Linux-Advocacy Digest #609, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE Hell (Roberto Alsina)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:10:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:32:01 GMT, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:30:27 GMT, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >[snip a heck of a lot]
> >
> >> >> That's not GNOME, that's a higher level application.
> >> >
> >> >Then we need to define what we are comparing.
> >> >To be exact: What's windows? What's Gnome?
> >>
> >> Programmer services.
> >>
> >> End user services.
> >
> >Can you be a bit more verbose?
>
> Why do you need it broken down into monosyllables?
I am not sure you can handle so many words.
> You're supposed to be a programmer. You should have some
> idea what parts of KDE are built primarily to enable the
> building of other applications and which ones are 'terminal'
> in that they're not expected to be built on further and
> just 'executed' by the end user.
That limit is artificial. For example, letīs consider the file manager
and web browser, konqueror. You give windows counterpart explorer as
a "final app". Well, it is not.
If I wanted to write a version of wget that handled ECMAscript, for
example, I could build it as a script using DCOP to make konqueror
do the job. So, as you see, I do know.
> When it comes time to deploy those Win32 apps on other
> platforms, no one cares about explorer.exe. They want
> to know where the win32 libraries are and how they
> can recompile their win32 source.
So, when you say "windows", you actually mean "the win32 API"?
Thatīs a peculiar thing.
> >> >Because we obviously are using different definitions.
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> Mine's consistent with 20 years of Unix design
> >> philosphy. I'm not quite sure where you're
> >> getting your ideas from.
> >
> >I am trying to guess yours, too. Applying Unix design philosophy
> >to determine what is part of a OS that is not Unixy is, let's
> >say, radical.
> >
> >If windows is not the whole OS, then what is the OS beneath it?
>
> I didn't windows wasn't the whole OS, I merely stated the
> OS isn't explorer.
Explorer is a part of windows. If you donīt have it, what you have is
not windows, at least IMHO. But hey, your NSHO can be different.
[snip]
> >If windows is the whole OS, comparing it to GNOME in isolation is
> >stupid.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> GNOME can be isolated from the rest of what you want to
> bundle together. GNOME just isn't a Linux envroment.
> Even gtk itself isn't limited to X. It was specifically
> meant not to be.
GNOME is not a Linux environment. Thatīs why I said "linux or unix"
in my first post of the thread. Ouch.
You see, if "you donīt say windows is not the whole OS", logically
that means "Jedi says windows is the whole OS", and you are comparing
GNOME to a whole OS. Thatīs stupid.
You have to compare it to something that has the same "range"
or else, the comparison is biased FOR WINDOWS. If you want to compare
the GNOME API to the win32 API, there are inequivocal ways to say so.
If you want to compare the GNOME UI to the windows UI, there are
ways to say so too.
> Really, it's more comparable to OpenStep.
>
> Also, I didn't tie Windows to DOS. I only refered to the
> release history of those products actually called Microsoft
> Windows. I never included anything that one could clearly
> separate from Windows.
>
> So, you aren't even characterizing my position correctly.
Thatīs probably because I have problems understanding what your
posistion is. Could be me, could be you, letīs try to work it out
as grownups.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:20:08 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> > Also, even with logging back in, it can take a few minutes
> > for the OS to unlock the misbehaving DLL so I can rebuild and reinstall
> > after a quick edit. I've noticed, though, that 2K seems to take 1/2 the
time
> > NT4 did in that respect.
>
> You know the mantra of software optimization: "Make the frequent occurence
> fastest."
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
On software optimization:
Our senior programmer worked for Big Blue as a student programmer back in
the stone age. He happened across these do-nothing loops scattered
throughout some source code. They were actually documented as P.P.I.. Just
those three letters. When curiosity finally got the better of him he asked
someone what it meant and why those loops were in there, he was told they
meant Planned Program Improvement. Removing the do nothing loops in
subsequent releases sped the program up meaning you could advertise it as
faster and better. This story has an urban myth vibe to it, but, if you can
remember back that far, newer software versions almost never were that much
different than prior versions and always ran a small bit faster.
Makes one stop and think...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:11:21 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> wrote in message
news:94caq7$8q1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > I did just that some time ago.
> > > The result was Apache first, IIS second, and various others third.
> > > Unix first, NT/2K second, linux third.
> >
> > Could you repost them, or direct us to the link in deja?
