> David Steuber <trash...@david-steuber.com> wrote:
> >s...@forget.about.it (Seán Ó Donnchadha) writes:
> >-> Wrong. Not only does Windows have a version system for *ALL* > >-> executables, it has much more built-in support for preventing DLL > >-> conflicts than Unix. Unix simply takes much less advantage of shared > >-> libraries, and its user base is more savvy, so the problem isn't as > >-> visible.
> >Can you please enumerate the *nix applications that do _not_ use a > >shared library? Just a few will do.
> Outside of the C and X runtime shared libraries, Unix apps take *VERY* > little advantage of the capability. Take a Linux box and a Windows box > and compare the .so count to the .DLL count.
What were you saying again? Make little or no use of shared libraries?
> >The idea of Internet Explorer being part of the OS is particularly > >insane. Why should a web browser be a part of the OS?
> Because Web browsing is as essential today as file browsing was twenty > years ago.
You're implying both that file browsing isn't essential anymore and that browsing the WWW is as important an operation as finding a file or looking at it.
Utter bullshit.
mawa -- Yes. It is an art. Look at the concept of the B+ tree. Isn't it beautiful? You've got to admire it. But hey -- if you indeed manage to admire it, you're risking to become a hacker. It can be the first step. Admire B+ trees only if you know what you are doing. -- mawa
>> Outside of the C and X runtime shared libraries, Unix apps take *VERY* >> little advantage of the capability. Take a Linux box and a Windows box >> and compare the .so count to the .DLL count.
>What were you saying again? Make little or no use of shared libraries?
Yep, that's what I was saying. By the way, what exactly am I supposed to be impressed with in your example? Is it the number of shared libraries you've listed, or the number of shared libraries being used by a single app? Compared to DLL usage in Windows, both are a joke.
>> Because Web browsing is as essential today as file browsing was twenty >> years ago.
>You're implying both that file browsing isn't essential anymore
Huh? Where did I imply that?
>and >that browsing the WWW is as important an operation as finding a file >or looking at it.
That's right. The vast majority of consumers *TODAY* are buying PCs for the Web. The Web has given hundreds of millions (and eventually billions) of people reason to buy a PC where they didn't have one before. It's the "killer app" of the '90s (and probably the first few decades of the 21st century). Deal with it. Besides, all the other OSs on the market today come with Web browsers, so why can't Microsoft's?
>Utter bullshit.
In situations like this, Matthias, silence will always serve you better than strong language. -- Seán Ó Donnchadha "Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh." -- "The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." - Alan Greenspan
Who do you want to convince? each of you is damn too obstinated to even try to admit the others *may* have the same view, but from a different point... And who can think you are objective just reading "this is better" - "No! THAT is!". Some fools are just doing the same with bombs and guns... what a pleasant thing to see here!
And why do you think Windows is still used today? because even with its flaws, it is still easier to use for beginners, and it is often shipped with their computer... But I don't want to enter your game.I use both Linux and Win98, not for the same things, that's all.
And please have this kind of "discussions" on other newsgroups (maybe "this.other.os.sucks"...) This group is dedicated to... let's guess... by its name: computers, more precisely an OS: linux, and even more precisely an extension for it : the X window server!
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:30:49 -0500, "Edwin E. Thorne" > > <edwin.tho...@rauland.com> wrote:
> > >Now that Windows NT is poised to smash the Unix strongholds, out comes free > > >Linux to "save" us from the MS boogy man. If there were no Microsoft, we'd > > >still be paying a fortune for Unix products, and the salaries of Unix gurus, > > >or we'd be paying premium prices for Apple or Amiga computers. > > >The total irony in this is that Linux got started on the cheap PCs that > > >Wintel made possible. If it weren't for the PC industry that MS helped to > > >create, the people who are working on Linux now would be lucky to have an > > >old Sun workstation to hunker down on, and Linux would still be an academic > > >project, at best.
> This is utter bull.
