ActiveX,OCX,OLE? For linux? *nix?
Pavel V. Zaitesev
Hi... not to embarras you people, I hope I don't anger either.
I just wonder if there will be or is avaliable technology somewhat similar
to ActiveX,OCX? One step forward is shared libraries, but now how would it
be possible to link objects?
Regards,
Pavel.
--
/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\_/-\
Hey... don't get mad, get even.
Phone Number is avail. at your request.
Linux:Windoze from Bill:BC++:WIN32API:OWL:ORACLE:XWin wins:g++:libc:TCP/IP
IRC ii:inetd:sendmail:joe:/etc/default/uugetty.ttyS3!!!
! PANIC !: Segment Fault
Roy Stogner
On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:31:54 GMT, Pavel V. Zaitesev wrote:
>Hi... not to embarras you people, I hope I don't anger either.
>I just wonder if there will be or is avaliable technology somewhat similar
>to ActiveX,OCX? One step forward is shared libraries, but now how would it
>be possible to link objects?
There is a DCOM implimentation for Unix, but I believe that the
preferred object model is CORBA. A search for "DCOM Linux" or "CORBA
Linux" on the web should get you plenty of hits. For ActiveX,
whether you're running Linux or Windows, the safest word is "don't" -
use Java instead.
The little hacker devil whispering in my left ear keeps telling me
what a wonderful world it will be once people get used to running
ActiveX programs signed by everybody and his uncle automatically from
the Web, but his more angelic counterpart whispering in my right ear
says there may be a down side...
---
Roy Stogner
Ole Vilmann
The options there are is DCOM (ActiveX etc. is actually built on this) and
CORBA.
Different commercial products are available. I use a free CORBA compliant
product
called ILU (Inter Language Unification). That works fine !
Ole
Pavel V. Zaitesev wrote:
> Hi... not to embarras you people, I hope I don't anger either.
> I just wonder if there will be or is avaliable technology somewhat similar
> to ActiveX,OCX? One step forward is shared libraries, but now how would it
> be possible to link objects?
Karl Garrison
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Try IE 4.0 for Unix.
>
> There is only a Solaris version I think, but Linux is sure to follow
> shortly.
I'm afraid not ... a Microsoft offical in the internet explorer UNIX
newsgroup (on Microsoft's own news server) said there are "no plans" for
a Linux port.
Most likely the reason for this is because Microsoft uses technology
from Mainsoft to do their UNIX port. If you visit Mainsoft's site
you'll notice that the platforms they support are the same ones
Microsoft has said they'll port IE to.
--
Karl Garrison
kar...@eznet.net
Gregory Travis
In article <34F383D8...@eznet.net>,
Karl Garrison <kar...@eznet.net> wrote:
>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>
>> Try IE 4.0 for Unix.
>>
>> There is only a Solaris version I think, but Linux is sure to follow
>> shortly.
>
>I'm afraid not ... a Microsoft offical in the internet explorer UNIX
>newsgroup (on Microsoft's own news server) said there are "no plans" for
>a Linux port.
>
>Most likely the reason for this is because Microsoft uses technology
>from Mainsoft to do their UNIX port. If you visit Mainsoft's site
>you'll notice that the platforms they support are the same ones
>Microsoft has said they'll port IE to.
I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
with NT. Also UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like
NT does.
greg
Jeff Garzik
Try IE 4.0 for Unix.
There is only a Solaris version I think, but Linux is sure to follow
shortly.
--
Jeff Garzik Typhoon, Cyclone, Diablo, and INN
http://www.spinne.com/usenet/ News tuning and consulting
Christopher B. Browne
On 24 Feb 1998 21:05:43 GMT, Roy Stogner <royst...@SPAMiname.com> posted:
>On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:31:54 GMT, Pavel V. Zaitesev wrote:
>
>>Hi... not to embarras you people, I hope I don't anger either.
>>I just wonder if there will be or is avaliable technology somewhat similar
>>to ActiveX,OCX? One step forward is shared libraries, but now how would it
>>be possible to link objects?
>
>preferred object model is CORBA. A search for "DCOM Linux" or "CORBA
>Linux" on the web should get you plenty of hits. For ActiveX,
>whether you're running Linux or Windows, the safest word is "don't" -
>use Java instead.
