Linux-Advocacy Digest #640, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Path Dependence (MK)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Loren Petrich)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Sean Akers)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
SPLOITS IN LINUX??? (JoeX1029)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Mark Robinson")
Re: The Path Dependence (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:16:36 GMT
Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:08:19, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) writes:
> >
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> >> >
> >> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> >>
> >> I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
> >
> > Please tell me you know about the DOS VDM that Windows 3.1 runs atop
> > of in OS/2?
>
> A DOS VDM isn't MS-DOS, that's for sure.
It implements enough of DOS to fool Windows. However, claiming that Windows
can run without DOS based on this is like claiming that a Super Nintendo game
can run without the Super Nintendo, based on the existence of emulators.
While factually true, it says nothing about the designers' collective
intentions.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:22:34 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Mig Mig wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > Just like W2K Datacenter...
>
> That does not exist at this point in time
Good point. Of course Linux support for 32 processors is available
today.
Gary
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 22 May 2000 23:26:07 GMT
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) writes:
>
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> > >
> > > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> > >
> >
> > I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
>
> Please tell me you know about the DOS VDM that Windows 3.1 runs atop
> of in OS/2?
I am using "Eric Funkenbusch"'s style of argumenting. The OS/2 DOS VDM
is not really DOS. QED.
(After all, he merely brought up the argument of Windows and DOS being
joined a the hips to excuse Microsoft's behaviour vs competitors in
the DOS field)
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:38:02 -0500
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-tqIXq4dlqd4m@localhost...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> >
> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> >
>
> I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
The version of Windows used by OS/2 is modified to work correctly with OS/2.
According to Andrew Schulman, the code that causes problems with DR-DOS also
causes problems with OS/2's VDM.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:34:01 GMT
On 22 May 2000 02:17:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
> A URL that MK will undoubtedly love:
>http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/Steve-Keen/DE/
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 21 May 2000 17:53:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>> No, path dependence is completely real.
>
>>If so, you will not have the trouble explaining path dependence in case
>>of Beta being on market two years before VHS and existence of many
>>other typing systems except QWERTY instead of cutting the quoted
>>article like a true coward (you can snip it, I can quote it again)?
>
> Grow up.
You use the favorite phrase of immature quasi-thinkers all the time.
>I've read some articles about high-speed trains, and one
>*very* interesting comment struck my mind. Some maglev designer said that
>it was *very* important not to make design decisions that could cause
>trouble later on. As if path dependence is a painful reality and as if
>Adam Smith's Invisible Hand could not be counted on to make quick fixes.
>
> And I do a lot of programming, and one thing I'm worried about in
>my programming is to have good data formats and public interfaces,
>because a bad decision there may be difficult to reverse later on. I know
>from experience that there is no invisible hand that will come and fix
>whatever turns out to be troublesome; I have to do it myself.
>
> As to QWERTY, I still think it's a case of path-dependence,
>because relearning can be very troublesome for someone who has to do a
>lot of touch typing. I know that from experience, because I experience a
>smaller-scale version of that problem with various numeric keypads.
>Calculators and computers have
>
>7 8 9
>4 5 6
>1 2 3
>
>while telephones have
>
>1 2 3
>4 5 6
>7 8 9
>
>Touch-typing learned for one will fail on the other.
This example might appeal only to imbeciles unable to
distinguish between alpha QWERTY keys and numeric
keyboard.
> And as to Beta vs. VHS, the problem here was that Beta was
>proprietary to Sony, while VHS was an open standard.
Yeah, go on with fantasizing -- most of customers don't really care
whether the product is proprietary or not as long as it's priced
attractively.
>This meant that more
>VCR makers could create VHS machines than Beta machines, thus eclipsing
>Beta. I don't know if Sony ever opened up the Beta format, but if it ever
>did, it was too late.
OK, but where's "path dependence" theory in Beta and QWERTY then?
---
MK
Socialism is another name for self-destruction.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:46:32 -0500
R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gc3dh$qt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
justice,
> >which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll
win.
>
> Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
The appeals court has overturned *EVERY* decision this judge has made
against MS in the past. A normal person might wonder how an objective
jurist might get that kind of record.
> Some points to consider:
>
> A) Appeals courts generally focus on the findings of law, but
> leave the finding of facts alone. Microsoft supporters should not depend
> on reversal by the appelate court on the findings of fact, because it
> won't happen. Most probable would be a moderation of remedies based on the
> findings of law, but not an outright reversal.
