Linux-Advocacy Digest #241, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Bob Germer)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:27:13 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>The way you are saying this makes it seem that any system
> being discussed could easily work as long as it is
> consistent. Simple and elegant are obviously in the eye
> of the beholder. Myself, I feel that little extra choice
> (in the filesystem metadata) on BeOS is far more simple
> and elegant than using filename extensions. You,
> obviously, feel that filename extensions are more elegant
> and simple.
> Whichever you do is still going to require the user to
> have some knowledge of how it is used. As to your
> original point of distinquishing between 'how to use' and
> 'how it works', I have yet to see a system where you can
> learn one without learning at least a little of the other.
> It's a basic fact of current designs, and quite honestly I
> have yet to envision or have explained to me a system that
> would remove this link between the two. If you understand
> filename extensions, then you know how the system uses
> filename extensions. If you understand the BeOS method of
> using a database entry (through filesystem metadata) then
> you understand that the system uses that database entry.
> The two seem inseperable.
They're not. You could name a directory "photos of the beach"
and if you had an AI engine then it could extract information
from that name. But we don't have an AI engine so it would
be impossible to do such a thing. Even if achieving the full
disconnect between 'what it does' and 'how it does it' is not
possible in certain situations, it is so possible in the vast
majority of cases (but it requires serious design work). And
in the case of filename extensions, the AI example shows
that extensions belong as part of the name and it's only the
state of the technology that forces us to use extensions. The
first part of the name is the semantic content of the object
and the second part of the name is the syntax of that object,
both specified by the user.
Elegance, simplicity and beauty are universal concepts. There
are objective principles that dictate whether something is
elegant and beautiful or ugly. Christopher Alexander (the
man who came up with Design Patterns) wrote about these
principles in his On The Nature of Order.
As a simple example of the objective nature of simplicity,
consider bidirectional links (forget Unix since it is inconsistent
in its use of both uni- and bidirectional links). Obviously,
going in both directions is much more powerful than going
simply in one direction. But it's also not any more complex.
Why? Because it's symmetric so the cost of the extra power
depends on the cost of the symmetry; in this case the symmetry
costs nothing since it is trivially obvious. Symmetries are
eminently objective and yet they are related to both elegance
and simplicity.
A theory of measures of simplicity belongs in the field of
epistemology (the nature of knowledge) and this is not a
trivial field.
In order to achieve full disconnect from the implementation,
you must either be able to conceive of all possible hardware,
or be unable to conceive the current hardware. You are literally
limited only by the power of your imagination. But you can
also go far just by adding all the sensible symmetries. For
example, Unix has a function on files that truncates a file
from a spcified point to the end. Why can't it truncate a
file from an arbitrary point to the beginning? That would
be one symmetry. Why can't it cut a file between any two
arbitrary points? That would be another symmetry.
It doesn't even matter if the symmetric functions are slow
and users rarely use them, the interface will still be vastly
simpler and more elegant for those symmetries. It's easier
to remember "the set of real numbers" than "7, 23, 384763"
even if the first has infinitely more elements.
> And quite honestly, both as a consultant to individuals,
> and in my dealings at help-desk type jobs in business, I
> have seen quite a number of people that want their
> computer to just 'work' for them. They want it to be as
> easy as a toaster. They want one button that somehow
> knows what they mean instead of what they do. That is why
> I occassionally seem to fight 'ease-of-use' issues because
> quite honestly more often than not, from end users, this
> turns into 'do it for me'. No matter how elegant the
> computer operating system is designed, it is not going to
> remove the need for the person operating it to understand
> what they want to do. On some fundamental level, that is
> what makes the computer a tool. If we ever do remove that
> tool-like nature of computers, then we will also remove
> the need for humans to interact with them (or at least
> remove the need for humans to 'instruct' them in what to
> do).
I agree completely. I don't want computers to be anything
but tools, but I insist they be /perfect/ tools.
[Practical discussion snipped]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:42:41 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> We've talked about it so frequently here that I don't buy that excuse.
> >Not with me you haven't.
> And you skip all .advocacy messages that aren't addressed to you? You
> skip all messages except those directly addressed to you? We both
> know that's not true.
I read less than a fifth of the postings on this forum. Does that answer
your questions?
> >Your failure to provide examples of the diferences between the two. "Paul
> >'Z' Ewande" was able to rattle off a brief list with no problem. Why
> >couldn't you?
> You act as if I should jump every time you ask a stupid question.
It wasn't a stupid question. You were making this big fuss about how
different W2K is from W98, so it was only reasonable that you give a few
examples. Which you proved incapable of doing.
> Don't be silly. You can go to www.microsoft.com as easily as anyone
> else.
Why should I do your homework for you? You could have gone there yourself,
you know.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:01:02 GMT
On 09/20/2000 at 08:32 PM,
"Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Nope. There was nothing in Aaron's post which in any way diminished our
> > > high opinion of Perdue.
> >
> > It's Purdue. The university is named for John Purdue, who donated the
> land for its establishment
> > back in the 1860s.
