Linux-Advocacy Digest #148, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: Answer this if you can... (Donn Miller)
Re: Answer this if you can... ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:44 -0500
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Unknown Poster wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You must remember that in the Mac world the GUI is the Computer,
therefore
> > > any ignorant Mac-ite troll won't realise the utter stupidity of that
last
> > > remark and just what it says about them.
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > No, according to Larry Ellison, the Network is the computer...
>
> That was Sun's motto LONG before Ellison was in charge.
>
> --
That's quite true, but I was quoting Oracle's party line.
BTW..Larry Ellison runs Oracle, not Sun..
------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:09:13 -0500
"Steve Hix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Unknown Poster wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You must remember that in the Mac world the GUI is the Computer,
> > > > therefore
> > > > any ignorant Mac-ite troll won't realise the utter stupidity of that
> > > > last
> > > > remark and just what it says about them.
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > >
> > > No, according to Larry Ellison, the Network is the computer...
> >
> > That was Sun's motto LONG before Ellison was in charge.
>
> And Ellison *still* isn't in charge at Sun...
At least one person knows who Ellison is..
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:13:15 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
John Muir wrote:
> Start xterm, start vim, enter some text, highlight it with the mouse,
> go down a bit, press middle button, so far OK, now start a second
> xterm, press middle button, result? a newline. QED
Funny, I've been copying/pasting using the left/middle mouse button in X
since I started using Ultrix and SunOS regularly in '94.
> Start xterm and Netscape, copy some text in Netscape, go to the xterm,
> press middle button, result? Nothing. QED
I'm trying this with Netscape composer, OK? Now, pay attention. I'm
going to highlight "trying this with Netscape composer" with my left
mouse button. Then, I'm going to go to an xterm on the second virtual
desktop, type "echo" first, followed by a space. I will attempt to
paste into an xterm by simply clicking my middle mouse button after the
"echo ". OK, now. Done. I will now select the output of the xterm
with the left mouse button, and then click my middle mouse button inside
this very Netscape Messenger Composer window. Ready? Go.
dmmiller@acs-24-154-53-11 temp$ echo trying this with Netscape composer
trying this with Netscape composer
dmmiller@acs-24-154-53-11 temp$
See? The above is my output from my described actions.
> See above
Exactly.
====== 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: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:22:30 GMT
> I now understand that there really is a good reason why Microsoft spends
> so much effort on usability labs and such. Why do I seem always to have
> to fight Linux.
I agree that in many cases Windows has a better "friendliness" factor (I
wouldn't use the word "usability").
And, I too have experienced some of the frustration you experience with
the little things that you're used to doing without even thinking in
Windows.
However, I've noticed something as I spend more and more time with Linux.
When I pop back into Windows, I find myself trying to do things the
Linux way in Windows, and I am equally frustrated that I have to give it a
moment's thought.
So, I'm of the opinion that these so-called "shortcomings" in Linux's
interface are simply a result of the prejudice that I have developed by
using the Windows OS exclusively for so long.
That said, I do think it would be a good strategic move for Linux to
closely mirror these little things in Windows. One is not particularly
more effective than the other, and Linux doesn't "owe" Windows anything in
this regard; but Linux would benefit by eliminating those minor
"annoyances" that might discourage new users from committing to the OS
early in the game.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:16:40 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96834m$gus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <HcLh6.114728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >How could I forget? I never knew :-) I came into this to rebut your
> >assertions that Microsoft implementations are not "professional". I've
> >established that they are by definition.
> >
> "Professional" does not mean "better quality."
>
> A "professional" paints your house, an "amateur" painted the Cistine
> Chapel.
DaVinci actually painted chapels, portraits and other works for
a living. He was, by definition, a professional.
The old man that is bored in his retirement and paints cute little
paintings that sell for $20 at the local craft store: that's Linux --
er that amateur.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:24:29 GMT
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:967va9$33i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson quoth:
>
> > Anyone suggesting Linux is making inroads at the (successful)
> > enterprise level is just plain nutz...
