Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Scheme == Beginners language ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Windtrolls
and Authentic Linvocates)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: What I like about linux. ("Mike")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Mike Byrns")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Steve Mading)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Updated Steve/Mike List -- 38 Fake Names (was: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have
a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Scheme == Beginners language
Date: 17 Aug 2000 01:29:11 -0400
Greg Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scheme is not the easiest language if you come from a procedural
> language background
Right. You have to unlearn the habit of "thinking like a computer" when
programming and relearn thinking like a human. See my "Intro to Scheme"
chapter from the URL below.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:33:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> Is it really a bad thing, as long as they're all 'Linux'? If you're
> referring to some signs in Mandrake and PPC of *kernel* fragmentation, I
> guess that's a different issue.
Yes, THAT is what I was referring to, kernel fragmentation.
------------------------------
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
Windtrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:55:38 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:feAm5.6204$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, you said:
>
> > Other than support for "drag an drop" I am unaware of any service that
> > Explorer provides that fvwm does not. Even then most of the "drag and
> > drop" is provided by shared libraries and explorer proper.
>
> My reply to that was that explorer provided other features that fvwm did
> not.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ndhhj$ner$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Zmqm5.6144$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Are you following this discussion? The question was asked, what
> > > functionality did explorer provide that fvwm did not. I am answering.
> >
> > The question was if explorer was another window manager what features
> would
> > it have to convince someone to cause someone to switch from fvwm to it.
> > Since the first question that you are now citing did not get a
responsive
> > answer, it was then it was replaced with this question.
Actually:
I asked of Stephen S. Edwards II
> What is FVWM missing that explorer.exe provides for a working environment?
I recieved from Stephen this non-responsice reply:
> In order to properly compare the two, you'd need to run
> a wm that is comparable in functionality to EXPLORER.EXE,
> in order to see how much RAM X will take up to provide the
> wm for the user.
So I refined the original question as:
> Other than support for "drag an drop" I am unaware of any service that
> Explorer provides that fvwm does not. Even then most of the "drag and
drop"
> is provided by shared libraries and explorer proper.
> Imagine if explorer was another window manager for X, what features would
it
> have that could cause someone to switch to it as their window manager?
To which you replied:
>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. It doesn't
provide
> a file manager, either.
To which I replied:
> 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?
> 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.
To which your replied:
> Are you following this discussion? The question was asked, what
> functionality did explorer provide that fvwm did not. I am answering.
Which brings us to about where we are now. So I again ask: next?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:23:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> And it is open source, what? I can understand wanting the major Linux
> houses to provide options for user server processes, but why does there
> seem to be such a strong "they" involved here? If "they" provide only
> kernel server versions, but there is a large number of people who want
> more flexible/sane design, then there should be an "us" that provides
> such an operating system, shouldn't there?
That is the problem that I have been seeing, there used to be an us, us the
developers us the users, us the Linux community. Now it seems, that all to
often the feeling is becoming us the users and them the developers, and them
the maintainers. The opinions of long time members of the Linux community
those of us who have help make Linux what it is, have no value compared to
the wishes of those who might someday use it.
Roberto's comments to Nathianel and to me are prime examples of the contempt
that seems to be accumulating in the minds of the "developers" for the long
time members of the Linux community. He seems to assume that we have not
contributed to the Linux community unless proven otherwise. He speak of us
having the OS given to us. Once it would have been assumed that we had
contributed unles proven otherwise. What has changed? What has caused it?
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I like about linux.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 05:45:30 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mr7pl$bpn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We used to use Unix, and send the data to our PCs for processing. NT is
a
> > better, and cheaper, solution for us.
>
> For us, NT is certainly mopre expensive (how can it beat free) and the
> lack of a good scripting language is a real hinderance. Again, they are
> avaliable, but that becomes more time spent finding them and more money
> buying them.
A. Like the free PC, free is a matter of where and how you account for
costs.
B. Perl. Python.
> PS what it this, a dicussion about different OS's without flames?
Apparently not, judging from your response.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:08:07 GMT
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Wenham wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> "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?
>
> Either you're talking *way* over his head or you just misspelled
"crapola".
Nothing special. Windows folks know the value of the past and don't seek to
recreate it unless it means innovating. It follows that many have been
versed in Latin. Let me quote from a Harvard source at
http://tsa.mgh.harvard.edu/allourstuff/understandingcopro.html:
---- begin quote ----
Coprolalia is a medical term used to describe one of the most baffling and
socially stigmatizing symptoms of Tourette Syndrome -- the involuntary
outburst of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks.
Other examples may include references to genitals, excrement and sexual
acts. Although coprolalia is the most widely known symptom of TS, it occurs
in only a minority of TS patients. It is most often expressed as a single
word, but may involve complex phrases. There is no way to predict who will
develop coprolalia. Copropraxia is a related complex motor tic symptom
involving obscene gestures.
For years doctors mistakenly believed that a diagnosis of TS could not be
confirmed unless coprolalia was present. Until recently, professionals
thought that coprolalia was caused by psychological problems such as extreme
frustration or repressed rage or sexuality. It is now understood that the
root of this symptom is physical -- that is, neurobiological in nature.
