Linux-Advocacy Digest #619, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Growing dependence on Java (p@p)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:15:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>So, did you read any of the other things I said in my previous post?
Yes. I read all, and attempt to understand, all comments directed
towards me, for the most part. Even Roger's. I will admit that I
sometimes am cursory after something has been repeated, or presented as
an argument and rejected, several times. Perhaps I missed something.
Chances are far more likely, however, that if I did not respond to any
one particular comment, it is because I did not feel it was worth
commenting on, for whatever reason.
>Like the part where I said I probably should have state it as *it should
>be possible, in a perfect world, under MS control....*? Or is it simply
>easier to pick and chose to make it look like I'm still not admitting my
>mistake? Fact is I admitted that I stated what I meant in the wrong
>way. You keep jumping up and down on it even when I admitted it. OK,
>until I unequivocally say it you won't be happy so here it is:
Sir, with all due respect, I recognized that you stated that you meant
to say something else. I have, I believe, fairly and honestly tried to
understand what you originally intended to say, as well as your
currently stated position. I don't believe they were at all
contradictory. The part you 'admitted you stated... in the wrong way'
was not, and is still not, the part I was responding to, and your
rephrasing does not mitigate either my point, or my comments.
>I'm a complete and total idiot. Anything I say, have said, ever will
>say is complete crap and anybody that listens to me should be shot just
>on principle for giving credence to a moron such as myself.
I'm sorry if you feel I am personally attacking you. You stated your
case, which is that you believe it is unfair to attempt to discredit
Windows by focusing exclusively on when it fails, in light of the fact
that many many times it does not. (If I am still mis-stating your case,
please forgive me and feel free to correct me. I am not above admitting
myself, on occasion, that I'm a complete and total idiot, but I do the
best I can.) I disagreed with that opinion, and that opinion alone,
entirely independent of any assessment it may recommend or support of
Microsoft's products themselves. The comment I am making is actually
much larger than Windows, though it is far more applicable and cogent in
relation to that particularly problematic piece of software. I
disagreed with your opinion because, unless you can give more explicit
and reliable directions than the three things you did ("administrators
not clueless, users don't monkey, solid network"), I don't believe it is
correct to say that "you can run Windows without it crashing" (and the
same would be true for any piece of software, is the important point I'm
trying to make). This statement would be useful only if "you can" means
"you can deterministically and with reliable certainty in advance",
IMHO. With due respect to both yourself and Mr. Petticord, who seems to
have tried to take me to task for my comments on this issue himself, the
ability for an administrator to congratulate himself on not having
nightmarish problems implementing Windows seems to be the luck of the
draw more than the competence of the implementor.
It would be possible to endlessly argue the concepts of "reliable" and
"stable", and their relationship and meanings. But if Windows crashes
seem more-or-less random, and they do, then the fact that the majority
of systems don't crash is not due, I'm sorry to say, to any particular
strength of administration, care of the user, or external influence.
Because expert administrators with much successful experience can and do
still get nailed with bizarre and unexpected, even incomprehensible,
Windows crashes, though in not any substantially different proportion,
AFAICT, than average end-users. In other words, if there is one
statement you made which I am directly contented with you, and wish you
to retract, it is that competent administration and sufficiently cowed
end users are sufficient, in combination with good network/server
practices, to prevent Windows from crashing on a routine basis
regardless of other circumstances (and independently of specifically
failed hardware or particular bugs in certain software).
>Does that make you feel better? Sometimes it seems that's the only way
>to get someone to realize you are admitting your mistake. I didn't
>state what I meant properly. That's exactly what I said.
And it wasn't the part you didn't feel you were stating properly which I
am disagreeing with. That's exactly what I've been saying.
>You seemed to
>miss that part of my follow up post to you, or intentionally ignoring
>it. Either way, I said it again. I didn't properly word what I was
>intending say. Don't know how many different ways I can say that.
Doesn't matter how many different ways you can say it. I've never
argued with it. In fact, I think, if I understand what you are trying
to retract correctly, I already knew that you had mis-stated your point,
*and had already figured out what you intended to say*, in spite of the
fact that you hadn't actually said that. Possibly I jumped the gun, and
am still not comprehending what your real point was intended to be. The
quote at the top of this message, "it should be possible, in a perfect
world..." does not clarify the situation for me, I must admit. But it
is equally likely that I did, in fact, understand your original intent,
even though it might not have been perfectly reflected in your
statement; as a teacher on these subjects, it is not uncommon for me to
understand what someone is actually trying to say, even when they are
not saying it correctly.
If your intent was to say that a Windows system can be properly
administrated and that will reduce the chance of failures, I'd have to
provisionally agree with you. But the provision is that it doesn't
eliminate the chance of failures, and that this remaining chance is
still larger than the chance of a slightly improperly administered
alternative system crashing to begin with. While this does, indeed,
highlight a problem with Windows, it is my contention that it is also an
indication of a problem with administrators of Windows systems, and
their assumptions about what is responsible for their success. While
there is certainly a large component of "having a clue", there is an
equal, I insist, contribution of pure blind dumb luck. I predicate this
point on the large number of otherwise successful MSCEs who I have seen
hit a blank wall when Windows starts 'acting funny', out of the blue and
entirely of its own accord.