> The reason for an expensive Unix was precisely the 'Unix > strongholds' you mentioned which never successfully attempted to > lay down a 'standard' Unix foundation from which they could build > their own version without sacrificing cross-platform capability. > Furthermore, commercial Unix is *still* expensive, although that > is changing now, but not because of anything M$ did. The reason > for the change is the rise of Linux and the *BSDs.
> The rise of Linux coincides with the arrival of the 80386 type > CPU which allowed a Unix-like OS on a PC possible, and the > development of the Internet into a worldwide phenomenon. The > Internet allowed disparate developers from around the world to > work together to create Linux. Linux didn't just 'show up' to do > battle with M$. In fact, M$ and its monopoly really had nothing > to do with the development of Linux. Virtually all the kernel > developers, including Linus, were, and still are, interested in > creating a 'free' Unix look-alike OS. Most of these folks were > then, and still are, totally uninterested in the end-user desktop > market. With NT, of course, things are different, since many > folks have started using Linux and the *BSDs as server OSs, and > its the use of Linux as a server OS, that has attracted so many > users and developers to Linux in the first place.
> Wintel has nothing to do with making the PCs cheap. The reason > for cheap hardware is the *huge* market which exists in PC > compatible hardware. If Wintel had its desires fulfilled, PC's > would be as expensive as Apples, or Amigas, or any other > proprietary hardware/software combo. You also ignore that fact > that the software for PCs is not getting cheaper, its the price of > PC hardware, which is in freefall, that is hiding the fact that M$ > softwares' prices have not gone down, but up.
> As for NT 'smashing' the Unices, oh sure. There is NT, standing > tall, with a sledgehammer cocked back over his head and trying > desperately to swing the weapon forward to victory, except there > is a problem. You see, there is a funny looking giant penguin, > standing behind him, with a firm grip on the head of that > sledgehammer. Although you may wish it to be, Linux isn't > disappearing any time soon.
> Who do you want to convince? each of you is damn too obstinated to even try to > admit the others *may* have the same view, but from a different point... And who > can think you are objective just reading "this is better" - "No! THAT is!". Some > fools are just doing the same with bombs and guns... what a pleasant thing to see > here!
> And why do you think Windows is still used today? because even with its flaws, it > is still easier to use for beginners, and it is often shipped with their > computer... But I don't want to enter your game.I use both Linux and Win98, not for > the same things, that's all.
> And please have this kind of "discussions" on other newsgroups (maybe > "this.other.os.sucks"...) > This group is dedicated to... let's guess... by its name: computers, more precisely > an OS: linux, and even more precisely an extension for it : the X window server!
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:30:49 -0500, "Edwin E. Thorne" > > > <edwin.tho...@rauland.com> wrote:
> > > >Now that Windows NT is poised to smash the Unix strongholds, out comes free > > > >Linux to "save" us from the MS boogy man. If there were no Microsoft, we'd > > > >still be paying a fortune for Unix products, and the salaries of Unix gurus, > > > >or we'd be paying premium prices for Apple or Amiga computers. > > > >The total irony in this is that Linux got started on the cheap PCs that > > > >Wintel made possible. If it weren't for the PC industry that MS helped to > > > >create, the people who are working on Linux now would be lucky to have an > > > >old Sun workstation to hunker down on, and Linux would still be an academic > > > >project, at best.
> > This is utter bull.
> > The reason for an expensive Unix was precisely the 'Unix > > strongholds' you mentioned which never successfully attempted to > > lay down a 'standard' Unix foundation from which they could build > > their own version without sacrificing cross-platform capability. > > Furthermore, commercial Unix is *still* expensive, although that > > is changing now, but not because of anything M$ did. The reason > > for the change is the rise of Linux and the *BSDs.
