Linux-Advocacy Digest #370, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Dumping Novell for Linux (almost).. ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux misseery cont. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you? (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: KDE Hell (BradyBear)
Re: KDE vs Win32 [ was The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows] (Shane Phelps)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Kyle Jacobs)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: KDE Hell (Kyle Jacobs)
Re: KDE Hell (Kyle Jacobs)
Re: KDE Hell (Kyle Jacobs)
Re: KDE Hell (Kyle Jacobs)
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (Geoff Lane)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: KDE Hell (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dumping Novell for Linux (almost)..
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:19:59 -0800
This is an issue for me also. Where on the Samba server is the login script
placed and what makes it run automatically on login by the Win clients?
TIA
jbarntt
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WtU66.27597$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ID wrote:
>
> > in novel/netware i would write a login script like:
> >
> > "net use G: \\samba_server\samba_folder"
>
> Yep, works fine with Samba, provided you configure it to allow access to
> the folder and user.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:21:34 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 8 Jan 2001
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93dl6r$q18$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <wjh66.381$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >That's about a Windows 3.x VxD which made Windows run faster when used
>with
>> >MS-DOS, that was not a "hidden API" used by Windows applications to make
>> >them run faster.
>> >
>> An API kept secret from a competitor to prevent their software from
>> running *at all* does not qualify as a hidden API ?
>
>Reread the document. It was an a VxD which sped up file accessing, not a
>hidden API which prevented other software from working at all.
You're confusing your press releases, Erik. The "this will speed up
access only if they use our product" stuff was an entirely different
example of predatory development.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:24:20 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:01:01
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:14:42 -0600;
>>>Why would they provide such a filter if they wanted people to upgrade?
>>
>>Because they had been caught, and there was, after all, no technical
>>reason, nor any pro-competitive one, for them to leave it out in the
>>first place. So they waited a few months, and once their forced
>>bundling practices had ensured that all OEMs had been shipping the new
>>Office long enough to provide sufficient penetration to 'infect' the
>>majority of the large-scale installed base, it didn't matter anymore.
>>
> I have to disagree here. They provided the filter to encourage 95
> users to give documents to 97 users which would be assured to be
> in 97 format when they came back.
>
> The 95 user could not read the returned documents unless they
> upgraded to 97 and began propagating the infection to their frequent
> recipients.
I had assumed that Erik was talking about the 97->95 filter, which they
did provide, though it was six months late.
[...]
> How do we know they had the filter all along ? Because the beta
> program did not cause a wave of infections among their internal
> executives. We know that did not happen because journalists
> interact with those executives every day and they were unaware of
> the infectious nature of 97.
>
> So we can deduce that the exclusion of that filter was a deliberate
> act.
A good point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:36:41 +0000
Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
> My USB Scanner works (it doesn't in windows, because it's incompatible
> with my Via chipset, the Linux general USB hub driver fixes this! :o) )
>
> My Kodak USB cam works
>
> My USB joystick works (ok, not mine, got it from a friend to try)
Maybe my USB bits and pieces will all work. I'll have to see when Mandrake
goes to 2.4
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux misseery cont.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:38:43 +0000
LINUX ANONYMOUSE wrote:
> It amases me every time that someone tends to object to linux that
> everyone insults him.
Funny that isn't it.
> I personally use slackware linux and sometimes
> find it very annoying to configure as well. As for the GUI I totally
> agree..... AKA IT SUCKS. I have yet to find a GUI that is easy to
> configure linux, click and point easy, and very user friendly. Every
> GUI I have ever encountered in linux has alway... yes I do mean always
> given me either hours of headaches or it very very very difficult to
> get to set up this is of course speaking of the source installation
> meathod. I also find that there is a bunch of crackheads writing for
> linux. Linux needs some sort of standardization in order to make it
> big with the standard non-techy user.
I totally agree.
> And Yes I do like linux because of its very fast and stable kernel.
> I'm just saying it could improve its looks. Come on how can you
> honestly say that Gnome is a very good environmnet or KDE isn't that
> good ither. yes they are very very fast and stable but they look
> terrible. I think that is the reason why windows sells so good is
> because it hides the ugly background and poor system while wrapping it
> up in a pretty package so a child can use it.
KDE 2.0 was the first desktop I saw that made me want to switch. Well,
almost.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:43:14 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> That is until the breakup is ordered.
Is that gonna be any time in this millenium?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:50:43 +0000
no name wrote:
> >Just because it's free doesn't make it quality.
>
> I agree, but I have personally found it easier to find powerful, high
> quality open-source applications than powerful, high quality commercial
> applications. In my post I was describing why such high quality open
> source apps come about, not why *all* open-source apps are high quality
> (which, of course, they're not).
