Linux-Advocacy Digest #410, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Article: Why linux is here to stay ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("Colin R. Day")
*PLONK* (D. Spider)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: Why linux is here to stay
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:46:00 -0400
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> by wrote:
>
> > 5> * Collegiate computing. If you want to know what will be mainstream
> > in corporate computing in five years, just visit your local college
> > campus. Most of the people majoring in technology these days are very
> > familiar with Linux...
> >
> > This is totally wrong. When I was in university most
> > engineering/computer science students were familiar with DOS and Unix.
>
> In CS here, we have Windows and Mac in the lab for freshman and sophomore
> level students, Linux and Unix in the labs for upper-division students
They should pull the Windows and Mac's out. They serve no purpose
other than to befuddle the underclassemen with stupid ideas.
> (with many more Linux by count, which should not be any surprise due to
> cost factors), and mostly Linux for use by grad students (though there are
> a number of Unix systems running on fancy hardware, and even a couple of NT
> machines in one lab). There are undoubtedly additional machines that I
> don't know about.
>
> Right now they are replacing their existing machines for use in graphics
> classes with Linux machines.
>
> However, I have discovered that a very large number of CS seniors still
> cannot be browbeaten into using anything other than MSOffice for things
> like papers and HTML documents. (Most of them look like trash, too.)
>
> Interestingly, last summer the department (school?) of Library and
> Information Science offered an introductory Linux class for its graduate
> students.
>
> Linux is certainly making strong inroads into the academic environment. I
> suspect the wedge is deepest in CS and possibly EE, somewhat less in other
> science and engineering disciplines, and least in other fields (liberal
> arts, business, etc.).
>
> > Collegiate computing is always different than, well, non-collegiate
> > computing. I don't think it's a good predictor of future computing.
>
> I suspect it is at least partly a predictor, though surely not with a 1.0
> correlation.
>
> However, I suspect it depends more on what the business students are
> getting exposed to than on what the techies use. Consider who signs off on
> corporate POs.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 15 Aug 2000 00:58:04 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Thank you, and you are correct in that I prefer the "heresay" of the chief
>>engineer on board the ship at the time, the people who built the system
>>and admit their error, and the news agency that originally broke and
>>followed up on the story.
>
> The heresay you prefer did not come out until four months after the
> incident and suggests things that are hard for me to believe.
Irrelevant, more was known later than was known sooner, and what was
known sooner was merely "speculation" according to the very people who
broke the story.
>>Not really. I've mentioned on multiple occasions that my understanding is
>>that a server application corrupted a database and a client application
>>that controlled equipment required data from this database. With the bad
>>data the client application crashed and failed to control equipment that
>>made the ship go. Such a naive design would fail regardless of the OS
>>running underneath.
>
> Such a naive design that so of the smart ship functionality is glued
> together into one application is a presumption that you must make in
> order to believe your "heresey" above. I find it to hard to believe
> anyone would do that.
Only because you misrepresnent things. This was not an operational ship,
it was a test platform. It did not have redundancy. It was also running
test versions of the software.
>>OK, you've shown where your political and religious views originate.
>
> I have experience with the Government, with embedded systems, and with
> Windows NT. If you are going to call that "political and religious
> views" then what you're telling me is you don't have similar
> experience.
The government is big, embedded systems are numerous and varied, you were
not there, you did not work on it, yet you feel qualified to call those
who were there and did work on it liars.
>>As
>>for information of the incident you seem to merely embrace "heresay" that
>
> The "heresay" that I referring to is the word of deputy technical
> director of the Fleet Introduction Division ...
You merely reference the 'early speculation'.
Also is this a deskbound manager, or someone who was on the ship at the
time of the incident ... like a chief engineer?
> ... He said explicitly that
> shutdowns and numerous software failures have already resulted from
> NT. This, even if NT was not responsible for this particular failure,
> it has been responsible in the past.
You merely show that the 'early speculation' may have been well meaning.
>>> Why did it take several months for the revised stories to come
>>> out? They would have known right away if NT didn't crash.
>>
>>Ignoring the fact that your "would have known" statement is incorrect,
>
> So when something happens on your NT box it takes you several months
> to figure out whether it was an app or the OS that crashed?? Please.