>
> Tell it to IDC:
>
> "Linux servers are now embedded in the Internet infrastructure and are
> strong comepetition for nt and unix entry servers."
"entry" is the key word here.
> The majority of Linux users surveyed also cited four nines availability
> with Linux, or less than one hour of unexpected downtime per year."
And Linux users (Penguinistas) have never been known to exaggerate or
lie to further their cause. Basically the claim of stability is just
that, a claim. IDC has not cited conclusive proof that there is, in fact,
"four nines" availability with Linux. Hearsay, really.
> SuSe and Corel got outcompeted by Redhat and IBM in the US corporate
> markets, and by Redhat and Mandrake in the US home user market. Corel,
> Applix, and others found that they could not compete with gnome or kde
> in the application development arena. I believe that netscape may one
> day discover this as well.
Of course, the entire market including OS and apps is under ten million
or so, so it's really not worth talking about.
> There is no question that linux is a superior paradigm for the end user
> who is a professional developer or engineer.
Yes, there is a question. If I switched to Linux right now, I would
see an instant 100% drop in productivity. Why? Not because of the
learning curve. I'll even give you a bone and forget about that part
for now. Why else, then? Because there are no good development IDEs
on Linux. I use Visual J++ on Windows to develop java, and then
compile the Sun JDK 1.3 compiler to get 100% pure java classes. The
VJ++ IDE is awesome though because of pop-up method/field lists, the
pop-up function references with javadoc comments included, among
many other features. The only closest editor that's this good is
JEdit that I've found at least. EMacs has too steep a learning curve
and I'd be fighting my editor, which I don't want to do. I want
my editor to work for me, not the other way around.
> Linux *IS* more stable than windows
Hardly. Windows9x maybe, but not 2000.
> You *CAN* integrate your own applications into the system.
But who has the time.
> The tools *ARE* better, and this *WILL* make you more productive.
Most of the tools that I use on Linux I can get for Windows as well.
I have grep, make, and many others. Other than those type of tools,
Linux really isn't all that useful.
> Compared to what I have now, my windows pc was a toy.
Well, then you really don't know what you're talking about. You're
a Unix guy who doesn't have a clue about Windows and feels the need
to bash it unfairly to hide his own ignorance.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:30:52 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:20:48 GMT,
> Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:967a1u$n7r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:9670cl$2g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> pip ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> : F.U.D.
> >> >>
> >> >> Snipped.
> >> >>
> >> >> : Is someone paying these people?
> >> >>
> >> >> It wouldn't surprise me if some of the FUDmeisters are paid
MS-Shills(tm).
> >The
> >> >> MS-Shills must hate the new department in computer stores, the Linux
> >section.
> >> >> Now, anyone can go to a store and buy Linux.
> >>
> >> > How come we're not seeing major in-roads in the OEM market? That's
> >> > real success. When other vendors are willing to stake their profit
> >> > on your product is when you have a real product. Until then it's
> >> > just a novelty like "Bigmouth Billy Bass". Millons of people bought
> >> > those too, but you don't see many hangding on the wall.
> >>
> >> > The truth is, people aren't buying Linux in the stores in mass
> >> > quantities. Sales are rediculously low compared with all the other
> >> > software on all the other shelves. Plus, many of the sales are
> >> > buy-it-and-forget-it. Sales of Linux are in the millions, but the
> >> > retention rate is probably pretty low. People buy it to play with it
> >> > but then go back to Windows when they want to get something done.
> >> > Most probably can't figure the damned thing out and just remove it
> >> > and throw the CD away or give it to a friend.
> >>
> >> An interesting theory. Do you have hard evidence to back it up?
