Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: New Linux Install ("kosh")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Re: The Linux Experience ("kosh")
Re: The Linux Experience ("kosh")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("J")
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:10:24 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James M. Luongo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
> help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
> LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
> sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
> true? Help!
If you are installing Mandrake 7.1 just read the docs it has with it. I
have installed Mandrake 7.1 on many boxes and never had a problem on
anything more modern then a P90. It does a very good job at detection. If
you put the kernel where lilo can't reach grub is used automatically. The
mandrake 7.1 install is about the easiest linux install I have ever used.
That is why whenever I help a customer who wants to get rid of windows I
help them dual boot Mandrake and let them install it with me watching.
Usually they never ask me a single question during the install. Usually I
get comments about how easy it is to set up.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:12:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Functional and efficient means:
>> >
>> >1. Lets you do what you need to, quickly
>>
>> "Lets"? I think not. Only interoperable protocols and compatibility
>> standards *enable* you to do so. Microsoft doesn't; they just 'let' you
>> lock yourself further into their crapware.
>
>What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
>obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
They are an example, and behind most of the drive to this silly idea of
using a web browser (excuse me; THEIR web browser) as the front-end for
everything, anyway. We are talking about web browser-based interfaces.
>> >2. Guides you when you need guidance
>>
>> Oh, yea, let's hear it for dancing paperclips. Oh, and MSDN *annual
>> payments* to make. Hoo-fucking-ray for 'guidance' on how to lock
>> yourself further into crapware.
>
>What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
>obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
No better response, eh? These are the 'success stories' of web-based
interfaces we're dealing with, here. The wonderful world of
inconsistent interfaces accessed through limiting mechanisms.
>> >3. Presents information in a useful format
>>
>> Useful for whom? Let me guess.... the monopolist trying to lock you
>> further into crapware, maybe?
>
>What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
>obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
No, we were talking about what a stupid idea web-based interfaces to
local applications were. Web-based interfaces to remote applications,
as well, but I'd say that was a different discussion, wouldn't you?
>> >4. Allows you to enter information in an easy and quick manner.
>>
>> Glad to hear that Microsoft invented software and data entry.
>
>What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
>obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
So, this is getting a tad boring, eh?
[...]
>> As for the general concept of the ignorance of good interface design,
>> you've at least gotten close to the mark. Check out
>> http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm, they have some useful examples to
>> guide you.
>
>I was probably reading that site before you ever even heard about it.
Then why do I have to keep bringing it up? It seems unlikely anybody
who understood that site and interface design *and* application usage
would recognize why web-based interfaces are a stupid idea, though they
look pretty.
Unless you're going to say something even more stupid like whether an
interface is well designed doesn't have anything to do with application
usage or functionality?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 22:09:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
>
> (click on a few of the links/screenshots on the left)
>
> They even use Windows (NT apparently) to control
> life-support systems including warning and
> monitoring systems:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/cautwarn.html
>
> Here's an example of one of the three network diagrams
> they have for the space shuttle and space station:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/106.LAN.nominal.html
>
> At least a few of them are windows, but, judging by the
> software it says the no-named-OS computers are running,
> it appears they are Windows as well.
>
> No mention of Linux, MacOS, or *laf* OS/2
>
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
>
Please address yourself to this quotation from te first URL above, "Note:
these pages are modified versions of presentations previously online and
available for public viewing for several years at NASA JSC's website. These
pages were recently taken offline by NASA." Can you verify for a fact that
those screen shots are the acutal screen shots from the space shuttles?
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:17:44 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >Hmmm...the problem seems to be with the user she went to for font help
>>
>> >If this person really knew Linux, he/she would have known that RedHat
> 6.2's
>> >font server already has support for TrueType fonts and that replacing
>> >xfs was NOT necessary. Instead, your friend should have read Donovan
> Rebbechi's
>> >excellent Font HOWTO:
>>
>> It's very possible to know linux just fine, and not know the ins and
>> outs
> of
>> one particular distribution. RedHat 6.2 uses a 3.3.x-based Xfree86. My
>> understanding is that only from 4.0 onwards is truetype a core part of
>> the server. I understand his mistake.
>
> OK, I'll grant that. I just reviewed Donovan's document, which states
> that RedHat's version of xfs has truetype support, while Debian's
> doesn't. Doing a "man xfs" (in the RedHat system) mentions nothing about
> truetype fonts. Also doing a quick search of RedHat's web site with
> "truetype" or "truetype fonts" as keywords doesn't make anything evident
> pop up at you. So it is conceivable not to be aware of RedHat's Support
> of TrueType fonts in xfs if you are not aware of the HOWTO.
>
That is one reason I do not use redhat anymore. Instead I use mandrake. To
install truetype fonts on mandrake just run drakfont and select the fonts.
It takes care of the rest. I have dealt with enough redhat boxes and am
tired of the older tools they ship (egcs instead of gcc 2.95) and the
lack of good easy to use config programs. I have not had a newbie yet
that had problems using the mandrake config programs.
>>
>> >http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO.html
>> >
>> >It explains how to get TrueType fonts working with RedHat 6.2 (among
> other
>> >distros.) I also have RedHat 6.2 and used it with great success. It is
>> >simply a matter of tweaking some configurations for xfs (basically
>> >just adding a TrueType font directory, and adding this directory to
>> >the font server path, IIRC.)
>>
>> That would have been MY starting point, if needed, but only because I
>> know
> it
>> exists. She examined what should have been the only information needed.
>>
>> >No need to download or compile anything.