While little research has focused on understanding coprolalia, data now
indicate that fewer than one third of all people with TS exhibit this
symptom at some time during their lives.
However, for those with coprolalia who are trying to deal with society -- in
public places, school, at home or work -- just getting through the day can
be excruciatingly difficult
--- end quote ---
Apparently this is the case for USENET as well...
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: 17 Aug 2000 06:07:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The P-47 Thunderbolt didn't exist at the beginning of the war. Maybe
: you're thinking of the P-39? It is considered a superior
: fighter-bomber and is usually mentioned in the same breath with the
: P-51. It was an excellent fighter with great manuveurability, and
: built like a tank, and could carry a big payload. It was much better
: at ground attack than the P-51, yet the Air Force continued to use the
: P-51 in a fighter-bomber role and lost significant casualties doing
: so. P-47s with drop tanks would have been better.
Too many pronouns. I can't tell which planes you mean with the
various "it"s in the above paragraph.
The P-47, while a good ground-attack fighter, had too much mass
to dogfight. (The armor gave it protection, but also gave it
extra momentum, making it hard to turn tightly.) The P-51
could be taken down with just a couple of bullets, but it was
really agile in the sky. The best combo was P-51's against
other aircraft, and P-47's against ground units.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:17:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Marty in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Chris Wenham wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "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?
>
>Either you're talking *way* over his head or you just misspelled "crapola".
I think he meant "coprophilia", actually.
--
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:18:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joseph in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>How the hell would China know? There's not a legal copy of software
>>TO_BE_FOUND_ANYWHERE in China. They are the software pirate kings of the
>>Earth, not to mention the being among the worst human rights violators.
>
>I think all their LINUX copies are legal.
LOLROTFLMAO
--
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 Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 06:29:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> fred wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:24:52 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >fred wrote:
> > >> Come on Aaron, out with it. When did you first install Linux, and
how
> > >> many upgrades have you done since?
> > >
> > >first install: 1996.
> > >two upgrades at home.
> > >
> > >At work: All of Kmart corporation's Linux experimentations at the
> > >corporate headquarters were done off of one set of RedHat CD-ROM's
> > >(as of my departure in June 1999).
> >
> > Hmm, so does this Linux experiment explain the sudden dip in K-Mart
> > stock price in June of 1999?
>
> How would an experiment with no business impact affect the price of
> stock?
Don't worry, Aaron will threaten your life soon too. He does that with
everyone that proves him wrong. After all he *IS* RAMBO.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Updated Steve/Mike List -- 38 Fake Names (was: So ya' wanna' run
Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: 17 Aug 2000 06:27:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>> The count is now 38 fake identities:
>Don't forget the one where he just called himself "." and then tried to
>get all zen like in saying something about "identity doesn't matter" or
>some such nonsense.
Thanks -- found it!
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648116960
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
However, I don't think I can count (.) as an entirely
separate identity, since [EMAIL PROTECTED] was already
on the list, and he used them together, at least he did
in the only article with either name that I have in my
archives. Unfortunately, DejaNews is so badly broken
this week that a relevant search is impossible. So,
much as I hate to make a decision based on inadequate
information in such a vitally important matter, I'm
going to consider the two names as parts of the same
entry, like "The Cat" and "hepcat".
If I'm overruled by a majority vote at the next plenary
session of the UCTTSMTFIIDAGHL, then of course I'll
modify the list, as per article 42 of the Bylaws.*
Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
"Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/Swango/piddy/
pickle_pete/wazzoo/"leg log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
The Cat (hepcat)[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)/etc.
* Bylaws of the Usenet Committee To Take Steve/Mike
To Fire Island In Drag And Get Him Laid
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: 17 Aug 2000 06:32:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
8<SNIP>8
>> No, it wasn't. It was meant to replace Novell, not Unix (something at
>> which it has done exceedingly well - now Microsoft have decided to
>> take aim on Unix).
>
>
>HAR! HAR! HAR!
>
>Back in the days of Neutered Technology 3.X, Bill was claiming that
>Neutered Technology 4. would be "a better Unix than Unix"
>
>So, from that statement, one can ONLY conclude that M$ already tried to
>"take aim on Unix" and thus far, has failed miserably.
Hmmm...
- Every argument he makes never has any facts in it.
- Has a smug and condesceding attitude.
- He has a very long and annoying .signature.
I dunno about you Christopher, but I've run out of
reasons to keep this guy viewable any longer.
*PLOINK!*
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 17 Aug 2000 06:35:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Byrns) wrote in
<_CLm5.4380$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
8<SNIP>8
>> How would an experiment with no business impact affect the price of
>> stock?
>
>Don't worry, Aaron will threaten your life soon too. He does that with
>everyone that proves him wrong. After all he *IS* RAMBO.
Hey, back off Byrns! He's 'leet!
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:45:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
>>Well, Mr. "I'm a legal expert", perhaps you missed the fact that "making
>>printouts and photocopies" is a violation of copyright law. Are you
>>trying to say (or merely assuming) that disassembly and conversion to
>>source code is not "utilization"?
