Linux-Advocacy Digest #284, Volume #30 Fri, 17 Nov 00 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: Linux Sux (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jack Troughton)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jason Bowen)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Daniel Tryba)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:12:00 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>To say it frankly, only an asshole waits for the service packs.
>Sure, when it is out you install it, but you also need to keep track of MS
>bullteians and hot fixes.
Why?
>Remember that security hole hotfix that MS didn't apply to its server and
>allow the hacker to get it?
Which one?
>You don't get it in a service pack, because SP2 has a long way to go yet.
>You get it in as a nice little executable, and patch the security holes in
>your system ASAP.
>Waiting for the Service Pack mean that you are a *bad* admin, and should be
>sent to stand in the corner.
Needing a service pack means you are a bad admin, who can't tell crappy
software from a hole in the head.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 17 Nov 2000 19:31:21 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I maintain a
>Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego Mindstorms
>for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
>
>The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is this sort of
>emotional dislike for C++.
>
>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.
>
>This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a software
>engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue this point
>many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make sure the
>right decisions are made.
>
>Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
>(excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
I remember the move to C++ in 1992 or 1993 and then the retreat since
there were then too many problems with G++. I don't know what the
situation is now, but back then a lot of people felt they had their
hands burned. (This was in the FAQs from late 1993.)
Question to those "in the know": to what extent was Linux's initial move
to C++ back then nearly fatal?
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:37:35 -0000
Just out of curiosity - do you mean typing Help in the Run window (which
would open the Help folder if \Windows was before \Windows\System32 in your
PATH variable) or Help into the DOS box? Typing in a directory name into the
console shouldn't spawn an explorer window pointing at that directory at
all.
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:40:38 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> DOESN'T SUPPORT HARWARE.
Yeah, I hate that. I've been running Linux on a sheet of paper for years,
and it's just not cutting it.
> WON'T INSTALL ON MODERN SYSTIMS.
Especially not my brand spanking new Athlon system... oh wait, it does.
> DOESN'T WORK WITH PRINTORS OR MADAMS.
Yeah, I have a tough time printing on my Laserjet... wait, no I'm wrong
again... and assuming you mean MODEMS, I agree. In fact, it's currently
not working with my modem as I sit here online using my... modem... oh...
hmm...
You must really have meant Madams... sorry, I thought that was a typo.
> CAMRAS DON'T WORK.
That reminds me of a funny story. The other day, as I was downloading
pictures from my camera in Linux, I told it that it didn't work with Linux.
My camera won't talk to me now.
> HAS NO SOUND.
Thank GOD! I KNEW this had to be true, but I kept hearing it make noise
when I close applications and such. Now I know it's all in my head. I was
worried there for awhile.
> DOESN'T RUN GAMES.
Damnit. I better throw away my Linux games... now that I know I'm
imagining that too!
> HAS 100 DIFFERNT EDITERS BUT NO DECENT BROWSER.
Well crap. Guess I'll stop using my browsers too, now that they're not
decent.
> LINUKS SUKX.....
So does spelling. You're so much cooler than me.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:33:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Um, if you are makeing those scaling statements based on the SPECweb99
submittals at www.spec.org, you should keep in mind that the 1, 2, and 4
CPU results all used different processor frequencies, so I'm not quite
sure the data completely supports the supposition that there is linear
CPU scaling under the SPECweb99 workload. It could indeed scale that
way, but I'm not sure the data is quite clear enough. There are only two
datapoints which appear to use the same CPUs (though not the same system
board?)
rick jones
--
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not
want them anyway... :)
feel free to email, or post, but please do not do
both...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:48:02 -0000
> I would think this is Standard Operating Procedure for Windows.
> Start > Run, for example, then type in any directory path -- and
> one gets Explorer, displaying that directory (and the icons within it).
For me, running Help via the Run box opens up help in a console window,
closing it immediately after the help has scrolled away. Go figure. :)
> Admittedly a useful shortcut, but a tad counterintuitive.
> It appears that Microsoft is blurring the lines between an
> application window, and a file display window (that's not too
> bad, because a file browser after all is an app, too).
