Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 23:13:02 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Myers) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:57:29 -0700 Ayende Rahien wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 Seriously, though, I think that it's a primitive API. Is there some taxonomy of APIs within the engineering community which I am unaware of? If not, you're just begging the question, I think. Which is fine, as long as you say I do not think it is really an API, although it is a primitive form of API. At least then we know the metaphysical ground you are standing on; where API's in the wild can be captured and domesticated and categorized. Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts an API at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables you to ascertain the morphology of APIs? No one called the first automobils cars, but they are certainly primitive sort of a car. It fits into the defination of API, so it's an API. It doesn't fit into the same category as most APIs today, so I called it primitve API. Pretty soon you guys are going to call your hands and feet APIs. -- V -- From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 19:59:30 -0700 Dave Martel wrote: On Fri, 11 May 2001 00:15:03 -0700, GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Martel wrote: On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:53 -0700, GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts an API at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that enables you to ascertain the morphology of APIs? -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** I've looked all over my documentation sets from MS dating back to 1987. No such wording back then about APIs. I'm beginning to thing MS has been re-painting their old horse a new color is all. Somehow, the semantics are being changed. Don't know how official it was, but I remember a time about 12 years ago when DOS API was a common term. I've long since thrown it out but also used to have a book entitled something like A Programmer's Guide to the DOS API. That is unfortunate for me. I have never seen the term API until long after I retired. I thought when I saw it that it meant the GUI form of a routine call. I guess I'm just out of date is all. I think the current term for people like us is, obsolete old dinosaurs. g Well, if it weren't for us 'dinosaurs' these kids wouldn't have their PCs. :-) -- V -- From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:04:06 -0700 T. Max Devlin wrote: Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:53 T. Max Devlin wrote: Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 Tom Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:xEtK6.83$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message Tell us then of *your* criteria a body of functions must meet to be classified as such... I asked him that before, couple of times, so far he refused to answer. I simply take him at his word that he's not a programmer when these little asides occur. I enjoy the arguments, though. Oh what the hell, what's *your* definitive opinion, as a programmer, as to 21h calls? That I'm glad to get rid of them :-) Seriously, though, I think that it's a primitive API. Is there some taxonomy of APIs within the engineering community which I am unaware
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: An end to legacy hardware? (Axel Harvey)
Re: TeX pdf output was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Ed L
Cashin)
Re: Entry-level *ix positions?? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Fun With Old Laptops. (: (Bloody Viking)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (T. Max Devlin)
From: Bob Hauck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Reply-To: bobh = haucks.org
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:44:00 GMT
On Saturday 07 April 2001 18:09, mm@mm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
speaking of KDE, I went to see what the fuss was all about, wanted to
download KDE 2.1, when I followed the links, all what I found was
zillions of RPM files in a directory, that the user is supposded to
download one by one to install.
Well, I would think a clueless luser like yourself would be using a
graphical ftp client where you can just drag the directory to where you
want it. Like, say, the KDE file manager. At worst you'd have to hold
the control key while you select the files. Yeah, real rocket science
there.
Oh, maybe you've only got a text-mode system. Then you'd have to use
the "get tarred directory" feature that most Unix ftp servers have:
ncftp ftp.kde.org
cd ...some long path...
get RPMS rpms.tar
Then just untar and install. Or, use one of the many programs that can
do recursive gets (e.g. wget, KDE's file manager).
are linux people that clueless?
No, but you seem to be. Downloading multiple files isn't exactly
rocket science.
can't they least put everyone in one file to make it easier to
download?
I don't prefer to download 150 MB files, and sometimes only want to
grab a part of the distribution.
or may be, I shudder to think of it, have an easy installer for this?
Like RPM? I installed KDE 2.1.1 (upgrade from 2.1) by doing this:
$ for i in qt kdebase kdelibs kdegames ...; do rpm -U $i/*; done
I then went and helped my daughter with her homework while it
installed. Yeah, that was real rough.
[snip rest of yet another stupid troll]
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 02:19:25 +0200
Ermine Todd III wrote:
Linux is for people who don't have any real work to do and can spend
endless hours recompiling the kernel and are too cheap to pay for the
real thing.
