Linux-Advocacy Digest #206, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The State of MCSE's ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Marcus Turner")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Marcus Turner")
Re: Gnome or KDE (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: maximum (?) linux (Chris Lee)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Tim Magnussen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The State of MCSE's
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:07:42 GMT
In article <8mbqpe$i8g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> FWIW, I was on site at a company that was binning plenty of machines
because
> of y2K concerns, not after testing, but just on the manufacturers
status
> report (non - Y2K compliant). This wasn't a decision taken by any
technical
> staff, but instead by management.
>
>
I know there are situations where that approach can be justified. But
three servers on one site... and the manager in this case was led
by "profesional" opinion.
On the other hand, I hear from a friend that what some companies do is
they advertise as hiring only MCSE qualified people where in fact there
might be some techies that is not. These people ussually screw up and
that harms the whole image of the certified people.
Anyway - I think RedHat and others should examin all the negatives very
closely and see what can be done to avoid similar incidents under a
Linux Certification Banner.
BTW - Any RHCE in this group? What do you think?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:11:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:05:23 -0300, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:43:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >In article <8m9a77$4dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) wrote:
> >> >> In article <8m6lmj$r17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > The final result is that the functionality can not be moved
away
> >> >from
> >> >> > the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all
current
> >> >> > toolkits. Which will not happen.
> >> >>
> >> >> The closest you can (reasonably) get is to have a common
protocol "on
> >> >> the wire" so that different toolkits can talk to each other.
This is
> >> >> what Xdnd represents, and in doing so it is a great improvement
on
> >> >> what went before (speaking from experience!)
> >> >
> >> >Indeed, and Xdnd, and having toolkits that support it, is good
> >> >because of that. Xdnd is "just" a nice specification.
> >>
> >> Not quite.
> >>
> >> The previous standard was Motif DnD.
> >
> >Please notice that I said "nice". Motif DnD is much more complex,
> >and difficult to implement, than Xdnd. Not to mention that, IIRC,
> >it was not publically documented until a few years ago.
> >
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> It just didn't catch on amongst the free-lunch crowd.
> >
> >Do you really want me to explain to you why Motif DND is not
> >as good a specification as Xdnd? Will this make you close
> >your piehole about DnD, considering you seem to know
> >nothing about it? (Not that I'm an expert, though).
> >
> >At least apparently I finally killed your "move Xdnd
> >into a separate library" crap.
>
> Did you?
>
> I just stopped paying attention to you because you're vacuous.
Well, if I'm vacuous, you will have no problem replying to this, right?
http://x65.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=653200831
Allow me to quote that message:
==========================8<=====================================
GUI applications are event driven. On X, that usually means that
the toolkit filters the events and reacts to some, by triggering
callbacks, or in Qt/KDE, by emitting a signal.
The first obvious problem with putting DnD in a separate library
is, of course, WHAT would go in that library?
Let's consider drop. Drop happens when a certain atom is passed onto
one of the application's windows. Those atoms are catched by the
toolkit's event loop.
Then, the toolkit must trigger the application code through a callback
or a signal. I can't see how ANY of this can be moved away from the
toolkit, unless every toolkit had a universal mechanism for messing
with its internal event loop from the outside. Something like Xt
on which to base the kits would probably do it, but it's, in this
day and age, totally impractical to achieve (consider how many
toolkits would need BIG internal changes).
Something very similar happens on the drag.
The final result is that the functionality can not be moved away from
the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all current
toolkits. Which will not happen.
So, it's impractical.
Now, was that enough of an answer for you?
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
=============================>8=============
> If you actually supported your position rather than indulging
> in attempts to assail my right to comment on the matter, then
> please provide the message id.
Just follow the URL, kid.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:18:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Windo's has a few legasy DOS programms, but noboddy ever uses them. Its'
not like UNIX whear peopole still half to rite shell script workarounds and
eddit config fials all the time because THEAR IS NO OTHER WAY.