I think I have worked out what happens. The Help.exe file is located in
Winnt\System32; the Help folder is in Winnt. My PATH is set so that System32
is searched before System. If I just run "Help" then System32 is searched
and Help.exe is run.
If System32 came after Winnt in the PATH then typing "Help" in the Run
window would open \Winnt\Help, although typing it in the console would still
run help.exe.
So now you know. :)
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:35:34 -0500
Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >>
> >> >I would disagree somewhat. OS/2 on a server is very stable indeed.
> >>
> >> I think the point the previous poster was making was that Unix is more
> >> stable than OS/2, not that OS/2 is unstable. If for example OS/2 systems
> >> are stable enough to run for 9 months between reboots and Unix can run
> >> for at least 1 year between reboots then they can both be called stable
> >> operating systems as 9 months is a good uptime but the one with an uptime
> >> of 1 year is more stable. If under the same example another operating system
> >> can only stay up for 1 week then it is not stable (this was just an example
> >> so don't flame me about actual details).
> >
> >Yes, that's true. OTOH, I think that in situations like that, OS/2
> >is just as stable as many of the flavours of *nix that are out
> >there.
> >
> >Of course, all of the evidence is anecdotal, so you can't really
> >_prove_ it one way or another, but I have had heavy 24/7 desktop use
> >machines stay up for more than six months before being taken down.
> >I've also heard of servers being up for several years, though I
> >haven't seen it for myself.
> >
> >And any system can be taken down by a nastily written app; I have a
> >friend that claims to be able to kill any *nix box so long as he has
> >shell access, and not even root access. It's not that he crashes it
> >so much as he just renders it useless for anybody else who wants to
> >use the machine...
>
> Probably only poorly administered machines. Without root access and
> things like process limits set up your friend shouldn't be able to make
> the machine unusable.
Possibly... also, this was quite a long time ago... back in 96 or
thereabouts. I'm sketchy on the details on how it worked. He also
made another one that <koff koff> 'tested' for the F00F bug by
croaking the box. Mind you, he never used them maliciously, or even
left them lying around for other people to pick up and use, but he
used to get a kick out of using his win32 version to blow up windows
boxen at work.
Sort of like...
"check this out!"
cl-click.
poof.
What can I say... we were in school:)
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:05:32 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not knocking VC++ here, just stating a fact. We are useing VC++ and
> the *.exe run slower than similar programs written in C.
There are so many factors that can effect performance that this is a
ridiculous statement.
For instance, using the MFC CString command:
CString s("Test");
CString s2("Test2");
s = s + s2;
is about 10x slower than
CString s += s2;
Also, something as simple as using ++x versus x++ can be quite a bit faster
too on user defined types, since the latter requires an extra temporary to
be created, and depending on the cost of construction, can be quite
expensive.
C++ *CAN* be slower than C, but then C *CAN* be slower than C++. That
doesn't mean either of them are always so.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:13:11 GMT
You're misquoting me. I didn't write the stuff you have quoted in your
post.
claire
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:12:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Richter)
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:40:46 +1000, Ian Pulsford
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Moderator wrote:
>>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >
>><cut>
>>
>>> I don't know. I have a USB mousewheel running fine with
>>> KDE2/Netscape/FreeBSD. One of the problems with Linux is that they
>>> never document anything. Manpages a year or so behind, HOWTOs that
>>> apply to every distribution except the one you're using, etc. Then if
>>> you can't figure anything out, you are labeled as dumb and tossed aside
>>> by the kids who got their machines to work right the first time with
>>> Linux through some weird alignment of the planets. That's the problem
>>> with the Linux community. If you don't know something, you are dumb and
>>> don't deserve to use Linux in the first place.
>
>Claire, let me ask you a few things:
>
>1. Did you figure out the mousewheel by yourself?
>
>2. Was there any documentation already existing for installation?
