Linux-Advocacy Digest #220, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Apple is doing a good thing ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19:10:31 GMT
And before I get another flame here, I was talking about COM components, not
components in general... If you were talking about components in general I
would agree with you. I was talking about how COM worked and similar
techonologies...
"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: "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 19:11:12 GMT
I stand corrected... I was just looking at the release dates.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v9YI6.22455$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> CORBA came after COM. COM originated at MS in 1987, but wasn't actually
put
> into a product until OLE 1, which MS released in April of 1992 in the form
> of Windows 3.1.
>
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:X6YI6.421$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > BTW if you think COM is very original, follow this link to learn about
> > CORBA. (See dates involved.) Don't know that much about it myself but
> seems
> > like something interesting to learn. (I'm learning java right now and
seem
> > to be hearing that term a lot...)
> >
> > http://cgi.omg.org/corba/whatiscorba.html
> >
> > "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: 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 15:14:38 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch 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.
> >
> >
> > "Under the terms of the current per procesor contract, Vobis paid $28
> > per DOS&Windows license. 'Microsoft offred us for DOS & Windows under
> > the terms of a per-copoy license $23.50 for DOS and $39.95 for Windows.
> > This increases our cost by $35,45. Obviously we cannot agree to these
> > prices, as we consider these price increases to be a penalty for not
> > accepting per system licenses".
> > The Microsoft File. Page 204.
> >
> >
> > "In our opinion the per-system license means in effect the same as the
> > per-processor license" Lieven said. "We believe that the majority of
> > manufacturers will avoid the above described risks and license all
> > their systems exclusively for Microsoft. As a result no other operating
> > system will get a chance in the marketplace."
> > The Microsoft File. Page 205.
> >
> > Tell us again how vendors were... "free to choose".
>
> If the price difference was so huge, why did only 50-60% of the OEM's do
> this? Clearly 40-50% were doing just fine without per-processor licenses.
> >
> > --
> > Rick
Maybe they were, individually, too small for M$ to worry about. Maybe
they chose not to. Since many of these vendors were small operations
that came and went, how can you say they "were doing just fine without
per-processor licenses." ?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:05:51 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > You, and most other people are confusing GPL and Open Source.
Mundies
> > > > comments are particularly against the GPL, not Open Source.
> > > >
> > > > While MS made comments about Open Source having a difficult business
> > model
> > > > to sustain, its primary beef was with the GPL. Notice that they are
> > only
> > > > questioning the business model of Open Source, but are attacking the
> > GPL's
> > > > effect on business directly.
> > > >
> > > > Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source.
> > They
> > > > could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care
about
> > is
> > > > that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code paid
for
> > by
> > > > taxpayer dollars.
> > >
> > > No, I'm not confusing anything. You're trying to back-peddle on your
> > > claim that proprietary intellectual property was the *real* motivating
> > > force behind the internet.
> >
> > Indeed it was. Without proprietary IP, the companies involved in
> > growing and commercializing the internet would have never done it.
> > The Internet was founded on completely open and public domain
> > information, which is what allowed companies to make their own
> > proprietary versions.
>
> Who said anything about growing and commercializing it? I am talking
> about *developing* it.
Guess that depends on what you mean by "developing". It would have still
been invented, but developing means "growing".
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=developing
"3 a : to make active or promote the growth of <developed his muscles> b (1)
: to make available or usable <develop natural resources> (2) : to make
suitable for commercial or residential purposes c : to move (as a chess
piece) from the original position to one providing more opportunity for
effective use"
"4 a : to cause to unfold gradually <developed his argument> b : to expand
by a process of growth <developed a strong organization> c : to cause to
grow and differentiate along lines natural to its kind <rain and sun develop
the grain> d : to have unfold or differentiate within one <developed
pneumonia>"
> > We would not have the internet as we know it, and probably would
> > have never even had Linux, had it not been for the fact that the
> > protocols and code were made publicly available for unrestricted
> > use.
>
> I disagree. Apply natural selection to technology and you *will* end
> up with open source under general circumstances (ie, not some niche or
> bleeding-edge projects). The internet could not have been without
> open source, and it will only continue on those merits.
You are again confusing Open Source with GPL. My argument is only about the
GPL, and how the Internet could not have become what it is if it had been
released under GPL semantics.
> Linux is a by-product of this, and would always have been regardless.
> The internet succeeded where multi-billion dollar companies failed
> (Apple's E-World, AOL's QuantumLink/AOL, Microsoft's MSN, Compuserve,
> The Source, Delphi -- one failure after another, falling down to open
> source and open standards); to say we "probably would have never even
> had Linux" is laughable.
My argument is that if the Internet were developed under GPL restrictions,
it would never have taken off, and if the internet had not taken off, Linux
would have never come into being, at least not anything beyond Linus's
plaything.
> > > I agree 100% with your statements above, but that is not what I was
> > > addressing.
> >
> > You seemed to be saying that MS is against open protocols and open
> > source. Well, any company is. Even so called "open" companies like
> > Sun. They use openness as a tool to gain more marketshare, and
> > would just as soon close everything up as soon as they gained a
> > majority share.
>
> I'll belive you when I see the first non-Microsoft implementation of
> .NET that doesn't need any reverse-engineering to function.
