Linux-Advocacy Digest #677, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: anti-MS FUD: is there such a thing? Nope! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The nature of competition ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Win2000 Annoyances (Mike Vance)
Re: The nature of competition ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The nature of competition ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:41:05 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Apple IIs could get CP/M as an expensive add on. You
> > > had to put a Z80 in though.
> > >
> > > TRS-80s came with TRS-DOS, not CP/M.
> > >
> > > Not that it matters; a TRS-80 with CP/M is
> > > still junk. :D
> >
> > Really? A TRS 80 running dBase was junk? Interesting.
>
> There was a version of dBase for the TRS-80? News
> to me. Sure you don't mean it's predecessor,
> the "Vulcan Database"?
>
Im sure. dBAse II ran on the Apple II also. Do you know how?
> [snip]
> > > I must say, you views on the superiority
> > > of the Apple II are quite, um, unusual.
> > >
> > > I thought you were a Mac advocate,
> > > actually.
> >
> > Thats what you get when you try to think. You jump to conclusions.
>
> :D
>
> An Apple II advocate. Who'd have thought
> they still existed?
>
You still jump to conclusions.
> [snip]
> > > Sounds like they were worried about
> > > a nuisance suit, then.
> >
> > They were worried about the CP/M code in m$-DO$.
>
> There certainly isn't any. CP/M ran on a different
> CPU from the IBM-PC. It had not yet been
> ported to the 8086.
>
Then why did IBM pay off Kildall?
> They filched the design for sure. They couldn't
> have used the actual same code.
>
> [snip]
> > > I hardly consider you an authority, either.
> >
> > I doubt you consider anyone an authority on anything, but yourself.
>
> :D
>
> > I
> > have experience with Apple II (having owned and used several). You do
> > not.
>
> Don't I?
>
You sure as hell dont show it.
> > I have generated reports on appleworks. You have not. I have the
> > manual and the app and a working Apple II. You do not.
>
> Yes, but I find you get so creative with facts.
> Perhaps it's only quotes from MS executives
> that you have fun with, but how can I know?
>
You just too damn stupid to recognize facts.
> [snip]
> > We are discussing microcomputers. Minis and mainframes are another
> > thing. You cant compare the 3, especially in the timeframes under
> > discussion. You merely use them to move goalposts or to try to confuse
> > the conversation
>
> I'm trying to drag it back to my point;
> the PC was a better development platform,
> and developers at the time were able to
> recognize that.
>
I dont care about deveopers. The conversation started about the
relatives merits (or lack) from a user's point of view.
> > > They didn't have it on their PCs yet, but
> > > they knew it was possible.
> >
> > Didnt have what on their PCs?
>
> Optimizing compilers, for one thing.
>
> [snip]
> > > You aren't able to support your own claims terribly
> > > well, I notice.
> >
> > Take your head out of the sand.
>
> You don't seem to take *my* word
> for anything, you know.
>
Start getting some things right.
> [snip]
> > Why should I spend my time looking for this, when you will just
> > disregard it.?
> > http://apple2history.org/a/ah19.html
> > "When it first appeared on the market, AppleWorks started at number 2 on
> > Softalk's top thirty list. It moved to the number one spot in Apple
> > sales by the following month, and stayed there for a long time. By the
> > end of 1984, AppleWorks had moved into the number one spot in monthly
> > retail software sales for all computers, overtaking the MS-DOS
> > best-seller Lotus 1-2-3 (a spreadsheet program with graphics and
> > rudimentary word processing capabilities)."
>
> Well, I may say that you have done better than
> you usually do on this one. Though it does
> not suggest that it stayed on top for years,
> it comes close to backing you up directly.
>
> Better still, this article gives a cite for this
> claim, and it is:
>
> Brandt, Randy. "Enhancing AppleWorks" (video tape),
> July 1993, Quality Computers
>
> From what I can tell, it appears that Quality
> Computer was a software house that produced
> AppleWorks add ons, and this Randy Brandt
> was a programmer for them.
>
"... this Randy Brandt". You really are clueless about the A2 world,
arent you?
