Linux-Advocacy Digest #495, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... ("the_blur")
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("the_blur")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Java? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("the_blur")
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (Mike Raeder)
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:01:16 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:31:06 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:43:38 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Just use it like the other 10,000 people did in
> >> >> a business environment or with napster and
> >> >> just watch that peice of shit bluescreen.
> >> >
> >> >Obscure statement, provide some proof.
> >>
> >> "Napster crashes."
> >>
> >> "Obscure statement"...
> >
> >How is Napster crashing has anything to do with 2K stability?
>
> I dunno. Should I care? You said that "Napster crashes" was an "obscure
statement".
> I'm just wondering what led you to the conclusion that it was an "obscure
statement".
It's obscure statement because it provide no info for the reasons this
happen, or even proof that it ineed happen.
Webster...
Different meaning here, I'm afraid, not fully & correct detailed is the best
translation I'm currently capable of offering to this.
> >I've used Napster on win2k, both pro & server.
> >It never blue screened on me.
> >> >> Or you can read it in the reviews.
> >> >
> >> >Provide a proof.
> >>
> >> How about you get some experience as a sysadmin? Try to get 2k boxes up
to
> >> (okay, sorry, somewhere-remotely-distantly-approaching) the stability
and
> >> security of unix boxes. If you succeed, _then_ report back to us. Until
> >then...
> >
> >Why would I? Sun already did it.
> >http://www.sun.com/software/white-papers/wp-dhbrown00/#1.1
>
> *shrug*
>
> You'll notice that Solaris comes out on top of NT in all the categories in
that link that _I_,
> as a sysadmin, care about (resource management, product maturity,
resiliency, clustering,
> multiprocessing, remote management, resource managing).
"somewhere-remotely-distantly-approaching"
Was what you asked for.
Do you really excpect an essay that shows that Win2k is better than Solaris
on *Sun*'s site?
You forgot to check Development Considerations, Platform Choices,
Distributed Systems Management, all of which may be unimportant to *you*
personally, but certainly matter to those who actually buy the OS.
Also:
About clustering, do you know who holds the first 6 places in TPC clustered
tests?
Do you know who broke the record?
Unix only has two entries here, 2k has 6 (all the 6 first places) NT has 2.
http://www.tpc.org/new_result/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=cluster
What about TCO?
a.. 50 percent less overall on labor, equipment, and services
a.. 36 percent less per server
a.. 46 percent less per user
a.. 68 percent less on value-added software including development tools,
databases, applications and utilities
http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/mwarv/TCOforNTS.asp
> Where Solaris gets beaten? "GUI management tools" Hahaha, I'm laughing
already. "Application
> availability"? I use mostly free and open-source, and that which isn't, is
readily available.
> Unix has no lack of server apps...
Development Considerations, Platform Choices, Distributed Systems
Management, clustering, tco.
> And security wasn't mentioned as a separate category... hrmm... don't get
me started...
Does Solaris has ACL? (I'm asking, not tounting)
> >> I'll provide objective proof as soon as you can get the hands (legally)
on
> >the
> >> 2k source and turn it over to me, so I can fossick through it...
> >
> >Sure you can.
> >All you've to do is pay a ridicously high amount of money to MS and sign
a
> >draconian NDA license that basically says, if you even think about this
code
> >in public, they've the right to kill you in many interesting ways.
> >Adminning ME, for example.
>
> So, until you get the 2k source for me, I'll have to come to my
conclusions
> regarding NT/2k's security/stability/whatever else by empirical
observation...
> (_if_ you get me the source, i'll tell you _why_ NT/2k is crashy under
load,
> insecure etc, but until then, I can't tell you _why_, I can only give you
my
> empirical observations and opinions formed thus).
Solaris is a properity OS, isn't it?
>> >None of the reviews I've seen on win2k (and I've seen many) "proved it
to
> >> >NOT be stable"
> >>
> >> Oh, well, silly me and silly charlie. If a review didn't say it to be
> >unstable...