>
> http://x76.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=689372007.1&CONTEXT=980002612.10
> 15218251&hitnum=2
>
>
> Top 100 sites: 34 Solaris, 32 MS OS, 20 Linux, 7 FreeBSD, 2 HP-UX, 2 BSD/OS,
> 1 AIX, 1 Compaq Tru64/Digital Linux, 1 IRIX
>
> Web Servers: 35 Apache, 31 IIS, 20 Netscape Enterprise, 2 known, 1
> Netscape-Communications, 1 Oracle Web Listener , 1 Lotus-Domino, 1 WW, 1
> GWS, 1 AOLserver, 1 AV, 1
> This·is·a·real·operating·system·from·the·free·world (very strange name), 1
> Zeus, 1 JavaWebServer, 1 Mediasurface, 1 IBM-Planetwide
Here's an update of the top 10:
1 yahoo.com unknown/FreeBSD; www.yahoo.com: same
2 microsoft.com IIS5/Win2K; www.microsoft.com: same
3 lycos.com NetscapeEnt 3.6SP3/Tru64; www.lycos.com: IIS5/Win2K
NOTE: www.lycos.com is running IIS5/Win2K. Since going to lycos.com
redirects to www.lycos.com, I'm counting as IIS5/Win2K
4 aol.com NaviServer2.0-AOLServer2.3.3/Solaris; www.aol.com: same
5 altavista.com AV-1.0.1/Tru64; www.altavista.com: same
6 egroups.com Apache1.3.3/FreeBSD; www.egroups.com: same
7 excite.com NetscapeEnt2.01/Solaris; www.ecite.com: same
8 go.com unknown/Solaris; www.go.com: same
9 google.com GWS-1.10/Linux; www.google.com: same
10 cnet.com Apache-1.3.6/Solaris; www.cnet.com: same
OS:
Solaris: 4
FreeBSD: 2
Win2K: 2
Compaq Tru64: 1
Linux: 1
Web Server:
Apache (any version): 2
IIS (any version): 2
Netscape Enterprise (any version): 2
unknown: 2
NaviServer2.0-AOLServer2.3.3: 1
AV-1.0.1: 1
GWS-1.10: 1
Relevant Share:
Apache:20%
IIS: 20%
Netscape 20%
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:26:30 GMT
I'm misquoted in this post.
Only thing I said was "Linvocates have been saying that for years".
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:00:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed
Allen) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>>
>>Do you know the difference between a trademark and a trade name? Do you
>>know if anyone has a trademark on Linux? Is "Mandrake" a brand name, a
>>trademark, or a trade name?
>>
>>Anybody? Anybody?
>>
> Linkname: Welcome to Linux International!
> URL: http://li.org/whatislinux.php
>
> Last line of the page:
> Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
>
> =====
> Use of the trademark is encouraged but abuse of it has and will be
> prosecuted in court.
>
>>>>No, its an application barrier. That's going away, very soon. The
>>>>market itself will probably have it completely dismantled by next year.
>>>
>>>The Linvocates have been saying that for years.
>>
>>Yes, well, they were naive. Truth is, it requires government action to
>>prevent monopolization. That's why they made it illegal, more than a
>>hundred years ago.
>>
> One of the reasons we have laws and governments to enforce them is
> to prevent abuse by those who will not behave decently without being
> forced.
>
>>By 2002, Linux is going to be *everywhere*.
>>
> As the lies M$ tells developers about not having any market if they
> do not write for Windows exclusively are exposed they will rush to
> establish themselves before their competition does.
>
> Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror of
> sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
> shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
> requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
>
> Once the first one takes the plunge the others scramble to get out
> as quickly as possible because the last few are just as vulnerable
> as the first.
>
>>>StarOffice is a perfect example. Do you see it replacing Office? I
>>>don't. Yet StarOffice is free and considering the expense of MS
>>>licensing could result in quite a bit of cost savings for larger
>>>companies, yet I don't see StarOffice taking over desktop's. Why is
>>>that?
>>
>>Because whatever people get to replace Office, it isn't going to be
>>"taking over" desktops. You'll probably never even notice, and nobody
>>else is really going to care. This stupid misrepresentation of 'the
>>network effect' that supposedly makes me give a shit what particular
>>brand of software someone *else* is running is getting fucking tired.
>>
> That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
> is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
>
> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
> that.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?)
