Linux-Advocacy Digest #587, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:35:43 GMT
In article <q6Ko5.7416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nvd23$3m0
> > Here's the irony. Bill Gate's first Operating System was actually
> > Xenix, a variant of Version 6 UNIX. When Gates offered IBM an OS,
> > he already had Xenix in his back pocket (he'd been selling it to
> > Tandy for almost 2 years).
>
> Yes, the first OS that they developed.
> Still it was a liscensed Sys V port
> if I recall correctly.
Close - Sys V came out in 1985. Xenix was a variant of Version 6
UNIX which was distributed among the Schools in 1979.
> > Only a few people at IBM and Bill Gates will ever know whether IBM
> > was actually hoping to get their hands on a UNIX clone without
paying
> > royalties to AT&T (who they viewed as a competitor) or if IBM wanted
> > to keep the PC as dumb as a rock to prevent Xenix machines from
> > displacing the Series 1, System/360, and possibly even the DOS-VS
> > and System 370 market.
>
> Microsoft paid royalties to AT&T.
Correct. And Gates didn't want to pay royalties on the product
it sold to IBM. Conversely, IBM had just lost a major portion
of it's Series 1 market to CP/M, and may have figured that UNIX
on the 8088/8086 was too likely to blow away the IBM Proprietary
markets mentioned above.
I was programming for Series 1 (EDX 2.x and EDX 3.x) and CP/M
machines when the first IBM PCs came out. They were expensive,
they didn't run much software, and they didn't support hard drives.
Even the floppy drive was an expensive option (but a popular one,
thank goodness).
Back in those days, IBM and Microsoft wanted you to jump right into
the middle of BASIC-IN-ROM. Much of this was to be certain that
CP/M-86 didn't start taking back the IBM market.
> > > And you don't think MS provides source code
> > > liscenses to strategic partners?
> >
> > I know that they did provide source code to DEC (which may have
> > had something to do with admitting in an interview that Gates found
> > the source code to BASIC in the dumpster of his former employer
> > (CCC) - code which was copyrighted by DEC and for which DEC was
> > never paid royalties.
>
> Lots of people have NT source code liscenses.
> Bristol, Mainsoft, Compaq,
> IBM, the US government...
How many of those licenses are current?
How many people get to look at this source code?
How much does it cost?
What are the legal consequences of looking?
(I know many of these answers, but you're the one making the case).
> BTW, gates never said he found the source to BASIC in the dumpster.
> IIRC, he said he fished out OS memory dumps.
He mentioned both in the interview. Today he's very quiet about
these things. It came back recently when Microsoft tried to claim
that Oracle was illegally spying on them by having people go through
Microsoft's trash.
The problem was that 100,000 lines of code printed on green-bar
fan-fold paper on a Dec line-printer weighed about 20 pounds and
was very difficult to shred (since it had to be broken into 2-3 dozen
shredder size chunks.
> > At one point, HP got a 'port kit' and found the process of porting
> > NT such an ordeal that they decided to stick with UNIX on PA_RISC
> > and sell NT on Itel/AMD/Cyrix boxes only.
>
> No... HP got into bed with Intel via IA64. They didn't want to take
the
> time to port NT to PA RISC when they would all be switching to what
was to
> become Itanium.
Excuse me. I was referring to the source code to NT 3.x. HP wasn't
even
thinking about Merced/Itanium.
As for the IA64 port, even NT 2000 doesn't support it. This hasn't
made Intel happy since Linux has been creating markets for the
64 bit ALPHA and the 64 bit PPC (G5?) and the UltraSPArC. And
Pushing people into UNIX opens up a number of chip/bus alternatives.
Microsoft currently plans a 64 bit implementation of "whatever"
around 2001 (which means delivery in 2002?).
Meanwhile, the SCO/IBM/HP/DELL/COMPAQ port of UNIX to Itanium,
plus the availability of Linux 2.4 for Itanium leaves Microsoft
waiting for the next train.