The keyword there is generally. The fact that the judges findings of fact
are almost word for word taken from the governments filings, and has very
easily proven falsehoods in it could very well sway an appeals or supreme
court into deciding that the findings of fact were biased. They won't
discover their own facts, but if they overturn the basis of the findings of
law, then the findings of law become irrelevant.
> B) Jackson was Republican appointee, rather friendly to business.
Irrelevant.
> C) Anyone who calls the tobacco cases marginally succuessful
> isnt't really on the same planet.
The tobacco cases are about greed and getting governors re-elected and
attorney generals elected governor. Coincidentally, the majority of state
Attorneys General in the case were running for governor at the time they
filed the case. Can anyone say "publicity"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: 22 May 2000 17:30:56 -0500
In article <14hW4.1294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I thought (and I thought it was proved by one of my tests, but I may have made a
>mistake)
>that the fact that httpd is running as nobody/nobody prevents write access to files
>owned by joesmith/websitegroup (if the permissions, are, say, rw-rw-r--), even
>when nobody is member of websitegroup, because I thought in linux you belonged
>to only one group at a time during execution, am I wrong ?
No, if any of your groups have access you have access. You can use
the newgrp command to set your primary group, which will affect
the group of new files you create. Be sure to note that directory
permissions control create/delete access while the file's own
permissions control read and write.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: 22 May 2000 17:37:36 -0500
In article <24hW4.1296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes, I have to get a closer look at those umask things.
>
>Thanks for your contribution.
>
>Yannick.
>
>(BTW. I cannot trust the users. There are too many of them).
The Redhat (and some other) way of doing things is to give
each user his own primary group - the admin tools will do
this automatically. This means that anyone can use a
umask of 002 to create everything group rw and have some
arbitrary number of others added to the group and able
to share write access without worrying about other groups.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:50:55 -0500
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
> <lcaW4.2578$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >NT had scalability limits, like most OS's. For instance, Solaris has a
> >maximum of 64 processors IIRC. NT was limited to in commercial designs.
> >There have been custom HAL's written for NT 4 that gave it much better
> >scaleability.
>
> I thought it was a limit of the Intel chip - four processors? Oh yeah, it
> can't be that if Linux/Solaris can do it.
It was, which is why the commercial version of the HAL only supported 4
processors. Intel needed to create a way to do more. They ended up buying
the Profusion chipset from Coherant (IIRC), which was basically multiple 4x4
SMP setups.
> >Windows 2000 has much fewer limitations and has commercial products
> >capable of up to 32 processors. I imagine that 64 bit NT will be able
> >to scale even further.
>
> I remember the DEC Alpha could do 64 processors. Oh dear, Compaq Alpha
> doesn't do NT anymore. So much for the dream <sniff>.
NT on Alpha was 32 bit, and I don't think DEC had Alpha systems with more
than 4 processors during the development of NT4.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 18:40:48 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Never mind it IS free of charge on the internet. If you look at the
> Redhat page, you will notice that you can download the current version
> of Redhat for FREE, BUT, you do NOT get the SUPPORT that comes with the
> version you can purchase. So, what you are buying is SUPPORT.
True, there is that. But I need the need the CD's more than I need
the support.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 22 May 2000 22:44:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think Microsoft suffers from the win at all costs syndrome. It is sort
>of like the death penality problems that have cropped up recently in a
>few states. They got so big that ethics got a back seat.
Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating, which cost
his forces dearly. Consider Stalingrad, where he was unwilling to pull his
troops out, thus letting them get defeated by the Russian forces there.
And later in the war, he refused to try to make a peace deal with either
side, even though his top underlings had seriously thought of doing
exactly that. Instead, his forces had a last hurrah in the Battle of the
Bulge in western France, which was a big embarrassment. When it was clear
that his forces were losing, he ordered the destruction of a lot of German
industry and similar sorts of stuff, and lieutenants of his like Albert
Speer ran around and countermanded those orders.
The result was that not only was Germany divided by its
conquerors, those conquerors then created regimes in their likenesses --
and even annexed the far eastern parts of Germany. Adolf Hitler's bunker
suicide could well have been a merciful act for him.
These misjudgments started in the summer of 1941, when Hitler got
involved in Yugoslavia out of pique that some of his friends there were
losing out. This cost the invasion of the USSR 6 weeks of time, which
made it that much closer in time to the cold Russian winters. If Hitler
had controlled himself about Yugoslavia, he could have had much more
success conquering the USSR.
