Linux-Advocacy Digest #259, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jack Troughton)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (2:1)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (2:1)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (FM)
Re: Implications (Andreas Kähäri)
Re: Windows+Linux=True (Zed Meek)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
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: 22 Sep 2000 13:26:40 GMT
In article <8qelsd$l92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 don't think Microsoft ever got a whole lot of money for Windows. Not
compared to apps. But Windows was a lever for apps and MSN and etc.
Depending on how that DoJ thing turns out, Microsoft might wind up with no
reason not to develop everything for Mac and Linux, as well as Windows.
--
"What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or
may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make."
-- Richard P. Feynman, 1959
------------------------------
From: Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:07:59 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Jack Troughton wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:07:06, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Jack Troughton wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Jack Troughton wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 07:54:02, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > >Jack Troughton wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:31:39, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> >Jack Troughton wrote:
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> >
> > >> > > >> >> > Jason Bowen wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > >> >> > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > >> >> > > > On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> > >> > > >> >> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >> > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > >> >> > > > > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't
>make claims
> > >> > > >> >> > > > > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably
>higher than
> > >> > > >> >> > > > > it has been in 600k years.
> > >> > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > >> >> > > > You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago
>based on
> > >> > > >> >> > > > experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher
>in North
> > >> > > >> >> > > > America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
> > >> > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > >> >> > > You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as a
>continent produces less CO2
> > >> > > >> >> > > than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world
>produces way more than is consumed.
> > >> > > >> >> > > It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and
>elementary algebra class will help
> > >> > > >> >> > > you understand.
> > >> > > >> >> >
> > >> > > >> >> > Then maybe you ought to convince those OTHER countries to reform
>THEIR
> > >> > > >> >> > ways, and keep your fucking opinions to yourself in this country.
> > >> > > >> >> >
> > >> > > >> >> > MORON
> > >> > > >> >>
> > >> > > >> >> You really are into silencing dissent, aren't you? I was under the
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >No. I'm into getting the Ignorami among us to stop spreading their
> > >> > > >> >baseless PROPAGANDA.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> How do you know it's propaganda?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Note: No response.
> > >>
> > >> Still no answer on this question. C'mon Aaron, tell us why it's
> > >> propaganda.
> >
> > And yet again, Aaron is incapable of defining why it's propaganda.
> >
> > Here's a hint Aaron; it's not self-evident in the way the truths of
> > the American Constitution are.
Aaron, you cannot call this stuff propaganda and lies and expect it
to stick just because you say so. You have not yet offered one piece
of real evidence that this is the case. You haven't even offered any
real evidence that the people who think there might be a problem are
even wrong. Your opinion does not suffice as evidence. Your rudeness
makes it even less so.
Clearly you have no real leg to stand on. All you do is to mentally
masturbate and proudly display your self-abusing tendencies by
spraying your logorrheic discharge all over the world via usenet.
> > >> > > >> >> impression that the intellectual foundations of the US system of
> > >> > > >> >> governance were all about making sure that people didn't keep their
> > >> > > >> >> opinions to themselves.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> >Are you saying arguing that it is good to NOT oppose liars....
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> You can oppose liars all you want... until the method of opposition is
> > >> > > >> silencing them. Or have you forgotten the right to speech enshrined in
> > >> > > >> the US consititution?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >I'm calling on YOU to be a good man and STOP SPREADING LIES.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Exactly what lies is it you're accusing me of?
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > The Eco-bullshit propaganda...
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, that does not suffice as an answer. What lie exactly is it
> > >> you are accusing me of? Go find a quote where I lied. 'Eco-bullshit
> > >> propaganda' is a nice vagueness that may satisfy the weak-minded
> > >> paranoiacs among the audience, but hardly suffices as anything more
> > >> than a wild accusation by the intellectually bankrupt. Try again.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Are you really that fucking stupid that you don't know what the thread
> > >is about?
> > >
> > >Check the fucking SUBJECT LINE you imbecile.
