Linux-Advocacy Digest #194, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Otto")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: angry programmers (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:03:58 GMT
Marty writes:
> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
Where did that come from, Marty?
>> Marty writes:
>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>> Where did that come from, Marty?
> The previous attribution in this thread.
You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
> I explained that it came from the attribution previous to it.
You didn't explain where the attribution previous to it came from, Marty.
>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>> You didn't explain where that previous attribution came from, Marty.
>>> You never asked.
>> Incorrect, given that I've been asking all along, but you've relied
>> on illogical circular responses.
> You didn't ask the first time it was used.
Incorrect; see ninety eight lines (including blank lines) below, Marty.
>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>>>> You were just being evasive, Marty.
>>> Did you expect me to read your mind?
>> Unnecessary, Marty.
> On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis that I wrote my question, Marty, thus it was unnecessary
for you to read my mind.
>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> The previous attribution in this thread.
>>>>>>>> You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
>>>>>>> Of what relevance is "whee" that one came from?
>>>>>> Typical evasion.
>>>>> On your part.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Pointing out your pontification is not pontification, Dave.
Without substantiating evidence for a pontification, your "pointing
out" is indeed a pontification, Marty.
>>>>> I cannot address your inquiry until you clear up what it was
>>>>> that you meant.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I wasn't clear, Marty,
>>>> using it as an excuse to continue your evasiveness.
>>> I see you're expecting me to read your mind again.
>> Incorrect, Marty.
> Then how do you expect me to interpret your made-up words?
What alleged "made-up" words, Marty?
>>> Why not just correct your error and remove the ambiguity?
>> What alleged error, Marty?
> DT] You didn't explain whee that one came from, Marty.
Where is the alleged ambiguity, Marty?
>>> How ironic, coming from someone complaining about alleged
>>> "evasiveness".
>> Where is the alleged irony, Marty?
> Witness your evasiveness.
What alleged evasiveness, Marty?
>>>>>>>>> I was just being consistent.
>>>>>>>> Consistent with the lack of an explanation, Marty.
>>>>>>> Still having reading comprehension problems, I see.
>>>>>> You see incorrectly again, Marty.
>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I was seeing incorrectly before.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty, given that I identified your consistent lack of an
>>>> explanation.
>>> That doesn't say anything good about your reading comprehension.
>> It doesn't say anything bad about it, Marty.
> On the contrary.
On what do you base your contrariness, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave "Fozzy" Tholen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did that come from, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>> Your lack of culture never ceases to astound.
>>>>>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer my question.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>>> Tyopical pontification.
>>>>>>> What is allegedly "tyopical" about it?
>>>>>> Typical evasion.
>>>>> On your part.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Classic pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the alleged irony?
Where you've pontificated, Marty.
>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
>>>> How ironic.
>>> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
>> I see you failed to answer the question again.
> How can I answer a question containing a made-up word?
What alleged "made-up" word, Marty? And why are you now using the
singular, but above you used the plural:
MA] Then how do you expect me to interpret your made-up words?
>>>>>>>>>> No surprise there.
>>>>>>>>> No surprise that you would ignore the answer I presented.
>>>>>>>> What alleged answer, Marty?
>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>> Where is the alleged answer above, Marty?
>>>>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>>>> Yes, which is why I know there isn't an answer above, Marty.
>>> Obviously not, considering the answer above.
>> What alleged answer, Marty?
> The one above, Dave.
Where above, allegedly, Marty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuyck wanted to be addressed by his title, Marty. I'm simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following his lead, and he hasn't used either of those.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be addressed by you as "Fozzy".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>> Because that is what I would like.
>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>> Because I would like that.
>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>> Because I would find that to my pleasing.
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>> Because it would be something that I would appreciate.
>>>> Why?
>>> Because I would find it enjoyable.
>> Why?
> Because it would be something that I would like.
Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you now going to follow my lead?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>>>>>>>>>>> Aren't you sure?
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea what your "lead" truly is,
>>>>>>>>> Not surprising.
>>>>>>>> Because of your inconsistency, Marty.
>>>>>>> What alleged "inconsistency"?
>>>>>> The inconsistency of your "leads", Marty.
>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing inconsistency of my "leads", Dave.
>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
>>> Even more classic pontification.
>> How ironic.
> Where is the irony?
Where you've pontificated, Marty.
>>>>>>> I see you failed to note my consistent use of
>>>>>>> the attribution in this thread.
