Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
somebody
of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos of him sitting behind his desk at
bell labs.
his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically running
ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
i didn't see any mention of that in the interview, but c'mon, the co-inventor of
UNIX is now using Microsoft WINDOWS?!?!?
check out the article for yourself. dunno if it's online anywhere.
Ayende Rahien
"somebody" <d...@null.com> wrote in message
news:ds86itctacl6r1lfm...@4ax.com...
Not online yet, I think.
http://www.linux-mag.com/2001-06/toc.html
Is where it will probably be in a month or so.
Vilmos Soti
> Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There
> is an interview of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos
> of him sitting behind his desk at bell labs.
>
> his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically
> running ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
IIRC this is a company policy to use Windows. Not his choice.
Vilmos
~¿~
> Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There is an
interview
> of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos of him sitting behind his
desk at
> bell labs.
>
> his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically
running
> ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
>
> i didn't see any mention of that in the interview, but c'mon, the
co-inventor of
> UNIX is now using Microsoft WINDOWS?!?!?
Which part of '90% of the desktop' are you having trouble with?
So he wasn't in that other 10% on that day. Big deal.
Most Linux users aren't either.
(-:
Chris Ahlstrom
I saw that article. I noticed the Windows desktop, too. Here's
a quote from the article, which I'm holding in my hand:
"There are plenty of Linux fans in Lucent, even though there's a fair
amount of corporate pressure to use Windows."
Maybe that's why Lucent is doing so badly ... the corporate pressure.
Chris
--
Thanks for reading my message. Please pay up. My rates are:
US $0.35 for humorous posting. US $0.55 for trolling in Windows newsgroups.
US $0.60 for advice to Linux users. US $269 for advice to Windows users.
Hal Burgiss
>
>Maybe that's why Lucent is doing so badly ... the corporate pressure.
>
Or Windows ;)
--
Hal B
h...@foobox.net
h...@burgiss.net
hbur...@bellsouth.net
Spamtrap: u...@ftc.gov and rep...@fraud.org
--
r...@swissonline.ch
The object of the interview was about Unix, Linux, OSS and what DR is working
on now. As none of these are related to MS SW in any way why should they talk
about what happens to be running on the PC on his desk? He does mention how
important making PLAN9 OSS was.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
Donn Miller
somebody wrote:
>
> Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There is an interview
> of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos of him sitting behind his desk at
> bell labs.
>
> his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically running
> ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
*Yawn* (scratches ass). Ironically, the machine in front of him is
running an OS written in a language co-authored by him. So, he still
wins either way.
-----= 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! =-----
Ayende Rahien
"Donn Miller" <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote in message
news:3B23C37C...@cvzoom.net...
>
>
> somebody wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There is an
interview
> > of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos of him sitting behind his
desk at
> > bell labs.
> >
> > his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically
running
> > ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
>
> *Yawn* (scratches ass). Ironically, the machine in front of him is
> running an OS written in a language co-authored by him. So, he still
> wins either way.
A language which is decended from a language that he co-authored.
A large precentage of Windows is written in either C++ or objective C, I
understand.
But if we are talking about 9x (please don't tell me that he is forced to
use *that*), I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of it are written in
interrupted Basic.
GreyCloud
Find us a link and prove it.
--
V
GreyCloud
I wonder what they put in the pointy-haired bosses coffee?
--
V
Donn Miller
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> A language which is decended from a language that he co-authored.
> A large precentage of Windows is written in either C++ or objective C, I
> understand.
Actually, Window Maker is written in Objective C as well. I'd say that
the UI components of 9X are written in whatever NT 4.0's is written in,
which would probably be Objective C, C++, COM, or a mixture of these. I
know Erik Funkensbusch could answer this easily.
Ayende Rahien
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > A language which is decended from a language that he co-authored.
> > A large precentage of Windows is written in either C++ or objective C, I
> > understand.
>
> Actually, Window Maker is written in Objective C as well. I'd say that
> the UI components of 9X are written in whatever NT 4.0's is written in,
> which would probably be Objective C, C++, COM, or a mixture of these. I
> know Erik Funkensbusch could answer this easily.
COM is not a language, it's a framework, probably. There is a correct
techincal term for this which I don't know.
As a note, most of Windows is done via COM, and a lot of programs, as well.
Speculating here:
Can you make a Word file reader/writer via the COM component?
I think that this is possible, the licensing might be a problem, though.
Can you do it with WordViewer?
pip
What a load of crap.
If the inventor of Unix and C wants a computer with Linux on it : HE
GETS IT!
If he says "jump", they write a paper on how high the jump should be.
He is a pragmatic guy, they are the type that do great things as he has
done.
pip
> Find us a link and prove it.
Are you so shocked that it could not possibly be true ? :)
He probably just uses it for the games anyhow.
Chris Street
I seem to recall that he also had a hand in somthing called C
Guess what Windows was written in???
So I guess he wins either way on this one then......
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
Ian Pulsford
That was one of the original motivations behind the creation of unix.
IanP
Chris Ahlstrom
Maybe he's now in his dotage.
The Ghost In The Machine
<ahls...@home.com>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:43:37 GMT
<3B25FF05...@home.com>:
>pip wrote:
>>
>> Vilmos Soti wrote:
>> >
>> > somebody <d...@null.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There
>> > > is an interview of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos
>> > > of him sitting behind his desk at bell labs.
>> > >
>> > > his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically
>> > > running ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
>> >
>> > IIRC this is a company policy to use Windows. Not his choice.
>>
>> What a load of crap.
>>
>> If the inventor of Unix and C wants a computer with Linux on it : HE
>> GETS IT!
>>
>> If he says "jump", they write a paper on how high the jump should be.
>>
>> He is a pragmatic guy, they are the type that do great things as he has
>> done.
>
>Maybe he's now in his dotage.
More likely it's a combination of factors. The Windows system is
adequate for desktop use, and is rich in functionality -- when it
isn't crashing. By contrast, Linux is excellent for server use,
and is also rich in functionality -- but the two aren't compatible,
which cases some problems in a mixed shop. (However, things like
Samba help.)
How much does desktop reliability factor into theoretical language
research and/or compiler design? Not a heck of a lot, I'd say.
Although it doesn't help when the computer BSODs right when you're
about to put the finishing touches of a project. But many Windows
tools have autosave -- a bodge to get around a problem -- and
therefore this isn't quite as damaging as it could be.
Then again -- there are those with horror stories of losing half
a day's work, and I for one have been lucky. So who am I to say?
