 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettable com> wrote :
>
> Saying don't make it so, pal.
Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
technology.
Sure all the other OS's have one or two of the many reasons, but Windows
has them all. And sure Windows has some problems and each of the other OS's
have some of those problems as well as different problems of their own.
"I don't like Windows", no matter how often repeated doesn't mean
something is not a standard. I don't like 10/32 threaded pan head slot
screws, but they are a standard for hanging ceiling fans. I don't like wire
sized screws at all, but they are a standard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> > Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
> > masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
> > impact.
>
> Oh, this is bull.
>
> First off, Windows is also a GUI sitting on a command line.
Regardless of statements to the contrary, yes, Windows is still a GUI on top of
DOS. Additionally, in order to maintain backward compatibility, Windows has had
to keep a lot of badly designed legacy code. Windows has picked up a lot of new
baggage, a really incredible amount, in their attempt to be everything to all
people. I must say that I do enjoy programming for Windows using a properly
designed framework (Borland's VCL under C++Builder), but I can't wait for the
Linux version to come around.
> Second, there were plenty of masses using DOS. They didn't need no
> steenkin' Windows.
I have installed the CygWin environment (Unix on Windows) so I can have the nice
Unix-type tools that Windows is lacking. It helps ease the pain ;-)
> And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
> making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
> else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
> which one that is.)
... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon. I've always wondered if Apple
didn't look at Windows when it first came out and remarked the phrase that
Cheech Marin quoted in one of his movies: "Hey, man! Somebody ripped off what I
ripped off!" ;-) What I like about Apple lately is their close attention to
what the public wants, now. Their new machines are really nice.
I use my Linux box more than I use my Windows box, but I have to say that I
can't recommend it to my less computer literate friends and family, yet. But I
would recommend a Mac to them before I recommended a Windows machine. I just
think that they have really got their act together now, and they know exatcly
where they are going.
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Saying don't make it so, pal.
>
> Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
> formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
> your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
> be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
> written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
> Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
> technology.
I think there is a point to be clarified here.
Most software is not written "for Windows". This implies choice of the
basis of merit, when no such choice is made. Programmers don't generally
sit down and say, "gee, Windows beats the hell out of everything else, I
think I'll write software for it". Likewise, companies don't generally
say, "hey, we just really happen to LIKE Microsoft".. unless, of course,
they're coerced by monopoly power. ;P
The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
platform.. which is to say, the largest. Ignoring the fact that the
different flavors of Windows tend to have all sorts of funny software
incompatibilities, this largest platform would be Windows.. but it could
just as easily be Macintosh, or Linux, or anything else, because the
software development has absolutely nothing to do with the platform itself.
Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
programs". They make their systems play native programs. The only
exception I can think of is people who run Windows in emulation.. which
tells me that those people are being given no choice as to whether to
run Windows or not, but are so opposed to using it as their native OS
that they would rather take a performance hit than switch platforms.
And, as a matter of fact, there's plenty of Windows-only software that a
lot of non-Windows users simply couldn't care less about. I don't need a
Windows text editor or a Windows FTP client; I have Mac-only versions
which I think are equal or superior to similar software available for Windows.
The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal.. not the neurotic
interface nightmare from Redmond. Powerful use of new technology? This
could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its competitors.
I submit that there is no standard.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> >
> > And third, if you want to make this kind of argument, you should be
> > making it about the platform that brought us a GUI long before anyone
> > else did, and that Windows blatantly ripped off. (I think we all know
> > which one that is.)
>
> ... which Apple got from Xerox and improved upon.
Got perfectly legally, I should point out. Apple paid Xerox quite a lot
to look at what was essentially a crude interactive proof-of-concept
mockup that demonstrated interface principles which had been floating
around since (supposedly) the 60s. And if someone bothered to read about
that old Xerox GUI, they'd find that it wasn't really very similar to
the Mac OS after all.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote in message <3A2FC179.111E06A3@worldonline.nl>...
>Since this NG is geared toward animations
>most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection
and so
>they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
>other software
My two cents: I've got a 26400 connection. I figure I can download 10MB per
hour.
--
Mark
"The derivative of sin(2x) is cos(2x)" - Matt Giwer
"I never said that" - Matt Giwer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rob Verweij wrote:
>
> most of it's readers probably have a reasonable World Wide Web connection and so
> they have the abillity to download the latest and greatest of codecs or any
> other software/driver and I strongly suggest they do because if you wanna keep
> up with the rest it's best to have the latest technologies at your disposal and
> currently for online animations DivX;-) can't be beat. It has super quality at a
Yes, I have good connection to the internet (mostly at about 100 to 300
kBytes
per second), but I am not willing to install yet another codec on my
system.
MPEG is enough. Why install another one for 2% size decrease with 2%
better
quality?
> people to miss out on your latest and greatest animation then post them in
> several different formats. Especially in 3DCGI, people preffer quality and
Now that's nice: You want to save bandwidth with a "better" codec and
then
suggest to post it in several formats? Sheesh...
> that's what DivX;-) delivers: High quality at a great compression ratio. Have
That's what MPEG delivers, too.
> you ever tried to create a descent looking animation using the Cinepak codec?
Noone talked of cinepak.
Markus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
>
> Most software is not written "for Windows".
><snip>
> The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
> platform..
Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows", looking
at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
programming for Windows. Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
written for windows and some of them are ported to other OS's only after
months of popular use in Windows.
> Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
> programs".
Yes, they do. Perhaps most of the scrambling was done before you started
using computers, but I remember how many people came into my store asking
for a way to make Mac play Windows programs. There was a -huge- scramble
when it became possible.
> The rest of your comments in that paragraph are simply ridiculous. Ease
> of use to newcomers? If anything, that's a Mac, pal
I did say that other OS's have some of the same benefits, just because
Mac is easy to use doesn't mean Winows is not. The best thing about Windows
is that because it is such a widespread standard, if you need a little help
with your computer, you can go right next door and ask your neighbor or go
down to almost any computer, software or office store and get some free
advice.
> Powerful use of new technology? This
> could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
Now that -is- rediculous. You not being able to see what it means does
not negate it's meaning. As to what it means, Linux can't see my CDRW and
all the voice tech stuff is written for windows. And before you start up,
yes, other OS's address some new technology too. That does not detract from
the fact that Windows does too.
> Now, then.. if none of those things makes Windows a standard, what does?
> There's no body with the authority to declare Windows the standard in
> computing, and given the number of people who don't like it, I think you
> can hardly claim common consent. Though niche markets they may be, Mac
> and Unix were around long before Windows, and seem to be surviving
> despite its presence, so Windows can hardly be the standard by default.
> And it certainly doesn't earn that status through merit; few people
> would suggest that Windows is significantly more advanced than its
competitors.
The "standard" is not declared, it develops. I had a Renault once and
people used to jibe me about my boxy little car, then I let a couple of
friends drive it and the response was very gratifying. They all said how
nice it was to drive. One of them made a telling point. He said, "Well it is
not as nice as a BMW or a Mercedes." I agreed and said that at least he was
not comparing it to a Ford Pinto. Standards.
