Linux-Advocacy Digest #482, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Mike Kenzie)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? ("Paul D. Smith")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (mlw)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (mlw)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 3 Mar 2000 00:09:25 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 23:10:14 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The term "conspiracy theory" is applied as a disparaging,
>invalidating label, generally by Right-wing propagandists
>against people who research and publicize covert Right-wing
>operations.
You have not shown that what is going on to be any kind of "operation".
The problem is that you have no evidence to support a lot of the claims
you make. At least you've coughed up some evidence to show that some
of these guys are liars. But there's still no evidence that any of them
are working for Microsoft.
> The labelling is intended to prevent the public
>from accessing the information that such researchers provide.
Well that would assume that the "researchers" are providing information.
By and large, you haven't done so.
You are merely pointing out that the term "conspiracy theorist" is used
to attack visionaries and whistle blowers. However, it's also used to
attack kooks. This reminds me of the line "They laughed at Gallileo, they
laughed at the Wright borthers", etc. They also laughed at Krusty the clown.
>attempt to "give them the benefit of the doubt", in spite
>of a great deal of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
The only evidence ( and not much of it, btw ) you've offered is
entirely circumstantial. And you've offered no evidence of collusion.
You've offered some evidence of deception ( namely using multiple identities )
>But you are making progress. You recently wrote, in response
>to Jeff Szarka, a lying pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
>spammer of long standing:
>
>] And the very fact that I am running semi modern hardware
>] with Linux proves that your statement is a lie ( I would
>] have merely said "your statement is false" but when you
>] repeat a false statement after it has been refuted, it
>] becomes a "lie". )
>
>That's telling it like it is, Donovan! Apparently even
Yes, well he said an outright lie, and I called him on it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 00:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:32:26 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>> > > But they don't have to share it with us. They'd be within their rights
<SNIP>
>
> The result is that we'll be left with an industry driven by volunteers,
> and we'll only have Open Source software. Which would make RMS happy. But
> those who don't want to use Latex and Emacs for the rest of their life
> will be less amused.
If this was the case in an open source model they would be free to build a
front end to these packages to make them as friendly as they like. They
could pass them to a friend who would make suggestions and over a beer
they would make an imporvement. If these were copyrighted and released
under license this would be illegal and everyone would suffer.
I've spent the better part of 3 days now trying to get an old win95 machine
to connect to the net. When I first read the comment about corporate profits
and quality sotfware I thought about an inverse relationship. By cutting
back on support and testing they make a profit. I spent 2 years withthe
techs from Dell and MS trying to get a NT workstation running. Dell says
tht the 30 day support period is over yet it has never, and MS says it's
Dells problem. I took the machine loaded on SuSE and had the problem
solved in a day. I still have troubles with the mail but I can ask a
question and have a hope of getting an answer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:10:47 -0500
Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Wait, wait! There are other scary items forthcoming:
>> >
>> > a) Resolution of the 2038 problem. 2^31-1 seconds from Jan 1, 1970
>> > happens to be in 2038. Stuff Will Break Then.
>> >
>> > This is the end-of-epoch that is the UNIX equivalent to the "Year
>> > 2000 cliff" that everyone worried last year about.
[snip]
>It might be true that in 2038 most people don't care about what happened
>before 2000-01-01, but the *transition* would be tough anyway.
>
>One could, however, perhaps consider changing time_t from signed to
>unsigned - that would add another 68 years to the life-time of the
>32-bit time_t.
However, it would no longer be possible for time_t-returning functions
to return -1 in the event of an error.
Another way to expand the lifetime of the 32-bit time_t is to make it
64-bits long by declaring it as 'long long'.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 02 Mar 2000 19:09:49 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
%% [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon) writes:
>> Also the 2038-problem differs because it is Not There on 64bit
>> machines with any semi-well written software (which uses the time
>> struct). Thus, repair means just a recompile on a 64bit machine.
>> Since you'll have to recompile anyway, there's no problem.
j> This assumes the hardware will be replaced. This is not always
j> true. Take XYZ Corp. who just invested $UmpteenMillion in their
j> new WhizBang5000 Unix-based computer system. There's a *very*
j> good chance that system will still be there in 2038, operating
j> all of XYZ Corp.'s critical accounting and MRP functions. Why
j> replace it?
Why indeed?
A very common misconception, that you have to have a 64-bit computer to
deal with 64-bit numbers. That's not true at all. Plenty of 16-bit
systems deal with 32-bit numbers, eh?
What you need is a compiler for the WhizBang5000 that supports the "long
long" type, which is mandated to be at least 64 bits and is now part of
the current ISO C standard. Then you need a version of the WhizBang5000
OS which has been updated to have time_t be a 64-bit value (long long
instead of the current long). Then you need the source code to your
apps.
Then you recompile them, and they work.
You _did_ write the code correctly, and not so it relied on the
underlying size of the time_t type, right?
--
===============================================================================
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
===============================================================================
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 00:18:26 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:02:40 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2000 21:34:43 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it doesn't. Vendor stupidity makes life harder for the
> end user.