>
>3. If #1 is true, why not add documentation to the pile so that the
>next person will have it easier? You're a decent writer...put that
>to work in a constructive manner! If you're now saying "Well, I just
>want to USE Linux, Joe-Blow doesn't want to write docs, Linux isn't
>ready for the desktop, blah, blah blah..." then you're missing the
>spirit of what got Linux this far in the first place.
>
>Wierd alignment of the planets has nothing to do with it. Yes, there
>is a discovery process involved with Linux, just as there is with
>any OS. Look around the web and see how many sites there are for
>helping folk configure and troubleshoot Windows...join in the process
>in a positive manner.
>
>Terry's theory that you're a Wintroll disguised as Claire aside, you
>seem to be "on the edge". Fascinated with Linux yet disgusted at what's
>missing at the same time. Even if you're fake, there are probably many
>real people in that same position. I would encourage that you do
>one of two things:
>
>1. Understand that Linux, right now, may just be too frustrating for
>you. Walk away in peace. OR
>
>2. Understand that Linux is an ongoing project. Help out. Help to get
>us further along. Heck, I just released a little utility that lets Pine
>users search an Exchange Global Address Book...trying to bridge that gap
>of usability just a bit more. (begin plug) - check it out at
>http://pabber.sourceforge.net (end plug) You may not be able to write
>code, but help as you can.
>
>>
>>Not true, usenet is your friend (except cola which is more like a
>>college loungeroom). HOWTOs are especially useful; if they don't quite
>>apply to what you want they tend to at least give you clues. I always
>>collect more than one doco on the subject before I log off the web and
>>try it out. There are usually many different ways of doing things. One
>>day you'll start hacking your configuration scripts and then the fun
>>begins.
>>
>>
>>IanP
>
>I second everything that Ian says.
>
>Good luck to you, if you really want it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: 17 Nov 2000 19:13:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Possibly... also, this was quite a long time ago... back in 96 or
>thereabouts. I'm sketchy on the details on how it worked. He also
>made another one that <koff koff> 'tested' for the F00F bug by
>croaking the box. Mind you, he never used them maliciously, or even
>left them lying around for other people to pick up and use, but he
>used to get a kick out of using his win32 version to blow up windows
>boxen at work.
>
>Sort of like...
>
>"check this out!"
>
>cl-click.
>
>poof.
>
>What can I say... we were in school:)
Well yeah there are known holes but any modern operating system would have
the F00F patched. That is why I threw in "poorly", a competent admin
will take care of holes as quickly as possible. I have yet to have a
system I'm administering rooted. Part luck I'm sure but partly because I
turn off stuff that isn't needed and keep up on alerts for stuff that is
needed.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------
>* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
>* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
>* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: 17 Nov 2000 19:37:44 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm... this might be because you need to have the RDP client installed
> before the ICA client so that the ICA client can use the RDP protocol. This
> might preclude using RDP under Linux since there is no RDP client for Linux.
There is a rdp client for unixes:
http://www.rdesktop.org/
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:53:48 +1000
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v1qu8$bcm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8v0a8u$isu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>
> :> I fail to understand why this is even needed. You refer to a computer
> :> by its hostname. Now, if this alias were at a low level, such that you
> :> could, for example go to http://foo and http://bar and have them be
> :> the same thing, then that would make sense, but shortcuts are only
> :> at the interactive GUI level, where it doesn't matter what it's called.
> :> The same is true for shortcuts to URLS or shortcuts to printers. These
> :> things are just strings. A shortcut URL makes no sense since a URL is
> :> something you *type* anyway. Once you've got a clickable icon thingy
> :> to refer to a URL, who cares what it's called? You aren't typing it
> :> in anymore at that point, you are just clicking on an icon, so who
cares
> :> what it's called?
>
> : I really don't understand what you're trying to say.
>
> : The point of being able to have shortcuts to any GUI object is that you
find
> : it *once*, then make a shortcut to it and you don't have to go through
> : whatever rigamarole you had to go through to navigate to it the first
time.
> : You just open the icon and its there. I fail to see how what the
shortcut
> : is called is relevant at all.