> I submit that there is no standard.
Well, those who walk into a computer store and just -assume- that a
computer has and will run Windows will probably disagree with you. Perhaps
you are using too narrow a definition of the word "Standard". Neither I nor
most people would claim that it is the -only- or even the -best- standard,
but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
to meet or exceed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
> to meet or exceed.
Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
that comes with them.
Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
of its product, except maybe sales.
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:34:22 -0500, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
>> Ken wrote:
>> > By using a "Windows only" codec you are in effect catering to the
>> > 90% of the worlds computer users that operate on a Windows platform.
[...]
>As for the use of Win, it depends on whether you're talking about a
>pov-specific community or the whole world.
>
>TheCounter.com statistics. First column is the 2200 visitors to the
>10best.raytrace.com site, the other is the half a billion visitors to all web
>pages in the TheCounter.com database.
>
> [1] [2]
>Win 98 43% 66%
>Win NT 17% 7%
>Win 95 12% 15%
>Win 2K 8% 3%
>Linux 7% 0%
>Unkn 4% 2%
>Mac 3% 2%
>Unix 2% 0%
>
>Total
>Windows 80% 91%
To add statistics which may (or may not) be more relevant for the
discussion about which file formats are appropriate for this group, here
is the distribution of the 45 people who posted here recently:
Windows: 38 84 %
OE: 21 47 %
Netscape: 14 31 %
Forte: 2 4 %
XNews: 1 2 %
Linux: 3 7 %
Netscape: 2 4 %
KNode: 1 2 %
Other Unix: 2 4 %
tin: 2 4 %
Mac: 2 4 %
Netscape: 2 4 %
This actually fits your statistics from TheCounter.com surprisingly
well.
The sample is rather small and includes quite a few people who have
posted only once, but I'd be confident in saying that 80-90% use some
kind of Windows, and the rest is widely dispersed.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Es war nicht Gegenstand der Abstimmung zu
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | Punkt 1b), die Anordnung der natürlichen
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | Zahlen neu festzulegen.
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Johannes Schwenke <jby### [at] ginkode>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Er... Have you even seen Linux?
yes I duel boot.
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://www.kitty5.com
Hi-Impact web site design & database driven e-commerce
TEL : +44 (01625) 266358 - FAX : +44 (01625) 611913 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3A2FADC4.DAF1E011@pacbell.net...
>
>
Sometimes I really
> miss not being able to use some of the added bennefits of posting
> in html. It would be really nice to color highlight or underline a
> phrase to add emphasis to a statement or hightlight a problem in
> scene code. Plain text is boring and restrictive.
>
Oddly enough, I was thinking, just last night, how useful HTML would be
in my .sig - I could make the 'E-Mail', 'PGP Key' and 'Pandora's Box' bits
into links and the actual addresses would get hidden away - plus text only
browsers would just show the whole thing address and all. But then I
realised just how many 'don't post HTML' flames I'd get.
--
Scott Hill.
Software Engineer.
E-Mail : sco### [at] innocentcom
PGP Key : http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371
Pandora's Box : http://www.pandora-software.com
*Everything in this message/post is purely IMHO and no-one-else's*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote :
>
> Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
> hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
> using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
> that comes with them.
Hmmm... I don't remember if or how much Lotus we sold before windows.
But you are probably right, between Lotus and Word (or Word Perfect)
probably 90% of the PC use was built on them. We were selling DOS program
managers before Windows, but I can tell you that when Windows came out,
people clamoured for it because of it's share-tasking. They wanted to have
their address book andc alculator and word processor working at the same
time.
> Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
> of its product, except maybe sales.
Matter of opinion I guess. When I see them spend marketing money to
convince people that they now have Windows like features, I think they are
trying to meet or exceed a standard. Even when Linux says that their OS is
faster than Windows and uses less resources, they are using Windows as the
standard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> >
> > Most software is not written "for Windows".
> ><snip>
> > The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
> > platform..
>
> Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows",
"I can write programs for the largest platform." Or, "I can write
programs for my own computer." I doubt that they choose Windows for any
reason which is inherent to the platform, and my point stands.
> looking
> at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> programming for Windows.
Don't even get me started on shelf space.
> Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
> written for windows and some of them are ported to other OS's only after
> months of popular use in Windows.
Reread what you quoted above until you grasp its simple meaning.
> > Other platforms do *NOT* "scramble to make their system play Windows
> > programs".
>
> Yes, they do. Perhaps most of the scrambling was done before you started
> using computers, but I remember how many people came into my store asking
> for a way to make Mac play Windows programs. There was a -huge- scramble
> when it became possible.
And how many people scrambled for a Mac-like GUI in 1995? If you want to
talk about the past, you can, but I don't see how it's relevant.
> I did say that other OS's have some of the same benefits, just because
> Mac is easy to use doesn't mean Winows is not.
No. But compared to a Mac, it isn't.
> > Powerful use of new technology? This
> > could mean anything; consequently, it means nothing.
>
> As to what it means, Linux can't see my CDRW and
Well, Linux is funny that way. Someone's probably working on a driver; I
wouldn't know, or particularly care.
> all the voice tech stuff is written for windows.
Somehow, I don't think so. Of course, I would have to know what you mean
by "voice tech stuff".
The Mac has voice synthesis, the ability to be controlled partly through
spoken commands, dictation software, and (with OS 9) voice security.
Obviously, you must not mean any of those, since they were not written
for Windows (although Windows does have native versions of at least some
of those kinds of software).
How much of this "written for Windows" voice tech is actually part of
Windows, and how much of it is third-party? You could hardly claim that
Windows makes powerful use of third-party technology; on the contrary,
it would be the other way around.
> Perhaps
> you are using too narrow a definition of the word "Standard".
Perhaps.. so let me be specific.
There is no platform standard such that a person or company should feel
justified in creating software/hardware/whatever only for that platform
on the basis that non-compliant platforms are "broken" or "wrong".
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Scott Hill" <sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote in message
news:3a30fbe5@news.povray.org...
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:3A2FADC4.DAF1E011@pacbell.net...
> >
> Sometimes I really
> > miss not being able to use some of the added bennefits of posting
> > in html. It would be really nice to color highlight or underline a
> > phrase to add emphasis to a statement or hightlight a problem in
> > scene code. Plain text is boring and restrictive.
> >
>
> Oddly enough, I was thinking, just last night, how useful HTML would be
> in my .sig - I could make the 'E-Mail', 'PGP Key' and 'Pandora's Box' bits
> into links and the actual addresses would get hidden away - plus text only
> browsers would just show the whole thing address and all. But then I
> realised just how many 'don't post HTML' flames I'd get.
>
I've seen many things done, including the use of Java and Flash, in other
message boards. I can get restrictive because of the additional download time
and snarl up the cursor too.