Fair 'nuff.
> >That's only as good and as quick as the person fixing it. If they don't
> >or they simply lose interest, then bang does that one.
>
> I've been involved with open source development for a long time, and
> from what I've seen more often than not when the main developer drops
> interest in a project, someone else picks it up. And I have the security
> of knowing that if nobody else ever picks it up, *I* can always pick it
> up, at least until someone else is willing to take it over or until
> something better comes around.
If they lose interest, then down the tubes it goes. If a company stops
developing a closed source app, then down the tubes that goes.
Looks very similar - except with open source, someone has at least the
option of picking it up later.
> >> Quality is most certainly part of the "Free Software Edge".
> >
> >Not from what I've observed.
>
> Hence our disagreement. :-) I can't reasonably ask you to live
> contrarily to what your personal observations have convinced you is
> true, and I won't. Just putting voice to my personal experiences
> and convictions. And those convictions have helped me forge a very
> successful career in information technology, so I have some reason
> to believe that they are sound.
Again, fair 'nuff.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 10 Jan 2001 19:47:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.0 rocks for me, and you?
I had a weird issue in 2.2.x with memory-monitoring programmes. It took a
TONNE of CPU time to count the memory available/used, wether by reading /proc
or calling sysinfo(). In 2.4, it's gone!
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:53:24 +0000
Linux is crash free compared to Windows 98 SE. However...
KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
Windows PC.
Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
sites I visit. Netscape works but has two weaknesses - dreadful fonts and
poor file saving - it displays a MOTIF style save dialog that doesn't
understand the concept of caching the last directory saved to.
KDE konqueror works fine with NFS mounted drivers, but I've yet to find a
free NFS server for Windows.
Konqueror has problems with file save dialogs but it at least remembers
context.
Windows appears to give the best all around answer but crashes or hangs too
much.
Neither gets my vote. So, either I try Windows 2000 in the hope it doesn't
crash/hang as much as Windows 98 SE or wait for another version of KDE2 and
Mandrake.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: BradyBear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:54:03 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 15:46:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 9 Jan 2001 06:14:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Bullshit. Linux is not widely used by home users, because "being
>>used by home users" is not one of its design goals. All of a sudden,
>>lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
>>Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
>>just wasn't designed for that, and trying to force something to
>>do what it wasn't designed to do is always an uphill battle.
>
>Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me. If that were
>not the case why not just leave the gui as it was 4 years ago with
>fwvm and CDESim and such?
>
I actually like CDE more than KDE as a desktop. When I run a desktop
under Linux. Usually, I just start X and type MWM. Very stable and
uncluttered. And you can still run Kwhatever if you want to. I've just
begun experimenting with KDE recently, so I don't think I know enough
about it to overly critical, but I just like using plain old MWM or
CDE better... so far.
>Why are the improvements to Linux mostly in the gui area?
>
>No. You may hope that Linux is not trying for that market but the
>movers and shakers with the money riding on Linux sure are hoping it
>is.
>
>
>
>>I think the parable of the three blind men and the elephant is applicable
>>to the misconceptions about what KDE is. One blind man thinks KDE is a
>>development environment (he sees kstudio). One man thinks it's an office
>>suite (after someone shows him koffice). Another thinks it's a window
>>manager.
>
>
>No a blind man (the Linux users) see a bunch of pixels on the screen
>and this is what he focus's his attention on.
>
>A user sees an entire Window on the screen filled with his
>applications.
That's just what I don't like about KDE. A screen cluttered with a
bunch of junk.
>
> A concept that seems to be foreign to the Penguinista's.
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE vs Win32 [ was The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:06:28 +1100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Linux is crash free compared to Windows 98 SE. However...
>
> KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
> Windows PC.
>
> Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
> sites I visit. Netscape works but has two weaknesses - dreadful fonts and
> poor file saving - it displays a MOTIF style save dialog that doesn't
> understand the concept of caching the last directory saved to.
>
> KDE konqueror works fine with NFS mounted drivers, but I've yet to find a
> free NFS server for Windows.
>
MS's Windows Services for Unix has an NFS server amongst other things,
and isn't terribly expensive. It's not easy to get hold of, though, and
MS don't seem to advertise it much.
> Konqueror has problems with file save dialogs but it at least remembers
> context.
>
> Windows appears to give the best all around answer but crashes or hangs too
> much.
>
> Neither gets my vote. So, either I try Windows 2000 in the hope it doesn't
> crash/hang as much as Windows 98 SE or wait for another version of KDE2 and
> Mandrake.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
KDE 2.1 is out now, I believe. It may fix many of the KDE2 bugs.