> >
> >Well, logical deduction, really. Linux OS sales remain fairly
> >stagnant, growing, but at very small rates. Application sales
> >have not increased for Linux applications. OEMs have only token
> >support for Linux, if at all. There's no strong backing of Linux
> >anywhere. What little in-roads Linux has made, it squanders by
> >making sure that customers never buy an upgrade version, and
> >that they never buy application software, thus making commercial
> >software development for Linux suicide.
>
> well, I have bought every version of SuSE since 6.0, I pass on the older
> version to a friend, and upgrade happily. Also, I have bought some commercial
> S/W, whereas I buy none for windows.
Well, that's just you, and a handful million or so other geeks like you.
It's certainly not anywhere near a majority, in fact less than one percent
of the major market.
> You make assertions, but have no facts to back them up.
Several user surveys show Linux at less than one percent. Linux has
no OEM deals with a major PC supplier, and sales from retails stores
are laugable. The obvious facts support me, nothing supports you.
The burden is on you to refute my obvious claims.
> Not too surprising I suppose. You claim that linux OS sales remain fairly
> stagnant, got any numbers to back that up?
Red Hat and Mandrake's numbers a relatively linear.
> You also claim that linux users never buy application s/w, got
> any numbers on that?
How many for-purchase software applications are there for Linux?
A handful, at most. Applix is the first that comes to mind. They're
not exactly making money hand-over-fist. You also don't see application
developers switching from any other platform in a mad rush to make
money on Linux. If there was any money to be made from Linux, there'd
be tons of software being developed for it commercially. Likewise if
Linux were selling like crazy and had any respectable market share.
However, Linux has neither market share nor the prospect for bringing
in gobs of profit for app developers.
> or is it more supposition?
It's common sense, really.
> IBM is putting over a billion,
> (that's 1,000,000,000) dollars into linux, and you call that "no strong
backing
> of linux" Do you often have this sort of credibility problem?
I used to have a motto, even before the Linux fad: "If IBM takes interest in
you and wants to invest, you're already doomed". IBM had its eyes set on
Novell about 2 years back. It was then I knew Novell was doomed. It appears
that IBM has it in for Linux as well. I don't know about 1 billion dollars,
I've never heard a number that large (got any?). And most of the development
they're doing is java-based anyhow, so saying that's Linux development is
rather misleading.
-Chad
------------------------------
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
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:31:57 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:967rch$j9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:967ngu$m6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The point is .NET is nothing new.
> >>
> >> > Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
> >> > I can see where this has been done in the past.
> >>
> >> www.python.org
> >>
> >> Of course, you're going to have to understand some of the details of
> >> python in order to understand its relevancy to this topic.
>
> > Well, at first glance, this still only looks like one language.
>
> It is one language. But with the included compilers, you can embed
> C++, perl, TCL, and just about anything else you can think of inside
> your python code and make it work on any platform.
>
> In fact, just as a little fun experiement, try calling python but
> writing the entire app in something else (which can be embedded)
> and compile it.
>
> Loads of fun.
>
> The best part about it is that you dont need a "runtime", you can
> compile your stuff directly for the platform desired, with absolutely
> no support from microsoft.
So you have to compile for each platform?
*BZZT* sorry, nice try. This doesn't equate to .NET. Next?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:36:52 GMT
In article <966t04$d4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BS.. you setup a que and configure a printer for it.
> That cat be that hard to understand for a pro like you or is it?
What?
Windows - one printer, one queue.
Linux - one printer, n queues.
What's the point?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:44:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, you're making an invalid presumption. Despite your unstated
> premise, computer users are not entirely ignorant of reality, and don't
> expect that every piece of software installed on a system is from the
> same original source.
That's in direct contradiction to everything else I've seen posted here
about the majority of computer users. I see, you adjust your stance
accordinging. Not very convincing, I must say.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:42:16 GMT
In article <967a76$n7r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You offered, and then recinded.
>
> Why did you offer, exactly?
I offered a 'few'. You've had your few. Now go away.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:40:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, Pete, actually its not. Its your fault you called it a "Linux
> 'Oopsie'".
