Linux-Advocacy Digest #342, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Donn Miller)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Donn Miller)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:03:58 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > I don't know, the ability to lie and make stuff up seems to be endemic
of
> > the Linux advocate. It has some psychological basis in wanting to
justify
> > to one self that you made a good decision, even though you have severe
> > doubts.
>
> You sound as bigoted as the Linux advocates you so denigrate.
Having been a Linux advocate, an OS/2 advocate and an Amiga advocate I'm
well aware of the psychosis. Call it being Experienced.
I'm not bigoted, I'm arrogant. It comes from being experienced. Been there
done that... Zzzzzz
> > I didn't start using Windows until 3.1 was released, and even then hated
it
> > until Win95 was released then I found it tolerable. I've been Linux
free
> > since 1996,
>
> Then you don't know much about it.
Oh I think you'd be surprised. I was quite the Linux advocate at the time
it was new and cool. Was even involved in the early stages of the Linux
Documentation Project.
I simply do not find it to be a very appealing operating system and find it
disappointing that uneducated people are going around advocating it be used
over technically superior solutions such as Windows 2000, Solaris, etc.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:04:52 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel wrote:
> > >You really should try Win2K. Microsoft got it right this time.
>
> Not quite, but they're making progress.
Really? In your educated opinion what yet do they need to improve?
> > Sorry, 18 years of dealing with Microsoft has left a bad taste in my
> > mouth. And my butt hurts.
>
> And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
> application control model. It is still possible for one
> app to lock up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually
> respond enough to let you kill the offending app.
And a similar case is true with Linux/Unix.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 17:28:40 -0500
On Tue, 08 May 2001 23:02:25 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><9d8s1i$dj2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>
>>>>Since when does microsoft throw in a show case game for free??
>>>
>>> They do NOT throw in the proverbial old kitchen sink - per Linux.
>>
>>No, they just make you pay for every piece of software that you get
>>over and above the barebones OS. [snip, rhetoric]
>
>So the people that package Windows are realists ?
>
>cf. Linux distro makers who think 'more is more'.
>
>>etcetcetc
>>
>>You've actually got the nads to tell us that bundling software with
>>the OS is worse for the consumer than forcing them to pay for it?
>
>I've got the nads to acknowledge that Linux is not *yet* a gaming OS.
>
Must be pretty small nads. Using your logic, you could say the same
about Solaris and SGI systems, but you'd be way wrong. Just because
lame game writers can't or won't produce games for an OS, doesn't
mean it can't actually do it better.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:37:14 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Better lay your claims to unfalsifiability early on. It's easier to
> >> just pretend you're right all the time than to bother being reasonable,
> >> ever, huh?
> >
> >And this, coming from someone who thinks being reasonable is to claim
anyone
> >who makes any type of mistake running Windows can only be the fault of
> >Microsoft, yet any mistake on any other software is their own fault.
>
> I don't recall ever making that claim. What a shock: JS PL turns out to
> be a man who not only claims I am unreasonable, but tries to use a lie
> to prove it. Guffaw!
You don't, no wonder.
Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some
blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in, forget them as soon as you can.
Tomorrow is a new day, you shall begin it well and serenely...
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
No, when an MCSE can't get monopoly crapware to work right, its
Microsoft's fault, not the MCSE. Likewise, when an administrator cannot
get Linux to work right, it is the administrator's fault BECAUSE LINUX
IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Get it?
-- T. Max Devlin
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=MCSE+microsoft+monopoly+fault+author:T.+au
thor:Max+author:Devlin&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=r&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=1vuqeto
k8tt8t20374rc9kc1ltq8d2d0aj%404ax.com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:40:04 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The fact is, some of the people who read the book who did like
> Microsoft, don't anymore.
No one would buy this book who already had an opinion about it, you know.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:42:27 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:10:27
> >Can you answer the question, not as daniel, obviously, but still.
>
> Let me ask you a question, Ayende. If, just pretend, Microsoft were to
> port Windows to the Mac, would that make the Mac a PC, and Apple no
> different then Dell or Gateway? Why or why not?
>
No, a Mac wouldn't be a PC, and since Apple makes their own OS and plenty of
software, no, I don't think that it would make Apple into an OEM.
BTW, just for general education, there *was* a prot of Windows to the Mac.
Apple killed it together with the clones, IIRC.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:46:10 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:11:01
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >> >"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >I'm sorry that the existance of some who appreciates
> >> >Windows pisses you off.
> >>
> >> You are happy your trolling is frustrating him, because you are an
> >> immature child. The rest of your position and statements are just
> >> posturing.
