Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: what to do when.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: GPL & freedom (Raffael Cavallaro)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jason Bowen)
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Osugi)
Re: GPL & freedom (Grega Bremec)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:59:49 GMT
Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> You were describing what the filesystem provides. And it provides
> information for the kernel in the data found in the inodes (the executable
> bit that you described), and information for user-space in the data refered
> to by the inodes. Any scheme can be implemented on top of this. It's silly
And the cost of reimplementing the same functionality at a higher layer is?
> forall x such that x is a task for which I need a computer, forall y where y
> is an operating system for a computer which is available to me : "The set of
> combinations of software which can be usefully applied to x does not include
> any combination of software for y" -> "I should not use y for x"
IOW, human beings should not use Unix since the task of providing
functionality at all levels that is comprehensible to human beings is
not implementable in Unix.
> Yeah, when you can get away with it. I have a file *named*
> 'slutdoesitbackwards.jpeg' but it is a text file containing my email
> address. The correct approach to use is the mathematical approach of
That, of course, is not the correct approach. Nor is exclusion any
more "mathematical" than inclusion (give me a fucking break!).
Since,
1) not all relevant processes are equally relevant for any given object
2) users cannot handle a list of relevant processes of arbitrary size
3) it takes non-zero time and energy for a user to generate an include
or exclude
4) the cardinality of the set of relevant programs is VASTLY closer
to the cardinality of the empty set than to the cardinality of the set
of all existing processes
we must conclude (for /nearly all/ real situations) that
5) including only those processes which are known to be relevant
(*as provided by the user*) is vastly superior to excluding those
processes known to be irrelevant.
(Why is it that people assume OSes should have strong typing
of user objects? That is so fucking ludicrously absurd! Just what
the hell have you been smoking??)
> narrowing down the set of software which is not known to be unable to help
> the user to use the file in the way that they would like. There are many
> Don't try to get conceptual in an advocacy newsgroup like this one,
> conceptual is for academia - it does not apply well to engineering problems
> (which choosing an OS is).
Good. Because the thread isn't about choosing an OS. It's about why Unix
sucks and how this hellish nightmare of Unix dominance came about.
And you might have mentioned that getting all the concepts right is a
necessary first step in any engineering solution, and that design work
*vastly* simplifies implementation. OTOH, one can't expect people
who work in an antedeluvian, neanderthal "me know how to program,
me no care about design" mindset to have ever stumbled across the
fact that high-level design, which the hacker mindset has nothing but
contempt for, actually facilitates programming.
> >resident where? In memory??? That's only the broken Unix paradigm!
>
> Computers only have memory for keeping information. Even if it is in a code
> segment - you can keep it in logic space if you want, but I don't think that
> helps anyone.
Surprisingly, it does. But I wasn't talking about logic space. I should be able
to run a process that resides on any hard disk of the network using the *same*
mechanism as I use to run processes off the local hard disk. There should be
*complete* network transparency; the programmer shouldn't even be able
to tell where the process is. (and note that process != program)
> Great argument. Includes expletives and all.
Anyone who claims that Unix is "uncomplicated" deserves that.
> >If programmers were held to the standards of *any* engineering discipline,
> >mass executions would swiftly follow. We've all heard this umteenth times
> They are held to those standards *mostly*,
ROTFLMAO!!
> that is why software doesn't work
> all the time - programmers get told to stop by the users because their
> software is "good enough".
Programmers get told to deliver things on fucking time. Gee, that's a part
of engineering discipline you seem to have conveniently forgotten about.
> Programmers are not generally held to the
> standards of any *mathematical* discipline except where it is required to
> meet the engineering constraints (like for life-support systems where
> machine code for software should be proven correct).
Oh, so you mean "engineering" in the same sense as "janitorial engineer".
Well, I don't. Engineering is defined as a mathematical discipline!
> ?! UNIX's security is excellent - you can get better, but I can't afford any
> machines which can run such an operating system, so I'll have to make do
> with UNIX.
Security should permit you to do *everything* you have a legitimate right
to do, and allow *nothing* that you have no right to doing. So tell me, how
the hell does a user share an object with another user on a Unix machine
without any divine intervention (since users should have the right to share
any objects they own without having to beseech the gods)?
