Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 07:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Double standard? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:11:02 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Try to answer "do data structures exist?" and the more you actually think
> >about the question, the more it will blow your mind.
>
> My minds been blown for so long I wouldn't notice. I haven't found "do
> [x] exist?" to be entertaining for quite a while.
This from the guy who rejects all formalism.
> Why on earth would I leave it at that? Particularly when you're so
> wrong: I know what you're talking about. And you only know you're
> talking about it. Think about the question "Does it really exist" for a
> while; it will blow your mind. Then get a grip and come back here
> prepared to support your silly ideas, or don't bother coming back at
> all.
<yawn>
> >Roberto claimed (implicitly) that there was a trivial mapping of visual
> >sensory perceptions to the EM spectrum.
>
> I don't recall any question of whether it was a 'trivial mapping'. What
Then you weren't following along closely enough.
> he said was, in response to your statement that 'blue' doesn't exist
> outside of perception, that 'blue' does exist as a well defined concept
> in electromagnetic theory.
And exactly what do you think this *means*?
> Listen, I don't care if you want to be an arrogant geek. Just do it on
> your own time, and stop pretending you are "out-thinking" anyone when
> you post this sort of tripe.
I'm certainly out-thinking you.
> This is where I'm pointing out to you that you are wrong. Yes, all the
> stuff up to then, that malarkey about byte arrays and hash dictionaries,
> I followed that. I won't argue whether 'red' in electromagnetic terms
> is 'simple'. I have to point out, though, that in perceptual terms it
> is simple.
That's exactly why 'red' exists IN PERCEPTUAL TERMS!!
> Its very simple. We don't know everything about how it
> works, or even any bit of it precisely. What we do know is that it is a
> direct mapping; electromagnetic 'red' hits the back of your eyeball, and
Wrong nitwit, there is no such thing as "electromagnetic red".
Look, take a class on the visual system, most universities offer them.
As long as you're there, take courses on formal logic, mathematics,
metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science. I already told
you that any kind of discussion with you would be useless if you keep
believing the utterly ludicrous things you do in these subjects. Well,
this is just another application of all these topics.
> your brain thinks "red". Thoughts do physically exist. You seem to
> keep getting confused on this point.
> I follow you. But in this particular case, it is a particular
> hard-wired array, and we've already determined that its property is what
> we have discovered it to be. Any ideas that some other array may have
> some other property is just fantasizing.
What the FUCK are you talking about?
> The human sensory system is every bit as deterministic (if much less
> understood and complex) as the frequency of the light.
You're oversimplifying things. So as long as we're there, I'll say:
that's exactly why 'red' isn't a physical concept!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:15:22 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Hey, you posted in comp.os.linux.advocacy! If you don't like me asking
about this, then don't post in c.o.l.a.!
Chris
MH wrote:
>
> "Chris <no - shi*t> Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How about VB scripts inside email programs that execute viruses?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > Oh, I don't know about that! GNOME is beginning to really take shape,
> > > > but just about everything that you can do in Windows you can do in
> KDE!
> > >
> > > Ok, how about create a virtual file system housed inside the shell
> browser
> > > as a plug-in? How about Shell extension contexts? How about Embedding
> HTML
> > > into the desktop (including Java applets)? How about shell namespace
> > > extensions that allow you to create things like the printers or dialup
> > > networking folders (Obviously, using the Linux equivelants of these)?
> How
> > > about shortcuts that can be HTTP links?
>
> Typical zealot response. No response at all.
>
> So, when I send you an 'email program', which I assume after minimal idiocy
> parsing, that you mean to be an email message, that you don't have the
> where-with-all to disable such threats? No? Didn't think so.
>
> Go join your friend with the snorkel in the commode.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 08:09:01 GMT
In article <wprC5.141744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You claimed you weren't harassing him by posting his home and work
details.
>
> How can my doing the same be "an attempt to harass you", Peter? That's
> contradicting your arguments.
Frankly Simon, I don't think you are in a position to lecture people
about self-contradicting arguments.
By posting pvdl's address, you did the very same thing you accuse him
of.
You reserve the right to get at someone in the "real" life if they get
at someone else's real life because you think it's a bad thing to do.
You reserve the right to call someone's employer if they call someone
else's employer (to complaign about their employee complaining to
another company) because you think it's a bad thing to do.
I couldn't be that self-contradicting even if I tried. I wouldn't have
the imagination.
