Linux-Advocacy Digest #788, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Patent Free...but not for long? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows review (Curtis)
Re: Windows review (Curtis)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (JoeX1029)
Re: Windows review (Curtis)
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Pan)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Richard J. Donovan")
Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad (Pan)
Re: Uptimes (Pan)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Peter Ammon)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Static66)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: What does KDE do after all (SwifT -)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Patent Free...but not for long?
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:02:44 GMT
Whenever I see something advertised today as "patent-free", I worry
about it.
After all, other people are patenting "obvious ideas" in the computer
industry every day. Folks who are releasing "patent-free" things don't
have the money or the resources to fight someone else who chooses to
patent the contents of their "patent-free" software.
It seems to me that rather than simply fight software patents in the
legislature and the courts, folks writing the "patent-free" stuff would
be better off doing their OWN patents on their stuff, then specifically
refusing to collect royalties on their patents.
Linux almost was copyrighted by a complete stranger thanks to people
who were against the concept of copyrighting software being the prime
authors of Linux. The system needs to be reworked, but until it is,
folks doing the free software and the "patent-free" software have to
realize that a patent which they don't do anything about is
*** necessary *** in today's world of patents on "A Tactile System Of
Entering Data Into A Computing System." (i.e., a KEYBOARD)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:11:05 -0500
JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >the underlined letters in their names? Try pressing ALT and the underlined
| >letter, see what happens. Oh, my, a MIRACLE. Notice how the menu drops
| >down? See all those lovely commands in the menu? Try pressing the
| >underlined letter of the function you want. Or cursoring down to it.
|
| However, Windows makes a complete arse out of keyboard shortcuts.
| Typing in a quick shortcut is easier than having to navigate countless
| menus to find what you are looking for.
You mean like the X-emacs menus? I've never seen anything like those
menus in my life. :=)
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:16:30 -0500
JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >Get a news reader that support keyboard shortcuts, saves a *lot* of time.
|
| Agent is much better for using the keyboard. However, not all of the
| functions have shortcut keys, which is somewhat irritating having to
| navigate menus all the time.
Agent is great. It provides keyboard functions for all *commonly used*
functions. The other less commonly used functions may be accessed via
the menus. I'm quite sure you'd be going to the menus for those
*anyway*, even if special keyboard shortcuts were provided, since you
won't be able to remember the provided shortcuts. You'll only remember
them if you use them often.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 10 Dec 2000 16:16:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
>Linux is poorest implementation of Unix I've yet encountered. I can't
>see how any honest Unix administrator could say that it out-performs
>any of the currently available commercial implementations of the Unix
>operating system.
Because some times it does. If you have all new hardware then it wont but if
you have older stuff (i have a collection of 486's and a 133) try gettin
Solaris to run on there. If you can afford good hardware, Linux is not goin to
out preform commerical UNIX, but if you have old stuff...
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:22:39 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > Agent is much better for using the keyboard. However, not all of the
| > functions have shortcut keys, which is somewhat irritating having to
| > navigate menus all the time.
|
| You can still use the keyboard for it, don't you?
| And Alt+<letter>+<letter> is not much longer than ctrl+<letter> or <key>, is
| it?
<N> for next message in Agent, is far better than <CTRL><]> for next
unread message in The Bat! The shorter the shortcuts the better. The
more consistent the shortcuts, the better. Treating menu keyboard
navigation as shortcuts is tedious since there's less hope of
consistency there. Ever stopped to consider why these menu items have
keyboard shortcuts even though you can navigate the menus with the
keyboard? Also, don't forget that you have to hit the <Esc> button after
navigating the manu with the keyboard so that you may go back to
focusing on the area you had in focus before taking to the menus with
the alt and letter keys.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:30:33 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Who said cost was the only issue? Performance is also important. So is
> > development time. I'll happily pit the linux system I described, on the
> > same hardware, with the WinSystem I described on all 3 counts.
