Linux-Advocacy Digest #692, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning (T. Max Devlin)
My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 15 Jul 2000 06:19:34 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:31:13 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 04:28:52 GMT
>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
>>>errors. Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
>>
>>You're insulting my intelligence with these obvious falsehoods.
>
>I'm trying to challenge your intelligence with this lack of assumptions,
>true or false. Put up your dukes.
You're not giving me a lack of assumptions. You're saying "Programmers
are assumed to have done their job correctly." That is, however, not
the case. You keep telling me I'm working with theory, not reality, but
you're proposing a postulate that doesn't correspond to the real world.
So which of us is taking refuge in theory, you or me?
>>Macs *do* crash, applications *do* die horribly, programmers fuck up on a
>>such a regular and frequent basis that I often wonder how most of them
>>stay alive.
>
>As is the case with PMT systems. What's your point, other than to point
>out an apparent lack of difference at the operator level?
We're going around in circles here. I'm going to say this one more
time: PMT systems are more resilient in the face of programmer errors.
This is a good thing, because the system crashes less.
>Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, if there were a truly substantial
>greater number of problems on any modern computer system than another,
>it is worth presuming that it wouldn't be a modern computer system
>anymore, but a historical one.
You never heard of legacy systems? Give me a break.
>>I find it [PMT] to be more responsive. When I use MacOS, I'm forever
>>waiting on something unrelated to whatever I'm doing. When I use FreeBSD,
>>running several applications concurrently is much smoother.
>
>But you are not controlling for incidental reasons why FreeBSD has
>better performance and responsiveness than MacOS.
If the sun comes up and light streams in your window, do you control for
incidental reasons why the light is there?
You're trying to sound like a scientist and failing. I *know* why
FreeBSD has better performance and responsiveness than MacOS. It has
a really well-thought-out virtual memory system, with paging to disk; it
probably has a faster filesystem; and in large part, it's because
FreeBSD uses preemptive multitasking.
>Tell me, because I'm not really that familiar with this bit, how would a
>user that wanted to tell their computer "I want this to speed up" do it,
>and how would the computer know when that was no longer necessary. How
>would a user say "I want this app to have a higher priority every time I
>start it."
These aren't really easy under any OS that I know of, although
implementing them on unix would be trivial. For the first one, I'd make
"renice" a setuid program so anyone could run it, then make a GUI
wrapper for it. Alternately, build it into the window manager, which
can hide the details of finding out the PID (it can tell by the window
ID, I believe).
For the latter, well, again, it should really be built into the window
manager. But I've done it myself using a cheap little shell script
hack:
$ mv program program.real
$ cat > program
#!/bin/sh
nice --10 program.real $*
^D
$
This would give a nice value of negative 10; I could do more or less if
desired. Sometimes it helps to renice the X server, too, as an X program
won't get much done if the X server doesn't get to run too. This is all
assuming that the X programs are run locally -- since you're so concerned
about performance, I figure that's a reasonable assumption.
>If these are easily understood and manipulated controls,
>than half of my argument disappears.
These controls could be easily understood and manipulated, if anyone
bothered to implement them. Nobody's found them necessary. Feel free
to write them for Linux and see if anyone wants them.
>The other half remains, because if the problem is that the apps don't
>know what else is running, than the apps should be written with no
>necessity or desire to know or care what else is running.
That's more like it! It's the OS's job to manage resources, including
CPU time. The OS may be configured by a user or administrator, but it
nevertheless does the actual management. Having applications manage
system-wide resources has been shown by wide experience to be a bad idea.
It's a large part of why DOS and Windows 3.x and 9x and MacOS are so
unreliable and slow.
>Since the
>engineers are the middle-man between the technology and the consumer's
>goods, I'd like to hear some awareness that someone's paying attention
>to the end user's requirements, not just the technical ones.
There's plenty of that awareness reflected in the literature, but you
haven't read it. What do you want, a personal visit from a systems
programming team?
>>>Then all you're doing is implementing CMT.
>>
>>You're smoking crack.
>
>Please; I have no need to insult you until you insult me. I'm trying to
>explore these issues in a spirit of free inquiry. I have no expertise,
>you are correct, in this specialty, nor do I have any assumptions that I
>know of. But that means I'd appreciate, if you're going to bother to
>respond at all, you simply point out where you think I may be mistaken,
>and tolerate, even consider, my suggestions that you might be basing
>your thinking on assumptions. Even if you are, it would be appreciated
>if you'd explain them to me. Ridicule is not constructive unless your
>desire is to prevent people from asking honest questions. I've given
>you no reason to believe that these aren't honest, if ignorant,
>questions.