> > The rise of Linux coincides with the arrival of the 80386 type > > CPU which allowed a Unix-like OS on a PC possible, and the > > development of the Internet into a worldwide phenomenon. The > > Internet allowed disparate developers from around the world to > > work together to create Linux. Linux didn't just 'show up' to do > > battle with M$. In fact, M$ and its monopoly really had nothing > > to do with the development of Linux. Virtually all the kernel > > developers, including Linus, were, and still are, interested in > > creating a 'free' Unix look-alike OS. Most of these folks were > > then, and still are, totally uninterested in the end-user desktop > > market. With NT, of course, things are different, since many > > folks have started using Linux and the *BSDs as server OSs, and > > its the use of Linux as a server OS, that has attracted so many > > users and developers to Linux in the first place.
> > Wintel has nothing to do with making the PCs cheap. The reason > > for cheap hardware is the *huge* market which exists in PC > > compatible hardware. If Wintel had its desires fulfilled, PC's > > would be as expensive as Apples, or Amigas, or any other > > proprietary hardware/software combo. You also ignore that fact > > that the software for PCs is not getting cheaper, its the price of > > PC hardware, which is in freefall, that is hiding the fact that M$ > > softwares' prices have not gone down, but up.
> > As for NT 'smashing' the Unices, oh sure. There is NT, standing > > tall, with a sledgehammer cocked back over his head and trying > > desperately to swing the weapon forward to victory, except there > > is a problem. You see, there is a funny looking giant penguin, > > standing behind him, with a firm grip on the head of that > > sledgehammer. Although you may wish it to be, Linux isn't > > disappearing any time soon.
> Outside of the C and X runtime shared libraries, Unix apps take *VERY* > little advantage of the capability. Take a Linux box and a Windows box > and compare the .so count to the .DLL count.
Windows NT 4.0 (with Office and a dozen other apps): 494 .DLL files RedHat 5.2 *without* X11: 221 .so files
Adding Qt+KDE or gtk+GNOME would add many more. As soon as my new machine comes in, I'll repeat with GNOME installed.
Your claim has no basis.
[snip]
-- The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead. Craig Kelley -- kellc...@isu.edu http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
>>> Outside of the C and X runtime shared libraries, Unix apps take *VERY* >>> little advantage of the capability. Take a Linux box and a Windows box >>> and compare the .so count to the .DLL count.
>>What were you saying again? Make little or no use of shared libraries?
>Yep, that's what I was saying. By the way, what exactly am I supposed >to be impressed with in your example? Is it the number of shared >libraries you've listed, or the number of shared libraries being used >by a single app? Compared to DLL usage in Windows, both are a joke.
How would you know exactly? Windows is an information hiding system after all. All you're really doing is spewin meaningless hot air at this point.
[deletia]
>>and >>that browsing the WWW is as important an operation as finding a file >>or looking at it.
>That's right. The vast majority of consumers *TODAY* are buying PCs >for the Web. The Web has given hundreds of millions (and eventually >billions) of people reason to buy a PC where they didn't have one >before. It's the "killer app" of the '90s (and probably the first few >decades of the 21st century). Deal with it. Besides, all the other OSs >on the market today come with Web browsers, so why can't Microsoft's?
'coming with it' isn't the problem, trying to tie it into the OS like some visitor fetus (V) is.
[deletia]
--
Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995. ||| A little spite is more than justified. / | \
> >> Outside of the C and X runtime shared libraries, Unix apps take *VERY* > >> little advantage of the capability. Take a Linux box and a Windows box > >> and compare the .so count to the .DLL count.
> >What were you saying again? Make little or no use of shared libraries?
> Yep, that's what I was saying. By the way, what exactly am I supposed > to be impressed with in your example? Is it the number of shared > libraries you've listed, or the number of shared libraries being used > by a single app?
The degree of code re-use achieved by judicious use of DLLs.
> Compared to DLL usage in Windows, both are a joke.
Care to elaborate how?
> >> Because Web browsing is as essential today as file browsing was twenty > >> years ago.
> >You're implying both that file browsing isn't essential anymore
> Huh? Where did I imply that?