>
> The title of this thread is "Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT". Seems
> like it's all about cost to me.
Would you have preferred "Server licensing cost for comparable
performance: linux vs. nt"?
> Even so, your argument makes no sense. The same tools are available for NT
> that are available for Linux.
No, they are not. As one example, win32 distros of Perl are missing
half or 2/3rds of the total modules available for linux ( usually
because of limitations of the perl build under windows ). As another
example, PostGreSQL is not available for win32.
> > As to why I chose not to use the gnu tools on win. If you have tried
> > any of them, then you know that most of the free cli tools you were
> > describing perform poorly on nt when compared to their performance on
> > linux. Even worse, by comparison than the tools which cost $10000+ in
> > terms of licensing.
>
> Funny, GCC performs faster under NT than it does when I reboot to Linux.
First you tell us that the smtp protocol is a "mail application
available on win" now you try and make a case that compile time for gcc
is a factor. It isn't. Take a look at the mailing archive and bug list
on the cygwin build to see what is a factor.
> IIS is faster than Apache (which you used in your argument. There are
> faster servers available for Linux, but your argument specifically uses
> Apache).
iis is faster than apache on multiprocessor systems. IIS will not serve
static pages faster than apache on a single processor system ( see ZD
Labs http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2196115,00.html ).
And while I have yet to see a benchmark that tests this, based on
personal experience, I believe that IIS will not serve most types of
dynamic content faster than apache running mod_perl or mod_php on a
single processor system. As for apache, in my experience, Apache for
linux is *significantly* faster than apache running under win32.
> > > Why do you need Visual Studio?
> >
> > Our hypothetical company in this case anticipates that our Windevelopers
> > will have an easier time writing SeQueL applications with VB than with
> > languages that are not part of the M$ family or part of the MCS*
> > training that they spent another $10,000 acquiring. Since we are taking
> > M$'s propaganda at face value, we anticipate that they will have an
> > easier time integrating exchange, sequel, and iis with each other than
> > we would have integrating any of the above with the open source tools
> > you described. We also anticipate that M$ proprietary languages will be
> > better suited for use in developing a M$ proprietary database. Since we
> > already have experience with PostGres, sendmail, apache, perl, and php,
> > we already know how easily they are integrated with each other on linux.
>
> This is a bullshit argument. They work the same way under NT,
They do *not* work the same under NT. As one example, because there is
no fork emulation under the the Active State win32 build, mod_perl and
mod_php ( among other things ) are not available. This is very
significant because it means that you need to start a new instance of
the perl or php interpretor every time that a script is requested. So
let's recap: Perl modules on NT are binaries. Their are fewer modules
available. Apache is slower. Sendmail is slower. PostGres doesn't
exist. How does that = "they work the same"?
> so any
> arguments about ease of development under Linux is equally applicable to the
> same tools under NT.
Sure, if you want to write your own fork emulation on win ( among other
things ). Something tells me this wouldn't really do much to help your
development time, especially when mod_perl and mod_php can be installed
onto apache out of the box.
> You still didn't say how you're using it. Dynamic content? Static? How
> many tables? How many indexes? Benchmarks prove that how you use the tools
> effects performance more than the tools themselves.
I think that you must have very little practical development
experience. If you did, you'd know the difference between an
application and a protocol. You'd also know that you don't do static
content from a database. or that most "real" sites with a database will
have a mixture of static versus dynamic content, and that very few
benchmarks ever simulate a real load on a server.
For all of your gyrations, at the end of the day, we're still talking
about a $10,000 increase in licensing cost if you want comparable
performance and lower stability on nt. If you are willing to settle for
much lower performance, and much less functionality, you only need to
pay an extra $1,000 if you want to use nt versus linux.
Wow! That's an impressive case you've made for nt.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Richard J. Donovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:34:39 GMT
What, no dancing paperclip? And Reveal Codes looks so ugly (though it
subtly helps in taking control of a document).
