Linux-Advocacy Digest #254, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: post-installation SCSI setup?? (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (fred)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Spud")
Re: I'm curious (sfcybear)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks (Jodren)
Re: Unix user 10yrs + is a fool (Jodren)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: God damm Microsoft (Courageous)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks (Jeff Szarka)
Re: "pure" Linux?? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Tom)
Re: Slipping away into time. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:09:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In the former, only the instructions are copyrightable. In the latter,
>> the ingredients are part of the instructions and are therefore
>> copyrightable.
>
>I'd have thought that both are copyrightable. Or is this something
>that varies between locales (are books of phone numbers copyrightable?
>It certainly takes a fair amount of effort to assemble them...)
Yea, it sure does, doesn't it? Now you are actually discussing the
issues of *databases*, though, not literary works. That is a whole new
discussion, and is much more controversial than anything we've talked
about so far. Considering the amount of consternation which we've
already encountered, I'd just as soon not deal with databases, at least
for now.
>Of
>course, with a short list of things in a restricted domain, it is
>actually quite difficult to prove that one version is derived from
>another, and the last thing the person bringing the case wants is to
>find that they are actually in violation of someone else's copyright,
>so losing even that protection that they thought they were enjoying.
It isn't whether something is derived from something else, but whether
it is a literary work protectable by copyright to begin with. Lists of
ingredients are not literary works, no matter how much time it takes you
to figure them out; writing a recipe is a literary work, regardless of
how trivial it is. I think the root of it all is quite literally that
one is "figured out", and one is "written", though that could as easily
be interpreted as simply begging the question, I'll admit.
Conceptual facts are often like that, because concepts are, in reality,
whatever we think that they are. The danger of post-modernist arguments
from ignorance is obvious. The practical reality of the matter is that
intellectual property has no physical reality. Software is both an
engineering and an artistic effort. The fact remains, however, that it
is far more a matter of engineering than artistry.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: post-installation SCSI setup??
Date: 5 Aug 2000 23:16:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Try the following as root.
modprobe NCR53c406a
If that causes it to recognize your drive then you just to to put that
somwhere in your startup scripts.
Perry
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 15:37:31 -0800,
Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela) wrote:
>> What exactly do you mean by this? What type of devices are you
>
>Okay, you're right, I should have been a tad more specific. I have a Zip
>drive attached to a SCSI card that I would like to be able to access.
>However, my SCSI card does not seem to be able to be recognized. Here is
>the info for the card, which i got from the Win95 info:
>
>Acculogic ISApport/10 adapter SYM53406
>
>Someone suggested I try using the NRC53c406a.O chip setup, and considering
>the similarity in "ID numbers", I would like to tryt hat. However, now
>that my system is set up, I do not know how to go back and get my system
>to recognize, or set up, my SCSI card.
>
>--
>Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1147392
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1777
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:13:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 28 Jul 2000 12:46:43 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I'd have thought that both are copyrightable. Or is this something
>>that varies between locales (are books of phone numbers copyrightable?
>>It certainly takes a fair amount of effort to assemble them...) Of
>>course, with a short list of things in a restricted domain, it is
>
>A list of names with phone numbers in alphabetical order are not
>copyrightable. I think the answer hinges on the requirement for
>creativity. The answer might be different outside the U.S. and I see
>that you are posting from a UK address.
I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure where any explicit
"requirement for creativity" is described. Do you have any specific
references in mind?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 23:28:59 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:18:14 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--
>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Rex has recalibrated his Linux counter again.
It's kind of interesting how his counter is a bit well, optimistic.
In 8/99 it was 44 million growing at 3% a week
in 10/99 it was 50 million growing at 3% a week
In 12/99 it was 60 million growing at 3% a week
In 04/00 it was 60 million growing at 1% a week
In 06/00 it was 90 million growing at 5% a month
And now as of his August 3, 2000 post it is a mere 42 million growing
at 5% a month.
I just wish deja.com had those old posts back online. ;(
Never could figure out where that 90 million number came from, glad to
see Rex is willing to correct his mistakes.
Now if only he'd realize that the reality is probably half what he's
claiming, i.e. around 20 million. :)
Or if he'd finally admit to making up the Microsoft/Unix story.
Or well, maybe if he'd just stop posting. :)
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:28:53 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It's fucking trivial with Unix, however.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > question is what possible motivation could you have for
> > > > informing the world that you're using Win98 if you're not???
> > >
> > > System security.
> >
> > Hmm. Unix security is *so* pathetic that the only viable option is to
make
> > the world think it's really Win98, thereby causing only Win98 attacks?