In the last 12 month I´ve paid about 1500$ on Software for Linux and
linux itself, whereas I´ve paid about 300$ for Wintendo-software (mostly
for the kids).
By the way, I´m doing programming for a living. Constantly rebooting is
just not very productive.
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
--
From: Axel Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An end to legacy hardware?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:45:40 +
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Andy Walker wrote:
Lets face it, PC's are pieces of crap. They have so many legacy problems
such as interrupt configurations, memory and backwards compatability that
they belong in the 1980's if not the 70's. In reality it's like getting an
old Cortina and trying to get it to perform like a Ford Focus.
Gee! I thought legacy hardware was something like my Cromemco Z2X
(preciously mothballed in my cellar)--and I think of it more as a
Duesenberg J than as a Ford.
--
From: Ed L Cashin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: TeX pdf output was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 07 Apr 2001 21:51:42 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Bellenot) writes:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Richard L. Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agree preferring some of the old to some of the new. But I really _hate_
the cruddy, almost unreadable fonts one typically sees in TeX generated
PostScript. They don't look quite so bad on paper, but at mere screen
resolutions, they're dreadful.
Indeed they can be, but they don't have to be. Here are a couple of
easy fixes:
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot/web/pdf.html
Yeah, ba
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Where is suse 7.1? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Opsss there goes another one. (Tim Hanson)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Mart
van de Wege")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Into the abyss... (Matthew Gardiner)
From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:33:28 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
The Home Guard was ill-armed because of the reactionary gun-control
laws pushed through by the British elite around 1920.
That is BS. Even if people had personsal weapons, they would not have
been much use against Panzers.
Panzers go "blub blub blub" without a dock to land them on. Beachheads
are not docks.
You can land tanks on beaches with the right landing craft.
Secondly, there was no guns in England
because there were not enough guns to go round the army. That's why the
You make my point for me.
No. Whether the UK had guns in the home or not, by 1941 they would all
have been long gone. There was not enough metal to go roung for making
weapons.
guovernment confiscated every scrap of metal (iron fences, the lot) for
use in weaponary. Any personal weapons would have been taken away and
used.
Conversely, in the United States, we were able to provide the British
with more service-quality rifles and shotguns from PRIVATELY DONATED
firearms than out of the combined stores of our armed services.
See my above point. Don't forget that the US has a much bigger population
and didn't have essential imports being cut off.
Gun control is ALWAYS about implementing feudalism.
I disagree.
Then you truly have no understanding of how the elitist power-brokers in
government view the average citizen like you and me.
They want you to be a conformist little robot who offers ZERO resistance
to any of their decisions.
Me having a gun would make no difference to a single decision the
government has made in recent times. The only way it would have made a
difference would be through armed uprising which is too extreme for
anything that they've done recently.
You see...incidents like Dunblane are HYPED so as to brainwash you into
surrendering your BASIC HIMAN RIGHT to self defence.
I didn't own a gun anyway. The new legislation stopped nutters getting
guns. Almost noone in the UK (barring criminals) owned hand gund. The
legislation won't affect criminals and it won't affect non gun owners, so
it has affected almost noone. Besides, if you still are hell bent on
protecting your home, then you can get a shot gun, since they are still
allowed.
This is a bit out of date, of course. The events of Dunblane resulted
in further further hysterical legislation that was equally
misdirected
I disagree.
Disagree all you want. You're still wrong.
Well I think your wrong. Why don't you admit that I'm entitled to my own
opinion?
and inneffective. If British readers of this don't get the point by
now, I hope that American readers will, at least.
I get the point, I just disagree. One problem you have is an
unwillingness to see why other people hold a different point of view.
My point of view is based on a thorough study of history and the actions
of both common criminals, and those who infect government.
Trusting EITHER type of criminal to treat you with courtesy is a foolish
thing to dofoolish enough that it may cost you your life.
I don't trust either to treat me with courtesy. But I don't think guns are
the solution.
Remember...in the period 1900-1999, the LEADING cause of violent death
among people has been attack by their own government.