> >
> >
> >The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him.
> >It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself.
> > --Joseph Sobran
>
> Oh, Puh-Leeze! Next you'll be claiming that Chad Myers and Aaron Kulkis
> are the leaders of the free world.
I'm sure that Aaron can qualify for being US persident, he has strong
opinions and little knowledge, sound like the man *on* the job to me, not
just the man *to* the job.
So while I *do* hope he is not, I don't see a reason why he can't be there.
And, to Aaron, that is *not* an advise, a suggestion, or a proposition, so
don't take it as one.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:00:22 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d9jho$87a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You can access the device independent printer layer in Linux using
> >> (f)printfs. In windows, you have to use the GDI to get to the device
> >> independent printer layer.
> >
> > Okay, haven't thought about that one. You can do the same on Windows, I
> > believe, can't you?
>
> I don't think so. I thought you needed GDI calls.
Can't you get GDI calls from a Win32 CLI application?
> >> The probelm being here that windows does not allow arbitraty print
> >> filters to be put in to the printing sysetm. With UNIX, you dump a file
> >> to lpr and forget. The printer subsystem can then activate a filter
> >> based on the file type. Windows lacking this step requires you to print
> >> to a file, then run a program on that file (such as GS) in order to
> >> print it. This is a real pain for batch work.
> >
> > Okay, I'll do some research in this direction, I can think of several
> > workarounds already, but none of them require zero user intervention at
> > the moment. A possible solution would be to set up a filter on PS2PRN
> > file, located on
> > %SYSTEM%, that *should* work.
> > And would require zero user intervention.
>
> I'm not familiar with this object. Could you provide some pointers (I'm
> genuinely curious).
Basically, you are taking advantage of NTFS5 (avialable in NT4 with SP4, I
think).
You get a Reparse (can't really recall the name) point on %SYSTEM%\PS2PRN
which mean that when a program tries to access this file, NTFS will invoke a
program (a function? can't recall how they call it), which will handle the
request, it's possible, I guess, to build PS interepter that would print to
printer this way.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:02:04 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d9jo9$8c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> How can you print device independent graphics in Windows without doing
> >> the whole GDI thing to a command line program?
> >
> > You seem to be asking us how you would use the Windows device
> > independant printing software without using the Windows device
> > independant printing software.
> >
> > This seems like a silly question.
> >
> > How do you do device independant graphics printing on Linunx, if you
> > aren't allowed to install GhostScript?
>
> No, not really. Under the UNIX method, you can generate your files on a
> CRAY, and then ftp them over to a computer with a printer to print them.
> You can't do this under the windows system.
Yes you can, install PS printer driver, write to file, FTP it to someone.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:05:27 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 08 May 2001 01:54:12 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >This is a common problem. I find many MS bashers like to bash
> > >MS and all Windows because of the poor experience they've had with
> > >Win9x.
> >
> > Plus all the MS operating systems that preceeded it, each of which I
> > paid good money for only to find it was yet another poorly-designed
> > piece of junk.
> >
> > >They seem to feel that Win2K is the same thing somehow. They've
> > >obviously never used it and so they can't talk about it.
> > >
> > >You really should try Win2K. Microsoft got it right this time.
>
> Not quite, but they're making progress.
>
> > Sorry, 18 years of dealing with Microsoft has left a bad taste in my
> > mouth. And my butt hurts.
>
> And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
> application control model. It is still possible for one
> app to lock up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually
> respond enough to let you kill the offending app.
That is not what is called lock up.
Lock up is when you *can't* kill the offending app.
Unless you spesifically limited the amount of resources the application can
take beforehand, that is possible in any OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:11:24 GMT
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > one *huge* weakness of pascal is that it interprets vectors and arrays
> > of different sizes as wholy different types. thus if you make a
> > procedure to handle strings of lenght 10, you need another, distinct,
> > procedure to handle strings of length 11.
> >
> You don't need any such thing, because strings are
> dynamically allocated and handled differently,
not really. iirc a string is a just a packed array of character.
packing it doesn't change how it works. there is _no_ dynamism in
pascal without going through the "new" allocator.
> but as far as
> vectors and arrays are concerned, an array of length 10 is
> actually a different type than an array of length 11: what
> will you do with the 11th element if only ten have been
> defined?
> Isn't the access of the 11th element of a 10 element array
> what is usually called a buffer overflow, which is one of
> the most known security pitfalls ever found?
most languages allow you to pass the length of an array to a
subroutine. for example, in common-lisp, the array carries its length
with it. thus it is always accessible, and you can always prevent
overflowing it.
say you want to do matrix math. if each vector size is a distinct
type, how do you define an infinite number of procedures? the size
may not be known a priori.
