Linux-Advocacy Digest #729, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:59:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> >
> >> >> >Are you alleging that the posts signed JS/PL are actually
written
> >> >> >by bogie-men or ghosts or demons or something?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm stating, quite plainly, that I have no idea who wrote them,
and have
> >> >> no interest in finding out. Frankly, I don't care.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >That's not what you stated.
> >> >
> >> >You stated over and over that JS/PL is not a real person.
> >> >
> >> >Please answer Aaron's question. Just who or what is posting to
Usenet
> >> >under that name if not a real person?
> >>
> >> Please read my answer. I don't care.
> >
> >But we care, that's why we ask. You see, if you believe there are
> >non-real
> >persons, or real non-persons posting on usenet, we would like to
know...
>
> I believe what you mean to say is that you would like to believe I do.
No, I don't mean that. I mean exactly what I wrote. I would like
to believe you are a reasonable guy who just acts like a fool,
yet I don't believe it, though.
> It would, after all, make it far easier to dismiss all those annoying
> questions I've been asking and opinions I've been stating which so
> well illustrate the general idiocy of many posters here.
Oh, sure. Your opinions are trivial to dismiss, much more so
your questions, who are usually just a sign of your deep
ignorance of the subjects discussed.
> You see, all you're doing is refusing to comprehend the thread. Like
> 'JS/PL', you seem desperate for an excuse to avoid responsibility for
> your lack of support for the various and far reaching (and generally
> meta) arguments which we engage in.
> First, look up the word "amphiboly" in several dictionaries or other
> references. Then read the following sentence: JS/PL is not a real
> person.
Main Entry: am�phib�o�ly
Pronunciation: am-'fi-b&-lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Late Latin amphibolia
Date: circa 1588
: AMPHIBOLOGY
Not much there. I'll check amphibology.
"a sentence or phrase (as "nothing is good enough for you") susceptible
of more than one interpretation".
Cool. Now, you said JS/PL is not a real person.
I gave you already two interpretations: he is a non-real person,
or he is a real non-person (so I obviously accepted the phrase
as an amphibology).
Now, what is your other interpretation?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:14:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Mike Byrns wrote:
[...]
>I know fully well why they do. They see that checkmate is only 2 moves
>away, and rather than concede defeat, they decide to fling the board
>across
>the room.
Considering the kind of people you are generally responding to, I'm
almost hesitant to say anything. But despite your many faults, you
occasionally have something worthwhile to say, Aaron. Your delusion
that it helps keep the trolling down if you're a boneheaded asshole
who's actions aren't mitigated by civility does get very tiring to those
of us who don't plonk you, as well.
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: Roberto Alsina <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:09:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
> [...]
> >The company could make money from other products. The product could
> >generate money for other companies. There is no one-one link
> >between them.
>
> Well, you give two possibilities, and then presume they lead to a
> conclusion.
No, I see they don't lead to your conclusion. In fact, I refused
to reach such a conclusion that would make Qt and TT exchangeable.
That is why I refused to exchange them, fool.
> I'm well aware that TT "could" make money from other
> products and KDE "could" generate money for other companies. But I
> already knew these were possibilities; I'm asking for information,
> which you seem reticent to provide.
Ask a straight question, and you will get answers.
> I believe its more likely that you simply
> don't understand the question, or perhaps that you do but don't have
> an answer and don't wish to reveal this lack. I'd have to be a
> conspiracy theorist to think you were intentionally not confronting
> the real questions.
There is another possibility: your question is so stupid I prefer
to mock you.
> >And since correcting your stupid ways is so easy, why don't you do it
> >instead of whining?
>
> Apparently, it isn't as easy as you'd like it to be.
Sure it's easy!. You see, when you mean "the company", say TT.
When you mean "the software", say Qt. Easy!
> You've provided no information at all, and very little conjecture
I have provided plenty of information in this thread, from my
employer to my guess of what the TT business model is, to
explaining you who TT are, to explaining you what KDE is,
to explaining you what Qt is, and a bunch of other things
you apparently ignored, all this while you insulted me
and lied. I believe you are losing in the information
race here.