It's funny how no one, whether newbie or expert, using Linux, Win2k, 9x,
etc., DR-DOS, ever apologizes for using WordPerfect, or could understand
a perception of need to do so.
As for the boss, either print out that report and fax it, or send him an
e-mail in plain text (unless you're taking control of the document).
"s. keeling" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:18:14 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8sdiin$o7m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > : Tell that to your boss when you hand in your report and it looks like
> > > : crap, all because you used Linux and he, along with the rest of the
> > > : world, is using Word.
> > >
> > >
> > > Professional publishers have been using Unix for decades.
> >
> > Not any more.
> >
> > Unix is falling by the wayside... I remember once when someone said
> > "professional CAD/CAM, PCB design software, etc. is a UNIX domain."
> >
> > Not any more.
> >
> > NT/2000 have basically taken up that slot.
>
> Not on my machines. Not ever.
>
> --
> keeling@.spots.ab.ca.INVALID (Stephen) TopQuark Software & Serv. Enquire within.
> s/\.INVALID// Contract programmer, server bum.
> Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:41:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:50:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Newspaper Ad
> >
>
> 45k per year?
While an experienced developer *should* earn $70 - $150+, $45k is a
legitimate entry level salary where they train you on how to do your
job. Bear in mind, consultants should earn triple on their hourlies
compared to what salaried employees make.
I recently read a post on clc++ where a c++ programmer with 13 years of
experience is only earning $12 per hour in his region. I won't give his
name, but suffice to say, he is, in fact, a legitimate programmer who
would be earning 6 figures if he lived in NoCal instead of Arizona.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:45:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> Agreed, it definitely has the largest selection of text editors every
> gathered in one place.
Plus you don't have to worry about an OEM version of the OS preventing
you from installing a given browser.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:45:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Static66 wrote:
>
> Yes I think so. A person who purpetraits a crime against children
> should have their life taken. game over. period. Repeat offenders>??
> oohh thats great let em destroy two lives now instead of one. Cutting
> their unit off [what about the small # of women who commit these
> crimes] is not enough they can still do harm. Just think about what
> kind of person it takes to do those horrific things to a child. I am
> not an uncompasionate person, I simply refuse to feel sorry for these
> people.
>
> I don't see the problem with US as a society standing up and saying NO
> WE are not going to tolerate this insane criminal behavior at all. The
> criminal deviance I spoke of is simple:
>
> Murder
> Rape
> Crimes aginst children period.
>
> you commit one of those crimes you should be walked to the gallows
> and hung. Or walked to a wall and shot. [no blindfold].
>
> I believe our criminal justice system has grown soft where it should
> not have. We allow criminals to hide behind the law. In most cases
> they have more rights than their victims.
I think that most liberals would feel better about the death penalty if
it were fairly and justly applied. As it stands, there are significant
racial and geographic disparities, and most inmates on death row
received incompetent legal defense. It's not possible to crack down on
criminals without aggravating these problems. That's why Clinton just
last Friday put a 6th month delay on the latest federal execution.
I would rather have the crimes commited by the criminals than by the State.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Static66 <[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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:52:45 GMT
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:45:02 -0500, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Static66 wrote:
>>
>> Yes I think so. A person who purpetraits a crime against children
>> should have their life taken. game over. period. Repeat offenders>??
>> oohh thats great let em destroy two lives now instead of one. Cutting
>> their unit off [what about the small # of women who commit these
>> crimes] is not enough they can still do harm. Just think about what
>> kind of person it takes to do those horrific things to a child. I am
>> not an uncompasionate person, I simply refuse to feel sorry for these
>> people.
>>
>> I don't see the problem with US as a society standing up and saying NO
>> WE are not going to tolerate this insane criminal behavior at all. The
>> criminal deviance I spoke of is simple:
>>
>> Murder
>> Rape
>> Crimes aginst children period.