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:27:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bones wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> It's good to know about Linux's stability and reliability, because it's
>> another weapon in the arsenal. However, though Windows isn't "best" in these
>> areas, it's "good enough" for a huge number of people. How do we convince
>> these people?
>
YOU won't have to. I won't have to.
THEY WILL.
Everybody keeps forgeting about the CO$T factor here!
Everytime Microsoft releases an OS the price doubles!
They will just PRICE themselves out of the market.
THEY can't compete with the GPL movement. Just one
web site alone had 20,000 OSS developers on it.
There are 250,000 of them world wide now.
Microsoft has a mere 37,000 employee's and only a fraction
of those are developers.
Basically all you HAVE to do to win this war is just
keep debating on COLA and have a good time with all
the comments from the spinless Wintroll community.
MARKET is only viable if they can OFFER what the customer
wants for what the customer can afford.
And it's very safe to say that Gnome offers the average
user as much power if not MORE than W2k does right now.
So for basic functionality of a Windows replacment, they
are there. And Time only serves to make Linux stronger
and Microsoft weaker.
>(long)
>
>Well, its obviously going to be a rough ride. There is an initial investment
>in time and patience to begin with, and unfortunately new computer users are
>content to stay at the level of inefficiency that point-and-click GUIs
>afford them; many are downright belligerent when you try to re-educate them,
>(I'm not talking about any 're-education' that goes on in this NG.) Fear
>makes people irrational.
>
I recall this was the same road they took to get into Windows in
the first place. Microsoft knocked the edge off the user base.
They are no longer computer illiterate.
They have a working knowledge of Microsoft now.
>The majority of new users dishing out cash for computer systems now are not
>the technically-inclined hobbyists or ex-sysops of yesteryear. These people
>do not know better, and are greatly influenced by the gimmicks that
>salespeople employ to push hardware and software. Sadly, these salesfolk are
>usually only slightly more knowledgeable than the buyers. The potential and
>repeat buyers cannot escape the collective barrage-a-thon of Windows-centric
>saleshype, since status-quo business types permanently latch onto simple,
>stupid sales strategies like barnacles drenched in superglue.
>
The phrase, "If you want to know anything about your computer just
go and ask your 12 year old" still applies today.
As generations of humans come along, the skill levels are increasing.
>OSes like Windows and MacOS are "good enough" because almost none of their
>users have experienced anything else. What is their reference to judge
>against? How can a potential OS 'defector' possibly ponder an alternative
>when they have zero practical experience with anything else except software
>built around the same, tired concepts? How can a potential user get exposed
>to something new when her sales-barnacle refuses to remove himself from the
>mighty bow of USS Redmond?
>
And as long as the price of Windows doesn't become a problem,
they will stay there. When the price is a serious concern they
will switch to Linux.
Keep in mind here, W2k was supposed to eliminate 98 and NT.
They didn't do it. They still have 2 os's.
The reason they still have 2 OS's is because they HAVE to milk
the business community with W2k to pay for ME so they can have
a cheap OS to give away.
Without this, Microsoft would have lost more customers than
they did this year.
And ME is really a peice of work.
And ME is the reason I think most people who migrated to Linux
this year did. A few still get irritated with quality.
>The answer may lie in some practical and not-so-practical demonstrations of
>Linux' flexibility and usability. We can sit here and argue technical points
>until the Sun vaporizes the Earth, but years of retail tel-obotimizing have
>successfully taught consumers that those benefits which cannot immediately
>be seen do not exist. The collective decision-making maturity of the average
>buyer is now that of a 3 year old: A successful product must make
>entertaining sounds, be painted in loud colors and look like it was made by
>Fisher-Price. [ironically, Toys R Us used to sell computers]
>
I show everybody I know my web pages and my networking capability.
Then I encourage them to make their own web page on their own computer
at home and let me know how it all comes out.
>People aren't going to go out and *read* the information, they insist on
>demonstration; its so much easier than research. How many Amigas were sold
>to people who enjoyed the demo of what eventually became Battle Chess? How
>many Macs were sold to folks who liked the digital stereo sound, or
>synthesized speech? Linux has it tough, it has to shake the
>all-work-and-no-play reputation that it inherited from UNIX, but still
>maintain a great record of reliability and flexibility for heavy-duty use.
