Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA (Mike Marion)
Re: Notebook/Windows rebate? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:00:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:44:14 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Well, let's put it this way: I can't find 'fi' in a standard dictionary.
>
>I didn't say that bourne shell script was terribly intuitive either.
>( BTW, "fi" is "if" back to front )
I was aware of that. ;-)
>Python does not have "fi".
That isn't the point.
>>An interesting nit to pick, I'd guess. Still, the point is that BASIC
>>is much closer to human languages than most other programming languages
>>are, by design.
>
>Can you give examples ? I don't see how it's much closer to say python.
It might not be. Notice the "most" qualifier. I'm not really familiar
with python, but I'm told its more capable than BASIC, and to me that
means it is almost undoubtedly more complex to the uninitiated. BASIC
was, after all, *designed* as a 'beginner's language'.
>>I didn't say it was a good thing, I said it was a familiar thing, and it
>>is. As for control structures, you're still looking at things as if we
>>want to program full-scale applications. The idea is simple automation
>>of simple processing,
>
>For this, control structures are rarely used. For example, when you
>record a macro, no control structures are used to "write down" your
>actions.
I'm not talking about simple recorded macros. For the most part, in
fact, I'm talking about simple recorded macros (or explicitly
transcribed actions) encapsulated in simple control structures so that
the macro is executed "if" a certain condition is true. Without the
conditional processing, simple recorded macros just aren't very useful.
>> and the capabilities, complexity, and concise
>>syntax of 'real' programming languages is overkill, and makes them
>>inaccessible to those with limited needs and typical requirements.
>
>This is a blanket statement and a false one for that matter. "Having
>concise syntax" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to
>be a "real" programming language. Not all "real" programming languages
>have the same syntax as C or bourne shell script.
I didn't say it was a necessary or sufficient condition. I said it was
a characteristic, and it is. I'm not looking to get into a discussion
of what a 'real programming language' is; that's the stuff of holy wars,
not productive discussion.
>>either. I don't want elegant, I don't want pretty, I don't even want
>>'good design' or 'semi-optimal'. I just want "works", with minimum
>>effort.
>
>"With minimum effort" makes "good design" and "pretty" a requirement.
You've mistaken my meaning. It is not the 'automation system' (if you
will) which doesn't require good design or a pretty interface. It is
the result of using the system which needn't be 'up to snuff', as
expediency, not efficiency, is the key requirement from the operator's
point of view.
>> And providing end-user languages, possibly entirely separate
>>from 'real' programming languages, seems to me part of the whole premise
>>of personal computing.
>
>I agree, but you still haven't made a convincing case that BASIC is a
>terribly good "end user" language.
I doubt I could, at that. This is more grist for flame-fests, not a
useful argument. The point is that it doesn't make a terribly bad end
user language, and most who claim it does have an unstated expectation
that more and more complex languages will be learned until the operator
is a 'real programmer'. I don't believe this is the case. The key is
that the 'end user language' be accessible, not that it be ideal. And
BASIC is more accessible than more powerful languages. The fact that it
"encourages bad habits" is irrelevant, because if habitual use is called
for, then a 'real programming language' (and a real programmer, not an
end user pretending to be a programmer) is appropriate.
>>While shell scripting and Perl and such are good middle ground, the
>
>Perl and bourne shell script both suffer from ugly syntax but are
>otherwise OK.
Your comment requires an appreciate for the aesthetics of a syntax which
are pointedly beyond what end users are interested in dealing with in
accessing simple automation control mechanisms, so the 'otherwise' is
relatively meaningless.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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]>
Subject: Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:14:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw wrote:
>
> > some old 20/20 reports; CompUSA was one of the worst. (Bad marks for
> > replacing a hard drive AND!! motherboard for a bad IDE cable)
>
> I saw one of those reports... man it's sad. I've jumped into
conversations
> before at my local CompUSA when I went in to buy a game and heard
employees
> giving bad information. Then again, I've done that at a lot of stores.
One
> of the worst is Fry's Electronics. If you know what you're doing, you can
> sometimes get some good stuff at a decent price, but watch out for items
with
> the returned stickers, and _never_ ask employees technical questions,
they're
> morons. The Fry's employment app (http://www.best.com/~braith/frys.htm)
isn't
> funny when you realize that it's very close to reality.