The most notable implementation of CORBA that works with Linux these days
seems to be "MICO"; see:
<url url="http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~mico/" name="MICO - a GNU ORB">
It's available at ftp.gnome.org in RPM form.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
Richard Coleman
gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) writes:
> >I'm afraid not ... a Microsoft offical in the internet explorer UNIX
> >newsgroup (on Microsoft's own news server) said there are "no plans" for
> >a Linux port.
> >
> >Most likely the reason for this is because Microsoft uses technology
> >from Mainsoft to do their UNIX port. If you visit Mainsoft's site
> >you'll notice that the platforms they support are the same ones
> >Microsoft has said they'll port IE to.
>
> I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
> with NT. Also UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like
> NT does.
This has got to be a troll. Many Unix systems has threading available.
--
Richard Coleman
col...@math.gatech.edu
Phillip Dawes
Roy Stogner wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 03:31:54 GMT, Pavel V. Zaitesev wrote:
>
> >Hi... not to embarras you people, I hope I don't anger either.
> >I just wonder if there will be or is avaliable technology somewhat similar
> >to ActiveX,OCX? One step forward is shared libraries, but now how would it
> >be possible to link objects?
>
> There is a DCOM implimentation for Unix, but I believe that the
> preferred object model is CORBA. A search for "DCOM Linux" or "CORBA
> Linux" on the web should get you plenty of hits. For ActiveX,
> whether you're running Linux or Windows, the safest word is "don't" -
> use Java instead.
>
I think microsoft has now taken over the development of Linux DCom (from
SoftwareAG). I don't see it making a huge impact on the linux free
software market though - I don't really see microsoft releasing it as
open-source, and as the recent QT debates have shown a lot of developers
won't touch anything that isn't.
Cheers,
Phil.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Phil Dawes | My opinions are my own
WWW: err.. temporarily non-existant | and nothing to do with
Email: phi...@parallax.co.uk | my employer.
Magnus Hacker
gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) writes:
>I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
>with NT. Also UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like
>NT does.
Tell me, what's the weather like on your planet?
--
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Magnus Hacker | There's no future in time travel. |
| d2ha...@dtek.chalmers.se | |
+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Neil Schemenauer
On 24 Feb 1998 23:20:57 -0500, Gregory Travis
<gr...@sherrill.kiva.net> wrote:
...
>UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like NT does.
Whatever you say. ROTFL.
Gregory Travis
In article <rcen0sd...@cypress.math.gatech.edu>,
Richard Coleman <col...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) writes:
>> I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
>> NT does.
>
>This has got to be a troll. Many Unix systems has threading available.
No, it's not a troll. It's TRUE. Here, this is where I read about it:
http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/
I think it's wonderful that Microsoft is expending so many resources just
to support the old world of computing. I mean, it's not like they are
obligated since they have single-handedly discovered the new world for us.
I also think it's great that they ported IE 4.0, since no one doubts that
it's the best Internet experience.
greg
Rouat manu
Yep, definitely is a troll.
Robert Krawitz
gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) writes:
>
> No, it's not a troll. It's TRUE. Here, this is where I read about it:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/
>
> I think it's wonderful that Microsoft is expending so many resources just
> to support the old world of computing. I mean, it's not like they are
> obligated since they have single-handedly discovered the new world for us.
My my my, they even mention linux -- FOUR times -- and fairly
positively.
--
Robert Krawitz <r...@tiac.net> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail l...@uunet.uu.net
Jarkko L T Lehto
In article <6d0679$35n$1...@sherrill.kiva.net>,
gr...@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) writes:
> I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
> with NT. Also UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like
> NT does.
BULLSHIT!
Jeffery Cann
Gregory Travis wrote:
>
> In article <rcen0sd...@cypress.math.gatech.edu>,
> Richard Coleman <col...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
> >> with NT. Also UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like
> >> NT does.
> >
>
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/
>
> I think it's wonderful that Microsoft is expending so many resources just
> to support the old world of computing. I mean, it's not like they are
> obligated since they have single-handedly discovered the new world for us.
