Linux-Advocacy Digest #420, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: I do not understand the sudden issue of "the GUI in the Linux kernel"
bit... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft MCSE (pan)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I do not understand the sudden issue of "the GUI in the Linux
kernel" bit... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:07:02 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Sheep may be soft and cuddly, but in a horde, there is
> no way to stop their momentum. When they start going
> somewhere else, it's best to start hanging out with
> the small wolf pack across the way. :-)
True enough. Of course, there are times when the wolf pack itself
becomes the hunted (as you aluded to in your post). Only time will tell
where this will stop. My hope is that it will stop at some point. But
more than likely what we will see at some point is a Unix for the
'normal people' and a Unix for the 'geeks' without anything in between.
And, while it sounds good in theory, the forks that 'could' be created
out of such a situation could get downright ugly.
Only time will tell though.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:22:49 -0300
Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
[Ok, snip a hell of a lot]
> I'm really glad you still don't understand.
I think I understand, I just find your position kinda lame ;-)
> Does the idea of code fork
> mean nothing? I'm hoping that is another thing that doesn't happen.
Code forking does happen. Who cares?
> I'm thinking this is a dead-end conversation. I don't want to see Linux
> forked,
Why?
> I don't want to see it become a Windows clone. You say it won't
> be, or if it is I can just fork it. What if neither of those options
> sounds good to me (either use the clone, or fork the code)?
Let's put it this way: if linux somehow did become a windows clone
(as unlikely as that is), and you didn't find it "good" to fork,
why should you be provided a free OS by those who spend money and/or
effort creating one?
Quid pro quo, sir. You HAVE been provided a OS for free. Now you
use it or you don't. You improve it or you don't. You influence its
development or you don't. And that's all there is.
Complaining that others use it or influence it or improve it in ways
you don't approve is lame.
You have all you need to keep linux from becoming a windows clone,
should
such a thing ever happen. If you choose not to, it's your fault.
> That's my problem. And it's not paranoia, it's a legitimate question.
> ANd you sticking your head in the sand and saying, "I've never heard that."
> doesn't change the fact that it is being said.
Ok, let's assume it is. Why should anyone care?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:24:41 -0300
Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
[snip]
> Enough people bitch and the Linux developers listen. That's partly the
> beauty of Linux, but it could be the downfall of it as well. That's all
> I'm saying. We have all of those people bitching for 'thier' needs,
> let's bitch for our needs so that it isn't one sided.
Bitch about your needs, not against the other people bitching.
> Is that really a
> problem, or are only the people clamouring for change allowed to speak
> on this issue?
"Please don't change anything" will not get you anywhere.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.windows.advocacy,comp.os.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway?
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:18:02 -0500
Wow, one of my hobbies is to try to figure out the latest coniving
scheme of MS, but I totally missed this one. Probably because I don't
pay much attention to the 'gaming consoles' like the X-Box is 'supposed'
to be.
However unlikely it might be, I wouldn't be completely suprised if this
actually had a bit of truth about it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:19:13 -0500
In that last two days I've recieved three of these exact same messages
(each quoting different threads that I was participating in).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:30:34 GMT
>>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> W2K DC is supposed to far better - would you both not hope?
> But according to Bill Gates everybody that buys W2K because it's
> more reliable is stupid:
With all due respect for the devil, I think Bill was making an
observation. "Less bugs" does not sell as well as "More features"
does.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:48:41 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> =
> Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi=F3:
> =
> [Ok, snip a hell of a lot]
> =
> > I'm really glad you still don't understand.
> =
> I think I understand, I just find your position kinda lame ;-)
> =
> > Does the idea of code fork
> > mean nothing? I'm hoping that is another thing that doesn't happen.
> =
> Code forking does happen. Who cares?
If the Linux kernel forks it will lead credence to one of the MS
supporters primary arguments against using Linux. THey keep saying,
"Unix forked, Linux will too." ANd even the slightest sign that it is
can cause problems. Look to Linux.com if you don't believe me. There
was a fictional story about a guy considering a code fork (completely
fiction) and people raised such a stink about Linux forking (forgetting
that it was just fiction) that I think they pulled the plug on the
entire series. It's a scary concept because it would be one more strike
against Linux.
> =
> > I'm thinking this is a dead-end conversation. I don't want to see Li=
nux
> > forked,
> =
> Why?
See above. I will stick by that argument. I don't want to see it
forked because it isn't something that will benifit Linux unless it is a
quick fork and it quickly merges back into a 'standard' kernel.
> =
> > I don't want to see it become a Windows clone. You say it won't
> > be, or if it is I can just fork it. What if neither of those options=
> > sounds good to me (either use the clone, or fork the code)?
