Linux-Advocacy Digest #69, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Weevil")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar (sfcybear)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar (sfcybear)
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:02:48 +1000
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>Now, it has happened more than once that worms/viruses/whatever has
spread
> >>through this _flaw_ in Outlook.
> >It is not a flaw by any definition of the word flaw I am aware of.
Outlook
> >does nothing without asking. Outlook does nothing you do not tell it to.
> >Outlook does nothing that many other mailers (yes, even Unix ones) also
do.
> >
> I think it's a flaw by design. The default behaviour is wrong.
The default behaviour is to pop up a warning box that says "save".
> >>Clearly, its negative sides outweigh the
> >>positive sides as demonstrated by the ILOVEYOU.txt.vbs thing.
> >The negative sides are stupid people will lose their data. This
particular
> >afflication also applies to programs like "rm". Should we remove "rm"
> >because stupid people might delete their files ?
> >
> I don't buy that as a parallel to the Outlook problem. Rm's only purpose
> is to delete files. Outlook was never meant to do that.
You are implying that programs that cause Bad Things to happen to Stupid
People should not be allowed.
Well, I daresay rm has caused more Bad Things to happen that Outlook could
ever dream of.
> >>Unix companies have alreadly learned this lesson and has this feature
> >>disabled.
> >Bullshit. I can pipe a script attachment containing "rm -rf /*" to
/bin/sh
> >from Pine 4.21. If I'm not mistaken that's a fairly recent version.
> >
> You can specificially pipe it, yes. But that rm does not get run, by
default,
> if you choose to display the attachment. In Outlook, if you choose to
display
> (open) the attachment it _will_, by default, be run.
When you do the exact same thing you do anywhere else in Windows (double
click on an icon) it does the exact same thing it does everywhere else in
Windows (launch whatever default handler is specified).
By double clicking that icon, the user is telling outlook to open that icon.
Nothing is different about the way they'd open that icon at any other time.
This is exactly the same as piping something out of a mail program - I
wouldn't expect the mailer to act differently to some other program when I
piped content out of it.
> >>Looking at all the damage that has been caused by malicious scripts,
it's
> >>not clear enough. Or, it's just ineffective. That's why I think that all
> >>running of scripts should be completely disabled per default.
> >Outlook doesn't run the script. It hands the file off to the *shell* to
be
> >dealt with by their default handler. In the case of .vbs files this is
the
> >script interpreter (unsurprisingly).
> >
> Allright, all handing off of scritps to the *shell* should be
> disabled by default.
How do you decide what a script is ?
[chomp]
> >>>>No other OS processes mail the way Outlook does.
> >>>Bullshit. Any mailer that allows an attachment to be handed off to a
> >>>shell to be delt with does _exactly the same thing_.
> >>>Pine in Unix, for example.
> >>>KMail in KDE, for another.
> >>Only if enabled first.
> >It's "enabled" by default. I just opened up a message with an attachment
in
> >Pine and hit "|" then "/bin/sh" and it tried to pipe the attachment to
sh.
> >
> That is _not_ the same thing. The equivalent in Outlook would be
> something like: Right-click on the attachment, select "Sent To"
> and "Windows Scripting Host". A very specific action.
Not at all. When you double click an icon in Windows, you are "activating"
it. That means whatever default behaviour is defined for that filetype will
be performed.
If you doubleclick some icon in Outlook, it is exactly the same as piping
the attachment to some other handler program.
> If Pine had been as badly configured as Outlook you would only have to
> select the attachment and hit "Display" to run it.
"Activate" would be a better word to use. "Display" has no direct analogy
in Windows.
[chomp]
> >>>I guess that makes Outlook a reasonable mailer, since the list is
> >>>configurable. The list is in the registry and determined by filetype.
> >>It is the shell that actually executes the program.
> >>The flaw is that Outlook uses the global, system-wide list.
> >This is for convenience's sake. That's so you don't get a different
program
> >depending on where you launch a filetype from.
> >
> Convenience has its backsides, it seems. It's all about finding the right
> balance I guess.
