Linux-Advocacy Digest #221, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (.)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source (Dave Martel)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Bob Hauck)
Shared library hell (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 15:35:56 -0400
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS PL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has
> > ever
> > > > been
> > > > > > prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's
> > witnesses
> > > > affirm
> > > > > > that fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just untrue.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft offered three principal types of operating system license
> > > > agreements: per copy, per system and per processor. A per copy
license
> > > > obligated an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer
shipped
> > with a
> > > > copy of MS-DOS installed on the computer; a per system license
obligated
> > an
> > > > OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on computers
> > that
> > > > bore a particular model designation to pay Microsoft a royalty on
every
> > > > computer shipped that bore that designation; and a per processor
license
> > > > obligated an OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system
on
> > > > computers that contained a particular microprocessor, e.g., an Intel
> > > > 80386SX, to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped that
> > contained
> > > > that microprocessor. (See Kempin Dep. (Exh. 1) at 13-14;
> > > >
> > > > OEMs were not required to use a particular license type, but rather
> > could
> > > > choose among the various options. (See, e.g., Gates 10/27/97 Dep.
(Exh.
> > 2)
> > > > at 45-46; McLauchlan Dep. (Exh. 3) at 31; Lin DOJ Decl. (Exh. 4) at
> > C005866;
> > > > Waitt DOJ Decl. (Exh. 5) at C005868.) No OEM was obligated under any
of
> > > > Microsoft's licenses to install MS-DOS or Windows, nor was any OEM
> > > > prohibited from installing DR DOS or any other competing product.
(Lum
> > Dep.
> > > > (Exh. 6) at 89-90; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 110; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8)
at
> > 30.)
> > > >
> > > > > > At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about
half
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25
OEM's
> > still
> > > > > > shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of
> > > > Microsoft.
> > > > > > MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what
they
> > want.
> > > > > > It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
> > > > >
> > > > > What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay
of
> > > > > Microsoft. I fancy the former.
> > > >
> > > > During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it
offered
> > per
> > > > processor licenses - approximately 59% of MS-DOS units licensed by
OEM
> > > > customers were covered by per processor licenses. In fiscal year
1993,
> > > > approximately 62% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM customers were
covered
> > by
> > > > per processor licenses. The prior year, Microsoft's 1992 fiscal
year,
> > > > approximately 51% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEMs were covered by
per
> > > > processor licenses. Per processor licenses made up 27% in fiscal
year
> > 1991,
> > > > 22% in fiscal year 1990 and smaller percentages in earlier years. 2a
> > > >
> > > > Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a
> > royalty
> > > > on every machine shipped containing a particular processor,
Microsoft
> > > > negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those
> > OEMs to
> > > > ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular
processor
> > > > types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC
> > Testimony
> > > > (Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at
> > 23-24;
> > > > Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil
Investigative
> > > > Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.)
Other
> > OEMs
> > > > with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless
> > offered
> > > > non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term
of
> > > > their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
111-13;
> > > > Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at
187.)
> > >
> > > Now, search through that testimony and tell us what the cost
difference
> > > was between per copy licenses and per processor licenses. Check the
> > > testimony of Microsoft's competitors and tell us what they said about
> > > why they "chose" per processor licenses.
> > >
> > > Also tell us how a per processor license would allow any other OS to
be
> > > shipped without paying for the second OS, if that second OS is allowed
> > > to be shipped at all.
> > >
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > "Kempin offered to undercut DRI's price ($13) with a per processor
> > > license. His price for Vobis selling half of its shipments with MS-DOS
> > > would be $18. Twice as much.
> > > When Lieven protested that he wanted to kepp selling DR-DOS in
addition
> > > to Windpws, Kempin told him that he would have to pay a higher price
for
> > > just DOS than for a DOS/Windows combination. He threatened that that
if
> > > lieven did not take s per processor license, with DOS at $9 a copy and
> > > windows at $15 a copy, then his price for Windows alone would be $35.
> > > (Under oath, Lieven would later say that that threat was the reason he
> > > agreed to the deal).
> > > The Microsoft File. Page 73.
> >
> > The Microsoft File! Come on....I'd rather hear the National Enquirer's
take
> > on Microsoft dealings.
> > Lieven took the deal because he (*and everyone) knew there was scant
demand
> > for DR DOS
>
> If there was scant demand for DR-DOS, why did Lieven want to continue to
> give customers a choice?