> >
> >Show me the review from a credible source that claim that Win2K is
unstable.
>
> I consider myself to be a credible source, as a sysadmin of some years...
>
> (I mean, how can one determine the stability of a product with a _review_?
Are
> you naive or what?)
That wasn't *my* claim.
I think that system stability has to be tested in a month at the minimum.
Charile Albert: "Or you can read it in the reviews" (referring to the win2k
being supposedly crushy)
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:14:04 -0500
http://pages.infinit.net/outcasts/pinguinos.html
> Really fine drawings. I don't know anything about art, but you sure can
> hold a crayon in your hands.
>
> One remark: Tux was never meant to be taken serious. It reflects the
> character of the linux community: just a stupid picture, don't think too
> much about it, it's part of the fun. Your penguinos look good, very good,
> but they're too serious. Does making your penguins humorous sound like
> rape?
Hehe, I'm just following SOP to design a proper animal graphic. First, I
draw pennguins. Lots of penguins, then I'll start stylizing them into
graphic images, then I'll refine..refine and refine... and then start over
for another pinguino.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:09:45 +0200
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900eel$ac7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Let me help you with the wordiness problem.
> Anything browser by Netscape + AOL == second rate shite.
> Pure & simple. Penguinites may love it, but that's all the penguinites
have.
> You can't convince them. They'd cut off their penis to spite their balls.
* + AOL == second rate shit.
My problem with Netscape that it was quite usable, apperantly.
I wouldn't consider moving to it (Two reasons to move to another
application: I feel uncomfortable in the current application, or the other
application offers some big advantages. I moved from 9x to NT and then to
linux (several dist) and then to win2k on my desktop. 9x was crushy, NT
hardware support was horrible, Linux was usable, but uncomfortable. Win2K is
stable, comfortable, usable, and offer me a wide range of hardware.)
Right now I'm evaluating Whistler, I'll keep it until I'll get bored by the
pretty colors and then return to win2k.
Right now, it is not offering enough to root me out of my win2k.
The switch user option, however, is facinating.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:29:31 -0500
> Demonstrating that the Whistler color scheme has exactly ZERO additional
> value over Linux.
Wow. Some contribution...I'll recommend a medal in writing. Do you realize
the above statement is vague to the point of being a non-argument, or should
I point out to you why?
BTW, whistler does look good. And it doesn't crash nearly as much as you'd
have people believe. In fact since I havent used it, I can't say how often,
my exp. is with win2k, which has nearly the stability of linux, but it has
useable, stable graphic design applications (linux at this point does not
when it does, I'll switch over completely). Win2k was used as the basis for
whistler so there's no reason to believe it's more unstable.
You have no proof, no evidence, not even decent arguments for crying out
loud! Just loud ranting!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:26:51 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:26:03 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Stephen Cornell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > I've the OS installed for about 24 hours now.
> >> > How am I to test something other than look & feel in this time span?
> >>
> >> Exactly. This is why your conclusion that Whistler was so `cool' is
> >> so meaningless. That was what AK was parodying.
> >>
> >> > Beside, as I'm using the desktop version, it's the most imporant part
of
> >the
> >> > OS.
> >>
> >> Agreed, at least for Whistler's prospective market, but the way it
> >> looks has nothing to do with the way it performs.
> >>
> >> > The underlying OS is very unfinished, of course, that is why it's a
> >*beta*.
> >>
> >> No, a Beta should have most of the functionality in place, but need
> >> more thorough testing to assess stability and iron out bugs. What
> >> you're describing is an Alpha.
> >
> >No, it's a beta1, assuming it would follow win2k, it would've three or
more.
>
> You obviously have no concept of what alpha/beta releases actually _mean_.
The
> original poster is absolutely right. If the "underlying OS is very
unfinished"
> then it's an alpha, for fuck's sake. If it isn't, then it should be.
Alpha - not working.
Beta - still not working
> A beta release indeed _should_ have most - almost all - of the
functionality in
> place, and only bug-squashing is needed.
As far as I can tell, it is a complete OS.
