Linux-Advocacy Digest #481, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?) ("Todd")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("Todd")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Lew Pitcher)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: What to do if your stuck using Windows. (Mike Byrns)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Bob Germer)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Goldhammer)
To all you WinTrolls ("David.L")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:10:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> There is some discussion as to whether a proton can and will decay or not
> >> (i.e., what is its half life). Many of the larger "elementary particles"
> >> decay fairly quickly.
> Christ, you just pull out all the stops to try to convince us you're
And what the fuck do you think the previous poster did?
> some kind of fricken' genius, don't you? Its pretty damn amazing how
> you intent concepts like 'meta-stable state' and 'quantum tunneling of
> black holes' sooner or later.
> >They don't /irreversibly decay/ thus they don't age.
>
> Thus, they aren't animate physical beings.
And because crab blood isn't red, it can't be blood.
> >Yes. They just don't age, and that's a lot more than humans are capable of.
>
> Humans can escape aging as easily as corporations do: metaphorically.
Define "metaphor" and prove that statement. You claim to be concerned
with rigour; prove it.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:13:50 +0800
"Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Grega Bremec wrote:
>
> > ...and Ian Pulsford used the keyboard:
> > >
> > >That's "rationalise" not "rationalize" ;-)
> > >
> >
> > If you're Ahmarican, yes.
> >
>
> Er, no. "rationalise" is Australian. Check your Macquarie
> dictionary.
And if you live in Singapore as well.
The Japanese, however, are one of the few places in Asia that use American
English.
And since the top companies in the world are mostly American and Japanese,
well, I guess American English is it.
-Todd
hehe... ooooh boy... I can see the *flames* comin' in now! :) :)
Beavis: fire! Fire! *FIRE*!!!
>
> > --
> > Grega Bremec
> > grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
> > http://www.gbsoft.org/
>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:13:30 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >No, fanatics *are not required* to have consistent belief systems.
>
> Fanatics don't have consistent belief systems.
<nods> Sure they don't.
> >And the belief system could be consistent, but have no grounding in
> >the observable universe (a common occurrence!)
>
> Aside from the fact that it is not consistency with anything else but
> the belief system itself which I was addressing, they aren't consistent
> that way, either.
Usually called "internal" vs "external" consistency. The first is also
called "self"-consistency. It's not like this terminology is hard to
figure out, is there some reason why you eschew it?
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 14:24:09 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rg47e$ioo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8rg2nn$hk61g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
> >
> >http://netscape.zdnet.com/framer/hud0022420/www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/
> news
> > /0,4586,2635894,00.html
> > >
> > >claire
> >
> > I don't suppose this would be an attempt to kill off corel's support
> > of the wine project would it?
>
> Doubt it. More likely, to stall future endevours to port the Corel
> office suite to Linux, forcing people back to the Win OS.
Actually, I think that Corel's effort to get things to run off the web is
what spurred MS to invest in Corel. MS' .net strategy is very similiar to
what Corel has been working on for a long time.
MS is just buying expertise that it doens't yet have.
> Smart business move. Those bastards.
Either way you look at it, MS made a smart move.
And that is one more reason that MS stays on top.
-Todd
>
> -ws
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:26:27 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike Byrns
> <@technologist,.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 05 Oct 2000 05:50:02 GMT
> <eEUC5.105472$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"." wrote:
> >
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8rbsj5$29bm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >> No, but DMA is often optional. You can turn it on, you can turn it off.
> >>
> >> > Why can't you turn it off?
> >>
> >> I just said you can turn it off, lightbulb.
> >
> >He did, Chad. I've already made the mistake of being overly
> >defensive with DOT.
> >He's either not a Penguinista or is choosing not to appear as one.
> >I, for one, think his recent posts are both well reasoned and tolerant
> >of my "rabid windosis".
> >
>
> You make it sound like some virulent disease. :-)
It is virulent. Thus the market share. Disease? Nah. Most of the world is
completely satisfied with Windows.
------------------------------
From: Lew Pitcher <[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: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:59:13 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > After a few snipping...
> >
> > : Of course, given Microsofts history, this was probably inevitable....