> > Attempts to port NT 3.51 to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, and 68000 were so
> > bad (lack of ISV support) that NT 4.0 was only ported to the ALPHA.
> > And now, Windows 2000 isn't even available on the ALPHA.
>
> More lack of knowledge on your part Rex. The NT4 CD shipped with
MIPS,
> ALPHA, and PPC as well as x86. 3.51 didn't have an Alpha port, and
> considering that NT was *DEVELOPED* on MIPS and ported to x86, it
makes your
> statement even more ludicrous.
But there was no market level support. Many of these companies spent
over $1 billion on the NT ports, only to have Microsoft fail to provide
even Office 2000 for their chips. Ironically, Microsoft provided IE 4.0
for UNIX versions but not for NT/MIPS or NT/PPC or NT/ALPHA.
Appearantly,
they were supposed to fork out $1 billion each for any application they
wanted.
I had heard that the NT 3.x development platforms included UNIX
workstations from SGI, since they needed workstations that could
handle/compile/manage the NT code (Windows 3.1 couldn't). I didn't
know that they had done the original port to MIPS machine level
instructions (do you have a reference?).
You certainly do seem to have very intimate knowledge of the internal
workings of Microsoft. Where do you get this interesting information?
Got a history book I can browse through? (so I can "refresh my memory").
> > > They do.
> >
> > They do, they have, and for enough of an incentive (like a huge
> > percentage (say 20%) of your company) they might do it again.
> > Even Paul Allen is betting against Microsoft (Transmeta, LinuxWorld,
> > and other Linux Friendly ZDNet publications). And he's dropping
> > Microsoft stock like soap in a cold shower.
>
> Sorry, Microsoft SEC filings do not show that Microsoft owns 20%
> of the US government, Mainsoft, or Bristol.
Microsoft takes smaller shares of larger companies and larger shares
of smaller companies. Furthermore, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve
Ballmer all have secondary holding and VC companies. Also, Microsoft's
top three institutional investors DO own substantial portions of
some of these organizations.
Although Microsoft doesn't own 20% of the U.S. government, they
get nearly 5% of the GNP as revenue (30 billion on 6 trillion)
and have repeatedly been granted extraordinary favors from the
U.S. government.
Even the DOJ's efforts to consolidate 22 independent lawsuits into
a single case was at the request of Microsoft. If Microsoft had
known that the 22 prosecutors were going to hold a poker to the
DOJ prosecutor's back, they might have been less interested in
a consolidation. Now they are trying to "take it back" by
challenging jurisdictional rights (essentially forcing each state
to persue it's claims independently).
> > > > I believe the NE2000 driver was running on
> > > > Linux before it was available under Windows 95.
> > >
> > > Microsoft shipped a generic NE2000 driver with Windows 95. Sorry.
> >
> > But Windows 95 was shipped the last weekend of August 1995. Linux
> > had a working NE2000 32 bit driver for Slackware, Yddragasil, and
> > SoftLanding as early as mid 1994.
>
> Which says nothing about *VENDORS* testing their windows drivers under
> Linux, which is what your original statement was about.
The key is that many vendors like Linksys were using the Linux drivers
as boilerplates for their NT drivers.
Many corporations encouraged their employees' participation in Linux
development, but asked that the company name be used to reduce the
risk of additional liabilities and reprisals from Microsoft.
Officially,
the OpenLook Virtual Window manager was the contribution of a few Sun
employees. But it was Sun's code, Sun's people, and Sun's support that
put OLVWM on Linux.
> > And by 1995, there was another new company - Caldera. It was formed
> > by some of the Novell people who were upset that Novell had agreed
> > to cancel it's workstation initiative if Microsoft agreed not to
> > deploy NT as a server.
>
> Considering that MS had deployed NT as a server 3 *YEARS*
> before Caldera was formed, that seems highly silly.
However, it shows that there were people within Novell who were
actively supporting Linux (especially as a workstation platform).
