Linux-Advocacy Digest #247, Volume #30 Wed, 15 Nov 00 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Harri Haataja)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Debian Sells Stale Beef (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:19:41 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Here's a quote from Bjarne (pulled from the GTK-- page)
>
> ------
> Have you seen C code that simulates class hierarchies, parameterized
types, or
> exceptions? Such code tend to be a complete mess of pointers, casts, and
> macros. In C++, such code can be clean and simple. Most importantly, the
> constructs have well-specified semantics rather than just comments
explaining
> the intent of code fragments. What has happened is that the complexity has
been
> transferred from the code to the language definition (and compiler).
>
> Bjarne Stroustrup
> ------
Part of the problem is debugging this complexity. If you have an obscure
problem in your own complex C code, you have a reasonable chance
of debugging it. If the bug is in the complex things the compiler
has done you will probably just have to try different things until
the problem goes away. g++ has not been all that reliable at
least until recently (does it have a complete STL yet?). The
windows developers where I work always have to specify
the service pack needed for visual c++ to build any particular
product. How do people deal with this lack of reliability?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harri Haataja)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:15:17 GMT
Evan DiBiase wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Henrik Keiler
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> GTK+ is history. Microsoft is planning a massive lawsuit against GTK+
>>> authors and Gnome fondation starting in Q1/2001. They claim that GTK+
>>> violates both US patents (we don't care about software patents here in
>>> europe, but...) and their intellectual property (even europe cares
>>> about that !!). Shipping a product based on GTK+ will be dangerous - if
>>> this lawsuit will be won by microsoft (and GTK+ _is_ violating their
>>> patents - that is the primary problem: M$ has patents covering what
>>> GTK+ does... ;-(( ) all vendors who are using GTK+ and GTK+-based
>>> products (Gnome) will have to pay license fees. I won't recomment
>>> using GTK+ until these "issues" have been solved - otherwise you may
>>> have to pay many $$ to M$... ;-(
>
>Bah, I'll believe it when I see the links to the patents that GTK
>violates. Until then, this reeks of a scare tactic (why someone would
>want to scare people away from GTK, I don't know).
Didn't you hear about Sun and other UNIX vendors jumping for GNOME as
the unified UNIX desktop?
M$ wants to hit that, I think.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:58:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>> I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
>> a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
>> compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
>> are probably bad form anyway.
Is this supposed to be a good thing? In my opinion, C++ is too hard
to use correctly, and the sentiment you outline is the reason.
Basically, you get products with all the pitfalls of C, in addition to
a bunch of new ones.
> I couldn't agree more with this. Perhaps it's the hardcore traditionalists
> and/or luddites who simply want to resist anything new.
Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps we just think that you shouldn't have to
worry about a ton of low level stuff that a good compiler and/or run
time system can do for you. C++ code tends, like C, to be full of
memory handling errors, incorrect type casts, dangerous implicit type
conversions. It's not impossible to get it right, just very hard.
There are just too many 'bad practices' that are just too easy to
stumble into. I wonder how many of the people who use and prefer C++
has developed software in a dynamic OO setting like Smalltalk or CLOS,
or have used real type systems, like in ML?
> But to me, the absurdity of it all reaches a climax when people start
> choosing C for OO programming.
And adding functions to structs only goes a little way to alleviate
that. :-)
-kzm
PS: I mostly use Visual Developer studio, so I'm probably biased by
MS' sucky class libraries - too large classes, everything protected,
too deep hierarchy, Hungarian notation, #define'd UINTs and
type-broken messages all over the place.... uech.
PPS: I'm really starting to become skeptic to object orientation as a
whole, and I'm no longer sure what problem it is supposed to solve, so
that might bias me further.
PPPS: If you really want critical opinions on C++, try
comp.lang.smalltalk, comp.lang.functional, comp.lang.lisp.
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:47:31 GMT
In article <8us68a$je8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just in case, try running it from a terminal.