[.paysigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 43d:10h:04m actually running Linux.
A man and his roomie walked into a bar...."Ouch", they said.
news...@md5.ca
> More likely it's a combination of factors. The Windows system is
> adequate for desktop use, and is rich in functionality -- when it
> isn't crashing. By contrast, Linux is excellent for server use,
> and is also rich in functionality -- but the two aren't compatible,
> which cases some problems in a mixed shop. (However, things like
> Samba help.)
> How much does desktop reliability factor into theoretical language
> research and/or compiler design? Not a heck of a lot, I'd say.
> Although it doesn't help when the computer BSODs right when you're
> about to put the finishing touches of a project. But many Windows
> tools have autosave -- a bodge to get around a problem -- and
> therefore this isn't quite as damaging as it could be.
> Then again -- there are those with horror stories of losing half
> a day's work, and I for one have been lucky. So who am I to say?
clearly you are not a seasoned unix user, otherwise you will utter
otherwise. Unix with tools like bash,perl,apache, grep and syslog
is far more powerful than windows. It encourages personalism,
in way things are done. You are given as many options as it is
possible, thus allowing for flexible environment.
Windows on other hand is great for games, limited text composition
and some image manipulation. Macs are far better at last two,
so leaves Windows as a game platfrom with most games written for.
So Dennis is an avid gamer, eh?
;-)
--
"They that give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety"
110461387 -B.Franklin
Nigel Feltham
The other motivation was that he was working on the Bell Labs MULTICS
operating system project and found so many problems he thought he could
write something better by staring it again (the original name for unix was
unics as a parody of multics) - similar to the motivation linus had for
writing linux.
Nigel Feltham
> So Dennis is an avid gamer, eh?
> ;-)
>
Maybe we should do him a favour and send him copies of Tuxkart, tuxracer,
flightgear, chromium and all the other good linx games ( or suggest he
looks at www.linuxgames.com).
Joseph Meier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 6/11/01, 1:15:50 AM, GreyCloud <whol...@tscnet.com> wrote regarding Re:
Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows:
> --
> V
I've got the mag and the pictures of Ritchie's monitor are pretty
fuzzy........
Joseph Meier
Dennis Ritchie
The article doesn't seem to be online as of yesterday. I gather the
magazine is mainly paper-based.
People seem to have noticed the edges of the screen, but so far
no one has identified the contents and origin of the very large
pale-yellow window with pride of place on the screen.
Dennis
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> The article doesn't seem to be online as of yesterday. I gather the
> magazine is mainly paper-based.
>
> People seem to have noticed the edges of the screen, but so far
> no one has identified the contents and origin of the very large
> pale-yellow window with pride of place on the screen.
>
> Dennis
Okay, I apologize for speculating that you may be in your dotage!
But I can't identify the window; part of it looks like an e-mailer,
but the picture in this magazine is too blurry to tell.
Thanks for venturing into this thankless arena, dmr!
Chris
Stephan Boos
In comp.os.linux news...@md5.ca wrote:
> In comp.os.linux The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> More likely it's a combination of factors. The Windows system is
>> adequate for desktop use, and is rich in functionality -- when it
>> isn't crashing. By contrast, Linux is excellent for server use,
>> and is also rich in functionality -- but the two aren't compatible,
>> which cases some problems in a mixed shop. (However, things like
>> Samba help.)
>> How much does desktop reliability factor into theoretical language
>> research and/or compiler design? Not a heck of a lot, I'd say.
>> Although it doesn't help when the computer BSODs right when you're
>> about to put the finishing touches of a project. But many Windows
>> tools have autosave -- a bodge to get around a problem -- and
>> therefore this isn't quite as damaging as it could be.
>> Then again -- there are those with horror stories of losing half
>> a day's work, and I for one have been lucky. So who am I to say?
> clearly you are not a seasoned unix user, otherwise you will utter
> otherwise. Unix with tools like bash,perl,apache, grep and syslog
> is far more powerful than windows. It encourages personalism,
> in way things are done. You are given as many options as it is
> possible, thus allowing for flexible environment.
these tools and apps you get for windows, too.
if they're as fast as the unix/linux tools... dunno.
> Windows on other hand is great for games, limited text composition
> and some image manipulation. Macs are far better at last two,
> so leaves Windows as a game platfrom with most games written for.
you cannot say it this way. You can have a mac with linux for oparting system,
or you use your mac with the SoftWindows and it'll be slow as hell...
Windows is a nice system for desktop-use-only and if the user is not intrested what
happens (~what the OS is doing).
You get a lot of nice programs for windows, you got a easy handle OS and
(maybe) you know a lot of windows-user you can ask, if you have a problem with it.
Last but not least is windows the most used OS in companies (as desktop OS), so if you
work with an windows client in your job, you want to work with it at home, too.
I dunno if this is good or bad... *g*
> So Dennis is an avid gamer, eh?
> ;-)
*g*
Stephan.
--
zipperX(at)gmx.net
The Ghost In The Machine
<news...@md5.ca>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:06:19 GMT
<fvvV6.430992$166.9...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com>:
>In comp.os.linux The Ghost In The Machine
><ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> More likely it's a combination of factors. The Windows system is
>> adequate for desktop use, and is rich in functionality -- when it
>> isn't crashing. By contrast, Linux is excellent for server use,
>> and is also rich in functionality -- but the two aren't compatible,
>> which cases some problems in a mixed shop. (However, things like
>> Samba help.)
>
>> How much does desktop reliability factor into theoretical language
>> research and/or compiler design? Not a heck of a lot, I'd say.
>> Although it doesn't help when the computer BSODs right when you're
>> about to put the finishing touches of a project. But many Windows
>> tools have autosave -- a bodge to get around a problem -- and
>> therefore this isn't quite as damaging as it could be.
>
>> Then again -- there are those with horror stories of losing half
>> a day's work, and I for one have been lucky. So who am I to say?
>
>clearly you are not a seasoned unix user, otherwise you will utter
>otherwise. Unix with tools like bash,perl,apache, grep and syslog
>is far more powerful than windows.
The tools bash, perl, apache, and grep have all been ported, so this
isn't that much of an issue (the bodgework to work around C:\
et al, however, makes life interesting) -- as for seasoned Unix user,
I've been using variants of Unix since about 1980. But you're
right; Unix offers a customizability that Windows simply cannot
match -- if one knows how -- by relatively simple scripting.