>
> it's the best Internet experience.
-----------^^^^--------------------
NO REALLY -- STOP TAKING DRUGS -- ITS BAD FOR YOUR BRAIN
--
Jeffery Cann
tom
Gregory Travis wrote:
>> Most likely the reason for this is because Microsoft uses technology
>> from Mainsoft to do their UNIX port. If you visit Mainsoft's site
>> you'll notice that the platforms they support are the same ones
>> Microsoft has said they'll port IE to.
GT> I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
GT> with NT. Also UNIX doesn't support high technology such as threads like
GT> NT does.
pardon, but WHAT?
Unix catching up to NT? Sorry, I write software on Linux and I administrate an
NT system, so I guess I know both sides a little, and I have yet to find
something where Unix has to catch up on NT. As one point, threads have been
available for quite some time on Unix, while NT _still_ has problems with the
most simple multitasking problems, like printing in background (tried today on
an NT4 Server, almost froze the system and no, that was just one page to
print).
so quit trolling around and get a clue before posting false information.
PS:
the one thing Unix has to catch up is bugginess. 16,000 for NT at the last
count, more of the sort serious enough to kill the system surfacing at an
average rate of one a week (latierra, boink, land and other exploits showing
that).
tom
Gregory Travis wrote:
>> This has got to be a troll. Many Unix systems has threading available.
GT> No, it's not a troll. It's TRUE. Here, this is where I read about it:
GT> http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/
so you really BELIEVE what M$ says about a competitor? Get real.
GT> I think it's wonderful that Microsoft is expending so many resources just
GT> to support the old world of computing. I mean, it's not like they are
GT> obligated since they have single-handedly discovered the new world for us.
Greg, you have the word "Troll" tatooed to your forehead in 24pt letters.
Dale Pontius
In article <76b_980...@antares.antar.com>,
t...@mystery.antar.com (tom) writes:
> so you really BELIEVE what M$ says about a competitor? Get real.
> Greg, you have the word "Troll" tatooed to your forehead in 24pt letters.
I think (I hope?!?) a lot of people here can't recognize humor
when they see it.
Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)
tom
Dale Pontius wrote:
>> so you really BELIEVE what M$ says about a competitor? Get real.
DP> ...
>> Greg, you have the word "Troll" tatooed to your forehead in 24pt
>> letters.
DP> I think (I hope?!?) a lot of people here can't recognize humor
DP> when they see it.
humor is a function of the number of repetitions.
Nick Kralevich
In article <34F36DAF...@spinne.com>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff....@spinne.com> wrote:
>There is only a Solaris version I think, but Linux is sure to follow
>shortly.
Microsoft will never release a version of IE on a platform that competes
with NT.
They will never release a version of IE for Linux because Intel Linux
competes with Intel NT for market share.
Take care,
-- Nick Kralevich
nick...@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu
Brett W. McCoy
Also sprach Robert Krawitz <r...@shell1.tiac.net>:
>> I think it's wonderful that Microsoft is expending so many resources just
>> to support the old world of computing. I mean, it's not like they are
>> obligated since they have single-handedly discovered the new world for us.
>
>My my my, they even mention linux -- FOUR times -- and fairly
>positively.
Randy Chapman was the developer of the original JDK for Linux (the 1.0.2
JDK). He still even participates in the Java development and posts
regularly to the LinuxJDK mailing list.
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
-- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972
Kelly Burkhart
nick...@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu (Nick Kralevich) writes:
> In article <34F36DAF...@spinne.com>,
> Jeff Garzik <jeff....@spinne.com> wrote:
> >There is only a Solaris version I think, but Linux is sure to follow
> >shortly.
>
> Microsoft will never release a version of IE on a platform that competes
> with NT.
>
> They will never release a version of IE for Linux because Intel Linux
> competes with Intel NT for market share.
>
I believe anyone at Sun or Microsoft would aggree that NT and Solaris
are competing products.
--
Kelly R. Burkhart
nospam mailto kburk at sky dot net
Gordon Scott
Kelly Burkhart (kb...@notmy.realaddress) wrote:
: nick...@cal.alumni.berkeley.edu (Nick Kralevich) writes:
: > Microsoft will never release a version of IE on a platform that competes
: > with NT.