>MacOS, for example, has it much easier. I has to just behave like a toy
>because that is what buyers expect.
>
This is where WEB applicance will come in. There have been several
new web appliances made from Linux. This is a market where Microsoft
can't compete as they have no embedded product and aren't likely
to develop a sucessful one. Embedded products require programming
skill and Microsoft doesn't have this kind of skill.
We even have a new CHEAP embedded Linux PC device which just came out
which replaces the PC as you know it today. It's RISC based with
a 20 gig harddrive and 10/100 nic with firewire.
I've predicted Microsoft won't be the domininent OS by 2005 but with
these kinds of devices becomming available, I'm wondering if the
PC itself will survive?
>I feel that the major draw to Linux will be with automation and
>competitively-priced services. It is relatively easy for a tech with some
>programming experience to learn about and then modify the operating system
>and applications to suit a user's needs. Any tech could teach himself some
>basic but extremely useful scripting and coding practices. No information is
>hidden from an open source developer or user. With multiple computers in the
>home, networks for the masses are right around the corner. I suggest
>Linux-oriented businesses not wait for some other company to back up their
>marketing dumptrucks and unload their binary refuse in buyer's living rooms,
>thereby defining what trash consumers will put up with.
>
And they aren't.
>
>> I don't want to see Linux become a consumer-targeted OS, but dammit, I want
>> enough people to use it so that MS does not consume the planet.
>
>Linux will never become solely a consumer-targeted OS. Its impossible, since
>no one developer can completely control another developer.
>
True. This again leads us back to WEB appliance for the masses.
The PC as you know it today will become a very small appliance which
sits on top of your T.V. and uses DVD which run's linux. It will
have a battery operated IR keyboard with built in mouse. It might
even be integrated in with your RCA home entertainment center.
This market Linux is pioneering right now.
>An aside:
>
>Speaking of MS dominating things... I always find it entertaining to watch
>two bumbling giants beat the crap out of eachother. (strangely, pro
>wrestling is not my favorite form of entertainment.) I can't wait to see
>what happens when MS and AOL duke it out, but as a sideline, I'm watching
>what's going on with Expedia and Priceline. Priceline supposedly pays
>royalties to an IP firm to use a patent which basically can be summed up
>like this:
>
In the mean time, Linux will keep eating away at Microsoft's user
base.
It's for this reason I will predict AOL the winner.
>"Have an Internet-based business which allows people to suggest their own
>price for products and services."
>
>The ridiculously technologically ass-backwards folks at the Patent Office
>actually granted a patent for this idea, and Expedia is thinking about
>launching a similar service (if they haven't already). I have a feeling it
>will be worth my time to watch MS take some swings at that IP firm and vice
>versa.
>
>
>----
>Bones
Bones is a very deep thinker.
He brings some good points to the table.
I still say Microsoft will loose the world domination war to Linux
by 2005. They have too many enemies and too many problems that
Linux doesn't share. Linux started feeding on the Microsoft user
base in 2000 and it's still doing it.
I've run into more people running linux now who used to run NT or
95/98 than I've ever experienced in 6 years watching.
Everytime CompUSA has a sale on a linux distribution for $10, everybody
goes down and buy's a copy. There is a huge glob of people who
are dual booting right now and these people will eventually just
kick Microsoft off their drive in a year or two like I did.
I dual booted for almost 3 years before I finally asked myself WHY?
The last year I was spending all my time in Linux and started to
wonder why I was wasting partition space with NT.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> >> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
> >> > [...]
> >> >>>>I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
size.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Databases.
> >> >
> >> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single file.
> >>
> >> There's that magic word: "convention".
> >>
> >> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> >> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> >> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
> >
> >Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
>
> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
>
> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
the entire clip and work with it as a whole. Breaking it
up just to accomodate a poor choice of a poorly designed
OS only adds time and steps to a process that wouldn't
ordinarily be there.
The only reason in this process to break up the videos
would've been to accomodate Linux. The time it takes
to break up the videos is a.) Unnecessary and b.) Costly.
There is no reason to break them up, period.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:15:45 GMT
In article <pmba6.184701$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > So, as a general statement, "Linux installs are harder" is not
> > correct?
>
> I'd say in some specific instances, in this one, it is as easy if not
> easier.
Good :-)
> > Install Windows 95. Then try to upgrade to Windows NT 4.0
>
> You can't.