> What you call a weakness is the reason I love it. When
> you're dealing with a large project with many developers
> involved, a strict type checking is the only way to produce
> a robust code.
lisp has strong typing. it is both dynamic and strong.
> You don't need to follow all the lines of
> code to find the error: you just look at the declarations to
> locate the potentially dangerous situations (as
> inappropriate dereferencings and such).
it is easier if the data carries its type along with itself. no
declarations, but no way to get into danger either.
> I know that it's
> annoying to write extra declarations (which don't produce
> any code, BTW), but it's better than parsing a few hundred
> thousand lines of code in search of a few silly mistakes.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 19:14:39 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Seems like a nonsequiteur to me. Penguins used to fly. Then again,
> everything came from the sea at one point.
I know there's a lot of species of centipedes, something like 3000?
Pretty diverse. The only kind I ever see around here, though, are those
disgusting fast-moving ones with the long legs. The one I killed the
other day was as big as a stick. Gross.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 17:39:37 -0500
On Tue, 08 May 2001 23:07:28 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>>> Windows 2000 Professional fits on 1 CDROM. Some Linux distributions
>>> require 2 or 3 CDROMs, because of the tendency of distributors to
>>> 'throw in' superfluous material, eg. the awful games.
>>>
>>So what you are telling us it is A Good Thing(tm) that W2K fits on 1 CD
>
>Yes.
>
>One of the selling points used by most Linux distributors is the fact
>that the OS ships with 00s of packages, however many of the packages
>are absolutely superfluous and of a poor quality.
>
Bull: gcc, apache, samba, GNOME, KDE, XFree86 4.0.3, netfilter,
gimp, xmms, Koffice, StarOffice, mesa3D, openssh, qt, sawfish,
sendmail, slrn, procmail, postgreSQL, MySQL, etc, etc, etc. are
all of superior quality to their Microsoft couterparts.
>The games are merely one very good example of this Linux problem.
>
games are the only thing you even have a hope of approaching a clue
on, and you're a long way off on that too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 17:40:51 -0500
On Tue, 08 May 2001 23:09:12 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
>comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>
>>> >Its interesting to me that most distos dont include any really good Linux games.
>>>
>>> I know Windows 2000 only ships with 4 games of a passable quality.
>>> Most Linux distributions on the other hand ship with a lot of tripe.
>
>>Trolling Trolling Trolling... keep them doggies rolling... rawhide...
>
>So you remain under the illusion that Linux is a gamer's OS ?
>
Please tell us what games you run under Windows 2000.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 19:19:44 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
It all boils down to one creature: the centipede, IMO. As centipedes
evolved into other species of insects, they gradually lost their legs.
Also, I believe that the centipedes also evolved into a branch of animal
species as well, as well as half insect/half animal species such as
arachnida (spiders). This is just my theory, but I'm not an expert by
any means. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the next centipede I
kill is my distant cousin.
====== 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: "Steve Sheldon" <[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: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:22:32 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kAZJ6.163$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > After the split, IBM produced OS/2 2.0, 2.1 and 2.11. All these versions
> > of OS/2 were vastly superior to the Windows NT versions of the day.
>
> No they weren't. OS/2 2.0 wasn't portable, didn't have security, didn't
> support SMP, and had almost unuseable multimedia. It wasn't until much
> later that MMOS2 became halfway decent.
Well I think Karel is trying to play a joke.
OS/2 2.0 came out in 1991, and I believe OS/2 2.1 was released just prior to
the Windows NT 3.1 release in 1993.
So in a way he's right, because NT didn't exist when these versions of OS/2
existed.
Honestly NT 3.1 didn't sell very well, and I have little to no experience
with it. But you are correct in that OS/2 was always a vastly inferior OS
in terms of features to NT.
OS/2 was built to compete with Windows 3.1 which it did reasonably well.
But it had a horrific user interface and very difficult configuration. It
was obvious that it had been built by IBMers who had no idea of anything
outside the mainframe world.
> > "Warp" was OS/2 version 3 and came out in 1994, at the time putting
> > Windows 3.5x to shame. Microsoft followed with a revamped Chicago (with
> > several last-minute alterations to the desktop to mimick some of Warp's
> > features) and called that Windows 95. Features of "Workplace OS" (which
> > was never more than an idea-frame) saw the light of day in Warp 4, WSeB
> > and - recently - in Serenity Systems' eComStation, the latest version of
> > OS/2.
I honestly can't think of any GUI features in OS/2 which were innovative.