>
> Because in the case of printers and URLS the "shortcut" doesn't need to
> be anything more than a dumb ascii string. Exactly what is the difference
> between having one icon associated with this string vs having two? I
> don't see why it needs to be a special thing - once you have the capacity
> to associate an icon with a URL string, what's the difference between a
> shortcut to that icon, and just making a totally new icon associated with
> the URL string?
I still don't get it. Where are the two icons coming from ? A shortcut to
a URL basically *is* just a file with the plaintext URL in it.
> For example, in kde and gnome, the desktop can have an icon on it that
> refers to a "URL" file, which is, behind the scenes, just a file that
> contains one line of text - the URL itself.
And that's almost exactly what a shortcut to a URL in Windows is. It may
also contain a few other bits of information like whether or not the page
the URL refers to has been syncronised or whether it has changed since the
last time it was opened.
> : The advantage to these things is that you can move them around, or send
them
> : to other people, or take them with you.
>
> URLs already have that feature, without shortcuts.
But they don't have the other things like syncronisation information, or the
ability to be quickly an easily manipulated as a single object, if they're
just a string in a file somewhere.
> That's why I'm
> confused. There is no difference between making two separate copies
> of a URL and making a shortcut to a URL. A URL is *already* a remote
> reference anyway.
I ask again, what are the two copies you're talking about ?
> :> : You can make a shortcut to an object, move the shortcut to another
drive
> : and
> :> : it will still resolve.
> :>
> :> This is also true of symbolic links with full paths in Unix.
Furthermore,
> :> if you actually *want* the relative path to change, you have that
option
> :> too - it all depends on whether you start your path at the root or
> :> use a "../../.." type of path.
>
> : A *lot* of links don't use absolute paths. More importantly, if a link
> : breaks it won't try to fix itself, nor does it automatically keep track
of
> : the target if it moves.
>
> That depends on the kind of link. Hardlinks (by i-node number) don't
> care if the target moves, synmbolic links (by filename) do.
The _vast_ majority of links in any Unix system I've ever used are soft
links. No doubt due to the restrictions of hard links.
> : These are all just UI issues.
>
> :> : You can make a shortcut to an object, move the shortcut to another
> : computer
> :>
> :> Stop - "Move the shortcut to another computer" how? Only in the
explorer
> :> window, or does this work everywhere else too?
>
> : Floppy disk, email, whatever. The shortcut encodes information like the
> : computer name, path to the file etc.
>
> So, errr, it's basicly a URL? IMO it would have been better to just
> make some extensions to URLs to handle different 'protocols', rather
> than make up some new technique. (For example, refer to a printer
> with something like: "print://printer1/", or for remote printers,
> "print://other.machine.name/printer1/". URLS are *supposed* to be
> extensible this way, just so long as you don't step on the toes
> of the officially sanctioned protocol format strings (http://, ftp://,
> etc).)
But shortcuts contain extra information like custom icons, shortcut keys,
startup parameters and environment information.
> : It's very handy.
>
> :> : and it will still resolve to the original object on the original
> : computer
> :> : and access it (assuming the other computer has appropriate
permissions).
> :> : You can make a shortcut to an object on a remote computer, disconnect
> : from
> :> : that machine and the shortcut will re-connect to it if necessary to
> : resolve
> :> : the shortcut when you open it (assuming correct permissions etc).
> :>
> :> : Aliases on MacOS and Shadows on OS/2 have similar pros/cons vs links,
> : for
> :> : the same reasons.
> :>
> :> :> Shortcuts are handy, no doubt, but they only cover a small subset of
> :> :> what can be done with unix symbolic links, which is why they look
> :> :> like they have limited functionality to someone used to unix. If
> :> :> you don't try to compare them to symbolic links, then sure, they
> :> :> do a fine job. Something doesn't lose functionality just because
> :> :> something else is better.
> :>
> :> : It's an invalid comparison because a) they operate at totally
different
> :> : levels (filesystem vs shell) and b) have almost completely different
> :> : features and purposes. About the only similarity they share is that
> : both
> :> : can point to files.
