Linux-Advocacy Digest #680, Volume #25 Sat, 18 Mar 00 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("Colin R. Day")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (David H. McCoy)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (David H. McCoy)
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:42:35 -0600
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It should be clear that hackers, first and foremost, know their own
> history. They have a sense of people who came before them and who
> helped create a culture with its own customs, language, and ceremonies.
Being a hacker is not a culture (although there is a culture that has sprung
up around it). Being hacker does not require customs, language, or
ceremonies. You are a hacker in deed and mindframe. Nothing else. There
are many people that are hackers without even knowing that that is what they
are. The term "hacker" isn't unique to programming or computers. Although
it originated at MIT, it had nothing to do with technology. It was simply
pulling a cool stunt. A "hack".
> Most Windows coders I know aren't even *aware* of the Jargon File;
Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they do not exist.
> they have no idea such a thing exists. Few even know the names of
> Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond; fewer still the names of Bill Joy,
> Marshall Kirk McKusick, or other pioneers of the field.
Nor do they have to.
> They know who
> Bill Gates is, but not Gary Kildall, who might have won that long-ago
> IBM contract for the PC operating system had things turned out a bit
> differently.
Gary wasn't interested. It was his own fault he missed out on it. Even so,
given Gary's previous liscensing habits, he probably would not have struck
the kind of deal that Bill Gates did, and thus DR would never have become
the company that Microsoft did.
> A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore
> driver-writers and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth
> "Programming Windows" book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion
> Book, the Demon Book, or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those
> books are, or where they can be found.)
Considering that Petzolds book is ranked #1398 in Amazon.com's sales
rankings of all books, I'd say that quite a few read it. By comparison,
Programming Windows with MFC is ranked #2102, Professional MFC with Visual
C++ 6 is ranked #14,272, and Introduction to MFC programming with Visual C++
6 is ranked #26,585.
Books on compiler and OS design are not something the average programmer
needs to know to do their job. Nor do you need to know these texts in order
to earn the title of "Hacker".
> My point here is that Windows programmers are most often careerists
> who only want to get on the gravy train.
I would agree that there are more of such developing for Windows than Linux.
> This is not a bad thing; we
> all have to make a living. But many if not most of these folks do not
> learn the most rudimentary aspects of software or system design; they
> have no skills at debugging complex systems; and they are trained to
> use "packaged" solutions rather than figure out things for themselves.
I would bet there are more such experts programming for windows than there
are for Linux. The percentage of such people is going to be much higher on
OS's such as Linux, though I would argue that there are tons of 16 year olds
without proper training learning on Linux as well.
> Few of them know how to write common algorithms or solve common
> problems; ask an average VC++ coder to whip up a custom quicksort
> algorithm or doubly-linked list, and all you're likely to get in
> return is a blank stare. These programmers harm the entire trade
> because they give us a bad name -- they produce shitty, unstable code
> and have no real ability to do otherwise.
That is a management problem. They shouldn't be hired in the first place.
The problem is that demand outstrips supply of talented people. More
accurately, managers would rather hire cheap labor than experienced labor.
*THAT* is the real issue, not the platform.
> Now, this kind of thing happens on Unix,too (probably more often than
> it should!). But as old Unix hackers have known for a long time,
> peer-review is one of the best ways to get good, solid code. It
> promotes correct design and good coding practices. And over time it
> leads to best-of-breed software -- Apache, Sendmail, Emacs, gcc, mutt,
> etc. Bad code happens but it dies out quickly; the evolutionary
> environment of Open Source assures that only the best-adapted
> survives.
Very little IT code is ever peer reviewed outside of the organization, no
matter if it's unix or not. Open source makes up a *TINY* fraction of the
code written in corporate america.
> It's no accident that version-churn on Windows is continuous. Windows
> software is feature-driven; stability and security is of secondary
> (and often tertiary) concern. New "features" are integrated without
> much thought as to their overall impact on the system; often these
> features are included even when the vendor *knows* they will cause
> problems.