> (without sufficient
> background to give me an idea of how valid that conjecture might be,
> seemingly purposefully) about the truth of the matter. No bother,
> though, others have already given me what I think is sufficient
> information to believe that TT has not unethical entanglements with
> commercial software vendors which use QT.
I bet they feel sooo much better now. BTW: It's Qt (lower case t).
QT is QuickTime (or Apple, in Maxspeak).
> There is the nagging accusation that KDE itself (as an abstract,
> whether product or organization is referenced is something you're
> going to have to work out on your own; you need the practice as
> you've shown yourself to be entirely incapable or unwilling to
> do it before) is promoted by TT in an attempt to "monopolize" the
> market for libraries which might be alternatives to QT.
This is so stupid I have to say it: TT can not monopolize
the market for alternatives to Qt, because they don't
produce an alternative to Qt.
If you meant "monopolize the market of cross-platform
GUI libraries", it would make sense, though.
As for TT's reasons to support KDE, I say you should
ask them.
>But without anything but supposition to support it,
> I wouldn't put too much faith in the claim. Still, the industry
> should be rightly shy about getting in bed with someone who wants to
> be the "only" one of anything.
And I ask you: where have you seen TT say they want to be the
"only" one of anything?
Or are you now in conspiracy mode?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:42:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Of course he's going to be biased... he's a part
>of the KDE project. It's unfair to expect him
>to be anything otherwise.
I'm sorry, this is such a horrible mangled bunch of post-modern
bullshit, I couldn't resist responding. No, it is not unfair to expect
anyone to be unbiased, regardless of their affiliations. It might go
well beyond reason to expect them to be unbiased, but fairness never
demands tolerance of a biased viewpoint in its own right.
--
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: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:46:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sylvain Demers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been reading a lot about the pros and cons of GUI vs comand line
> configuration. True that GUI is sometimes creating dumb users. But
> developpers and hackers will have to undestand that some people simply
> don't have the time to hack config files because they have to do their
> job, which as often nothing to do whatsoever with running a computer.
>
> There is some very clever solutions that appeared that should be
> extended to any GUI so that, while allowing people with litlle
> maintenance time to learn about their system, will allow them to learn
> it nevertheless. Two examples : in gnome, when you get to the
permission
> window, any click of the mouse tells you the permission number at the
> top of the window. This is smart, cause if you have to edit permission
> at the command line one day, gnome will have helped you learn that
2777
> was in fact r-w-x for everybody plus sgid. The same applies to nmapfe.
> The front-end version displays all options and arguments with every
> click of the mouse. Any GUI should be written this way. For instance,
if
> linuxconf in Redhat and the likes was telling you that "the IP address
> entered here will be written to file /etc/resolv.conf", this would
> prevent people from becoming dumb users. SO that if you don't have a
lot
> of time to spent configuring files, you can at least know what you're
> doing to your system. This solution is simple and would get us the
best
> of both world for productivity purposes.
>
> The problem is that the people developping GUI have fallen in the M$
> trap of thinking that people don't want to know. This type of
> implementation wouldn't hurt anyone. People that don't care would
remain
> toughtless users while people who want to know what there are doing
> would benefit a lot from it.
>
> I hope Linux GUI developpers will somehow undestand that they won't
> compete M$ by copying it, but by doing better, and better means
smatter,
> not prettier.
>
One solution I am working on now for some of my customers is to give
them a web based admin tool. It does really make sense, especially if
you take you already have Apache and PERL running (or installed) on
most Linux boxes. So far I'm looking at very basic stuff like
creating/deleting/modifying users, scheduling private cron jobs and
setting backup jobs - all web based using a combination of PERL, C and
other scripts. On a web page, you have absolute freedom on how much
help you want to give a person.
I think we should try and move all common admin tasks to a web
interface. Imagine linuxconf running in Nestcape... I believe people
will find it more user friendly then other solutions (with propper
development, of course) and since the web browser is becomming somewhat
of a standard interface, the user already knows how to use it.