And after you've explained that to me, you can explain how users can share
objects across the network in Unix. And how users can spontaneously form
arbitrary groups and aggregates of groups (again without divine intervention).
By the common Unix programmer's definition of security (ie, only the
second clause in my definition) a machine that locks out /everyone/ and
doesn't allow anyone to do anything is "secure".
> When you want to abstract software into it's logical structure you should
> stop talking about processes, they are an implementation detail. A
> "persistent process" as you call it can be implemented as one process that
> doesn't exit, and you start one-off processes which finds the persistent
> processes and delegate the handling of messages to that process - This is
Why the hell should anyone have to do this? If processes are just an
implementation detail, then why not eliminate them entirely so that
programmers see only persistent processes? Oh that's right, we're
talking about people who think that garbage collection should be left
to the "discretion" of overburdened programmers.
> very common in UNIX. My Linux machine has a web server running - it is a
> persistent process to which I can send messages by running a one-off
> process. I suggest to read up on OOP and design patterns and you will see
> these things being done behind the scenes for the implementation of exactly
> what you describe. UNIX provides the primitives which can be used to
> implement these things;
And by that argument, so does DOS!!
> it's not perfect, but it's much better than most
> systems which is why it's so much more widely used by people who need to
> implement them.
Unix is widely used for the *same* reason that Windows is widely used;
because it's widely used!
Inertia, ever heard of it? You sound like a Windows apologist.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what to do when....
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:54:40 GMT
>
> Yeah. Tell her she's a clueless moron with the IQ of a salt encrusted
> slug.
Heh heh... thanks for the chuckle ;-)
> Back to reality... You need to find out what her real objection to
Linux
> is.
I think it may be, in part, that we are to be audited soon and the
auditing software does'nt run on Linux. I don't really know though...
one guy tried to tell me she's afraid that Linux will cause some kind
of fart in the system.
<---snip----->
>But just for laughs, offer to compare source code between the two
> systems to search for security defeciencies. Promise her you'll quit
> using Linux as soon as she discovers a security feature in MSFT source
> code that Linux doesn't implement as well. That should keep her busy
> for a while....
LOL thanks for the laughs...
egon
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:59:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The point is *other* people have NO
> RIGHT whatsoever to be telling ME what I must do with MY WORK.
This is simply false unless "your work" was done entirely from scratch.
If "your work" includes the work of others then, by law, you must abide
by the license under which that work of others is published.
Example I: You write some software which includes code which was
licensed to you under a single, simple condidtion - for every copy of
your software that you you sell which includes this code, you must pay
the code vendor $.05.
You then scream on usenet "*other* people have NO RIGHT whatseover to be
telling ME what I must do with MY WORK." However, it is to no avail, as
the code vendor sues you for non-payment of royalties and violating your
license agreement. They win their case (obviously), despite your well
crafted, creatively capitalized, usenet argument.
Example II: You write some software which includes some code which was
licensed to you under the GPL - if you publish your software, you must
also publish the source code.
You then scream on usenet "*other* people have NO RIGHT whatseover to be
telling ME what I must do with MY WORK." However, it is to no avail, as
the copyright holder (with the support of the FSF) sues you for
copyright infringement and violating your license agreement. They win
their case (obviously), despite your well crafted, creatively
capitalized usenet argument.
Moral: If you use the work of others, you must abide by the license
under which their work is published. If you don't like the license under
which their work is published, don't use their work.
Ralph
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 22:05:48 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/21/2000 at 05:02 PM,
> Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It wasn't unannounced. If there is a lab in Engineering with it it
> > isn't a public lab. I just wasn't notified till he showed up.
>
> More proof you are a disgrace to the good name of the University of
> Colorado.
>
How does that follow Bob? I thought you were saying that CU was so bad
that the counselors in your local high schools weren't going to
recommend it to their students anymore and yet you are saying I am a
disgrace to it's good name. I love wathing you contradict yourself, it
makes for a wonderful laugh. Maybe you can mature to the point where
you can realize that you were bested and unable to provide proof for you
arguments and you lost. Maybe someday you'll stop lying.