However, web page-like text could be useful under certain circumstances I
believe. So I would have to agree somewhat about that with Ken T.
Talking two different things here I think is the problem. Message boards such
as this aren't meant to be web pages :-) My contention has always been that if
every newsreader were more configurable to what the intention is by the user
then there probably would never be this sort of argument.
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > but comon sense tells us that it is a standard, one that other people strive
> > to meet or exceed.
>
> Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
> hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
> using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
> that comes with them.
And the rest of the world says it was Visicalc for the Apple II and
Lotus ate their lunch when "windows" were no more than an embedded
feature of the 8086 chip that was used for TSR (Terminate and Stay
Resident) programs. They were only ascii subsets of a full screen but
they were called windows and activated by hot keys.
Atari commissioned the adaptation of Visicalc for its 400/800 line and
it was sold for $US199 plus tax. That is where I first encountered it. I
can assure you the 6502 did not know from even the ascii window of the
8086 and that was all before IBM adopted the stupid chip and the equally
stupid CP/M knockoff OS.
Atari's OS was doubly indirect which made it extensible to the limits
of available RAM unlike certain other OSs I could name.
> Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
> of its product, except maybe sales.
Other graphics products don't even charge for it.
--
Here is the rule and read it clear, only the US government can
invoke god and no one else can.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 167
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> "Francois Labreque" <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote :
> > Windows is a standard for only one reason: Lotus 1-2-3. If the latter
> > hadn't taken the market by storm in the Eighties, everyone wouldn't be
> > using a PC, and hence everyone wouldn't be using the perating system
> > that comes with them.
> Hmmm... I don't remember if or how much Lotus we sold before windows.
> But you are probably right, between Lotus and Word (or Word Perfect)
> probably 90% of the PC use was built on them. We were selling DOS program
> managers before Windows, but I can tell you that when Windows came out,
> people clamoured for it because of it's share-tasking. They wanted to have
> their address book andc alculator and word processor working at the same
> time.
The earliest successful word processor was microstar. It was ported
(not a word used at the time) for Apple, Atari and Comodore. Later for
the IBM introduction to the competition.
PC as in Personal Computer was invented by a writer for Kilobaud around
1978 and used by IBM in the name IBM PC.
The WS folks were doing great but then decided to make a complete
departure from their very successful produce and released a real piece
of shit that no one liked. While that was happening the really insane
creation of two profs at Brigham Young U called Word Perfect changed
their entire ad campaign to "the word processor for the rest of us / for
the non-programmer."
By the time the wordstar folks had recovered keyboards were being
produced with the control key below the shift key rather than above so
that WS was nearly impossible for anyone without large hands to use. One
of the undiscovered conspiracies in the PC business is who replaced the
control key with a huge and 99.99999999% useless caps lock key and why.
> > Other platforms are not striving to meet or exceed Windows in any aspect
> > of its product, except maybe sales.
> Matter of opinion I guess. When I see them spend marketing money to
> convince people that they now have Windows like features, I think they are
> trying to meet or exceed a standard. Even when Linux says that their OS is
> faster than Windows and uses less resources, they are using Windows as the
> standard.
If windows were an MS invention rather than Intel's and just
capitalized that would be something of interest. The GRAPHIC interface
and the rat are traceable back to PARC while Gates was in gradeschool.
That the real world.
Author's note:
I really did learn to program on a teletype and stored by programs on
paper tape.
--
The right of States to seceed from the United States
can not be contested save by force of arms.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 345
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > "Xplo Eristotle" <inq### [at] unforgettablecom> wrote :
> > >
> > > Most software is not written "for Windows".
> > ><snip>
> > > The truth is, most software is written for the most profitable
> > > platform..
> >
> > Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> > people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows",
>
> "I can write programs for the largest platform." Or, "I can write
> programs for my own computer." I doubt that they choose Windows for any
> reason which is inherent to the platform, and my point stands.
There are people who love classes and descent and inheritance. There
are folks right now who are discovering extending that idea to the
Windows Registry means it is impossible to strip unnecessary code and
DLL contents. It is called many things and I am in the minority politely
calling it code bloat. There is no way to know what code is unnecessary
without being the programmer. No compiler can be smart enough.
I have written programs for the largest (at the time in 1967 but who
remembers the RCA Spectrum?) and for the Bally Arcade in 4k Palo Alto
Tiny Basic and several in between. There are few reasons to choose a
graphics environment unless the purpose is graphic images. (I am also
familar with the Univac 1107 and the FASTRAN drum if anyone wants to
swap war stories.)
One produces a product and then adds environments to it if there is an
interest. From my point of view, I write what I want for my uses and
nothing more. I will make it available but in my Gnu mindset long before
Gnu "you do it."
One of my programs (RPN calculator when there were only a two others
and not as today when there is a race to collect all of them) was
received with "if you would only make it TSR" meaning invoked by a hot
key "I would pay for it." Sorry, no. Not my interest in this thing.
Which sort of gets us back to "Why I want to learn C++." And the answer
is that there is no good reason to learn it other than understand what
is going on in the commercial, repeat commercial, software industry
these days.
To wit, even three wit, it is difficult to find an application that
really requires a much a 200k of compiled code save for the graphics
hooks and handles and object code that bloats it by 10 to 100 times its
real size. One of my programs (Turbo Pascal) is 44k in native compile
with no calls to anything in DOS and bloats to over 700k even in linux
(Free Pascal) as a console app because of the methods used by the
compiler.
> > looking
> > at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> > using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> > programming for Windows.
> Don't even get me started on shelf space.
Most of the books are books about books and inherently worthless.
And that is one of the inherent mysteries of programming. I have never
heard any programmer credit any book. I have only heard people who are
not really progammers but looking for "how to" crediting books. Yet the
books sell. I am too stunned to be amazed.
--
Remember the Ozone/CFC scare? The Ozone Hole gets bigger
but CFCs have been declining since 1995. Will CFCs be
legal again? Is there a Tooth Fairy?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 114
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:24:56 -0500, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
wrote:
> Windows is the standard, evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long to
>supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention Linux
>windowing systems...
LOL!!!
Every time I start to wonder why Windows is so widespread, I hear or
read something like this from someone like you and I realise it...
though I still do not understand it. Good marketting and
advertismenent is one thing, but successfully fooling millions into
believing myths calls for a marketting genius (which Gates seems to
be). Or do you not know that it has always been Windows that has
replicated ideas from the Mac GUI?
As for those among you who don't know, there's no such thing as a
Linux windowing system. There's no such thing as a Unix windowing
system either, for those of you who still don't make the difference.
It's the X windowing system and it is an entity as separate from the
OS. And Windows has a long way to go before it reaches the standards
of X in stability and device independence, not to mention remote
terminal sessions.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 07:44:01 -0600, "Jon S. Berndt" <jsb### [at] hal-pcorg>
wrote:
>As far as which platform supports which formats, Windows supports a wide range,
>but Linux appears to support a quite sufficient portion of these, as well. Here
>is the relevent portion of the man page for xanim (and there are plenty of other
>animation players out there for Linux - and I am sure that Mac supports a huge
>variety of players, as well):
<veeery ling list snipped>
LOL, Not bad for player for an 'inferior' OS :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
>
> LOL, Not bad for player for an 'inferior' OS :)
>
> Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
> Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
> TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
First,as everyone of course realizes, this discussion is utterly useless.
