Linux-Advocacy Digest #426, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: Microsoft MCSE
Re: Steve/Mike Gets A Sex Change -- And His 36th Fake Name (was: Why Linux will
crash and burn.....
Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Microsoft MCSE (Perry Pip)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:51:32 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KZem5.5624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Hmm.. it's been a while since I used fvwm, but IIRC, fvwm doesn't provide
an
> actual "desktop" that you can drag files or icons onto.
To what benefit is that? That is just a different way of implementeing the
activation of the menu by clicking on the open desktop. I doubt that would
convince very many people to switch. Next?
> It doesn't provide
> a file manager, either.
Why should the window manager have a file manager intergrated into it?
Would it not be better to give the user the opportunity to choose a
filemanager of the user's choice or even no filemanager if that is the
user's choice. As I have already mentioned, to be fair I was runing a file
manager at the time of the I took a count of the memory consumption.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:07:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> NT running Air Traffic Control? Where's my parachute...
There is pressure from some local politicians in this area to do just that.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:35:15 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:f1fm5.5627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Explorer is also the "shell", which provides the desktop environment
(though
> not the window environment). When people look at fvwm, they see mostly
the
> little applications button, the taskbar, etc.. these things are provided
by
> explorer in Windows.
Which is why I was willing to overlook the error in that started this branch
of this thread.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:59:50 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:uXem5.5622$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So you believe that C++ is not a primary development language? What are
you
> smoking?
C and C++, do qualify, but MSVC and its cousins do not.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Steve/Mike Gets A Sex Change -- And His 36th Fake Name (was: Why Linux
will crash and burn.....
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:24:01 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8n6h3l$2mo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Sorry, it wasn't clear. I was recommending Galaxy Quest to you and
> taking the p*ss out of Steve/Heather/Keys/Trailer/etc...
No problem. Understood, I tought that might be the case but the switch over
was so sudden that it left me wondering.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE
Date: 15 Aug 2000 22:17:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The MCSE approach to garbage collection is to reboot. I would expect a
>> Sanitary Engineer have more to discuss about garbage collection than a
>> Mircosoft Engineer.
>
>Sadly, this is true.
>
Why sadly?? The only people affected by the incompetence of MCSE's are
the idiots who hire them. In contrast, if Sanitary Engineers were so
incompetent, that would *really* stink:-)
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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 22:18:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 15 Aug 2000 00:58:04 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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,
Come off it. It doesn't take four months to figure out whether or not
an OS crashed or not.
>>>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.
Irrelevent. The original article indicated the software had been
frozen since May '97, several months before incident, so no
explaination of why all that functionallity was glued together into a
single application.
>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.
I never called them liars. I have only pointed out they are hiding
part of the truth. I'm an engineer my self so I should be able to
smell it when another engineer is keeping information to cover his
ass.
>> 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?
The engineer close to the problem has a need to cover his ass. The
deskbound manager is a high official that 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 on numerous occosions in the past. Thus it is
a fact that NT has caused problems on the Yorktown. He said that "NT
has never been fully refined". That is quite true. What else needs to
be said?
>> 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?
No, I never said they were lying. They are just leaving out part of
the truth as to how a database failure cascaded to an engine
failure. And as long as they choose to leave out the truth, I am
entitled to speculate.
>> 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.
But we know there were incidents, multiple incidents and NT was
responsible for them. What else needs to be said?? Whether or not it
happened in this particular incident is irrelevent. It happened on
numerous occasions. Period.
>If there were any kind of coverup of WinNT it would have been headline
>news.
Oh bullshit. It's not a legal cover up, just a cover up of bad
engineering driven by politics. Headline news had something better to
cover the day the latter story came out.
>DOJ or Larry Ellison would have loved the bad press it heaped upon
>Microsoft.
DOJ and Larry Ellison are not the primary veiwing audience of Headline
News.
>Really? Your guess seems in opposition to the Navy's standard
>proceedures.
>
Who says the Navy always follows their standard procedures?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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 22:19:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:08:48 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
>> >> develop these new technologies. You now seem to be agreeing with that.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What new technologies? Private railroads had been running for some time.
>>
>> Civil engineering technology and infrastructure. Building bridges and
>> tunnels across and thru the Rocky and Sierra mountains. The lessons
>> learned from the original government subsidized railroads benefitted
>> those who privately built railroads in the later, as well as the fact
>> that the latter also benefitted from pre-existing infrastructure. So
>> more like much after 1893.
>>
>
>There had been tunnels before then.
Tunnels under the high rockies suitable for a railroad?? Not.
>>
>> >And yes, it would have taken longer for continental railroads to have been
>> >built privately, but is this such a bad thing?