>
>Good. At least you seem to understand now that _Sega v. Accolade_
>is a copyright case, rather than a trademark case like you said it
>was. (Although the court does address the trick Sega used to protect
>their console from unauthorized games by trademark, saying that they
>were the infringers if anybody was.)
Quit blowing smoke up my ass.
>Generally, when somebody disassembles a computer program, they make
>printouts so they can study it. I think the court was recognizing
>that as part of the disassembly. And "making printouts and photocopies"
>is not always a violation of copyright law. Otherwise, the court would
>have found for Sega on that ground alone.
Quite blowing smoke up everybody else's ass.
>[Snip]
>>On that topic, I found this interesting site while researching these
>>issues.
>>http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn2
>
>For anybody who doesn't want to look that up, here's what the URL
>points to --
> [2] THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 1292 (3d ed. 1992).
>
>For somebody who wants to read the whole article, try --
> http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
Thanks. Sort of. I think scrolling to the top of the page would have
come naturally to most folks, even if they didn't recognize that "#fn2"
was an intra-page link.
>It's a reasonable article about how the courts have avoided enforcing
>software licensing that go considerably beyond the restrictions of
>copyright law. Paragraph (35) is interesting about its comment that
>something wasn't a derivative work, because it wasn't "substantially>similar" to the
>preexisting work.
Avoided? No, the court's haven't "avoided" enforcing software licensing
to over-reach. They have struck down such licenses. For an expert, you
don't seem to be very impartial about these matters. Picking (35) out
of the midst proves that point rather well. This was a discussion of a
case where a company that blatantly and purposefully copied another
company's work was still found not to infringe on copyright, simply
because the original work was over-protected by licensing restrictions.
If the licensing restrictions had not been demanded, Quaid would have
been infringing on Vault's intellectual property, if I read the
presentation accurately.
Let me repeat that, because Vault v. Quaid may well be an important
issue in future discussions: Quaid was found not to infringe because
Vault demanded licensing agreements which were overreaching.
[Michael Liberman, Comment, Overreaching Provisions in Software License
Agreements, 1 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 4 � 36 (1995)
<http://www.richmond.edu/jolt/v1i1/liberman.html>.]
Now, they didn't go so far as to declare that the license itself was
invalid. Merely the decompile restrictions.
In short, decompile restrictions on software are invalid, basically. If
you have any need to decompile, and wish to, your case is practically a
slam-dunk, even if your intent is to replicate the program being
decompiled. So long as you don't *reproduce* the original software,
you're in the clear.
Hell, in the Accolade case, they even copied some of the *code* into
their product, and 'got away with it'.
--
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:50:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>BASIC only *LOOKS* easier.
>
>In fact, it's more difficult. Proof of this is the fact that you will
>not find ANY large applications written in BASIC, even though
>compilers for the language have existed for 20 years.
That depends on what you mean by "easier". Easier to develop large
applications in? Certainly not. How many times must I point out that
my interest is not in application development, but simple desktop
automation? You don't *need* much more than BASIC for macros!
I think most of 'you' who know "programming languages" are simply unable
to grasp the concept of an "end user automation language", and that's
the only thing I've ever considered or described BASIC as being good
for.
--
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: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 03:03:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> And it is open source, what? I can understand wanting the major Linux
>> houses to provide options for user server processes, but why does there
>> seem to be such a strong "they" involved here? If "they" provide only
>> kernel server versions, but there is a large number of people who want
>> more flexible/sane design, then there should be an "us" that provides
>> such an operating system, shouldn't there?
>
>That is the problem that I have been seeing, there used to be an us, us the
>developers us the users, us the Linux community. Now it seems, that all to
>often the feeling is becoming us the users and them the developers, and them
>the maintainers. The opinions of long time members of the Linux community
>those of us who have help make Linux what it is, have no value compared to
>the wishes of those who might someday use it.
Yea, I know what you mean. Isn't this the inevitable result of gaining
a wider audience outside "geekdom", though? I've seen other posts
around which say, basically, "we shouldn't let non-experts use Linux".
Is it the broadening of scope, or the losing of power, which you fear?
Long time members of the community should (but won't, alas, unless
there's fundamental change in social and commercial structure, though
that is possible, come to think of it) have a bit 'more' of a say in the
development of Linux. But the fact is, if millions of people are going
to use Linux, then it wouldn't make sense to *anybody* to maintain an
elitist attitude.
How to balance the elitism of the geeks with the base qualities of the
masses; that is the question. Preference on principle for either one
seems a dead-end, IMHO.
>Roberto's comments to Nathianel and to me are prime examples of the contempt
>that seems to be accumulating in the minds of the "developers" for the long
>time members of the Linux community. He seems to assume that we have not
>contributed to the Linux community unless proven otherwise. He speak of us
>having the OS given to us. Once it would have been assumed that we had
>contributed unles proven otherwise. What has changed? What has caused it?
Popularity, obviously. Once it *could* have been assumed that you
contributed, if you knew anything about it, because only those that
contributed did know anything about it. Now Linux has a wider audience.
What are you going to do about it? Make it less acceptable to the
majority? Or try to figure out how to balance the mass's desires with
the expert's requirements.
--
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
******************************