Which has got nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Are all your posts just so much noise?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
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
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:40:57 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yvLh6.1345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:rJJh6.13521$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:967ngu$m6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The point is .NET is nothing new.
> > >
> > > > Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
> > > > I can see where this has been done in the past.
> > >
> > > www.python.org
> > >
> > > Of course, you're going to have to understand some of the details of
> > > python in order to understand its relevancy to this topic.
> >
> > Well, at first glance, this still only looks like one language.
> >
> > I'm talking about multiple languages. With .NET, there are least
> > these few in the works:
> >
> > VB.NET
> > JScript.NET
> > C++.NET
> > C#
> > Perl.NET
> > I think I've heard about a few others, but I haven't
> > confirmed them, but I know at least there for sure are going
> > to be .NET languages.
> >
> > They all compile to the common language runtime (CLR) which
> > can be executed on any platform the runtime is written for.
> > Currently, there are CLRs being written for all the Windows
> > platforms and for Linux. I'm sure that Solaris wouldn't
> > be far behind. Possibly HPUX as well.
>
> I'll say this much, Chad...
> You, unlike a few others touting it, actually appear to have a working
> knowledge.
>
> The multi-platform CLR idea is good. But whether or not this will be yet
> another JAVA is a question that begs to be asked. Neither Sun nor MS were
> able to do much with JAVA for understandable reasons. How do you think this
> will be any different?
Well, for one, Sun didn't market Java very well. They also missed several
boats with Java (web applications, embedded, handhelds, etc). They're
trying to make up for it, but it's too little too late.
Also, Sun didn't design the underworkings of Java very well. It's a.)
extremely slow on just about every platform b.) not as WORA as Sun
claims, it's more like "Write once, write again for Solaris, write
again for Linux, write again for Windows". c.) didn't allow people
to use languages they were familiar with, instead forcing them to
learn a brand new language which had it's own quirks and faults and
d.) didn't work with other OS vendors to get things working very well.
They fought MS, they fought Novell for a time, they fought just
about everyone else to make sure they did it the Sun way, which really
was shooting themselves in the foot. There was room for compromise and
to still keep the integrity of Java in-tact, but Sun blew it.
Java has become a cobbled mess with no clear focus and doesn't
have a clear lead in anything its doing.
.NET addresses almost, if not, all of these weaknesses. It has a
better chance out of the gate, I believe. MS is going to market it
hard, it's going to have a great IDE for all the different languages
for .NET, it's going to have CLRs that run great on all Windows
platforms and they should have the Linux one running by its release
as well. .NET's design allows you to write your application that
will scale to a server all the way down to a hand-held and still
be useful at every level. I think MS' philosophy and self-esteem
are better. Sun was a little too timid with Java and it hoarded
it too much. I think MS won't make the same mistakes.
Don't get me wrong, I like Java, it's nifty, in fact I write quite a
bit of it, but I still think Sun blew it and it's only a matter of
time before Java is reduced to being used only for applets small
apps that run on several platforms but don't do much in terms of
functionality.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:43:14 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tTKh6.1337$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GWHh6.12726$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8LFh6.68$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:tKAh6.11200$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:G_qh6.1199$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:M2ph6.19689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:OLoh6.1188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to
> > > conjure
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > memories of subscription based software from the early
> eighties.
> > > It
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually,
> i'm
> > > > > > > surprised
> > > > > > > > > its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is
> now,
> > > for
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer
> sector
> > > said
> > > > > no,
> > > > > > > > > resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial
> sector
> > > > > takes
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same tact with this profit mongering.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET
> and, as
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I
> just
> > > > > ranted
> > > > > > > on.
> > > > > > > > > We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't.
> If
> > > it
> > > > > takes
> > > > > > > > > off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative
> OS's
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I understand it, .NET will be accessible to any OS, it's
> just
> > > that
> > > > > > > > Windows tools will be the first down the pike. Of course,
> that
> > > > > > > > common-language substrate will be lowest-common-denominator,
> and
> > > > > > > > Microsoft will change it whenever they see fit, giving
> developers
> > > > > fits.