Indeed. And IMHO this is one place where the balance is currently "good
enough".
Think about it for a while - if people are dumb enough to run a .vbs file
called "ILOVEYOU" they get in their email, then they're more than dumb
enough to run some random executable that gets emailed to them called
"ILOVEYOU". The end result would have been _exactly_ the same and the
fallout zone would have been only marginally smaller.
How would you propose a mailer protect against that ?
> >>Therefore,
> >>execution of scripts cannot be disabled unless Outlook itself is made
> >>aware of what is scripts and what is not.
> >Which is a maintenance nightmare. Why should Outlook have to do this when
> >no other program does?
> >
> For security reasons?
It would be a total and utter waste of resources. See above for why.
> >Disabling the execution of scripts is easy - just set the default handler
> >from vbscript to notepad.
> >
> Granted. Downside is that you disable execution system-wide.
> No double-clicking on script icons any more (unless you want to edit them
in
> Notepad of course). Personally, I'd disable it easy.
You can, of course, define an alternate action (say, "Execute") that will
appear on .vbs file context menus. Then you can just right click ->
execute. It's nearly as quick. This is what we did where I work.
> >>In Unix/Linux there is a mime-type list that is used for mail/news
> >>programs, one could say it's global for the mail programs.
> >And the browser and in KDE, IIRC, the shell.
> >
> The _shell_? Well, I've never used KDE, but I find that a bit odd.
By shell in that context I mean the KDE GUI (whatever you want to call it)
and not something like /bin/bash.
> >>>Depending on your config. They *might* include script interpreters.
> >>>There is no intrinsic reason why they can't.
> >>I don't know of any distribution that has this enabled per default. Do
> >>you?
> >Dunno, never looked.
> >However, that's irrelevant. The argument is that this "problem" is
somehow
> >a) only present in Outlook and b) inherently impossible under Unix (or
any
> >other OS).
> >
> Not impossible. But disabled per default.
No, just not as convenient by default. But that applies to a lot of thigns
when you compare Unix to Windows (or MacOS).
> There might also be other reasons that there are no ILOVEYOU.txt.sh for
Unix,
> but the fact remains that there are none at present, and hasn't been for
> a long time.
The main reason is simply that the vast majority of it's users are smart
enough not to run things they don't know about. The other, secondary reason
is that no-one[1] would ever bother writing a virus for Unix, because no-one
would be dumb enough to get infected.
I have *never* had a virus infect any of my systems. This is despite many
years of BBSing, warez, irc and spectating the demoscene. I've received
heaps in infected files, but I've never been infected.
[1] Figuratively speaking.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:07:29 +1000
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:12:25 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >You don't have Pine on any of your systems ? It *is* a rather popular
mail
> >client for *nixes.
>
> Yes, and I use it a lot. It doesn't run shell scripts when you view
> them. It displays them in a text editor. You have to take explicit
> action to run a script.
As you do in Outlook. The same explicit action you take from anywhere else
in Windows to open a file - double clicking it.
> >And it's not like such things are unheard of in other OSes.
>
> If you follow the thread, that was my point.
>
>
> >> Why have macros
> >> embedded in the document to begin with?
> >
> >So when you move your document with it's cool macros to some other
system,
> >they're there as well.
>
> Yes, there's the tradeoff. Make it easier at the cost of potentially
> serious security problems. Personally, I think having to move one more
> file over to bring in my "cool macros" is preferable. But then, I'm
> not targeting the boneheads of the world as my target market.
The point exactly. The masses have enough trouble dealing with tranferring
one file, let alone a few.
Look at it this way - if someone's dumb enough to open an attachment called
"ILOVEYOU", then they're dumb enough to save an executable file to disk and
run it.
> >> You don't see any Emacs macro viruses going around, even though it has
> >> a very powerful macro language.
> >
> >Has anyone actually tried ?
>
> I don't know. They sure have had plenty of time. Emacs has been
> around for many years. Much longer than Word. It is going to be a lot
> harder to get some random user to install your macro file than it is to
> get him to read your document though. That probably takes a lot of the
> fun out of it.