If not for Win2k, I would've adopted it, beta and everything, on my desktop.
> >And, for what it worth, aside for minor glitches (two places where I
noticed
> >unwrappable text) and things like that, I've found no problems in
Whistler
> >so far.
> >(Although, during CPU & Memory intensive &
> >
> >> > Do you mind telling me what those propriety standards are?
> >>
> >> Here's a few, off the top of my head: Broken HTML (created by
> >> FrontPage) that can only be read by MS browsers; ActiveX; Java that
> >> contains `features' that make it incompatible with standard JVM;
> >> closed formats for Office documents that change whenever they have
> >> been reverse-engineered.
> >
> >The only useful use front page has is in making templetes.
>
> Agreed. That's because of that munted HTML it turns out.
>
>
> And I've read
> >documents created in FP from variety of browsers (the most horrible part
of
> >web designing. I'm trying to stick to HTML 3.2 for the most part, it's
> >widely supported.) There have rarely been problems with it.
>
> Thank God...
>
>
> >ActiveX is not a standard. It's a de facto standard, which is different.
>
> I'll let that speak as a testament to your mental capacity.
>
> ("...which is different." How? You haven't even defined what makes
something
> "a standard". In any case, the only thing that matters is market
penetration,
> and when you integrate this shit with the OS, MS gets a lot of
penetration...
> get it?)
There is a different between a standard and a de facto standard.
A standard is something that is published openly.
De facto standard is something that almost everybody use.
> >IIRC, the Java they wanted to develop would've supported windows spesific
> >commands or libraries.
>
> ... so that way, it wouldn't run on OSs other than Windows... (duh...)
If you used the windows spesific commands/libraries, yes.
> >If you wouldn't use the windows spesific commands/libraries, then you
should
> >be able to move it around.
>
> ... but if you do, then your portability goes to shit, which is exactly
what
> MS wanted...
Whatever they may have wanted.You could develop for multi platforms, or just
for windows.
> >They can do whatever they want with the office documents, there isn't a
> >standard for office documents, therefor, you can't claim a propreity
> >standard here.
>
> Um, you need a good English-language dictionary. It might help your
spelling as well.
> MS "can do whatever they want with the office documents" precisely
_because_ the various
> Office file formats are _proprietary_.
But not _standards_ . Which is what you said they were.
If I build an application, and it does X, it's proprietary, is it standad
suddenly? Would it become standard if a lot of people use it?
There is no standard (to my knowledge, at least) for documents.
> >> As for the whole .NET thing... Remember,
> >> it's a documented fact that MS have illegaly used their power in the
> >> market to enforce their own position.
> >
> >illegally?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> >It's not illegal to use your power to enforce your position.
>
> That leads to...
>
> >It's illegal to prevent competitors from competing,
>
> ... by using "your power to enforce your position", say?
Yeah, should've added that.
> > which MS hasn't done.
>
> You are very naive. Are you not old enough to remember, say, DR-DOS? Try
> http://usvms.gpo.gov/ for infos.
There has been two incidents with DR-DOS, the 3.X one, with the warning in
the beta, and the one with 95, which one are you talking about?
> >That is about as far as my understanding of US laws reach, though.
>
> ... which is not very far.
I watch from a safe distance how elections are going over there.
Elections being basic thing, I don't want to know how US of A handle its
laws.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Java?
Date: 28 Nov 2000 10:33:05 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is a proprietary API put out by Sun.
Yes, but there are multiple implementations. Also, if you find the
current API good enough, it doesn't matter so much that Sun has control
of future versions.
> It is an interpreted language that pretends to be a compiled one, thus
> having all the problems of a compiled one as well as an interpreted one.
Bytecodes are not as slow as interpreted language, and have less of a
portability problem than native-compiled code. I like being able to
compile on Linux even though my code has to run on NT.
> Lets not argue how wonderful Java is "as a language." Lets discuss Java
> as a development strategy.
Fine with me. I don't use it that much as a language. However, I use
Kawa Scheme, which compiles directly to JVM bytecodes. Database-backed
web apps are easy and fun!