There is no escaping that fact.
You say, Oh, someone like Hitler or Stalin could never come into power
hereand at the same time, set up all the same conditions which usher
such bloodthirsty tyrants into power.
What help could a hand gun possibly be against government forces? An
artillery gun could quite easily drop a high explosive shell on my house
from 60 miles away. I wouldn't stand a chance, guns or no guns.
If the government wanted to turn on us and guns were legal, it would cut
off the supply first, as well. Any stocks of ammo wouldn't last very long.
Again, having a gun wouldn't help much.
Yet, the French resistance, and the Russian and Yug
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ed is the standard editor (TTK here..)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows Stability (J Sloan)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows Stability (Craig Kelley)
OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (mlw)
From: TTK here..
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: 13 Jan 2001 23:42:12 GMT
just how much
of my hardware and software was really "clones" of other hardware or
software .. the Z80 was an 8080 clone, VDE was a WordStar clone, DOS
was a CP/M clone, my AMD is an Intel clone, and Linux is a Unix clone.
Wasn't Linux originally a MINIX clone? Hence its compatibility with
Unix, while still retaining its unique qualities.
Not exactly .. Linux was inspired by Minix. Linus wanted to enhance
Minix into a "real" OS, but the author/owner of Minix didn't like that
idea, so Linus wrote a Unix-alike from scratch. He didn't specifically
target Minix compatability (except inasmuch that the first versions of
Linux used the Minix filesystem), but rather POSIX and SysV
compatability.
-- TTK
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:23:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matt Soltysiak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
amazing.
Here are some of the common failures:
[failures snipped -- most of them lockups]
Have you checked your power supply? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random dodgy hardware here
EAC code #191 2d:08h:47m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
--
From: "Nigel Feltham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:21:47 -
I can hardly compare Linux (no X or GUI) with Windows now can I?
if your linux has no gui then how are you running that kde desktop shown
in your sig?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: 14 Jan 2001 00:31:19 GMT
Russ Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
: couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
: Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
Actually, Excel for the Mac predated Excel for Windows, and for that
matter Windows itself.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:33:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
actually sleep.
Why? Because their human.
So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
few problems with them after I did that.
Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pi
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 13:13:03 EST Contents: Re: C++ is very alive! (Charlie Ebert) Re: C++ is very alive! (Charlie Ebert) Re: C++ is very alive! (Pedro Sam) Re: C++ is very alive! (Charlie Ebert) Re: C++ is very alive! (mlw) Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin) Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin) Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin) Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin) Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin) Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) Subject: Re: C++ is very alive! Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 16:57:28 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Hauck wrote: On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:37:43 -0500, mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that anyone calling themselves a "software engineer" ought to score pretty high on your little quiz. However, I don't agree at all with the implication that "real engineers use C++". There are lots of fools using C++ and lots of "real engineers" using Java. Years ago there were people saying that "real engineers" used only assembler and the attitude that speaks to is still wrong today. I kind of got the impression he was saying the software engineer title belonged to Kernel developers and the such. You'd play hell writing a kernel in java I think. I don't think a "software engineer" is defined by his tools, rather he knows how to use several tools and applies the one best suited for the job. That tool may be C++, or it may be something else. Algorithms and data structures and the other things in your quiz are useful to know whatever language you use. See, now this is yet another definition of "software engineer". And I would agree every company has it's own perception of what a "software engineer" should be and what a "programmer/analyst" should be. There are also about 5 different types of "dumbshit" out there. -- -| Bob Hauck -| To Whom You Are Speaking -| http://www.haucks.org/ Titles are NOT that important. What IS important is your boss NEEDS you for a mission critical job and he's willing to pay to keep you there. Beyond that, "dumbshit" is just fine. Charlie -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) Subject: Re: C++ is very alive! Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 17:08:12 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Salvador Peralta wrote: snip I'd like to make another COMMERCIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FOR Linux, in specific GNU/LINUX - ALA DEBIAN. People worry about some of the silliest stuff these days. There are people who are worried Fortran will disappear! There are people who are worried Cobol will disappear! There are people who are worried Pascal will disappear! There are even people who are worried C++ will disappear! FEAR NOT! GNU/GPL MAN IS HERE!