Linux-Advocacy Digest #351, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Maximum file size question (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Maximum file size question (Louis Antoine)
Re: Maximum file size question (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:31:40 -0300
"Colin R. Day" escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > > >
> > >
> > > If people had not had "my" reaction, humans would never have
> > > achieved modernity.
> >
> > Well, technically Galileo was already part of modernity, but I digress
> > ;-)
> >
> > You act the way you do because you were born in the late 20th century.
> > Ethically speaking, in principle, you hold no higher ground from a
> > cannibal,
> > or a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
> >
>
> I've never eaten anyone, I've never killed anyone over religion, and
> I've never tortured anyone for his or her beliefs. So how am I ethically
> equivalent?
Ok. I see I failed to communicate. Let's define what actions are
ethical.
Actions are ethical when they agree with the actor's ethics. When they
agree with the actor's scale of values.
If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
However, if you are, would you be so kind as to explain what definition
you are using?
And, to follow your example: you say you have never eaten anyone, and
say you are morally superior to a cannibal for it. Why is it immoral to
eat a dead person? And since you ask what rational basis the judges of
Galileo had, what are yours?
> > Modernity didn't spring fully formed out of some enlightened
> > man's head.
> >
> > > The men of the Church knew that the Greeks did not have an
> > > Inquisition, and that the absence of one contributed to the
> > > brilliance of Greek philosophy.
> >
> > Well, on the other hand, it could be said that slavery had
> > a great influence in the brilliance of greek philosophy, too.
> > Are you advocating slavery on that basis?
>
> Funny how the other ancient civilizations with slavery never
> had such philosophic achievements.
Necessary != Sufficient.
Many other civilizations without inquisition didn't get there,
either.
Fine wheather also had a great influence in the brilliance of
greek philosophy.
> > For a medieval, or renaissance, devote christian, the choice between
> > greek philosophy and the will of god was obvious, and there was
> > only one moral and ethical choice. Which we, of course, don't share,
> > but we are not them.
> >
>
> Nope, if they must blind themselves and others in order to maintain
> their faith, then they are evil.
Who is "they"?
> > > Intellectual freedom is of crucial importance to humans. Any
> > > society which denies it is worthy of censure.
> >
> > I am having problems explaining this, I see.
> >
> > Censure all you want. As long as you understand that the human
> > beings you are censoring were not more evil than you in most
> > (any?) meaningful way, and that, yes, they were wrong, but
> > error is (IMHO) not a basis for censure.
> >
>
> Threatening someone with torture over an astronomical
> issue is more than an error.
Torture was a standard legal investigation step almost
everywhere in Europe at the time. Threatening with
torture was done every time someone was accused of
anything, more or less.
> > Being "right" in the way you are now would have been
> >
> > a) Unthinkable.
>
> No. The Venetians, for example, would never have tortured
> anyone over such a dispute. Galileo had lived in Venice,
> but didn't like his teaching duties there.
Blah. Venetians tortured just as much as anyone else at the
time, AFAIK. Galileo may have had a better protector there,
however.
> > b) Immoral.
>
> Only by a flawed morality.
Flawed compared to what? Our morality?
> > c) Unethical.
>
> How is this different from immoral? Or are you being redundant?
Immoral and unethical are two different things, AFAIK.
You can be ethical and amoral, and you can be moral and lack an
ethic. Morality is based on an idea of what's good, ethics on
an idea of what's better.
It can be ethical to kill in self defense, and be immoral
if you believe in the sanctity of human life.
> > d) Inconvenient (because they would go to hell!)
>
> Then the Church deserves censure for brainwashing.
Sure. Are you sure they were not right? Based on what?
> > Why censor them, then?
> >
> > The difference between martirdom and justice is often one
> > of perspective.
>
> One may as well say that about Auschwitz.
Low blow. Do you want to start arguing the ethics of the
holocaust? It's a very complex subject.
> > > > Again, try to consider the church's point of view many centuries ago.
> > > > There were many religions, conflicting. If noone stood for the
> > > > word of god (and they honestly believed they did, and that word was
> > > > infalible and true and right), that would have been a sin of omission.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, forget Galileo, then. How many people died in the Crusades
> > > and religious wars to satisfy the "moral" demands of such priests?
> >
> > A hell of a lot less than died in the muslim offensive that took place
> > a few centuries later, and for the exact same reasons. What point
> > are you trying to make?
> >
>
> I'm not saying that the Church is more guilty than Islam, I'm only
> saying that in terms of human life, the Crusades were more
> destructive than the persecution of Galileo.