PS: My solution is currently for home based systems with limited
network connectivity, so security is low priority. The nice thing is
that if you want remote administration in a secure environment, it can
be achieved through web based technologies, but the risk of holes are
bigger - especially if the initial configuration is not done propperly.
What do you people think?
BTW: Is there any decent commercial web based system management systems
you know of? Please let me know. I would like to get some ideas... lol
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:07:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Truckasaurus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 29 Aug 2000 07:34:56 GMT
<8ofp30$f0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>> I would submit that the original comment above (with your very
>> concise rebuttal being a nice touch :-) ) is far too vague to
>> effectively answer. What does it mean that "hardware sucks"?
>> Some hardware is *supposed* to suck (vacuum cleaners :-) ). [*]
>
>My power supply has got a fan - and it blows.
Heh! Forgot about that one. :-)
(Do Pentium CPUs with built-in fans suck?)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 29 Aug 2000 15:08:52 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:04:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:11:30 +0100, C Lund wrote:
>> >> Fuck you. I've never been a republican.
>> >
>> >You sure sound like one.
>>
>> According to Kulkis, the Republicans are "socialists".
>>
>> >I wasn't talking about "welfare slobs", I was talking about the working poor.
>>
>> According to Kulkis, the world is neatly partitioned into "philosopher kings"
>> and "welfare slobs". A welfare slob is anyone who's not a philosopher king.
>>
>
>You will never discern shades of grey if you do not first acknowledge
>the existance of black and white.
Obviously true. However, acknowledging the existence of black and white is
a neccessary, but *not* sufficient condition. This is where you seem to be
confused.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:10:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
[...]
>Bullshit. I didn't say that. Go read the damn thread.
>Whenever Nathaniel Lee said I was saying that, I said "no
>I am not saying that, I am saying this other thing".
And then continued to say what amounted to the same thing, later on.
Face it, Roberto, sooner or later you've got to take responsibility for
your communications or have your opinions discounted. You cannot have
it both ways, and all this discussion has certainly gone on long enough
to convince any non-butthead to recognize the problem.
Such problem is that you are frequent victim of elitist authoritarian
bullshit thinking. In your disdain for "non-contributing" members of
the community (being part of the community is a contribution in its own
right, whether you are a coder or not), in your post-modernist rhetoric
on philosophical topics, on your painfully clear reticence to be open
and up-front about the potential issues in the relationship between KDE
and Troll Tech and its putative major customers....
I'm not going to say you are in error, prima facia, on any of these
positions. But the fact that you hold all of them, and others which
similarly allow those who know you through your posts to develop a
(potentially false) consideration of your personality and general
arguments, leads to an almost inexorable conclusion, which is that you
are a butthead who provides no weight to his opinion with reasoned
debate.
>If I did say something that could be understood to mean that, I suppose
>the 10 times I said I didn't meant that should clarify :-P
That depends on the context, I'm afraid. IOW, it comes down to whether
anyone believes you. If you'll note the number of people who don't
believe you despite your frequent 'clarification', it might be worth
considering whether you are being totally sincere and faithfully
diligent in your self-examination.
>Here's what I want to say: You don't like the direction linux is going?
>Work and fix it. It doesn't make any difference if you have contributed
>in the past or not, really, you still need to work and fix it.
And here's what we want to say: advocating not just the specific problem
issue, but discussing in a reasonable and informed manner *why* we don't
like the direction Linux is going *IS* "working to fix it". Yes, in
theory, what keeps Linux free is the fact that each individual *could*
customize the entirety of the OS to their own needs and desires, given
sufficient skills. But stating this possibility is hardly going to do
more than make hand-waving gestures in the direction of discussion about
the issue, and thus why you are being 'put upon' by meta-discussion over
your response and your attitude. Writing our own software if we don't
like "the direction linux is going" is the most trivial part of the
process, actually. Its convincing the community to refrain from unwise
and ultimately counter-productive development in the first place which
is the real work. I congratulate Nathaniel Lee for having the gumption
to engage in this effort, and 'mjcr' for supporting him, while again
pointing out that while their points might have been addressed to some
degree, your buttheaded responses generally prevented any productive
discussion from occurring.
--
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
******************************