> >
> > Majorly weenie.
>
> No, it's called operational security. All military organizations
> practice such techniques...
Ah, so let me see if I have this right:
1) Your posts indicate you're running Win98.
2) You claim to actually be running a Unux variant.
3) You've said you're a military body of one sort or another, as I recall.
4) You imply, above, that this is standard military practice.
5) Reasonable supposition, based on the chain of posts: you do this sort of
thing _from_ a military machine.
Your tax dollars at work, folks. Paying for Aaron to post to advocacy
groups. :)
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I'm curious
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 23:22:44 GMT
I get stuck on hold to tech suport for MS products...
In article <8K0j5.20656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I'll lose the thread. Yet, there are a number of people within these
> > groups that claim to be highly in-demand, very knowledgable
> > professionals in the computer industry and who post here at all
hours.
>
> No big mystery. Take me, for example; I frequently post during the
workday,
> although not usually to this newsgroup. How do I find time? Simple;
the
> usual case is, I'm doing a build. Local builds of the stuff I'm
working on
> take, on average, about 10 minutes or so, and I do several of them per
day.
> Testing also sometimes allows some time for posting; a number of the
test
> runs I do involve longish (5-15 minute) periods of letting the code do
its
> thing, before it needs to be poked at.
>
> Between these, I typically end up with an hour or even more during the
day
> when I'm effectively[1] idle. Depending on my work load, I'll either
work
> on another project, review requirements or specifications documents,
put
> together training sessions, or, in the cases when there really is jack
squat
> else on my plate, go hit the newsgroups.
>
> [1] Due to workload, not inability to do multiple things. :)
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 19:57:49 -0400
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Isaac wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 01:38:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> < Isaac said>
>>>>> So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown
>>>>> decides to write at some time in the future right? I don't think
>>>>> you've thought through all of the consequences of your position.
>>>>> It leads to things the FSF could never desire.
>>>> You've completely switched contexts and expect your presumptions to
>>>> follow? Hang on a sec'. Plug ins are not to applications as programs
>>>> are to libraries. I don't think you've though through all the
>>>> consequences of that position.
>>> There are no significant (relevant) differences between libraries and
>>> plug-ins. Yes Netscape will run without a plug-in being present, but
>>> people write code that load libraries dynamically and run without
>>> whatever services the library offers if if the library is
>>> unavailable. Doesn't that sound suspiciously like plug-ins.
>> It's also worth reminding Max that Adobe Acrobat Reader is a stand-
>> alone program, but it can also run as a plug-in to either of the major
>> browsers, which further confuses the issue for his purposes.
> I make no claim that any current software is legal or not, or derivative
> or not, based on my understanding. Merely that if examined without
> assumptions this may indeed be the case.
> I generally don't get confused by reality. Only by inappropriate or
> false representations of reality. On that note, how precisely does
> whether Adobe runs as a stand alone program or a plug in (and are you
> sure that this isn't two different programs which both use the same
> library for rendering "pdf" files?) confuse anything for 'my purposes'?
1. I'm positively certain that they aren't two different rendering
programs. The difference is merely in how they are launched.
2. It completely destroys your argument "Plug ins are not to
applications as programs are to libraries." In the case of Acrobat,
a plug-in and an application are precisely the same thing, and they
both use shared libraries to accomplish this. This does not make
Communicator a derivative of Acrobat in any way -- except in your
fantasy-land.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Jodren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 01:01:35 +0100
You don't bite much do you
Daniel Tryba wrote:
> trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your a grade A prick
>
> Hmmm, sounds like an insult. Hey wait a minute.... Are you what they
> call a troll?
>
> Looking in the index for trolls: page 1105-6
> <quote>
> Trolls. Troll has been used to translate the Sindarin /Torog/. In their
> beginning far back in the twilight of the Elder Days, these were
> creatures of dull and lumpish nature and had no more language than
> beasts. But Sauron.....
> </quote>
>
> Could be....
>
> > First I don't use Linux cos I can't
>
> Duh!
>
> > Second use deja-news for posts I've made before this on linux related
> > hardware groups, I've researched my ass off.
>
> There's more than usenet alone, after usenet came gopher which is now
> being replaced with http (may also be called WWW)
>
> Get a client and feed it the url: http://www.google.com
>
> at the text areathingy type: ata66 linux
> hit enter and wait for the search to complere (my search took 0.03
> seconds).
>
> Link 1 is not very usefull
> Link 2 explains some stuff and has a pointer to a promise webpage, so if
> you have a promise thingy it might be usefull.