> =
> Let's put it this way: if linux somehow did become a windows clone
> (as unlikely as that is), and you didn't find it "good" to fork,
> why should you be provided a free OS by those who spend money and/or
> effort creating one?
> =
> Quid pro quo, sir. You HAVE been provided a OS for free. Now you
> use it or you don't. You improve it or you don't. You influence its
> development or you don't. And that's all there is.
Isn't the discussion I am trying to bring up 'influencing it's
development' in some small part. I realize that it's hard to
understand, but if there are 'that many people' out there whining for
these things to happen (and it is one hell of a lot more than the whole
GUI in the kernel problem), then what's wrong with the people that don't
agree with it stating their opinion? Telling the people that have a
clue to shut up is just going to make those people that don't sound even
more credible (crazy as it seems) as they won't have anyone 'opposing'
their view.
> =
> Complaining that others use it or influence it or improve it in ways
> you don't approve is lame.
It's no more lame than the ideas that some of these people are trying to
influence. And I don't consider what they want to do to Linux to be
'improvement' over what we have now. If it was a forward move, I
wouldn't complain, but it appears we would be taking a giant step
backwards by making Linux become a Windows clone.
> =
> You have all you need to keep linux from becoming a windows clone,
> should
> such a thing ever happen. If you choose not to, it's your fault.
In other words, I should just shut the fuck up until it happens, and
then spend all of my time trying to code off of whatever mess it has
turned into to create 'My Special Linux' so that I can have what I want.
> =
> > That's my problem. And it's not paranoia, it's a legitimate question=
=2E
> > ANd you sticking your head in the sand and saying, "I've never heard =
that."
> > doesn't change the fact that it is being said.
> =
> Ok, let's assume it is. Why should anyone care?
I don't know, but it's funny how if enough people ask for a 'feature' in
Linux you eventually see signs of that feature coming through. Now,
maybe up to this point the features that were being asked for were
legitimate because the interest in Linux was primarily techinical
people. But now we have some very, very non-technical people trying to
influence the development and I don't think that the technical people
should just sit on their lips and wait to see what happens. I'm going
to speak my mind about this. If that makes me a freakin' crackpot, so
be it.
If they have a right to complain, I have a right to say that their
complaints aren't legitimate. And that is all that I am saying. Look
at the features from a technical standpoint before implementing them, or
even deciding on whether they should be implemented. Why should we just
sit here and watch Linux turn into a Windows clone because that's what
the computer illiterate people want?
Ah, fuck it! You're absolutely right. I have no right to voice my
opinion. After all, I've been using and developing on Linux since the
mid 90's. I have way less right to voice my opinion than the morons
that have never used it, but happened to have bought some stock in some
'ultra-hip IPO' craze.
-- =
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:00:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So let's see, micros~1 "engineers" don't need to know much of anything
about eningeering beyond stuffing the cdrom into that slot, doing what
the wizard tells you to, and rebooting. And now you're telling me that
micros~1 "developers" don't need to know anything about the company's
primary development languages?
*sigh*
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > No. For going on 40 years, there have always been two classes of
> software
> > > developer. The "Systems programmer" and the "Application programmer".
> >
> > > The Systems developer needs to understand low-level stuff.
> >
> > God help them if they think they'll get it in their mcsd training which
> > is all about vb, sql, foxpro, access, etc, and has nothing to do with
> > "low level stuff". There is not 1 single required exam for an mcsd that
> > requires "low level stuff". Not one!
>
> Why should there be? MCSD is Microsoft Certified SOLUTIONS Developer, not
> SYSTEMS developer. There are C++ tracks for the MCSD, but they're also
> applications development oriented tests. It would be nice if there was a
> systems level certification, but there isn't.
>
> > > The Applications developer does not. Someone doing VB or SQL is not a
> systems developer.
> >
> > No kidding. Yet curiously, vb forms 75% of the core training necessary
> > to get systems developer certification from micros~1 and the rest of it
> > is access, sql, foxpro, and exchange. So according to you, micros~1 is
> > offering systems developer certifications for people who aren't really
> > systems developers. Well, that's kinda like offering engineering
> > certificates to people who aren't really engineers which is rather where
> > this conversation began.
>
> VB is not required *AT ALL* to get an MCSD. The only required test is
> 70-100 which is the Analyzing requirements and designing solutions test.
> For instance, my MCSD consists of 70-100, 70-016 (Designing and implementing
> Desktop applications with MSVC 6), 70-015 (Designing and implementing
> Distributed applications with MSVC 6), and 70-029 (Designing and
> Implementing Databases with MS SQL Server 7).