Yann.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 4 Oct 2000 09:04:00 GMT
On 2 Oct 2000 21:57:13 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amazing how the rest of the world finds NVIDIA to be the single best chipset
> and drivers combination of every video card out there...
Bullshit. Take a look at http://www.hardforum.com for starters. I would
mention 3dfxgamers.com but it's full of either Nvidiots or 3dfx zealots for
the most part and I'd take anything said there with a truck-load of salt.
> I never cease to be
> amazed that only linux users manage to have trouble running windows and
> using the most stable drivers in existance... sheesh...
That's bullshit too. It seems whatever web site I go to, NVidia have a
reputation for buggy drivers. I'm surprisd you don't consider the Voodoo5
drivers, since they are WHQL certified and if they're not even as stable as
the NVidia drivers as you claim, then WHQL is worth jack shit.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:29:19 +0900
In article <8re8kn$cjv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> James Stutts wrote:
>>
>> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8r7b20$gsqu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >Actually, Linux isn't an operating system. Just a kernel.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On the other hand, Win2k is just an operating system but most linux
>> > > distro's contain operating system, Graphics package
>> > > (GIMP), at least 1 SQL server package (usually mysql), several
>> > > word processors (all better than wordpad), etc and cost less than a
>> > > fifth of the cost of just the win2k operating system and is more
>> > > stable. Nobody can say that MS operating system distro's are more
>> > > productive than buying a Linux distro without spending more
>> >
>> > I bet if MS tried to bundle any of these things, they'd be sued.
>>
>> Sued for bundling DJGPP (Windows version of gcc), emacs, TeX, Perl,
>> Python, . . . ?
>
> DJGPP is the DOS version of gcc. Gcc is the Win32 version of gcc.... My
> point was if they bundled a SQL or a better image editor, they would be
> accused of bundling.
>
>>
>> Sure, it was sued for bundling IE, but IE was a Microsoft product.
>
> Hotjava is a Sun product. Anyone sued them for that? If IE is an MS
> product and Windows is an MS product, then why can't IE + Windows be an
> MS product? That's like saying the bundling of an OEM stereo with a car
> is illegal because it hurts the aftermarket stereo market.
>
> JCS
>
I think a lot would depend on how they did it. Remember that the rules are
different when you have a monopoly. Linux distros offer a lot of free
software that you could easily download (for free) if it wasn't included
on the cd. Because there is real competition between the linux distros,
some will also make deals to offer proprietary software. You would get
laughed out of court if you tried to sue red had for forcing you to pay
for a bundled mozilla and netscape when you only use lynx. You can
download the whole thing for free anyhow, or easily switch to caldera,
corel, slackware, etc.
Anyone who actually paid attention to the court documents in the MS
anti-trust case can tell you that MS did not get in trouble for including
IE with windows. Rather, it was because of the lengths to which they went
to get everyone using IE instead of Netscape. If all they wanted to do was
improve windows, why not take the WinME approach - make IE available as a
free download, and include it with some bug fixes in the next release of
windows? Instead, they spent millions of dollars to get everyone and their
brothers to use IE _now_. Where is the economic sense in that? It was
about protecting the applications barrier to entry, plain and simple.
With the market share that MS windows has, and the corresponding lack of
competition, they have no incentive to include any software that they
don't absolutely have to. (Also, my not including any extra software with
windows proper, MS gives the OEMs a way to distinguish themselves from
each other).
And, with the market share that they have, almost any program they include
in windows is going to open them up to possible litigation. Adding winzip
wouldn't be to controversial, perhaps, but who believes that the sudden
interest in WiMP is actually motivated by a sincere desire to help their
customers? Has nothing at all to due with competition with Real Media,
does it? Sure it does, and that makes it a bit more controversial.
In short, the situation is complex and your car stereo analogy does not
apply.
--
Osugi Sakae,
a free man
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:26:44 +0000
"Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
>
> Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> | "James A. Robertson" wrote:
> |> Peter van der Linden wrote:
> |> >
> |> > [...] I do somewhat resent you misrepresenting the situation in
> |> > this way. [...] Do you think that somehow Gary Van Sickle had
> |> > an unlimited right to make libellous accusations from his
> |> > anonymous account?
>
> Peter, there's no "unlimited right to make libellous accusations"
> anonymously and I don't recall anybody here arguing over that except
> Revusky. That's his straw-man that he keeps beating, and then claiming
> victory over.
Well, it's not a straw man, Jon. It's quite literally what these idiots
are maintaining. They are arguing that there is some kind of
constitutional right to participate in a public forum anonymously.
