Linux-Advocacy Digest #139, Volume #35 Mon, 11 Jun 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Tim D.)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux (Rotten168)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux (Rotten168)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux (Rotten168)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I propose a GPL change... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Redhat video problems. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:08:51 +0200
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not arguing that C isn't a good language, I'm arguing that it's not
an
> > easy language.
>
> That largely tends to be dependent on the person using it. A compound bow
can
> be more lethal and easier to use than a zip gun, if the person knows how
to use
> the bow.
Certainly, what you can get out of a tool is totally depended on the user of
this tool.
> C and C++ *are* easy languages. They allow almost total control over what
you
> are doing. They do not "get in the way." Anything one can do with higher
> languages can be done in C and C++.
Okay, that is where the problem starts.
C *requires* you to be in total control, which mean that even a moment of
distraction can break havoc.
C++ is much better in this regard, in that you can ignore a lot of stuff
without dire results.
I *like* being able to get total control, I *don't* like being forced to it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim D.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:13:26 GMT
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:37:18 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know of no person using a PC that Windows XP is not targeting. Are
>you saying MS doesn't want some people to buy XP?
I sure in the hell won't, I'll beta it (like I did with win 2k) but I
wont buy it... not with a p-1 box with 100 mhz and 64 meg ram that has
been my primary box since my last company pulled it out of service as
an nt 3.51 file server....
my second box will beta it...
"Given a chance, they would believe that Microsoft would gladly use their
living guts to grease the treads of it's tanks".
Charles Cooper commenting on software developers who
heap praise on Microsoft. Coop's Corner, PC Week Online.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove "hell" to reply
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:18:49 GMT
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:02:18 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >David Brown wrote:
>
> >> Of course, the light bulb was originally Scottish, most of the practical
> >> work on the foundations of computing was done in Britain (with a number of
> >> prominent Dutch theorists as well), the web was Swiss, and a whole bunch
> >> more.
> >
> >The WWW is Swiss. I didn't know that! The web is Swiss, but the internet
> >is obviously American.
>
> Is it? They own it do they?
Actually, mostly, yes. I don't mean that in the context of how you
quoted it, but the internet is an American creation. I didn't know that
the WWW
was Swiss but I'm willing to believe it.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:20:20 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > [1] Tamed the West -- an internal matter, to be sure, but quite
> > an accomplishment given the primitive technology at the time.
>
> Not impressive, people had done more with less beforehand.
>
> > [4] First man on the moon.
>
> And nothing significant ever since.
The internet isn't significant?
> The whole race to the moon was the biggest, stupidest, most wasteful PR
> campain that has ever taken place in human history.
> A lot of good things came out of it, but to do it for freaking *PR*?
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:47:10 +0200
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > [1] Tamed the West -- an internal matter, to be sure, but quite
> > > an accomplishment given the primitive technology at the time.
> >
> > Not impressive, people had done more with less beforehand.
> >
> > > [4] First man on the moon.
> >
> > And nothing significant ever since.
>
> The internet isn't significant?
I was talking about significant in space exploration terms.
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:51:53 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > [1] Tamed the West -- an internal matter, to be sure, but quite
> > > > an accomplishment given the primitive technology at the time.
> > >
> > > Not impressive, people had done more with less beforehand.
> > >
> > > > [4] First man on the moon.
> > >
> > > And nothing significant ever since.
> >
> > The internet isn't significant?
>
> I was talking about significant in space exploration terms.
Ok, yes you are 100% correct. We spent the 80's too concerned with
making newer and better ways of killing people to make any productive
gains in space exploration... and the 90's weren't much better. People
are just too concerned with their little pathetic materialistic worlds
than to see the big picture.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:56:28 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 11 Jun 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Flumm-flummery is what that is. You seem to be saying that the GUI is
>>>> just explorer. If the *GUI* 'crashes', that means the GDI crashed. If
>>>> Explorer crashes, it means an app has crashed.
>
>Note that you wrote "if the GUI "crashes", that means the GDI crashed".
>
>You did not write "it could be the GDI that crashed".
You seem incapable of understanding the point that it truly does not
matter.
[..]
>In other threads you painstakenly wage words and their meaning.
And now you're making me do it here. What is it with you people?
>If you utter one of your broad, sweeping statements, then it somehow
>does not matter anymore, you just don´t "waste time".