@ If there ever were a GOLDIES - OLDIES - COMPILER MOLDIES - it would be here at DEBIAN. Any language you have learned if the GNU has made a compiler for it, that language will be here for another 10,000 years at least! So, when your faced with that $2,000 VB Professional renewal or those $6,000 a seat MF blues, remember you can go to a place where everybody knows your name - DEBIAN And if that isn't enough for you, even shitty development tools such as Visual Basic will probably be GNU'ed soon! In fact, I'd have to say by 2010 they will probably have all the major languages GNU'ed and be out on street corners lookin to pick a fight with the next guy to pop his head up. It's either that or the 4gl makers are in big trouble here. Charlie -- From: Pedro Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: C++ is very alive! Date: 26 Nov 2000 16:33:58 GMT mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: !!! Warning!!! The following reads like flame bait, to many it may be. It is not intended to be. !! I know lots of engineers that use C++. I know lots of CS people that use C++ If I should be so bold, software engineers use tools like C++, programmers use stuff like Java or VB. There is a difference, and it is important to remember. A = "people that use C++" B = "people that use stuff like Jave or VB" I know people that are A, I know people that are B, and I know people that are AB. What is an AVL tree, can you write one? forgot this one too... no I don't know how to write one. Ace that question in the final though. What is a hash table, how would you write one? a data structure that holds "keys" and "values"... given a key, a well structured hash table will return the value in O(1) time... there are many implementations, some invol
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #29Wed, 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
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin) Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin) Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Mike Marion) From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:56:38 -0400 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy; On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:48 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote: [...] How so? You stated that ethics (which I define as morals in this context, as 'ethics' must take the lab rat's perspective into account) were entirely self-referential. If the advanced creatures' social environment allowed them to use us as lab rats, then they would be "ethical" in doing so. Have I missed something? OK, I thought you meant that I was defending their society. Yes, you're correct, I wouldn't consider individuals in that society much less ethical than I consider conformists in our society. That's ludicrous. First, why are you suddenly switching, again, to individuals? The use of sentient creatures as test subjects without their consent is unethical, and would be so for all sentient creatures (the only kind capable of having morals or recognizing ethics). Therefore, the only individuals in that society which could be considered ethical to begin with would be those that work to prevent such actions. You're over-doing this "conformist" stuff. You are missing the fact that ethics is a "conformist" issue. An individual is free to make up his own morality from whole cloth if he desires. Ethics, however, are common ground with other individuals' morals. [...] Sure, societies can refine and gently reform themselves. The problem is that they can only evaluate themselves within the limited context of their own morality. This doesn't make refinement impossible, but it greatly limits the ability of society to transform itself. Again, you confuse individual choices with the observation of abstract collections. Societies cannot "reform themselves", as societies have no consciousness or 'free will'. Sentient individuals, as much as you may have reason to suspect self-serving behavior, do, in fact, evaluate themselves with a far broader context than their society's ethical standards. If they didn't, we wouldn't have higher ethical standards than we did hundreds of years ago. In fact, if the individual himself weren't capable of evaluating himself and his actions through a broader scope than his own morality, then nobody would ever change their morality. One might also wonder how much of our moral "progress" can be attributed to economic success. Even in todays "civilised" world, barbarism can prevail when countries decline. I don't think we've made much moral progress. Ethical progress doesn't break down nearly so easily, though it breaks down *almost* as easily as civil law does. However, even in today's most "economically successful" world, barbarism is rampant when individuals relax their guard. An almost comprehensive reduction of post-modernist delusion. There isn't any value in it, but it can't easily be refuted. That's because it is unfalsifiable, though, not because it is irrefutable. Not sure what you mean. A big problem for philosophers though is that you can only prove assertions about mathematics, and that's because the things you are proving don't say anything about the "real world". That's silly. You can't "prove" assertions about mathematics any more than anything else, if you're going to put the phrase "real world" in quotes. The big problem for philosophers is that you can't provide evidence of emotions, intent, or sentience; you can only provide indications that they might exist. Given a sufficiently gullible operator, we would all fail the Turing Test. The real problem with philosophy is that many people seem incapable of grasping abstractions to begin with, and the grand-daddy of all abstractions, "truth", is the toughest of all. [...] Why not? Are you under the impression that there is an absolute morality inherent in the universe, or that there is no such thing as ethics? Morality is not absolute, but "rationality" is. Says who? [...] Whatever. You seem to believe that since ideals have no physical presence, they don't exist. Or that since there is no absolute morality, we cannot derive ethics by
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #27Mon, 3 Jul 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Petition for Microsoft (Charlie Root)
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? (Charlie Root)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Ready for Linux ? The "Furniture Scale" ("bmeson")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:53:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:45:40 GMT 8jpgb1$34p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your weenus comments exceeded 80 columns so I corrected them for you
so that others could
read them.