> Link 3 has intructions to patch a kernel, but since you haven't got
> linux running yet it's probably useless.
> Link 4 _BINGO_ a slackware install/boot/rootdisk with ata66 support.
> Prove it can be done.
> Link 5+ lots of slackware links.
> Link 12. Suse info, so an other distro might work also
> Link 13+ who cares....
>
> > True, I'll try some other Unix clones, but as this is a linux advocacy
> > group, I stick my ten pence worth in, it is sucking Oxygen at 60000 feet.
>
> Trying to justify that one has indeed some experience...... so if one
> can't make something work after "proving" experience to others this
> automatically means that something sucks......
>
> > Get off you high horse please I know what F*cking Unix is and what isn't
> > moron.
>
> Yep a troll. I'm terribly sorry I have wasted your time trying to help
> you. I will never do this again. Please forgive me.
>
> --
>
> Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: Jodren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + is a fool
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 01:04:42 +0100
No I'm not a troll, just fed up and angry had a couple of beers, then posted my
frustration.
OSguy wrote:
> trem wrote:
>
> > I am not a Yokel for heavens sake, I know Unix (ok here goes; Dynix 4.2.3
> > most recent, HP-UX, Solaris, Ultrix [ remember that ], oh, it goes on) but
> > none of them was on a PC cos Unix does not go on a PC.
>
> If you are serious then 1. state exactly what the message or symptoms are
> when you try to install it (as well as which distribution you are trying to
> install), and 2. Try posting your problem in comp.os.linux.setup or
> comp.os.linux.misc where you will get help from other linux users....However,
> you have to be polite in your posting.
>
> FYI: If you've never installed Linux before, I'd suggest Mandrake >= 7.0 or
> Redhat >= 6.1 or Suse >=6.4. I definitely DO NOT recommend Corel Linux as
> there seem to be very few people who have had luck with Corel Linux
> installation.
>
> If you wonder why you're getting less than stellar replies, it is because 1.
> You are not polite, 2. You are as vague as a Winvocate troll who keeps
> posting like a frustrated user just like your post here (and I think you are
> that guy even if I am giving you benefit of the doubt), and 3. You are being
> just as guilty bashing Linux here as you are accusing us of bashing that
> other OS.
>
> Good Luck.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 00:11:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>A list of names with phone numbers in alphabetical order are not
>>copyrightable. I think the answer hinges on the requirement for
>>creativity. The answer might be different outside the U.S. and I see
>>that you are posting from a UK address.
>
>I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure where any explicit
>"requirement for creativity" is described. Do you have any specific
>references in mind?
Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the
work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied
from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal
degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity
is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast
majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess
some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it
might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be
original even though it closely resembles other works so long
as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To
illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other,
compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are
original and, hence, copyrightable.
_Feist v. Rural Telephone_, 499 US 340, 19 USPQ2d 1275 (Supreme Court, 1991)
But I'm sure that you had read that case, and just forgot about it, since
it's one of the major copyright cases in the last decade.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:16:20 GMT
> > You're a windroid, there's no way you're getting paid in the $100k
> > range....
Non sequitur.
I know *lots* of "windroids" who are "paid in the $100k range."
Some even near twice that...
Where do you get this shit, Aaron?
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:18:49 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:00:02 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>There are no significant (relevant) differences between libraries and
>>plug-ins.
>
>Would that be according to you, RMS, or the court?
>
RMS and I. I'm not aware of a court decision involving plug-ins.
This is not a question a program would find controversial.
>>Yes Netscape will run without a plug-in being present, but
>>people write code that load libraries dynamically and run without whatever
>>services the library offers if if the library is unavailable. Doesn't that
>>sound suspiciously like plug-ins.
>
>Personally, I would, for reasons you are trying to indicate, accept a
>supposition that all Netscape plug-ins are derivative of Netscape. Why
>you would think this makes Netscape derivative of plug-ins is not really
>important; it may well be the case if the browser "derives" a great deal
>of its value from the plug-ins. I am simply not willing to assume that
>this is the case, and don't see why it is an issue.
>
Don't you recognize your own position? I'll be more explicit.
You have stated that a program is derivative of the libraries it calls,
not withstanding whether the program or the library is created first.
All that's needed to conclude that Netscape is derivative of a given plug-in
is to accept the premise that plug-ins are (or at least can be) libraries.