>>
>> It would have slowed the indusrtrial development of the U.S., possibly
>> resulting in a weaker U.S. in WWI and WWII, and possibly even a less
>> developed U.S today.
>>
>
>It would have resulted in a different industrial development,
It would have slowed it. The opening of the West provided a wealth of
raw materials to the industries in the East and industrial products to
people in the West. A winner all the way around.
>but the
>resources that were used by the government could have been
>directed elsewhere,
You have failed to show that it could have been to similar benefit.
>> The U.S. banking systems failed a dozen or so times in the 19th
>> Century. If they didn't fail for one thing they failed for another. As
>> result of the panic of 1905 the Federal Reserve Bank was created as a
>> central bank to try to create stability in the banking system. In
>> 1929, however, the people running the Federal Reserve Bank, who could
>> have provided cheap loans to the banks to prevent them from going
>> under, sat back and did nothing out of the idealistic philosophy the
>> Government shouldn't ever get involved. Funny though, in 71 years
>> since we have not had a catastophic collapse of the banking system.
>>
>
>Of course, they also been artificially stimulating the economy during
>the 1920's as well. Unless they could have done it forever, there
>would have been a slowdown.
>
Irrelevent to the issue with the railroads.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: 15 Aug 2000 22:20:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:38:54 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Actually, no. An engineer is someone that applies science in a disciplined
>way. I don't claim that the title is appropriate or not. Personally, I
>think the title engineer should be reserved only for those that hold PE
>(Professional Engineer) certification from a government authority.
In some states it is illegal to market your self as an engineering
consultant without such a license. However, many industries do not
recognize PE certification at all. For example, most aerospace,
automotive, manufacturing and agricultural engineer's careers would
benifit very little from obtaining a PE license because those
industries don't value the certification. The only time they really
need a PE in those industries is when they need an expert witness in
court. The construction industry, OTOH, requires drawings be sealed
before applying for building permits, so a PE license is extremely
important to one's career in that industry. To get a PE license it
takes: 1) A four year degree at an accredited school 2) Four years
industry experience 3) Two 8 hour exams on material completely covered
in the college education. Now you would think part 3 wouldn't be that
hard after parts 1 and 2, yet the vast majority who have completed
parts 1 and 2 don't bother. Where I work (aerospace) we have thousands
of people with engineering degrees, many with masters degrees and some
with Ph.D.'s, yet far less than 10% percent have PE licenses.
>> One cannot be a COMPETENT SYSTEMS ENGINEER if you cannot discusss and
>> compare the algorithms and run-time behavior ON THE CPU AND ASSOCIATED
>> HARDWARE, regardless of whether it is application code or OS code.
>
>Tell it to IBM, who defined the title Systems Engineer 30+ years ago. IBM's
>title does not require what you claim it does.
I just checked IBM's certification page and they don't seem to
have a "IBM certified systems engineer" certification.
http://www.ibm.com/education/certify/certs/rolesi.phtml
They do have:
IBM Certified Specialist
IBM Certified Developer
IBM Certified Solution Developer
IBM Certified Enterprise Developer
IBM Certified Developer Associate
IBM Certified Solutions Expert
IBM Certified Systems Expert
IBM Certified Advanced Technical Expert
IBM Certified Instructor
And with thousand of degreed Electrical, Computer, Mechanical,
Chemical and Industrial Engineers engineers working for IBM I can see
why they don't bastardize the title Engineer. When they originally
coined the term Systems Engineer in the '60's I beleive they were
refering to people with electrical and computing engineering
backgrounds.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: 15 Aug 2000 22:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:05:54 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 06:29:18 GMT,
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Even
>> >if you *can* justify to business that there is a self-interested reason
>> >to act in the public interest, this very act of justification can be
>> >deeply harmful to a person's spirit.
>>
>> Let others decide for themselves what is harmful to their spirit.
>
>Ahhhh. And I suppose that everyone should decide when they're sick
>instead of letting any pesky experts decide? I mean, if someone is
>bleeding freely and they insist that they're fine then we should
>believe them, right?
There is a big difference between bleeding freely and whether or not a
person finds something "harmful to thier spirit". Your anology is
meaningless.
>What is and is not harmful to people is the domain of psychology
>and social science.
It is not for elitist psychologists and social scientists to tell
people what is or isn't deeply harmful to them spiritually.
>> >A neurotic's need for approval from others is vastly preferable to a
>> >psychopath's decision to 'just put this on his resume'.
>>
>> I don't think it is psychopathic to gain some experience to put it on
>> your resume. Is it psychopathic to go school to get a degree??
>
>I was very careful in my wording; I /could/ have written "to the
>psychopathic decision of wanting to ..." but I didn't because not
>all such decisions are made by psychopaths. But if someone is
>constantly surrounded by psychopaths (eg, nearly all businesses)
>and starts to act like them, well then one has to wonder.