Even X has been put on Windows -- multiple times. It's not clear
how seamlessly integrated it is at times, though -- but Cygwin's
XFree86 is at least free. Tools such as Hummingbird's eXceed
and Xwin32 (I forget who makes it) and Mi/X (which is shareware
avaialable from Microimages) are also available.
One must ask, if Windows is the dominant platform on the desktop,
why such tools exist on the general market (as opposed to a specialized
development effort and/or a custom job). Makes me go "hmm.....".
>It encourages personalism,
>in way things are done. You are given as many options as it is
>possible, thus allowing for flexible environment.
>
>Windows on other hand is great for games, limited text composition
>and some image manipulation. Macs are far better at last two,
>so leaves Windows as a game platfrom with most games written for.
I'm not even sure Windows is that great for games -- although it
depends on whether one wants frame rate, stability, simplicity,
or ubiquity. As for text composition -- what makes Windows so
great for that? TeX is far better, although not quite as
friendly (LyX helps) to the casual user.
I'll agree that Macs are probably better at text composition
and image manipulation -- though I haven't looked at their toolbox
lately. But they basically started desktop publishing (at least,
to the non-university user; presumably TeX was kicking around
before the "Peanut" debuted), and the iMac self-contained demo I
have seen is quite attractive and hints at some things (motion blur)
that Windows can only dream about. Whether these are useful things
is not clear to me personally. :-)
>
>So Dennis is an avid gamer, eh?
>;-)
Who knows? I don't. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random essential liberty here
EAC code #191 44d:06h:20m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
Bob Nelson
> somebody wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There is an interview
>> of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos of him sitting behind his desk at
>> bell labs.
>>
>> his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically running
>> ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
>>
>> i didn't see any mention of that in the interview, but c'mon, the co-inventor of
>> UNIX is now using Microsoft WINDOWS?!?!?
> People seem to have noticed the edges of the screen, but so far
> no one has identified the contents and origin of the very large
> pale-yellow window with pride of place on the screen.
> Dennis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dennis Ritchie <d...@bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 04:50:57 +0000
[...]
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; U)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give him credit for at least using WinNT now. Not too many years ago, his
postings in the C language groups were from Win95 using Mozilla. Although the
author of the anti-forward in the _Unix Haters Handbook_, he didn't write a
_Windows Haters Handbook_ in response.
Of course, dmr may be mangling his headers just like Aaron Kulkis. Right? :-)
Chris Ahlstrom
>> I've just downloaded that, and I'll install it when I can get all the
> dependencies and conflicts worked out. That's the good thing about
> Windows, you just download the installation programs and install it,
> you don't have to bother about all the dependencies and package
> conflicts etc.
Unless the installation program replaces some key Windows DLLs
or mungs some Registry entry.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Of course.
The whole impetus to writing Unix in the first place was because
he couldn't get "Space Travel" to run properly on Multics.
> ;-)
>
> --
> "They that give up essential liberty to
> obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
> liberty nor safety"
> 110461387 -B.Franklin
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Aaron R. Kulkis
You never know.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:28:13 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine))
> wrote:
>
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, news...@md5.ca
> ><news...@md5.ca>
>
> >>clearly you are not a seasoned unix user, otherwise you will utter
> >>otherwise. Unix with tools like bash,perl,apache, grep and syslog
> >>is far more powerful than windows.
> >
> >The tools bash, perl, apache, and grep have all been ported, so this
>
>
> >>Windows on other hand is great for games, limited text composition
> >>and some image manipulation. Macs are far better at last two,
> >>so leaves Windows as a game platfrom with most games written for.
> >
> >I'm not even sure Windows is that great for games -- although it
> >depends on whether one wants frame rate, stability, simplicity,
> >or ubiquity. As for text composition -- what makes Windows so
> >great for that? TeX is far better, although not quite as
> >friendly (LyX helps) to the casual user.
>
> dependencies and conflicts worked out. That's the good thing about
> Windows, you just download the installation programs and install it,
> you don't have to bother about all the dependencies and package
> conflicts etc.
That's why Windows machines spend more time crashing than running.
Nigel Feltham
> desktop OS), so if you work with an windows client in your job, you want
> to work with it at home, too.
>
Not true - I use windows in my job and this is one of the reasons I use
Linux at home. If I am forced to use unreliable crap at work then why would
I want to work with it at home as well.
Neil Ellwood
>> dependencies and conflicts worked out. That's the good thing about
>> Windows, you just download the installation programs and install
>> it, you don't have to bother about all the dependencies and package
>> conflicts etc.
>
> Unless the installation program replaces some key Windows DLLs
> or mungs some Registry entry.
>
I know what you mean.
I have a win printer (panasonic KX-P6300) that prints beautifully BUT
windows keeps losing the dll but now that I have Mandrake 8.0 I
normally just use the canon 3000 that I have via pci printer port (
also connected to wifes comp via usb) and only reinstall windows when
several things go walkabout.
--
Neil
Remove SPIDER to reply as in -
c...@netmatters.co.uk
Chris Ahlstrom
> that's a LOT) has installed flawlessly. With Linux, I'm lucky if it
> installs at all, and that's AFTER downloading all the packages and
> dealing with all the conflicts. And if you're compiling from source,
> you may as well just not bother.
Well, golly gee, I've had the opposite experience. Quite often
an installed product (usually a Microsoft product) has fucked
up my machine (or at least some of the apps that it runs).
And at least two apps (Word 2000 and Visio 2000) run slow and
act cranky on my box at work.
On Linux, I've compiled from source, installed using RPMs, and
copied software by hand. All has worked flawlessly, except for
compiling nmap, and that's probably because of Red Hat's
gcc-2.96 snafu.
Chris
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:49:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@home.com>) wrote:
>
> that's a LOT) has installed flawlessly.
You must be the ONLY one in the entire world.
Most corporations have large numbers of people who do NOTHING
except test for bad interactions between the dll's of various
Windows-based apps.
However, no such groups exist for Unix machines. Nor has their
ever been even a need for them.
Why is that?
> With Linux, I'm lucky if it
> installs at all, and that's AFTER downloading all the packages and
> dealing with all the conflicts. And if you're compiling from source,
> you may as well just not bother.
So, like, what are you doing wrong that you hose things up so badly?
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:04:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@home.com>) wrote:
>
> >drsquare wrote:
>
> >> >Unless the installation program replaces some key Windows DLLs
> >> >or mungs some Registry entry.