> The actual video does not seem to be on
> the web, but that's okay. What I'd
> really like to know was where Brandt
> got his figures from.
>
> > Feel free to look other places.
>
> Any suggestions? I'd particularly
> like to find out what Brandts source
> was.
>
As an Appleworks addon programmer, I'd say he had plenty of sources. Try
the Softalk reader's pools.
> [snip]
> > > > It seems to me you are comparing todays micros withtt he micros of the
> > > > time and calling the old machines shit becasue of what we can do
> today.
> > >
> > > No, I'm really comparing the PC of 1981 with the
> > > Apple II of 1981.
> >
> > Oh. well then the PC loses. Too bad. So Sad. ... NOT!!
>
> That percetion of yours seems to be pretty unique.
>
> > > > I have worked with each generation of micro. I can see how they have
> > > > progressed.
> > >
> > > But you don't see how the PC was better
> > > than the then-current Apple II+?
> >
> > No.
>
> The Apple II+ didn't even have *lower
> case* for heavens sake. The PC's
> graphics were at first lousy, but
> so were the Apple II+s.
>
> [snip]
> > > > When did dBase for the PC come out and did it run on a stock 5150
> > > > (hopefully Ive got the model number right)?
> > >
> > > It came out in 1981, and it had better have run on a
> > > stick 5150, 'cuz that was all you had back then.
> >
> > Actually, I believe Dbase II was out BEFORE the PC came out and was
> > ported to it. Now, I wonder what it was running on? CP/M machines maybe?
>
> I can't find any evidence of that, and I did look.
> There was a product that predated dBase II, but it
> was not a big success.
>
> From what I read, part of the dBase II development
> process was upgrading it to 16-bit.
>
> That suggests to me that the earlier stuff had
> run on 8-bit CP/M machines; it's the closest
> CPU/OS you can get.
>
> > Apple IIs with SoftCards, maybe? Hmmmm?
>
> Sticking a CP/M machine into an Apple II
> on a card is not a particularly useful solution.
>
It as so not useful that it sold tons, and several versions of Cp/M ran
on it.
> > I did take off on the PC though.
>
> That's because the early 8 bit machines-
> even the ones that had rudimentary
> operating systems- were too small for
> meaningful database work.
>
No they werent. Unless you can WP, DB, SS meaningless work.
> > > It was very fast turnaround, that. dBase II was
> > > an extension of an earlier 8-bit product
> > > (not "dBase I", but "the Vulcan Database").
> >
> > Thats intersting. I was under the impression that Aston-Tate was founded
> > to sell dBAse II, which was written by Wayne Ratliff.
>
> So was "the Vulcan Database".
>
> > > This earlier product wasn't real successful,
> > > but dBase II was. Things like databases
> > > really need some space to get to the point
> > > of being useful, you see.
> >
> > IIRC, people were programming in dBAse BEFORE the PC came out.
>
> A few people were programming a precursor
> to dBase.
>
> 144k floppies and 64k of RAM do not make
> for very impressive database systems, though. :(
>
Appaently they were better than 0k floppies and 0K ram.
> [snip]
> > > I'm telling you that programmers at that
> > > time could see for themselves the inadequacies
> > > of the 8-bit machines.
> >
> > Yeah, thats why no one wrote nay apps for them, did they?
>
> Lots of people wrote for them. They
> were *much* cheaper than the minis, and
> they had things like graphics supports that
> the big computers usually didn't.
>
Careful.. you are dangerously close to saying something nice about the
micros.
> [snip]
> > > > The entrance of IBM ptpretty much legitimized the personal computer in
> > > > business.
> > >
> > > To some extent. IBM is like that. But PCs had been
> > > used in businesses before IBM came along.
> >
> > And which PCs were those? TRS 80s and Apple IIs.
>
> Especially the Apple IIs. They had fast
> disks and lots of memory compared to their
> competitors- in the early days.
>
> The disks were especially important;
> you could boot off them. To the end of
> its days the C64 never quite got the hang
> of that. :(
>
> That, by the way, was the main thing
> that distinguished the Apple II+ from
> the Apple II.