>>>>>> The key words here are "in this thread". It's the other threads
>>>>>> that demonstrate your inconsistency, Marty.
>>>>> I see you are having trouble sticking to this thread for your argument.
>>>>> No surprise there.
>>>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
>>>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>>> I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
>>> argument. No surprise there.
>> I see that you are not looking at other threads to avoid admitting to
>> inconsistency. No surprise there.
>I see that you are still having trouble sticking to this thread for your
>argument. No surprise there.
>>>>>>>>>> Marty, given that you are so inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I've used the attribution consistently in
>>>>>>>>> this thread.
>>>>>>>> What do you consider "this thread" to be, Marty?
>>>>>>> The postings in which I have used the attribution "Dave 'Fozzy'
>>>>>>> Tholen" and your responses to such postings.
>>>>>> Classic illogical circular reasoning.
>>>>> Not at all. The above specified precisely and exactly what I consider
>>>>> "this thread".
>>>> Considering "this thread" to be "this thread" is classic illogical
>>>> circular reasoning, Marty.
>>> That depends on your definition of the first "this thread".
>> No it doesn't, Marty.
> Classic pontification.
How ironic.
>>>>> It can be narrowed down to a finite number of postings which were
>>>>> precisely the ones to which I was referring.
>>>> All threads have a finite number of postings, Marty, but they don't all
>>>> have the same subject line.
>>> Of what relevance is this remark?
>> The same as yours, Marty.
> Even more pontification.
How ironic.
>>>>> There's nothing illogical about being self-referential when we are
>>>>> still contributing to what I consider "this thread".
>>>> There is something illogical about using circular reasoning, Marty.
>>> Glad I haven't done such a thing.
>> Incorrect, Marty.
> Prove that I'm not glad, if you think you can.
Unnecessary, given that you have done such a thing, Marty.
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:04:29 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with old
: > exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It
doesn't
:
: Are you implying that patches should automatically seek out un-patched
: systems, and automagically install themselves?
No, I had no intent to do so. There's way too many exploits possible with
the "auto" update.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:09:30 -0000
On 18 Sep 2000 23:55:47 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: On 15 Sep 2000 23:09:14 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>:>: On 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>:>:>: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>:>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>:>:>:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:>:>:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
>:>:>:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
>:>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
>:>:>:>:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
>:>:>:>:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
>:>:>:>:> >in later. :-)
>:>:>:>:> >
>:>:>:>:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
>:>:>:>:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
>:>:>:>: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits your
>:>:>:>: situation.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
>:>:>:>reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
>:>:>:>an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
>:>:>:>that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
>:>:>
>:>:>: ???
>:>:>
>:>:>: Even doing all of this stuff at the commandline is hardly
>:>:>: tedious. There are a plethora of gui tools available for
>:>:>: burning an Image to disc under Linux. Downloading those
>:>:>: images is also not something that can be reasonably called
>:>:>: tedious. It may take a long time. However, that's merely
>:>:>: a matter of having a file transfer dialog open on your
>:>:>: desktop for a few hours.
>:>:>
>:>:>Errr - "few hours"? Ever try downloading a 650 Mb over
>:> :>: Mind your grammar. It was not merely the download process
>:>: that you were implying was tedious. Correspondingly, it
>:>: was not merely the download process I was commenting on.
>:>
>:>Adding more steps to a manual process cannot decrease its tediousness,
>
>: Burning a CD image is hardly a "manual" process. It's rather
>: equivalent to downloading a picture from the web and using
>: some other tool to print it.
>
>: Burning a CD ROM, even under Linux, simply isn't a horribly
>: complex process. Anyone that represents it as such is simply
>: LYING.
>
>It's only easy after you've done it several times. The first
>time it's non-intuative. Here's the steps I had to do:
>
>Find out that the available programs will only talk scsi,
>and sit around wondering why the hell everyone keeps claiming
>that Linux can use IDE cd-writers. Read through the howto's,
Oh my, you actually had to install or configure drivers
for your hardware. That is such a tragedy.
That you had to install your cdrw is not proof that burning
CD's under Linux is tedious or difficult.
>finding out that I have to use a scsi emulation driver. Find
>out that this means recompiling the kernel - do that, then
Game over troll.
You've just amply demonstrated that you don't know what the
HELL you are talking about and simply like to regurgiate the
bad FUD of others.
[deletia]
Try to con somoene else.
--
You are destined to become the commandant of the fighting men of the
department of transportation.
Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:57:57 GMT
The title says it all:
1. I'm back!
2. This group has sunk to a new low.
Coincidence?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:08:25 -0400
Otto wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : > Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with old
> : > exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It
> doesn't
> :
> : Are you implying that patches should automatically seek out un-patched
> : systems, and automagically install themselves?
>
> No, I had no intent to do so. There's way too many exploits possible with
> the "auto" update.
>
> Otto
Then what the fuck are complaining about, asshole?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:30:31 GMT
Brian Langenberger wrote:
> The users can already dictate the sort of file they're
> creating simply by the contents of that file. If I save
No, they can't. Users do not create PNG files,
applications do.
There is a world of difference between files created
by /programmers/ (with software being a delegate
of the programmer's will, *not* the user's!) which are
almost always typed (either by using binary formats
or by using filename extensions) and files which are
created by /users/, which tend to be untyped because
programmers don't give a shit that it would benefit
users.
> a nice PNG to disk, why should I need to tell the system
> that it's a PNG again by naming it in a certain way?
> And putting a .gif at the end of it certainly won't
> transform the file into a GIF. At best, the extensions
> system puts the burden of file classification on the user
> where it doesn't belong.
>
> Even for text formats, the use of special naming techniques
> is difficult to justify. If "my songlist" is a file
> that contains a list of newline-delimited audio files,
> I should simply be able to open it with a player rather
> than having to name it "my songlist.list" or some such
> thing.
<rolleyes> The question isn't whether the application
should restrict the user to only files of a certain type,
the question is whether the shell should be able to track
associations that users /choose/ to specify. I want to be
able to double click on "list of songs.playlist" and have
it play, but I can't because its CLASS is "text" and your
magic-dependent system doesn't understand /types/.
A type doesn't refer to what kind of object it is, but to
what kind of use an object is meant to be put to. And
the correspondence between classes and types breaks
down catastrophically when you're talking about objects
meant for *users*, and not processes, to manipulate.
Have you never wondered why rc files are called rc
instead of being in binary format and having magic?
What about C source and header files? It's because
those files are meant for actual human beings to use,
not applications. They're typed because they are meant
for programmers, not users, and they're using filename
extensions for typing because they are meant for human
beings and not machines.
> Perhaps the best use of extensions is for a sort of
> rudimentary classification system. For instance,
> C source traditionally gets a .c extension and so forth.
> But it would be a lot nicer if the filesystem knew enough
> about what was being untarred to classify the files for me
> so that I could do quick searches without needing to
> know the naming conventions or location in the directory
> hierarchy. For instance, "linux.c" might be tagged as
> both "Linux Source Code" and "C Source File", thus
> allowing for more verbose file information than a simple
> name can provide.
>
> So still, I find it difficult to justify the continued use
> of file suffixes to store file information when there are
> much better ways to handle the core problems of file
> typing and file organization without jumbling the
> solution into a naming kludge.
The problem is that: no, there *aren't* any better ways
of handling it. Filename extensions are simple, convenient
and at the /exact/ place that typing information belongs.
See my response to Larry R. (in the same thread) for details.
Filename extensions are simple and elegant. Only someone
who's had their brain fried by C and its spawn would confuse
simplicity with stupidity (program in C long enough and you
won't know elegance if you trip over it). People claim that
you can be modular in C and object-oriented in C++ but
that's just a self-serving lie. (I've been reading the dtfs paper
and I can't believe a design that simple can be screwed up
that much.)
The most probable reason why you think filename extensions
are ugly and stupid is because they put users into the equation.
In fact, users belong at the center of that equation but you're
used to thinking of them as a nuisance at best.
If you believe only one thing I tell you, believe this: users are
NOT the enemy! Users are whom you program *for*.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: 19 Sep 2000 00:35:55 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:50:43 GMT, Richard wrote:
[ snip ]
I object to the title of this post. DOn't know about you, but I haven't
heard of any notable Linux developer by the name of "FM".
Now that you're on the topic of "therapists" and "emotional problems",
I can't help but notice that you seem to be one of the angrier contributors
to this thread.
The people that need to "see a therapist" are those who are full of
spite, whether they be programmers or users or systems administrators
or whatever.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 00:39:45 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:54:59 GMT, Richard wrote:
>As for who is being the asshole; you presume to pass
>judgement over *me*?? Just what the fuck have /you/
>done you little shite?
Man, you sound so spiteful here that I almost mistook you for a
programmer (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
