Linux-Advocacy Digest #614, Volume #28 Thu, 24 Aug 00 10:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (James Helferty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Helferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: 24 Aug 2000 13:02:13 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> paul snow wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
> > Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract form in
> > XML and render it to the target computer system.
> >
> > XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
> >
> > XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and their
> > options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be expressed
> > in different ways on different computer systems to construct an operational,
> > distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every web
> > server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch, with
> > one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
> >
> > This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a new
> > concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
> > know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side and
> > view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
> > the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
> > make it happen.
>
> This who XML hysteria worries me. We have people thinking that it is
> something other than a very inefficient text based file format. Example:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> <!DOCTYPE RESULTSET SYSTEM "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd">
> <RESULTSET>
> <RESULT ID="0" >
> <MATCHES>0</MATCHES>
> <TIME>0.1605</TIME>
> <RATINGS>0</RATINGS>
> <MAXSCORE>2510</MAXSCORE>
> <SCORE>6947</SCORE>
> <SIZE>6536</SIZE>
> <LANGUAGE>_LANG1_</LANGUAGE>
> <DATE>957148708</DATE>
> <FORMAT>0</FORMAT>
> <MODDATE>0</MODDATE>
> </RESULT>
> </RESULTSET>
>
> That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
> not a new concept in operating systems.
[nod] It's good for storing databases as text, which means it makes
sense to integrate it with HTML. But if you start using it for other
things, it becomes kinda.. fruity..
'Sides, I remember reading on Slashdot that Helix Gnome already uses an
XML installer. You might want to look into that before you reinvent the
wheel. (Note that their implementation doesn't really make for any
enhancements either; supposedly their upgrades aren't all that
flexible. They do say they're working on something called Red Carpet,
so maybe take a look at that..)
The only advantage you'll get out of using XML is that your datafiles
will allow users to be able to figure out (if they know XML) what's in
the file. It's really no different, usage-wise, from the windows .ini
spec, except that you can nest things deeper, and it takes a lot more
programming to parse the bloody things.
James
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://chat.carleton.ca/~jhelfert
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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, 24 Aug 2000 13:09:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -- snip --
> > > >
> > > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget,
> > > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > > to USENET?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > > to take things even farther.
> > > >
> > > > When did you get it into your head that having a surplus
> > > > indicates having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or
> > > > deficit, the budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when
> > > > expenditures equal revenues.
> > > >
> > > > If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I
> > > > sure as hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest
> > > > free. I'd rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting
> > > > Dems spend it for me.
> > >
> > > It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided
> > > what to do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts
> > > for the less fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush
> > > wants tax breaks for his rich friends and unnecessary defense
> > > spending.
> >
> > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
> > spending it for them!? How absurd!
>
> Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
> healthy and educated.
What a strange way of expressing "Bush wants to take less of everyone's
money".
>
> > And he wants to defend the country! That's insanity!
>
> Yeah, you never know when the Brits might try to invade again!
>
> Seriously, the major threat to the US these days is terrorism, and the
> kind of military spending Bush wants to do doesn't do a damn thing to
> protect us from that.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone who wants lower taxes
also wants a stronger military. I don't, for example.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:14:05 GMT
In article <399f434b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <399f0303$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along
> >> >
> >> >the
> >> >lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
> >> >your
> >> >meaningless word).
> >>
> >> The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
> >> people's
> >> representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
>
> >Where has the U.S. Congress stated that companies shouldn't be allowed
> >to
> >protect their own intellectual property and should face civil
> >injunctions
> >for charging too much (both of these are positions you've taken).
>
> Your coming right out of LaLa land even asking the first question,
> considering
> the various laws protecting intellectual property. On the second there is
> wide
> agreement that companies who artificially manipulate a market in order to
> charge more, e.g., gouge the buyer, should face sanctions for essential
> products. Your position seems to be that anyone should be always be
> allowed
> to do what ever they want. You are wrong and always will be.