You make a lot of talk about asking questions, but you spend more time
making indefensible assertions. Next time you write a post, read it
before you post it and ask yourself, "do I know this statement to be
true?" and "do these two data points really correlate, or am I assuming
that they do?"
>>>The result is the value, not the
>>>process. I don't care *how* you do the scheduling.
>>
>>Yes you do; you're advocating CMT. Which is a damn stupid thing to do,
>>so I can see why you'd want to pretend you're not.
>
>I'm advocating that engineers not assume that something is stupid just
>because that is what they were taught.
Nobody taught me "CMT is stupid". I learned what CMT is and what PMT
is. I watched CMT systems break and break and break again, for
CMT-related reasons (and often other reasons as well). I watched PMT
systems work and keep working, even under heavy load. I drew my own
conclusions.
>But if someone can't question the assumptions without being ridiculed,
>maybe that's all they are.
If you were questioning, I wouldn't dislike you. Instead you're telling
me that I'm wrong, even when you admit that I know more about this than
you do. You also insult "engineers" generically. And let me make this
clear -- my father is an engineer. That means he went to school for
engineering. He did a lot of math, and worked his ass off. Me, I'm
lazy. I am not even a big math fan. I read a few books, mostly from
the Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series, and followed some
mailing lists where smart people post, and read some web pages, and
spent a lot of time playing with unix, and now people pay me to play
with unix because I do it well. But I am not an engineer.
>I know that to you PMT/CMT looks like a no-brainer. I can understand why.
Maybe you can understand. Do it for real and we'll see.
>But it is still possible that this
>is the archaic notion, and that the Apple didn't fail to use PMT, but
>actually decided not to, because it was intended to be a desktop client,
>and PMT "wasn't necessary".
Close ... more like at the time, they figured the benefit it provided
wasn't worth the cost it imposed.
However, the cost has become negligible, and the benefits more widely
recognized. So the cost/benefit analysis comes out differently, and the
new Apple OS will have PMT, like every other new operating system.
>But I'd appreciate an honest assault on my reasoning, not an assault on
>my intelligence for offering my reasoning, or questioning yours.
I can't assault your reasoning, because it's fine; it's your axioms that
I have a problem with. Axioms can't be proven, by definition. When I
try to correct yours by flat assertion, you either ignore me or tell me
I'm speaking of "theory". What options does that leave me? If you were
here, I'd hit you on the head with a stick, but you're not, so I'm stuck
with insulting you.
>>What does it mean to "have priority"? I think that your conception of
>>the problem domain is too fuzzy and metaphor-dominated.
>
>No shit. I've been waiting for just one of you geeks to give me some
>goddamn data to work with.
If you want to learn, start with an open mind and a closed mouth.
>What is "priority"? How do you control
>which program gets which slice of the pie. If you can't use any
>metaphors or illustrations, then just say "I'm too much of a specialist
>to explain it; sorry for wasting your time."
http://unios.dhs.org/std-sched.html
http://bsd7.starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu/~stark/CSE506/Lectures/lecture4.html
The first one's in plain English, and you should find it quite readable.
The second one is more challenging. When I read things like that second
URL, I just skim over the parts I don't understand, and usually when I
reread it later, I find I understand more than I did the last time. I
recommend that you follow the same strategy.
(See? You asked a question, and you didn't get insulted.)
>That's one of the arguments against CMT; not enough
>deterministic relationships between user activities (applications) and
>the software processes which provide them. Then again, PMT has the same
>problem, doesn't it?
It doesn't cause problems under unix because unix generally doesn't have
a concept of "foreground application". If you wanted to build in such a
concept, you would have to spend some time thinking about how programs
depend on each other. For example, see what I said above about X
programs and the X server. The easy way would be to teach the program
doing the renice'ing about specific dependencies; the hard way would be
to build a mechanism for determining dependencies dynamically.
>Ignorance is intolerable in my book. Which is why I wonder why
>engineers find it so easy to ignore the market success of the Macintosh,
>despite its supposedly fatally flawed use of CMT, even many years after
>PMT was developed. The engineer's only have theory on their side. The
>market is the true empirical test, ultimately.
1. The market doesn't mean shit. We're talking about subtle things
here.
2. "Ultimately" hasn't happened yet.
3. The market is not causing any new CMT OSs to be produced.
4. I'm not an engineer any more than you are, I'm just better-read.
>You speak in theory and anecdotal support of theory. I speak of market
>behavior and reality. CMT allows the market to encourage sane
>engineering design of independent systems. PMT merely side-steps the
>requirement for theoretical performance gains. These remain theoretical
>even if demonstrated in practice, because demonstration is just that,
>and it does not stack up against market behavior.