Unix has the advantage of a much larger proportion of experienced and
knowledgable users, which is the main reason viruses for it are pretty much
nonexistant (why bother writing viruses that will only infect a tiny
proportion of a tiny number of systems ?).
Viruses are only ever really going to be commonplace on the most popular
platform. That's just common sense.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:49:14 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> [snip]
> > The windows GUI is consistent, perhaps not from version to version (95
vs nt
> > interface) but certainly within a given version, it is consistent. For
that
> > matter, I'd people used to work on 98 that then went to work on 2000
> > probably without even noticing.
> [snip]
>
> Well if Windows GUI is consistent you should be able to predict exactly
> what will happen in the following scenario.
>
> I have two open folders on my desktop. Each of them is a folder I found
> somewhere which can be opened just by clicking on it.
> I drag and drop an Icon from one folder to the other.
>
> Now please tell me if the effect will be:
> Copy to destination folder
> Move to destination folder
> Create a link on the destination folder
> None of the above.
>
> If you can do that (without adding "if the folder is..", or "if the file
> is..." , then windows GUI is consistent and user friendly.
> If you can't it's a piece of crap.
It is consistent, that you can't see that the same action on a different
files/folders is inherently different is your own failure.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 03:09:14 +0200
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u508t$6ik$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:12:25 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >You don't have Pine on any of your systems ? It *is* a rather popular
> mail
> > >client for *nixes.
> >
> > Yes, and I use it a lot. It doesn't run shell scripts when you view
> > them. It displays them in a text editor. You have to take explicit
> > action to run a script.
>
> As you do in Outlook. The same explicit action you take from anywhere
else
> in Windows to open a file - double clicking it.
No, actually.
You double click it, and outlook warns you that it can be dangerous.
You have to ignore the default settings in order to run it.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:12:43 -0600
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u4s2a$i5s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > Story just now linked on slashdot : MS hacked again. This time the
> > hacker got into the download area and claimed he *could* have added
> > trojan horses to the download files. MS forgot to install one of their
> > own patches. MS claim the job of keeping up security is just too big for
> > a large company.
>
> I heard about it.
> Didn't someone post something about redhat still using apache with a
> vulnerability whose (their only) fix was to upgrade?
>
I don't understand. Are you saying that Microsoft was running Red Hat with
Apache on the server that just got cracked? Your comment doesn't seem to
make much sense. Can you rephrase it somehow?
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:16:48 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u4pi7$h3a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > :> : I wouldn't say "hacked", an employe was deceived
> > :> : into opening an email.
> > :>
> > :> Yeah, she should have known better. Open e-mail on Windows
> > :> and you are asking to be hacked into. Is that the message
> > :> you were trying to convey, Chad?
> >
> > : You know what I meant.
> >
> > : "...deceived into opening an email and running the executable
> > : attachment"
> >
> > Oh, I knew exactly what you meant. I just find it telling that
> > Windows uers use the terminology of "opening" e-mail and "running"
> > e-mail attachments interchangably. It tells you something about
> > how a lot of them have their system configured insecurely.
>
> No, it tells you how stupid they are.
> When you try to open an attachment
> Here is the message outlook gives you:
If different people have different meanings for a particular
word, it doesn't mean the one set is stupid.
> "Opening:
> <filename>
> ___
> Some files can contain viruses or otherwise be harmful to your computer.
It
> is important to to be certain that this file is from a trustwhorty source.
>
> What do you want to do with the file?
>
> [] Open it.
> [*] (default) Save it to disk.
>
> [*] (default) always ask me about this file type?
>
> [okay] [cancel]"
>
> If the user is incapable of reading two sentences of very
easy-to-understand
> english, what can you expect Outlook to do? Ignore the user and refuse to
do
> anything with the file?
How is the user supposed to understand that 'open' means
'let the attachment take control' instead of 'let me view it'?
Outlook should always refuse the former.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers: Blatent liar
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:14:47 GMT
In article <8u4s20$i5p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8u496b$jmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <q_gN5.3881$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> > > > > MS just hides them so you can never fix them thus you remain
> > vunerable.