>
I guess if you misquote someone badly enough you can tell them they're
wrong. Oops, you just did.
I never said someone should be able to do whatever they want. I said
that, as long as they don't break any laws, they should be able to put
whatever price they want on their products. If their price is too high,
few people will buy it.
You and T. Max seem to be the ones who think it's illegal to charge what
the market will bear.
Please point out the specific laws which make it illegal to put any
price tag on your product, assuming that no _other_ laws are being
broken.
IOW, what law says I can't double the price for my products tomorrow if
I wish?
Come on--you and T. Max both keep saying this is illegal. Show me where.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:38:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
>> Was it perhaps the Transformer called Jetfire? It was white with red
>> stripes on it and had 'battle armor' that was red and black. I had that
>> particular toy, plus about fifteen of the really little ones that they
>> released as actual Robotech toys. I don't remember any Robotech toys
>> that were of that size, but Jetfire was huge. And he's still my
>> favorite toy:-). It took my months to save up the $35 I needed to buy
>> him back then. Ah, for the good old days.
>
>Might've been.
>
>BTW, found a site that has all Robotech episodes in Real Vid format. I've
>been running a wget on the site since Saturday and am just now getting the
>last episode of the first season (site is hammered).
<drewl>
Damn, that makes me wish I had a high speed connection.
As it sits, I think trying to download that much stuff
would probably keep my dialup busy for about a month. :-(
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:37:44 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > [...]
> > > > >> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced
> > > > >> them is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
> > > > >> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
> > > > >
> > > > >*sigh*. You're missing the point.
> > > >
> > > > I know it will do no good to point out to Christopher Smith that, no,
> > > > it is he that is missing that point. The point is *not* whether
> > > > there have been any compelling alternatives to Windows. In fact, the
> > > > point is that there have *not* been any compelling alternatives, or
> > > > even available alternatives, to Windows.
> > >
> > > There haven't been any particularly compelling alternatives. There have
> > > been numerous alternatives.
> >
> > Baloney. How "compelling" a given alternative is entirely depends on its
> > application. What may be a compelling solution for one problem may be a
> > worthless solution for another. To generalize and state that there
> > haven't been any compelling alternatives for any task is highly inaccurate.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I meant compelling alternatives for the majority. Obviously if you're
> involved in something like DTP then, say, MacOS has been a compelling
> alternative for years (indeed, it would be the paltform for which there
> haven't been any compelling alternatives).
Well now I ask you to indulge me once more and consider which "majority",
keeping in mind the multitude of corporate users, etc., and not just
implicitly limiting your scope to the home user crowd.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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, 24 Aug 2000 13:58:54 GMT
In article <8o35t7$dc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Of *course* the absolute dollar amounts saved by the wealthy are
> >> > higher,
> >> > but that's only because they're paying a hell of a lot more in
> >> > absolute
> >> > terms in the first place.
> >>
> >> But they can afford a hell of a lot more in absolute terms. The rich
> >> are
> >> doing quite well in this country. They don't need any tax breaks. I
> >> won't support a tax break that gives 60% of the money to the top 5% of
> >> the population. Especially not if the guy proposing it claims it
> >
> >Of course, you neglect to mention that that 5% of the population is
> >paying 90% of the taxes.
>
> Doesn't that 5% also control more than 90% of the wealth?
Probably.
But the point is that even with the Bush tax cuts, they're still paying
a vastly higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor or
middle class.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:59:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>It was the Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:57:34 GMT...
>...and Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I see. I would say, "sure, here you have linux, I will
>> >now go work on my nice 'geekos' here" :-)
>>
>> I don't know why but I 'heard' this in my head in Eric
>> Cartmen's voice:-).
>
>You don't happen to mean Eric "All By Myself" Carmen?
>
Um, I don't think so.
South Park's Eric Cartmen (or is it Cartman?).