It does -- because the user needs to negotiate a different font system
for each application.
> Lack of a proper API only makes life hard for
> applications vendors that can't quite manage by themselves
> or won't bother.
So why make life hard for applications vendors? It's all well to blame the
application vendors for being lazy, especially if you have no understanding
of what the task at hand requires. But the fact remains that the Linux
development tools are primitive and difficult to use in this instance.
Surely, this is not a good thing.
>>You would need to re-write both the display and print parts, unless
>>you're willing to print at screen resolutions. In other words, you are
>>essentially suggesting that the developers replace the font handling
>>function of the X server in their applications. This is not only very
>>difficult ( especially if you want to maintain network transparency ),
>>it involves a lot of low level programming.
>
> What, are these guys secretaries to be coddled? Really...
No. But it's not a terribly easy task, and it should not be necessary
to rewrite this code for each and every application.
I don't know why you're insulting the developers -- because your prior
posts indicate that you simply put, do not know what you're talking about
( how do you get the metrics and outline files again ? What's the X API
call ? ) For all your "it's easy, if they can't do it they're stupid"
comments, you don't show yourself to be any more knowledgeable.
> The lack of a standard font print rasterizer is NOT an
> excuse for what commercial Unix app coders put their
> users through wrt fonts.
How could they make it easier, Jedi? Tell us an easy way to build WYSIWYG
printing into an application ( in a way that makes it easy for the user ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:21:05 -0500
Jon wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > > > a) Resolution of the 2038 problem. 2^31-1 seconds from Jan 1, 1970
> > > > happens to be in 2038. Stuff Will Break Then.
> > > >
> > > > This is the end-of-epoch that is the UNIX equivalent to the "Year 2000
> > > > cliff" that everyone worried last year about.
> >
> > I am not sure that I care about this one, it is 37 years away. In 37
> > years, 64 bit computers will be obsolete.
>
> This is precisely the logic that *created* the Y2k problem.
> Thinking that the problem will go away by itself due to software
> or hardware obsolesence is a huge mistake. Anything you write
> today that will break in 2038 and happens to have your name on it
> will generate a following of People Who Curse Your Name in 37
> years. Corporations have a nasty tendency to buy/invest only
> once and hire consultants to fix things later on. This results
> in much longer than expected lifespans for hardware and software.
>
> Jon
So what, exactly, was the problem with Y2K? I still don't get that one.
You do the numbers, is it cheaper to maintain or rebuild? Sometimes it
is cheaper to rebuild and sometimes it is cheaper to maintain. Clearly,
in retrospect, waiting 'till the last minute to fix the Y2K 'bug' was a
wise decision. A boost to the economy and public hysteria fueled tax
breaks for the development work. IMHO there was no downside to the Y2K
issue. Everyone made lots of money, no laws were broken, and no one got
hurt, a wonderful thing. In previous generations, we would have had to
have a small war to get that kind of economic stimulation.
Right now, as we write, we need >2G files on Linux. End of story.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 00:25:03 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:10:20 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 02 Mar 2000 14:50:17 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My font madness phase hit about 1989. Past that point, I
> really haven't been impressed much by most of these font
> arguments. Furthermore, I was never that impressed by TT
> fonts to begin with.
Everything in this discussion applies as much to Type1 as it does to TT.
Surely, you're not going to advocate we all use bitmap fonts?
> Of course they think this way. They're doing what obviously
> could have been done by any other X coder over the last 15
"Any other X coder"? What would you know about X coders anyway?
How many font renderers have you written?
> years. There's no magic voodoo in gnome-print that couldn't
> have been implemented by others, shared or not.
>
> They're actually bothering to implement a font renderer.
Being able to render fonts only solves a very small part of the problem.
You need to deal with X's network transparency issues, encodings
and internationalisation, and print/display unification.
>>I'd love to be able to use TeX, Type1 and TrueType fonts in all my
>>applications. It's just an "application issue" and not a big deal,
>>right? (wrong)
>
> Where do I get to tell NT or MacOS I want to use some TeX fonts?
You wouldn't want to. Metafont is not designed for rendering in real time.
However, with other applications, you only need to install fonts once.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:41:19 -0500
Dave Pitts wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
> In a press release from Micro$oft they mentioned that their
> R&D people, at the "Redmond Home for the Addeled" after
> wetting themselves, "Discovered" that disk space can be
> saved through the use of links. Who would have thought?
> Think anybody ought to mention to them that links have
> been around for MANY years in Unix systems? Think that
> they'll try to patent the idea?
>
> The press release URL for your amusment is:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/02-28w2k.asp
I read the URL, and to be honest, I first thought it was humor. Then I
realized the tragic truth, these guys don't know crap about any other
OS. The reason why MS thinks it is so innovative is because they are so
ignorant about every other OS in the world.
Sort of like Columbus "discovering" America. Never mind that it was, in
fact, already populated with thriving civilizations and cultures.
Columbus discovered it for Spain and the pope. MS is the same way, they
have no idea that something is being done, some half-witted Microsurf
comes up with an idea that has been in use for a quarter (half?) century
and calls it innovation.