>
> > Install Suse personal edition. Then try to upgrade to SuSE
professional
> > edition.
>
> I don't know SuSe.
Well, letīs say that no matter how hard it might be, it ainīt
impossible ;-)
> I do know what happened when I tried to upgrade Linux Mandrake 7.0 to
7.1.
> It took three hours and I ended up with a broken desktop.
You can always just refresh the desktop RPMs post-upgrade. Shouldnīt
hurt your personal data.
> > What do you expect to be easier?
>
> In this example, the question is moot because you can't upgrade from
95 to
> NT (although you can install it dual boot), and in the second case,
my
> example shows Linux Mandrake update is broken.
Well, impossible sounds harder than it-dinīt-quite-work to me ;-)
> > > And I cut myself off from tools to configure the system like
linuxconf.
> > > What's the equivalent in KDE or something else?
> >
> > I thought we had already covered this? The KDE equivalent of
Linuxconf
> > is Linuxconf. There may be some packaging issues there, but there
is no
> > technical reason why you can't use linuxconf on a GTK+ free system,
> > today.
>
> But linuxconf GUI is based on Gtk.
ONE of the Linuxconf GUIs is based on Gtk.
> Therefore it uses the Gtk widgets.
> Therefore the differences (i.e. the "mess" as I call it) exists.
Use the web interface. Itīs as nice or nicer than the Gtk one.
> > If you *really* want your system to be configured through a graphic
> > thingie that doesn't use GTK+, you could try Suse's YAST2, or
Caldera's
> > whose name I can't recall.
>
> I'm beginning to see Linux Mandrake is not the best choice for me.
Itīs not bad, really. Linux is linux, pretty much.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:20:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
> 13:42:25 GMT;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
> >> 14:11:00 GMT;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but
it's not
> >> >> > we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
> >> >>
> >> >> How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great
for a lot
> >> >> of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never
tried
> >> >> Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl
can do.
> >> >
> >> >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> >> >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent
anyway! ;-)
> >>
> >> For clarity, though, not for syntax!
> >
> >Do you know any situation where it is convenient not to be clear?
> >If you don't, why add the unneeded ugliness of block separators?
> >
> >for (x=a;x<b;x++)
> >{
> > do_stuff;
> >}
> >
> >for x in range(a,b):
> > do_stuff
> >
> >The python versions are usually simpler, clearer, with less unneeded
> >punctuation.
>
> Indeed, if you use stuff for clarity, not syntax, in the first example
> (is that C?)
Yes.
> Wouldn't
>
> For (x=a;x<b;x++)
> {do_stuff;}
>
> be syntactically identical?
Yes.Except for the uppercase F ;-) In fact, the brackets are not
mandatory in that case, so
for (x=a;x<b;x++)
do_stuff;
or even
for (x=a;x<b;x++) do_stuff;
work.
> I know its not the conventional way, so you
> must think it is less clear, but I will, as always, point out I'm not
> interested in professional-level programming, just getting stuff done.
First rule of programming style: have a style.
Second rule of programming style: use your style, always.
The rest is personal preference.
> However, I will admit that the comments I've seen do belay some of my
> concerns about using indents for syntax, not clarity. Perhaps I just
> need to get used to the idea; we all know I don't actually use either
> one. The last language I used was BASIC, unless you count a couple
odd
> (brain-dead) shell scripts and a modification of a perl script or two.
> I never quite understood the point of the bracketing convention to
begin
> with.
It makes it easier to grasp at birds-eye view the flow of the code.
In python the flow is WYSIWYG. On C itīs not :-)
[snip]
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:33:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This would happen over and over again with kde, not with Enlightenment
> or Gnome.
> Gnome had it's own problems though, sprinkling my system with time
> bombs all over the place.
> Applications would just die for some reason or another.
>
> I can see why you Linvocates like fwvm or twm or blackbox.
Very strange. I've had precious few problems with Gnome or
Enlightenment or sawfish/sawmill, and I tend to mess with the UI
a lot. [This is on RedHat 6 through 7.]
Try running the offending apps from the command line, and
see if they dump error messages to the console (a la the
g_printf() function of GTK+/Gnome).
The only consistent offender on my system is Netscape, which
occasionally becomes unresponsive. I can make it exit
by opening the address book and clicking on someone's address.
Luckily, those two are the only real boners I've encountered.
Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