> >>
> >> Never happened with me. Every single program I've downloaded (and
> >> that's a LOT) has installed flawlessly. With Linux, I'm lucky if it
> >> installs at all, and that's AFTER downloading all the packages and
> >> dealing with all the conflicts. And if you're compiling from source,
> >> you may as well just not bother.
> >
> >Well, golly gee, I've had the opposite experience. Quite often
> >an installed product (usually a Microsoft product) has fucked
> >up my machine (or at least some of the apps that it runs).
> >And at least two apps (Word 2000 and Visio 2000) run slow and
> >act cranky on my box at work.
>
> being infinitely inferior to LyX.
>
> >On Linux, I've compiled from source, installed using RPMs, and
> >copied software by hand. All has worked flawlessly, except for
> >compiling nmap, and that's probably because of Red Hat's
> >gcc-2.96 snafu.
> >
>
> there.
Translation: I, drsquare, don't install the commonly used libraries...and
then wonder why they aren't available for my apps.
Booooooo fucking hooooooo.
Mark
>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:49:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>that's a LOT) has installed flawlessly. With Linux, I'm lucky if it
>installs at all, and that's AFTER downloading all the packages and
>dealing with all the conflicts. And if you're compiling from source,
>you may as well just not bother.
I spent about 4 hours on the phone recently with a user, talking them
through downloading some strange foundation classes library; the
package they'd downloaded failed with the most arcane error message
I've had to listen to. I web searched and found a stack of sites on
the internet specialising in having a huge range of downloads available
to get windows packages working.
I then had to talk him through making a backup copy of the library
incase the thing failed, rebooting into 'dos' mode, copying the
new file over the old one in the system directory, and then rebooting
back into 'windows' mode. What a nightmare.
The linux version just installed and worked, what's more, it contained
dependency info built it, in case there was a problem, so that it could
be easily sorted, unlike the mess that was windows.
Now why do those sites exist, I wonder?
--
Mark Kent
Pete Barnwell
>
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:46:01 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
> >I spent about 4 hours on the phone recently with a user, talking them
> >through downloading some strange foundation classes library; the
> >package they'd downloaded failed with the most arcane error message
> >I've had to listen to. I web searched and found a stack of sites on
> >the internet specialising in having a huge range of downloads available
> >to get windows packages working.
> >
> >I then had to talk him through making a backup copy of the library
> >incase the thing failed, rebooting into 'dos' mode, copying the
> >new file over the old one in the system directory, and then rebooting
> >back into 'windows' mode. What a nightmare.
>
>
> >The linux version just installed and worked, what's more, it contained
> >dependency info built it, in case there was a problem, so that it could
> >be easily sorted, unlike the mess that was windows.
>
> dependencies, conflicts, libraries etc? You must be using a very
> strange distribution.
A tip, Mark -
even if you have no intention of doing development work, if you say you
want a development install it will install all the libraries you will
ever need to build pretty much anything. No more dep problems...
(Provided you've got enough disk space, doing this adds ~450Mb to a
typical install, but you could save on some of this by not installing
Glade, KDevelop & similar.) This way you get all the older compat
libraries as well as the newer ones. Mind you that's not going to help
if you've found some strange package that demands the most up-to-date
version...
Pete
Rex Ballard
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahls...@home.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:43:37 GMT
> <3B25FF05...@home.com>:
> >pip wrote:
> >>
> >> Vilmos Soti wrote:
> >> >
> >> > somebody <d...@null.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> > > Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There
> >> > > is an interview of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos
> >> > > of him sitting behind his desk at bell labs.
> >> > >
> >> > > his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically
> >> > > running ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
Are you sure it was windows? Are you sure it was his office? Are you
sure that this was
his computer?
I've taken quite a few publicity shots to promote the internet.
Often, the shoots were done in
other people's offices (because the light was better, the photographer
liked it better, or because
the agency liked it better.
> >> > IIRC this is a company policy to use Windows. Not his choice.
> >>
> >> What a load of crap.
> >>
> >> If the inventor of Unix and C wants a computer with Linux on it : HE GETS IT!
AT&T may have a standard policy, and even those who are using UNIX or
Linux may have to
comply with certain corporate standards. This may mean having
multiple computers, or
some of the solutions below.
> >> If he says "jump", they write a paper on how high the jump should be.
> >>
> >> He is a pragmatic guy, they are the type that do great things as he has
> >> done.
> >
> >Maybe he's now in his dotage.
>
> More likely it's a combination of factors. The Windows system is
> adequate for desktop use, and is rich in functionality -- when it
> isn't crashing. By contrast, Linux is excellent for server use,
> and is also rich in functionality -- but the two aren't compatible,
> which cases some problems in a mixed shop. (However, things like
> Samba help.)
Keep in mind that Linux can be made to look very much like Windows.
You can use
WINE to run Windows Programs under Linux. You can run Win4Lin to run
Windows
under Linux, and you can use VMWare to run Windows NT or Windows 2000
under Linux.
Without detailed examination of the picture, it would be hard to say
which system
was being run.
Many people run Dual-boot systems so that they can run Linux and then
reboot
into Windows. In addition, if the Windows workstation also supports
X11, you can
have one console that provides full GUI access to both Windows and
UNIX or Linux.
You can also use VNC (notice who published that) to mix and match with
impunity.
And if you don't need the GUI, you can just use telnet. Many
hard-core UNIX hackers
still don't need that much GUI.
> How much does desktop reliability factor into theoretical language
> research and/or compiler design? Not a heck of a lot, I'd say.
Well, if you have a Windows system that needs reloading every few
months,
or needs rebooting every few days, it can impact your productivity.
Most people who use exclusively Windows don't really worry about it
that much. Nearly everyone has been able to use "Windows ate my
homework"
as an excuse. It's such a common problem that others simply nod and
smile in sympathy.
With a reliable system such as Linux or Windows 2000, you can get more
done
without worrying about hard drive crashes. Windows 2000 users still
have to
worry about DLL hell, and each additional driver, program, or utility
increases
the risk of having a demonically possessed computer, but the number of
applications
supported is much higher.
Because Linux supports standard foundation libraries, and because
Linux libraries
come with source code, and because there are some intense regression
testing methods
used to assure backward compatibility, you have much fewer problems
with DLL hell
(or shared library hell). It doesn't mean that it will never happen,
but it takes
a bit more effort.
> Although it doesn't help when the computer BSODs right when you're
> about to put the finishing touches of a project. But many Windows
> tools have autosave -- a bodge to get around a problem -- and
> therefore this isn't quite as damaging as it could be.