Furthermore, when you point out that much of said participation was
libellous in nature, they simply repeat their claims about the "right to
anonymity".
So you go figure if my portrayal of that is a straw man. Now, it is
incredible that people would argue that there is a right to anonymous
slander, but nothing much surprises me nowadays. At an earlier stage,
various people accused me of slander. I pointed out to them that they
needed to say who I slandered and what the slanderous statements were.
(This little inconvenience had not occurred to them prior to making the
accusaiton.) And then they quite literally trotted out as their slander
"victims" people who were hiding their identities. (How could I be
harming their "good name" if they were hiding who they were?) The
stupidity of the whole thing was another drum I kept beating to
demonstrate the stupidity of certain people. But it was not based on any
straw man. The people in question really were that stupid!
>
> |> Nope. I state that you going after him at his place of work is
> |> uncalled for. There are procedures for harrassment cases; they
> |> involve civil courts.
> |
> | [...] the first step in suing somebody is that they have to have
> | been "served" with the summons [...] likely [...at their] place of
> | work. [But you said harassing a guy at work was uncalled for,
> | wasn't that just blather?]
>
> The difference is that the officer of the court, 'harasses' the guy
> at work instead of the private citizen. It's proper for the officer,
> not proper for the private citizen. ObJava, this is similar to when
> unpriveledged code calls a method which uses a PriveledgedAction to
> perform an action the calling code could (should) not do.
So you're arguing that it would all be okay if the... organs of the
state.... were involved somehow. And the fact that they weren't is what
makes writing a letter of complaint so wrong...
Interesting position. Are you actually willing to maintain that?
Anyway, has it ever occurred to you that, in the real world, lawsuits
are very expensive and time-consuming and only very rarely can anybody
win anything but a pyrrhic victory. Thus, a lawsuit is usually the very
last resort after exhausting every other course of action available. And
that includes: letter of complaint, protests, simply telling the other
party that whatever course of action is unacceptable... Whatever makes
sense in the situation to do, as long as it is a lawful act.
You are claiming that that state of affairs is wrong, and that the only
correct course of action is to immediately file a lawsuit.
You know, Jon, I don't even think that you are debating any of this out
of sincerity. It's just that you're mad at me, have felt humiliated by
me in various exchanges, and are desperately trying to get back at me in
any way possible. I don't believe that anything you're saying here
corresponds to any profound convictions on your part. Certainly, it's
very half-baked, not very well thought out.
So, already, it is bad enough that you discredit yourself by making
these stupid arguments. But what is worse is that there is not even any
sincerity or conviction behind what you are saying. At least, I sense
that James Robertson is somewhat sincere. You are just trying to get
back at me in some rather petty, pathetic way.
Jonathan Revusky
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> |"Jonathan Revusky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |> "James A. Robertson" wrote:
> |> >
> |> > Nope. I don't suppose that it occurred to you that I just got
> |> > tired of you? You [Revusky] don't discuss; you name call.
> |>
> |> [...] lying your head off. [...] when you claim that I presented
> |> no arguments, and was merely name-calling, you are [blatantly]
> |> lying [...] utterly ridiculous distortion of reality [...]
> |> feeble-minded individuals such as yourself [...] [you] can be
> |> intelligent in certain narrow fields, I guess
>
> See below.
>
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> |Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> |>
> |> Just now, he accused me of "ad hominem". The ad hominem fallacy
> |> consists of attacking the person rather than his arguments. [...]
> |
> | Ad hominem is a tricky thing.
>
> Ad homimen is simply "A phrase applied to an argument or
> appeal founded on the preferences or principles of a particular
> person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency." (OED 2nd
> edition)
>
> In the past, in comp.lang.java.advocacy, Revusky regularly added ad
> hominem attacks to his arguments, apparently believing that applying
> it to an argument (often to "cause [...] psychic pain") converts it
> from something to be shunned in a discussion to something perfectly
> reasonable and proper. This is what he means, above, when he says
> "was merely name-calling". Mr. Robertson is justified, IMO, claiming
> that he just didn't want to discuss with Revusky; it is tiring, for
> the reason he mentions.
>
> Jam (address rot13 encoded)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 4 Oct 2000 10:35:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timo Saarinen) wrote (abridged):
> Are you sure C++ will be implemented for the .NET which uses
> intermediate language? I think C++ is not very suitable for
> interpretation...
The Common Language Runtime that underlies .NET is not interpreted.