Sorry if I seem rabid; I'm not trying to insist on this point by
repeating it. I'm trying to make it to begin with. As soon as someone
shows the slightest comprehension of what I am saying, perhaps I'll feel
comfortable moving on. But, yes, I'm enough of a bull-headed twit to
want to continue this conversation, despite the animosity I seem to be
building up. I apologize for any insults you may have perceived in my
responses. But I am not disagreeing with the basis of your statement,
merely the statement itself, and I have taken your desired re-assessment
into account, AFAIK, and still disagree. Sorry if that's not enough for
you.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:16:05 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:27:42 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>> >> Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
>> >> money for years to little ill effect.
>> >
>> >That doesn't matter at all.
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
>It's stupid to suggest that just because a company has lots of money,
>they shouldn't care about losing some in a project they calculate will
>not recover the costs.
No it isn't. I have firsthand experience with that myself. It's
quite common for companies to 'squander' money on R&D. Besides,
if the product in question is genuinely portable, costs shouldn't
be that significant.
That's the WHOLE POINT of portability.
Now, M$ has to do all of this development on Merced and actually
seems to be lagging behind Linux. Had they bothered to fully
support the Alpha as a 64bit platform and kept NT verifiably
portable they might not need to expend such time and effort now.
>
>> That's how we have Internet Exploder and MonopolySoft Money.
>> Both are projects that MS can simply throw money at without
>> the need to be immediately profitable.
>
>I never said "immediately". What if they calculate that porting to MIPS
>will NEVER recover the costs?
"never" depends on assuming a great deal that can't necessarily
be assumed. MIPS is actually a very successful chip for imbedded
applications. Now, Microsoft has some interest in that area and
is expending some new development effort.
>
>> Get in the ring with Mike Tyson and we would all see just how
>> irrelevant physical endurance or relative abilities to bleed
>> are...
>
>Save the silly analogies for yourself.
It's not really an analogy. What I mentioned before was the
analogy. This example would be much more direct, including
the BLEEDING part.
>
>> >> [deletia]
>> >>
>> >> The excuse of "it costs too much" simply doesn't wash for
>> >> MonopolySoft. It works for Be, but is simply absurd for
>> >> the market's 800lb gorilla.
>> >
>> >But that is not the excuse. Microsoft, as any publicly traded
>company,
>>
>> So? All they have to do is be profitable on the macroscopic
>> scale. As long as their balance sheets show a positive result
>> the plantiffs lawyers and stockholders aren't going to notice
>> a damn thing.
>
>Yeah, sure. So, if they have a billion profit, they can spend half a
>billion in porting to every architecture?
So? Are you meaning to claim that the various platform ports
of Linux represend 500 Million dollars worth of R&D expenditure?
[deletia]
Microsoft's own incompetence would be to blame if that were the
reality of the situation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:19:41 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:10:11 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, 8 desktops within KDE, selectable at the click of a button.
>> Multiple desktops seems to be a concept Windows users have a hard
>> time grasping.
>> It is something I could not live without and is one reason why
>> Windows lags behind Linux.
>
>I don't have a hard time grasping the idea of a multiple desktops; it's
>just that having six very weak desktops and two desktops that are
>nearly there hardly constitutes 'choice'.
Sure it does.
You might like a 'weaker' desktops for the constraints it places
on the system. Those 'weaknesses' can actually help manage the
sort of chaos likely on an explorer desktop.
[deletia]
Then there's that whole performance issue.
Besides, it's more like 4 full desktops an 20 lesser ones.
KDE,GNOME,GNUstep & CDE.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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, 12 Jul 2000 17:24:35 GMT
In article <8kh0e4$ts1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > The method used by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the
> > foreground in charge of yielding to background programs if it wants
> > to, while pre-emptive multitasking allows Windows to have
> > background processes take control without waiting for the
> > foreground process to yield.
>
> Yes. Thus, your 900 page print job doesn't stop the rest of the
> system dead so you have to take the next two hours off.
> Additionally, it means that if some background program gets the CPU
> and refuse to yield, you don't have to reboot.
You could just force the program quit. The force quit command applies to
the app that currently has the CPU, not necessarily the foreground app.
I have to do this when IE5 freezes at random while sitting in the
background every now and then. (You have to wonder how it manages to
freeze while not doing anything....)
> Most people consider this to be a *good* thing.
>
> > This does seem a bit in the Mac's favor in terms of being
> > appropriate for a system which is intended to be used as a user
> > desktop.
>
> How can you say a system which allows any arbitrary program to
> potentially and *easily* hang the machine and require a reboot is
> appropriate for a user desktop ? IME, most users don't like having
> their last few hours work go down the drain.