>
> [snip]
> > > > > They wanted an entry in the integrated desktop software
> > > > > market. Works frankly was always a lousy one though.
> > > >
> > > > In your very biased opinion. It worked very well for me.
> > >
> > > Er.. let me get this straight.
> > >
> > > You are accusing me of an *anti-Microsoft* bias.
> > >
> > > Is that right?
> >
> > See? You cant think straight. Dolt, you are obviously biased agains m$
> > work$ in the above statement.
>
> I'm just astonished to be bashing a MS product
> that you defend, that's all.
>
> It's a new experience for me. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > > Clarisworks didnt do much Appleworks didnt do, except Clarisworks
> worked
> > > > in a GUI.
> > >
> > > You really should try ClarisWorks sometime; it did
> > > a lot of stuff AppleWords didn't do. It did graphics moderately
> > > well and had really groundbreaking intermodule integration.
> >
> > You really should quit puttin your foot in your mouth. I HAVE used
> > Clarisworks. As I said above, it didnt really do much more than
> > Appleworks, except in a GUI environment. You just said the same thing.
> > You really are ignorant of Appleworks, arent you?
>
> Appleworks had three modules, a word processor
> that was decent, a spreadsheet that was rather
> primitive and a database that was primitive to
> the point of useless (a sore point for many
> integrated packages, actually.)
>
Appleworks was Sooooooooo bad it sold and sold and sold...
> No graphics. That's an entire category
> of functionality that ClarisWorks had
> and AppleWorks had not.
>
and not much else.
> > > It was doing OLE 2.0-type stuff years before OLE
> > > existed.
> >
> > Clarisworks MAY have been able ot actively update spreadsheets and
> > reports embeeded in other docs, but I dont rmember it.
>
> I suspect you mean something funny by "reports". ClarisWorks
> couldn't generate reports, either.
>
I suspect you mean something funny by reports. I mean what comes out
when you generate reports.
> But it could embed life spreadsheets or images in other
> documents. At the time, this was radical.
>
You're contadicting your self here. Before you said it wasnt too
integrated.
> It was very innovative. It really made Works look
> primitive. AppleWorks too.
>
> > > It was hot stuff.
> >
> > So was Appleworks, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
>
> AppleWorks was not really all that innovative;
> it was a good implementation, that's all.
>
What was better, no.. what was even at that level in the micro world at
that time?
> I don't mean to suggest it was a bad product;
> it was probably the best that could have been
> managed on such hardware.
>
You have been dissing it for 10s of messages, and now you say you don't
mean to suggest it was a bad product???
> [snip]
> > > I suspect that your idea of "a great deal of integration" is
> > > essentially "what AppleWorks did"; that's setting the bar
> > > pretty low.
> >
> > How would you know? You never used it. I did. I also have used
> > Clarisworks on Mac and Intel - and Office.
>
> I've used all those products, too, you know.
>
Well, you didnt learn too much.
> (Well, never ClarisWorks on Intel. But I understand
> it is about the same there as on the Mac.)
>
> [snip]
> > > > I had an Apple IIe BEFORE the GS. I did MORE on the IIe with
> Appleworks
> > > > than I did with the GS. In fact, for along while, I just used the GS
> as
> > > > a souped up IIe. wait.. let me guess, you are now going to make some
> > > > disparaging remarks having no basis in reality...
> > >
> > > No. I'm just trying to fine some explaination for
> > > your idolization of the Apple II series other
> > > than "Rick is insane".
> >
> > The Apple II was a great machine. You fail to give it credit for the
> > what it accomplished, actually what Wozniak accomplished, in its time.
> > You snub Appleworks and at the same time you show an absolute ignorance
> > of the program.
>
> I don' think I have; I've explained some of the nasty
> technical details of it to you. If you know how the
> Apple II worked, you know by know that I
> know it well.
>
> It's the system I cut my teeth on as a kid.
>
> I give Woz great credit for getting the cheapest
> graphics system ever seen out the door- but
> that doesn't make it the best, just the cheapest.
> By 1981 the C64 was better at graphics *and*
> cheaper, so I discount that one.