I'm not a big KDE fan. Why not use Gnome?
I think you're limiting yourself by just using KDE2
------------------------------
From: Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:17:26 GMT
No shit about those "cheap shots".
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donal K. Fellows"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>> Why? Because their human.
>
> You seem to be missing some words from the end of that second sentence.
> Or did you mean "they're" instead of "their"?
>
> Donal (cheap-shots 'R' us)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:31:51 GMT
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Monopolizing is illegal, as is attempting to monopolize, so obviously
>> there are no monopolies that are legal. Coincidentally enough, there
>> are other terms for what is often, inaccurately, called a monopoly;
>> public utility and regulated market being the two most common.
>
>Those are other terms used when the government decides to protect a
>monopoly by law. It's also the only way monopolies exist for long
>periods of time in the market - naturally occurring monopolies are
>shortlived.
That paragraph is nothing more than a repeated mis-use of the term
'monopoly' to begin with. The government never protects any company
which is in unreasonable restraint of trade, nor provides the power to
control prices or exclude competition (in those cases where a free
market is not considered desirable, when resources are limited or the
necessity of the consumer makes fair pricing impossible, the government
has itself controlled prices or excluded competition; the producer does
not enjoy monopoly power.) Natural barriers to entry do not provide any
time period whatsoever in which unreasonable restraint of trade, be it
by engrossing, forestalling, regrating, or any other means, is not
illegal, nor do the rules of the free market allow any time period in
which a single producer or vendor has a large share of the commercial
trade to be an environment in which one can enjoy monopoly power without
illegally restraining trade.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:25:58 -0600
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> ALL of the things you mention, if
> they were true, are such big show stoppers that the millions of poeple
> runing W2K
Just curious... how many people *are* running W2K, as far as anyone can tell?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:36:35 GMT
He's right, SMP on either platform is lousy.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
>
>> > There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the uniformity
>> > of the platform, 3rd party programs that perform administrative tasks
>> > are POSSIBLE and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of having to deal with
>> > the massive array of text files, and VI... (Flashback circa 1989).
>>
>> Try running it on an 8 processor machine.
>
> I don't know if either would be very great on an 8 processor machine.
> FreeBSD & Linux are pretty much at their best on "low-end" hardware,
> like maybe 4 processors or less. For more than 4 processors, you'd be
> better served with a microkernel-based unix, like Solaris for example.
>
>
> -----= 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: Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:37:38 GMT
SMP under Linux levels off after four processors, similar to FreeBSD.
Real SMP support is found under Commercial UNIX's, and Windows NT.
In article <93hmaa$stj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." wrote:
>>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
>
>>> > There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the
>>> > uniformity of the platform, 3rd party programs that perform
>>> > administrative tasks are POSSIBLE and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of
>>> > having to deal with the massive array of text files, and VI...
>>> > (Flashback circa 1989).
>>>
>>> Try running it on an 8 processor machine.
>
>> I don't know if either would be very great on an 8 processor machine.
>> FreeBSD & Linux are pretty much at their best on "low-end" hardware,
>> like maybe 4 processors or less. For more than 4 processors, you'd be
>> better served with a microkernel-based unix, like Solaris for example.
>
> SMP on linux is more mature and much, much more stable.
>
> Which is not to say that linux is a better operating system in general,
> it is merely to reinforce my point that linux does indeed have uses for
> which FreeBSD is not suited.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
From: Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT
A misinterpretation of the term "orgy", but never mind.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2001 08:39:31 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Orgy? Functionless?
>
> I can drag a menu item tight off the start menu or any other menu under
> Windows and put it anywhere.
>
> How do I do that under Enlightenment?
>
> Edit some obtuse config file, that's how.
>
> Sure sounds like functionless to me.
>
> Orgy?
>
> Maybe for the Penguinista's because they love editing files.
>
>>Have a nice day.
>
> I am :)
>
> Flatfish Why do they call it a flatfish? Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:42:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:41:35 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
>
> I've used OpenBSD.
Similar, But ok...
> Fact: most of the libraries used on the BSD are the same as those used
> on Linux. For example, the C++ library is the same. Other libraries such
> as Qt, GTK, X11, etc are the same as their Linux counterparts.
Yes, but there is a unifying source for all the revisions OF those library
files. That is what makes it supperior.
> You're simply wrong about this.
This sounds a LOT like denial, but I'll continue on anyway.
>> FreeBSD has unifying library revisions,
>
> What does "unifying library revisions" mean ?
Think about this one.
>>unifying dependencies, and the ports collection to dynamically locate,
>>compile and INSTALL programs, their dependencies AND anything else
>>required to run "it".