So I can safely join in ;)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
imply another to be inferior, does it?
The obvious comparison is video where there were a couple if systems that were
generally considered to be superior but still VHS became the standard.
BTW, shouldn't this discussion be in OT? (where I wouldn't read it...)
Remco
http://www.xs4all.nl/~remcodek/xmasman.html - a fully POV-ed Xmas screensaver!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> imply another to be inferior, does it?
> The obvious comparison is video where there were a couple if systems that were
> generally considered to be superior but still VHS became the standard.
I think we may be referring to "Standard" with different intentions. I propose
this: Windows is not a standard per se, but it uses many standards that others,
and Microsoft, have created or are trying to create (and in some cases have been
pushed upon us).
The study of human factors and GUI design have been driven jointly by the
capabilities that an OS can give us, the way people interact with information,
human factors specialists who study how we process information, real-world
analogs like lists, buttons, etc. In my recollection, Xerox, Macintosh - perhaps
even Amiga - had a say in the development of this new area. When Windows came
around a lot of these ideas had been in place already. Without some research,
it's hard to say who contributed what to the still-evolving concensus of what
makes the best GUI, but there are definite standards that have evolved, and you
can see the similarities in the way things work between Gnome, KDE, MS-Windows,
Macintosh, IRIX, Amiga, etc. And when the WWW began rising to prominence and
Netscape was dominant, Microsoft was caught sleeping, but look at the standards
that have emerged from that which have become part of the way we interact with
computers - Microsoft had very little to do with "innovation" there, although
they tried to foist various things upon us and tried to hijack Java. They have
followed the lead of the industry in this case. Arguably, OpenGL has become the
standard in 3D graphics APIs, and MIcrosoft has used this.
So, we have to be careful in making sure we all understand what is meant by
saying something or other is the standard.
> BTW, shouldn't this discussion be in OT? (where I wouldn't read it...)
Yes, it foes, but I wouldn't read it there
either and this is kind of fun ;-)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:d9s33t0vl20g7hkdjvu78do388em5dupcj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:24:56 -0500, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
> wrote:
>
> > Windows is the standard, evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long
to
> >supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention
Linux
> >windowing systems...
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Every time I start to wonder why Windows is so widespread, I hear or
> read something like this from someone like you and I realise it...
> though I still do not understand it. Good marketting and
> advertismenent is one thing, but successfully fooling millions into
> believing myths calls for a marketting genius (which Gates seems to
> be). Or do you not know that it has always been Windows that has
> replicated ideas from the Mac GUI?
Windows rebuilt a wheel when it made a GUI like Mac already had. How
else would you make a wheel but round? It was much like several other
systems already available including "DeskMate" a simple Tandy system that
rode over DOS and allowed mouse clicking on programs you wanted to run.
Perhaps Mac copied RadioShack?
But that is -not- what I was talking about. Mac thought they needed to
be able to run Windows Compatible programs to stay in business. So they
worked long nights to make it so. Fortunately for them, product loyalty
carried them through what even giving computers to teachers so that they
would teach Mac to millions of students couldn't prevent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> > I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> > imply another to be inferior, does it?
> > The obvious comparison is video where there were a couple if systems that were
> > generally considered to be superior but still VHS became the standard.
>
> I think we may be referring to "Standard" with different intentions. I propose
> this: Windows is not a standard per se, but it uses many standards that others,
> and Microsoft, have created or are trying to create (and in some cases have been
> pushed upon us).
>
> The study of human factors and GUI design have been driven jointly by the
> capabilities that an OS can give us, the way people interact with information,
> human factors specialists who study how we process information, real-world
> analogs like lists, buttons, etc. In my recollection, Xerox, Macintosh - perhaps
> even Amiga - had a say in the development of this new area. When Windows came
> around a lot of these ideas had been in place already. Without some research,
> it's hard to say who contributed what to the still-evolving concensus of what
> makes the best GUI, but there are definite standards that have evolved, and you
> can see the similarities in the way things work between Gnome, KDE, MS-Windows,
> Macintosh, IRIX, Amiga, etc. And when the WWW began rising to prominence and
> Netscape was dominant, Microsoft was caught sleeping, but look at the standards
> that have emerged from that which have become part of the way we interact with
> computers - Microsoft had very little to do with "innovation" there, although
> they tried to foist various things upon us and tried to hijack Java. They have
> followed the lead of the industry in this case. Arguably, OpenGL has become the
> standard in 3D graphics APIs, and MIcrosoft has used this.
>
Your choice of words already indicates a certain opinion (I don't even know what
foist is but it doesn't sound very appreciative, I do know what hijack is). I
don't think Microsoft can claim to be inventors or developers of the GUI
standard (if there is one), neither can Apple or any other single company. Some
may have come up with the seeds but GUIs are constantly developing as is the
interface hardware.
Strange thing is that it seems that there's much more then the GUI in Windows or
any other OS. Also, since it's obviously not very hard to emulate a GUI it's of
little importance as to whether any OS is a standard or not.
Besides that there is also a difference in context which confuses the
discussion. I don't think a lot of people would argue about Mac being the
standard in computer aided graphic design. That's probably because most
designers use a Mac. There will probably be similar standards in other fields
(webservers, industrial applications, science, personal use etc.).
> So, we have to be careful in making sure we all understand what is meant by
> saying something or other is the standard.
>
> > BTW, shouldn't this discussion be in OT? (where I wouldn't read it...)
>
> Yes, it foes, but I wouldn't read it there
> either and this is kind of fun ;-)
>
Yes, it seems to be. 8)
As long as it doesn't turn into another religious war.
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon S. Berndt
> League City, Texas
> jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Remco
Oude Tonge
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> Your choice of words already indicates a certain opinion (I don't even know what
> foist is but it doesn't sound very appreciative, I do know what hijack is). I
> don't think Microsoft can claim to be inventors or developers of the GUI
> standard (if there is one), neither can Apple or any other single company. Some
> may have come up with the seeds but GUIs are constantly developing as is the
> interface hardware.
I guess my post might be kind of confusing, but the point I was trying to get
across is this:
I don't believe that an operating system can be looked at as a Standard, by any
definition of the word. An OS uses different technologies or methods of
operation which might be accepted as "Standard", such as OpenGL, Drag-and-drop,
cut-and-paste shortcut key definitions, etc.
An OS might be made up of a collection of those technologies or methods that are
accepted as Standards, as well as some unique features which are native only to
that single OS. I would say that a Windows/Intel machine is a "platform", as is
a PowerPC running OS X or an Alpha running Linux, etc.