Mind if I save this? We're going to see third party .NET implementations.
> Sun has been VERY benvolent with Java, despite commercial goons'
> attempts to smear them with FSF-like zeal. It's strange that die-hard
> GPL fans side with Microsoft whenever Java is the topic of
> discussion. Regardless, one only needs to see othe Sun projects to
> find the fault in your claims: NFS, sunrpc, nis, pam, and many many
> others.
Sun has not been benevolent. They have lied to our faces. They *PROMISED*
to make it an open standard, and they reniged on that promise, not once, but
twice!
> What has Microsoft ever done? Their answers to the above technologies
> are all closed/proprietary/secret designs which only function with
> Windows. Their laughable attempt at CIFS was a complete joke, and
> their current promises for C# are dubious (but nice, if it actually
> turns out..).
C# has already been submitted to the ECMA. It's done, in fact, 9 months
ago. And, if CIFS is such a joke, why is SMB such a popular product?
> In short: HOW ARE MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGIES BETTER THAN GPL
> TECHNOLOGIES?
I never said they were or weren't. My argument is simply about whether
GPL'd products can be commercially viable over time. I don't think they
can. The license prevents the common evolution of products that happens
when companies try to make money off them.
> Answer: They aren't; in fact they carry MORE baggage than their GPL
> counterparts (Windows).
I wish you would stop trying to steer the argument into something else.
> > > Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> > > internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> > > (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> > > have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> > > -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> > > dependent on Windows).
> >
> > ntrpc is DCE/RPC.
>
> I'm sure the Samba team would love you to explain that; they've been
> working to reverse-engineer them for 3 years now.
No, they've been reverse engineering SMB.
> > In any event, My argument has nothing to do with how MS would have
> > done it. My argument is against Alan's comment, which seems to have
> > confused Mundie's comments on GPL with Open Source in general. His
> > comment insinuates that The internet was built on the GPL, which it
> > wasn't.
>
> Translation: Microsoft doesn't have to do anything better, I just
> want to complain about the response the Linux community offered.
My complaint is that Alan didn't think his response through, and instead
reacted from gut instinct, which turned out to be the wrong interpretation.
> > > > He's saying that 98, ME, NT, Three versions of 2000 and CE are all
> > seperate
> > > > forks. If they are, then Red Hat 7 is a fork, so is 7.1, so is 6.2.
> > That's
> > > > not the traditional definition of a fork.
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll bite: What is the "traditional definition" of a fork then?
> >
> > A fork is when you take a single code base and seperate it into two
> > code bases with seperate development "tips". Most often, with
> > different political and/or technical objectives.
> >
> > Linux kernel 2.4 is not a seperate fork from 2.2, it's a branch. A
> > fork is when the projects diverge (as in a fork in the road). An
> > example of forking would be BSD Light forking into OpenBSD, NetBSD,
> > and FreeBSD. Three completely seperate projects or Emacs/XEmacs.
> >
> > Technically, 16 bit based Windows (9x/ME) and NT are two entirely
> > different code bases without a common ancestor, but we can call them
> > effective forks since they both implement the majority of the same
> > API's.
>
> Fine, but it doesn't change Alan's argument a bit: You don't have
> the luxury of forking Windows code to suit your project.
That wasn't his argument. His argument was to respond to the comment about
Linux forking by claiming that forking is not uniqe to Unix/Linux, but that
Windows has tons of forks itself, then goes on to exagerate the problem by
claiming that newer versions of the same tree are a fork.
------------------------------
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 19:08:07 GMT
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:06:53 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How secure OSX is has yet to be seen. It's not been out there very
long,
> > and i'm sure we'll start seeing security reports soon. But yes, it is
> > certainly more secure than 98. That's why 98/ME will be dead this year,
> > replaced by Windows XP.
>
> You mean NEXT year. It's slipped (again).
No it didn't. MS has announced that XP will be in stores on October 29th of
THIS year.
Windows 2002 Server will likely be next year.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 14:10:10 -0500
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$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a
> > little),
> > > and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that
you
> > are
> >
> > Just because you use VC and Java doesn't mean you know what you are
> talking
> > about, and in this case you don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> > COM is not an extension to OOP. There's no such thing as "extending"
OOP.
> > Either it is, or it isn't.
> >
> > For instance, COM is perfectly useable from C without a single object in
> > sight. Component based programming and Object based programming are
> > related, but not even close to being the same thing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:28:24 GMT
John Smith wrote:
> WTF ? Illegible non anti-aliased fonts that require a magnifying glass to
> read ? WTF ?
Anti-aliased fonts are available for Linux. As well as 100dpi fonts. Yet
distros such as SuSE 7.1 and Mandrake 7.2 don't offer these features. I
can't help wondering why, if it's an obvious feature that is going to be
missed.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:29:16 GMT
Then again you could argue it the other way... Some people don't consider
usage of interfaces directly OOP... (Since an interface is an abstraction.)
I was always taught it was, but then again people are always debating the
exact definition of OOP anyway and I don't want to get into that... I really
don't care that much as long as I write the component and use it.
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rcYI6.428$[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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:33:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
> use her real name in a advocacy group.
That makes me an idiot then.
Why not use your real name? What are you afraid of?
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