By using the word `was' you did.
> >and > >that browsing the WWW is as important an operation as finding a file > >or looking at it.
> That's right. > The vast majority of consumers *TODAY* are buying PCs > for the Web. The Web has given hundreds of millions (and eventually > billions) of people reason to buy a PC where they didn't have one > before. It's the "killer app" of the '90s (and probably the first few > decades of the 21st century). Deal with it.
I have already dealt with it. Your attempts to patronise me are lame at best...
> Besides, all the other OSs > on the market today come with Web browsers, so why can't Microsoft's?
I've got no problem with that. The problem is the Web browser being woven into the system in a way that makes it hard to remove, and Microsoft doing this not for any technical reason, but to dominate the market.
mawa -- Actually, the fun thing about playing the piano is that you can walk around in town with a Henle Urtext score, showing off, and feeling like a *musician*. -- mawa
On Thu, 06 May 1999 21:22:15 +0200, Philippe Bourjac <bourj...@cybercable.fr> wrote: >Who do you want to convince? each of you is damn too obstinated to even try to >admit the others *may* have the same view, but from a different point... And who
The guy has no real point and can't back it up. Of course objections are going to start crawling out the woodworks.
>can think you are objective just reading "this is better" - "No! THAT is!". Some >fools are just doing the same with bombs and guns... what a pleasant thing to see >here!
>And why do you think Windows is still used today? because even with its flaws, it >is still easier to use for beginners, and it is often shipped with their
Why was it in use when it was still a DOS shell or even just DOS when everyone else was using GUI's of some kind?
[deletia]
The notion that WinDOS is in wide use because it is an effective ease of use system is an historical absurdity.
WinDOS is still a 2nd rate ease of use system, largely successful where it is successful due to progress made in PC hardware and is rapidly losing ground to a UNIX of all things.
--
Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995. ||| A little spite is more than justified. / | \
> On Thu, 06 May 1999 21:22:15 +0200, Philippe Bourjac <bourj...@cybercable.fr> wrote: > >Who do you want to convince? each of you is damn too obstinated to even try to > >admit the others *may* have the same view, but from a different point... And who
> The guy has no real point and can't back it up. Of course > objections are going to start crawling out the woodworks.
> >can think you are objective just reading "this is better" - "No! THAT is!". Some > >fools are just doing the same with bombs and guns... what a pleasant thing to see > >here!
> >And why do you think Windows is still used today? because even with its flaws, it > >is still easier to use for beginners, and it is often shipped with their
> Why was it in use when it was still a DOS shell or even just DOS > when everyone else was using GUI's of some kind?
> [deletia]
> The notion that WinDOS is in wide use because it is an > effective ease of use system is an historical absurdity.
> WinDOS is still a 2nd rate ease of use system, largely > successful where it is successful due to progress made > in PC hardware and is rapidly losing ground to a UNIX > of all things.
> --
> Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995. ||| > A little spite is more than justified. / | \
> So bad you just cut out the most interesting part... ;-)
The Point is that Windows users are Windows user and Linux users are Linux users. Stop the babling and get on with life. That is part of living in a free socity. We can all make our choices and live with them. I work with both OS's and while Linux works all the for me Windows is what keeps me on the job. Maybe it is so easy for users to use that they just can't use it. At work the Linux users continue on day after day very few failures. Windows users have to contact me very often, I see each of them at lease once a day with a GPF or a BSOD. I wont complain because I get a pay check to sit here and support these users.
We each like what we like and should not try to force the other to change. It is free will and fredom to choose that make this whole debat a farce. If you like windows then run windows, if you like Linux then run Linux. Drop the crap and get on with life.
> > So bad you just cut out the most interesting part... ;-)
snip
> We each like what we like and should not try to force the other to > change. It is free will and fredom to choose that make this whole debat > a farce. If you like windows then run windows, if you like Linux then > run Linux. Drop the crap and get on with life.