Tried that, apart from a message telling me the kernel supports ppp that
was it.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:23:13 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ROFL... do you even know what "enterprise" means?
Apparently not.
> I'm talking big tasks (of which Linux falls flat on its face) like
> running a multi-hundred-gigabyte database, running a SAP application
> server, PeopleSoft, BAAN, or any number of enterprise ERP, SRP, MRP-
> type applications.
I'm sure you'll list the "enterprises" where NT does this job?
> It can't. Why not? Because there are so many built in design flaws
> in the Linux kernel alone (not to mention 3rd party add-ons) that it
> would choke.
Really?
> Examples? Lack of multithreading in the networking stack that serializes
> all TCP/IP traffic on one NIC
And NT or Win2000 or any other OS for that matter can send multiple
packets at the same time? Impressive!
> and practically halts the OS during heavy traffic loads.
That's nonsense. I don't have any Gbit ethernet cards to try it on,
but I can comfortably saturate a 100Mbit segment without my old
Pentium Pro breaking out a sweat.
You realize, of course, that for a four processor Dell, currently
Linux beats NT on SPECWEB99 almost by a factor of three. Linux only
scales linearly to four processors, with eight you only see about 50%
further improvement. NT, on the other hand, doesn't have numbers on
eight CPU's, I wonder why?
Last time I heard, Linux also outperformed NT on SAP benchmarks.
DB2 Magazine thinks Linux is ready to run - and in fact, a recommended
platform for - IBM's DB2 UDB.
Linux may not replace mainframes yet, but scalability and performance
are ceasing to be the reason.
> Lack of large file support in the filesystem
It's not a file system issue, upgrade to a modern kernel, and start
creating large files.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
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!
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:28:51 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Microsoft IIS 4.0 ISAPI Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
> This is IIS, an add-on service, not Windows. Are Apache exploits
> considered Linux exploits? Sendmail? BIND?
Yes, at least by BugTraq, Red Hat, Debian, and everybody else I know,
except perhaps the linux-kernel list.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Debian Sells Stale Beef
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:47:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> Ioi Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So much about the most open Linux distribution on the planet. They are
>> not even open about when they make the CD.
> Fucking download the ISO from debian's site, you moron. You can get
> any version you want.
Don't download the ISO! Really.
Install a base system - from CD, from floppies, whatever, and use
configure /etc/apt/sources.list, and install whatever you need on
demand with apt or dselect.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:52:24 GMT
"Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:04 +1000, "steve erntner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
>
> In Linux, it's relatively simple.
> http://lhd.zdnet.com/db/searchproduct.cgi?_catid=12
>
Linux does seem to support alot of discontinued products.
> >all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist?
nooooooooooooooooo
> >im about to break down and cry
>
> Don't use second-rate OS's and you won't be easily disappointed.
He shouldn't have bought from a second rate sound card company, Aztech went
out of business over a year ago.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:55:15 GMT
"steve erntner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8usc4h$72t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
> all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist?
nooooooooooooooooo
> im about to break down and cry
>
Have you tried Soundblaster drivers? Since most Aztech card are sound
blaster compatible.
What do you expect when the company been out of business for over a year.
BTW I used to have a sound card by them.
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:58:47 +0000
A certain Pete Goodwin, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
>> Punch cards were probably routine there at one point as well. What sort
>> of routine are you talking of ?
>
>I think you have your eras muddled. Punch cards were way before then.
Before *when* ? That was my question.
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 15 Nov 2000 11:38:43 GMT
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:58:17 GMT, Ketil Z Malde wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>>> I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone would start
>>> a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most C code will
>>> compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline constructs which
>>> are probably bad form anyway.
>
>Is this supposed to be a good thing? In my opinion, C++ is too hard
>to use correctly, and the sentiment you outline is the reason.
>Basically, you get products with all the pitfalls of C, in addition to
>a bunch of new ones.