> Germer's just <ahem> too chicken to respond to this... (ba-da-bum)
I made a typing error. Inasmuch as one of my daughters is married to a man
name Perdue, I am used to typing the name that way. I made an error.
And no I am not afraid to respond when I make a mistake. Unlike pondscum
like you, Malloy, I admit my errors.
I have an idea, Malloy. Why don't you bring you mother and father here to
NJ. I have a judge friend who will marry them.
Don't bother to respond. I have reactivated you in my killfile. It had
expired. It's fixed now.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 01:15:07 GMT
Marty writes:
> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
Where did that come from, Marty?
>> Marty writes:
>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>> Where did that come from, Marty?
> The previous attribution in this thread.
You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>> You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
> I pointed to your lack of culture.
How can you point to a nonexistent lack, Marty?
>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>>>> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
>>>> You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
>>> I pointed to your lack of culture.
>> How can you point to a nonexistent lack, Marty?
> Non sequitur.
Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Was that not explanation enough?
>> You're erroneously assuming that there is a lack of culture on my part
>> that you can point to, Marty.
> Not at all, considering the fact that you were unfamiliar with "Fozzy".
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>> How many musicals have you performed in?
> Of what relevance is this question?
It directly addresses your claim about my alleged lack of culture, Marty.
Let's see who lacks more culture.
>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>>>>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>>>>>> You never asked.
>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've been asking all along, but you've relied
>>>>>> on illogical circular responses.
>>>>> You didn't ask the first time it was used.
>>>> Incorrect; see ninety eight lines (including blank lines) below, Marty.
>>> Why bother, when we can unroll it back to the original articles:
>> Why bother with deja.com when you could have looked ninety eight lines
>> down, Marty?
> Because I find it to be more convenient to enter a narrow search criterion
> and select an entry from a web page than to count "ninety eight" lines down.
Isn't your editor able to count lines for you, Marty?
> Besides, your response "ninety eight" lines down is not a response to my
> first usage of "Fozzy".
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>> (Now you'll need to come up with a new line count, because
>> the new text has affected the spacing.)
> Obviously.
Should have taken advantage of the opportunity while you could, Marty.
>>> Note my first usage of "Fozzy".
>> It was "ninety eight" lines down, Marty. Note my response.
> Incorrect. Check the Deja link that I provided.
What's wrong with the text below, Marty?
>>> Note how you had not questioned its origin in your reply.
>> Note my response "ninety eight" lines down, Marty.
> Irrelevant as that was not your response to my first usage of "Fozzy".
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>>>>>>>> You were just being evasive, Marty.
>>>>>>> Did you expect me to read your mind?
>>>>>> Unnecessary, Marty.
>>>>> On what basis do you make this claim?
>>>> On the basis that I wrote my question, Marty,
>>> Incorrect. You made a statement. You had not posed a question.
>> Incorrect, Marty; see "ninety eight" lines down.
> Incorrect, as your statement "ninety eight" lines down is not the statement
> in question.
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>>>> thus it was unnecessary for you to read my mind.
>>> How can I answer a question that you haven't asked without reading your
>>> mind?
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I hadn't asked the question,
>> Marty.
> Refer to the Deja link that I provided.
What's wrong with the text below, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>>>>>>>>>> Typical evasion.
>>>>>>>>> On your part.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Pointing out your pontification is not pontification, Dave.
>>>> Without substantiating evidence for a pontification, your "pointing
>>>> out" is indeed a pontification, Marty.
>>> The evidence of your pontification is what I replied to, Dave.
>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> On the basis that I have replied to your pontification.
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>>>>>>>> I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
>>>>>>>>> that you meant.
>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I wasn't clear, Marty,
>>>>>>>> using it as an excuse to continue your evasiveness.
>>>>>>> I see you're expecting me to read your mind again.
>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>> Then how do you expect me to interpret your made-up words?
>>>> What alleged "made-up" words, Marty?
>>> "whee", Dave.
>> What's allegedly made-up about that, Marty? It's listed at
>> www.dictionary.com.
> It's slang.
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> Nonetheless, their definition does not fit into the context in
> which you've used it.
Irrelevant to your claim that I made-up the word, Marty.
> Hence your definition of it is made-up at the very least.
You claimed that I made-up the word, Marty, not the definition.
> DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> whee: interj. - Used to express extreme pleasure or enthusiasm.
You claimed that I made-up the word, Marty, not the definition.
>>>>>>> Why not just correct your error and remove the ambiguity?
>>>>>> What alleged error, Marty?
>>>>> DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>>>> Where is the alleged ambiguity, Marty?
>>> "whee", Dave.
>> What is allegedly ambiguous about that, Marty?
> DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>
> whee: interj. - Used to express extreme pleasure or enthusiasm.
You claimed that I made-up the word, Marty, not the definition.
> You made up your own definition of the word.
You claimed that I made-up the word, Marty, not the definition.