Hmm, yeah, let's just stop all those useless discussions, well, let's just stop using Usenet... ;^)
l8er ronny
-- Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
> > So bad you just cut out the most interesting part... ;-)
> The Point is that Windows users are Windows user and Linux users are > Linux users. Stop the babling and get on with life. That is part of > living in a free socity. We can all make our choices and live with > them. I work with both OS's and while Linux works all the for me > Windows is what keeps me on the job. Maybe it is so easy for users to > use that they just can't use it. At work the Linux users continue on > day after day very few failures. Windows users have to contact me very > often, I see each of them at lease once a day with a GPF or a BSOD. I > wont complain because I get a pay check to sit here and support these > users.
> We each like what we like and should not try to force the other to > change. It is free will and fredom to choose that make this whole debat > a farce. If you like windows then run windows, if you like Linux then > run Linux. Drop the crap and get on with life.
>> Oh please! IMHO window managers are a freaking travesty, and one of >> the major reasons why UNIX's usability is such a joke. As for the
>Have you ever *used* a windows manager before? If you have, then what >are you complaining about?
I spent nearly 10 years developing GUI software exclusively for Unix. I've used every window manager you can name and some you can't. I've put a lot of effort into making Unix GUI apps easy to use. What I'm "complaining about" is that the Unix GUI landscape is chaotic, unproductive, and generally hopeless, and window managers are a big part of the reason.
>Hmmm... well, so much for NTs much vaunted configurability!
There's a fine line between configurability and chaos. Mac and Windows GUIs are configurable without being chaotic; a person can walk up to someone else's Mac or Windows box and be productive instantly, nearly 100% of the time, no matter how that Mac or Windows box is configured. With Unix/X11, that's almost never the case. You walk up to someone else's Unix box, and most of the time you can't even get started because all your familiar mouse functions, keyboard functions, menus, and icons are nowhere to be found, and you're looking at a desktop that may as well have been configured by an extragalactic alien.
GUIs are *DIFFICULT* to get right. Companies like Apple and Microsoft expend enormous resources trying to figure out where to draw that configurability line. Unix/X11 folks, on the other hand, have convinced themselves that more configurability and less mandatory behavior is always better, and that usability research is a waste of time. Well, they're wrong.
Configurability is great, but there always must be some minimum standard functionality that can be relied upon. For some reason, this simple truth has eluded the Unix crowd for decades now.
>> problem you're describing, it doesn't exist on 32-bit Windows systems. >> If a window goes busy, no you can't minimize it, but you can certainly >> switch to something else and continue working.
>Oh come on, get real! Plenty of people haven't been able to kill the >damn window or switch to other apps!
Give me an example.
>> True, but the target audience is different. UNIX has "minimal as to be >> laughable" support for app interoperability, GUI consistency, >> internationalization, and heck, even printing.
>"heck, even printing"?!?! where the heck have YOU been, and exactly how >long have you been using Unix/Linux? Linux has *great* support for >printing!
Linux and Unix in general have *PATHETIC* printing support. Even though printers today are extremely sophisticated devices with many things differentiating them, Unix still treats them as the dumb character pipes they were 30 years ago. There's no API for printing in a device-independent manner, no central place for configuring printer options, no support for dynamic printer configuration, and generally no support for anything above the most basic capabilities of a printer. That's because as far as Unix is concerned, printers (like many other peripherals) have never been more than the raw serial or parallel ports to which you attach them.
>> Not if they're running similar file systems. NTFS sacrifices >> performance for robustness.
>Yeah, RIGHT!
Damn straight!
>> Device drivers run in the kernel's address space, so errant ones can >> cause all sorts of damage.
>Well, another reason why NT ain't as good! :P
That makes no sense, as my statement applies to Unix/Linux as well. -- Seán Ó Donnchadha "Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh." -- "The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." - Alan Greenspan
>>> Oh please! IMHO window managers are a freaking travesty, and one of >>> the major reasons why UNIX's usability is such a joke. As for the
>>Have you ever *used* a windows manager before? If you have, then what >>are you complaining about?