He was perfectly free to continue giving his customers the choice. Why
would Microsoft care? The demand wasn't there for DR DOS anyway and it would
have no effect on MS sales.
>And why did Micro$oft add features to keep up
> with DR-DOS?
It wasn't meant to keep up with DR DOS. There is still scant demand for a
command line operating system, even to this day believe it or not.
Microsoft added a GUI, and desired to only support DOS/Windows combinations.
That is their right.
> > There was no "threat" by Kempin.
>
> Then why did Lieven testify that there was?
I don't know. To harm Microsoft maybe. Maybe by adding the one little word
"threat" he hoped it would have an adverse effect on Microsoft and thus
benefit his own pocketbook.
Probably the same reason the CEO of Real testified to congress the Windows
broke Real Player when he knew full well it was a netscape bug, and MS
provided proof that Real was already informed of that and MS had gone the
extra mile by having already show them the fix. And that they had in fact
already fixed the problem but chose to use an older version for their
demonstration before congress.
Vilification of your competitor in court is all too easy, and an advantage
to your business. As a side note - Given the fact that Caldera had the
lawsuit papers drawn up and filed the instant that they bought DR DOS tells
me that the aquisition was some type of perverted "litigation investment".
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:37:45 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > > DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
> > > > > next to Windows.
> > > >
> > > > Reqlly? Why?
> > >
> > > It's feature poor, for one thing. No printing
> > > services- that's a big one for desktop apps. Nor
> > > GUI services either, of course. The file
> > > services are weak too- no structured storage,
> > > no file mapping. And don't forget your 8.3
> > > file names.
> >
> > You keep saying IS. Why?
>
> Well, I mean is. Windows has been much hindered
> by being lashed to DOS as it has been.
>
I repeat. You keep saying IS. IS means the present. We ar discussing at
least a decade ago.
> > This has to do with WAS. As in Windows 1.0 - 3.1.
>
> Even in Windows 1 the GUI services and printing
> was there.
>
> > Now, are you also saying you cant printing wasnt possible under DR-DOS?
>
> No, I'm saying the each ap had to roll it's own. That is
> a big problem.
>
It wasnt then. We printed just fine then.
> > Or that any GUI that ran on DOS would run on DR-DOS?
>
> I don't know if that was true. I know that Windows would
> work on DR-DOS, more or less. But that's no great
> improvement.
>
Since DR-DOS was superior to MS-DOS, Windows on DR-DOS Should have been
superior to Windows on MS-DOS, except Micro$oft made sure DR-DOS had
problems. And M$ executives in charge of those things have been quoted.
Here. To you. You ignore them.
> > You might also
> > rmember that Windows STILL struggles with 8.3.
>
> It's still lashed to DOS, too.
>
> [snip]
> > > It really is a clone of MS-DOS. It doesn't have much
> > > to offer than MS-DOS does not, and that's a sad
> > > state of affairs.
> > >
> >
> > You keep saying IS. get in the right time frame. When DR-DOS was
> > actively being developed it -lead- MS-DOS in features.
>
> It was true back then too. DR-DOS was *slightly* better
> than MS-DOS, mostly in terms of bundled utilities. It
> had that awful memory problem for its entire life.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Then explain whay IBM wanted CP/M first. Gates even steered IBM to
> > > > Digital first.
> > >
> > > IBM did not know that QDOS even existed. They knew
> > > CP/M did, and they figured it could be adapted (which was
> > > true)
> >
> > You are saying IBM wanted CP/M first because they didnt know about QDOS?
>
> Well, also for name-recognition. CP/M was as close
> to a de-facto standard as you had back then.
>
> [snip]
> > > Lousy support for desktop apps. It just doesn't offer
> > > desktop app developers the services they need to match
> > > apps written to other OSes, like Windows.
> >
> > Like what?
>
> I give examples below, which you quoted;
> I'll leave it in for your review.
>
> > And what does developer issues have to d with -using- it on
> > the desktop?
>
> Users don't use OSes, they use *apps*. Apps bundled
> with the OS, sure, but mostly apps they buy or download
> or whatnot. But however you distribute the apps, it's
> the apps that count.
>
> If developers can't make apps for Unix that are as good
> as the apps for Windows, then Unix will lose- users
> will go for the *good* apps and therefore Windows.
>
> The good desktop apps are on Windows because it
> provides the tools to make them.
