>30 hosts trying to transmit at once should get each packet on the wire
>in 5 tries or less, averaging 1024 bit-times or so in the random but
>exponential backoff. That adds up to next to no wasted time. If that
>isn't what you see, you should be concerned about replacing bad
>parts, not theorizing about why it is supposed to be broken.
I think I've made my response to such discussions clear. These issues
become meaningless unless you presume the entire network is one LAN
wide.
[...]
>The actual ethernet mechanism turns out to be very fair and does not
>consume much tine with the wire idle during arbitration.
Yes, but it is "fair" in that it slows down everyone equally the higher
the utilization goes. It also slows them down much more in that regard
than with deterministic access methods. I'm not knocking Ethernet. I
think it is an ideal technology in a huge number of ways. I just know
how it works, is all.
>Most people
>mistake 'collisions' for a corrupted packet and a need to retransmit
>the whole thing when in fact collision detection happens during the
>preamble in approximately the time it takes the signal to traverse
>the maximum wire length permitted.
Well, you're sort of right. AFAIK (this is going by the SynOptics
curriculum I taught in 1995, from memory) the preamble is seven bytes
long. The time to "clear the channel" is 57.2 microseconds, the maximum
allowable propagation delay between any two stations. Collision
detection occurs for the first 32 bytes of transmission. I've never
done the math, to see how the 57.2 and the CD time, and have never
directly seen either metric in the specs. So I can't honestly vouch for
their validity.
>> Yes; Metcalfe determined that in order to get useful service from
>> CSMA/CD, the bit rate should be ten times the necessary throughput
>> capacity. I can think of no other reason why a network system which was
>> designed to be cheap as well as easy would use much higher-cost
>> components than comparable systems to support an amount of bandwidth
>> which was literally an order of magnitude greater than the alternatives.
>
>AT&T made a very usable 1 Mb network called Starlan using compatible
>packets, so it was possible to bridge with 10BaseT later.
As did SynOptics, with their LattisNet. LattisNet was modified to
become 10BaseT, and StarLan was also standardized, as 1Base5. StarLan
was later upgraded to 10 megabit, this was a "proprietary system" in
that it was non-standard, but it wouldn't surprise me if they made a
translating bridge. Later still, AT&T was selling 10BaseT hubs but
calling them "StarLAN".
>> Of course, within a few years, when 3Com (Metcalfe's company) came up
>> with the "single chip ethernet" solution, Ethernet got a lot cheaper
>> again. But the earliest ethernet cards cost $5000, I'm told.
>
>Somewhere I saw an interesting story about him at a trade show where
>he had described the advantages of ethernet in a forum with a Datapoint
>representative who was then asked why anyone should continue to use
>Arcnet. The response was something like: 'when you can buy an Ethernet
>card for under $1000, go ahead and switch'.
[...]
>> Switched 10Mb is what started the
>> rush to LAN switching to begin with.
>
>Yes, but it was a very slow start.
Maybe in your neck of the woods. ;-)
>> Kalpana's
>> "cross-point-switch-matrix" ASIC technology, the "translating bridge"
>> Synernetics LanPLEX, and finally the "ATM backplane" systems which
>> became the LAN switches of today (the Cascade, the SpeedSwitch stuff
>> from Nortel, etc.) were all initially designed for 10 Megabit, with 100
>> meg full duplex capabilities retro-fitted in once available.
>
>I've seen pictures of these. I never knew anyone who actually
>used them. Most of the prices I saw were equal to or higher than
>the vendors that went straight to auto-negotiating 10/100 on all ports.
>Maybe people who hadn't properly segmented their network
>design with routers in the first place bought them as a quick
>fix.
Well, indeed, I'd have a skewed view of these, or should I say I'd be
more familiar with them. My company was a reseller of all this stuff.
Everyone we knew "actually used them", and that comprised a substantial
portion of the Fortune500 which were our target market. Those that
didn't buy them from us just bought them from somebody else. The
Kalpana was a rough ride, though SynOptics OEM'd some stuff, and the
LanPLEX, later the 3Com CoreBuilder 5000, was either ahead of its time
or from another planet, I'm not sure which. It seems it was probably
just the largest networks which used these boxes; they are what preceded
10/100 switches. By the time switching was considered common, this
technology was already available. Ethernet switching, and 100 meg,
preceeded these developments by almost a couple of years.
Again, the industry moved pretty directly from shared 10 meg to switched
100 meg, for a variety of reasons. All of those which related to
'bandwidth' or "capacity" were generally false, as moving either to
switched or to 100 meg would have satisfied those reasons. Partly
because it was better to swallow both pills at once, as well as easier
to build boxes with the most capabilities, particularly in the "gold
rush" atmosphere which the Internet caused in the network equipment
industry. Partly because it makes the migration vastly easier by much
more easily allowing co-habitation of 10 and 100 meg NICs. Ironically,
it was also partly encouraged by the promise that it would make network
management easier, by enhancing and increasing control and
instrumentation. What it actually did was swamp the operations staff
with spotty statistics they didn't understand, and make their sniffers
useless, to boot.
--
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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:45:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> Emacs has that. I betcha it has more features than Delphi's too.
I'm sure it does as an editor. Delphi is more than an editor.
> Emacs can run external compilers and collect the error messages, which
> you can then click on to visit the file. It also has a debugger
> interface, although I'm partial to standalone debuggers.
Delphi can run external tools but doesn't pick up on the results.
Delphi is available as a command line compiler.
> Emacs has that. For dozens of languages. It also auto-indents (and I
> mean it understands syntax, not just "indent to previous level").
Yes, Delphi does auto indentation. It also has templates for statements
like 'if' or 'while' etc. It analyses source code and produces lists of
class members when you type '.', or pops up a tool tip hint when you
enter '(' for a function. Can Emacs do that?
> I'm not clear on what you mean here. If you're talking about Windows
> resource files, that would be a Windows-specific thing don't you
think?
I mean Delphi resource files, not Windows resource files. Delphi can
handle Windows .RC files but it uses a streamed format for its own
resources, which it then stores as raw data in a Windows resource file.
How Delphi for Linux will do this I don't know.
Delphi lets you create components for GUI or non-GUI usage. They aren't
ActiveX controls (though they could be). These components then appear in
Delphi's component pallete and you can use them freely in applications,
editing them with the same resource editor as Delphi's components.
I looked at MOTIF a long time ago, and it has UIL for defining the
resources used by a GUI application. I looked at Qt and descovered it
did none of that, and expected you to do what MOTIF made you do before
UIL - code everything.
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