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 28 Nov 2000 15:38:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I DON'T CARE!!!
>>
>> I will still continue to run my Linux System which has performed for me better
>> than anything MS has ever done.
>>
>
>Ok, so go away... why did you respond to this? Stupid linvocates..
>whistler will
>continue windows domination over the world.
Why did you cross-post your review to Linux and Mac newsgroups?
If you're going to review Windows products in a Linux newsgroup, don't be
surprised or upset if Linux users tell you they don't care. That's why
they're in a Linux newsgroup instead of a Windows newsgroup.
--
"Jugo de naranja, loco con pulpa!"
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:40:07 -0500
> This is *too* weird. Are you proposing Calvin Klein Linux,
> Armani Linux, Hugo Boss Linux, Gap Linux, etc. Look for the
> Linux ads in Vogue magazine. :)
It's sad, but the reason you quoted all those brands is because they are
strong (snobby) brands and they made an impression onn you, probably because
of the adverts (which I hate BTW, they annoy me). Apple built a brand
appealing to same things as these companies. Think of Nike, they have an
excellent creative team doing their ads, but for some reason (I guessing
it's because there is no Linux, only TONS of marginally different
distributions) Linux as an OS has no brand image that I can think of, except
the goofy penguin. I think it's due for an image update.
> Howzabout GIMP? It sounds like a satanic alliance when
> you're using Win or Mac for Linux design. There can be
> nothing but bad karma coming out of that one. And, IMHO, it
> really defeats the purpose of free software.
No, my purpose is to provide a professional-looking "brand" image to Linux
as an OS. I work with paper and pencil first, what I use on the computer is
basically inconsequential. And GIMP is unsuitable for logo design. I need a
solid vector app not a bitmap editor, and I'm not going to buy Corel Draw
for Linux when it's the same as the windows version running under emulation.
I already paid for the windows version and I'd rather use it in an
unemulated environment.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Nov 2000 02:42:49 +1100
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:01:16 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> You'll notice that Solaris comes out on top of NT in all the categories in
>that link that _I_,
>> as a sysadmin, care about (resource management, product maturity,
>resiliency, clustering,
>> multiprocessing, remote management, resource managing).
>
>"somewhere-remotely-distantly-approaching"
>
>Was what you asked for.
*J.C. shakes his head and laughs*
Okay, so NT/2k _is_ "somewhere-remotely-distantly-approaching". Now, aim for just
"remotely-distantly-approaching". Then, aim for "distantly-approaching"...
>Do you really excpect an essay that shows that Win2k is better than Solaris
>on *Sun*'s site?
Makes me wonder why you bothered, then.
>You forgot to check Development Considerations, Platform Choices,
>Distributed Systems Management, all of which may be unimportant to *you*
>personally, but certainly matter to those who actually buy the OS.
Who buys the OS is irrelevant. If it's used at a workplace, the goddamn Purchasing
Department buys it, sheesh. They're not into the computing side of things, geez. What's
relevant is how well it fulfils the needs of the market the product is aimed at, and
Solaris fulfils my (sysadmin) needs far more competently than NT/2k do.
>Also:
>
>About clustering, do you know who holds the first 6 places in TPC clustered
>tests?
>Do you know who broke the record?
>Unix only has two entries here, 2k has 6 (all the 6 first places) NT has 2.
>http://www.tpc.org/new_result/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=cluster
>
>What about TCO?
>
>a.. 50 percent less overall on labor, equipment, and services
>a.. 36 percent less per server
>a.. 46 percent less per user
>a.. 68 percent less on value-added software including development tools,
>databases, applications and utilities
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/mwarv/TCOforNTS.asp
Gee. I wonder how they arrived at these figures.
>> Where Solaris gets beaten? "GUI management tools" Hahaha, I'm laughing
>already. "Application
>> availability"? I use mostly free and open-source, and that which isn't, is
>readily available.
>> Unix has no lack of server apps...