It's simply untrue that you get "all the pitfalls of C". Not having OO or
support for generics is a pitfall of C that C++ doesn't have. Manual memory
management is something that is mostly eliminated in C++ (you only need it
when you use polymorphism)
>> I couldn't agree more with this. Perhaps it's the hardcore traditionalists
>> and/or luddites who simply want to resist anything new.
>
>Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps we just think that you shouldn't have to
>worry about a ton of low level stuff that a good compiler and/or run
>time system can do for you. C++ code tends, like C, to be full of
>memory handling errors,
Again, C++ requires considerably less manual memory management than C.
In C, you need manual memory management every time you use a string. In
C++, there's very little manual memory management. (For example, with Qt,
one only needs to manage top level widgets or other dynamically instantiated
objects)
Of course, one could make improvements on the run time system and take over
memory management entirely. But there may be a performance penalty, and it
seems that usually there is. Sometimes the performance penalty is a problem,
sometimes it isn't. Where performance isn't critical, one can certainly
make a strong case for using say python or java instead of C++.
> incorrect type casts, dangerous implicit type
>conversions.
C++ makes improvements over C here. For example, you can have the compiler
warn about dangerous type conversions. There's static_cast, const_cast,
dynamic_cast. It's really not the same as C at all.
As for dynamic languages, programs written in these are full of
"dangerous implicit conversions" because one constantly reinterprets
objects or object references at runtime. C++ has stronger compile time
protection features.
> It's not impossible to get it right, just very hard.
On the contrary, it's much easier to get right than C.
>There are just too many 'bad practices' that are just too easy to
>stumble into. I wonder how many of the people who use and prefer C++
>has developed software in a dynamic OO setting like Smalltalk or CLOS,
>or have used real type systems, like in ML?
Dynamic systems replace compile time errors with run time errors. Not a good
thing. BTW, how many of these "dynamic" systems are properly standardised ?
IMO there are solutions that make genuine improvements over C++ in terms
of solving its error-prone-ness (for example, java and eiffel) but they
are not properly standardised and have their fair share of drawbacks.
>> But to me, the absurdity of it all reaches a climax when people start
>> choosing C for OO programming.
>
>And adding functions to structs only goes a little way to alleviate
>that. :-)
C++ adds constructors, destructors and runtime dispatch, not just "functions".
>PS: I mostly use Visual Developer studio, so I'm probably biased by
>MS' sucky class libraries - too large classes, everything protected,
>too deep hierarchy, Hungarian notation, #define'd UINTs and
>type-broken messages all over the place.... uech.
Hahahaha ... I see. Yes, it's possible to shoot oneself in the foot in any
language, and C++ certainly makes it easy to do that.
Try using something like Qt and you'll come back with a higher opinion of
C++.
>PPPS: If you really want critical opinions on C++, try
>comp.lang.smalltalk, comp.lang.functional, comp.lang.lisp.
Bjarne talks about the "two kinds of languages": those that nobody uses and
those that everybody complains about.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
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: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:44:40 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> "Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > People working in DOS before windows came around
> > > really had no trouble with the concept of files and opening them
> > > with applications at all. Now they have no idea where things
> > > go when they save them and can't even figure out how to put a
> > > copy on a floppy.
> >
> > That's because like UNIX, you'll never get around DOS without learning
> > any ground rules first and how to move around.
>
> Which turns out not to be a problem at all, except for the people
> who have the concept hidden from them.
>
> > However, my DAD was burning CD's, sampling music from Vinyl's, removing
> > pop's and clicks etc. He installed all the software to do this and yet he
> > couldn't navigate his file system. It was pretty amazing actually. This
> > is why the novice loves Windows so much. They really don't have to learn
> > anything to start being productive. For some like my Dad and my sister,
> > they don't have to learn Windows at all to do what they use their
> > computers for.
>
> I don't understand at all what that has to do with hiding the place the
> files really are stored from them.