I think I'm beginning to understand. You're willing to learn as long as
I let you say things that aren't true. Ok. New deal. I'll ignore
everything you say that isn't true, and I'll just answer your questions.
Are we on?
>>Yes you do. If you have four browser windows downloading pages, and
>>only the one in front gets to run at all, the other three transfers will
>>timeout and fail. If that's what you want, why open four windows in the
>>first place?
>
>They will only time out and fail if the browser or the stack is
>broke-dick.
Right -- if they behave as you say you want them to, they are broken.
You snipped the part where you said you wanted them to do that.
>Time for a new browser, written by smarter engineers.
I've been saying that for years, but fact is, people are stuck with a
lot of buggy apps, and they prefer it when their whole computer doesn't
crash.
>If nanoseconds are all that is important, how come my computer gets
>slower some times for durations that are much longer than that?
I don't know. I don't have enough information. What operating system
are you using? Is it Windows 9x?
>You can, however, always argue with me. I encourage it, I invite it, I
>treasure it, I hunt for it. What I don't appreciate is ridicule.
Ok, well, let's try this new system, wherein you can say as much
ridiculous stuff as you like, and I'll just pretend you didn't.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:21:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Russ Allbery in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> The word "virtual" translates, in modern parlance, and particularly
>>> technical jargon, directly, entirely, and without exception, the word
>>> "not".
>
>> Wrong.
>
>> Virual memory you claim is not memory, but not memory is more
>> unqualified. A catfish is not memory, yet saying a catfish is virtual
>> memory doesn't seem quite right to me.
>
>It would be far more accurate to say that "virtual" is roughly equivalent
>to "simulated."
Yes, but I don't think it would be consistent, and I know it is not
practical, at least to my experience. Then again, I deal with
troubleshooting, and one difficult part I deal with is teaching network
guys that a "virtual connection" is *not* a connection, and a virtual
path is *not* a path. Yes, they are simulated, but they already knew
that. They even know how they work; how they're 'simulated'. But they
were taught to think that virtual<simulated<real, essentially. That
being virtual means it can't fail, rather than that not being their to
begin with is its natural state, so to speak. Either side thinking a
*virtual* connection is valid is a non-informative piece of data.
It is when you accept the virtual as real that your problems begin.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:28:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Lyday in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >But I've noticed that to
>> > most people these days "proper administration" and "competent end-user"
>
>Some people consider me to be a computer geek. I get about 1-2 blue
>screens a day and have to reboot Windows on a daily basis. I am
>incompetent?
Not as far as I know. You're a computer geek. You just said so. Power
users typically get *more* problems with windows then timid normal ones.
Besides, I'm not the one arguing that you can avoid Windows crashes.
Through these or any other measures.
>> > equates to "knows how to avoid doing the things that make Windows tend
>> > to crash",
>
>Like "run the minimum number of programs at once" and other idiotic
>advice. A good OS should allow you to run plenty of apps at once, no
>problem, right?
Right.
> And that is as much a problem of troubleshooting and system management
>> > technique as it is crappy software,
>
>Frankly, I am sick and tired of this excuse, "Windows crashes due to bad
>drivers, bad 3rd party software, etc." Tell me, does *nix often go down
>due to these things? I don't think so.
>
> (Some might argue that many did, which
>> > is why "reboot/reinstall" is the primary technique for dealing with
>> > problematic Windows installations.)
>
>My opinion is that a good OS should rarely need to be reinstalled. Is
>this true?
Yes. Undoubtedly, and perpetually, as far as I'm concerned.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 06:36:43 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?)
KLH wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8kklln$gpq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nice try, typical Linux user trying to skirt the issue.. My post is not
> > Linux Documentation. If you are posting technical documentation on the
> > web site, it should be at least readable. How lame.
> Well it is readable. Even with typos, the human mind has had the ability to
> detect communication even when that communication is error-prone.
Careful there. For many, English is a foreign language, and a misspelt
word
can become unrecognizable (my experience, 45 years ago, when I was
just
learning English, buying American week-end papers for practice, and
struggling to make sense out of Walt Kelly's Pogo. Painful, very
painful).
It is my guess that many non-English speakers may be puzzled at
"feachers"
thinking first of a misprint for "feathers" rather than a misprint for
"features". Now, whereas accurate spelling, and good English, are
very,
in fact, *vitally* important, you must realize that many highly
intelligent people cannot spell, even for peanuts. I know one, a
former
colleague (the only chap with whom I could have a thought-provoking
conversation), and I was absolutely appalled at how he misspelt
"caipirinha" (a computer chip architecture announced two years ago).