Like when I asked a clerk if a certain video card has VESA BIOS 2.0+ in ROM,
he answered that VESA has not been used for over twenty years.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:35:25 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sounds like at least 5 different movies to me... I mean, I know I've seen
the
> one you're talking about, but there are several that follow that (almost)
> exact same plot. A-ha! I think this is it: Invaders from Mars -
> http://us.imdb.com/Title?0045917 not to mention it's remake:
That is the one! The alien head in the circle it the hive brain, I reconize
it but I am supprised, he looks nothing like the ones from Horrors of the
red planet.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:01:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> (I've noticed that I "seem" to be saying a lot that I, in fact,
> didn't.)
Funny how that works, isn't it? Language is a wonderous thing. The way
you say something, what you choose to say, the things you avoid saying;
all of these are just as important as your words. Of course, a typical
troll tactic is to insist that all else must be ignored, particularly
when it shows that your words are empty, endless attempts at
misdirection and insinuation. I call it "intentional ignorance", and it
is a game I refuse to play.
Oh, am I being too harsh?
> I think most Kitchentop PC buyers have [...]
First you say you're thinking, but then the rest is just you imagining
that you can second-guess the market. I've got no time and less
patience for it, thanks.
Chris; the reason the desktop market 'belongs' to Windows and Linux
can't get into it is because Microsoft criminally prevented OEMs from
engaging in a free market. All the rest of this is just desperate
trolling on your part. Proven in a court of law, and all that, and I
don't feel like going over it all on Usenet yet again. It has nothing
to do with education, tech support, or technology. Just application
barrier and "don't support alternatives or else."
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:03:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
>[snip, I'm tired]
>> [...]
>> >What do we use to choose values, if not preexisting values? The choice
>> >of values is then trivially reduced to the pursuit of values.
>>
>> So either there is an absolute moral canon, or we have no free will. Is
>> this what you are saying?
>
>No, it is not. And I have no clue as to how you jump from what I wrote
>to what you wrote. And honestly I'm too tired to care.
If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
pre-existing values come from?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:05:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>[ our silly banter snipped ]
>
>> So provisionally we'll presume that the FSF concept of 'derivative' is
>> identical to the legal understanding. This fits my theories, though it
>> will give Lee Hollaar a fit, I'm sure.
>
>We? I think not. I'll presume it's identical to your understanding
>of the legal understanding, but not mine.
OK, but I'm still not sure why you think (if this is the issue you have
with it) derivative works need to include some literal transcript of the
original. It doesn't work like that AFAIK.
>I gather that your position must be that program/library running forms a
>derivative but that copyright law allows it it to be run. (I'm not sure
>if you attach more meaning to 117's "utilization" than running.)
I don't attach any more meaning to 117's "utilization" than
"utilization". Running is certainly one form of utilization.
Decompiling is another.
I was very interested in your assertion (I think it was yours) that only
the program/library is a derivative work, the program itself is not.
This, I think, was premised on this "literal copying" requirement. Do
you have some reference or citation that could clarify this?
>My position is that program/library (dynamic) running doesn't form a
>work that gets copyright protection. (Each part does separately.)
>
>I'm not sure at the moment what difference it makes in general, and
>I only suppose, at this time, that the GPL does impose restrictions
>that copyright law doesn't. (If you're right, it certainly does,
>because I couldn't modify my part of that derivative program/library
>in RAM even though it was never distributed under a GPL.)
No, the GPL does not impose any restrictions that copyright law does
not. It only reserves one special case of permissions which the
copyright law requires license for. Copyright law itself entirely
prevents the creation of derivative works. GPL says its OK, as long as
the work isn't further restricted.
You can modify your copy of any program you want in any way you want,
unless you've given away that right in order to secure the copy (trade
secret/EULA licensing). I'm not sure I clearly understood your last
point, though. Whatever is in RAM is yours; do with it as you will.
Where is the conflict.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:08:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And exactly the reason why I was able to put a small mark on each box
> without anyone seeing me...We are talking a dot, not some x or line or
> something...
Employee lack of knowledge does not equal employee blindly allowing customer
to mark up a shelf full of boxes.
Even a dot would make many people think there was something wrong with the
item, as another poster mentioned, as well. Usually if I see anything out of
the ordinary on a box (especially at Fry's) I look for an unmarked one.. if I
can't find one, I go elsewhere.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Sorry, please try again. Thank you for taking the Turing test.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: Notebook/Windows rebate?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:08:57 -0400
josh wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> You can certainly try, but some manufacturers are less than happy to
> give a refund. You have nothing to lose to try, if you don't mind
> countless email going back and forth talking to the dealer's reps.
>
> If I were you I'd just sell that unopened copy on ebay or something,
> much easier to get some of your money back.