Are files being hidden from the user in Windows? ;;;; Except for that
warning message in Win98 when opening the system folder?
> I did some help-desk and training back
Did you say 'training'? Nuff said. :-)
I'm not disputing that these concepts are hard to learn. Don't you see
that? :-)
> in the dos days and it just wasn't a problem for people to understand
> saving files to a name rather than a picture, and they could look at
> the path name and know what it meant. When GUI operations came
> around, it did help with wordprocessing and graphics, but it was at
> a cost in managing the underlying data.
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 15 Nov 2000 12:00:23 GMT
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:19:41 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>Part of the problem is debugging this complexity. If you have an obscure
>problem in your own complex C code, you have a reasonable chance
>of debugging it. I
But you're considerably more likely to have the problem.
> f the bug is in the complex things the compiler
>has done you
Not likely in practice. What kind of "complex things" are you referring to ?
I'd say that the compiler "doing things for you" helps. For example, memory
management problems tend to be isolated inside destructors instead of
scattered throughout your code. For example, every time you copy a string
in C, or read a string from an external source, you've just created a
potential memory management error. I'd argue that replacing these zillions
of managed arrays in client code with a single managed array in
the string class is a very good thing.
The kinds of bugs you're likely to have in C++
are the same as those you get in C: memory management errors. And these
tend to come up less frequently because there's not as much manual memory
management.
> will probably just have to try different things until
>the problem goes away.
Well if this is your approach, you're probably not a very good C++
programmer.
> g++ has not been all that reliable at
>least until recently (does it have a complete STL yet?). The
Nope. Close, but not completely-complete.
>windows developers where I work always have to specify
>the service pack needed for visual c++ to build any particular
>product. How do people deal with this lack of reliability?
Well, the GNOME developers also have to specify a version of GTK and
the GNOME libs, and glib, right ??? We even had *compile time* incompatibilites
with libc versions just a few years back. (For example, GNOME required glibc)
So the problems with "lack of reliability" as you call it plague everyone
besides the luddites who are willing to work with crude and primitive
development tools.
I mean, "Visual C++" is not just a C++ implementation, it also comes with
an application development framework, and this is constantly evolving.
As far as stability goes, C++ *is* better than most other languages -- it
is one of the few languages that has a written standard that many vendors
come reasonably close to complying to (the only other language in the same
class here is C)
If we wanted everything to be "reliable" in the above sense, we'd all
program in ancient languages and ancient APIs and resist all technology.
Again, this would be true to the spirit of the "luddite" movement. However,
those who join the luddite movement should not use GNOME or GTK, because
these are object oriented, make heavy use of CORBA, and are certainly not
stable.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: 15 Nov 2000 12:06:52 GMT
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:40:47 GMT, Rasputin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mlw> wrote:
>So use Gtk--.
Gtk-- does not ship with GNOME. And GNOME's CORBA architecture does not
work with C++.
Gtk-- looks like a reasonably nice toolkit, but the problem is that it
doesn't seem as well supported as the C version of GNOME, and the GNOME
project still seem to be pushing the line that C is the language that
"should be used" by GNOME developers.
If C++ had better support in the GNOME community, I'd seriously consider
using gtk--.
>I agree - Gtk macros are no substitute for a good
>object model. But then I'm a Java boy originally, so from
>my point of view C++ is an equally horrible kludge.
>
>But then I go for Gtk because I like eye candy,
>(KDE themes being a little weak) so what do I know?
Have you used KDE 2.x yet ? The themeing there looks pretty good to me.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: 15 Nov 2000 12:09:41 GMT
On 14 Nov 2000 09:16:56 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I hope that the two projects merge in the future in a language less
>> sucky than either C or C++.
>
>Agreed. They should write it in Java. That way, KDE and GNOME could run on
... a quad CPU 2 Ghz Xeon with 1.5 gig of memory.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