>
I say again... engineers of the time considered it a work of art, a true
innovation.
> I give Woz great credit for designing fast
> interleaved floppies. They were small,
> but they were better than the alternatives
> right up to the PCs own release.
>
> But the Apple II had some serious
> drawbacks. Not having lowercase
> really put a crimp in it for some
> applications- like word processing.
>
... an kits were available.
> And Woz doesn't seem to have though
> of the notion of operating system software;
> until ProDOS came along the Apple II
> never got closer to that than having
> a copy of one of Microsoft's BASICs in it.
> Using *that* for things like disc access
> programatically was most entertaining.
>
It worked.
> > > "Rick is thinking of the IIgs" would seem
> > > to work.
> >
> > I said Apple II. I never said Apple II gs until I mentioned what Apple
> > II I own NOW.
>
> I was just guessing. Sounds like you
> haven't used the II+, the model current
> in 1981.
>
You guess a lot. You assume a lot.
> [snip]
> > > It could. It used segments too, but it's segments
> > > were laid out end-to-end, not overlapping;
> > > the same numbre of segments covered more
> > > address space.
> > >
> > > Its clock speed was its real achilles heel.
> >
> > # mhz was pretty good for a II. IIRC people have gotten the IIgs up to
> > 12ish mhz.
>
> Yes, but the stock config gave you 2.8 Mhz, I believe
> it was. That was a bit uynder the 4.77Mhz of the
> PC in '81, and it had fewer registers to boot
> (though not by much).
>
> My the time the Apple IIgs was available,
> faster PCs were becoming available. It was not
> a good time to be slightly slower than the
> original 5150.
>
> Still, it was able to run a Mac-like GUI. That
> was largely because of better memory handling.
>
> It coulda been a contender. It was a bit too late
> and had too little commitment from Apple.
>
> Too bad. I always liked the IIgs.
>
> [snip]
> > > > The PC was unbeatable because it came from IBM
> > >
> > > That was good and bad; it meant some of the
> > > stupider suits would trust them more than a
> > > computer from a bunch of hippies, but it also
> > > meant it was rather expensive compared to its
> > > competitors.
> >
> > It legitimized the market.
>
> Yes, but it cost a mint. Suits care about
> *that* too.
>
> But, the developers were writing for it,
> so the problem for the suits was
> affording the getting the machines
>
> The answer turned out to be clones,
> as you know.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Well, then, by your definition, your precious PC's are shit. They cant
> > > > do what mainframes can do.
> > >
> > > Think so? I rather think they can.
> >
> > Impossible. It is painfully obvious you dont think.
>
> :D
>
> I mean, there reasons for using big iron
> over PCs for some things, but I can't think
> of anything for which the reason to do so
> would be "the PC just can't do it".
>
What reasons are there for using big iron for office work?
> > > What do you think mainframes can do that
> > > PCs cannot?
> >
> > you are the self annointed computer expert. Tell us what differentiates
> > a mainframe from a microcomputer... if you can.
>
> You really want to know?
>
... actually? No.
> Mainframes are different because they
> run older software, fundamentally. This
> is good and bad: it's good because the
> software is mature, it is reliable, it is
> *trusted*.
>
<snnip> how'd it feel?
Mainframes run older software? My Tandy Model 102 is a mainframe?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: anti-MS FUD: is there such a thing? Nope!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:43:06 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to call anti-MS crusades
> "FUD"?
You're right. It's just that FUD sounds so much better than lying.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:11:44 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 21:29:34 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>How come that we don´t see infrared?
>
> For the same reason you can't hear a bat sending out it's sonar, the
> wavelength is out of the spectrum for which the human eye can respond,
> or in the case of the bat, the human ear.
>
> We as humans can see light from blue to red. The word INFRA-red means
> it is past red in the EM spectrum.
>
Exactly. Now it should be clear why I reacted that way to TMax post.
Obviously TMax knows about as much about physics as he knows about
programming, that is, nothing at all.
Peter
--
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:46:43 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >But these are for the processing efficiencies... not the actual
> >instruction set.
> >Hp did say on their web site that the PA series can execute the IA-64
> >instruction set.