Again, a Mac won't require a reboot just because something fails to
yield CPU time.
[snip]
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [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, 12 Jul 2000 17:38:48 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:10:27 +0200, Lars Tr�ger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>>
>> > Nope. Just vastly more often than any other platform.
>>
>> You clearly haven't worked with any systems like HP Unix boxes, or Sun
>> workstations. The only time I've _ever_ had a part not work in a Sun
>> box was due to bad hardware. Whereas I've seen people have all kinds of
>> problems with Mac equipment.
>
>So if I plug in a USB mouse, it just works?
...if it's a proper USB mouse that should even be true in
Mandrake 7.1...
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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, 12 Jul 2000 17:39:45 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:13:12 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>> >> doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
>> >> people to mention such things.
>> >
>> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
>> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
>>
>> ...that it's SPECIFICALLY meant to work with.
>
>It is ? Where is it stated Windows is specifically meant to "plug & play"
>with hardware not designed to be PnP ?
What hardware would that be these days?
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 12:46:00 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>>It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
>>>to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
>>>all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
>>
>>Do you mean after all patents expire?
>
>Patents don't cover the same IP as copyright.
Theoretically they don't, but in practice they do and with
the serious problem of prohibiting clean-room reimplementations.
Copyright law only applies if the specific thing is copied.
Patents apply even if the second implementor knows nothing
about the first.
>I have not yet begun to
>consider the concept of patents, but would be happy to do so in another
>thread.
But this is the thread about the problems of the GPL, and the
correct place for it.
>I don't think expiration is an issue. Like true (non-software)
>applications of copyright, patents are specifically granted so that the
>invention doesn't have to be kept a trade secret. The patent agreement
>need only be with the author of a software program. If he GPLs it, the
>anyone using the program can benefit from the patented technology.
Obtaining a patent involves time and expense. The purpose of
doing it is unlikely to be so you can give away the result.
>But I said I'd discuss this in another thread. Suffice to say the
>answer is "no".
OK, then describe how you would be able to use any GPL'd code
in a product that works with GIF files.
>>>Once a preponderance of
>>>developers are using GPL code, then even if reference implementations do
>>>get GPL'd, it won't make a difference. Because by that point, nobody
>>>would consider taking the open source reference implementation and
>>>trying to make profit on owning it to begin with.
>>
>>If that ever really happens I think we will miss the developments
>>from companies like Cisco and Sun.
>
>When that does happen (and it truly seems inevitable), we will no longer
>need the developments from companies like Cisco and Sun, having found
>much more efficient methods of producing developments.
Such as?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: p@p
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: 12 Jul 2000 09:48:24 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel says...
>
>Note: StarOffice will run even if you tell it you have no Java installed
>on your system. It depends on Java only for Java in it's web browser
>app. It doesn't depend on Java to run at all.
Why not ship staroffice with the Java run-time in it? Why does the
user have to have Java installed on their pc?
------------------------------
From: [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, 12 Jul 2000 12:53:01 -0500
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:38:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:10:27 +0200, Lars Tr�ger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>>>
>>> > Nope. Just vastly more often than any other platform.
>>>
>>> You clearly haven't worked with any systems like HP Unix boxes, or Sun
>>> workstations. The only time I've _ever_ had a part not work in a Sun
>>> box was due to bad hardware. Whereas I've seen people have all kinds of
>>> problems with Mac equipment.
>>
>>So if I plug in a USB mouse, it just works?
>
> ...if it's a proper USB mouse that should even be true in
> Mandrake 7.1...
>
>[deletia]
<mad rush to download 7.1....>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:02:27 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8kh0e4$ts1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > The method used by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the
> > > foreground in charge of yielding to background programs if it wants
> > > to, while pre-emptive multitasking allows Windows to have
> > > background processes take control without waiting for the
> > > foreground process to yield.
> >
> > Yes. Thus, your 900 page print job doesn't stop the rest of the
> > system dead so you have to take the next two hours off.
> > Additionally, it means that if some background program gets the CPU
> > and refuse to yield, you don't have to reboot.
>
> You could just force the program quit. The force quit command applies to
> the app that currently has the CPU, not necessarily the foreground app.
> I have to do this when IE5 freezes at random while sitting in the
> background every now and then. (You have to wonder how it manages to
> freeze while not doing anything....)
My experience with force quitting is bad. I think I've seen it work *once*.
> > > This does seem a bit in the Mac's favor in terms of being
> > > appropriate for a system which is intended to be used as a user
> > > desktop.
> >
> > How can you say a system which allows any arbitrary program to
> > potentially and *easily* hang the machine and require a reboot is
> > appropriate for a user desktop ? IME, most users don't like having
> > their last few hours work go down the drain.
>
> Again, a Mac won't require a reboot just because something fails to
> yield CPU time.
You will if it won't force quit. And you *should*, if you have to force
quit something - no telling where it's scribbled in memory.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