You know, "Screw you guys, I'm goin' home"
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: 24 Aug 2000 14:02:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:36:31 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>[snip -- my only reaction is <rolleyes>]
>
>Who am I
>kidding? You're absolutely right that psychologists telling people that
>being enslaved is psychologically harmful is NOT AT ALL like a doctor
>saying that working in a coal mine is harmful to their health.
Who's being enslaved? Your anologies have no relevance to everyday
situations. You're just being your dismal self.
>Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhht. Just like there are scientific studies that people
>can
>point to that PROVE that sand is yellow, right?
Is something wrong with your keyboard?? There are scientific studies
showing what materials sand consists of and scientific studies showing
why these materials reflect light they way they do. Yet all one has to
do to prove that some beach sand is white yellow is reflect light off
of it in the lab and sample the light.
>It seems you still haven't
>grasped the difference between "ask a scientist" and "open your eyes".
While most people would agree beach sand being white yellow is trivial
there are few who would agree with your aburd claim that most
businesses are psychopaths.
>
>If I were acting in my own self-interest, I wouldn't be posting to
>USENET. I'd be using my knowledge of where the power is in
>society in order to make connections that allowed me to screw
>people for millions of dollars instead of being indebted past my
>ears and devoting my time to developing GPLed software.
Are you developing GPLed software? What are you working on. Where can
I get the code?
>The height of arrogance. Do you seriously think that hurting your
>feelings has anything to do with being an asshole?
Your not hurting my feelings. You're amusing me...though starting to
get a little boring. I am only responding at this point to query you
as to what software you are developing.
>The original
>example was extorting money from a deparate neighbour you like
>just because you're moving and won't have to deal with them again.
Huh?? Who does this shit?? Where do you come up with this?? You have a
pretty dismal view of the world.
>
>> >Religions like to claim a lot of things.
>>
>> Yes, and so do philosophers. I don't blindly follow either.
>
>Just like you don't blindly follow doctors, pharmacists, chemists,
>engineers, architects, mathematicians and logicians, right?
I don't. I take everything with a grain of salt. All the above tend to
use more scientific methods than religions and philosophers and are
thus more believable.
>If you
>don't grok something then that must be because it's wrong, not
>because of any failing on your part. After all, who wouldn't want
>to go running around to prove things to your satisfaction? But I'm
>an asshole according to you so I'll demand that you pay me first.
>
You have an extremely dismal view of the world. You claim it is in
everone's true self interest to just be an asshole. To try to prove
it, you exclusively look at the most dismal examples of human
behaviour and take them to be the rule and not the exception. You are
the one who claimed the human race will go exctinct in 500 years. Why
don't you do as someone suggested and start by killing yourself. It
will put you out of your misery.
------------------------------
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: 24 Aug 2000 14:02:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:33:24 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>> 1) Military benefit: Better ability for the U.S. to protect it's borders.
>>
>
>That is a legitimate use of government spending, although the US wasn't
>really threatened from the West.
>
>
Actually, I believe Japan began imperialist activites as early as the 1870's.
>>
>> 2) Benefits to democracy: A much safer speedier means of transportion to
>> Washington D.C. for representives of California and other States,
>> necessary for equal representation of these states in our political
>> system.
>>
>
>OK
>
>>
>> 3) Industrial benefit: Opening up the west to the industrial
>> revolution in the East, providing resources to the east in return for
>> finished products to the West.
>>
>
>My claim was if the West were that rich in minerals, then a
>trancontinental railroad should have been economically
>justifiable to private firms, although the military/political
>considerations might have tipped the balance.
"economically justifiable" is a bit subjective. For a private
businesses five to ten year wait for a payback on investment might be
reasonable. For a public works project, a much longer payback might be
reasonable if the public wants the benefits of the project. So as I
said before, it's a matter of opinion.
>The rail net of the South was somewhat degraded during the
>Civil War. How much had been repaired before the Trancon RR
>was built?