>I spent nearly 10 years developing GUI software exclusively for Unix. >I've used every window manager you can name and some you can't. I've >put a lot of effort into making Unix GUI apps easy to use. What I'm >"complaining about" is that the Unix GUI landscape is chaotic, >unproductive, and generally hopeless, and window managers are a big >part of the reason.
Really? The fact that you don't seem to get the fact that WM's are orthogonal to what you claim you've been trying to do over the last 10 years seems rather intriguing.
[deletia]
If you personally were having problems, it's little wonder.
On Fri, 7 May 1999 13:08:00 -0700, j...@dementia.mishnet () wrote:
>>I spent nearly 10 years developing GUI software exclusively for Unix. >>I've used every window manager you can name and some you can't. I've >>put a lot of effort into making Unix GUI apps easy to use. What I'm >>"complaining about" is that the Unix GUI landscape is chaotic, >>unproductive, and generally hopeless, and window managers are a big >>part of the reason.
> Really? The fact that you don't seem to get the > fact that WM's are orthogonal to what you claim > you've been trying to do over the last 10 years > seems rather intriguing.
Excuse me? Orthogonal?! I suppose you've never seen an app work fine under one WM and go all haywire under another? Try running a non-trivial Motif app under TWM sometime. Orthogonal my ass.
At most of the Unix software shops where I worked, we were *REQUIRED* to test our code under all the WMs we could find, and for very good reason. That's when I learned the extent to which the world of Unix GUIs is f*cked up.
> If you personally were having problems, it's little wonder.
In other words, "Any problem you encounter with Unix is your fault". Classic Unix advocate bullsh*t. -- Seán Ó Donnchadha "Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh." -- "The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." - Alan Greenspan
> > Really? The fact that you don't seem to get the > > fact that WM's are orthogonal to what you claim > > you've been trying to do over the last 10 years > > seems rather intriguing.
> Excuse me? Orthogonal?! I suppose you've never seen an app work fine > under one WM and go all haywire under another? Try running a > non-trivial Motif app under TWM sometime. Orthogonal my ass.
That is a lie. Using strict motif libraries, your application will work under *any* window manager (I've *never* seen a UNIX application function under one wm and not another). Now, if you're coding to mwm or CDE, that's a different story.
-- The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead. Craig Kelley -- kellc...@isu.edu http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
>>>I spent nearly 10 years developing GUI software exclusively for Unix. >>>I've used every window manager you can name and some you can't. I've >>>put a lot of effort into making Unix GUI apps easy to use. What I'm >>>"complaining about" is that the Unix GUI landscape is chaotic, >>>unproductive, and generally hopeless, and window managers are a big >>>part of the reason.
>> Really? The fact that you don't seem to get the >> fact that WM's are orthogonal to what you claim >> you've been trying to do over the last 10 years >> seems rather intriguing.
>Excuse me? Orthogonal?! I suppose you've never seen an app work fine >under one WM and go all haywire under another? Try running a >non-trivial Motif app under TWM sometime. Orthogonal my ass.
Just one other thing. When a customer calls your support department all stressed out because he can't figure out how to move, resize, iconize, or close down your app - or why he just lost all his work because he pushed a border button that killed your app without proper shutdown - just try telling *HIM* it's "orthogonal"! Sheesh. -- Seán Ó Donnchadha "Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh." -- "The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." - Alan Greenspan
>> >I know that web serving is a clear victory for Linux/FreeBSD as well.
>> Proof, please?
>Well, let's use the argument that you Win NT people like to use all the >time - market share. Perhaps you would care to explain how Apache has a >market share of just under (and held for quite some time) 50%?
