Linux-Advocacy Digest #559, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Black Dragon)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" (Black Dragon)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! ("Chris Coyle")
Re: why open source software is better ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: why open source software is better ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:42:03 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:05:08 -0500 in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Flacco' said:
: > * Dreamweaver Ultradev
:
: Good luck. I brought this up recently and was basically told I was a pussy
: and/or moron for not writing out my web pages long-hand. Die-hard Linux
: users seem unwilling to admit that casual users may want a graphical design
: tool to build web pages, integrated with site management tools.
Websphere Homepage Builder -- for both Linux and Windows:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/hpbuilder
Otherwise, use Emacs. :-)
--
Black Dragon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:57:05 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:35:59 +0000 in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Edward Rosten' said:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: > Not the concept - the word. It's seriously getting over-used.
:
: Can we add `technology' to this list.
``issues''
THAT has got to be the most over used term in computing today!
--
Black Dragon
------------------------------
From: "Chris Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:57:17 -0500
"BillyG." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> >
> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Well, I've finally run into a problem with Windows that I can't
[blah blah blah]
>
> >
>
> It's one thing to have shoddy 3rd party software but it's another to have a
> shoddy OS that could be brought down by shoddy 3rd party software.
>
> Seve
AMEN!
BTW I once wrote a little program to fill up a "disk" (partition) on win-nt,
to overwrite the remains of erased files of a "sensitive" nature.
The program opened a new file in write mode, and just looped around a write()
call until it failed. Guess what? I doesn't work. It never terminates,
and what is worse, it leaves the disk in an unusable condition - you have to
reformat it. Thanks for Linux, Crimo$oft.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:10:59 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craven Moorehead) wrote:
>
> >You suggest a situation where 0.01% do the work and the rest enjoy the
> >fruits of the labour. BTW that didn't work in Russia even when 100%
> >did the work or at least pretended too.
> >
> >We no longer live in the 19th century, you want something, you buy it.
> >No-one makes their own ketch anymore. We buy it.
>
> There is an old joke that an economist looks at a system working in
> practice, and then tries to figure out if works in theory.
>
> >Maybe they do it when they are young and out to change the world. Then
> >they get married, have kids and suddenly find there is no free lunch,
>
> But there are such things as free speech, free countries, free movement
and
> free software.
>
> >especially in the US.
>
> 98% of people don't live in the US.
4% of the people live in the US, since the population of the world is over
6 billion and the population of the US is over 250 Million.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:07:46 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:05:06 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> >> Standard C defines all of those things you just mentioned, with the
>> >> notable exceptions of read() and write(), which are UNIX syscalls.
>> >
>> > Wrong.
>> >
>> > The C compiler definition defines absolutely ZERO functions...only the
>> > syntax for writing them.
>> >
>> > You're confusing the Standard Library with the language itself.
>>
>> You're confusing the compiler with the language itself. The language
>> according to the ISO definition of it includes both the language
>> semantics (what is implemnted through the compiler) and the standard
>> library.
>>
>> Origionally C included no libraries in its definition. It does not. You
>> could still write a C program for an embedded chip that didn't use the
>> libraries in standard C because the standard doesn't specify that you
>> must link against those libraries even if you don't use them (well, I am
>> guessing that last point here).
>
>Your guess is correct.
>
>printf() WITHIN <stdio.h> is defined.
>
>printf() in general is not defined.
That is incorrect. printf is reserved by the C standard as an external
name. If your program makes an definition of the name printf with
external linkage, the behavior is undefined whether or not <stdio.h> is
included.
If you know the rules, you can get away with using printf in some ways.
If <stdio.h> is not included, you can use printf as a filescope
identifier, provided it has internal linkage (static function or
variable) or no linkage (for example a typedef name). If <stdio.h> *is*
included, you can still use printf as a non-filescope name with no
linkage (local variable, statement label, struct/union member, typedef
name, enumeration constant) or as a macro name---provided that you use
#undef printf to suppress any macro definition of printf coming out of
<stdio.h>. (Actually you don't even have to do that; any such a macro
definition is required to be a function-like macro; such macros are
recognized only when followed by a left parenthesis. So if you avoid
the opening parenthesis, you don't have to #undef).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:43:19 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:12:39 -0500, David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> For example, if OpenOffice drives out MS Office, it will be because
>> users consider that it better suits their needs. This IMO would be a
>> good thing; computer users don't benefit from upgrade treadmills and
>> other MS tactics.
>
>You obviously have a loathing for M$ (who doesn't ;-), but that colors
>your statement above. What if it was OpenQuicken and Intuit Quicken?
I've not used Quicken or GNUCash, so I can't really comment.
>Or Linux and Sun Solaris?
I've used both of these.