Another misjudgment was his treatment of conquered western-USSR
areas. His armies had invaded under the slogan of "Liberation from
Bolshevism", but they acted like anything but liberators. If they did,
then his armies would have had a much easier time conquering the USSR.
But before then, Hitler's career was a masterpiece of deceptive
politics, in which he was more than willing to throw his former allies to
the wolves. In the early days, the Nazi party had some genuine
anti-capitalists like Gottfried Feder, opponent of "interest slavery",
and also some organizations of homosexual men. As he rose to power,
however, Hitler started making friends with the bankers, and afterwards,
he declared homosexuals to be "gender traitors". Likewise, he also turned
on the old Nazi militia, the SA, when it became expedient to do so.
He got to power by persuading some old-line bring-back-old-Prussia
conservatives that he would maintain order and put the Commies in their
place, but when he took over, those conservatives lamely put their
(metaphorical) tails between their legs and quit politics.
In the mid-1930's, he made an alliance with the leaders of Italy
and Japan which he called the "anti-Comintern pact", but when he made his
nonagression deal with Stalin, he said that this was just to "frighten
the British bankers". That deal followed the infamous appeasement episode
over Czechoslovakia, which had a very interesting feature: the USSR had
been left out of the deal, as if Hitler's appeasers had been hoping that
Hitler would attack the USSR.
After that nonaggression pact, Hitler attacked his appeasers,
showing remarkably little gratitude. His relationship with Stalin was not
the happiest of ones, with Hitler calling Stalin a "cold-blooded
blackmailer" in a dispute over zones of influence, but Stalin had a
curious trust of him, dismantling some fortifications and not bothering to
march on Berlin when Hitler's troops were occupied to the west. This trust
cost Stalin dearly, and he had supposedly had a nervous breakdown when
Hitler's forces invaded the USSR.
I'm sure that some will call this an example of Godwin's Law, but
there do seem to be some interesting parallels and lessons here. Making
peace with one side or the other could have saved Nazidom, but Hitler
refused to do it. And Hitler had had a long history of stabbing allies in
the back.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: 22 May 2000 17:43:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>from http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
>I think you (and netcraft) are oversimplifying the situation. Just a few
>years ago the conventional wisdom said that Unix=legacy and that everyone
>was or soon would "standardize on NT". The real questions are:
I bet this was the same 'conventional wisdom' that a year or two earlier
was telling us that TCP/IP was just a fad and everyone was going
to standardize on OSI network protocols.
>1. How many of those legacy Unix boxes that have been replaced by Linux
>would have become NT if Linux hadn't existed?
Not many, unless the technical staff turned over too.
>2. How many of the remaining Unix boxes would have become NT if it hadn't
>been for Linux? Remember one of the main marketing points of NT is that
>when/if you eventually migrate every last server over to NT you can then
>save the cost of supporting two different platforms.
Marketing points often don't match reality.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:51:52 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:12:59 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>Go read the long description by an Open Source Advocate about the
>interesting improvements in Windows 2000 that he claims makes it faster
>than NT.
>
>Pete
Oh I agree that W2K is 'slightly' faster than NT4. It seems to access
VM more efficiently and task switching seems to be a bit better as
well but compared with Linux or any Unix system, W2K multi-tasking
sucks.
As a professional who has spent the last 4 years making a living
programming on NT systems (which hopefully will change to making a
living on Unix/Linux systems again sometime soon), I must admit that
W2K has proved to be a bit of a disappointment. I was hoping for much
more considering the amount of time they spent on it.
Apart from USB support (which I don't use) I have seen little benefit
from W2K. Actually, I tell a lie, I do make use of W2Ks ability to run
games software. It has enabled me to scratch W98 from my system at
work and allow me to play Unreal and Halflife without re-booting.
However, W2K still has the basic design flaws of NT in that the user
interface is still tied into the kernel and not run as a separate user
process which will cause major reliability problems. It also still has
the 'all eggs in one basket' registry. I wish they'd go back to text
files in the app install directories approach to save having to
reinstall apps if you ever need to reinstall the OS.
I also feel that the new look admin tools on W2K are a backward step.
User admin for example was much better under NT4 than it is under W2K.