In fact much of it was a complete ripoff of AmigaDOS.
> BTW, Windows 95's desktop was finalized long before warp was ever
released.
> In fact, the GUI was eseentially unchanged for the last 18 months of
Windows
> 95's beta cycle.
Agreed.
OS/2 advocates are like Amiga advocates. They are really disgruntled at the
company that took their fun play toy away, but they turn all their anger
towards Microsoft which never did anything to hurt them.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[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: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:22:58 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 16:25:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Workplace OS was an actual product. I talked to the lead Workplace OS
> >developer at Comdex in 1993. He assured me it was a cool product, and
would
> >include such things as "personality modules" to allow it to run multiple
> >OS's simultaneously, among other things.
> >
>
> What happened?
Someone set us up the bomb.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[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: Tue, 8 May 2001 18:24:27 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DDZJ6.165$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hAUJ6.11050
> > > One day, in the near future, Apple will simply cease to support OS 9.
AS
> > > they dont support serial ports, ADB, etc. As they moved to the PPC
from
> > > the 68K family. Apple has a history of being able to move forward, and
> > > drag the rest of the industry with it.
> >
> > You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> > the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> > backwards compatibility baggage.
>
> And THEY control the hardware. Now think about what MS goes through.
Macintosh also benefits in that they have a locked in market.
The only people who buy Macs are people who are upgrading. They don't have
to win these people over because they are locked into this upgrade cycle by
their own fanaticism.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:09:03 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > one *huge* weakness of pascal is that it interprets vectors and
arrays
> > > > of different sizes as wholy different types. thus if you make a
> > > > procedure to handle strings of lenght 10, you need another,
distinct,
> > > > procedure to handle strings of length 11.
> > > >
> > > You don't need any such thing, because strings are
> > > dynamically allocated and handled differently, but as far as
> > > vectors and arrays are concerned, an array of length 10 is
> > > actually a different type than an array of length 11: what
> > > will you do with the 11th element if only ten have been
> > > defined?
> >
> > Use the Ada's way, an array carries it size with it.
> >
> What I meant was. If you have an array of 10 elements it will contain
> some information. An array of 11 contains extra information. Now you
> can't handle both the same way. You have a lot of ways to handle this
> situation in all programming languages, but the problem is how to avoid
> errors. Pascal forces you to explicitly declare that in a given section
> of code you're willing to treat the array as an 11 element array, and if
> this is wrong, it jumps to the eye. An extra P++ in C can easily escape
> even to careful scrutiny.
You can say that again.
Couple of times, and loudly.
> > > What you call a weakness is the reason I love it. When
> > > you're dealing with a large project with many developers
> > > involved, a strict type checking is the only way to produce
> > > a robust code. You don't need to follow all the lines of
> > > code to find the error: you just look at the declarations to
> > > locate the potentially dangerous situations (as
> > > inappropriate dereferencings and such). I know that it's
> > > annoying to write extra declarations (which don't produce
> > > any code, BTW), but it's better than parsing a few hundred
> > > thousand lines of code in search of a few silly mistakes.
> >
> > Okay, what language are we talking about here?
>
> Of object Pascal, but not only. Of a language which doesn't allow a P++
> to produce a buffer overflow.
Get into auto_ptr and smart pointers then, but that is already C++, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:10:16 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d9qor$o1g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just *look* at the C standard library.
That is, just *look* at C string.h standard library, sorry.
Damn stupid keyboard is driving me crazy.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:16:36 +0200
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 8 May 2001 16:25:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Workplace OS was an actual product. I talked to the lead Workplace OS
> >developer at Comdex in 1993. He assured me it was a cool product, and
would
> >include such things as "personality modules" to allow it to run multiple
> >OS's simultaneously, among other things.
> >
>
> What happened?
It's hard to do such a thing, especially if you are going to try to emulate
all those little quircks of the OS that developers rely on.
This is called bug compatability, and it *sucks*.
Not to mention that those OS's run on different platforms, to add more
complexity to the deal.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 07:17:31 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iCZJ6.164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d9jho$87a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> You can access the device independent printer layer in Linux using
> > >> (f)printfs. In windows, you have to use the GDI to get to the device
> > >> independent printer layer.
> > >
> > > Okay, haven't thought about that one. You can do the same on Windows,
I
> > > believe, can't you?
> >
> > I don't think so. I thought you needed GDI calls.
>
> Only if you want to use the GDI's layout. You can send data out the prn:
> device all you want.
That would be device-dependent, though.
GDI isn't, which is why it's better to use it instead of going directly to
the printer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