Yikes.
The god thing is, eventually NT will be UNIX. It may take Microsoft a
decade or two more to re-invent it, however. I can read it now:
"The latest innovation in NT! light weight processes. Researches
discovered that highly robust server programs can be created by using a
duplicate process image, this technique has been dubbed, by the
researchers, 'process cloning.' One researcher quipped; 'It is like
coming to a fork in the road. One process goes one way, the new process
goes the other.' This is a much more user friendly and robust
replacement for more traditional threading techniques...."
Ahhh, I can see it now. The press releases. Back to the future.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:40:21 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 00:18:26 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:02:40 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 2 Mar 2000 21:34:43 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No it doesn't. Vendor stupidity makes life harder for the
>> end user.
>
>It does -- because the user needs to negotiate a different font system
>for each application.
Certainly within X there's no good excuse for mutually
exclusive font subsystems.
>
>
>> Lack of a proper API only makes life hard for
>> applications vendors that can't quite manage by themselves
>> or won't bother.
>
>So why make life hard for applications vendors? It's all well to blame the
It's their job to have hard lives for our benefit.
>application vendors for being lazy, especially if you have no understanding
>of what the task at hand requires. But the fact remains that the Linux
>development tools are primitive and difficult to use in this instance.
>Surely, this is not a good thing.
The lack of eye candy in emacs or CodeWarrior is not
really relevant here. Except to perhaps bring up the
point that they already went to a lot of trouble
anyways. Adding a bit more is not going to be quite
such a burden.
>
>>>You would need to re-write both the display and print parts, unless
>>>you're willing to print at screen resolutions. In other words, you are
>>>essentially suggesting that the developers replace the font handling
>>>function of the X server in their applications. This is not only very
>>>difficult ( especially if you want to maintain network transparency ),
>>>it involves a lot of low level programming.
>>
>> What, are these guys secretaries to be coddled? Really...
>
>No. But it's not a terribly easy task, and it should not be necessary
>to rewrite this code for each and every application.
It depends on the context. A programmer shouldn't have
any problems dealing with it. That's what they're paid
to do. Although, if the inhouse code is written right
it's certainly not going to be replicated for each and
every project.
>
>I don't know why you're insulting the developers -- because your prior
>posts indicate that you simply put, do not know what you're talking about
My comments aren't disparaging to developers in general,
just some of them.
>( how do you get the metrics and outline files again ? What's the X API
>call ? ) For all your "it's easy, if they can't do it they're stupid"
>comments, you don't show yourself to be any more knowledgeable.
>
>> The lack of a standard font print rasterizer is NOT an
>> excuse for what commercial Unix app coders put their
>> users through wrt fonts.
>
>How could they make it easier, Jedi? Tell us an easy way to build WYSIWYG
>printing into an application ( in a way that makes it easy for the user ).
Simply code your app to manipulate the fonts that X already
knows about in a suitable fashion. Making this appear easy
for the end users is what programmers are supposed to be able
to do.
The print subsystems for KDE and Gnome are doing just this.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:47:58 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 00:25:03 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:10:20 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 02 Mar 2000 14:50:17 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> My font madness phase hit about 1989. Past that point, I
>> really haven't been impressed much by most of these font
>> arguments. Furthermore, I was never that impressed by TT
>> fonts to begin with.
>
>Everything in this discussion applies as much to Type1 as it does to TT.
>Surely, you're not going to advocate we all use bitmap fonts?
Actually, my default X font is one I extracted from a GEM ROM.
Although, my comments don't necessarily imply that that's all
I restrict myself too. The 'fuss' over large font libraries
of a particular type and the relevance of that 'fuss' to the
majority of end users is something I think has never been
properly addressed.
This is much like the 'fuss' over msoffice style applications.
>
>> Of course they think this way. They're doing what obviously
>> could have been done by any other X coder over the last 15
>
>"Any other X coder"? What would you know about X coders anyway?
>How many font renderers have you written?
I said 'any other X coder', not myself. The existence of ANY
example is sufficient to prove my point.
>
>> years. There's no magic voodoo in gnome-print that couldn't
>> have been implemented by others, shared or not.
>>
>> They're actually bothering to implement a font renderer.
>
>Being able to render fonts only solves a very small part of the problem.
>You need to deal with X's network transparency issues, encodings
>and internationalisation, and print/display unification.
Print/display unification is only necessary if you want to
make your API appear like some arbitrary example. It's
strictly speaking, not necessary. If we're talking about
printing then the X wire protocol really isn't very relevant
and internationalization isn't dependent on X itself.
>
>>>I'd love to be able to use TeX, Type1 and TrueType fonts in all my
>>>applications. It's just an "application issue" and not a big deal,
>>>right? (wrong)
>>
>> Where do I get to tell NT or MacOS I want to use some TeX fonts?
>
>You wouldn't want to. Metafont is not designed for rendering in real time.
>
>However, with other applications, you only need to install fonts once.
So then, what happens if I want to use latex on Windows
and use those 'spiffy' tex fonts?
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