>>>>>>> How ironic, coming from someone complaining about alleged
>>>>>>> "evasiveness".
>>>>>> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
>>>>> Witness your evasiveness.
>>>> What alleged evasiveness, Marty?
>>> Witness the fact that you have not clarified what you meant by "whee".
>> Witness the fact that you have not clarified what you meant by
>> "clarified", Marty.
> Incorrect, given that I have specified that clarification would be
> achieved by properly defining the word.
You claimed that I made-up the word, Marty, not the definition.
>> Why does it need clarification?
> Because you've used the word improperly.
You claimed that I made-up the word, Marty, not the definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>>>>>>>>>> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I identified your consistent lack of an
>>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>> That doesn't say anything good about your reading comprehension.
>>>>>> It doesn't say anything bad about it, Marty.
>>>>> On the contrary.
>>>> On what do you base your contrariness, Marty?
>>> On the basis of the incorrect nature of your statement.
>> Typical pontification.
> How ironic.
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tyopical pontification.
>>>>>>>>>>> What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>>>>>>>>>> Typical evasion.
>>>>>>>>> On your part.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the alleged irony?
>>>> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
>>> And where would that be?
>> In your statements preceding where I've commented about your
>> pontification, Marty.
> And where would that be?
I just told you, Marty. Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?
>>> How ironic that you speak of pontification.
>> What's allegedly ironic about it, Marty?
> Witness your pontification.
What alleged pontification, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>>>> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>>>>> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>>>> What alleged "made-up" word, Marty?
>>> "tyopical", Dave.
>> I see that you didn't answer my question. No surprise there.
> On the contrary, "tyopical" is my answer, unless you can find a dictionary
> that attests to the existence of this word.
On the contrary "tyopical" is your response, but although all answers
are responses, not all responses are answers. You didn't answer my
question, Marty. You merely responded to it.
> Having reading comprehension problems?
Obviously not, given that I was able to identify the difference
between an answer and a response, Marty.
>>>> And why are you now using the singular, but above you used the plural:
>>> Because there was only one left after pointing out the other.
>> Where did you allegedly do that, Marty?
> See above.
Typical lack of specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>>>> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>>>>>>>> Yes, which is why I know there isn't an answer above, Marty.
>>>>>>> Obviously not, considering the answer above.
>>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>>>>> The one above, Dave.
>>>> Where above, allegedly, Marty?
>>> On a line previous to the one on which I first mentioned "above".
>> How many lines previous, Marty?
> Many dozens.
How many is "many", Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I would like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>> Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>> Because I would find it enjoyable.
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>> Because it would be something that I would like.
>>>> Why?
>>> Because I would enjoy that.
>> Why?
> Because such a thing would please me.
Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't you sure?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not surprising.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> What alleged "inconsistency"?
>>>>>>>>>> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>>>> Even more classic pontification.
>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Where is the irony?
>>>> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
>>> How ironic.
>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> On the basis of your statement's irony.
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>>> I see you failed to note my consistent use of
>>>>>>>>>>> the attribution in this thread.
>>>>>>>>>> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
>>>>>>>>>> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument.
>>>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>>>>>>>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
>>>>>>>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>>>>>>> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
>>>>>>> argument. No surprise there.
>>>>>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
>>>>>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>>>>> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
>>>>> argument. No surprise there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
>>>>>>>>>>> Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>>>>>>>>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider
>>>>>>>>> "this thread".
>>>>>>>> Considering "this thread" to be "this thread" is classic illogical
>>>>>>>> circular reasoning, Marty.
>>>>>>> That depends on your definition of the first "this thread".
>>>>>> No it doesn't, Marty.
>>>>> Classic pontification.
>>>> How ironic.
>>> Where is the irony, Dave?
>> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
> Where have I allegedly pontificated, Dave?
In the statements prior to where I've noted your pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
>>>>>>>>> precisely the ones to which I was referring.
>>>>>>>> All threads have a finite number of postings, Marty, but they don't all
>>>>>>>> have the same subject line.
>>>>>>> Of what relevance is this remark?
>>>>>> The same as yours, Marty.
>>>>> Even more pontification.
>>>> How ironic.
>>> Where is the irony, Dave?
>> Where you've pontificated, Marty.
> Where have I allegedly pontificated, Dave?
In the statements prior to where I've noted your pontification, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> There's nothing illogical about being self-referential when we are
>>>>>>>>> still contributing to what I consider "this thread".
>>>>>>>> There is something illogical about using circular reasoning, Marty.
>>>>>>> Glad I haven't done such a thing.
>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>>>> Prove that I'm not glad, if you think you can.
>>>> Unnecessary, given that you have done such a thing, Marty.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> Incorrect, given that I pointed out the instance of illogical circular
>> reasoning when you used it, Marty.
> Incorrectly.
On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>>> Prove that I have "done such a thing" as "not be glad".
>> Non sequitur.
> It was as sequitur as your statement:
> "Unnecessary, given that you have done such a thing, Marty."
Incorrect, Marty.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