BTW, why didn't IE correct your ability to type past 80 anyway?
I've never known IE to be a Newsreader. Blimey, accrediting it with
things it doesn't do, wow, do you know Windows or what!
Indeed; the headers of this post show you're using Netscape,
which is about as bad when it comes to typing past 80.
However, one can attempt to fix that with judicious fiddling with
the settings, resulting in a monospaced font; one can then
resize one's window to fit 80 characters.
Whether all of this is worthwhile or not...I can't say. (Outlook
Express doesn't do it well either; of course, Outlook Express is
very peculiar when it comes to its support of several versions
of followup formatting!)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLRN. Simple, Likable, Reliable Newsreader. :-)
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:55:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:17:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
Actually, you can write a program that slowly varies the delay
between back-and-forth head seeks, and eventually, you will hit
the harmonic frequency of the drive chassis, and the whole thing
will shake itself to death (kind of like the Verazanno Narrows
bridge in Tacoma, Washington that lasted for all of three months...
it's the weirdest thing, watching movies of solid concrete flexing
like a long piece of white engineer's eraser (you know, the kind
in a long clicker, like Pentel and other make..)
Heh...shoulda thought of that. Nasty!
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but I prefer my drives working :-)
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:00:56 GMT
In article 8jpejn$us$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article 8jmhkn$4va$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it was W@K you would have had to reboot!
What is W@K?
If you mean Windows 98 SE, yes I agree.
If you mean Windows 2000, it would have told me what just died (which
Linux did not) and would have carried on as if nothing had happened.
This is one area Windows 2000 scores over Linux.
That's a totall crock of bullshit.
First of all, If a process in W2K eats up to many resources it will hang
or slow you system down to a total crawl. It does not pop up a message
telling you how kill the process. You have to know in advance to type
ctrl-alt-del to kill the process.
Secondly, all of the following W2K BSOD's give you no warning
whatsoever:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q245/1/12.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q260/9/56.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q232/9/48.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q254/6/11.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q257/8/13.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q259/1/44.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q128/6/30.asp
And thirdly, it's strictly KDE, not Linux,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What have you done? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Malicious scripts on Unix (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (aflinsch)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: What have you done?
Date: 10 May 2000 11:07:02 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Full Name [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the Linux box is a
piece of rubbish. I would get rid of it in a heartbeat. We purchased
it as a cheap alternative to an Alpha box for number crunching.
Errr, Linux and Alpha are not alternatives to each other.
NT simply murders any of the Unix box's when it comes to file and
print serving. My primary function is as an Oracle DBA. I don't have
the time to spend a month patching a Linux box.
You don't have to patch. You can use the same 'reinstall from
scratch' strategy that you use with NT. Except that with NT
you still have to reboot and reinstall the service packs afterwards
and reboot again anyway since you can't get an up-to-date NT
distribution.
I don't have time to
waste configuring Samba for file and print serving when I can get
better and faster performance from NT.
I'm curious about the relative configurations here. Is the Samba
server providing print filtering where the NT box doesn't. Printing
to parallel/serial ports or network destinations?
I'm afraid I have better
things to do then waste time vi'ing smb.conf, thinking about group
permission's, setting umasks and musing over s bits when I can achieve
more flexible and faster file sharing in two minutes with NT's access
control lists.