That's because the business world is so competitive. If you aren't the
first to ship, chances are you lose. It doesn't matter if your product is
better. Customers drive this, and that's what they want. Sure, customers
would like stable software, but they'd much rather have the latest gadget.
If you don't play the customer game, your compeitor will and you will die.
> Active Directory is once such "feature" -- Microsoft
> assures us that it works fine...as long as you have a Windows-only
> network.
Not true. Active Directory is LDAP compliant, not to mention X.400/500.
> Introduce Novell or Unix servers into the mix, or mix in NDS
> and Unix-based DNS/BIND implementations, and you're asking for bad
> trouble.
Not true. Only old versions of BIND have trouble, mostly due to bugs. Any
version of bind from the last 2 years will work fine.
> Microsoft never admitted that the old domain-based
> administration model was broken, either; they insisted it was fine
> right up until they replaced it with Active Directory. *Then* they
> admitted that it might have been a little broken.
It wasn't broken. Active Directory is simply more flexible. Is Netware 2
and 3.x broken just because Novell came out with NDS in 4.x? No.
> I blame a lot of this on the whole mindset of Windows programmers.
> They are never taught precepts that are second-nature to most Unix
> programmers -- that stability and "correctness" are not features, but
> core assumptions from which all else must flow.
Really? Then explain why most versions of Netscape is so unstable under
Linux? Explain with most window managers are crap and crash with the
slightest provocation. Explain why earlier versions of Gnome (even after
1.0) were almost unuseable.
"most" unix programmers are no different from Windows programmers in this
regard.
> Windows coders love
> GUI screens, and love messing around with COM/DCOM, but have no real
> idea how most of this stuff works at a lower level. I've seen Visual
> C++ programmers who don't really know C++ at all -- they've never used
> anything but an IDE, so they have no idea how to use the preprocessor,
> tweak the compiler/linker, or just ditch the IDE altogether and invoke
> the compiler from the commandline. ("Not the CLI!" they shriek, and
> hide their eyes.)
More generalizing. I can say similar things about Unix developers that only
know how to use the scripts that have been handed down from Moses (er.. I
mean the original developers).
> The attitude fostered by Microsoft -- that programming can be "easy"
> and "intuitive" -- has nurtured an entire generation of programmers
> who are sloppy, careless, and short-sighted. Part of this is due to
> the tools they use, but part is also their lack of training in *real*
> programming. They are not taught to design first and code later; they
> are not taught to code around data structures and not the other way
> around; they are not taught to debug. And this is why Windows is
> flooded with millions of lines of badly-written code.
Really? And you're telling me that the Open source model, which says "Get
something, ANYTHING working right away so that people can hack on it" is
"design first, code later"?
> Most of the really good hackers I know (I don't consider myself one
> yet, but I'm working on it) learned their craft on Unix. Even if they
> spend their days crafting software for Windows NT, these hackers
> harbor a secret love for Unix. Even good Windows programmers who have
> never used Unix -- a purely speculative animal; I have never met one
> -- must know they are missing something vital. To hack is to attempt
> to understand the inner workings of a thing and bend it to your will;
> it is to move beyond eye-candy and focus on the engine.
Considering that just about every tool available for Unix is also available
for Windows, what makes Unix so special? If they "harbor a secret love" for
these tools, why don't they use them?
> But a programmer out there might reasonably say, "I use Windows
> because I like it and I am productive with it; I don't want to learn a
> different operating system I'll never use." This is reasonable...but
> wrongheaded. Good hackers usually have experience on a multitude of
> architectures -- from mainframes down to handhelds. They may not be
> experts in all of them, but they are conversant.
I think you'll find a very small number of hackers that have MVS or VAX
experience. Not to mention OS/400, DOS/VSE, DOS/VM, IMS, or any number of
other mainframe technologies. Sure, there are some. But not the degree you
mention.