> >What Hp didn't say was if an emulator was needed or not. But emulating
> >another processor would only be slow, so I don't think that this is what
> >Hp is doing.
>
> I don't think so either and I'd just like to say for the record
> that Erik Fuckbush is full of shit.
>
> The pins are the same between the two chips.
Then it should be quite easy for you to provide two links, one the pinout of
the PA-RISC and one the pinout of the Itanium to show they are the same,
right?
If you can't do that, then you don't know what the fuck you're talking
about.
> They are the same chip.
>
> Finally, I was working with chip cpu's before you were born
> EF.
I doubt that, since there were no Integrated circuits before I was born.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:50:02 -0500
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <126O6.2564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, the Debian Security mailing list has 68 security bulletins,
> > compared to Red Hat's 49.
>
> Keep in mind that most linux distros issue security alerts / bulletins /
> whatever for every security hole for any piece of software that they
> include with the distro. AFAIK, MS does not issue an alert if the company
> that makes WinZip (for example) finds a security problem. MS only deals
> with MS security problems. So if joe (a text editor) is found to have an
> exploitable temp file problem, Red Hat and Debian issue advisories and
> provide the fixed packages.
This is actually a good point. Of course, MS does include a lot of software
in their OS as well, but not the vast number of packages in the typical
"deluxe" linux distro.
> So it really surprises me that the linux distros don't have a lot more
> advisories and that MS doesn't have a lot fewer.
Indeed. In fact, one might say that because Linux includes so much stuff,
which it typically installs automatically, that this makes it more of a
security risk (note I said risk, not that it's insecure).
> With the way that MS builds everything into the kernel, i would guess
> that a higher percentage of their advisories are of a more serious
> nature. But that is just a guess.
MS doesn't build "everything" into the kernel. The only thing in kernel
space is the device drivers and parts of teh GUI.
------------------------------
From: Mike Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:49:38 -0700
I thought I would take a couple minutes to type up what is annoying me
with the Windows operating system just to get some gripes off my chest.
I am one of many lurkers in this forum seriously contemplating turning
to Linux permanently.
1) Most-Frequently-Used Menus Bug Me: that new feature that defaults so
that only the most frequently used menu options are displayed bothers me
to no end even though it can still be disabled. The default should be
that this feature is turned off. It is another example of the interface
being dumbed down to the disadvantage of serious computer users. I'm
still cringing from the time MS tried to convert the world to the BOB
interface (remember that?).
2) Win2000 key shortcuts are no longer underlined by default. You have
to hold down the ALT key to get the underlining to show and that just
does not seem right. Makes everything more mouse-centric that it
already is.
3) Win2000 has still proven amazingly unstable even though everyone
taughts its stability. Its self-corrupting nature is not as potent as
it was in Win95/98 but I still find it growing progressively more
unstable as the day continues. Have to reboot it daily. I've have many
blue screens of death with it (daily even) and even got a nice registry
corruption and profile corruption thrown in seperately to spice things
up. No wonder all the good servers are Linux-based.
4) The Win2000 recovery console lacks the power of even the simple DOS
1.0 command-line. I prefer a graphical interface but sometimes the
system needs to be debugged from the command-line.
5) Tired of having to reinstall Windows and every single app from
scratch whenever I upgrade to a new motherboard. Probably some pros out
there know how to get around having to do this but MS seems to want the
OS and the Apps to be so installation-program dependant.
6) Win2000 can't be booted to from a CD making fixing stand-alone
computers more difficult since the Win2000 recovery console is so
limited in functionality.
I am still investigating Linux but hope to be converted over to it
within the next few months.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:52:01 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ebqe5$ed7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> TPC is just a benchmark, not a real world measure. In the real world,
> >> it is Linux, not Win2K that shows up at the top end of acalibility and
> >> price/performance.
> >
> > Then why aren't we seeing any real world measurements?
>
> But we have. Linux is used at the top end of scalibility, where
> price/performance is really critical, since the costs are so high, ie
> supercomputers. There are several Linux machines in the top500, there are
> no Win2K or NT amchines in the top 500. A real supercomputer in real use
> is the real world. A benchmark setup is not.