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:56:08 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00092119452600.20024@pc03...
> El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> In tech support issues a little calm takes you a long way.
And a little planning and good advice would have avoided the situation that
could lead to panic, in the first place.
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[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: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:06:48 GMT
In article <39ca0052$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/21/2000 at 01:46 AM,
> Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > (Here is an idea for movie studios: Make a movie featuring lots of
> > computer equipment and jargon. Then tell MS that every machine will
be a
> > mac and the os mentioned will be linux. MS should be willing to pay
at
> > least US$1,000 per word to change "linux" to "windows" and maybe
even
> > some money to change the macs to Dells or Compaqs. With a good
script,
> > MS might even finance the whole movie.)
>
> Isn't Apple tied in with Speilberg and Gates in some graphics company?
> Gates wouldn't care because he supplies 90% of the software run on
Apples.
> Dreamworks SKG is it? The S is Speilberg, the G is Gates. Isn't the K
> someone tied in with Apple?
I don't remember who the K is, but I thought the G was for "Geffon" or
Greffin" or something like that. Don't think it is Gates.
And I think Gates would care, even though his company does make a lot
of money off of mac software. It just seems so in character for him to
care about windows more than profits.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================
>
>
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:19:34 GMT
...and Les Mikesell used the keyboard:
>
> <snip>
>
>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.
If I may jump in - you yourself have implied a possible solution to
the problem you're exposing here.
The GPL is not in any way trying to claim it gives you the total and
unconditional freedom to do whatever you want with the source code.
The freedoms it provides are quite clear and explicitly expressed.
There are other, more free, as well as more restricted licenses for
you to use. You can even modify the GPL to better suit your needs
yourself (the only limitation is that you provide your license's
source code to the public). The only problem I see here is that you
would probably have to enclose a copy of GPL along with your modified
license, which would effectively produce quite strange consequences
if that modified license of yours was to be modified further by
someone else.
Anyway, if you want to restrict or loosen the licensing terms on some
particular code, you have all the options to indeed do so - do a
complete rewrite of the work in question, base it only on common
functionality, and release that product under a different license
alltogether. OTOH, like D'Arcy suggested, base your GPLed work on
non-GPLed code that you have full control of.
I don't see how GPL limits your freedoms in that respect, so there.
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:31:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On the other hand, such an overly complicated scheme does
> NOT A DAMN THING for the end user. All it does is satisfy
> a particular twits aesthetic sensibilities. Either method
> is equivalent to the "mere end user".
>
> Although your method is likely to be less robust.
>
> Unix is successful as practice, as opposed to theory that may
> have no relation to actual reality, [snip]
You sound like a Windows apologist. Come on, you can figure out
why your arguments are invalid by yourself. You don't need me to
draw pictures do you?
> Unix is capable of all of this actually. Infact, you likely
Unix is completely incapable of most of the things I want.
And you *do* sound like a Windows apologist!
> used quite a few of these to support your little tirade. If
> Unix didn't have these facilities, noone would ever hear your
> inane babblings.
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:35:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
@In article
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@
@> >You're saying there's nothing new? Then I guess I'm as fluent with W2K
@> >as
@> >I am with Win98.
@> <boggle> Well, at least you admit you know nothing about W2k.
@> Anyway, there have been enough posts here that, by now, you should be
@> reasonably educated about it. But I suggest you not knock something
@> you know nothing about.
@
@Since there evidently is nothing new worth mentioning in W2K there is no
@reason for me not to "knock it" the same way I "knock" Win98.
@
@I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
@in W2K.
Well, it's been put in all the labs at UNT, so far nothing works. I
suppose that's a "feature." My machine in the Tech Writing Lab give me
a "Disk Full" error whenever I try to log in. From what I hear all the
machines worked just fine under Win98. I can't access my Accessories
either, so I'm in a writing lab where I can't access wordpad. Yeah, I'm
really impressed. Oh, and all these machines worked just fine two
months ago. Then the whole network just decided to go apeshit.
Also, the general access labs suddenly hve these big, red signs
everywhere, admonishing users that "Installing any software is strictly
prohibited." I thought that could be blocked. Sure was last semester
with NT.