> They can contrast
> and compare approaches to certain problems and choose the one that
> best fits a given situation. Oftentimes a bug will show itself on one
> platform and not another, even given the exact same piece of code --
> this even happens in Windows when porting from Win98 to WinNT and
> vice-versa. Oftentimes this illustrates not just a bug in the code,
> but a bug in the *approach* -- the programmer may have made certain
> assumptions that are not valid on other platforms. (This is a fault
> that Windows coders almost universally share.)
Why should it be a fault to assume one platform when that's what the spec
calls for? I would say that any developer that spends a significant amount
of time and resources solving problems for non-existant problems is not a
very good developer.
> Windows is not, technically, a bad platform. Like any other OS, it
> has good points and bad points. The problem with Windows is that it
> reflects Microsoft's need for *control* -- control over developers and
> over end-users. Microsoft needs developers, but they don't want you
> mucking about with "infrastructure", so they give you sugarcoated APIs
> like COM/DCOM, ODBC, TAPI, MAPI and all the rest.
If you think COM/DCOM is sugar coated, you've never used them. The other
API's you mention are there to solve particular problems relating to
providing common API's for dissimilar technologies. It's the invention of
such API's that has made Windows as popular as it is. The ability to use
any device in the same manner as any other device of it's class, be it
database, Telephony device, or mail system is what makes things move.
Vendors need not spend time getting developers to write to their API's,
since MS provides a common API.
DirectX has been obscenely successful with this approach.
> They (kind of)
> work, but they also hide a lot of critical detail from the programmer,
> and when a program fails, it's difficult or impossible to find out
> why.
If you need more control than the API provides, you can always use the
vendors own API, just like you would have to do without the MS API.
> Constrast this with Linux or *BSD, where if a problem develops,
> you can trace back through every single piece of code if you have to,
> and locate the problem. Even if the fault exists in the kernel
> itself, you can either fix it yourself or submit a patch to the kernel
> maintainers. But this flexibility comes at a price -- a programmer
> has to *know how* to do all these things. Debugging is at least as
> important a talent as knowing how to code, but among Windows
> programmers this is almost a lost art.
This is really the trade approach that has worked for thousands of years.
In any shop you should have Masters, Journeymen and Apprentices. Each
handles a different level of difficulty, and each helps to educate the lower
level artisans. Everyone cannot be an expert. Just like everyone can't be
a Master Chef. You need line cooks, and preparers, and dishwashers.
The fault in your reasoning is that you expect everyone to be of the same
level. They aren't.
> It is possible to be a programmer without being a hacker, but I don't
> know why anyone would want to. Programming, as I have said before, is
> as much an art as a craft, and most good programmers are like artists
> in that they take enormous pride in their work. The consider good
> code to be an end in itself, not simply a vehicle to personal wealth.
> I have to wonder how much better software would be if more Windows
> coders would take this philosophy to heart.
You state your opinions as if they are fact.
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Much of what you've said
here is nothing but hyperbole, hearsay, and opinion. The real world is much
more complex than you paint it to be.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:48:08 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >While X isn't technically part of the OS, it's an OS-like component
> > >because so many apps depend on it to run.
> >
> > And you know what? It is very rare that it fails. I can count the times
> > a installed and working X server has crashed on me in the last five years
> > on the fingers of one hand.
>
> Don't run Netscape very often, do you? ;)
I run Netscape, and yes, Netscape does crash sometimes. However, I've
never had it crash X.
Also, my X just froze when it ran out of memory (Hint: don't unmount and
reformat your only mounted swap partition while running X with only 32 meg of
physical RAM). I would have been better off if X had crashed and left me with
a text console, as I could easily have reformatted it back or mounted the
other
swap partition (which wasn't mounted at the time). I was locked out and had
to do a cold reboot.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:57:41 -0600
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Don't run Netscape very often, do you? ;)
>
> I run Netscape, and yes, Netscape does crash sometimes. However, I've
> never had it crash X.