A statement was made earlier in this thread:
+++
"Saying it is not without giving reasons that actually apply to the
formation of a standard in an industry doesn't make it so either, what's
your point. There have been many reasons posted here as to why Windows can
be considered a standard, wide range of use, large number of programs
written for it while other OS's scramble to make their system play the
Windows programs, ease of use to newcomers and powerful use of new
technology.
Sure all the other OS's have one or two of the many reasons, but Windows
has them all. And sure Windows has some problems and each of the other OS's
have some of those problems as well as different problems of their own."
---
I do not agree at all with the above statement. Given my prior explanation, I
would say that Windows is merely the most commonly used platform, or the most
widely used OS. Some of that is because of marketing - you must admit that Bill
Gates is a marketing genius. It is also easy to use (for the most part) for
those who really do not like computers that much. You certainly would not use it
in a render farm for a movie like "Titanic". You wouldn't use it for anything
that needed security, either. But, I have a Windows machine, and two Linux
boxes. I enjoy programming for Windows, occasionally. But, it really grates on
me to hear people exclaim how great Windows is. Whether it is true, or not, the
first thing that comes to mind when I hear someone say that is: "Here is someone
who has gotten his first computer and has studied pretty hard about how to use
Windows and be a "Power User" for a whole year <snicker> and now thinks they
understand the entire industry."
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> imply another to be inferior, does it?
It does when you have people like Ken saying that if you're not using a
certain OS, then any compatibility problems you have as the result of
using a different OS are your fault, not the fault of the person who
caused you to have compatibility problems.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
> But, it really grates on
> me to hear people exclaim how great Windows is. Whether it is true, or not, the
> first thing that comes to mind when I hear someone say that is: "Here is someone
> who has gotten his first computer and has studied pretty hard about how to use
> Windows and be a "Power User" for a whole year <snicker> and now thinks they
> understand the entire industry."
>
How about someone who is (earning a living) writing software for an OS that can
actually be used or even bought by a large group of users?
To think something is "nice" or even "great" doesn't mean you're instantly blind
to its shortcomings. Focussing on those shortcomings to prove another such
things is better seems to be more a type of blindness.
> Jon
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon S. Berndt
> League City, Texas
> jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
That seems more like a problem of deciding whose 'fault' something is, not
exactly an inherent statement about quality.
If someone sent me a letter in Chines I could blame him for making it unreadable
to me or I could blame myself for not being able to read Chines but it says
nothing about the quality of the Chines language or my own language. Or does it?
Let's see, is English a better language then for instance French or Latin? Why
would it be that French or Latin were 'standard' languages sometime among
certain groups of people. Because they were supposed to be better at that time?
Remco
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte wrote:
> >
> > I think there is a misunderstanding here. Saying one OS is a standard doesn't
> > imply another to be inferior, does it?
>
> It does when you have people like Ken saying that if you're not using a
> certain OS, then any compatibility problems you have as the result of
> using a different OS are your fault, not the fault of the person who
> caused you to have compatibility problems.
>
> -Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> "Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
> >
> > But, it really grates on
> > me to hear people exclaim how great Windows is. Whether it is true, or not, the
> > first thing that comes to mind when I hear someone say that is: "Here is someone
> > who has gotten his first computer and has studied pretty hard about how to use
> > Windows and be a "Power User" for a whole year <snicker> and now thinks they
> > understand the entire industry."
> >
>
> How about someone who is (earning a living) writing software for an OS that can
> actually be used or even bought by a large group of users?
Prior to three months ago I had been with a company that sells data management
systems to large pipeline companies. We used C++Builder and Oracle to develop
the software. IIRC, the app we were writing was selling in the high five digit
range. It was a very large program with a long design and production phase. It
was written to run on Windows. It was a rewarding and challenging project to
work on. I already knew what Windows could do, but during those years I worked
on that project I also learned what it could not do. One of those things was
that every so often my machine had to be rebooted because it just could not
manage memory properly. My linux box runs for weeks at a time while I beat the
h@ll out of it.
When I hear someone give an unqualified and blanket statement about how great
Windows is the first statement that comes to mind is as I described above, but
prior to writing that I made a stipulation "Whether it is true or not" [that the
user is unqualified to make such a judgement]. I admit that I could be wrong,
and that it is somewhat prejudicial of myself to make such a statement, but it
comes from past experience that often I am correct in that assumption. It really
depends on the situation.
> To think something is "nice" or even "great" doesn't mean you're instantly blind
> to its shortcomings. Focussing on those shortcomings to prove another such
> things is better seems to be more a type of blindness.
True, but I am much more receptive to a subjective opinion when it is more
limited or more directed than simply saying "Windows is great. Windows is the
standard. Everyone tries to emulate Windows". I could readily agree with someone
if they said merely: using POV-Ray on Windows is fun, or that "you can find
software to do anything under Windows", or that "in general, plug and play under
Windows works fairly well".
Jon
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon S. Berndt
League City, Texas
jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:24:56 -0500, "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom>
> wrote:
>
> > Windows is the standard, evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long to
> >supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention Linux
> >windowing systems...
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Every time I start to wonder why Windows is so widespread, I hear or
> read something like this from someone like you and I realise it...
> though I still do not understand it. Good marketting and
> advertismenent is one thing, but successfully fooling millions into
> believing myths calls for a marketting genius (which Gates seems to
> be). Or do you not know that it has always been Windows that has
> replicated ideas from the Mac GUI?
The method used was as old as the Atari and Commodore competitors to
the Apple II. They paid (co-developed so it would not be so obvious) the
most popular software companies to port their products to Windows. Atari
paid Visicalc to port their spreadsheet to the 800. MS paid (by then)
Lotus to port to windows. There was also a deal with Word Perfect (which
had just eaten WordStar's lunch) to port to Windows.
The only thing that is a modest secret is that Gate's parents are
filthy rich and got him over the early hurdles, off the ground and tons
of very experienced advice.
> As for those among you who don't know, there's no such thing as a
> Linux windowing system. There's no such thing as a Unix windowing
> system either, for those of you who still don't make the difference.
> It's the X windowing system and it is an entity as separate from the
> OS. And Windows has a long way to go before it reaches the standards
> of X in stability and device independence, not to mention remote
> terminal sessions.
There a graphics app with hooks and handles for damn near anything to
be applied.
--
What you don't remember you can never forget.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 62
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
>
>
> True, but I am much more receptive to a subjective opinion when it is more
> limited or more directed than simply saying "Windows is great. Windows is the
> standard. Everyone tries to emulate Windows". I could readily agree with someone
> if they said merely: using POV-Ray on Windows is fun, or that "you can find
> software to do anything under Windows", or that "in general, plug and play under
> Windows works fairly well".
>
I totally agree.
But saying 'Windows is great' is just as much a simplification as saying
'Windows sucks'. That's all I'm trying to say, actually 8)
> Jon
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jon S. Berndt
> League City, Texas
> jsb### [at] hal-pcorg
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:00:40 +0100, Remco de Korte wrote...