There are times when you still lose either information or productive
time.
Windows 2000, which includes many of the key features of UNIX, is much
more
reliable than any other version of Windows. If you don't use Outlook
and you
disable ActiveX controls and trusted java applets, you get a pretty
reliable
system.
> Then again -- there are those with horror stories of losing half
> a day's work, and I for one have been lucky. So who am I to say?
The 43 million Windows users lost almost 2.3 billion to the "Iloveyou"
virus. There have
been similar estimates ($500-1000 per affected user) for other nasty
viruses such as
"Resume". Others like Melissa did their damage when they filled up
the hard drives
of users and servers.
It's not that Linux can't be configured in an insecure mode, there are
certainly ways
to configure holes. Things like setting a userid/password like
root/root is a classic.
Other classics include using the actual values given in the examples
as user ids and passwords.
I would be very interested in seeing Dennis' response to this
article. I do know that he still
uses UNIX in some form, and might also be using Linux.
> [.paysigsnip]
>
> --
> ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 43d:10h:04m actually running Linux.
> A man and his roomie walked into a bar...."Ouch", they said.
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
Taavi Hein
: dependencies, conflicts, libraries etc? You must be using a very
: strange distribution.
there isn't a whole lot of things, a usual everyday program depends on. when
you have one common program installed, there is a pretty great chance, the
next common program depends on the same things you had to install because of
the first one. and your computer just runs, if your not into frequent
screw-ups and reinstalls.
ps. stressing the words _everyday_ and _common_ in the above passage.
--
Taavi Hein - he...@ut.ee
Registered Linux user #209546
Registered Linux machine #97395
T. Max Devlin
> (Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@home.com>) wrote:
>
Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net>) wrote:
>
> >Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 15 Jun 2001 05:13:37
> >>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:49:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> (Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@home.com>) wrote:
> >>
> >>>drsquare wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I've just downloaded that, and I'll install it when I can get all the
> >>>> dependencies and conflicts worked out. That's the good thing about
> >>>> Windows, you just download the installation programs and install it,
> >>>> you don't have to bother about all the dependencies and package
> >>>> conflicts etc.
> >>>
> >>>Unless the installation program replaces some key Windows DLLs
> >>>or mungs some Registry entry.
> >>
> >>Never happened with me. [...]
> >
> >Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
>
> dinners.
and....your point is?
Mark
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:46:01 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
>>through downloading some strange foundation classes library; the
>>package they'd downloaded failed with the most arcane error message
>>I've had to listen to. I web searched and found a stack of sites on
>>the internet specialising in having a huge range of downloads available
>>to get windows packages working.
>>
>>I then had to talk him through making a backup copy of the library
>>incase the thing failed, rebooting into 'dos' mode, copying the
>>new file over the old one in the system directory, and then rebooting
>>back into 'windows' mode. What a nightmare.
>
A package dependent on MFC422
>
>>The linux version just installed and worked, what's more, it contained
>>dependency info built it, in case there was a problem, so that it could
>>be easily sorted, unlike the mess that was windows.
>
>"Just installed"? You mean you didn't have to worry about
>dependencies, conflicts, libraries etc? You must be using a very
>strange distribution.
debian.
>
>
--
Mark Kent
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Keep in mind that Linux can be made to look very much like Windows.
>You can use
>WINE to run Windows Programs under Linux. You can run Win4Lin to run
>Windows
>under Linux, and you can use VMWare to run Windows NT or Windows 2000
>under Linux.
>Without detailed examination of the picture, it would be hard to say
>which system
>was being run.
Mr. Richie mentioned a prominent pale yellow window. Doesn't Win4Lin
have a big yellow splash screen?
Mark
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
>>In article <b6bnitslqhqtqiokv...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:46:01 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
>>>>dependency info built it, in case there was a problem, so that it could
>>>>be easily sorted, unlike the mess that was windows.
>>>
>>>"Just installed"? You mean you didn't have to worry about
>>>dependencies, conflicts, libraries etc? You must be using a very
>>>strange distribution.
>>
>>debian.
>
>to install both xlibs and xlibg6.
I don't generally install libs, I let apt work them out for me.
--
Mark Kent
T. Max Devlin
> (T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net>) wrote:
>
>>>On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:49:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>> (Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@home.com>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>drsquare wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I've just downloaded that, and I'll install it when I can get all the
>>>>> dependencies and conflicts worked out. That's the good thing about
>>>>> Windows, you just download the installation programs and install it,
>>>>> you don't have to bother about all the dependencies and package
>>>>> conflicts etc.
>>>>
>>>>Unless the installation program replaces some key Windows DLLs
>>>>or mungs some Registry entry.
>>>
>>>Never happened with me. [...]
>>
>>Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
>
>dinners.
You are apparently unaware of how many programs, or how many hot
dinners, I have had. Regardless, your inexperience with having problems
with DLLs and the registry remains uncompelling as an argument.
Mark
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
>>In article <44nrits2ucmqqh34r...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
>>>to install both xlibs and xlibg6.
>>
>>I don't generally install libs, I let apt work them out for me.
>
What do you mean - did you find a bug?
--
Mark Kent
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
> DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
> ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
I still remember fondly the COMCTRL32.DLL debacle that caused the
code I wrote with Visual C++ 5 to crash on my customer's
machine when he moved the mouse over a button and waited for
the tool tip to pop up.
That incident is only the most memorable, except for the older
incident where my database project would fail in odd ways,
and it was very bad, since at that time I'd never heard of
DLL Hell.
I still don't think you know what you're doing, drsquare.
Chris
--
"I'll take 'Deceased Rappers' for $200, Alex."
Thaddius Maximus
>
>
> I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
> DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
> ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
>
The only way you can make this claim is to also make the claim
that your windows machine has never crashed or exhibited weird
behavior.
....
The Ghost In The Machine
<tm...@maximus.spam.invalid>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:30:11 +0100
<3B309753...@maximus.spam.invalid>:
While I for one can attest to some weirdness in Linux behavior
(a good chunk of which may be attributable to a dodgy P90),
it's far more predictable in most cases than some of the strangeless
coming out of that other OS.