> > > >
> > > > RedHat seems to have an inexhaustible supply.
> > >
> > > And they're making more every day!
> > >
> >
> > Yep, something MS does not seem to do, make FIXES!
> >
>
> Prove it!
> Show me ONE serious (IE, mainly dataloss or security risk or but also
> whatever else otherwise serious bug) that MS had left unfixed for a
long
> period of time.
Show me the MS bug data base and I will. Why else would MS keep it so
secret if everything was fixed??? If they were fixing every thing as
fast as opensouce they would be proude of their record and not hide it!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:24:54 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u4lf1$fdc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > BTW, how hard would it be to make your unix mailer run a shell script?
I
> > > mean, saving it to a temp dir and setting the x bit themselves.
> >
> > The shell is happy to accept piped input, and most character based
> > unix mailers will let you pipe to anything you want (GUI versions
> > may or may not deal with pipes). The point is that it is the
> > recipient deciding how to process the message explicitly.
>
> Dito for Outlook, you get to choose if to use the default for this file or
> to save it to the disk and use any variety of tools to disect/analyze/view
> it.
But I don't want the content in a disk file until after I view it. The
unix mailers will let me pipe through 'more' or a hex dump utility
or whatever without copying to disk first.
> > No, outlook lets the sender decide how an attachment is processed
> > and the selection is hidden from the recipient as he guesses the right
> > answer for the yes/no answer to the only choice that hasn't been
> > taken away.
>
> Here is the message outlook gives you:
>
> "Opening:
> <filename>
> ___
> Some files can contain viruses or otherwise be harmful to your computer.
It
> is important to to be certain that this file is from a trustwhorty source.
>
> What do you want to do with the file?
>
> [] Open it.
> [*] (default) Save it to disk.
>
> [*] (default) always ask me about this file type?
>
> [okay] [cancel]"
>
> If the user is incapable of reading two sentences of very
easy-to-understand
> english, what can you expect Outlook to do? Ignore the user and refuse to
do
> anything with the file?
>
> What is the yes or no question? At what point you don't have a choice?
It is 'open' (using essentially the senders choice of programs) or not.
Where is the 'view' option? Where is the 'use my choice of programs'
choice?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Meyers: Blatent liar
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:17:11 GMT
In article <0siN5.123507$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Remember the time they proported that NT was as fast
> > as Linux 2.2? How many independant company's have
> > proven this notion false!
> >
> > On the same Hardware Linux 2.0 was beating NT.
>
> In root breakins? I'll buy that.
Yeah, the same why you buy the idea that a bug and a trojan are the same
thing! Hey, I have some Ocean Front land in Arizona! Want to buy it?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:22:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Yeah, Visio doesn't look particularly spectacular.
> With the possible exception of some proprietary format
> it looks rather generic and rediculously easy to replace.
Speaking of which...
http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/dia.shtml
-wrinkledshirt
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:30:21 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u4jgi$lt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8tqq20$bbm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> That's what Linux does. It's had it for a while now. I don't know
> :> enough details of the other Unixen to know if they do it too. I first
> :> heard about copy-on-write in the kernel about 3-4 years ago, if memory
> :> serves me right.
>
> : Great. One more thing where NT is on par with the cutting edge Unix
> : implementations.
>
> Actually, this is an area where Linux was behind the times in
> comparasin to commercial Unixen. copy-on-write is very old within
> the Unix world. This isn't an area where NT was *on par* with cutting
> edge Unix technology - this is an area where both NT and Linux were
> behind the cutting-edge Unix technology.
I don't think there was ever a released version of Linux that did not
do copy-on-write fork()s and shared-text program loading. There
have been some variations over the years regarding the actual
memory mapping and sharing the various buffers. Most of this
was developed back in SysVr3 unix and independently in the
*bsd version at about the same time (early 80's) - and had probably
been done in a similar way in earlier operating systems.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:34:47 -0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:pm7N5.13148$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:uR3N5.123123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > I never argued Access is a replacment for a full blown RDBMS. But it
is
> > a
> > > > great tool for developing small to medium systems and a great tool
for
> > > > learning an RDBMS for very little money.