Totally irrelevent. The Government gave land grants to Union Pacific
in 1863 and was thus in a contract with Union Pacific. Reconstruction
was funded from another source.
>California (and several other states) had threatened secession in 1861.
>However, I don't think any state would have seceded after Sherman's
>march through Georgia and the Carolinas.
>
Ever wonder why the Germans never marched thru Switzerland?
>> >Railroads in more populated areas, for one.
>>
>> What was needed at the time was railroads to interconnect populated
>> areas separated by vast distances and difficult terrains.
>>
>
>Was the need just political/military, or was it economic as well?
Like I said, it's a matter of opinion.
>Yes I have asked that before, but we haven't decided it.
>
I don't think we are going to. Opinions are very rarely mutually
decided.
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: 24 Aug 2000 14:07:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Aug 2000 20:16:50 GMT,
Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ... but I am discussing both incident and the overall use of NT on the
>> Yorktown ...
>
>Wrong, our exchanges began when I pointed out the Yorktown failure was an
>application (or design) problem not an OS problem. You claimed it was an
>OS problem and I asked for your sources.
And I used Redman as a source because I wasn't limiting the discussion
to just one incident. What is the sense in vindicating NT for one
incident when it is responsible for so many others and everybody knows
it's an unstable operating system.
>>>there is no information on what the effect(s) of these incidents
>>>were,
>>
>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>
>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>
>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>> resulted from NT."
>>
>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>> systems failures, he said.
>>
>> That last paragraph is clearly in the context of the two above, and is
>> telling you the effect of the failures. To deny this is a blatent lie.
>
>The ship's systems comprise more than an operating system.
>[stupid conjecture snipped]
Redman is talking about the operating system: Windows NT. He clearly
says that NT is responsible for numerous failure and the the ship was
towed to port several times as a result of these failures. He also
says NT has never been fully refined. Duh...that's a no brainer.
>Such consoles (remote terminals and LAN consoles from original article) do
>not need to be general purpose computers running general purpose operating
>systems with applications on a hard drive. I would favor hot pluggable CPU
>boards with applications in ROM.
Pluggable CPU boards with ROM might be nice to have in the engine
room, and in other specific areas of the ship. However, they are
limited in both size and flexibility. On the Yorktown you have many
subsystems throughout the ship, including engines, navigation systems,
power systems, communication systems, damage control systems,
etc. etc. You also have applications for maintenance and operations
databases, and tools for systems analysis and trending. These
applications need to be accessable in multiple locations in the
ship. These applications also need to be upgradable as ship subsystems
are modified and new technologies are added. Also, the use of COTS
software is desirable. Thus, a more general purpose platform is used.
>What is convenient for the developers is not necessarily what is best for
>the sailors on board the ship.
Sure, but when you deprive developers of decent tools you are either
1) going to spend more man hours on devopment or 2) accept a lower
quality application. When you are choosing an OS and hardware
platform, your choice is driven by the applications. If the
application is to be custom developed, then you must consider both
developing and running the application. You may give more preference
to one or the other, depending on your overall needs and priorities.
>> ... Absolute reliability is not required bacuase you will have
>> multiple consoles, so if one console is down, you can access the
>> system from another console or by alternate means. As long at it isn't
>> so bad that operaters are pissing at the consoles all the time.
>
>No, reliability is required.
Can you read??? Absolute reliability != reliability. Absolute
reliability for consoles is not required because you have redundancy.
>Unless a console is physically damaged a
>sailor should have access from the terminal he/she happens to be in front
>of.
A ROM based console can fail to, in hardware or software. All systems
can fail. That's why you need redundancy. And in a situation where a
general purpose OS is needed, and reliabity of a single console is
important, one would certainly choose Unix over NT.
>Evaluating and choosing database servers for a particular application is
>not my field.
Sure but for databases like other applications the reliability of Unix
is proven. With NT it isn't.
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
******************************