Ok. I agree with that. And much less destructive than WWI. What point
are you trying to make?
> > > > That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
> > > > hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
> > >
> > > And what basis did they have for such beliefs?
> >
> > Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
> > be beliefs otherwise.
>
> Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis for their
> beliefs and give them weapons and political power.
Well, we do that all the time. Take the second ammendment, for
instance. The US gives weapons (and political power) to just
about everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
For instance: militias who believe the UN is out to get them,
and a variant of islam who believe the white race was created
by an evil mad scientist.
Are you against the second ammendment? (I am ;-)
> > > > Galileo's trial, no matter how awful it seems from our porspective,
> > > > was really a honest mistake
> > >
> > > > A terrible one? Sure. But was the church
> > > > acting unethically? Probably not. Illegally? Surely not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course not illegally, as secular governments generally
> > > went along with the church.
> >
> > Ok. Now, was it unethical? Keep in mind that most theories of ethics
> > require you consider only the coherence of the actions against
> > the value system of the person commiting the action.
>
> Yes. One is responsible for one's value system, and if one's
> value system demands such censorship, then such a
> system is wrong.
Well, that's where we part.
> Hitler's "value system" demanded the extermination of the Jews,
> and his actions were coherent with it. Should he be held blameless?
At one point, a value system where the jews were human was replaced
by a value system where they were not. If you want to find the moral
blame, find who changed it and why.
> > A murder can be ethical. That's why cops have guns.
>
> No. In that case it isn't murder, but only killing.
What's the definition of murder? Sorry, I am reaching a limit
in my english.
> > > > Who knows what of what we do today will make us monsters in the eyes
> > > > of the 25th century?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll take that chance.
> >
> > Ok, how about this: we may be destroying the world for the future
> > generations.
> > In a way, that's a genocide much larger than anything in the crusades or
> > whatever, since it may destroy ALL humanity, and no human moral system
> > that I know of considers that evn remotely ethical.
>
> We may be, and if we are, we deserve such censure.
>
> Unlikely to destroy all of humanity, but yes much more than the
> Church did.
Then who are we to censure them, when they were comparatively
less evil?
And, what part of this evil we are creating has been caused by
our blind faith in science? Maybe stopping science WAS better.
No, I don't believe that, but I am not SURE!
> > > "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
> >
> > Blah. Preparing to be judged does nothing about the possibility
> > of judgement, or the outcome of the judgement.
>
> Except that one does not perform acts likely to lead to censure
> in the first place.
Maybe.
> > It's useless
> > except to keep you comfortable. It's almost navel gazing.
> >
>
> And not making moral judgment is any less navel gazing?
I make moral judgements all the time, they lead everything I do.
I even act against the people whose morality doesn't agree with
mine. I try to convince them that mine is superior, and
react to their actions when they go against my moral and ethics.
However, I don't hate them for it.
If I had lived at the time, and I had my current set of beliefs,
I hope I could have convinced someone that their beliefs were
inferior, thus improving (in my view) their moral status.
> > And who are you to judge people you don't know, on facts you know
> > only through the haze of history 400 years later, who acted based
> > on a morality you don't share.
>
> I am a human being. Who are you to apologize for the Church?
Who said I'm apologizing? They apologized themselves.
> > That's, let's say, a tad messianic.
>
> As opposed to being militantly ignorant?
I have not been called ignorant very often. What am I supposed to
ignore?
Anyway, ignorance is no shame. The things I ignore are legion.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:24:39 -0500
Christopher Browne wrote:
> There was an interesting email on the kernel mailing list the other
> day concerning an extra filesystem "accidentally" slipping in during
> the 2.4 freeze that could lead one to believe that there's a fair
> bit of politicking... (The language was _quite_ profane, and one
> of the more dramatic harangues that I've ever read...)
Then do you understand my concern? I know at times I come across like a
radical on this subject, but I'm really saying, "Don't let this happen
in the base system!" I personally don't give a rat's ass about Corel,
but if they somehow give enough other distributions, which somehow give
the base developers, the idea that they are 'kewl' and picking up steam
because of their 3l33tn35s, then I would assume a feature that would
overall be detrimental to the group effort could just 'slip in' and
eventually become *important*.
Not to sound alarmist, but we should at least pay attention to the
*possibility* that it could be a problem. Always keep your eyes open
for what *may* happen. Cause if you ain't watchin', they'll 'slip'
something thru on you.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:29:57 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those free
> computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag was in favour
> of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all the Linux software
> "run like Windows software".
Ah, let the people be heard!