If I may invoke the argument that you Microsoft bashers use all the time, market share is unrelated to product quality :-P -- Seán Ó Donnchadha "Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh." -- "The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." - Alan Greenspan
>> >> Device drivers rnu in the kernel's address space, so errant ones can >> >> cause all sorts of damage.
>> >Sound like bad design to me
>> Then come up with a better design, and be sure to let both Microsoft >> and Linus (or Sun, or whomever) know, as they'd all benefit from your >> wisdom.
>Now *there's* a laugh! Most Linux users migrated to the O/S for >precisely this reason - they simple *can't* get involved with the design >of NT! In Linux, if you want to change some design, you just go head and >do it. I can't say the same for NT...
Source code availability is totally irrelevant to the point I was making - that Unix/Linux can be hosed by bad device drivers just as easily as NT. -- Seán Ó Donnchadha "Is maith liom Mí Mheáin an tSamhraidh." -- "The entire structure of the antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is the product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history; and (b) of rather naive, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." - Alan Greenspan
-> David Steuber <trash...@david-steuber.com> wrote: -> -> > -> >s...@forget.about.it (Seán Ó Donnchadha) writes: -> > -> >-> Wrong. Not only does Windows have a version system for *ALL* -> >-> executables, it has much more built-in support for preventing DLL -> >-> conflicts than Unix. Unix simply takes much less advantage of shared -> >-> libraries, and its user base is more savvy, so the problem isn't as -> >-> visible. -> > -> >Can you please enumerate the *nix applications that do _not_ use a -> >shared library? Just a few will do. -> > -> -> Outside of the C and X runtime shared libraries, Unix apps take *VERY* -> little advantage of the capability. Take a Linux box and a Windows box -> and compare the .so count to the .DLL count.
People on the list are going to hate me for this, but I feel provoked. Also, it is more dramatic than saying there are 532 .so files on my system.
Here is a full listing of all the .so files on my system:
> Wrong. Not only does Windows have a version system for *ALL* > executables, it has much more built-in support for preventing DLL
This versioning sysytem is only used to decide if an existing file should be replaced by an installation candidate. It isn't used to resolve library dependencies at program-load time.
> conflicts than Unix. Unix simply takes much less advantage of shared > libraries,
This isn't the case:-
$ ( IFS=":" ; for pathdir in $PATH ; do file $pathdir/* | grep static ; done ) | wc -l 10
$ ( IFS=":" ; for pathdir in $PATH ; do ls -1 $pathdir/*; done ) | wc -l 9665
10 statically linked programs out of 9665 is 0.1%.
On Unix systems (I am talking specifically about Linux here, but afaik Uni in general is no different), you can have 20 different dynamically-linked programs and 20 versions of the dynamic C library in the same directory, and each executable will dynamically link with the correct version of the library when it runs. Crucially, this "correct version" will be different for each program; this assumes all the programs were originally linked against different versions of the C library.
> and its user base is more savvy, so the problem isn't as > visible. > I disagree with this as well. It does happen sometimes, but I've yet > to see *ANYONE* back up claims like yours with any real data. Most of > the time people don't bother investigating the problem, choosing > instead to throw their hands in the air and blame "DLL Hell" without > any real knowledge of what happened.
I refer you to the foot of page 239 of Matt Pietrek's "Windows Internals". Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-62217-3.
-- ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
>>> >> Device drivers rnu in the kernel's address space, so errant ones can >>> >> cause all sorts of damage.
>>> >Sound like bad design to me
>>> Then come up with a better design, and be sure to let both Microsoft >>> and Linus (or Sun, or whomever) know, as they'd all benefit from your >>> wisdom.
>>Now *there's* a laugh! Most Linux users migrated to the O/S for >>precisely this reason - they simple *can't* get involved with the design >>of NT! In Linux, if you want to change some design, you just go head and >>do it. I can't say the same for NT...
>Source code availability is totally irrelevant to the point I was >making - that Unix/Linux can be hosed by bad device drivers just as >easily as NT.