>
Really. So. Tell me whats wrong with Applixware, xmms, Netscape, x-chat,
Pan, GQview, Electric Eyes, the GIMP, CD Paranoia and the rest of the X
based windows apps. Whats wrong with all the conole apps.
BTW, users didnt "go" for the good apps, they were forced into accepting
Micro$ofts OS's and the apps that run under it.
> [snip]
>
> Here are those specific Unix criticisms
> you wanted, by the way.
>
> This is why Unix is not a real contender
> as a desktop OS.
>
> > > Sure, it's not bad as DR-DOS. But it's still not up
> > > to snuff.
> > >
> > > We all know about the state of the widgets, so lets
> > > not belabor that.
> > >
No, suppose you belabor it.
> > > X-Windows is better than nothing, but it's a weak
> > > graphics layer. Sure, for server admin tools that
> > > remote-display trick is great- but for desktop apps
> > > it does matter. X isn't resolution independant,
> > > and has weak font support. It's kinda feature
> > > poor in general, though there are always
> > > add-ons for it.
> > >
> > > Also, It doesn't provide decent printing services.
> > > Nothing like the device independant printing support
> > > users now expect.
> > >
So, tell me what is so damn bad about lp or CUPS?
> > > It doesn't have a stable shell to write for. Not unless
> > > you count bash. What I mean is something like Explorer
> > > or WPS, which an app can integrate itself into.
CDE, Motif, KDE, GNOME
> > >
> > > It does not have structured storage.
> > >
Esplain.
> > > It has a standard help engine, but that engine is 'man'.
> > > Need I say more?
>
> [snip]
> > > > I mean, BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
> > >
> > > I know what you said; I don't know what
> > > you meant.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't under what circumstances?
> > >
> >
> > If it had managed to get even a "niche" marketshare.
>
> Oh.
>
> I don't think I agree. I know BeOS said they made
> a "media OS", but it is really hard to see how BeOS
> was particularly good at *that*.
>
I dont think you any idea. How long did you use BeOS? Granted, I didnt
use it, but I havent heard anyone really knocking the OS.
> I think BeOS's basic plan was to produce the OS
> Apple couldn't to replace the MacOS. They way they
> were going to get marketshare was by being tapped
> by Apple.
>
Are you saying that Gsssee started Be so Apple would buy his OS to
replace the Mac OS? You better look at some time frames.
> But Apple didn't do it; they tapped NeXT instead.
>
> That was the right choice for Apple, and for
> exactly the reasons I am discussing. BeOS had
> buzzwords, but it didn't have *basic* services,
> like a good printing engine, or an application
> scripting service. Or any number of other things
> that MacOS *already* has.
>
> NeXT isn't perfect either, but for the market Apple
> sells to it's not so bad. PostScript isn't as flexible a
> printer technology as GDI (eg, no line printer support),
> but it shines at the high end- and that's where Apple is.
>
> BeOS can't get out of a niche unless it has a good
> product first. Hell, BeOS couldn't even get
> *into* a niche.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Hence the accusations that MS engineers got info before competitors.
> > >
> > > Yes, they found themselves needing an excuse.
> >
> > Tell that to the rest of the industry that lined up agains Micro$oft.
>
> Sure.
>
> Okay, listen up, rest of the industry that lined up against Microsoft:
>
> You just want an excuse for your own failures! That's
> what put MS on top!
>
What? per processor ;licensing put Microsoft on top. And their lousy
ethics.
> [snip]
> > > The knowledge MS really leveraged was their experience
> > > writing Mac apps- something Lotus and Wordperfect
> > > had not done. They didn't see why it mattered.
> >
> > ... and they leveraged the inside info on the APIs, as well as
> > leveraging their ownership of the OS to allow forced bundling.
>
> The stuff Lotus and Wordperfect needed had been documented
> for years. Windows had been around way before Windows 3.
>
> The move to Windows 95 didn't really change that. MS made
> *those* APIs available when Windows NT was released,
> in *1993*.
>
> They had what they needed. They sat on their laurels anyway.
>
> [snip]
> > > MS *competed* with Go, and frankly they *both* lost.
> > >
> >
> > Competed? Competed/ Let's see. Microsoft sent an employee to a Go demo.
> > That employee videotaped the demo and went back to Micro$oft.