Oh I am not talking about just the "legasy DOS programms" that are stored in
c:\windows\command. I am also talking about the command line interface
programs stored in c:\windows. A few of them may have been inherited from
lanman but most of them were introduced with Windows 95. These include
ftp.exe, NBstat.exe, ping.exe, route.exe, tracert.exe, and others
depending on your installed options.
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:19:23 GMT
"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >but merely yet another political body,
>
> No - they are not political. That's why they are appointed for life.
Perhaps Partisan would be a better word. There are distinct tendencies
within the group.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Aug 2000 10:27:07 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 3 Aug 2000 00:01:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Seems like an amazing amount of trouble when simply buying a Win98
>>>>>machine in the first place is really what the customer wants....
>>>>
>>>>Customers hardly ever want an OS. They want apps that are
>>>>good enough and don't cost much. Windows gained it's popularity
>>>>by being cheaper that the competition. Now it isn't, and
>>>>with StarOffice the Linux apps are good enough.
>>>
>>>Then why don't we see Linux boxes shooting up in popularity?
>>
>>I guess you aren't looking...
>
>I'm looking at CUSA, BB, and the other local stores where people
>commonly shop. Perhaps you can direct me to someone selling Linux
>boxes there?
Note that BB does sell an installed Linux embedded in the
Tivo boxes from Phillips and Sony.
Back to normal computers - did you buy yours from a local
commodity retailer? Lots of people order direct from Dell,
IBM, etc. too.
>>But so far I don't know if
>>anyone can preload StarOffice. When OpenOffice gets up
>>to speed that will take care of itself. Add a few more
>>pretty fonts and you are all set.
>
>When ? 2001? 2002? 2003?
Judging from the plan to have OpenOffice source out by October
I'd guess mid-2001 to have a mainstream-usable package. It
will depend on how much functionality gets lost when the
third-party-licensed parts are removed. Hopefully this
won't be as hard to fix up as Mozilla. Meanwhile StarOffice
works once you get it installed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:23:27 GMT
"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And BTW - Microsoft didn't write MS-DOS.
Eh, Yes they did. They bought PC-Dos from a Seattle software company but
they wrote MS-Dos.
Of course, the guy who wrote PC-Dos at the other company was working for MS
at the time they wrote MS-Dos, so it's easy to get confused...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:35:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, moonie;)
<>
wrote
on Thu, 3 Aug 2000 02:49:29 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Rasputin wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <D. C. & M. V. Sessions> wrote:
>>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when SL News Posting would say:
>>>> >In article <8lqfnk$bli$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> > ishpeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> >|> Nothing better than strait windowmaker. :)
>>>> >|>
>>>> >
>>>> >Sure there is - straight twm - been using it for 10 years[*] and
>>>> >have no need for all the desktop clutter, sound, moving menus,
>>>> >themes, etc. *tvtwm is available to provide a virtual screen
>>>> >larger than the physical screen for those who need such.
>>>>
>>>> Ah. Wuss.
>>>>
>>>> What you _want_ is wmx, which gets rid of even _more_ of the clutter...
>>>
>>>You had ones? All we had was zeros.
>>
>>You were lucky.
>>We had to bang two rocks together to get the zeros...
>>
>>etc, etc.....
>
>I had to walk 10 miles, uphill, in the snow just to get the rocks!
Both ways? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who uses fvwm at home, and KDE at work
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: maximum (?) linux
Date: 3 Aug 2000 15:55:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>already know Perl you will see a few errors even with that.
>
>I see the potential for greatness within the magazine, but unless they
>hire someone that has actually used Linux, and has participated in the
>community at some point, in some way, they are doomed. And I had such
>high hopes as I always loved boot and Maximum PC. But trying to convert
>a bunch of Windows people into a bunch of Linux people overnight, and
>then expecting them to write about their newfound toy, is just too much.
>
>I got suckered when I first heard about the magazine and actually
>purchased a subscription. I have written them twice already with
>complaints (and I tried to be polite about it), and both times recieved
>the same response. My main complaint is that they focus too much on
>Windows. Their response? The world revolves around Windows and I will
>just have to deal with that. I have no problem with that, but I do have
>a problem with a 'Linux' magazine spending so much time telling me
>that. Anyway, you've hit on one of my pet problems.