Microsoft made a conscious design decision that it would always be
compiled into native code before running. I believe this decision
accounts for some of the technical differences between CLR and Java's
bytecode.
> To adapt other language to .NET platform Microsoft have to use
> brute force. For example, languages using multiple inheritance must
> be converted to single inheritance.
Indeed. However, Microsoft seem to have been very successful at
persuading other language vendors to do whatever is necessary. Eg there
is an Eiffel# (with MI crippled in the way you describe) from ISE. These
guys tried to support the JVM but didn't seem to get far and didn't seem
to think it worth producing a crippled Eiffel-J. I believe at least some
of this is for technical reasons.
Incidently, it is obviously *possible* to emulate MI in a SI language if
the latter is Turing Complete. The question is whether it can be made
sufficiently efficient. Eiffel programs tend to use full MI extensively
so any efficiency problems would hit hard. In much real C++ code, MI is
used in simple Java-like ways, or not at all. A slowish emulation might
be commercially feasible provided those Java-like uses were fast. So C++
doesn't *have* to be converted to single inheritance.
Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK | "Weave a circle round him thrice,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | And close your eyes with holy dread,
| For he on honey dew hath fed
http://www.bhresearch.co.uk/ | And drunk the milk of Paradise."
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 06:51:40 -0400
unicat wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
<snip>
>After all, Linux is supported by virtually every computer maker -
>IBM,.HP, Sun, Compaq, Dell, SGI, etc.etc. Which WON'T likely be true of
>MS once
>they enter the computer business themselves and start competing with
>their
>former allies.
M$ doesn't sell hardware.
Sun's domination of the Unix market has made IBM, HP, etc. go to Linux and
Window 2000 for sales of their hardware.
>
>But if you really want to convert your whole enterprise to the Sun
>vision of "The network is the computer" network-server-centric
>computing, why not
>use the time-tested, standards-based, enterprise approved original from
>Sun,
>instead of being a guinea pig for MS as they struggle to survive into
>the post-PC era???
Well, you are reaching a NT newsgroup with your post.
That should be one clue that M$ is in the post-PC period selling a server
OS.
Also, M$ sells a great deal of non-OS server software, including SQL Server
database and BackOffice.
An interesting fact. One post-PC OEM, Dell, is nearly two-thirds again as
large as Sun in gross revenues (with nearly equal profit approaching $2
billion each).
Only 20% of Dell's sales are servers. Both Linux and Windows 2000 server
markets are growing rapidly and neither sells hardware.
The one time small PC kids on the block, Microsoft and Intel, have combined
profits of $24 billion AFTER investment of many billions more in R & D.
I will agree with you on one point, ie that both devices and Linux present a
challenge to M$ on the desktop. Ironically, the very .NET platform could be
the vehicle for Linux to make major inroads on the desktop.
Why? If .NET is supported on Linux either directly or by similar
technologies (and as I have pointed out, much of the .NET development has
involved open-source friendly language researchers), then any .NET software
will run on Linux, and the app barrier to entry will be broken.
Then Linux could easily become a major force on the desktop.
As I have pointed out many times, the major shortcoming of Linux is its lack
of its own component model. It uses CORBA, which is a technology that these
big vendors made inferior because they were afraid of the adverse impact of
a component technology which pushed them into a competitive distributed
component environment.
The whole history of server vendors until recently was to spout idealism
about standards, then differentiate their hardware systems to keep higher
profit margins.
These is why this market has been taken over to a great extent by both Linux
and Windows 2000.
For all of your unthinking Java rah rah, Sun is doing exactly the same thing
with EJB. It sets out a spec, watches all these companies develop and build
the technology, then uses it to make a product.
The reason Sun backed down on the J2EE licensing fees is that IBM created so
much of the technology, and Sun would be afraid to go to court.
That's the same reason the Sun/Microsoft Java suit will never make it to
court. Sun is afraid it will be revealed just how little of Java is
original, so an adverse decision might affect its licensing practices. After
all, in copyright law, everything that is NOT original gets stripped away.
Sun might be left with little more than a trademark.
Sun's inability to develop a working product rather than a spec, means that
all the EJB vendors end up extending the spec to add functionality. Hence
there is no effective standard in the sense of one vendor's implementation
working with another's, except at the lowest common denominator.
Sun fully expects to use all the EJB vendor's technologies and finally come
up with a product, that, utilizing its marketing power, can end up
dominating the fractured market. Is this not the Unix
splintered-market-for-profit scenario all over again.
2 + 2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