My understanding is that all of those "supercomputers" are "in development",
and not being used in the real world. The ones that are, are clusters, not
single machines.
> >> >> Linux has been proven to be more stable.
> >> >
> >> > It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's
> >> > uptime to be greater than anything else.
> >>
> >> 120 day MTTF, *with* nightly reboots.
> >
> > Really? There's Linux uptime studies that show this? Or did you forget
> > the question?
>
> Linux's uptime isn't at the top end (Only OS/390 and VM are with a
> guarnteed uptime of 35 years), but I'd wager that Linux can beat 120 days
> with nightly reboots (ie Win2K's verified MTTF).
Again, how come there are no studies?
> >> >> Linux has proven to be more secure.
> >> >
> >> > Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the
> >> > last
> >> > 6 months for Red Hat?
> >>
> >> Well that beats IIs by miles. And besifdes, RedHat != Linux. How many
> >> issues has slackware or debian had?
> >
> > Actually, the Debian Security mailing list has 68 security bulletins,
> > compared to Red Hat's 49.
>
> Slackware?
Haven't looked at slackware.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: 21 May 2001 16:54:26 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:33:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Michael Vester wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "Doug Ransom (usenet)" wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But is is soooo useful than linux is basicaly obsolete.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Linux is obsolete without a competetive run time object model to the common
> > >> > > language runtime.
> > >> >
> > >> > Buzzwords, Buzzwords, and not a coherent thought to be found.
> > >> >
> > >> > Object-oriented programming is more hype than useful.
> > >> >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> > >> I even looked up the definitions of the words that made up that sentence.
> > >> It still did not make any sense. Glad to see that others think it is
> > >> complete nonsense too. I agree with your statement about object
> > >> orientated programming. Just a fancy way to pass parameters. Any language
> > >> can be object orientated.
> > >
> > >I'll tell you the OLDEST object oriented language
> > >
> > >/bin/sh
> > >
> > >
> > >Since it is meant to work within the context of the Unix filesystem
> > >and the Unix Filesystem is actually an object environment (data directed
> > >to any type of file (regular file, device file, named pipe, etc.)
> > >automagically "knows how to handle it"...then all shell scripts are,
> > >by definition, object-oriented code.
> >
> > Aaron, please limit yourself to bigotry and insults, since trying to
> > sound technical makes your messages involuntarily hilarious.
> >
> > Or perhaps you can show polymorphism,
>
> PERSONALITY='basename $0'
Uh? That is just some smalltime string manipulation. Do you
know what polymorphism is?
> > inheritance
>
> export [environment variable]
And what would the class hierarchy be in that example?
Do you know what inheritance is?
> > and encapsulation
>
> echo data > named_pipe_thats_attached_to_a_process
Do you even GUESS what encapsulation is? No, Aaron, three
kinds of objects, none defined in the language being
discussed, that can be accessed with the same mechanism
is NOT polymorphism.
> > in shell scripts.
You have proven you are even more ignorant than expected.
And I expected lots of ignorance.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:55:03 -0500
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> In fact, with kernel frame buffer support, there is no reason that
Linux
> >> would be any slower than any other OS on the same hardware.
>
> > TiVo doesn't do video editing, it only does video capture/playback
to/from
> > mpeg. While, that's not a simple task by any measure, TiVo isn't doing
this
> > through X, it's doing it to a dedicated framebuffer.
>
> What, you mean displaying a video stream? I agree X isn't a good
> choice for this, since you simply do not nead any of its features.
Yes, you do need X's features. You need windowing, the ability to drag
clips around on a screen, select sections of a timeline, etc...
> > Video Editing [...] Of course this is mostly hardware, but the GUI
> > must be fast enough to deal with it, and XFree simply isn't up to
> > the job.
>
> Why not? Certainly my aging computer can display video streams using
> only software YUV decoding, with a modern card supporting this in
> hardware, I don't perceive any problem.
And you can display full speed 720x480 in a window without dropped frames?
and it can do two simultaneously? In XFree86? Without latency?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