> > > > > > > > It'll be as stable as OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM.....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As best I can determine it IS OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM.
> Nothing
> > > new.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > > > a label and more promises with that little subscription wrinkle
> > > added.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, then you really have no idea what you're talking about
> then.
> > > > > > You probably don't know what OLE, COM/ActiveX, DCOM, or COM+ are
> in
> > > the
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I only program for the above on a daily basis....
> > > >
> > > > Sure.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > first place, and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what
> .NET
> > > > > > is, as evidenced by the above paragraph.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the future, please refrain from ebarassing yourself by making
> such
> > > > > > ignorant from-the-ass comments as above. At least take the time
> to
> > > read
> > > > > > one article, even one paragraph of an article that summarizes
> .NET
> > > before
> > > > > > even making a comment on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not "ebarassed" in the least.
> > > > > (Learn to type)
> > > >
> > > > It is considered rude to point out every little spelling error made
> > > > in someones post, unless it's obvious that that person doesn't really
> > > > know how to spell. Yes, I know how to spell, and yes, it's rude
> you're
> > > > pointing out every little error.
> > >
> > > It is also rude and more than a little presumptuous to jump in a thread
> and
> > > attack a poster.
> >
> > Hmm, where have you been? It was because of me that this thread was
> > started. The thread was originally "Red Hat becoming illegal" where
> > I started a sub-thread about how worthless ext2 was. This thread
> > was born. Perhaps you should heed your own advice and take a hike.
>
> And this your justification for throwing the phrase idiotic when an opinion
> contrary to your own is voiced, then?
>
> >
> > > > I will be certain to point out EVERY SINGLE spelling error you make
> > > > from now on and be sure to point out how ignorant your are for making
> > > > them.
> > >
> > > If it floats your boat, by all means do so.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Also, in the future, don't make wild assumptions about a poster's
> > > > > experience level.
> > > >
> > > > It wasn't a wild assumption. When you make a claim that .NET is just
> > > > like COM, then you really have no clue what you're talking about.
> > >
> > > The point is .NET is nothing new.
> >
> > Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
> > I can see where this has been done in the past.
> >
> > > The core technologies and ideas most certainly aren't.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Judging by their past conformance to standards across platforms, I'll
> believe that fairy tail when I see it.
>
> >
> > > There's not a lot there for someone to be excited about.
> >
> > See above. If you really knew what it was, you'd see how exciting
> > it is.
>
> I agree that the idea is VERY exciting. I've posted such in the past. I
> just don't think MS is the company to pull it off.
>
> >
> > > Especially when one considers MS's historical over-statements about
> their
> > > products.
> >
> > The beta documentation, SDKs and a full IDE studio are available for
> > your download an perusal. No overstatements, it's all there. It really
> > is that good and exciting.
>
> When the MSDN updates come in I plan to give it a glossing over at the
> house.
You realize the entire MSDN library is online including all the
beta documentation, don't you?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library
MS made it free some time ago.
Here's the .NET documentation specifically:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:47:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Because you posted the experience of what some people might do, until
> they learned better, under the subject line you did. That doesn't make
> you a reasonable minded person; it makes you a brain-dead poser.
If I were "brain-dead", how I could I write this reply?
However, I see where this is going. You're doing exactly what you did
before. Nothing changes I see.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:53:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It uses exactly the same 'model', Pete. It didn't have the same default
> configuration, because, being a graphics program with demanding
> requirements, it defaulted to a raw mode, which you neglected to notice
> when you clicked on the OK button in the print dialog like a mindless
> Windows idiot.
Get it right. As a reasonable minded person, I clicked on the OK button
expecting the application to follow the sane rules. Instead, the
application had a different assumption, and I ended up with sheets of
ASCII.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