You haven't the first breath of a point, the way you play games with the
word "it". No, the difference between the GUI crashing and the GDI
crashing is meaningless, in the context I provided. If you want to
quibble, go find a four year old. It doesn't mean any possible
distinction between the two in all possible cases "does not matter
anymore". You are wasting my time.
>Very well done, TMax, and very convincing.
>In my eyes, you are a fool or a moron, whichever comes up first.
And in my eyes, you are simply mistaken, no more and no less than any
other fool. Go figure.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:56:29 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>My point is that because of the way it was designed, it doesn't matter. Not
>that it couldn't have been designed differently. There is no more or less
>of a stability change because of the move of the GUI into the kernel because
>of the way NT was desigend.
Erik's been keeping up to date with the sock-puppet briefings, it seems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:56:31 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >There is much GPL'd and free software that violates patents as well, for
>> >instance vorbis ogg is claimed to still violate the mp3 patents.
>>
>> Until it is proven in court, it is not worth quibbling about. It is
>> open source code; whether it infringes on a patent is a matter of facts,
>> not urban legends.
>
>So then, you agree that AT&T suing MS for patent infringement is also not
>worth quibbling about until proven in court, correct?
Depends on what you mean by 'quibbling about'. I can't see any reason
to avoid discussing the matter, no. I'm unfamiliar with the details,
myself, but it is getting kind of hard to presume MS innocent of
whatever they've been accused of this time. But we're not in court.
>> >It's quite easy to unintentionally violate a patent. Of course AT&T
>claims
>> >that MS willfully violated the patent, however, it's pretty much common
>> >practice to ignore patent issues unless actually sued, since most of the
>> >time the claims are baseless.
>>
>> It is *possible*. It is not 'quite easy' to unintentionally violate a
>> patent, or else patents would not be possible to uphold. Your
>> explanation of the common approach seems to contradict your own point;
>> if most of the time the claims are baseless, then obviously it is not
>> easy to unintentionally violate a patent, though it may be easy to get
>> sued for a baseless claim.
>
>One example of a patent that has been unintentionally violated by millions
>is the XOR cursor. Nearly every programmer has created a cursor-like image
>that is XOR'd from the original image.
Sounds more like an invalid patent, if it can be unintentionally
violated by millions. If nearly every programmer does it, it would
hardly qualify as unobvious, and that is, after all, one of the
requirements for patentability.
>There are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of
>similar cases.
Indeed. I'll bet it is very confusing if you think of patent or the law
as some metaphysical thing.
>> >> How can Microsoft expect Windows pirates to feel the least
>> >> bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a mammoth
>> >> scale?
>> >
>> >Patent infringement is not copyright infringement.
>>
>> IP infringement is IP infringement. How can MS expect Windows pirates
>> to feel the least bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a
>> mammoth scale?
>
>Copyright infringement is the willful copying of code verbatim. Patent
>infringement can and does happen without knowledge of the patented item.
So? Willful copying of code goes on routinely, as a necessary part of
using code. That isn't copyright infringement, in those cases, by law.
They're both IP; they are both ultimately decided by a judge
ascertaining the just and rightful interests of everyone involved, with
an eye towards public utility. Copyright can be unintentionally
infringed (there is no test of being unobvious), just as patent can. It
just doesn't often happen because of the more concrete distinctions.
That doesn't make copyright infringement any more bad than patent
infringement, and so you are particularly wrong in your defense of
Microsoft when we consider that they have been convicted of *willfully*
infringing patents. Of course, even after found guilty, they refused to
admit it, so I'm sure as a good little sock-puppet, you want to maintain
your own willful ignorance on this point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:56:30 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> pip wrote:
>> >
>> > GreyCloud wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I'd highly doubt this very much on your last statement here. That is
>> > > why intel made these processors like this in the first place. That is
>> > > why Linux is quite stable in regards to isolation from the graphics
>> > > interface. I guess Dave Cutler knew what he was talking about when he
>> > > originally wrote NT. (Keep the kernel in ring 0 and the rest in the
>> > > other rings.)
>> >
>> > I 100% agree!
>> > The plot thickens - so why did he change ?
>>
>> Only rumour you know, but insiders said Gates was paying David a real
>> high salary at the time. As soon as the orignial NT was finished and
>> working, Gates let him go. Gates then turned around and took the NT
>> code and tried to put a GUI around it. It failed miserable and Gates
>> couldn't get his pet project on the market fast enough. So he paid even
>> more money for David to come back and fix it up. It ran too slow for
>> Bills' taste and wanted to know if there was a way to speed it up.