Solaris will probably stay on in the short to medium term. In the
long term, Sun might replace it with Linux in order to save the
costs of developing their own kernel. Frankly, it doesn't bother
me much one way or the other, it's only a kernel.
Note that Sun are standardising on the OSS Gnome GUI. So a Solaris
system running Gnome will look and behaver much the same as a
Linux system running Gnome.
> Or Emacs and Wordstar (well...)?
Neither are particularly my cup of tea.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:17:55 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:22:11 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The following is a strictly conformant complete translation unit:
>>
>> void f(void) {
>> int printf(const char *, ...); printf("hello world\n");
>> }
>>
>> A conforming C compiler is within its rights to scan the format
>> argument, see that there is no "%", see that it ends in a newline, and
>> compile this to a call to puts(), or -- on a Unix-like system
>> -- a call to write(), or whatever.
>
>
>GCC will scan the string and check for errors such as too few arguments
>or mismatched arguments if you set one of the warning oprions (it escapes
>me at the moment).
>From there it's not a big jump to doing code generation.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:27:13 +0000 (UTC)
Black Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:35:59 +0000 in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Edward Rosten' said:
: : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: : "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: :
: : > Not the concept - the word. It's seriously getting over-used.
: :
: : Can we add `technology' to this list.
: ``issues''
: THAT has got to be the most over used term in computing today!
Ah, but what about:
"revolutionary", "solutions" or "enterprise"?
(all of which can be combined into the complete bullshit phrase of:
"FooSoft, delivering revolutionary e-commerce solutions for the
enterprise!")
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:32:29 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:16:31 -0800, "Keldon Warlord 2000"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if WindowsXP can handle *my* games, then Emperor Gates can count me in
> again!
You swap your Voodoo 5500 for the next version (6000?).
You reboot. Instead of "New Hardware Detected" you are greeted with "New
Configuration Detected. Please Re-register Windows® XP(tm)."
You click on "Yes, I would like to re-register now".
You are greeted with "Sorry, this is not the registered configuration, to
continue using Windows® XP(tm) please purchase a new licence, $500 please.
Thank you. Have a nice day."
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:37:11 GMT
"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:07:52 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
> >Unix guys as a heap of crap. The AOLer of Linuxes. It is the most
> >successful and is still an economic basket case.
>
> Red Hat recently bought out another company for $47,000,000 in RH stock.
>
Over 6,000,000 shares of stock, compare with 350,000 share when they were
near their high.-
> It could do this because the market values RH high enough for the
> stock to be valuable. Note, the opinion of people *putting their
> money where their mouth is* is that RH is a valuable company.
>
Red Hat valuable? High of 136 and now valued at 6.50 at 2:00pm ET.
> If you think it isn't valuable, I suggest you buy RH put options,
> of other instruments that imply you are betting the share price will
> go down.
Price did go down today, just like it has for over a year, high was back
in December 1999. I wonder how long it will take before RH is a penny
stock?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:31:37 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:14:00 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
>completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
>
>a) no
>B) YES.
You cannot define your own printf name with external linkage. The
behavior of doing that is undefined. Some C implementations allow
library functions to be overridden; since the behavior is undefined,
any treatment of such an error is correct, even providing a documented
extension.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 28 Feb 2001 19:42:16 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:14:53 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>From what I've heard, there are far more artists and level designers than
>coders.
I believe there aren't that many coders *or* desginers. They're fairly
small operations (in terms of number of staff)
>> So the argument would be that since their engine is widely used, they
>> should be able to sell their games for a lower cost.
>
>But their operating costs are high compared to most other types of
>software because there is much less reuse of code, and a very high
>proportion of designers as well.
But the same is true for other game software companies. Why can't Id
sell their games cheaper than *other game companies* who have higher
costs (namely they have to license an engine) ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 28 Feb 2001 19:43:16 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:37:03 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>> The simplest, broadest definition of pipes is that they are an
>> inter-process, FIFO communications channel from one processes to
>> another, which allows the 2nd process to start producing output before
>> the first process terminates.
>>
>> A single-tasking OS is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling this
>> definition properly.
>
>
> A simpler definition is:
Yes, it's simpler, but also narrower.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: 28 Feb 2001 19:45:18 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:46:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>The desktop monopoly may be a thing of the past.
>>>
>>>However, to the extent, that it is still a monopoly, the DoJ/Jackson remedy
>>>leaves the OS monopoly intact.
>>
>>The fact that they have a monopoly is not the problem. The fact that they
>>are alleged to be an abusive monopoly is. The remedy makes it harder for
>>them to leverage their monopoly.
>
>Since the word MONOPOLY was actually formed during the STANDARD OIL
>breakup.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make stuff up.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot 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
******************************