> That seems more like a problem of deciding whose 'fault' something is, not
> exactly an inherent statement about quality.
> If someone sent me a letter in Chines I could blame him for making it unreadable
> to me or I could blame myself for not being able to read Chines but it says
> nothing about the quality of the Chines language or my own language. Or does it?
> Let's see, is English a better language then for instance French or Latin? Why
> would it be that French or Latin were 'standard' languages sometime among
> certain groups of people. Because they were supposed to be better at that time?
'Scuse me guys, but could you take this to povray.off-topic, as it was
exactly this sort of argument which caused me to abandon said group.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular, so please don't feel
victimised, Remco :) Instead it's aimed at all those discussing OS pro's
and cons in an animation newsgroup.
Thank you for your time.
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jamie Davison wrote:
>
> This is not aimed at anyone in particular, so please don't feel
> victimised, Remco :)
I don't need you to feel victimised ;)
Seriously: I agree with you, I suggested something similar before, but then I
wouldn't be able to follow the discussion any longer (whose loss?) so as long as
it stayed here I 'contributed'.
Cheers!
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
: Windows is the standard,
Standard of what?
: evidenced by the way Mac tried for so long to
: supplant it but then finally became Windows compatible, not to mention Linux
: windowing systems...
Well, with the same arguments one could say that C64 is the standard.
You can run C64 programs in almost every system because there are C64
emulators available for them.
The fact that there's support for one system in another system doesn't
mean that the emulated system is some kind of "standard".
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
: what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
: sitting on top of a command line OS?
You clearly have no idea what Unix is.
Unix is not a command line OS. Unix is not a graphical OS.
The Unix operating system is a core which handles several things an operating
system has to handle (like processes, resources, memory and so on). You can
use the Unix operating systems through several user interfaces. One of these
interfaces is the command line shell. Another one can be a graphical windowing
system.
There are even Unix machines out there which do not have ANY user interface,
not even a command line shell.
The X windowing system does not rely on the command line shell. It's far
independent of any shell. It uses the operating system directly.
You can start X from a command line shell. You can start a command line
shell from X. You don't need one to use the other, though.
I think that you just have the so-called command-line-fobia-syndrome.
: Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
: masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
: impact.
Not true. MacOS was the first operating system which made computers
accessible to the masses.
And even if we say that, we have to admit that Windows is a big step
backwards in versatility and stability.
The instability of Windows is well known. Everyone agrees with that.
As for verstatility, you just can't do anything with Windows. It doesn't
offer you any good tools for making anything advanced. Only simple (which
doesn't mean they are small) tools are given to make very simple tasks
(eg. in file management). But Windows doesn't offer any powerful tools
for eg. managing your files.
For example, if I want to make a small CGI program in my home page which,
for example, handles guestbook entries (and creates a page to show all
the entries to the world), that's quite easily done in Unix. You need about
10 lines of script code to do that.
However, trying to do the same in Windows is a lot harder. You'll probably
to use some programming language (and of course Windows doesn't give you
any compiler, what a surprise) and mostly external programs (not found in
Windows itself).
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3a339c8e@news.povray.org...
> Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> : Windows is the standard,
>
> Standard of what?
That is the question isn't it? Those objecting seem to assume that we
mean standard of excellence, then call us stupid because of that. It is just
a standard, like 1/4x20 threads on a bolt. You rarely see 33/64x19 threads
on a bolt. Why? Because you have to have standards. If you are going to make
an OS, you should use some standard to compare it to, you can either say it
is faster than Windows or slower, easier than Windows or harder, more
efficient or less. You could also use UNIX, as Linux does when they compare
the various distributions, ie: It is closer to UNIX or further away in this
or that quality. Just because you have 1/4x20 bolts doesn't mean you can't
have 3/4x10s.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> For example, if I want to make a small CGI program in my home page which,
> for example, handles guestbook entries (and creates a page to show all
> the entries to the world), that's quite easily done in Unix. You need about
> 10 lines of script code to do that.
> However, trying to do the same in Windows is a lot harder. You'll probably
> to use some programming language (and of course Windows doesn't give you
> any compiler, what a surprise) and mostly external programs (not found in
> Windows itself).
While I mostly agree with you, there are two statements above that need
clarification:
First: shell scripting IS a programming language.
Second: Unix doesn't have built-in compilers either. What you should
have said is that most Unix packages, usually come with a bundled C
compiler. But not all of them do. SCO, for example, doesn't unless you
buy the "advanced" package.
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> : what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> : sitting on top of a command line OS?
>
> You clearly have no idea what Unix is.
>
That's me 8)
> Unix is not a command line OS. Unix is not a graphical OS.
I think that goes for most OS's. Confusing the interface with the OS can mess up
the discussion severely. With regard to Windows, I've heard and read several
times that Windows isn't a real OS because it's just a graphical shell on DOS. I
think that that has become less true with every new version but still talking
about the shell saying it is stolen from Apple says little about the OS.
> The Unix operating system is a core which handles several things an operating
> system has to handle (like processes, resources, memory and so on). You can
> use the Unix operating systems through several user interfaces. One of these
> interfaces is the command line shell. Another one can be a graphical windowing
> system.
I agree and again I think you can apply that on more OS's.
> There are even Unix machines out there which do not have ANY user interface,
> not even a command line shell.
I think it would be possible to rig a Windows machine to look that way (there
are several boot options already).
>
> The X windowing system does not rely on the command line shell. It's far
> independent of any shell. It uses the operating system directly.
> You can start X from a command line shell. You can start a command line
> shell from X. You don't need one to use the other, though.
>
> I think that you just have the so-called command-line-fobia-syndrome.
>
> : Windows is a major advance in that it has made computers accessible to the
> : masses, I don't see any of the competition having anything like that kind of
> : impact.
>
> Not true. MacOS was the first operating system which made computers
> accessible to the masses.
>
Hm, I was also thinking about a Commodore, Spectrum or MSX (or similar).
> And even if we say that, we have to admit that Windows is a big step
> backwards in versatility and stability.
Compared to what?
> The instability of Windows is well known. Everyone agrees with that.
> As for verstatility, you just can't do anything with Windows.
Teehee 8)
> It doesn't
> offer you any good tools for making anything advanced.
Bwaahaa!
> Only simple (which
> doesn't mean they are small) tools are given to make very simple tasks
> (eg. in file management). But Windows doesn't offer any powerful tools
> for eg. managing your files.
> For example, if I want to make a small CGI program in my home page which,
> for example, handles guestbook entries (and creates a page to show all
> the entries to the world), that's quite easily done in Unix. You need about
> 10 lines of script code to do that.
Now that's a very important thing! Handling a guestbook in 10 lines!
You should have a look at Steve Gibsons site and then come back here and repeat
this.
(http://grc.com)
> However, trying to do the same in Windows is a lot harder. You'll probably
> to use some programming language (and of course Windows doesn't give you
> any compiler, what a surprise) and mostly external programs (not found in
> Windows itself).