>
>Development Considerations, Platform Choices, Distributed Systems
>Management, clustering, tco.
Wow. But none of this matters to _me_. Maybe to other people it does. But I'm a
typical Unix
sysadmin -- I'm in good company. "Platform choices"? I don't give a shit about platform
choices. I run the OS I want on the hardware I want. The only reason why 2k wins that
category
is the number of "vendors that sell and support Windows 2000 on their products." OTOH,
only
Sun markets Solaris. Doesn't change the quality of either product.
"Development Considerations"? 2k has "a slight advantage" due to "its high degree of
integration". Phooey. I don't want shit integrated with more shit. I _like_ the
relatively
compartmentalized nature of Unix/clones.
Clustering? In all the passages containing `clustering', it was either a tie, or
Solaris came
up on top...
>> And security wasn't mentioned as a separate category... hrmm... don't get
>me started...
>
>Does Solaris has ACL? (I'm asking, not tounting)
No. Do I care? No. Does Solaris occupy less than 21% of the webserving market
but count for over 60% of the breakins? No. Does NT/2k? Yes! (netcraft.com).
(can I secure a Solaris box, even though ACLs aren't implemented? Yes...)
>> >> I'll provide objective proof as soon as you can get the hands (legally)
>on
>> >the
>> >> 2k source and turn it over to me, so I can fossick through it...
>> >
>> >Sure you can.
>> >All you've to do is pay a ridicously high amount of money to MS and sign
>a
>> >draconian NDA license that basically says, if you even think about this
>code
>> >in public, they've the right to kill you in many interesting ways.
>> >Adminning ME, for example.
>>
>> So, until you get the 2k source for me, I'll have to come to my
>conclusions
>> regarding NT/2k's security/stability/whatever else by empirical
>observation...
>> (_if_ you get me the source, i'll tell you _why_ NT/2k is crashy under
>load,
>> insecure etc, but until then, I can't tell you _why_, I can only give you
>my
>> empirical observations and opinions formed thus).
>
>Solaris is a properity OS, isn't it?
Educational instititions can get the source, IIRC. That's irrelevant. The point
of the matter is that my empirical observations of Solaris _and_ BSD prove
them to be much, much more reliable and secure than NT/2k.
[snip]
--
J.C.
"The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
-- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:59:27 -0500
the_blur wrote:
>
> > This is *too* weird. Are you proposing Calvin Klein Linux,
> > Armani Linux, Hugo Boss Linux, Gap Linux, etc. Look for the
> > Linux ads in Vogue magazine. :)
>
> It's sad, but the reason you quoted all those brands is because they are
> strong (snobby) brands and they made an impression onn you, probably because
> of the adverts (which I hate BTW, they annoy me). Apple built a brand
> appealing to same things as these companies. Think of Nike, they have an
> excellent creative team doing their ads, but for some reason (I guessing
> it's because there is no Linux, only TONS of marginally different
> distributions) Linux as an OS has no brand image that I can think of, except
> the goofy penguin. I think it's due for an image update.
I'd hate to say it, but you are correct in the sense that
this is what das publik wants. Granted, I personally like
the cute penguins, but the publik wants The Sharper Image.
I hope the best for your project.
>
> > Howzabout GIMP? It sounds like a satanic alliance when
> > you're using Win or Mac for Linux design. There can be
> > nothing but bad karma coming out of that one. And, IMHO, it
> > really defeats the purpose of free software.
>
> No, my purpose is to provide a professional-looking "brand" image to Linux
> as an OS. I work with paper and pencil first, what I use on the computer is
> basically inconsequential. And GIMP is unsuitable for logo design. I need a
> solid vector app not a bitmap editor, and I'm not going to buy Corel Draw
> for Linux when it's the same as the windows version running under emulation.
> I already paid for the windows version and I'd rather use it in an
> unemulated environment.
I don't know squat about graphics (I'm a
SysAdmin/Programmer), so I'll take your word on that one.
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honor student
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Nov 2000 02:59:21 +1100
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:26:51 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>Alpha - not working.