>> Someone suggested to shove the video in with the kernel, and then a
>> heated argument erupted over it. Gates then fired David, and tried out
>> this idea and found it worked to his desires. Just rumour mind you.
>
>This story doesn't fit the timeline.
>
>NT had a GUI in the beta stage for starters, long before Cutler would have
>"finished" it. Secondly, They didn't move the GUI into the kernel until NT
>4, which was 1996, 3 years after NT first came out.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Who said the beta stage wasn't long after Cutler finished his kernel?
The timeline makes sense to me. You just mistook the phrase "the
original NT" with the first commercial distribution of NT. An
understandable mistake, but a bit too eagerly assumed, I think. So
Cutler writes the original NT, then leaves MS, Bill tries to GUIfy it
(1993), it fails, Cutler comes back to save their bacon with NT 3.5,
then balks when MS wants to stuff the GUI into the kernel. He gets let
go, and NT 4 results.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat video problems.
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:11:54 -0400
>
>>> The other distros will either get the wrong
>>> Trident model, or if they get it correct no matter what I select as
>>> refresh rates etc it won't work.
>>
>>Trident definetly suck, just like your $90 elcheapo Cannon printer.
>
What's wrong with Canon printers anyway - my father recently bought an
ex-demo BJC2000 in a closing down sale without manuals or software and I
used my Mandrake 7.2 system ( I have since upgraded to 8.0) to test if for
him with no problems - I then had the fun of downloading the 3.5mb of
windows driver for him ( I have a poor phone line and can only usually get
around 31,000 - I am currently connected at 21,600 and am considering
switching to cable).
> Instead of using hardware from 1985 like you do.
>
My display card is a TNT2 card bought new less than a year ago, I also have
a BT878 based tv card ( made by Pace), an Epson Stylus colour 640 (under 2
years old), a Mustek 600CP printer-port scanner ( bought cheap ex-demo 6
months ago as I only need it for occasional use), a Kodak DC210+ digital
camera ( bought secondhand 2 months ago - made about 3 years ago) and an
NEC model NR-7700A 12x10x32 speed CDRW drive ( about 1 month old) and all
devices work perfectly under Linux ( The camera, scanner and TV card work
better than under windows as drivers are still being improved - they seem
to have stopped releasing new windows drivers so no Win2k or XP support
either).
I am now browsing the web with Konqueror, reading newsgroups with KNode and
also watching 'Big Brother' in the top-right-hand corner of the screen with
XawTV while KMail checks for email every 2 minutes.
Under Windows the TV card regularly crashes and no chance of new drivers
because the manufacturer of the card has ceased trading and even though
many other manufacturers use the same chipset none of them detect my card
(different PCI id's) so their drivers won't work with my hardware unlike
linux where it identifies the Chipset directly so works with all BT878
based cards.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:01:14 -0600
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:46:38 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Well, it's not like they're being redirected there from my site, so
>> I'm not too concerned
>
>Unlike some people, I can look at this problem from more points of view
>than only my own. They may be redirected from my customers' web sites,
>so I am concerned.
Personally I think this is all much ado about nothing, but just to
show I'm a nice guy here's a little more fuel for the discussion:
<http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/166676.html>
Microsoft 'Smart Tags' Could Violate Law - Attorney
"Technology embedded in the upcoming version of Microsoft's Internet
Explorer (IE) browser could run afoul of the law by placing
unauthorized links on privately owned Web sites, an intellectual
property attorney said today. "
"Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) attorney Robin Gross said today
that the Microsoft "Smart Tag" technology could violate both copyright
law and federal rules prohibiting deceptive and unfair business
practices. "
<snip>
"But Gross said that by embedding Smart Tags on Web sites without the
express permission of the site owners, Microsoft could be accused of
creating "derivative works," that is, unauthorized, edited copies of
the Web site content that users are attempting to visit."
"'That makes it a new work (and) you are not allowed to do that under
copyright law,' Gross said. While Gross said she would need to see the
Smart Tags in action to determine whether they cross the "derivative
work" threshold, she warned that Microsoft is, at the very least,
dancing dangerously close to the line.
"And even if the Smart Tags don't violate copyright law, Gross said,
they could put Microsoft on the wrong side of regulations preventing
deceptive trade practices."
<snip>
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