Except we can fix our 'hosing' drivers. I have done this myself, actuall as has one of my colleagues that uses Linux for console development.
--
Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995. ||| A little spite is more than justified. / | \
>On Fri, 7 May 1999 13:08:00 -0700, j...@dementia.mishnet () wrote:
>>>I spent nearly 10 years developing GUI software exclusively for Unix. >>>I've used every window manager you can name and some you can't. I've >>>put a lot of effort into making Unix GUI apps easy to use. What I'm >>>"complaining about" is that the Unix GUI landscape is chaotic, >>>unproductive, and generally hopeless, and window managers are a big >>>part of the reason.
>> Really? The fact that you don't seem to get the >> fact that WM's are orthogonal to what you claim >> you've been trying to do over the last 10 years >> seems rather intriguing.
>Excuse me? Orthogonal?! I suppose you've never seen an app work fine >under one WM and go all haywire under another? Try running a >non-trivial Motif app under TWM sometime. Orthogonal my ass.
Got any good examples?
[deletia] --
Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995. ||| A little spite is more than justified. / | \
>>>>I spent nearly 10 years developing GUI software exclusively for Unix. >>>>I've used every window manager you can name and some you can't. I've >>>>put a lot of effort into making Unix GUI apps easy to use. What I'm >>>>"complaining about" is that the Unix GUI landscape is chaotic, >>>>unproductive, and generally hopeless, and window managers are a big >>>>part of the reason.
>>> Really? The fact that you don't seem to get the >>> fact that WM's are orthogonal to what you claim >>> you've been trying to do over the last 10 years >>> seems rather intriguing.
>>Excuse me? Orthogonal?! I suppose you've never seen an app work fine >>under one WM and go all haywire under another? Try running a >>non-trivial Motif app under TWM sometime. Orthogonal my ass.
>Just one other thing. When a customer calls your support department >all stressed out because he can't figure out how to move, resize, >iconize, or close down your app - or why he just lost all his work >because he pushed a border button that killed your app without proper >shutdown - just try telling *HIM* it's "orthogonal"! Sheesh.
That's why you have a sensible handler in your app for sigkill so simple stupid shit like that doesn happen. This is excessively rudimentary unix-in- general practice, nevermind X.
--
Microsoft subjected the world to DOS until 1995. ||| A little spite is more than justified. / | \
> -> Sounds quite adequate to me, considering Windows also comes with > -> version-aware file installation APIs, and you could always use the > -> Unix scheme of putting the version number into the file name.
> Then why are newer versions of .DLL files overwritten by older ones by > some installations?
> -> >The name of the file is > -> >constant, so you can't have multiple versions of the same library. > -> >MFC gets around this by having the version number in the file name. > -> > -> Sentence B contradicts sentence A. Are file names "constant" or not?
> Let me answer that with a question: How many versions of MFC42.DLL > are there?
One thing with win95 that always bugs me is all these versions of DirectX that are floating around and how applications handle them (although this is more a problem with the apps than the op. system). Each application pops up a window saying something like "Do you want to install DirectX N.N?" regardless of what version is currently installed.. I can have 6.1 installed, but programs wanting 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 etc will still ask if I want that version installed.
I even had a program that wanted 3.0 (and I had 6.1 installed) telling me that an _earlier_ version was currently installed on my system! If I agreed with each of these prompts, I'd end up something like this:
Of course, I'd have to re-install it a few times as earlier versions got installed resulting in programs wanting later versions then not working.
Why should I have to continually keep checking out the files on my system to remind myself what version is installed (and how _do_ you easily check out what version of DirectX is installed)?
Here's something totally unrelated.. I recently bought a new computer system and wanted to install Linux. I inserted the RedHat cd-rom, created a boot floppy, booted of it, installed Linux, and was up and running with a full Linux system in just 10 minutes (and only ONE re-boot). (and considering that some RedHat releases include a boot floppy, this time can be reduced even more). Let's see a winNT or win95 install beat that.