> :>
> :> True - they are totally different. I don't consider the things
shortcuts
> :> do to be *good* things though, because they lock you into one user
> : interface.
>
> : And links lock you into a certain filesystem, so ?
>
> ?? Links exist and work the same way regardless of the filesystem
> used. If the filesystem supports it, it works the same - A piece
> of software that ends up using a link somehow does it the *same*
> way regardless of whether the link comes from a efs, xfs, ext2,
> reiserFS, or whatever type of filesystem.
Can I copy (just with cp, or by dragging it to a disk in, say, KDE) a link
from any filesystem that supports links to any other filesystem that
supports links and have the link still work ? How about ftping it ?
> : Shortcuts are a *User Interface* feature and a damn useful one.
>
> : You might care to all decent GUIs have some equivalent - KDE with
.kdelnks,
>
> That sentence no verb. Huh?
Should be "[...] care to note all [...]".
> : for example.
>
> I know they exist. I don't use them. There's very little point to it,
> precisely because I don't want to lock myself into just kde or gnome.
They're a *UI* feature. It's irrelevant whether you "lock yourself in"
because they're only really meant for organising access to <whatever> inside
the UI of your choice.
ANd trying to say they're silly just because you're in the 1% of the
population who might actually use a different shell on a remotely regular
basis is hardly a strong argument.
> :> (By making you rely on things that don't exist "for real" on the
> : underlying
> :> system. You can't "fopen()" a shortcut in a program, and so they only
> : work
> :> for those programs that expressly make use of them with special code.
> : (the
> :> MS user interface). (When you make the change at a lower level, it
retro-
> :> actively works in old programs that never heard of the idea.) )
>
> : But the disadvantage is you lose features like being able to refer to
> : high-level objects, because something as low-level as a filesystem can't
> : know about the UI implemented on top of it.
>
> True, but the problem is that shortcuts are *all* you have in Windows,
> and they are woefully inadequete for anything other than the one
> workplace shell that implements them.
Not at all, since all they're *meant for* is the shell that implements them.
Same as .kdelnks and the like.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 06:08:31 +1000
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:lX0R5.21185$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8v0bie$ta1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Floppy disk, email, whatever. The shortcut encodes information like the
> > computer name, path to the file etc.
> >
> > It's very handy.
>
> Only to someone with the same GUI that understands it.
Well, duh. Links are only useful to someone with a filesystem that
understands them.
> Pre-existing
> programs, and other OS's seeing the network-shared disk won't
> understand it as they do with symlinks.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by pre-existing programs not
"understanding" it, but networked shared disks aren't meant to - it's meant
to be used at the shell level.
> > > True - they are totally different. I don't consider the things
> shortcuts
> > > do to be *good* things though, because they lock you into one user
> > interface.
> >
> > And links lock you into a certain filesystem, so ?
>
> No, all good filesystems support links and symlinks.
And do they retain the same characteristics just copied with something like
"cp" from one to the other ? How about over a network ?
> > Shortcuts are a *User Interface* feature and a damn useful one.
>
> The difference is that they force you to use the particular interface
> that supports them - in typical Microsoft style.
So do .kdelnks and the like, which is what you should be comparing shortcuts
to.
> When symlinks
> were added into the filesystems all existing programs automatically
> could use their advantages.
I've yet to bump into a Win32 program that couldn't make use of a shortcut.
> > But the disadvantage is you lose features like being able to refer to
> > high-level objects, because something as low-level as a filesystem can't
> > know about the UI implemented on top of it.
>
> All good operating systems refer to their objects through names in the
> file system. /dev/modem and /dev/cdrom are typical generic names
> usable by applications that generally exist in the filesystem as symlinks
> to the specific device you want for the applications' defaults. In unix,
> when you solve one problem it works the same for everything.
Printers ? URLs ? Networked computers ? Shares on networked computers ?
Being able to transport these things between machines just by emailing or
copying to a floppy disk ? How do symlinks do these things ?
In any event your whole comparison is flawed, because youa re comparing a
filesystem feature with a shell feature. Both methods have advantages the
other does not.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