Again, this time duration is your evidence that the chief engineer who was
there, the company who developed the software, and the news agency that
broke the story are all lying?
>>> But he is clearly saying that NT has resulted in failures and
>>> shutdowns on the Yorktown. And no one has refuted his claim.
>>
>>There's no info regarding what there incidents were,
>
> But there were incidents, and NT was responsible for them.
Again, all you show is that the 'early speculation' may have been well
meaning. They were different incidents and we don't know anything about
them, unlike the incident being discussed.
>>Amusing, you find it unthinkable that DOJ would not learn of such a
>>coverup, a coverup that you see so easily.
>
> The technical merit or demerit of the Navy's engineering decisions has
> no pertenance whatsoever to the antitrust case against Microsoft,
> which is about Win98, IE, Netscape, and MS business dealings with
> OEM's and ISP's. And for the DOJ to go against the Navy for choosing
> Microsoft, they would have to show inidividuals in the Navy explicity
> violated the FAR for personal gain, which us very hard to do without
> some concrete evidence, like some money changing hands under the
> table. Also the DOJ only has so much money and manypower, and has
> better things to do than go after Navy officials for questionable
> engineering decisions.
If there were any kind of coverup of WinNT it would have been headline
news. DOJ or Larry Ellison would have loved the bad press it heaped upon
Microsoft. Again, your sense of political intrigue is very one-sided, the
anti-MS crowd would have been all over this if credible evidence could
have been found.
> You claimed:
>
>>>>OK, but there was no suggestion that manual controls or commanding was
>>>>missing at all. The missing backup systems referred to were electronic in
>>>>nature, and reported to be missing only because it was a test platform.
>>
>> Although the Yorktown did not have backup systems, Redman said that
>> future Smart Ships will have systems redundancy to ensure that ships
>> can continue to operate.
>
> The above statement in support of your claim appears to me to be more
> of an afterthought in response the problems than something missing
> because it was a test.
Really? Your guess seems in opposition to the Navy's standard
proceedures.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:57:34 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Ok. Why?
>
Because we are also responsible for what we value, as well as
for pursuing what we value.
>
> > > If you define what actions are ethical in a different way, then we are
> > > talking about different things, and of course we will disagree.
> > >
> >
> > But what you mean by ethics would make it trivial.
>
> Ok. How do YOU define ethics? If your definition is better, I will
> be happy to adopt it.
>
Ethics is the study of how we should choose values and pursue them.
To restrict ethics to the pursuit of values, but not the choice of values
trivializes ethics, because one can justify any action as long as
the actor is pursuing what he values.
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > You said that I was ethically equivalent to a cannibal, I said that I
> > had never eaten anyone. Whether cannibalism is correct or not,
> > how do you get the equivalence?
>
> So, you accept you are ethically equivalent to a cannibal, or not?
>
No, I don't accept it. And what justification would you have for
saying that I am so equivalent to a cannibal?
>
> > >
> > > Fine wheather also had a great influence in the brilliance of
> > > greek philosophy.
> >
> > How was the weather better in Greece?
>
> Depends on what you are comparing with. Better than Norway? In many
> ways. Think about it. If Greece didn't have a warm climate, and
> slavery, what are the chances of finding a numerous group of
> adult healthy men wandering around olive groves discussing nature
> for days and years?
>
Sorry, most other ancient civilizations were also in warm climates, so
again you fail to explain how the Greeks did what they did.
>
> > > > Nope, if they must blind themselves and others in order to maintain
> > > > their faith, then they are evil.
> > >
> > > Who is "they"?
> > >
> >
> > The inquisitors.
>
> Ok. Now, you said "if they must blind themselves". You assume that the
> inquisitors knew first that the acts of the inquisition would be wrong,
> and then blinded themselves. That would indeed be evil. That is also
> probably something that didn't happen.
>
> If that had happened, I would agree it was unethical, because they
> would KNOW they were doing something bad. We kinda agree here, really.
>
How could they have avoided knowing it?