Maxium Linux is a joke and a waste of money. It's staffed by a bunch of lame
gamers who have little or no real knowlege of linux. Buy a real Linux
Magazine like Linux Journal or Linux Magazine that's put out by *REAL* linux
users, not a bunch of posers from Ziff-Davis.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 13:09:03 -0300
"Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
>
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Again, you are an old money advocate. You are saying that how well a kid
> > does
> > > > should be causally related to how much money their parents have. This
> > > > is a shining example of your survival-of-the-fattest philosophy.
> > >
> > > Wrong. "How well a kid does" is determined by how well he applies
> > > himself in school.
> > >
> > Wrong. There's been plenty of studies that show that children from lower
> > socio economic areas perform worse academically than those from higher socio
> > economic areas.
>
> 1. One low-income adults are from the lower-end of the intelligence pool
146 IQ.
Lived for 6 years on under 5K a year.
You figure it out.
> 2. Intelligence is genetically linked. Correlation > 0.5 (where
> a correlation of 1.0 is absolute correlation)
Did you ever take a statistics class?
What are the two variables you are correlating?
(Hint: genetics is not a variable).
What statistical tests are taken to consider if the
correlation is statistically significant? (no, >0.5 is not one).
I HAVE read about research done considering correlation of
parents IQ to their children's, and it is nowhere near from
showing "genetic linkage", because, the environment where the
children are raised tends to be like the one where the parents
were, so "genetic linkage" is not a measurable independent variable.
If you want to do this seriously, consider a control group made
of adopted children that didn't know they were adopted (to
prevent influence by trauma), which had no congenit deseases
(to avoid skewing), who were not children of malnourished
mothers (to prevent developmental disadvantages).
Of course noone has done this yet, AFAIK.
> Thus, it is no great surprise to find out that the stupid children
> of stupid low-income adults do worse academically than the smart
> children of smart high-income adults.
There is statistical proof about how malnourishing as a child
is significantly correlated to lower IQs as an adult.
So, your "let's starve the poor" idea only makes the poor dumber.
If you want smart people, feed them.
> > There's a lot of factors that come into it, but it boils
> > down to the poorer you are, the worse you will likely perform academically.
>
> The less intelligent you are, the poorer you are.
> The less intelligent you are, the less intelligent your kids will be.
The poorer you are, the worse you feed your kids.
The worse you feed your kids, the less intelligent they are.
The less intelligent they are, the poorer they will be.
> There is complete agreement on this matter by all involved in
> the field of human intelligence research.
Complete agreement? Yeah, sure.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:04:20 -0400
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:59:41 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
> >> >and what laws are not. If there is still any confusion, then the
> >> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
> >> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
> >>
> >> There isn't anything in the Constitution that specifies the use
> >> of the Federalist Papers for clarification of its contents.
> >
> >The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers are a series
> >of letters published in the various newspapers (of Philadelphia,
> >New York, and others), under pseudonyms, as a public debate as
> >to whether the Constitution should be adopted.
> >
> >John Jay and James Madison were two of the men involved.
> >One of the authors remains anonymous to this day (Publius, I believe)
>
> They were all signed "Publius".
Not the Anti-Federalist Papers.
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm
The were signed as "A Farmer", "An Observer", "Agrippa", "Cicero"
at least one was signed "A Federalist" (!)
http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fedpaper.html
The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787
and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York
voters to ratify the proposed constitution. The primary authors were
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison with help from John Jay. In total,
the Federalist Papers contains 85 essays outlining how this new
government would operate and why this type of government was the best
choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed
"PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the
general consensus is that Hamilton wrote 52, Madison wrote 28 and Jay
contributed the remaining 5. The Federalist Papers remain today as an
excellent reference for historians and constitutional scholars.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> But then what do you expect from someone who still thinks Unix is
> cool.
>
> - SemiScholar
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:07:59 +0200
I call this great news indeed!!!
Thank you all very much for your posts.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