UNT's CS department has earned a lot of respect, the labs are always
full of know-it-all, pocket protector-wearing, antisocial dorks who do
nothing but find out every little nuance of every piece of software and
hardware on the market, and nobody seems to be able to figure out just
what the hell is wrong.
So, there must be some new features--since nobody around here knows
how to use them.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:43:45 GMT
Peter Ammon wrote:
> dc wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:05:05 -0500, Mayor Of R'lyeh
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
> > >>> realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
> > >>
> > >>Yes, frankly, I do.
> >
> > LOL! Apparently I missed this the first time around. C'mon
> > Peter...think about it. That's a riot!
>
> You can't argue with facts.
>
> http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/starringapple.html
>
> "It’s sometimes as easy as the director saying, ‘It has to be a Mac, and
> we can’t use anything else.’ That happens a lot.”
I can't argue with someone who uses Apple propaganda as "facts". Get another
source that claims the same thing and you win some credibility.
--
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:48:53 -0500
In article <Jcfx5.6246$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
@news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
@> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@
@> > But he also said "-- same kernel, same overall features" which is
@> > incorrect.
@>
@> So tell us.. what differences are there between the NT 5 kernel and the
@> Windows 2000 kernel?
@
@- Plug and play hardware detection and driver loading
@- Power management (big one)
@- Tons of networking improvements in the TDI which, among other things
@ allows for dynamic adapter configuration without all the reboots of
@ the NT 4 implementation
@- Drastically revamped file security implementation with encryption,
@ inheritance, etc (this is partially the file system, but also part of
@ the kernel)
@- An even better SMP implementation than NT 4 (which has one of the
Umm, he was talking about NT 5, not NT 4.
@ best in the industry)
@- too many more to list here
@
@> Keep in mind that they're the same product, with different names.
@
@Obviously you had no idea what the hell you're talking about, so why
@do I even bother trying to educate you?
@
@-Chad
@
@
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:50:43 -0500
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:35:43 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it's been put in all the labs at UNT, so far nothing works. I
>suppose that's a "feature." My machine in the Tech Writing Lab give me
>a "Disk Full" error whenever I try to log in. From what I hear all the
Geee..what do you think that means?
C'mon, guys. Think!
Obviously whoever installed that didn't - or students are having fun
putting files where they shouldn't. It's trivial to fix, though - log
in over the network (from another machine) and toss a few files away.
>machines worked just fine under Win98. I can't access my Accessories
>either, so I'm in a writing lab where I can't access wordpad. Yeah, I'm
>really impressed. Oh, and all these machines worked just fine two
>months ago. Then the whole network just decided to go apeshit.
Translation: Students came in and filled up the hard drive.
Solution: Using NT rights, lock down who can write what, where. It's
not tough.
> Also, the general access labs suddenly hve these big, red signs
>everywhere, admonishing users that "Installing any software is strictly
>prohibited." I thought that could be blocked. Sure was last semester
>with NT.
Easily done..the two OSs are very similar in that respect.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:49:30 GMT
"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qelsd$l92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39ca0052$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 09/21/2000 at 01:46 AM,
> > Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > (Here is an idea for movie studios: Make a movie featuring lots of
> > > computer equipment and jargon. Then tell MS that every machine will
> be a
> > > mac and the os mentioned will be linux. MS should be willing to pay
> at
> > > least US$1,000 per word to change "linux" to "windows" and maybe
> even
> > > some money to change the macs to Dells or Compaqs. With a good
> script,
> > > MS might even finance the whole movie.)
> >
> > Isn't Apple tied in with Speilberg and Gates in some graphics company?
> > Gates wouldn't care because he supplies 90% of the software run on
> Apples.
> > Dreamworks SKG is it? The S is Speilberg, the G is Gates. Isn't the K
> > someone tied in with Apple?
>
> I don't remember who the K is, but I thought the G was for "Geffon" or
> Greffin" or something like that. Don't think it is Gates.
>
> And I think Gates would care, even though his company does make a lot
> of money off of mac software. It just seems so in character for him to
> care about windows more than profits.
I always heard it was "SKywalker Group".
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