> >
> > As the alleged source of medieval/early Renaissance morality,
> > the Church should have done a better job of restricting torture,
> > not encouraging it.
>
> Torture was not considered bad. Why restrict something not bad?
>
Why didn't they consider it bad? And their failure to consider
it bad detracts from their alleged moral leadership.
> > > > Only by a flawed morality.
> > >
> > > Flawed compared to what? Our morality?
> >
> > Obviously, but also flawed to what the clergy could have
> > achieved if they had viewed ideas as means of cognition
> > rather than means of social control.
>
> Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
>
If they Church couldn't know that censorship was wrong, then it
had no business trying to govern.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > 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?
> >
> > Based on astronomical data, such as observations of the
> > moons of Jupiter. The clergy who visited Galileo refused
> > to sully their minds with such "profane" awareness of
> > mere reality.
>
> How does astronomical data prove you will not go to hell?
> Or you meant brainwashing for something else?
>
It provides sufficient evidence for rejecting Ptolemaic
(as well as Biblical) astronomy. And what evidence
did the Church provide of Hell in the first place?
> > > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > What's the complexity? Millions of people were killed for very
> > little reason.
>
> Oh, the shallowness.
>
So what is the complexity?
>
> > > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > You said that the Church prosecuted Galileo to defend the faith, and I
> > pointed out that one of the reasons for the Crusades was to defend
> > holy places, and that the latter was far more destructive than the former.
>
> Ok. So, what point are you trying to make?
>
You attempted to justify the Church's actions as a defense of faith,
and I pointed out that that "defense" claimed many lives during the
Crusades.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Perhaps I should have said a monopoly on bearing arms.
>
> The church had hardly a monopoly on bearing arms!
>
Actually, the Church did not bear much in the way of arms,
but most governments were willing to follow the Church's
orders. I don't recall the Albigensians and Hussites
bearing arms.
>
> > So the would-be victims get to fire back. This is a problem?
>
> Weapons were extremely unregulated in the renaissance.
> Anyone could own a cannon, if they could pay for it, AFAIK.
>
More data, please.
>
> > > 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 ;-)
> >
> > No.
>
> Ok, then. So your "Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis
> for their beliefs and give them weapons and political power." was
> kinda strange.
>
But they only have the weapons, not the power. As many people
have such weapons, the power does not devolve to any small
group of them.
> > >
> > > Well, that's where we part.
> >
> > Then people may do whatever they want, as long as they
> > value the results of such action?
>
> Quoting you "judge and prepare to be judged"?
>
Hey, you were the one saying that
>
> > >
> >
> > In legal terms, murder is deliberate, premeditated, illegal killing.
> >
> > Government execution of criminals and acts of self-defense
> > are not murder.
>
> Ok, bad choice of words. "Killing can be ethical, that's why
> cops have guns".
>
Yes.
> > > >
> > > > 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?
> >
> > But we haven't destroyed the world yet. Our deserving of censure
> > is conditional on that.
>
> We have destroyed considerable chunks of it.
>
Native Americans, true. Most of the rest were shooting at us.
> > >
> > > However, I don't hate them for it.
> > >
> >
> > And when Galileo tried to convince people that his astronomical
> > theories were better?
>
> Well, he failed in the short term, I'd say. However, notice that
> I was writing about convincing on the superiority of a morality,
> not of a astronomical theory.
>
So it's moral to be wrong? Hmm.
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > But given the Church's alleged moral authority, should it not
> > have done a better job promoting toleration?
>
> That would be promoting something evil in their eyes. You can
> not tolerate the proponents of something ungodly :-P (in
> inquisitional terms, mind you).
>
Then their eyes are wrong.
> > > > > 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?
> >
> > You're not supposed to ignore centuries of censorship and torture.
>
> I am not ignoring that. Why do you say I am?
>
True, you aren't ignoring it, you're defending it.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:03:40 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > And the gamma looking letter sounds like English hard g,
> > except when it sounds like v.
>
> ONLY in "-ogo", except for the word "mnogo"
>
What about the word "sevodnia" (latinized as I have no damn
idea how to enter Cyrillic in Netscape).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: *PLONK*
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:04:19 GMT
*PLONK*
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