Perhaps it's because Linux (or the many fine people working thereon,
and on surrounding tools such as g++, LyX, and many many many others)
acknowledges the inherent complexity of the problem, and tries to
keep the tools as simple as possible, expecting the users
to hook them up properly (not always a reasonable hope -- some
hookups are highly imaginative, but a number of problems are caused
by various brain farts, seizures, lockups, or simple ignorance :-) ),
as opposed to Microsoft, which makes the tools complex in order to
keep things "simple". (Quick, which has more breakdowns: manuals,
or automatics? :-) )
Case in point: The Shell. In Unix, a shell is a program, fairly
easy to write (although hard to write well; there's a lot more
in there now such as command history and script parsing), and
using well-understood (at least to the computer professional)
API's [*] such as fork(), exec(), open(), signal(), and pipe(). (In
fact, with those five, one probably could make a very simple shell,
using C++.) There are at least a half-dozen variants of "shell"
in Unix, from the archetypical /bin/sh (Bourne) and its daughter,
the Bourne-again shell /bin/bash, to csh (and tcsh), zsh, ash,
and even tclsh and wish after a fashion. All of these do generally
the same thing: provide a simple command-line interface to the user.
In Windows, the Shell is far more murky. I'm not even sure where
the functionality is (it's probably in several DLLs scattered
throughout the system), or what it does; apparently, at least part
of it is designed to "open" a file [%]. (If it's a program or script,
that apparently means "execute"; some variants of Unix shells will
do an implicit CD if one types in a directory name where a program
usually goes, but that's as close as they come -- one might envision
bringing up "vi" on non-executable file names! To a Unix user, this
could get very confusing -- or very convenient. [+])
To me, at least, this smells of murky thinking, a "do-it-all" approach
that, when leveraged by such tools as Outlook, can lead to somewhat
undesired behavior, such as Trojan horses (very easy to do when one
hides the extension!).
Unix is not immune to this sort of thing, mind you -- consider the
command-in-command
/bin/sh -c "/bin/sh -c $variable"
if $variable has semicolons, quotes, backslashes, or other "weird stuff",
or forgetting to use certain options in
find . -type f | xargs grep fubar
(which should more properly be
find . -type f -print0 | xargs -0 grep fubar
) and then getting surprised by messages such as
grep: /c/Program: No such file or directory
grep: Files: No such file or directory
because xargs looks for whitespace, not newlines. These sorts of
things bedevil newbie shell programs, and can even throw experienced
developers for an occasional loop.
[snip]
[*] I'm not enthralled with the term "application procedure interface".
But that's a rant for another post. :-)
[%] One is occasionally reminded of polymorphic C++ class constructs,
such as 'void foo(baseclass * p) { p->open(); }', where p has
a number of derived classes, all having a different implementation
of open(). Good documentation is absolutely essential here,
detailing at the base class level what open() is supposed to do.
(One then hopes the derived classes don't confuse the issues too much.)
[+] A more proper implementation of this feature would probably use
the environment variable EDITOR, defaulting to 'vi' as a
hardwired backup. The danger occurs when a user, intending to
edit a shell script, types in its name only to find that the script
is being executed, instead. Microsoft even acknowledges this
problem by providing a popup menu with "Edit" as the second option.
But why not make it the first one, instead? Whoops!
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:14h:08m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. Just when you thought you were safe.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:45:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net>) wrote:
>
> >Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:28:49
> >>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
> >>>
> >>>Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
> >>
> >>Lack of experience? I've installed more programs than you've had hot
> >>dinners.
> >
> >You are apparently unaware of how many programs, or how many hot
> >dinners, I have had. Regardless, your inexperience with having problems
> >with DLLs and the registry remains uncompelling as an argument.
>
> DLLs.
you misspelled "libraries"
> With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
^^^^^
you misspelled "Windows"
> ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
^^^^^^^^^
you misspelled DLLs
Aaron R. Kulkis
Uhhhhh, shit head...what the fuck do you think is CAUSING the crashes.
that's right...the goddamned fucking LIBRARIES.
MORON.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:54:31 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
> >In article <3ocuit05c5g8df1ah...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
> >>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <44nrits2ucmqqh34r...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >>
> >>>>Surprise surprise, that's what I'm using. I take it you've never had
> >>>>to install both xlibs and xlibg6.
> >>>
> >>>I don't generally install libs, I let apt work them out for me.
> >>
> >>Well, there's a conflict there whether you like it or not.
> >
> >What do you mean - did you find a bug?
>
> used a --force-conflicts.
bulllllllshit!
Aaron R. Kulkis
That's why he lets men fuck him up the ass.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> "I'll take 'Deceased Rappers' for $200, Alex."
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:00:46 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >>
> >> I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
> >> DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
> >> ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
> >
> >I still remember fondly the COMCTRL32.DLL debacle that caused the
> >code I wrote with Visual C++ 5 to crash on my customer's
> >machine when he moved the mouse over a button and waited for
> >the tool tip to pop up.
>
> programming isn't all that good?
So says the moron who advocates men letting other men fuck them up the ass.
Thaddius Maximus
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:30:11 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Thaddius Maximus <tm...@maximus.spam.invalid>) wrote:
>
What the heck are you talking about, scooter? Your programs run fine
while your OS crashes? I have no idea what point you are trying to
get across.
....
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:00:46 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >>
> >> I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
> >> DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
> >> ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
> >
> >I still remember fondly the COMCTRL32.DLL debacle that caused the
> >code I wrote with Visual C++ 5 to crash on my customer's
> >machine when he moved the mouse over a button and waited for
> >the tool tip to pop up.
>
> programming isn't all that good?
No. I e-mailed the copy of that DLL that was installed by Visual
C++ to my customer, and that solved his problem.
Besides, that DLL debacles was written up in a couple of
tech journals (MSJ [now known as MSDN] and C/C++ Users
Journal.)
And I won't even get into how Visual C++ 6 fucked up the
friend and namespace operators.
Marco Radzinschi
[snip!]
>>So says the moron who advocates men letting other men fuck them up the
>>ass.
[snip!]
> I still don't think you know what you're doing, drsquare.
>>That's why he lets men fuck him up the ass.
What's up with the fag bashing, Mr. Kulkis?
--
Marco Radzinschi
E-Mail: ma...@radzinschi.com
AOL IM: CrackedBoy
"Then, in the dark hour before dawn, sirens blasted. They were announcing
departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me. . . . And
I felt ready to live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me
clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs
and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.
Finding it so much like myself--so like a brother, really--I felt that I
had been happy and that I was happy again." --Meursault of The Stranger
Linux Man
<d...@null.com> wrote:
> Has anyone else read the latest issue of Linux Magazine? There is an
> interview of Dennis Ritchie complete with several photos of him sitting
> behind his desk at bell labs.
>
> his monitor is clearly visible-- very obviously and very ironically
> running ms-windows! LOL, i had to laugh!