Netscape is the only app that I could regularly hose my entire X session on
a regular basis (at least 3 times a day). It was probably some bug in the X
server that allowed it to happen, but Netscape was the only app that seemed
to take advantage of this feature.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:52:52 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I didn't get any answers to this in the ...setup group, so I'll try
> here.
> I just got a couple of distributions (Corel & Caldera) from
> CheapBytes. Thought I'd check them for viruses just in case something
> could've gotten on while the cdrom's were being created.
> The machine I used was running McAfee on NT4.0. When I tried to scan
> the disk, it worked for awhile, then EVERYTHING crashed and I got a
> blue screen that said something about "starting memory dump"?! Had to
> reboot the computer.
> Was this something to do with the different Linux file system on the
> disk, or does it sound like a problem? I'm almost nervous trying to
> install it now.
Don't CD-ROM's use the ISO 9660 filesystem?
>
> Tom
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:14:11 GMT
In article <38d2dfdb$4$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <38d1c80d$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> >In article <38d091fc$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> >> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <38cf141b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> >> >> David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> HEY EVERYONE --- Standby for McCoy to tell us how the sex was with
>someones
> >> >> >> mother. Its his standard MO.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Weenie.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> McCoy you asshole, crawl back into the hole you came out of and this time stay
> >> >> there.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >Strong words, weenie. The loudest rhetoric often comes from the most
> >> >cowardly of weenies.
> >>
> >> >Like you.
> >>
> >> McCoy you asshole, would you like me to re-post all of your messages where you
> >> talk about how good the sex was with someones mother? -- Get out of here you
> >> scumbag!
> >>
>
> >> _____________
> >> Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>
>
> >I hate to tell you weenie, but sex with your mother isn't all that good.
>
>
> I knew you would provide PROOF in the end. You do everytime. Now. why don't
> you go off like the defective jackass you are and spend your time working on
> the Darwin Award, instead of squeeling like a stuck pig looking for mud and
> slop to sleep in.
Wow! I guess you told me. How someone as lovely as your mother could have
such a son is truly a mystery.
Perhaps you are adopted? Is there a house for wayward weenies near you?
------------------------------
From: David H. McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 05:15:53 GMT
In article <38d2dfa5$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >> glatt, we haven't missed you in the past few days. In fact I was wondering if
> >> you had gone off working on the Darwin Award, but alas you're still here.
> >> Maybe you and McCoy can work together on it, eh.
>
> >What a weenie you are. I'm going to smack your mom tonight for having you.
>
>
> Give it up you brain damaged twit. You proved my point and therefore lost.
>
>
>
> _____________
> Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Weenie.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 05:18:24 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 17:16:49 -0500, Greg Yantz wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>Some of these special minority scholarships, which are designed to
>create opportunities for the disadvantaged, are in fact need-blind.
Yeah, I know. Working in universities, I've seen this kind of thing -- they
end up going to the upper/middle class minorities.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 05:23:07 GMT
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:35:18 GMT, Vilmos Soti wrote:
>The real problem is not when the accepted students at a University must
>reflect the local racial/ethnic/gender/etc population, but when the
>graduating ones have to reflect it.
AFAIK, the graduating ones don't. BTW, it's next to impossible to graduate
someone who doesn't even belong in a university in the first place. They
flunk persistently as all hell.
> Would you trust a racial/ethnic/etc.
>minority doctor?
> You know it is entirely possible s/he got his/her degree
>not by being competent but being part of a minority.
Hahaha .. now when you talk about the medical profession, it's kind of
funny -- because the fees are so darn expensive that you simply don't
go to medical school unless mommy and daddy are prepared to support you
till you're 30 and pay your fees, or unless you're prepared to have a
liability the size of a housing loan by the time you graduate.
The problem with medical schools is that you're not going to even start
unless mommy and daddy are filthy rich.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