But isn't an OEM of Windows bound to the computer? Selling the
OS separately in private may be a good idea, but doing it publicly
over the net is exposing your butt to the wrath of Microsoft.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:09:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >You mean a lie. I'm not surprised if you're going to call me a liar,
>Max,
>> >you have a habit of doing that to people whose arguments you cannot
>refute.
>>
>> I have a habit of doing it to people that I believe are lying.
>
>The correleation between such people and people whose arguments you cannot
>(or will not) refute is astounding.
Well, I won't say you're lying there. I'd say your just delusional. If
you weren't a troll, that might be considered an honest mistake. As it
is, it is a dishonest mistake (which means you're making it on purpose,
you see). Just because you refuse to recognize that I've refuted the
arguments is not support for your contention, and you have demonstrated
nothing but a fantasy of some 'correlation'.
>> The fact
>> that it rarely comes up except with people who deny that I've refuted
>> their arguments is more illustration of why these meta-discussions are
>> unending.
>
>You have yet to refute any of my arguments in this thread. You've done an
>excellent job of trying not to, howeevr.
I'd suggest you consider someone else's opinion besides your own on that
point.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:12:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>An interesting point I'd like to explore. In my mind, 'support' is
>>>>really the only value or service when it comes to consumer computing, if
>>>>not simply the most important feature. In the "GPL utopia", I would
>>>>think that developers give their software away, simply to provide an
>>>>opportunity for them to sell support to those consumers who wish to use
>>>>their code.
>>>
>>>I don't see how this model can be sucessful for most software
>>>if the intent is to make money.[...]
>>
>>Well, in short, its not. The intent is to develop software.
>
>Then why mix it with trying to make money at all? Let people
>contribute what work they can.
Because I believe in capitalism and free markets, that's why.
[...]
>It is somewhat unfortunate that there is no real model for
>sharing the cost of software development such that members
>of a large group could pay some fair amount that comes
>out to the amount the work really costs.
I have nothing against earning profit on your work. Only profiteering.
>You don't know
>ahead of time what the size of the eventual group of
>users might be.
This is no different than any other product, really, though stuff with
larger variable cost and a lesser proportion of fixed costs certainly
makes it easier. This is one of the primary reasons why early
purchasers generally pay a larger amount, and the price goes down over
time. This is also why many businesses avoid accounting honestly and
accurately for fixed costs, and prefer to pretend they are variable
costs. They want to profiteer (charge exorbitant profits by
artificially manipulating the supply, in this scenario) but they don't
want to look like they're profiteering.
>If someone foots the whole development
>bill and then tries to recover the cost, you end up with
>advertising and distribution costs and a lot of generally
>horrible decisions aimed at maximizing profits instead
>of improving the product. If someone just gives the work
>away for free, you end up with no funding for continuing
>development and no way to influence future directions.
And no need to do either; why not leave those profit opportunities for
further competition. The idea that you have some 'right' to
*additional* development or future sales is simply not supported in free
market capitalism. If you write a great novel, you make your money on
that novel's value in its own right, not on preventing anyone else from
writing a better novel (even when they have the benefit of knowing what
might make your novel great).
[...]
>There are several different types of support.
When the market demands several different types of support, there will
be several different types of support. As it is, there are merely
several different ways of supplying support.
>One is to read
>the manual over the phone to the end user. That kind is
>irrelevant to program development and is better done by
>third parties.
Jedi's comments which started this threadlet indicated that this is the
common expectation of developer technical support in the consumer
market, and that point seems accurate. Your comment seems to be that
this is inappropriate because it doesn't deal with changes to the
software. But divorcing program development from use of the software is
not appropriate, IMHO. If people need the manual read, then there are
obviously improvements which might be made to the software, one way or
the other.
I think that tech support's main purpose from the vendor perspective is
twofold:
a) ensure satisfied customers (that includes "clueless" ones, who's
money is just as green, if a bit tougher to 'earn'.)
b) learn what might be causing unsatisfied customers (which could span
from "we need to redesign that part of the interface because it is
confusing to many people" to "we need a better help system" to "people
don't understand what the product is supposed to do and how it is
supposed to work; we need a major overhaul."
>Another is to make the product do what it claimed
>it would do when the claim turns out to be optimistic. This
>might involve bug fixes in the code or at least knowledge
>beyond what you get from reading the manuals.
You mean fix the product because you made promises you can't keep? A
product which does not do what it has been claimed that it does is
called "shoddy goods", IMHO.
>Another is
>to add requested features not originally in the code.
This, I think we can agree, is not an issue of tech support, even if it
might be a common occurrence on tech support phone lines. Again
harkening back to Jedi's insistence that "technical support" is a
boondoggle.