>Beta - still not working
Nope. Far too simplistic. Alpha doesn't have all the features implemented. If I was
developing
a game, say, in Alpha, netplay wouldn't be implemented, but the protocol would have
been drawn
up, for instance.
In beta, everything is _meant_ to be working -- so netplay should be in and working --
but
probably has bugs, so beta is an important bug-squashing cycle, as opposed to alpha,
which
places more emphasis on feature development.
[snip]
>> And I've read
>> >documents created in FP from variety of browsers (the most horrible part
>of
>> >web designing. I'm trying to stick to HTML 3.2 for the most part, it's
>> >widely supported.) There have rarely been problems with it.
>>
>> Thank God...
>>
>>
>> >ActiveX is not a standard. It's a de facto standard, which is different.
>>
>> I'll let that speak as a testament to your mental capacity.
>>
>> ("...which is different." How? You haven't even defined what makes
>something
>> "a standard". In any case, the only thing that matters is market
>penetration,
>> and when you integrate this shit with the OS, MS gets a lot of
>penetration...
>> get it?)
>
>There is a different between a standard and a de facto standard.
>
>A standard is something that is published openly.
>De facto standard is something that almost everybody use.
... and in the computer industry, market penetration is everything. So whether or not
something is "published openly", if it's used by a large chunk of the relevant
population,
it can be referred to in the capacity of a standard, because the meaning has changed
(to
everyone but yourself, as it appears). Whether or not the standard is "published
openly" makes no difference in the computer industry, particularly to end users.
>> >IIRC, the Java they wanted to develop would've supported windows spesific
>> >commands or libraries.
>>
>> ... so that way, it wouldn't run on OSs other than Windows... (duh...)
>
>If you used the windows spesific commands/libraries, yes.
... and that's exactly my point. MS did this to screw up Java. Have you tried wasting
a brain
cell on it? MS encouraged developers to do this, precisely to remove Java's primary
benefit:
write once, run anywhere. MS realized this as a threat and worked to kill off Java.
>> >If you wouldn't use the windows spesific commands/libraries, then you
>should
>> >be able to move it around.
>>
>> ... but if you do, then your portability goes to shit, which is exactly
>what
>> MS wanted...
>
>Whatever they may have wanted.You could develop for multi platforms, or just
>for windows.
MS's implementations of Java were fucked, to say the least. So, why did MS release
these
munted versions of Java? To run apps written for this munted Java. Why did MS screw up
Java
in the first place? See above.
>> >They can do whatever they want with the office documents, there isn't a
>> >standard for office documents, therefor, you can't claim a propreity
>> >standard here.
>>
>> Um, you need a good English-language dictionary. It might help your
>spelling as well.
>> MS "can do whatever they want with the office documents" precisely
>_because_ the various
>> Office file formats are _proprietary_.
>
>But not _standards_ . Which is what you said they were.
Did I say that the Office file formats are standards? Where?
(Well, given MS's market penetration in the office-app market, it makes no difference;
you're
playing semantic games with the meaning of `standard' and `de facto standard'...)
>If I build an application, and it does X, it's proprietary, is it standad
>suddenly? Would it become standard if a lot of people use it?
>There is no standard (to my knowledge, at least) for documents.
Would you quit the semantic games already? You're clutching at straws.
[snip]
>> >It's not illegal to use your power to enforce your position.
>>
>> That leads to...
>>
>> >It's illegal to prevent competitors from competing,
>>
>> ... by using "your power to enforce your position", say?
>
>Yeah, should've added that.
... MS is guilty ... yawn ...
>> > which MS hasn't done.
>>
>> You are very naive. Are you not old enough to remember, say, DR-DOS? Try
>> http://usvms.gpo.gov/ for infos.
>
>There has been two incidents with DR-DOS, the 3.X one, with the warning in
>the beta, and the one with 95, which one are you talking about?
There are two? I refer you to the 3.1x incident, with the dialog box that appeared,
erm...
[snip]
--
J.C.
"The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
-- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