>
> My. Is there *anything* Apple does that they won't imitate? :D
>
What? When did Apple videotape a competitor's demo, wrote a demo that
merely reproduced screen movements, pre-announced a non-product, just to
freeze the market and kill a competitor?
> > M$ then
> > wrote code that duplicated the demo na dpreannounced a prodct they didnt
> > even have, which froze the market. And the product they finally did ship
> > SUCKED.
>
> As I recall PenWindows and Go were quite different looking;
> PenWindows looked at lot like Windows, and Go was
> unique.
>
You are sidestepping the issue of Micro$ofts highly unethical behavior.
> > > At least you realize now that PenWindows wasn't vapor.
> >
> > It was when M$ pre-announced it.
>
> I'm sure. Did Go keep their project under wraps
> until release, then?
>
> Anyway, you need to understand that Microsoft vapor
> is successful *precisely because* they are so good about
> actually producing the things they say they will.
>
Pre-announcing a non-product to freeze the market is illegal, even if
they do introduce a product "sometime"
> [snip]
> > > No. MS doesn't "continually" stab people in the back- it
> > > picks its moment and goes for maximum effect.
> > >
> >
> > "A lot of people make the analogy that competing with Bill Gates is like
> > playing hardbal. I'd say it's more like being in a knofe fight."- Gary
> > Clow, STAC CEO.
>
> :D
>
> I think there is truth to that.
>
> > > The way the doublecrossed IBM was classic.
> > >
> >
> > It was deceitful, immoral andf unethical.
>
> It was a damn good thing. Microsoft was and
> is a great improvement on IBM.
>
They are no improvement.
> > > But it's really the exception, not the rule
> >
> > It is their modus operandi.
>
> Is it? Can you think if a second example of
> a doublecross, like the IBM one?
They stole Stac's compression routines (lost in court).
They stole QuickTime routines (lost in court)
They froze the pen market to force Go out of businsess.
They put the AARD code into W3.1 to scare people away from DR-DOS (as
quoted by MS executives in internal memos/email)
They published MS-DOS with CP/M code in it (IBM ppaid off Kildall with
$800,00).
Enough?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:36:45 GMT
Karel Jansens wrote:
> When Windows 9x "adapts" for daylight saving time, it changes the CMOS
> clock, which is a very braindead thing to do (or a sure sign of a lazy
> programmer's work). Windows does not ask for confirmation to do this,
> and the default in the settings is to automatically change the time.
>
> What kind of hack did you put in Windows to make it ask for
> confirmation?
Windows has always present me with a dialog telling me daylight saving is
in effect and this is the new time. I either accept or reject the change.
No hacks required.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: 5 May 2001 19:37:14 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22 +0000 (UTC), John Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
>> >
>>
>> smart move.
>>
>> >
>> >Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you
> can
>> >learn how to do things right the first time.
>> >
>>
>> The entire world knows that any Microsoft x.0 release is buggy crapware.
>> How is Microsoft going to teach anyone to do something right the first
> time?
> As if Linux is any better? KDE 2.0 was pretty unstable, and I was told by a
> KDE developer that 2.1 was far and above more stable.
For the last time funkybreath, KDE is not linux. Also, KDE was just as unstable
under solaris, freebsd, aix, hp/ux, and anything else anyone ever built it under.
The problem here is with KDE, not with linux.
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:21:33 +0200
I'm a programmer, C/C++ mainly, but also a couple of others, as well.
I am learning COM at the moment, if this is of any interest to anyone.
So I'll admit that I don't know much about the way it works.
Here is a good article about the difference between objects & components.
http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_28.htm
BTW, the really good thing in COM is that nearly everything in Windows is a
COM object.
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:l1YI6.416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BTW if you want to read about the type of stuff that makes COM possible do
> some reading on IDL. (Interface Definition Language)... And maybe on C++
and
> OOP if you are not a programmer...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d1gjt$93l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:AbXI6.364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > COM was a good idea, granted. MTS is a nice application, I'll grant
that
> > > too. But for the most part, Microsoft copy's other people's ideas. COM
> in
> > > itself isn't overly original anyway, just an extensive of the object
> > > oriented programming concept. It simply pairs a specific interface
with
> an
> > > object so that as long as that interface is known the object can be
> > > accessed. Again, the underlying ideas behind COM that allow it to work
> > were
> > > developed by others. It is a good idea but not necessary originated by
> > > Microsoft. A good implementation of other people's ideas, once
again...