This is the stuff I find scary. I don't mind the idea of 'modularizing'
the graphical interface into the kernel (as I believe some of the early
efforts are underway to do so), just don't make it something that is
*forced* on me.
Some others are saying the volunteers won't do anything they don't
*want* to do, but there are some very open minded volunteers 'listening'
to these sort of rantings from the sidelines. The problem with having a
fully open mind means you sometimes don't filter out the *wrong* things
you hear. And GNU/GPL and BSD developers are very good at listening to
what the *people* want in their system. You get enough people saying
that it needs to do something, and eventually someone will do it. I
hope it doesn't happen, but I'm not going to sit here and hold my breath
in the hopes that it doesn't. I'm going to point it out and what a bad
idea it would be. Isn't that what the word of the *people* is all
about? Aren't we supposed to express our opinion on this topic?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:32:12 -0500
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those free
> > computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag was in favour
> > of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all the Linux software
> > "run like Windows software".
>
> That is advocating reverting to "spaghetti code". I had never
> realized
> until now that MS-Windows was like that. I thought -- it seemed the
> only sensible way of going about it -- that the graphics interface was
> functionally separate from the underlying operating system, i.e. I
> thought
> it was on built on DOS, and the rest, the GUI, was "tinsel on the
> Christmas
> tree", to borrow a German expression. I still find it difficult to
> believe that the Windows GUI is not completely independent. It does
> not
> make sense. No wonder the thing is full of bugs, then. No, it really
> does
> not make sense. It is like going back to global variables only, GOSUBs
> and
> GOTOs -- and I don't think I am overstating the analogy at all.
There was a time when NT was criticized heavily for 'integrating' the
GUI into the kernel itself because of the possibility that it would
de-stabilize the system. Unfortunately, the same people that criticized
it then are now clamouring for Linux to do the same thing because of
'how well it works on Windows'. Frankly, if that's their idea of
something working *well*, I'd just as soon they used what they consider
to work well and leave Linux alone.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:33:48 -0500
Richard wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > It appears you are projecting. You (just by readin this post I can
> > tell, but your others are just as telling) 'hate' Linux and use that as
> > your motivation for pushing MS. So you assume that hate is the driving
> > force in everyone else's life. Sad really. Is there anything you
> > actually like, just because you feel it is good. Or is it purely a
> > matter of, "I use what I use because I hate the alternatives."
>
> OR he actually hates MS but is suppressing it and thinks that people
> who don't properly love MS are ungrateful bastards. This is a lot more
> likely since what possible basis (personal experience) would he have
> for hating Linux? Has he ever even used it? Most likely, he hates Linux
> because he perceives it as a threat to his emotional balance.
If one's emotional balance depends on the OS he uses (or his worship of
the 'creator' of that OS) then I think we are all gonna be in some
serious trouble. :-). But I do see what you are saying.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 11 Aug 2000 13:40:46 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:29:57 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>This is the stuff I find scary. I don't mind the idea of 'modularizing'
>the graphical interface into the kernel (as I believe some of the early
>efforts are underway to do so), just don't make it something that is
>*forced* on me.
This brings back memories of the dreaded kernel NFS server. <shudder>
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question
Date: 11 Aug 2000 13:43:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> wrote:
> Holy swap Batman!
Shouldn't that be "Holy thrashing swap partitions of doom, Batman!"
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
-- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: 11 Aug 2000 13:40:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> Don't forget the support contracts...
> But it could sell support for Linux as well.
True. A $100,000 support contract is a $100,000 support contract,
whatever it is that is being supported.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
-- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Louis Antoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:54:41 -0400
Bob, can you try downloading the file using Netscape 4.74. I
am not sure 4.73 had an issue.
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 09:46:56 -0400, Louis Antoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In the left most frame click on "DOWNLOADABLE SOFTWARE".
> >Try and download the first file which is "ZUP10304.EXE" (~2MB).
> >For me, Netscape downloads the file but it disappears right
> >after the download is complete.
>
> Works for me with both Netscape 4.73 and Mozilla M17. Running Caldera
> eDesktop 2.4.
>
> Discovered something too. I have a little script called "remotescape"
> that slrn calls to open URL's. It passes the '-remote' parameter to
> netscape to open the URL in the running copy of Netscape, if any. What
> I found is that the script works without changes if Mozilla happens to
> be the running browser. Glad to see they kept that feature.
>
> Anyway, perhaps there is something to do with helper apps or the
> treatment of mime types that is causing this behavior for some people?
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question
Date: 11 Aug 2000 13:45:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so what do you suggest as a fix or work-around?
Shift-click and save it to a file. Easy!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
-- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