I'll also concede that W2K is slightly more reliable than NT4. I only
get one or two BSOD per week now compared to 3 or 4 but it's still not
good enough.
I was considering upgrading from NT4 to W2K at home but having used it
for over a month at work, I've decided not to bother. It just doesn't
provide enough new features or the extra reliability over NT4 to
justify the upgrade cost. I'll keep using NT4/W98 for work stuff and
games and continue using Linux for my server and non gaming fun.
Sean.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 22:52:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-tqIXq4dlqd4m@localhost...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
> > >
> > > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> > >
> >
> > I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
>
> The version of Windows used by OS/2 is modified to work correctly with OS/2.
>
> According to Andrew Schulman, the code that causes problems with DR-DOS also
> causes problems with OS/2's VDM.
The modifications are only for the benefit of the "seamless" version. You can
run a straight Windows 3.1 install in an OS/2 VDM without modification. I've
done it with Warp 3 GA.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: SPLOITS IN LINUX???
Date: 22 May 2000 22:53:32 GMT
Does any body know where to find exploits for RedHat 5.x?? I'm the nnewly
appointed sysadmin for a small network and I want to figure out as much as I
can about exploiting it for root etc..
Thanks.
==========================================
"At what point exactly, during the demise of the animal did this bullet fail?"
--Steve Hornady
------------------------------
From: "Mark Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 23:06:14 GMT
In article <yEiW4.2672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8gc3dh$qt8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
> justice,
>> >which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know
>> >they'll
> win.
>>
>> Ummmm....lemmme guess...another newsgroup.lawyer, right?
>
> The appeals court has overturned *EVERY* decision this judge has made
> against MS in the past. A normal person might wonder how an objective
> jurist might get that kind of record.
Appeal courts should not be looking at past decisions of judges to decide
whether to overturn.
>
>> Some points to consider:
>>
>> A) Appeals courts generally focus on the findings of law, but leave the
>> finding of facts alone. Microsoft supporters should not depend on
>> reversal by the appelate court on the findings of fact, because it
>> won't happen. Most probable would be a moderation of remedies based on
>> the findings of law, but not an outright reversal.
>
> The keyword there is generally. The fact that the judges findings of
> fact are almost word for word taken from the governments filings, and
> has very easily proven falsehoods in it could very well sway an appeals
> or supreme court into deciding that the findings of fact were biased.
> They won't discover their own facts, but if they overturn the basis of
> the findings of law, then the findings of law become irrelevant.
What are the provable falsehoods exactly?
>
>> B) Jackson was Republican appointee, rather friendly to business.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> C) Anyone who calls the tobacco cases marginally succuessful isnt't
>> really on the same planet.
>
> The tobacco cases are about greed and getting governors re-elected and
> attorney generals elected governor. Coincidentally, the majority of
> state Attorneys General in the case were running for governor at the
> time they filed the case. Can anyone say "publicity"?
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: 22 May 2000 23:06:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 May 2000 02:17:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> A URL that MK will undoubtedly love:
>>http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/Steve-Keen/DE/
I'm sure that he's read that site in detail, and I'm sure that he
enjoys the mathematics in it.
>> Grow up.
>You use the favorite phrase of immature quasi-thinkers all the time.
Same to you.
[computer vs. telephone numeric keypads...]
>>Touch-typing learned for one will fail on the other.
>This example might appeal only to imbeciles unable to
>distinguish between alpha QWERTY keys and numeric
>keyboard.
Mr. MK shows his true colors of intellectual dogmatism here; he
shows zero understanding of what QWERTY vs. Dvorak was all about, because
if he did, he would have no trouble recognizing the similarity of
situations. Going from computer keypad to phone keypad and back tends to
result in confused fingers, and QWERTY - Dvorak switching is almost
certainly worse.
I have the same problem in computer games, where different games
have different default keyboard layouts for their controls. I try to make
them as similar as possible, but sometimes I don't succeed very well.
Thus, for example, the spacebar is "pull first trigger" in Bungie's
Marathon series (first-person shooter) and "toggle weapon wielding" in
Tomb Raider (sort of a third-person shooter).
>> And as to Beta vs. VHS, the problem here was that Beta was
>>proprietary to Sony, while VHS was an open standard.
>Yeah, go on with fantasizing -- most of customers don't really care
>whether the product is proprietary or not as long as it's priced
>attractively.
Proprietary vs. open meant that VHS could become more widely
available, enabling it to ultimately lock out Beta.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