You could use assembler if you wanted to make it real hard on yourself, or use
the WinApi to make it a bit easier on yourself (but still get quite small
programs) or you could use one of the several development platforms which hand
you a bunch of functionality on a silver platter (resulting in big files).
This way you can do much more then handle a guestbook entry, with a program that
will perhaps have a couple of hundred lines of visible code (and thousands you
don't need to bother about) while you only have to do a few mouseclicks and
enter a handful parameters.
This still doesn't really say anything about the underlying OS, though...
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Kind regards,
Remco
(PS I've put the follow-up to off-topic so this'll be my last contribution in
this part of the thread)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
: First: shell scripting IS a programming language.
Well, strictly speaking, yes.
The most important difference with common programming languages is that
the shell script is very closely related to the Unix system and its tools.
Using unix tools (usually separate little programs, sometimes shell builtin
commands) is very natural and straightforward using a shell script.
In most programming languages this isn't as easy. Usually programming
languages are quite independent from the system and so, calling system tools
is not as easy.
: Second: Unix doesn't have built-in compilers either. What you should
: have said is that most Unix packages, usually come with a bundled C
: compiler. But not all of them do. SCO, for example, doesn't unless you
: buy the "advanced" package.
Well, it's more an exception than a rule that in a randomly chosen Unix
there's no cc command... :)
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote:
:> Not true. MacOS was the first operating system which made computers
:> accessible to the masses.
: Hm, I was also thinking about a Commodore, Spectrum or MSX (or similar).
Commodore, Spectrum and MSX didn't have easy-to-use graphical user
interfaces. MacOS does. I don't know about AmigaOS.
:> And even if we say that, we have to admit that Windows is a big step
:> backwards in versatility and stability.
: Compared to what?
To Unix, what else?
Windows is still incapable of making things that unix was able to do
in the 70's. Not even Windows NT (although NT is a lot better in this matter).
:> It doesn't
:> offer you any good tools for making anything advanced.
: Bwaahaa!
Why do you laugh?
It doesn't even offer tools for simple things.
For example, suppose that I want to replace a string in every .txt file
with another string.
In unix? One simple command. In Windows? I don't know how you can do it
(without using external programs). Perhaps you can, but I don't know how.
: Now that's a very important thing! Handling a guestbook in 10 lines!
You are sticking to details.
The important part was not the 10 lines. The important part was that you
can make it easily with a short code. You don't need specialized 3rd party
tools nor 3rd party compilers for that. There are more than enough tools
in unix itself to do this. That's the point.
: (but still get quite small programs)
I wasn't talking about the size of the program. I was talking about how
easy it is to do it with the tools offered by the OS.
Please understand what I'm talking about and don't stick to details.
: This way you can do much more then handle a guestbook entry, with a program that
: will perhaps have a couple of hundred lines of visible code (and thousands you
: don't need to bother about) while you only have to do a few mouseclicks and
: enter a handful parameters.
But that's the whole point.
You need to make quite a lot of work to get a simple program. You need a
3rd party compiler and you have to make a several hundreds of lines long
program for making something that is very simple and limited.
What if you want to modify the program afterwards? You'll have to go to
the source code, modify it and recompile. Quite a lot of trouble.
: (PS I've put the follow-up to off-topic so this'll be my last contribution in
: this part of the thread)
povray.binaries.off-topic? Is that a new group I'm not aware of?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Remco de Korte <rem### [at] onwijscom> wrote:
> :> Not true. MacOS was the first operating system which made computers
> :> accessible to the masses.
>
> : Hm, I was also thinking about a Commodore, Spectrum or MSX (or similar).
>
> Commodore, Spectrum and MSX didn't have easy-to-use graphical user
> interfaces. MacOS does. I don't know about AmigaOS.
Accessability is not all about GUI.
>
> :> And even if we say that, we have to admit that Windows is a big step
> :> backwards in versatility and stability.
>
> : Compared to what?
>
> To Unix, what else?
Oh, wow...
> Windows is still incapable of making things that unix was able to do
> in the 70's. Not even Windows NT (although NT is a lot better in this matter).
>
> :> It doesn't
> :> offer you any good tools for making anything advanced.
>
> : Bwaahaa!
>
> Why do you laugh?
> It doesn't even offer tools for simple things.
> For example, suppose that I want to replace a string in every .txt file
> with another string.
> In unix? One simple command. In Windows? I don't know how you can do it
> (without using external programs). Perhaps you can, but I don't know how.
>
There are two things to consider:
1° why and how often would I (or the average user) want to replace a string in
every .txt file with another string. I also do other things with my system.
2° I laughed because I probably interpreted your remark a bit wrong: there are
no builtin tools for a lot of tasks but the workd is crawling with applications
to do things you couldn't even dream of, not only for Windows (though they are
probably the most common) but for all sorts of OS.
> : Now that's a very important thing! Handling a guestbook in 10 lines!
>
> You are sticking to details.
Perhaps, but you're using those details as arguments.
> The important part was not the 10 lines. The important part was that you
> can make it easily with a short code. You don't need specialized 3rd party
> tools nor 3rd party compilers for that. There are more than enough tools
> in unix itself to do this. That's the point.
Point taken.
>
> : (but still get quite small programs)
>
> I wasn't talking about the size of the program. I was talking about how
> easy it is to do it with the tools offered by the OS.
> Please understand what I'm talking about and don't stick to details.
That's what I referred to in the rest of my reply: you have several options,
from very easy to very hard. Want to make a database-application? Use Delphi,
everything is already there.
>
> : This way you can do much more then handle a guestbook entry, with a program that
> : will perhaps have a couple of hundred lines of visible code (and thousands you
> : don't need to bother about) while you only have to do a few mouseclicks and
> : enter a handful parameters.
>
> But that's the whole point.
> You need to make quite a lot of work to get a simple program.
No, you don't! All of the work has already been done. You just have to put the
piece together with a coupl eof simple movements.
You need a
> 3rd party compiler and you have to make a several hundreds of lines long
> program for making something that is very simple and limited.
> What if you want to modify the program afterwards? You'll have to go to
> the source code, modify it and recompile. Quite a lot of trouble.
It seems to me you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> : (PS I've put the follow-up to off-topic so this'll be my last contribution in
> : this part of the thread)
>
> povray.binaries.off-topic? Is that a new group I'm not aware of?
No, that was a mistake. I've tried it again this time. Why didn't you? Wanted to
nitpick on a detail perhaps?
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Cheers?
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> : First: shell scripting IS a programming language.
>
> Well, strictly speaking, yes.
> The most important difference with common programming languages is that
> the shell script is very closely related to the Unix system and its tools.
> Using unix tools (usually separate little programs, sometimes shell builtin
> commands) is very natural and straightforward using a shell script.
> In most programming languages this isn't as easy. Usually programming
> languages are quite independent from the system and so, calling system tools
> is not as easy.