<snip>
: I believe anyone at Sun or Microsoft would aggree that NT and Solaris
: are competing products.
Release a version, flood copies and dominate the market so no
other organisation can get a decent share -- then take it away
from everything except NT.
No, you're right. Microsoft are too well behaved to do a thing
like that.
Gordon.
Bill Anderson
> > Jeff Garzik <jeff....@spinne.com> wrote:
> > >There is only a Solaris version I think, but Linux is sure to follow
> > >shortly.
> >
> > with NT.
> >
> > competes with Intel NT for market share.
> >
> are competing products.
>
> Kelly R. Burkhart
> nospam mailto kburk at sky dot net
Since when does NT run on non-intel Sun machines?
Face it, NT competes in two primary markets, Intels and Alphas.
The MSIE for Solaris does not run on Intel machines.
Bill Anderson
Andrew Weiss
>I thought it was because UNIX had a lot to do in terms of catching up
Even a person who knows not much about internal kernel workings knows that
UNIX fries NT in threading and SMP... BTW Solaris is one of the kings of
multi-threaded OS's and at last notice, I think Linux is far along with that
as well... I'm mainly an end-user these days, though so don't quote me on
that one.
Andrew
Andrew Weiss
>No, it's not a troll. It's TRUE. Here, this is where I read about it:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/
>
You sir are the biggest SCHMO I've ever seen... you'd eat a mile of
MicroShit to take a sniff of Bill's Ass.
>I think it's wonderful that Microsoft is expending so many resources just
>to support the old world of computing. I mean, it's not like they are
Do you really like quoting propaganda?
>obligated since they have single-handedly discovered the new world for us.
Well here ya go,
"Second, there was the inevitable concern that they might come to be treated
as strangers in a strange land, crossing the industry equivalent of the
Atlantic Ocean from the Old World command-line traditions of UNIX to the GUI
New World of Windows, confronted by a host of strange new priorities:
intuitiveness, discoverability, usability. "
This is an incredible joke BTW... From the simple early releases of X11 all
the way through NEXTSTEP (arguably one of the slickest GUI's in the world),
to OpenSTEP, and CDE, UNIX leads the way in GUI's too... maybe not in
integration of every different software package on the desktop, but hey, M$
makes most of those apps too... UNIX lets people run apps that are compiled
by home users, or big corporations. BTW Bill copied Win95's GUI from NeXT,
Mac, and various others, and NeXT has been out almost since pre Win 3.0
days.
I'd change the last line of the quote to intuitiveness (yes very easy to use
Microsoft is an expert at this... I do like IE 4.0, Outlook Express, and
NetMeeting... I use them often/ alternated with ICQ Java/Linux, and Web
hosting), handcuffability (no discoverability about it, and a lot of things
are so darn restricted), and crashability (usability is the opposite no?)...
well almost.
>I also think it's great that they ported IE 4.0, since no one doubts that
>it's the best Internet experience.
Well as a long time Netscape devotee, I know they both have their benefits
and pitfalls, but Netscape has the same things as MS...Netscape Naviator
<--> IE 4.0, Netscape Conference <---> Net Meeting, Netcaster <--->
Channels, Collabra? <--> Chat? (never clicked on these to find out what they
do), Netscape built-in mail and news (here's one advantage) <---> Outlook
Express. I prefer Netscape for two main reasons... it was out first, and I
had incredible luck with v 1.0 over Mosaic, and two, it's available for
Linux, MIPS (IRIX), and just about everybody else excluding OpenSTEP
-( (though OmniWeb is supposedly very good).
For anybody who has seen the IE 4.0 page, don't you guys think Dawson is a
traitor.... that is if he really does use Linux for anything more than
playing Maelstrom... especially with how he comes off on the page,
"And the fact is that both Chapman and Dawson have grown quite comfortable
shuttling back and forth between the worlds of Windows and UNIX. "It's
amazing to me how far UNIX has to go today to catch up to NT," says Dawson.
"Take, just for one example, threading support. UNIX still has benefits, but
NT is just a lot more full-featured."