>>
>> you commit one of those crimes you should be walked to the gallows
>> and hung. Or walked to a wall and shot. [no blindfold].
>>
>> I believe our criminal justice system has grown soft where it should
>> not have. We allow criminals to hide behind the law. In most cases
>> they have more rights than their victims.
>
>I think that most liberals would feel better about the death penalty if
>it were fairly and justly applied. As it stands, there are significant
>racial and geographic disparities, and most inmates on death row
>received incompetent legal defense. It's not possible to crack down on
>criminals without aggravating these problems. That's why Clinton just
>last Friday put a 6th month delay on the latest federal execution.
>
>I would rather have the crimes commited by the criminals than by the State.
>
>-Peter
I agree that punishment should be fair and just.
But is it not true that violent crimes occur more in certain
demographic/racial groups. I do not think that it is fair to say the
reason is because of racism or a bias court.
I'm sure instances of bias in the court have occured, but I also
think they are few and rare in this day and age. Isn't that what the
appeal process is there to protect them against??
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:02:38 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 9 Dec 2000
16:09:38 -0600;
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Check this out:
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
>
>Why is it that you people can't read the articles you quote?
>
>The article is based on an internal memo from MS which states:
>
>"63,000 potential known defects". Note the word potential.
So Aaron was right after all. Thanks for the reference, Chris.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:02:43 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:34:15
[...]
>The guidelines to the registry were published long time ago.
>They always included putting *user spesifics* settings in the HKCU.
>Part of the reason is portability.
>Unless an application does a low-level job, it can quite easily be
>transfered between 9x & NT, assuming it was written correctly.
You're still missing the point. The definition of "user specific" is
not fixed and unchanging, let alone universal; different application
have different concepts of a 'user'. The criteria you are using for
whether things were identified "correctly" is simply and merely whether
Microsoft decided to prevent what does work on 9x from what should work
on NT, and doesn't. The question isn't why the app developer put their
configuration in HKLM, the question is why that app can't access what
ends up being in HKLM, when it needs to. Crappy OS, that's why.
>> >This guidelines has been published long ago.
>>
>> Yay.
>
>So why ignore the instructions from the people who *made* the system?
Because they're a monopoly. Interoperability and compatibility is
defined by the market, not by caveat of a monopolist.
[...]
>> >NT is a workstation/desktop/server.
>>
>> Yea, right. Now if only it didn't suck at all three, compared to Unix.
>
>Guffow
I think you meant "guffaw". And get your own shtick, please. Mine is
copyright property.
>> >And you are wrong, applications configuration is part of the machine's
>> >configuration.
>>
>> Not if its user-specific stuff.
>
>Good, you are showing progress.
>If it's user spesific stuff, where do you think it should be?
>A> HKLM
>B> HKCU
In a configuration file under the control of the application that
created it, uses it, and is solely concerned with it.
>Hint:
>HKLM = The place where *Local Machine* settings are stored.
>HKCU = The place where *User Spesific* settings are stored.
Yea, but they're both in the registry, so those labels are just that:
labels, not functional descriptions. You *do* know how a hierarchical
database works, don't you?
>> >You want a situation where anybody will have access to anything, I fail to
>> >even begin to understand why you want such a situation.
>>
>> No, I just want an OS which is competitive; I don't really care how it
>> ensures that I have access to anything I want or need, as long as it
>> does.
>
>How does this has to do with this arguement?
It is the argument. The problem you speak of is in the registry. The
registry sucks because its not competitive. Its not competitive because
its a monopoly. I shouldn't have to know how much the registry sucks,
because if it were competitive, it would be transparent. Instead, its a
barrier to interoperability.
I know that's probably another challenge, how a common data store for
configuration data, entirely 'voluntary' in usage, could be a barrier to
interoperability. But you need to broaden your intellect, Aryane.
Seriously.
[...]
>> >No, I'll always get this on a properlly written program.