You don't accept the final premise, but I don't see any need to push
you over the last hurdle. It wouldn't be necessary for someone with
who is familiar with the technical details of plug-ins and libraries
to accept that there problem with the argument lies elsewhere.
The conclusion is of course absurd, but that is of course the entire
point. Your premise is the problem, but because you are ignorant of
the technical details of the other premise you don't have to accept
that.
Finally though you have added another factor to the mix. You now
insist that the program must derive "a great deal of its value
from the plug-in." You didn't require this for libraries, but
strangely you do for plug-ins.
>
>And so the question of derivative works, and the idea that "times arrow"
>has anything to do with it, is once again re-enforced in your thinking
>without being questioned.
>
I've seen the selective reading trick you do to conclude that the word
'preexisting' has no meaning. I don't find it a very amusing trick.
It merely confirms my conclusion that you cannot comprehend what you
read. I must be an idiot for posting things for you to read.
>>I can understand hard headedness when
>>we're talking about what you want the law to be, but when people who
>>teach this stuff suggest that you are wrong about what the law actully
>>says, and give pointers to where the correct answers can be found it
>>would seem to be worth a look to see what they are talking about.
>
>That somebody "teaches this stuff" is not any kind of guarantee that
>they actually understand it, I'm afraid. They might know it quite well,
>and this is common when knowledge is derived from classical education,
>but unfortunately this appears to lead to a lot of assumptions that what
>they learned is valid for the reasons they learned that it was valid.
>
I didn't suggest that you should accept their conclusions. I said that
you ought to check their sources to see if they do indeed know what
they are talking about. In this case, Mr. Hollaar made it extremely
easy for you by giving you a list of court decisions that you could
check yourself. I can only assume you didn't bother with them.
I'd be happy to send you any that you can't find yourself.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:20:10 GMT
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:13:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On 28 Jul 2000 12:46:43 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'd have thought that both are copyrightable. Or is this something
>>>that varies between locales (are books of phone numbers copyrightable?
>>>It certainly takes a fair amount of effort to assemble them...) Of
>>>course, with a short list of things in a restricted domain, it is
>>
>>A list of names with phone numbers in alphabetical order are not
>>copyrightable. I think the answer hinges on the requirement for
>>creativity. The answer might be different outside the U.S. and I see
>>that you are posting from a UK address.
>
>I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure where any explicit
>"requirement for creativity" is described. Do you have any specific
>references in mind?
>
Yes. Read the Fiest case that Lee suggested.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + says Linux is bollocks
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 20:22:07 -0400
On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 00:31:21 +0100, trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux is frustrating the shit out of me.
Honestly, if you were a UNIX user for 10 years I can't see how this
could be true.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:37:34 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> BTW, I don't think the distros make any "flavor" modifications to the
> kernel. They just ship the latest kernel that's stable at the time they put
> a release together.
Thanks, Joseph and Doc, for the updates on this topic.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:43:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not at all... the madness lies in not taking into account the
> > requirements when doing the design... or in changing the
requirements
> > _after_ the design. One would presume that a bridge made of potato
> > chips would be designed to hold, at most, a couple of "Hot Wheels"
> > cars, not a full-sized vehicle weighing a half ton or more.
>
> And the purpose of designing a bridge across that Straits of Mackinac
> that only a Hot Wheels car can cross....is????
In the example given, we don't know. It might be precisely that: to
have fun making a bridge for which you can drive Hot Wheels cars.
Certainly it would not be to make a bridge for commuters and trucks.
You're the one suggesting the Straits of Mackinac, however. I don't
remember seeing that in the requirements document ;-)
> In other words, the DESIGN used was INADEQUATE for the task which
> it was being used for.
No, I think from the example the design was more than adequate. The
people responsible for the construction EXCEEDED THE DESIGN
LIMITATIONS by adding structures not called for in the design.
> Just like a graphical shell on top of DOS is a DESIGN that is
> INADEQUATE for the task which Microsoft advocates it's use.
In your opinion. It's probably adequate since it appears a great
many people do manage to get whatever work they need to get done on
it. I'm not advocating it as a solution. I don't believe it's an
ELEGANT design. I don't find it efficient. It's surely not the best
solution IMHO. But adequate? Probably.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 00:57:17 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (sandrews) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Oh please! there is more than enought demand, haven`t you read
> > comp.os.linux.hardware ? This sounds very lame to me.
>
> Are games developers moving to Linux in a big way? I don't see any evidence
> of that.
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
And this comment just proves my point about you Pete.
Your not a .DLL writer for Windows who worked for a mainframe company.
Your a kid.
End of subject.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