>
> I've used ports, and it's pretty good. However, how does one upgrade the
> ports ? I wanted to do this on OpenBSD and it appeared that it would
> be quite difficult to do this (It would have required grabbing the main
> CVS tree)
Well, I have to admit you got me there.
> Empty rhetoric. The problem is that there are still lots of third party
> programs that are developed outside the scope of the OS.
Uniform and general administration isn't RHETORIC. It's a requirement.
> I haven't used FreeBSD, but OpenBSD certainly wasn't easier to configure
> than Linux.
Try FreeBSD. It comes with a clean, but functional text installer, which
CONFIGURES your system as well.
>>FreeBSD's swap "chunk" is quite superior to Linux's swap system,
>>providing efficiency in a component that is quite desperately required
>>in a service situation.
>
> How is it "superior" ? BTW, if your machines swapping heavily, you
> probably need more memory.
Visit FreeBSD's website and read about the new "swap partition"
technology.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: 10 Jan 2001 15:48:48 GMT
>> The Register: And so Xbox is 'launched'
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15885.html
As MS have a policy of "Windows Everywhere" will the version that runs on
the Xbox be called XWindows or WindowsX?
After all MS invented DNS (no the other DNS...)
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
"I'm going to eat you little fishie; I'm going to eat you little fishie; I'm
going to eat you little fishie; 'cos I like eating fish!"
-- Cat
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:50:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, TTK Ciar
<TTKCiar>
wrote
on 10 Jan 2001 06:51:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>: Yup. At least until it gets a Linuxal Basic that is better than Visual
>>>: Basic.
>>>
>>>That's already happened.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity -- where?
>
> KDEStudio's FormDeveloper is certainly as least as powerful and
>easy to use as Visual BASIC.
>
> There's also VDKBuilder:
> http://vdkbuilder.sourceforge.net/
>
> As far as actual bona-fide VB-alike-for-linux .. hmmm ..
I was thinking a little more generically than that, admittedly;
a Basic with extensions for object-oriented development
(structures, classes, methods, etc.)
It doesn't have to be VBasic, for me. However, a VBasic for
Linux should be possible -- there's already a development/emulator/something
for Solaris that allows for the running of Microsoft VBasic;
its main problem is calling [D]COM/ActiveX/whatever things.
(Personally, I'm perfectly happy with g++ or Java.)
>
> Dunno if this is what the original poster was thinking about, but a
>quick look on www.freshmeat.net yielded a few BASIC runtime environments
>for Linux, one of which looks especially promising:
>
> http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html
>
> It's even been ported to Windows, so MS-weenies can enjoy some of the
>benefits of free software.
>
> Alternatively, you can just use perl (or perl/tk, for the "visual"
>thing), which is easier to learn than BASIC, and more powerful. Or
>python/tk. Or tcl/tk. Or Java. Any of these can be used to do the
>sorts of things Windows users use Visual BASIC for.
>
> Hrm .. on a slight tangent, *how* much $$$ does it cost these days
>to buy an ORB, a C compiler, a C++ compiler, a Pascal compiler, a JVM,
>Prolog, a debugger, and an SQL database for Windows? I'm looking at
>the FAQ-o-matic at http://linux.davecentral.com/ at all of the devel
>language tools (compilers, interpreters, visual development environs,
>et al) that come packaged with most Linux distributions, and it just
>occurred to me that all those Windows users out there don't *get*
>these things with their operating system. They have to *pay* if they
>want to be able to write simple scripts for their computers. It blows
>my mind.
Indeed. And yet, Microsoft is a standard in the industry? Strange.
>
> -- TTK
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:03h:10m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:00:54 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> SMP under Linux levels off after four processors, similar to FreeBSD.
>
> Real SMP support is found under Commercial UNIX's, and Windows NT.
Right. Commercial unices and NT both have a microkernel design, which
is better able to take advantage of large nos. of processors. Sure,
FreeBSD & Linux will use all the CPU's, but how efficiently? Stability
is one thing, but performance is something entirely different.
-Donn
> In article <93hmaa$stj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
> wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I don't know if either would be very great on an 8 processor machine.
> >> FreeBSD & Linux are pretty much at their best on "low-end" hardware,
> >> like maybe 4 processors or less. For more than 4 processors, you'd be
> >> better served with a microkernel-based unix, like Solaris for example.
> >
> > SMP on linux is more mature and much, much more stable.
> >
> > Which is not to say that linux is a better operating system in general,
> > it is merely to reinforce my point that linux does indeed have uses for
> > which FreeBSD is not suited.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