Sure, "caipirinha" is Brazilian Portuguese, but what do you think
"think" is to people whose mother tongue is not English?
And let me air my pet peeve. In I forgot which comp. sci. book
I bought recently, the author used "duh". Now this is American slang,
and it has no business being in such a book. Let's face it: English
is the modern equivalent of Latin, an international language.
Writers of technical books are writing for an international audience,
and they should adapt to it. It is exceedingly difficult for an
Italian,
a Spaniard, to make sense of sentences where, as allowed in English,
relative pronouns are missing, e.g. "the only chap I could have a
thought-provoking conversation with" vs "the only chap with WHOM I
could have a thought-provoking conversation"). You should not blame
the author of the doc's. Yet, you must acknowledge that there is
much room for improvement. For the better of this our international
community.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:41:37 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Given you are arguing from a position of complete, utter and blatant
> >ignorance in this entire discussion, I find that paragraph somewhat
amusing.
>
> Hey Chris; what does the number 53.7 Microseconds mean in Internet
> connectivity, and how is it relevant to this discussion? If you can
> give me a half decent guess, even if you're wrong, I'll consider that
> you might possibly be competent to begin to suggest whether I am
> "utterly ignorant". I'm not a system dweeb, no, if that's what you
> mean. I don't limit myself to one specialty.
Max, you're trying to argue about the pros and cons of CPU scheduling after
admitting (and demonstrating) you don't know even the basic concepts
involved. If that isn't arguing from a position of complete and utter
ignorance (especially given how many people have explained, calmy and
rationally, *why* you're wrong) I don't know what is.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 16:47:40 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
> >>>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
> >>>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
> >>>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
> >>>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
> >>
> >>But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
> >>for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
> >>connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
> >>technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
> >>technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
> >>that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
> >>powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
> >>systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
> >>ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
> >
> >That's touching. Please try to address what I said and stay on topic.
>
> I did. What's wrong with you? Why does the rendering job die? Can't
> you answer?
He did, before you even questioned. The rendering job "dies" because of the
inherent limitations of the CMT scheme.
For someone who claims to be intelligent, you're doing an extremely poor job
of *learning*.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 01:49:44 -0500
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:05:09 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
>>>>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
>>>>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
>>>>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
>>>>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
>>>
>>>But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
>>>for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
>>>connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
>>>technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
>>>technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
>>>that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
>>>powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
>>>systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
>>>ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
>>
>>That's touching. Please try to address what I said and stay on topic.
>
>I did. What's wrong with you? Why does the rendering job die? Can't
>you answer?
Because the foreground app has "control" of the CPU. C'mon - wasn't
it obvious?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:58:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The analogy is a poor one at best, doesn't make points well, and indeed,
>*HURTS* the goals of free software by making us look like idiots and kooks.
I can't help but think, every time I've read a message like this,
especially Austin's, since I've read the Handbook of Literature (6th Ed.
Macmillan), of the part that goes:
"According to a fairly ingenuous [naive] notion of language,
abstractions can be treated only in terms that are not abstract,
presumably because the primitive mind cannot handle abstractions. But
no evidence establishes the existence of any such limitations."
I am not one to rest on authority, but it seemed to address the issue
well. Noting even that Emerson wrote, "Every *word* was once a
*poem*... *Language* is *fossil poetry*." [Emphasis added.] I think it
shows a wonderfully meta-analysis ability on the part of the authors, as
well as an appreciation for the richness and splendor of natural
language. I'm tempted to quote the Shakespeare they also used, but I
fear both "me" and "That time of year" doesn't pass this mythical (or at
least unsupported) animate/inanimate test, either.
The "sense of incongruity" is a valid grounds for Peter and Austin and
all to claim that "free software" is a mixed figure. The jury is still
out on whether it is a "mixed metaphor", as people seem to think that
using two metaphors in non-metaphoric combination (the nine lives of the
cat on a hot tin roof) might be the true measure of that expression. Be
that as it mayst, if free software is a mixed figure, then you are free
to critique it on literary grounds. But claiming it is an improper or
even marginally dishonest metaphor is simply not an issue we need to
discuss further, as I happen to be of the apparent majority opinion,
which reads and understands RMS' purpose in using it, whether we
disagree with his intent or not. To disagree with someone does not
require that you dispute their words by disallowing figures of speech,
even if "free software" is too incongruous for putatively "primitive
minds" to grasp.
While you may think it makes those who support the FSF look like kooks
and idiots, those of us who recognize and agree with the metaphor think
you underestimate the importance of it.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