>
> : Second: Unix doesn't have built-in compilers either. What you should
> : have said is that most Unix packages, usually come with a bundled C
> : compiler. But not all of them do. SCO, for example, doesn't unless you
> : buy the "advanced" package.
>
> Well, it's more an exception than a rule that in a randomly chosen Unix
> there's no cc command... :)
Maybe my original complaint wasn't clear enough. While most Unices do
provide a bundled C compiler, it is not part of the operating system.
It is merely an application bundled with the package that includes the
operating system and many tools and applet. Would you argue that
Solitaire or the calculator are part of the Windows operating system?
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:05:44 -0500, "Bill DeWitt"
<bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
> That is the question isn't it? Those objecting seem to assume that we
>mean standard of excellence, then call us stupid because of that. It is just
>a standard, like 1/4x20 threads on a bolt. You rarely see 33/64x19 threads
>on a bolt. Why? Because you have to have standards.
Inch threads?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
> Inch threads?
Don't even start with that, Peter !
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
: Would you argue that
: Solitaire or the calculator are part of the Windows operating system?
You didn't understand what I meant.
I consider tools and applications part of the OS if they come with the
OS distribution when you buy it. That is, you don't have to buy/download
separate 3rd party programs but you can use the ones that came with the
system itself.
The tools may not be strictly part of the core operating system, but they
are part of the package. In Windows you get almost no tools for efficient
usage of your computer when you buy Windows in the store, while in almost any
Unix package you get lots of useful little tools (which are often quite
closely related to the OS itself). That was what I meant.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows"
It's a shame that people associate languages with OSes. C++ is available on
almost all OSes.
> looking
> at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> programming for Windows.
That's because people programming in Windows need more help. :)
Just kidding... It's because of all the extra APIs that Windows introduces
that are non-standard or proprietary including multimedia APIs, registry,
etc.... This is good and bad at the same time. Good because developers
don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime they start a new program. Bad
because it's proprietary and changes from release to release.
If you want to learn C++ on another platform (say Mac, Unix, or whatever),
you would look for a book on C++, not C++ for XXX.
> Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
Probably true. Even Java programs written on Windows are for Windows only.
;)
"Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Richard Dault wrote:
>
> > Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> > people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows"
>
> It's a shame that people associate languages with OSes. C++ is available on
> almost all OSes.
And you can use other languages to develop Windows apps as well.
>
> > looking
> > at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> > using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> > programming for Windows.
>
> That's because people programming in Windows need more help. :)
> Just kidding... It's because of all the extra APIs that Windows introduces
> that are non-standard or proprietary including multimedia APIs, registry,
hmmm... curses, ncurses, tkl, gkl, qt, Athena Widgets, Motif widgets...
you can't say that Microsoft is the only company (or organism) that
write their own classes..
> etc.... This is good and bad at the same time. Good because developers
> don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime they start a new program. Bad
> because it's proprietary and changes from release to release.
> If you want to learn C++ on another platform (say Mac, Unix, or whatever),
> you would look for a book on C++, not C++ for XXX.
If I wanted to learn C++, I'd buy a C++ book. If I want to learn about
the Microsoft Foundation Classes, I'd buy a book about those. The same
goes for X.
>
> > Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
>
> Probably true. Even Java programs written on Windows are for Windows only.
> ;)
>
> "Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".
And your point is?
--
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
flabreque | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir? You realize it
@ | actually means changing the bulb!"
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> : what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> : sitting on top of a command line OS?
> You clearly have no idea what Unix is.
> Unix is not a command line OS. Unix is not a graphical OS.
> The Unix operating system is a core which handles several things an operating
> system has to handle (like processes, resources, memory and so on). You can
> use the Unix operating systems through several user interfaces. One of these
> interfaces is the command line shell. Another one can be a graphical windowing
> system.
And linux also, correct.
> There are even Unix machines out there which do not have ANY user interface,
> not even a command line shell.
> The X windowing system does not rely on the command line shell. It's far
> independent of any shell. It uses the operating system directly.
> You can start X from a command line shell. You can start a command line
> shell from X. You don't need one to use the other, though.
>
> I think that you just have the so-called command-line-fobia-syndrome.
Lets us expand upon X windows. That is a hook into the kernal, a way to
make the kernal work using a graphic interface.
When talking command line, BASH, ASH, KSH and whatever are also hooks
into the kernal. The SH in all of those is SHell. Bourne Again SHell,
Korn SHell.
(And X applications are most always, without exception I have found,
graphic shells over SHells but that is another subject.)
--
The great lie is not that only antisemites question
the jewish holocaust, the great lie is that it can
not be questioned.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 246
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > That's because people programming in Windows need more help. :)
> > Just kidding... It's because of all the extra APIs that Windows
introduces
> > that are non-standard or proprietary including multimedia APIs,
registry,
>
> hmmm... curses, ncurses, tkl, gkl, qt, Athena Widgets, Motif widgets...
> you can't say that Microsoft is the only company (or organism) that
> write their own classes..
True, but all the packages you mentioned are typically not written by the
company who wrote the OS. Not to mention that they are typically available
from multiple vendors (and usually even have a GNU version).
BTW, I wasn't bashing Microsoft here, I was just pointing out that there is
much more available with the OS which some authors try to combine into one
book. But instead, people should learn C++ first, then learn about specific
APIs such as MFC.
> > etc.... This is good and bad at the same time. Good because developers
> > don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime they start a new program.
Bad
> > because it's proprietary and changes from release to release.
> > If you want to learn C++ on another platform (say Mac, Unix, or
whatever),
> > you would look for a book on C++, not C++ for XXX.
>
> If I wanted to learn C++, I'd buy a C++ book. If I want to learn about
> the Microsoft Foundation Classes, I'd buy a book about those. The same
> goes for X.
Yup, exaclty my point.
> > "Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".
>
> And your point is?
No point. I read that somewhere a long time ago and found it funny. Edlin
is one of the funniest editors written and is still distributed with all
versions of Windows. I wonder why? I really don't think anyone uses it
anymore (or ever has!).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Richard Dault" <rda### [at] yahoocom> wrote :
>
> No point. I read that somewhere a long time ago and found it funny.
Edlin
> is one of the funniest editors written and is still distributed with all
> versions of Windows. I wonder why? I really don't think anyone uses it
> anymore (or ever has!).
I used it extensively. Before windows and for some time after the first
releases. When a person's computer was killed by things like deleting
command.com or autoexec.bat, I would go in with a small dos disk with edlin
and a few other tools and set it back up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Richard Dault wrote:
>
> > > "Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".
> >
> > And your point is?
>
> No point. I read that somewhere a long time ago and found it funny. Edlin
> is one of the funniest editors written and is still distributed with all
> versions of Windows. I wonder why? I really don't think anyone uses it
> anymore (or ever has!).
I used it a lot. It was horrible 8) (in the beginning) Anyway, that was in the
DOS-days when I had hardly heard about Unix. Interfaces have gone a long way
since then.
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