>>>It might work for unusual software
>>>being written to meet changing needs, or perhaps the support
>>>service could include training for the more complicated programs,
>>>but if the software needs paid support just for normal operation
>>>you have done something wrong.
>>
>>I can't see why you would think that you have any reason, need, or
>>ability to dictate what somebody else's business model must or must not
>>be. Though I must agree that in *all* cases, (which makes it rather
>>independent of and irrelevant to this discussion) if the software
>>*needs* paid support for normal operation, there is something amiss.
>
>I'm not dictating anything - I just don't see why people will
>pay for support for programs that work right.
Well, depending on how you want to interpret "work right", the first and
third reasons you gave above fit well. The reason people need support
is because programs only "work right" when the operator knows how
they're supposed to work to begin with. In other words, the primary
purpose of tech support is to distinguish what is a bug report and what
is a feature request. The secondary purpose (alas) is to support the
*developer* in fixing the bugs. This should never be a "fee for
service" issue, IMHO. The only tech support that should require any
additional cost over the price of the software itself is the "tutorial"
kind.
>>Then again, I don't see anything wrong upon first examination of the
>>idea with giving away software licenses, distributions, or whatever, to
>>anyone who wishes to purchase a paid support contract, and making your
>>money on support rather than "sales" of software. As for the idea of
>>charging for both, it seems likely to be profiteering by my definition.
>
>Why shouldn't an unrelated third party be able to provide support
>just as well as the people giving the code away? Or better...
>most programmers I know don't like reading the manual to people
>over the phone.
Whatever gave you the impression that programmers staff tech support
lines? As for unrelated third parties providing support, that's not
possible with commercial software products covered by trade secret
licensing.
[...]
>I don't think a business based on paid support for the same
>software they are developing is going to have much incentive
>to ever make the software usable without problems that will
>make the users need support.
I understand the conflict of interest you refer to. If that's the case,
then so be it; software which can't be implemented without problems
won't gain much acceptance, and so the support fees won't amount to
much. If the code is usable without problems, then perhaps
"implementation assistance" might be a lucrative profit-center by
providing any of the three 'types' of technical support you listed.
Essentially, access to development assistance in defining and correcting
bugs is quite acceptable (and an opportunity for competition) with open
code. Its merely a boondoggle with closed code.
I think the software industry simply over-estimates the level of profit
which is feasible. This is certainly partly due to the fact that
software has much much greater fixed costs than variable costs, unlike
hardware. But that doesn't make profiteering acceptable; merely harder
to identify.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:15:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said R.E.Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> Use of goto statements, especially calculated goto statements,
>>> is also a bit "unkosher". Again, these are bad habits that must
>>> be later unlearned when supporting mulitple users, multiple windows,
>>> and multiple threads.
>>
>> But what if there is no later? An end user wants simple customization,
>> automation, *control* of interface processing mechanisms. If there
>> requirements extend to supporting other users than themselves, multiple
>> windows, or threading, then obviously they should learn a "real"
>> programming language. I'm just interested in how *accessible* it is,
>> not how *capable* it might be.
>
>This is all very well, until the end-user rumbles on up in a year's
>time, tells you that they're very happy with what you've done, but
>could you just add a few more features? Like more users, windows and
>performance on their new hardware (possibly implying threads.) That's
>when gotos tend to bite.
>
>One of the biggest challenges in professional computer system design
[...]
I will re-iterate. I am not talking about professional computer system
design, or even amateur application programming. I am talking about
operator automation of professionally developed applications and
systems. There is a large gulf between simple procedural automation and
actual structured programming which the end-user simply doesn't need to
cross in order to deal locally with their relatively trivial
requirements.
Visual Basic started out (sort of) as a 'meta macro language'. In the
hands of Microsoft, however, it never even pretended to be usable at
that level. It frustrates me, and millions of others, that you need to
bother with classes and objects and many even more arcane 'real
programming' concepts just to build a macro in a wordprocessor or
spreadsheet.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:18:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "rj" == rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:04:02 "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > �...since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
> > �most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
> > �different opinion to you, no ?
>
> > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
> > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
> > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
>
>
> And why are you so full of coprolalia?
>
>
> Just debate the facts, man. Jeez. If he's wrong then it ought to be
> easy.
If he (or you) ever showed any sign of being able to admit that you've
already lost the debate on the facts, by an extremely wide margin,
perhaps there wouldn't be the need to constantly point out that you guys
are full of shit, hmm?
He is wrong, and it is easy. That isn't quite the same as being able to
shake his faith in whatever private delusion causes him to deny those
facts.
Ta-ta for now, troll. We'll be seeing you soon, I'm sure.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