I got NT 3.5 beta in 1983, and NT 3.51 in late 1983. When did you
get yours?
Most of the PCI PnP drivers came out for Win95, not NT. NT had a hard
time getting drivers even AFTER it went GA.
> > Keep in mind this was NT 3.5/3.51. Some of those folks were backing
> > Linux as a workstation platform back in 1994.
>
> NT 3.1 had a server version.
Exactly when did NT 3.1 go GA?
I remember a BETA version that was so buggy it was unreliable
even as a file-server. Was that back in late 1992?
Dow Jones wasn't even allowed to publish anything (except
glowing reviews approved by Microsoft's editorial department).
I still have a few print publications from that era. Maybe I
can dig them up. (I wish I could find that "25 years of byte on
CD-ROM").
> > > ???? Lower level MFC???? Gezus Rex,
> > > stop while you've got SOME credibility.
> > > MFC is not an API in any sense of
> > > Windows (it's a class framework) and
> > > there's no such thing as a "low level MFC API"
> > > even if you're stretch the
> > > terminology to loosely accept MFC
> > > as some sort of API at all.
> >
> > I have some old C++ manuals that were published in 1992 that would
> > be quite a bit different from anything you've read.
>
> I was developing on C++ in 1991. Sorry.
[quoting you below]
> Visual C++ version 2 included no API's other than direct Windows and
> MFC.
[end quote]
I have 20 years of programming to both Microsoft and UNIX platforms,
but you seem to have a better "History book" than I do.
Since you never post your URL, I have no way of establishing a common
reference point. You seem to know what you're talking about, and
you like to pick nits - I'll deferr to your undocumented "expert
opinion".
Perhaps you'd like to give your own dissertation on why NT 3.1 through
Windows NT 3.51 were so unstable.
Perhapes you'd like to give your own dissertation on why Windows 2000
is soo much more stable than Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95.
> > > CORBA Client GUI objects... CORBA didn't even have a component
> > > architecture until CORBA 3, which was very recently.
True, but many component architectures were based on CORBA, including
GNOME, KDE, GTK, and Qt.
> > > > Many of the features of COM, such as drag-and-drop, dde, and
> > > > embedding are not supported for X11 interfaces.
> > >
> > > Because those are desktop features, not distributed features.
> > > They don't work in DCOM at all, even between windows machines.
However, if a DCOM server object wants to invoke many of methods
that are required on the Client side, these clients are not supported
on UNIX.
You can use DCOM in much the same way you use CORBA on UNIX, but
attempting to connect to an NT DCOM service with a UNIX Client
will quickly expose the lack of support for UNIX based DCOM.
Eventually, the OMG just absorbed a DCOM <-> CORBA Mapping scheme
which makes it possible to invoke a CORBA object as a DCOM object
and vice-versa.
My references are below - where are yours?
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 11:56:31 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:50 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>The GPL also "limits" "distribution". I'm not clear on who "they" are.
>>KDE are not trying to make a profit. Troll Tech ( the authors of QT )
>>are trying to make a profit. The restrictions that the QT license imposes
>>are for the most part less onerous than those imposed by the GPL.
>
>Again, I'm sorry, but that just isn't possible.
It certainly is. For example, software released under the artistic license
does not dictate to me what license I should use. However, if I want to
use the GDBM library, then I have to use the GPL, even though I am only
linking. SO for example, I cannot release my software under the artistic
license.
>But the license itself merely guarantees absolute freedom of the
>software, and places no greater (and can place no less) burdens upon it.
It puts a greater burden on it, by explicitly requiring derivatives to
use the GPL.
>rather sordid. Which makes it all the more notable that you, also,
>haven't actually defined what 'KDE' might be *apart* from Troll Tech
I don't see a need to explain this. They are completely seperate beasts.
See my other post. Basically, Troll Tech is a for-profit company that
makes money by licensing QT to proprietary software developers. KDE is
a not-for-profit free software project that develops APIs and software
based on the QT tool kit.