> > : (As seen in the movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley")
> > : They didn't write the original DOS, but conned some poor sucker out of
> > : the code for $50K, without disclosing that IBM was willing to pay
> > : millions
Actually, IBM went unannounced to Digital Research (the CP/M and CP/M
86 guys), but Gary K. was out of the office (flying his plane, IIRC),
and IBM got miffed. IBM then went to Microsoft (who at the time didn't
have an OS product to offer) and Microsoft won the contract to supply
an OS for the IBM PC. Microsoft quickly _licenced_ the source code for
a CP/M-like OS for the 8086 from a small software firm in (IIRC)
Seattle. They got the rights to modify the source and sell the
resulting product as their own, while the Seattle company retained the
rights to the original OS and it's official upgrades. The Seattle
company was still marketing QDOS while MS was marketting their version
to IBM as PCDOS. MS later marketed a generic version to the public as
MSDOS while IBM retained the rights to market the IBM PC specific
version as PCDOS. By this time, Microsoft's generic version of QDOS
had market dominance, followed by their IBM PC version (PCDOS); QDOS
was mostly dead by this time.
It's amazing what you can learn when you live through the events. You
learn so much more than what they make up for TV movies <g>.
> > IBM wasn't willing to pay millions for the "original" DOS, it was more like
> > in the range of $50K. As part of the contract they allowed Microsoft to sell
> > DOS to other hardware, since there was none at the time. Little did IBM
> > know.....
>
> IBM's GREATEST MISTAKE was making a machine which anybody could
> copy in his garage.
They fixed that with MCA, didn't they? <g>
> It TOTALLY blew the "IBM Mystique" when clones with BETTER SPECS
> started appearing on the market at less than 1/2 the price.
It wasn't hard to build a clone, but the BIOS was a killer. The first
code reverse-engineering 'clean room' contriversies of this
'microcomputer era' stemmed from companies building their own BIOS
clones.
> Up until then, IBM had a near total-lock on the computer market,
> because NOBODY ever questioned whether all that money going to
> IBM was actually a good performance/price ratio.
Depends on which "computer market" you're talking about.
They had most of the 'big iron' market locked up.
They didn't even come close in the minicomputer market; DEC and DG
were the leaders there.
They didn't have anything (until the PC) in the microcomputer market;
MITS and Apple were the leaders there (among a large group of 'almost
equals')
They didn't have much in the 'scientific computing' market; Cray had
that one.
> With the introduction of clone PCs, everybody quickly realized
> that IBM had been overcharging for dumbed-down products for years.
Clones came rather quickly to the market. Change this to 'for months'
and I might agree. Prior to the IBM PC, IBM had no presence (except
for the ill-fated IBM 5100) in the hobbist market (as it was known
then), and IBM's other products cost megabucks (thousands of dollars
for a 24x80 uppercase only greenscreen dumb terminal that only worked
with IBM mainframes).
--
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright and JOAT-in-training
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:44:35 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000 11:42:05 -0500, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >DMA is off by default for IDE devices with NT 3 and 4. You need to run a
> >utility called DMACHECK to turn on it's DMA testing and enabling function.
>
> Well, gee, thats *much* better than turning it on with hdparm in Linux.
More obfuscation. It's a shame that Drestin can't seem to understand the
responses that his posts will draw out. I bet he sucks at chess. Either way
we are talking Windows 9x where DMA is on or off automatically depending on the
drive and controller. In NT it's OFF when the controller is probed and found
to be broken. Otherwise it's on. The end result is that DMA is on when it
ought to be the vast majority of the time. Also, upgrading your chipset driver
will turn it on when the default chipset driver had it set to off. Former
combined with later results in virtually nobody needed to fuck with DMA in
Windows of any flavor. Linux seems to be another matter entirely. Hell
Mandrake claimed to support my IDE controller and isntalled all kinda files to
it but when it rebooted the kernel panicked. So much for the "ready for
primetime" arguement. I guess Jackson is right on one thing -- Linux will
never be anything more than a niche on the desktop.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What to do if your stuck using Windows.
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:31:47 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Insects are the only things which get stuck on my windows.