>>
>> Ah, the naivete.
>
>No, a properlly written program for windows store user spesific settings in
>HKCU.
>Therefor, when I log as another user, you will get the *other user's*
>settings.
But what if you're on a local machine desktop, and you *want* the
application settings to carry over to the other 'user'?
>> >Show me those settings that can't be clearly defined as HKCU or HKLM and
>> >needed to be update by anyone.
>>
>> <*chuckle*> How about you waste your time on this, and just let me know
>> when you're done. I prefer that market competition take care of
>> identifying requirements like this. It is an unassailable point,
>> however, that you are apparently satisfied with monopoly crapware.
>
>This has nothing to do with this arguement.
Yes it does. Show me the settings that were in HKLM but "should have
been" in HKCU. Seriously: post them. I'm willing to bet that there are
functional considerations of these particular settings that actually
make them more appropriate to be used machine-wide on a desktop system,
even though they may be related or associated with a particular 'user',
according to the paradigm of the application (not necessarily coincident
with the concept of user in Windows).
>Have you noticed that every time that you fail to find answers, you bring up
>this "monopoly crapware" arguement? It's getting tiresome.
No, every time you fail to recognize the answers I'm giving you, I point
out the common thread in our discussion. You still don't seem to be
able to grasp that Windows _is_ monopoly crapware, and there is no real
argument which can be presented to refute this statement, AFAIK*. I
respect your right to keep trying, but I can understand it must get
tiresome after a while.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
*This is not to say that the statement is unfalsifiable. Evidence could
be provided, in theory, which could decisively prove this wrong.
Pointing at the monopolized market, however, or blame-casting to avert
recognition of Window's recurring failure to show good design or robust
behavior, will not suffice without such evidence. I keep an open mind
whether any contrary evidence might appear, but none has been presented
by Microsoft or its supporters. To aid their quest, I would say that
evidence would be most compelling if it referred directly to as yet
unpublished but copyrighted source code.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:03:51 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:05:45
>"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:11:14
>> [...]
>> >OK... let us conclude this argument in one fell swoop -- answer this
>> >question, Max:
>>
>> Now you've got the idea. I love questions.
>
>Yet again, however, you prove unable to answer them in an intelligent
>fashion.
I guess that means you didn't get it, since there was no swearing or
logical fallacies in my responses, as far as I know.
I noticed you don't have any good questions. That last one wasn't bad.
Keep working on it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 23:04:03 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:07:13
>> >> Not. They used a shareware model, quite successfully, until MS bundled
>> >> IE. Then they opened their source code.
>> >
>> >Not according to statements made by Marc Andreesen (both at the time, and
>> >more recently), and according to the original Netscape business plan.
>>
>> I was commenting on their market behavior, not their business plan.
>
>Then try not answering a statement with "Not" -- because it makes it awfully
>hard to see what you're disagreeing with. I backed mine up.
You presented yours. You "back things up" in a conversational argument
with reason, not recitations. As I pointed out, my descriptions were in
keeping with the market behavior. You haven't refuted them through any
reasoning.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:54:53 +0100
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Anonymous wrote:
> I'll give it another go, then, if you don't mind.
Not at all.
[snip material to what I have no comment on]
> AFAIK, pipes and sockets are actually entirely unrelated, except
> conceptually. A pipe is a rudimentary form of IPC, and a socket is a
> mechanism of network communications. Programmers see these kinds of
> abstractions differently than I do, but I don't consider them at all
> equivalent, or even similar, unless you consider everything in computers
> "simply" a generalization of Turing's math.
You're right. Your term "unrelated" made me search the internet, and on
about.com I found an explanation on what sockets are. There I can/could
see what sockets are (indeed there is a distinction between pipes and
sockets, and yes they are completely unrelated).
The only confusion was the IPC bytestream, a term that applies to both
(pipes and sockets). Thanks for clearing things up.
--
SwifT
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