No matter how you word it, the people who run businesses are not
psychopaths. Neither is someone going to college. Nor is it a
psychopathic decision to wnat to do so.
>> I am not presenting any model of human motivation and behaviour.You
>> have projected that on me. I don't believe one can model human
>> motivation and behaviour, as it is too complex, and can change.
>
><spock eyebrow> Then why bother talking about human motivation at all?
>
>> Again you are projecting on others and thus generalizing as to why
>> they would choose to experiment with drugs. There are many reasons.
>
>Teach someone a new word and watch them go amok.
You haven't taught me a new word. You just happen to use it so much on
others so I'm throwing it back in your face.
>I'm not projecting because there is no possible situation in which I
>would willingly take mind-altering drugs. I *am* going by the research.
You don't have to be a drug user to project on them. Why don't you
provide a URL to this research you claim you are going by. While your
at it, provide a URL to some psychological research to support your
claim that businesses are run by psychopaths.
>> >What you describe is only a miniscule, vanishing almost, aspect of
>> >human behaviour.
>>
>> And I never suggested anything else. I am not making gross
>> generalizations of human behavior, you are.
>
>Welcome to that thing we like to call "scientific research".
I do not beleive scientific research can model all human behaviour
either. And why don't you provide some references to scientific
research that claims the things you claim. Please provide a URL to a
psychological study supporting your absurd claim that self interest
and rationality are mutually exclusive.
>> You are projecting your
>> limited experience of the world on all human behavior.
>
>If you honestly think that your experience is non-representative
>and non-generalizable then why do you speak of it in general terms?
I haven't. I have used specific examples to show execeptions to your
generalities.
>> Again you preclude that acting in the interest of others is in some
>> way mutually exclusive of self interest. Did it ever occur to you a
>> parent could be acting in the interest of the family as a whole?
>
>And in 99.999% of situations, this conflicts with their own self-interest.
Bullshit. Maybe 99.999% in your experience or in your dysfunctional
family. Not in my experience or in my family. If one percieves ones
own self as an unseparable part of the whole then nothing else but
acting in the interest of the whole is in the interest of ones own
self.
>
>You don't seem to understand very simple things about how humans think
>and how science works.
More like you have a bunch of preconcieved notions about both, and you
expect me to agree with them.
>When humans communicate it can be to exchange
>data or models but we've created conventions in order to differentiate
>between the two, conventions which you don't seem to use! Data for
>example, is rarely exchanged if it isn't extremely specific (rumours
>about the state of a project or the ex-girlfriend or whatever). Further,
>data is almost always of personal value (I hate MS and it will bankrupt
>within 10 years) and frequently is personal (whether it's about the
>sender of the data is another question). Maybe if you followed these
>conventions (ANY of them) I wouldn't have confused your useless tripe
>data with models!
I have followed those conventions. I have merely sited specific
examples of human behavior (specific examples of data) or presented
examples that are true in some cases (subsets of all data) that are
exeptions to your generalities. I am not making or proposing any
generalities of my own.
>> It is also in the interest of those very close to me to take the
>> medication, as they suffer the loss if I died. So I see no conflict
>> between what is rational, in my interest, and the interest of others.
>
>Maybe not in YOUR case. But *I* am talking about a fucking general
>model. And models are not made up of infinite lists of specific cases.
If there are execeptions then your general model is wrong. And there
are many.
>> We haven't any Black Death in my neighborhood hospitals.
>
>Do you understand the difference between "Black Death" and "LIKE
>the Black Death"?
Doesn't matter to the specific example I am presenting.
>> >That's the problem with everything I've seen you say; all of your
>> >arguments are valid but none of them are sound, they're logical but
>> >the assumptions you make have no basis in our reality.
>>
>> You mean your reality. There is no our reality. You are projecting
>> your reality on others.
>
>That's right; there is no 'our' reality since you don't seem to inhabit
>the same reality as I do.
I wouldn't want to. You live in a reality where self interest, the
interest of others, and rationallity are in never ending in conflict
with one another.
>In fact, I wonder whether you inhabit ANY reality!
I inhabit a reality where self interest, the interest of others,
rationality and morality need not necessarily be in conflict with one
another.
>> >To understand the rest of the world you need to learn psychology.
>>
>> No, psychology can't explain everything about human nature.
>
>It might explain enough to alleviate your crushing ignorance and my
>frustration.
Your frustration is your problem and it has nothing to do with me. I
suggest you go out and get a life, and most importantly, a better
outlook on things.
>Barring that, one of your professors could shoot you out
>of exasperation and achieve the same end from my perspective.
My professors gave be A's. I guess from your perspective that means
they are psychopaths as well.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