>> >
<snip nonpertinent comments>
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:22:11 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake
Taense) wrote:
> In article <t3ux5.96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ingemar Lundin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>i know exactly what happened...you didnt set the exact path to (or wrote
>>it wrongly) i xf86config...the dir were the ttf:s were supposed to be, a
>>friend of mine got the same problem but i was able to direct him per
>>tel. to write it correctly in konsole mode and using emacs, then it
>>worked like a charm. the downside with having such a complex system like
>>linux is that you will be hardly punished if you make the wrong move as
>>root.
>>
>
> The point was that the instructions were wrong. She can hardly be blamed
> not knowing that she couldn't trust the documentation.
>
> We've all been there.
She could trust the docs it was just the docs where not for her dist.
Acutally the instructions were wrong for her distribution. When you get
instructions to fix a car I hope you grab the instructions for you car.
Likewise if you want instructions for adding TTF fonts to a dist you woud
seek the info from that dist. If she bought redhat from a store she was
entitled to email and possibly phone support from redhat. In which case he
best option would have been to email or call them and they could have
provided her the exact solution for her problem. That goes for most others
dists also.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:27:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Linux
> can't ever be a monopoly, itself, though it might well eventually be the
> OS everyone uses, to some extent or other.
Half right but all wrong.
It already is an OS everyone uses to one extent or another, has been for a
little while now as it is used to run Apache software.
The half right part of your statement is: No software can ever be a monopoly
(including Linux), at least not without government legislation.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:32:16 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
Fuck deja.com, they sold out, begging won't bring them back. Let them die.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:36:44 GMT
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:N2Ux5.2907$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If your speech is GPLed and in my speech I simply quote a single
> > line of your speech to make a point, suddenly my entire speech
> > must be GPLed.
>
> Again your basing your work off of mine. Mine dictates
> that if you want to make use of my work then you have
> to agree to make your work fully available.
>
> If you don't want to make use of my work fine. Don't
> try to take my work and benefit from it without doing
> anything in return.
Yes, if the real purpose of the license is to prevent
others from using it, the GPL is fine.
> > Again...so much for protecting "freedom"...
>
> Again... the freedom being protected is the freedom for
> others to view/modify your code. It is not to provide
> you the freedom to hide the code from others.
Are you suggesting that people are forced by the GPL
to give away code that they would not do by choice?
If so, how can this relate at all to freedom? I would
say rather that the GPL restrictions can only prevent
programs from being available at all under the
disallowed circumstances. That is, rather than increasing
the amount of source code available it has simply
reduced the binaries. Some people might consider
this a good thing. I don't.
> Your being pathalogical in your misunderstanding of
> what "free" is talking about - the GPL states very clearly
> what it means by "free".
Other people understand very well what 'free' means.
> Attempting to give other meanings
> to "free" and then pointing at the GPL and saying that it isn't
> "free" doesn't work.
The GPL is the thing that attempts to give 'free' a new and
deceptive meaning. Fortunately at least some people have
understood and dual-licensed their programs (like perl) so
they are not prohibited from being combined with other
more reasonably-licensed works.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:46:57 GMT
>Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Ah well, I have more or less grown bored of his predictable behaviour since he
>offers nothing new or even an argument, I probably will stop playing with his
>mind soon. But it was rather fun to have "interacted" with him (not using the
>standard definition of the word) and to have learned something about his
>intellectual inability but since there is no real challenge in trying to
>argument with him /with his lack of said argument) I have grown tired. :)
And so, my second prediction also comes true.
This is no surprise. When it comes to Tholen, he is both repugnant and
predictable. That's why I was able to predict that you would indeed
find him to be repugnant
------------------------------
From: "J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:59:28 +1000
MMMM... YES I CAN SEE HOW USEFULL THIS SOFTWARE IS TO THIS GROUP AND OTHER
SPACE SHUTTLE OWNERS. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? i WOULDN'T GO INTO SPACE WITHOUT
MEMORY PROTECTION WOULD YOU?
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
>
> (click on a few of the links/screenshots on the left)
>
> They even use Windows (NT apparently) to control
> life-support systems including warning and
> monitoring systems:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/cautwarn.html
>
> Here's an example of one of the three network diagrams
> they have for the space shuttle and space station:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/106.LAN.nominal.html
>
> At least a few of them are windows, but, judging by the
> software it says the no-named-OS computers are running,
> it appears they are Windows as well.
>
> No mention of Linux, MacOS, or *laf* OS/2
>
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:59:46 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> : the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access
to
> : the source code is a precondition for this."
> This is a lie. You are not "free" to release your improvements, you
> are explicitly *FORCED* to do so.
That would be the point of your misunderstanding.
> That's the problem. The GPL redefines "free" for the context of its
> own use in a deliberate and pointed effort to deceive its readers.
There is no "deception" going on. It is pretty obvious what is
meant by "free" in the GPL.
> And you've fallen for it...hook, line, and sinker...
Fallen for nothing. I happen to agree with it. I also happen to base
my GPL code on a non-GPL version that I can do what I want with.
> : Also if you base your work on my work it is not entirly your work is it?
> My part of the work is entirely my work, period.
Fine - then don't make use of my work to furthur your work.
Pretty simple.
> Your work is still
> entirely your work and I never have the power to take control of it,
> GPL or not.
That isn't the discussion. If you benefit from GPL work then you
should give back to the community that helped you benefit.
Pretty simple.
> If you think the BSD license fails to ensure the author's work
> remains "free" for all to use, please site even just ONE SINGLE CASE
> where someone has managed to removed BSD licensed code from the
> community. You won't find it; because it can't be done.
How many derived works of BSD code do not have accessible
source?
..darcy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