FYI, the KDE project also makes extensive use of GNU development tools
such as autoconf, automake, libtool, and cvs. But this doesn't mean that
they are "the same" as the free software foundation.
>(thus explaining who Troll Tech is and what their intent might be, as
>well as who KDE is, if abstracted, and their relationship to Troll Tech)
>and also haven't explained any of the context of QT.
This is all stuff that you're supposed to know before having such strong
opinions. Troll Tech make a tool kit. KDE use that tool kit. The
relationship between KDE and Troll Tech is the same as the relationship
between KDE and the free software foundation -- Troll Tech make some
software that KDE uses.
>extent), KDE is nothing more than a wrapper for QT,
False. KDE is:
(a) A set of APIs that sit on top of QT. It is considerably more than
a "wrapper". KDElibs consists of over 500 source code files, and
about 250,000 lines of code. That is not a "wrapper" by any stretch
of the imagination.
(b) The bulk of KDE is a set of applications that use those ( the KDE )
APIs. These are certainly not any kind of "wrapper".
(c) KDE also provides tools such as kdevelop, which you could argue is
a "wrapper" for GNU software including libtool, make, automake,
autoconf and cvs. But this doesn't mean that KDE "are" the FSF.
> and QT was written
>purposefully to drive KDE,
QT was provided to make a decent C++ toolkit available to UNIX developers.
It predates KDE.
> making all pretense that KDE isn't a
>commercial endeavor absolutely meaningless,
How do you come to this conclusion ???
(*) KDE developers are volunteers, they are not on Troll Tech's payroll.
Troll Tech don't necessarily know about all the KDE developers.
(*) The KDE developers write software under licenses that even the hard core
zealots accept as free ( usually GPL, LGPL and artistic licenses ).
(*) The KDE developers are not paid by anyone.
(*) As stated above, KDE have the same relation to Troll that they do with
the FSF -- in both cases, KDE are a user of a piece of software. In a
sort of proof by contradiction, your logic would have it that KDE are
non-commercial because their use of the FSF's software means that they
"are" the FSF.
As usual, both the premise and conclusion of your argument are a load of
hogwash.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:16:10 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:16:10 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:01:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Bob Hauck escribi�:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:14:31 GMT, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
> >> >> >ships with default passwords.
> >> >>
> >> >> IIRC, you also can't make MySQL do anything unless you're root on the
> >> >> local machine until you set up some passwords.
> >> >
> >> >Considering that you have to connect to the database to set the
> >> >passwords, they better leave you SOME open entry ;-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> An rdbms can use OS based security for such instances.
> >> You don't necessarily need a default user account to
> >> access a freshly installed or created database.
> >
> >Sure. MySQL doesn't though, that's why I said that.
> >I also believe that OS based users/passwords in a database
> >are pretty lame, but that's just MHO.
>
> Why? Don't you trust your OS?
Often, I trust the OS admin less than the DB admin, and the OS security
less than the DB security. As I said, just MHO.
> If you don't, why do you think the rdbms is going to be better?
>
> OS based authentication is just one less level of redirection.
Whatever.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 23 Aug 2000 12:13:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> (For some reason, I keep losing track of where to look up
>the statute, so I can't check at the moment.)
A good source is the version supplied by the Library of Congress'
Copyright Office --
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
If you want a printed version, every two years West Publishing comes out
with "Selected Intellectual Property and Unfair Competions Statutes,
Regulations, & Treaties." About 1,000 pages for under $20. Has both the
current Copyright Act and the previous one, the Berne Convention, the
Library of Congress regulations, and patent, trademark, and trade secret
laws. The ISBN for the current (1999) edition is 0-314-24034-9.
>And so it is not 'copying in the copyright sense' in that copyright
>prohibits copying, does it not? (Sorry for harping.)