Odd, vi is much faster than mousing through a GUI, and once you
get a share set up the way you want as a template it is extremely
fast to cut and past a copy with a few modifications as opposed
to having to repeat each step.
You want to secure an NT file/print server? Easy. Delete the TCP/IP
protocol and run a non-routable protocol such as IPX. To achieve the
same level of security with a Unix box you would need to spend a week
wrapping all the TCP ports.
I guess you did say you had 5 boxes. Most places that need a
network need routing.
Any of you people done any programming? A novice programmer almost
always starts writing programs which read and write text files. As
their expertise increases they move on to binary files. Unix is a
novice operating system which reads and writes text files.
/etc/passwd is laughable.
Experienced programmers have generally used an assortment of CPU
types where binary files turn out to be non-interchangable. Have
you ever tried to migrate a large number of passwords from a system
that stores everything in binary to another vendor's product?
Unix's ugo - rwx permissions are simply inadequate for a modern
computing environment.
In rare cases. Can you give a concrete example of one?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: WickedDyno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:10:41 -0400
In article 391985be$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Germer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/10/2000 at 01:48 PM,
Joe Ragosta [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ROTFLMAO.
So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
food on their backs...
If they lived in Hong Kong, all they had to do was board a boat.
Even if they lived 3,000 miles from the nearest border without the wall,
why would they have to carry a year's supply of food? You sound like a
typical wintroll.
LOL! Joe Ragosta is a wintroll? Now I've seen everything!
--
| Andrew Glasgow [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 14:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K # of bugs in Debian (George Richard Russell)
Re: A Trip to the Store (George Richard Russell)
Re: IE on UNIX (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Martin Schenk)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A Trip to the Store (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Josiah Fizer)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Jeremy Nelson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Rob Hughes")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Rob Hughes")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Darren Winsper)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K # of bugs in Debian
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:10 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:37:55 +, Colin R. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Richard Russell wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:53:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really can tell emacs was written by someone who used computers in the
1970's.
Use they menus if you don't like the keybindings.
Point me to them. In the console version.
And you are complaining about 70's style programming?
Shrug. Even 80's dos based crap had *menus* Even CPM based stuff.
Or the keybindings to open and
navigate the bindings in the GUI (X|GNU(emacs)) versions, either.
Menus should not be mouse accessible only,
Why not?
Ye gods, because its a stupid limitation, easily fixable, yet left in since
those that wrote Emacs want menus (check box | ticked) but don't use them, and
hence, don't realise (care) how poorly done they are in emacs.
Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
shambles.
No, it isn't.
really? 10 deep nested menus is an example of GUI design par execellence, then?
At least some GUI's have heard of dialogs, tabbed widgets, and moved on slightly
from sticking to menu and pointer only.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:15 GMT
On 28 Feb 2000 00:30:33 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(c)There exists modern hardware that does not work with Windows.
In the context of the discussion, the PC (x86 PC) based hardware market,
Name some of that that doesn't work with Windows (any version)
Try and wriggle by claiming subsets of Windows (NT, 2000, 3.1, whatever)
Its insane for a vendor of x86 PC hardware not to support a windows varient
( 9* or more)
Of course, they may not support every version, but working with Windows is
broader than with Windows vX.X
You can expect vendor drivers for windows (one or more versions) with hardware.
Its just not so with any other x86 based OS, Unixlike or not.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
--
From: Brian Langenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:20:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
: There are about 5 filesystem projects. A couple of them are attempts
: to redeploy FSes from commercial UNIXen. Then there are GFS,
: ReiserFS, and ext3.
:
: There is a certain amount of duplicated effort, but the separation has
: several virtues:
: I didn't say they do not have virtues. But one of the primary vices is that
: this approach takes many times longer than using the same resources for one
: or two projects alone. Many people in the open source community are content
: to wait as long as it takes, the business world generally is not.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. While debugging can
be very effectively parallelized over many users, development cannot
enjoy the same type of benefits. Throwing lots of developers at
a single piece of software is likely to make the software later
and buggier rather