>
> Then I use my Bugg Squirter and just Squirt the little
> bastards off.
>
> If you an insect though, Windows is a very popular thing
> to attempt to use.
>
> That's been my observation anyway.
Charlie, like I said, please go sleep it off...
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:35:59 GMT
Michael Marion wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Your milage may vary - of course :) I've personally found the asus drivers
> > to be no where near as good as the reference drivers - I suggest you use
> > those instead of the repackaged drivers - I think you'll have far better
>
> As did I, but like I said, even nvidia's drivers failed until det 3 came out.
>
> Tried both these cards on two different mobos too (one Microstar(?) the other
> asus). With the det3 drivers, the box is finally stable... well it still
> treats my CD-R drive wierd where 98, Linux and even Be work fine with it.
Surely a Qualcomm UNIX engineer knows that the CD-R problem has nothing to do with
the video card problem. Your problem with the CD-R has nothing to do with Windows
(can't really since 98 only sees it as a reader) and everything to do with
whatever software you are using to drive it. My advice: get CDRWIN. It's about
like what you are used to in nix and be.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 03:57:10 GMT
On 10/05/2000 at 04:25 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) said:
> No one cares about your little anecdotes, bob.
And no one cares to read the crap a worthless little shit like you posts.
PLONK! Into the killfile with 4 other worthless piles of pondscum you go.
--
==============================================================================================
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
Tiny Timmie the Liar Martin of Warped City claims eCOMStation is MS
software!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 06:49:11 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > How _do_ you turn off DMA on an IDE disk in NT? Probably a registry
> > > key that's documented someplace in the bowels of MSDN. Where granma
> > > won't ever find it.
> >
> > DMA is off by default for IDE devices with NT 3 and 4. You need to run a
> > utility called DMACHECK to turn on it's DMA testing and enabling function.
>
> That's stupid.
How's that any more stupid than hdparm? Oops. It's Kulkis. Forget it.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:34:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >Much earlier, I defined 'being' as 'an entity with will'. "beinghood"
> >is "the property of being a being" ....
>
> Yea, fine. How about you just use the term 'consciousness', like every
> other normal person.
Because NOBODY ever uses consciousness to refer to this?
How you still manage to communicate in any manner while redefining all
of these terms is a mystery to me.
> >He didn't give any objection to my definition of will beyond an irreducible
> >difference of opinion.
>
> He said it sucked, and you revised it, and he said it sucked in a
> revised way, if I'm not mistaken.
My revisions had nothing to do with what he said. How could they since
his "objections" were content-free?
> Yes, but your definition sucks. If you want to denigrate his because he
> got it out of a dictionary, you're going to have to provide more than
> your asinine arrogance to justify the expansion.
I don't need any justification. Try it yourself, if you can't find
something better then it's justified. If you're unwilling to try then
it's justified de facto.
> >will more inclusive. Roberto has simply never bothered to justify his
> >thoughts before and he doesn't give a damn that they're unjustifiable.
>
> Yet he was holding his own against your post-modern bullshit until I
> couldn't resist distracting you, it appeared.
And I'm sure you like to think that you're holding your own against me.
> Which goes back to my question, which you never answered: are words
> defined exclusively, or inclusively?
Either, both. It doesn't matter so long is it's rigorous and the word
is useful with that definition.
> >Fine. Produce a rigorous definition of will that excludes simple
> >animate objects like self-replicating molecules of RNA.
>
> You're asking the wrong guy. I don't think sentience requires 'will'.
Define sentience then in a way that includes cases where will is
excluded.
> Fuck you. I have engaged in enough discussions which describe the
> distinction between being wrong and trolling to say that you are full of
> shit. COLA is about advocating Linux, and engaging in general
> discussion as per the rest of Usenet. I don't have anything against off
> topic, but that doesn't stop you from being an egocentric moron.
LOL.
Maybe if you got off COLA you might find newsgroups to contrast with
COLA's general viciousness.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:45:10 GMT
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:04:32 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[ snip ]
>> gimp ms paint, Gimp by a mile
>> kde advanced text editor vs notepad & wordpad, huge edge for linux
>
>But not vs. TextPad or Ultraedit.