Not completely, no. Section 106, which states the exclusive rights
of a copyright owner, starts out "Subject to sections 107 through 120"
and those sections include quite a variety of instances where copying
is not prohibited.
And for what it is worth, the copyright law also prohibits things that
do not involve making a copy, such as performing a copyrighted work in
public. And there are exceptions to those exclusive rights, too.
So "copyright prohibits copying" both overstates and understates the law.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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, 23 Aug 2000 09:32:00 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >> [...]
> >> >> >You see, you still don't understand. the "T" is not a representation
> >> >> >of the effects, it's a representation of the bit itself.
> >> >>
> >> >> The affects are an abstraction;
> >> >
> >> >Oh, no. The effects are very concrete. They cause some electrons
> >> >to go to one state instead of another.
> >>
> >> I think you meant "discrete", not "concrete".
> >
> >I think I meant concrete, as in "not abstract".
>
> OK, so I tried. You're wrong.
Nice argument that one. So, you say the effects of the sticky bit
are not concrete? Go tell that to the electrons who move from
one place to another because of it when you delete a file.
> >> There is nothing about an abstraction which makes it non-discrete,
> >> per se. To suggest that bits flipping is not abstract is trivial
> >> reductionism, entirely misrepresentative of the context of the argument.
> >
> >So, you say that bits in your HD are abstract? Amazing.
>
> No, I didn't say anything about "bits in my HD". I said 'the sticky
> bit' is an abstraction.
The sticky bit is a ole'plain bit. It's just that we treat it
differently
because of it's position in the stream of bits that is your HD.
> A rather unamazing and unflashy one, but an
> abstraction nevertheless. Mostly because you cannot tell me *which*
> bit, precisely, of the million upon my HD, is 'the sticky bit'.
I sure can. It's a lot of work, but with the right tool (a computer)
it's not impossible.
> You
> certainly couldn't tell it on sight, at least, though you may be able to
> follow directions to find 'it'.
I can't tell an amoeba from a paramecius on sight either.
Which one is abstract?
> Don't tell me you're having problems grasping the abstract
> "abstraction". You know what they say about that, don't you?
I know things I can measure are not abstract.
> >The "t" is not a representation of the abstraction, it's a
> >representation
> >of whether the abstraction is applied to one specific object.
>
> I though you said 'the sticky bit' wasn't an abstraction?
I was following your line of thought there. I'll rephrase as
"even if the sticky bit is an abstraction, the 't' is not
a representation of the sticky bit, but of whether a
object has its sticky bit turned on."
Or to put it another way: all filesystem objects have a
sticky bit, only most of them have it turned off. Did
you know that?
> [...]
> >> There's that too-literal mind-set at work again. No, the functional
> >> purpose is an abstraction, because it is not concrete. There is no
> >> sensual data to communicate its existence to the user.
> >
> >Of course there is. You just use an instrument to read it.
> >It's called a computer.
>
> What part of "sensual data" didn't you understand? Perhaps the part
> where it doesn't involve instruments required to translate it into
> sensual data so that it can be perceived?
So, is the amoeba an abstraction? The bit is just as concrete, only
it's tiny, and in a range we can't see. Are radio emissions abstract?
You can't perceive an amoeba or a radio transmission without instruments
can you? Thought so.
You have a very wide definition of "abstract".
> [...]
> >Quick, how can a abstract thing (the bit, you say) produce
> >a concrete output (the "t")? Could it be that the bit is
> >concrete, and the t is just an abstraction used to make
> >"seeing" the bit simpler?
>
> "The" bit, "the" bit. You keep saying "the" bit, like it is actually a
> specific number of electrons going a certain way in a certain spot...
It sure is. Each instance of the sticky bit is just that.
> >> The 'bit', wherever one wishes to point to it, is
> >> whether or not you can delete files in the directory or whatever.
> >
> >No, that's the effect of the bit. The effect != the object.
> >The bit itself can probably be defined, if you really want to,
> >as a small section of magnetized disk.