> > >
> > > Learning? Or vendor lock? In what way does it teach or encourage
> > > you to write standard DBMS code?
> >
> > SQL, stored procedures, triggers , table creates etc etc.
> >
> > You learn more if you use MSDE as the backed. MSDE is SQL Server 7.0 and
it
> > does come with Access 2000.
> >
> > If you but the Developers edition, you can distribute all of the above
for
> > free -- no client licenses, no need to buy Access for your client.
>
>
>
> Access is a total peice of shit!
> Everybody in the industry knows about this!
> That's why they run Oracle!
>
> Access is the dumbass's database!
The usual Penguinista stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:35:29 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:35:59 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9n6N5.36231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:23:36 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:Lo5N5.36197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:09:40 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:%N3N5.35894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> >Before we waste anymore time with your drivel, name the *nix tools
that
> >> >matches the feature list of Access.
> >>
> >>
> >> You must have not been paying attention
> >> when I said MySQL or Postgres.
> >
> >Tell me about the MySQL report writer. Or forms designer.
>
> Crystal Reports.
Not part of MySQL is it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 01:33:33 GMT
In article <jeff_jeffries-0511001347260001@sdn-ar-
002nyprinp217.dialsprint.net>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Jeffries) wrote:
> I need to choose either GNOME or KDE. I will be doing computationally
> intensive C++, with very heavy disk I/O. Results will be displayed in
> 3D preferrably with OpenGL.
>
> 1. Are GNOME and KDE C++ and/or object oriented? How will this affect
> developing with C++?
KDE is built with QT and C++, so there's a certain amount of object-
orientedness built in. I think QT has recently worked out its weird
licensing schemes, so I believe you don't have to worry about licensing
fees anymore (I think, there was a recent ruckus on www.linuxtoday.com
about it...). Do your research first, just to make sure. For a while,
QT was available only for non-commercial use -- if you wanted to
distribute, there were weird licensing schemes. I think this is fixed
with the move to GPL, but I'm not completely certain.
If you decide that you'd like to try C++ coding in GNOME, look up the
GTK-- widget set (it works with C++, they're just trying to be clever
with the naming). If you decide to go with C itself, look into the GTK+
widget set. GTK+ isn't exactly object-oriented, although there's been a
lot of work to try to make it FEEL object oriented. The biggest pain
will come from trying to create your own widgets -- the widget
constructor in C/GTK+ is not as easy as you'd hope. But, it's doable.
You're also going to find that in most ways you can build a GTK+
program and run it in KDE, or build a QT program and run it in GNOME,
so don't worry about making a high-level choice based on the XWindow
environment you think will be the most-used. It's a moot point.
> 2. I know GNOME has gtkglarea; does KDE?
Dunno.
> 3. What else should a C++ developer know?
Well, KDevelop 1.3 (for KDE) just came out, so if you need an IDE to
work within that might be your best choice. GNOME has glade, but I
found it less confusing to just code the stuff from scratch myself.
-andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:43:57 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u4ndu$g4m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 05:36:36 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> > >only use 5% of the features and require a consultant to help
> > >them get everything set up.
> >
> > If your application will do well on a toy database,
> > then you really won't need any help setting up an
> > RDMS from one of the big boys for that task.
>
> Yes, considerring the comlexity of databases, most certainly yes.
> You need to learn a lot more about a RDMS than you need to know about
Access
> in order to create an application.
Uh huh. But since Access 2000 ships with a runtime version of SQl Server
7.0, you have a very serious tool.
> Not to mention that each RDMS is very different in the way it acts.
> Especailly when you go a little higher then totally basic SQL.
> Consider two of the finest features of MySQL (okay, it isn't a RDMS, but
it
> was mentioned in this thread), SHOW & LIMIT clauses, neither access nor
> SQL7/2K have anything nearing its power.
Sure they do.
SQL Server supports the TOP clause which allows you to return the top n or
top %.
The TOP clause limits the number of rows returned in the result set.
TOP n [PERCENT]
etc etc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