No I'd say he's not a kernel programmer, nor does he use any UNIX but Linux,
and I'm not even a programmer right now... I'm so rusty it's not even funny
(it's been 4 years now, since HS since I wrote any code), though I've been
administering Solaris Intel, Linux, OpenSTEP, NT 3.51/4.0, OpenBSD (68k),
MacOS, and Win95 (not really an administrative task) for the last 3 years,
at one point the Solaris Box was up to 650+ users(telnet/apache-web/ftp).
BTW all 4 of the first OS's listed were on the same machine at different
times. :-) Linux still rules them all, though I love OpenSTEP (it doesn't
like my SCSI or net cards, though).
Anyhow, I think Dawson, should can it and get cracking on a port for
Linux... if he's such a devotee and has access to the sources.
-.02 + lots of quarters.
Andrew
>
>greg
Andrew Weiss
>Microsoft will never release a version of IE on a platform that competes
>with NT.
IE 4.0 for MacOS. While the competition is ambiguous at times, it is
encouraged by both sides... both sides bad mouth each other, both sides need
each other (MS vs. Apple)
>
>They will never release a version of IE for Linux because Intel Linux
>competes with Intel NT for market share.
And people who would buy Windows95 and use it with Linux are supporting
MS... people who would never buy MS products no matter what will never
support MS no matter if they were using Linux, buying Solaris, or HOHO OS...
(generic *nix, lynx, os/2, whatever).
So you either use NT or you don't. But a FREE product has no market, so
thus it can't compete for a market share. People download it or don't ...
regardless of whatever else they buy. And sadly enough I don't see a lot of
Small to medium businesses getting Linux in favor of Win95/NT/BackOffice on
the desktop. And enterprise computing has enough money behind it in the IS
department to get unlimited Digital UNIX, Solaris Enterprise, HP-UX, AIX or
other such level licenses...for the time being YOU WILL NOT SEE NT in this
arena, and I think if they come in they will be squashed for once.
--Andrew
Dale Pontius
Bill Anderson
Does he keep replying with "what?"?
Bill Anderson
Andrew Weiss wrote:
>
> >Microsoft will never release a version of IE on a platform that competes
> >with NT.
>
> IE 4.0 for MacOS. While the competition is ambiguous at times, it is
> encouraged by both sides... both sides bad mouth each other, both sides need
> each other (MS vs. Apple)
> >
the have stuff for non-windows systems. That would help them when they argue
against the anti-trust/monopoly claims.
> >They will never release a version of IE for Linux because Intel Linux
> >competes with Intel NT for market share.
>
> And people who would buy Windows95 and use it with Linux are supporting
> MS... people who would never buy MS products no matter what will never
> support MS no matter if they were using Linux, buying Solaris, or HOHO OS...
> (generic *nix, lynx, os/2, whatever).
>
> So you either use NT or you don't. But a FREE product has no market, so
> thus it can't compete for a market share. People download it or don't ...
So then you can not have a monopoly on a free product either, right? :)
> regardless of whatever else they buy. And sadly enough I don't see a lot of
> Small to medium businesses getting Linux in favor of Win95/NT/BackOffice on
> the desktop. And enterprise computing has enough money behind it in the IS
You would be suprised...
> department to get unlimited Digital UNIX, Solaris Enterprise, HP-UX, AIX or
But with the changes in the structure, they *are* looking at Linux. Especially
when the persons repsonsible for looking at it realize that when the big axe
falls, either theyr cut costs, or get cut. IS is changing, it is heading for a
lower TCO and a lower entrance factor.
Besides, let 95 be on the desktop, but let it be managed by Linux servers, then
when people realize where the power is coming from, they *may* realize they
have been getting a shorter end. This puts Linux firmly in the door. Then, as
a result, we can get more development on a GUI (or two, or three, and yes I am
aware of GNOME, KDE, etc), andmore end-user apps such as office suites and
such.
> other such level licenses...for the time being YOU WILL NOT SEE NT in this
> arena, and I think if they come in they will be squashed for once.
>
> --Andrew
Of course they would get squashed, NT lacks the stability for mission-critical
operations.
This si one reason Linux has a prime opportunity to firmly establish itsself
and shrug off the low regard that has been given it.
Bill Anderson