>
> i didn't see any mention of that in the interview, but c'mon, the
> co-inventor of UNIX is now using Microsoft WINDOWS?!?!?
>
> check out the article for yourself. dunno if it's online anywhere.
What makes you so sure he is even sitting at his own desk?
>
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<aku...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:40:59 -0400
<3B3196FA...@yahoo.com>:
>drsquare wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:45:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net>) wrote:
>>
>> >Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:28:49
>> >>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>
>> >>>>Never happened with me. [...]
>> >>>
>> >>>Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
>> >>
>> >>Lack of experience? I've installed more programs than you've had hot
>> >>dinners.
>> >
>> >You are apparently unaware of how many programs, or how many hot
>> >dinners, I have had. Regardless, your inexperience with having problems
>> >with DLLs and the registry remains uncompelling as an argument.
>>
>> I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
>> DLLs.
> ^^^^
>
>you misspelled "libraries"
This is another example of Windows insidiousness. The term "DLL" is a
perfectly good generic acronym standing for, of course, "dynamically-
loadable libraries"; heck, the Amiga had these in the 1980s, and so
did a number of other machines, such as Apollo DOMAIN (which was based
in Chelmsford, MA before HP bought them). (One difference: Amiga did
not have virtual memory so the libraries and data were truly shared as
well -- an issue that had to be carefully engineered so that different
processes didn't tromp on one another's feet. Apollo DOMAIN tried to
share code pages between processes at one point -- I don't know how Linux
does it today, but most likely everyone loads the page, but only one
copy resides in physical memory (since the others merely note that
it's already in memory and point to it in their virtual tables). Data
is local to the process, so tromping is reduced -- athough threads
have most likely revived this issue.)
However, nowadays, if someone says "DLL", one is likely to respond
"Oh yeah, that Windows thang". This despite the fact that Linux,
FreeBSD, and most if not all Unices have dynamically-loadable libraries
(.so or .sl files, depending on OS). (IMO, they're better-engineered
on Linux, as well, although this may have been a happy accident
based purely on a file naming convention. OTOH, I don't know the
precise history of DLLs on Unix, and it's possible they went through
"DLL Hell" before settling on the current system. [This is a
different issue from the Ordinal/Name system used on MS DLLs.
I'll have to research that at some point; which one's "better"
(faster, more flexible, smaller) from a purely machine-code standpoint.])
One could say the same thing about the term "Windows" as well --
the X Window System, to give it its formal name (http://www.x.org),
has windows as well (duh). Mac has windows, some of them very
nicely wrapped now (judging from an iMac demo) but still portals to
a rectangular abstract view of pixels, and older technologies such as GEM,
Intuition (part of Amiga again), TOS (Atari), and Xerox had windows.
But, again, when someone says Windows, many others will think Microsoft.
Ditto for Office, Proxy, Flight Simulator, Project, and SQL Server.
Not to mention almost anything beginning with "Visual". :-)
Especially Visual Basic. (Do people remember ABasic and AmigaBasic
anymore? How about GW Basic? Apple ][ and Apple /// Basics?)
(Side point: I see a "Windows Services for UNIX" in the Microsoft
list of product names
(http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/default.asp?subid=22). Hmm....)
It's got to be one of the most successful marketing strategies of
the century. How Linux can top that (anyone want "Squid"?
"XFig"? "Gee Cee Cee"? "Kay Dee Eee"? "[G]Nome"?) is far from clear.
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 6d:01h:44m actually running Linux.
Be paranoid. Everyone else is.
Dev
>With a reliable system such as Linux or Windows 2000, you can get more
>done
>without worrying about hard drive crashes. Windows 2000 users still
>have to
>worry about DLL hell, and each additional driver, program, or utility
>increases
>the risk of having a demonically possessed computer, but the number of
>applications
>supported is much higher.
I've used Win2000 and Linux, and without bashing, I can say that both are
rock-solid stable. Unfortunately, my machine, running 96MB with a 233 chip,
was slow as a rock with Win2000. My Linux side isn't a speed racer, but it
rocks compared to Win2000.
Again, I say to each goes his choice. As programmers, we should be concerned
about making the programs better, no matter what type of system the end user
uses. If they want to use Windows, I'll develop the program for Windows. If
they want to develop it for Linux, I'll use Linux. I have no use for mindless
bashers on either side.
Ayende Rahien
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:slrn9j47t5...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net...
> Ditto for Office, Proxy, Flight Simulator, Project, and SQL Server.
> Not to mention almost anything beginning with "Visual". :-)
> Especially Visual Basic. (Do people remember ABasic and AmigaBasic
> anymore? How about GW Basic? Apple ][ and Apple /// Basics?)
I agree that it's a good marketing strategy. I especially hate the name SQL
Server, because people shorten it to SQL. Buh!
Anyway, Visual * is actually quite common.
The most visual (LOL) Visual products are the ones included in VS package.
But there is;
Visual Ada
Visual Prolog (!!!)
Visual Fortran
Visual Perl *
Visual Python *
Visual Pascal
Visual Eiffel
Etc.
* Plug ins for VS.NET
Visual Ada is the only one that I've actually used, mind you. It copied VS
interface, but it doesn't have many thing that makes VC such a good IDE
(class representation {package representation, in Ada's case} intelliSense,
etc) , and the debugger sucks.
> (Side point: I see a "Windows Services for UNIX" in the Microsoft
> list of product names
> (http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/default.asp?subid=22). Hmm....)
Well, it's another misnomer, it should be Unix Services for Windows, not the
other way around.
Here is the direct link, if anyone is interested, cost 150$, btw.
http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/display.asp?subid=22&site=759&x=42&y=11
> It's got to be one of the most successful marketing strategies of
> the century. How Linux can top that (anyone want "Squid"?
> "XFig"? "Gee Cee Cee"? "Kay Dee Eee"? "[G]Nome"?) is far from clear.
XFig?
Matthew Gardiner
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> [snip!]
>
>
>>>So says the moron who advocates men letting other men fuck them up the
>>>ass.
>>>
> [snip!]
>
>
>>I still don't think you know what you're doing, drsquare.
>>
>>>That's why he lets men fuck him up the ass.
>>>
>
> What's up with the fag bashing, Mr. Kulkis?
>
> --
>
> Marco Radzinschi
Well, is it common knowledge that a person who partakes in "fag
bashing", are really actually trying to make up for the fact that they
are insecure about their sexuality, and thus, they need to "express"
their hetrosexuality by "bashing" those who have a different sexual
orientation.