Ultraedit is one of the better gui text editors, but if you asked
me to decide between it and vi, well... sayonara Ultraedit.
There is something supremely absurd about the whole concept
of a "point and click" menu-driven gui TEXT editor. Think about
it.
>Besides, with Notepad, I can use UNICODE, *and* Windows 2000 has many
>different language input locales that Linux does not have.
Notepad is a piece of shit.
[ snip ]
>IIS is included free with Windows 2000.
Steering wheels are now included free with every purchase of
a car from most manufacturers.
[ snip ]
>> perl vs. perl hands down, perl for linux
>
>No. ActivePerl for Win32 is perl plus Windows extensions -- ie. all of the
>funtionality of Perl plus more.
ActivePerl for Win32 does not have "all of the functionality
of perl". One of the reasons why I don't bother with Windows anymore
is its utter worthlessness as a perl development platform.
[ snip ]
------------------------------
From: "David.L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 10:50:29 +0300
This is to all of you morons who write posts such as: "Linux sucks",
"Windows Rulez" and such in linux newsgroups.
Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good //by Windoze
standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
"Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
done that shut up!!!
//Sorry for the bad english//
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:00:27 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >But an abstraction is not a metaphor so metaphor != abstraction.
>
> No, a metaphor is an abstraction, so a metaphor is an abstraction.
Does this make ANY sense to you? I am appalled at the mere thought
of a mind that can produce this.
> Metaphor = abstraction, if that's the only way you can understand it.
>
> Not all abstractions are metaphors, I think is what you mean. That
Since you don't even have passing knowledge of formal logic and
are repulsed at the thought of acquiring such "classic training",
you wouldn't know that this is EXACTLY what I said, not what I
"meant".
> would be abstraction != metaphor. The wonder full lack of symmetry in
> the pseudo-mathematical terms is what makes epistemology philosophy, and
> not science.
Ahhh, so "greater than" is a pseudo-mathematical term because it
is anti-symmetric. I'm glad we cleared that up.
> >And just what is your mind if not a database? Or is it all 'data'?
>
> We don't know yet. Do you presume to have knowledge beyond what
> cognitive science has yet been able to produce?
Do you presume to have knowledge beyond cognitive science?
What the hell *COULD* it be other than a database? The human
brain is a machine!
> >So the box booter is responsible for all of those stock trades?
>
> "Booter"? No. The one who made the *decision* to apply the
> configuration *decided* by the person who configured the software
What about the guy who made the decision to have someone decide
to apply .... [lots of bullshit that I can't even follow along]??
> written by the programmer who *decided* how the configuration would
> work, once the person who *decided* to implement an automatic stock
> system hired him.
> >And what is it that you think a human is if not a machine? YOU
> >are a machine, are you claiming that you do nothing by yourself?
>
> Yes. But I think about it while I'm doing it,
What a load of crap. Keep lying to yourself because you obviously
know nothing about cognitive science.
What the fuck is it with these imbeciles who keep asking "are you
saying you know more than X science?" when they don't know the first
fucking thing about X???
> which a machine doesn't
> do.
> >Only problem is you don't know what metaphysics is, and I do NOT
> >believe in "free" will. In fact, the definition of "will" generally
> >contradicts its being "free".
>
> Then what's 'will'? The desire to do something? That's just
I already gave a definition earlier in the thread. You claimed
to have followed this thread.
> rationalization, not motive cause. I know precisely what metaphysics
> is: complete and utter bullshit.
There speaks someone who goes to great lengths to explain why he
will never set foot in a philosophy class. I'm *SURE* you speak
from personal knowledge.
> If you mean epistemological formalism, I'm certainly anti-formalist, but
No, you're anti-formalism period.
> only because most of the epistemological formalists I've ever read were
> idiots. But perhaps you could change my opinion by describing how
> formalism is a solid defense against solipsism, as I wasn't aware there
> was such a thing.
Perhaps you missed the part where I repeatedly refused to discuss ANY
philosophical issues with you? That includes, but is not limited to,
morality, metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