> > This
> > > is another example of copy and extend business practice, which is
> > > Microsoft's main strategy. (In other words rather than come up with
> > > specifically new technology expand and improve upon existing
> technology.)
> >
> > COM is not an extention of OOP, they can be easily confused, but there
is
> a
> > difference between writing compotent oriented programming and OOP.
> > ObjectWatch had a good article several months ago, I would suggest you
> would
> > look it up.
> > And if it's so simple, how come no one came with the idea before?
> > MTS was what EJB is today.
> >
> > "They never have come up with an original idea." -- I just picked up
> several
> > subjects where they did. I'm sure that there are more.
> >
> > BTW, ObjectWatch worth a good reading anyway.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:28:39 -0600
On Sun, 06 May 2001 03:06:31 +1000, Ian Pulsford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Martel wrote:
>
>
>> "What's ours is ours. What's yours is ours."
>
>Are you talking about M$ or the GPL?
Microsoft. The GPL strives to preserve users' options, while MS wants
to take them all away.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 5 May 2001 13:14:44 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, they're not. Using GPL'd source as a reference makes the work a
> derived work, and subject to the GPL's license terms.
That's just wrong. They are only subject to the GPL if they use the
code.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Shared library hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:43:00 GMT
So linux does not suffer from shared library hell?
Symbolic linking gets round this problem, I'm told.
However, say I have libqt.so.2.2.4 and libqt.so.2.3.0. Both would be
symbolically linked as libqt.so.2 - so unless an application links directly
to each individual version, it may get the wrong version.
You would think that libqt.so.2.2.4 is older than libqt.so.2.3.0 - however,
there's a difference. One was built with an _older_ version of gcc - 2.3.0!
This fact alone is enough to break some applications - they might work with
2.3.0 but they fail due to the incompatability with gcc.
So how does Linux cope with this?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:44:36 GMT
That's where the interface deal and the I guess the arguable part comes
in... COM components use that IUnknown interface and a couple other things
(I'd have to go back through my MCSD course materials and read it again) but
the way it seemed to be presented was that it was implementing an interface,
which as I said can be either argued as oop or not I guess depending on your
views. I agree that the code doesn't necessary have to use objects, but the
question comes in when you put the interface on top of it does that become
object oriented. (BTW this discussion got way off track, didn't it?) If you
were to write something else implementing another interface you wrote... Hmm
I'm not even really sure about that. Since interfaces are abstractions and
are never really instantiated themselves (obviously) then are they really
objects?
Again I've seen people argue both sides of that...
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qYI6.22458$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> COM is really a presentation layer. It doesn't matter how they are
> implemented, or how they're used. One side could implement them as
classes
> and objects, while the other used them as simple functions, or vice versa.
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:rcYI6.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Perhaps I stated that incorrectly. Generally the com components are
> classes
> > using interfaces. Sure they can be used by non-oop programs/languages
but
> > they are object oriented in the face that are classes.
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:07YI6.22454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9UXI6.404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a
> > > little),
> > > > and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that
> you
> > > are
> > >
> > > Just because you use VC and Java doesn't mean you know what you are
> > talking
> > > about, and in this case you don't know what you're talking about.
> > >
> > > COM is not an extension to OOP. There's no such thing as "extending"
> OOP.
> > > Either it is, or it isn't.
> > >
> > > For instance, COM is perfectly useable from C without a single object
in
> > > sight. Component based programming and Object based programming are
> > > related, but not even close to being the same thing.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:47:08 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
> > (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
> living
> > off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
> > are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
> > innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>
> Bullshit, and a big one.
>
> To name a few of the top of my head:
> COM
> COM+
> MTS
> IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
> properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
>
> Just to note:
> COM was copied by many applications. Mozilla's XPCOM, Bonobo & RNA are few
> examples.
COM descended from Microsoft DDE, didn't it? Anyway, you might
consider COM to be copied from CORBA. Or you might say they
all arose from the zeitgeist of the times.
> No one has been successful in copying IE so far, sadly.
Thank Jesus! It's a real HTML breaker, and has led to
circus plug-ins like Macromedia Flash and Shockwave, as
well as the ability to hijack a workstation through HTML
or VBScript.
> COM+ is also uncopied to my knowledge.
Frankly, why would anyone copy a Microsoft product? At best,
it would merely lead to being bought out... oh.
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