>
> Not one stitch of VB in any of my tests.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:57:14 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> =
> Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi=F3:
> =
> [snip]
> =
> > Enough people bitch and the Linux developers listen. That's partly t=
he
> > beauty of Linux, but it could be the downfall of it as well. That's =
all
> > I'm saying. We have all of those people bitching for 'thier' needs,
> > let's bitch for our needs so that it isn't one sided.
> =
> Bitch about your needs, not against the other people bitching.
I am, and if you would listen (instead of running whatever words I say
through some sort of filter) to what I am actually saying maybe you
would hear what I am saying.
> =
> > Is that really a
> > problem, or are only the people clamouring for change allowed to spea=
k
> > on this issue?
> =
> "Please don't change anything" will not get you anywhere.
Goddamned I hate people stuffing words in my mouth!
Listen closely, "DON'T MAKE LINUX A WINDOWS CLONE!"
How does that translate to "DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING!"
I'm saying do what's right for Linux. Don't stop development. Don't
stop changing for the better. Just don't go chaging it to fit the mould
(or is that mold) of the typical Windows luser because that's what they
know.
I don't want to see Linux become a Windows clone. I want to see it
improve in ways that benefit it, typical users, and long-time users. =
That does not mean I want to see it become a Windows clone. It needs
ease-of-use features (which isn't the same as saying 'more like Windows'
which is completely contrary to the general opinions I hear). It needs
better hardware detection schemes (and kudzu (sp?) is on the right
track, but Corel has been praised by some of the more computer
illiterate people as doing it right, and it doesn't). It needs better
hardware support. It needs some work on GUI interfaces. There are a
lot of things that need to change. I'm just saying we don't need to
adopt stupid ass features just because, "that's how Windows does it".
The call for a central database of configuration instead of the current
/etc and dot files seems ridiculous to me (why re-create the mess of the
registry?). The call for a 'Corel like' hardware detection scheme
(where you get something different every time you boot, much like
Windows) seems ridiculous to me. These are the types of things I'm
saying shouldn't happen. I'm not saying we need to just stop
development. Just don't let it be steered in the wrong direction.
Somehow you have yourself convinced that anyone not interested in a
Windows clone has something against any progress. I'm not against
progress, I just don't want to see progress in the wrong direction. =
Re-creating the nightmares of Windows on the system I used to get away
from Windows is not my idea of progress in the right direction. If I
have no right to complain, then please forgive me. I thought that was
the point of an open system. Anyone can have their opinion heard.
-- =
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 15 Aug 2000 15:02:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>> >Real wrestling has its place, just realize that TV wrestling (WWF,
>> >WCW, ECW, etc) has nothing to do with real wrestling. It makes the
>> >watching much more enjoyable. And I should know. My wife started me
>> >watching wrestling when we started dating. Once you get past the
>> >lack of 'sport' in wrestling, it really is quite entertaining.
>>
>> Well, not to me. I suppose I just don't get it.
>
>You'd be suprised what can seem 'entertaining' when your wife tells you
>it is.
>:-)
LOL!@# :-)
My fiancee' did get me kinda hooked on Ally McBeal. We
both hate Calista Flockhart vehemently, but Peter McNichol
makes for a hilarious character.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 15 Aug 2000 15:08:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Courageous wrote:
>>
>> > >"Professional" wrestling on TV is not 'real' wrestling. You have to
>> > >remember that they are there to entertain. As such, they are actors.
>> >
>> > Yes, I know it's not real. I just can't believe that some
>> > people find such a thing "entertaining".
>>
>> Contemplate for a moment the fact that half of everyone
>> in the world has an IQ < 100, and it will be easier to
>> understand.
>>
>> C//
>
>Don't tell me, let me guess. You're also the type of people that think
>any 'adult' that watches cartoons is automatically a complete idiot.
>You'd be suprised how many people watch 'stupid' shows that have quite a
>bit of intelligence. Dan Simmons (one of my favorite authors, and
>extremely intelligent) watches Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I don't
>think anyone would claim that is hi-brow entertainment :-).
Oh _GOD_ I used to _LOVE_ that show!
I think my favorite memory of MST3k is when they
were showcasing some movie called "Curse of the
Zombie", or some such, where a dead high-school
student is brought back to life by some voodoo
lady, in order to get revenge for his death on
the other students who caused his demise. Anyone
know the actual title of the movie I'm referring to?
There's a scene where a cop (one of the main characters
is sitting in his car under a tree at night, whilst a
whole bunch of rather obnoxious birds are chirping
away loudly. Crow makes a comment in a feigned serious
voice, stating "This is car 37! I've got birds! Over.",
or something similar.
I was howling for 15 minutes. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