Matthew Gardiner
Simon Gornall
"Common knowledge" just about sums that up. Perhaps he was just trying to
be offensive ? I think "common knowledge" lost its high ground when the
world was revealed to be spherical after all...
Actually I also disagree with the posters comment (I'm a disagreeable
person :-) but the term "Common knowledge" just pisses me off immensely,
it's an oxymoron of the highest order.
Having said that, Drsquare really is. An obvious troll, reactionary and
with little apparent knowledge of Linux. Having used (abused :-) it since
the 0.11 days (it was *much* better at writing CD's than Windows, and
it's only got better with time) I'm pretty happy with my completely
Linux work environment - even marketing don't use windows (although they
can of course read windows docs, they only send out RTF, which Word
et al can cope with happily :-)
Simon.
Dave Robbins
windows.....
"with all things being equal, the simplest explination tends to be the
right one."
GreyCloud
>
> drsquare wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:00:46 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > (Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@home.com>) wrote:
> >
> > >drsquare wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
> > >> DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
> > >> ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
> > >
> > >I still remember fondly the COMCTRL32.DLL debacle that caused the
> > >code I wrote with Visual C++ 5 to crash on my customer's
> > >machine when he moved the mouse over a button and waited for
> > >the tool tip to pop up.
> >
> > The code YOU wrote? Have you ever considered that maybe you're
> > programming isn't all that good?
>
> So says the moron who advocates men letting other men fuck them up the ass.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
Well, that's the dutch for ya. If they get tired of sticking their
fingers in dikes they start sticking something else.
GreyCloud
Maybe his point is he can drink and run a computer?
--
V
Quantum Leaper
"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:04d4jtc6codbh2bge...@4ax.com...
Great Advocates never need to bash, so I guess show none of us are great
advocates. ;)
Ayende Rahien
"Dave Robbins" <da...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.01062...@cc290967-a.catv1.md.home.com...
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Chris Ahlstrom
Occam Schmoccam <grin>
Mark
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:54:31 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
>>In article <3ocuit05c5g8df1ah...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <44nrits2ucmqqh34r...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>
>>>>>Surprise surprise, that's what I'm using. I take it you've never had
>>>>>to install both xlibs and xlibg6.
>>>>
>>>>I don't generally install libs, I let apt work them out for me.
>>>
>>>Well, there's a conflict there whether you like it or not.
>>
>>What do you mean - did you find a bug?
>
>used a --force-conflicts.
Ah, so you managed then, with the provided tool. What's the problem?
--
Mark Kent
Mark
>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:45:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (T. Max Devlin <tm...@commercelinks.net>) wrote:
>
>>Said drsquare in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:28:49
>>>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:21:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
>>>>>Never happened with me. [...]
>>>>
>>>>Your lack of experience is uncompelling.
>>>
>>>Lack of experience? I've installed more programs than you've had hot
>>>dinners.
>>
>>You are apparently unaware of how many programs, or how many hot
>>dinners, I have had. Regardless, your inexperience with having problems
>>with DLLs and the registry remains uncompelling as an argument.
>
>DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
>ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
The only example you've come up with was fixed using the standard
package management system anyway.
--
Mark Kent
Mark
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:31:13 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Thaddius Maximus <tm...@maximus.spam.invalid>) wrote:
>
>>drsquare wrote:
>
>>> >The only way you can make this claim is to also make the claim
>>> >that your windows machine has never crashed or exhibited weird
>>> >behavior.
>>>
>>> It crashes frequently, but all programs have installed and run fine.
>>
>>
>>What the heck are you talking about, scooter? Your programs run fine
>>while your OS crashes?
>
>
>
Er, so what causes the OS to crash then?
--
Mark Kent
Debian User
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:33:56 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
>>In article <t4v0jt4gupo9ek6pd...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:45:58 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
>>>>dinners, I have had. Regardless, your inexperience with having problems
>>>>with DLLs and the registry remains uncompelling as an argument.
>>>
>>>I have installed many programs, and I have never had problems with
>>>DLLs. With Linux on the other hand, it's rare to be able to install
>>>ANYTHING without libraries or other packages conflicting.
>>
>>The only example you've come up with was fixed using the standard
>>package management system anyway.
>
>who knows what damage that can cause.
What do you mean? Are we still talking about xlib6g and xlib6?
If you are, your system should have xlib6g for libc6 packages and
*might* have xlib6 on it for libc5 packages - there's no conflict
in that.
--
Mark Kent
The Ghost In The Machine
<now...@nowhere.com>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:33:37 +0100
<p0fcjtc3adi6ua9mg...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:34:47 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>
>>In article <ltc4jt8ta7ang40c7...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:31:13 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
>>>>
>>>>What the heck are you talking about, scooter? Your programs run fine
>>>>while your OS crashes?
>>>
>>>No, when anything crashes it's the OS. Programs never crash.
>>
>>Er, so what causes the OS to crash then?
>
I do wonder which parts of the NT system are the crash-happy ones.
I suspect the kernel is extremely robust (and tiny to the point
of being useless per se). Drivers are definitely a possible problem;
so are GUI components, especially if they're added into the kernel.
Of course, since source code isn't available.... :-)
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 10d:05h:02m actually running Linux.
Hi. What's your sign? Mine's "Out To Lunch".
Debian User
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, drsquare
><now...@nowhere.com>
> wrote
>on Sun, 24 Jun 2001 20:33:37 +0100
><p0fcjtc3adi6ua9mg...@4ax.com>:
>>On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:34:47 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (ma...@otford.kent.btinternet.co.uk (Mark)) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ltc4jt8ta7ang40c7...@4ax.com>, drsquare wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:31:13 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>
>>>>>> It crashes frequently, but all programs have installed and run fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>What the heck are you talking about, scooter? Your programs run fine
>>>>>while your OS crashes?
>>>>
>>>>No, when anything crashes it's the OS. Programs never crash.
>>>
>>>Er, so what causes the OS to crash then?
>>
>>The OS being shit.
>
>I do wonder which parts of the NT system are the crash-happy ones.
>I suspect the kernel is extremely robust (and tiny to the point
>of being useless per se). Drivers are definitely a possible problem;
>so are GUI components, especially if they're added into the kernel.
>
>Of course, since source code isn't available.... :-)
>
Which is the fundamental problem - only Microsoft are likely to
know, but because of the Microkernel design, even they may be
unable to identify what makes their OSs so unstable.
--
Mark Kent