>
> Even after I explain your muddled thinking, you don't even bother
> pretending to have read it. There are no objects, and the small section
> is not what identifies the bit as 'the sticky one'.
It is, in the context of a HD containing a ext2 filesystem.
I can find out how the data is layed out in the HD.
I can find out how the data is layed out in the partitions.
I can find out how the data is layed out in each partition.
I can find out how the data is layed out in a ext2 filesystem.
I can find out how the inodes are layed out.
i can find out what bit in an inode is the sticky bit.
I can tell you the exact location in the HD which is a sticky
bit or isn't.
I can turn the HD into a stream of bits, each mapped to
a piece of the HD, and tell you which ones are sticky.
Really.
> You are not only a classic example of the engineer's mind-set (which
> isn't a bad thing at all), you are pig-headed (which is).
You are just ignorant, which is not bad by definition. And I'm not
an engineer, I'm a mathematician at heart.
> [...]
> >I remember when I didn't understand it. I was told "read the chmod
> >page",
> >I did, and now I understand. Whopee.
>
> And if you think that was the entirety of the process, you are grossly
> mistaken. I'm pretty sure you will not take my word on that, but
> perhaps if I point it out now, you might remember it sometime in the
> future when you can't figure out why everyone else seems to treat you
> like a pig-headed elitist geek.
Well, I was there, you were not. I know I asked another guy, because
of a book I was reading, "what's the sticky bit he mentions?", I was
told "read the chmod page", and later I was reading my book, knowing
what the sticky bit was. If you don't believe me, that's your own
problem.
> No offense; honestly.
Well, none taken. I can not be offended by the confused.
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
You're welcome, I doubt it.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:38:21 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
[snip]
> > > My how Animal Farmish of you!
> >
> > Are you calling me a communist now?
>
> I never evoked communism and I am not interested in your politics in the
> least. As you may recall from Animal Farm, for a while the animals worked
> the farm together, then the a group of pigs took over and became the lords.
> They disreguarded those who had differing opinions and then finaly drove
> them off. I will not likely leave the Linux community unless it become so
> alien and hostile to us that. If that happens or we form a major fork to
> regain what was lost, we will have been casted out from the mainstream, that
> is how we would become outcasts from the community that we have supported
> and built.
Animal farm is known to be a metaphor for comunism, with a Trotsky pig
and
everything. You should reread the book.
> > > > I said, indeed that if you don't like Corel's HW detection, you can
> > > > either not use Corel, or fix it, and I stand behind that.
> > >
> > > That was just one sample of a much larger set of issues.
> >
> > AFAIR, it was the only concrete example given.
> > The rest was generalities like "I don't want Linux to become
> > a windows clone".
>
> That was not my phrase or statement.
Didn't say it was. It's all I can remember.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 08:40:17 -0400
DES wrote:
>
> I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give Linux a
> try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat for
> their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days. Yes I
> did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!! For
> those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now means
> "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy for
> us!
> Give me a break, keep yor eye on your objective instead of trying to spite
> MS. Make it easy for Joe Public.
> Dave
> PS I hope someone from XFree86 Org reads this, their installation
> instructions are no help to me. What ever happened to step#1, step#2,.......
I assume you are being reasonable, so lets go with that.
The vocabulary which of which you are speaking is arbitrary
technobable. As for "Image" meaning "copy," is that the verb "copy" or
the noun "copy?" If it is the noun "copy" image is a more correct term.
And "server" meaning "driver." in what context?
Installation guide and step #1, #2, etc? Not everyone does things the
same way, as long as the language used is correct, and the information
presented is accurate, all you are complaining about is the method with
which a technical write decided to present the information. This is a
common problem in all technology, not everyone learns the same way or
processes information similarly. Many people complain about "step by
step" documents in that they don't help you understand what you are
doing.
If you want to rant, rant away. If you want to learn, get over it.
P.S. Remember, it is "8 items or fewer" not "8 items or less."
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