> >
> > I don't care about the subject of the thread. You said I was lying.
> > I'm asking you to point to the lie that I said.
> >
> > It seems to me that you are in fact incapable of doing so, so you are
> > resorting to name calling to try and cover up your mendacity.
> >
> > Pitiable or contemptible; either you are incapable of argument or
> > unwilling to argue and so resort to name calling.
>
> You are attempting to add credibility to a lie.
> Thus, you are partaking in a lie.
You're weaselling, Kulkis.
As I have asked you many times above, and which you have yet to
answer, you have yet to display one piece of real evidence that any
of the claims that people may make regarding climate change are a
lie. You haven't even offered any credible evidence that they are
mistaken, let alone lying. Finally, you have been happily stuffing
words in my mouth. You know this because when asked to provide
evidence, all you can do is to say that since you, who so clearly
considers yourself the final arbiter on what is right and wrong, say
that it is a lie it must clearly be a lie. However, this doesn't cut
it for normal people.
> GAME
> SET
> MATCH
>
> YOU FUCKING LOSE!
Wow, nice display of how not to win friends and influence people.
You are a spoiled child.
I've been asking you if you're pitiable or contemptible. The only
conclusion one can draw at this point is that you're both. You are
pitiable because you are incapable of expressing anything remotely
resembling a real thought or argument, resorting instead to
name-calling and baseless proclamations of victory when challenged.
You are contemptible because (at least at one time) you had the
intellectual tools to be able to handle this. Either you have
damaged those tools in some way or you have simply become so
unbalanced that the voice of sweet reason in you has simply been
drowned out by the bitter child within.
You are a complete waste of time. I don't know what your problem is,
but you clearly need to get some help.
Have a nice life.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 13:42:06 GMT
In article <39cad71c$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/21/2000 at 05:52 PM,
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The point is that Apple is widely associated with a lifestyle and
> > mindset. Packard Bell is not.
>
> Just for grins and giggles, I had one of our high school computer
teachers
> ask 11th graders what they though of when they heard the word,
"Apple".
> Only 6 of 87 said computers.
so...?
`apple' is a very well established noun.
-Ed
> --
>
========================================================================
======================
> 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
>
========================================================================
=====================
>
>
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). He got there before Von Neumann too| eng.ox.ac.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 13:40:11 GMT
> And how does that relate to Apple? The confusion (Such as it is.
> People going into a movie are already suspending a large amount of
> rationality in order to enjoy those movies about aliens, ghosts and
> characters who are able survive situations that would kill 100 people
> in real life.) in that situation would be that fast food joints don't
> sell grocery chain house brands. If anything the prescence of Apples
> everywhere would be confusing since everyone knows thats not the case
> in real life.
Firstly people in finls hve *better* things than in real life (why
doesn't james bond drive a ford escort?), so Macs are protrayed as `the
better thing'. Secondly, only computer literate people know macs are
uncommon. Most people know very little about computers, and apple want
to make people thingk that they are everywhere, so they buy them.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). He got there before Von Neumann too| eng.ox.ac.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 22 Sep 2000 13:37:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That is so fucking hilarious. I don't even believe it's possible
>to be OO in C++ because you'll always end up making mistakes (if
>your own habits don't destroy any pretense at OO first). Besides,
>if you have to waste brain power making your code OO then you will
>have that much less to spend on high-level architectural issues.
>So you're telling ME to learn OO? <rolleyes> I may not program a
>lot but what I do is definitely OO.
>
>And hell, most C++ programmers don't even know what OO means in
>the first place (too much propaganda surrounding it) so this
>discussion is ludicrous.
Uhm, this coming from a guy who admits to not knowing C++?
Now, *that* is hilarious.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.software.config-mgmt,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Implications
From: Andreas Kähäri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Sep 2000 16:34:53 +0100
In article <%0Iy5.12646$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Implications
>========
>
>So suppose that you are required to come up with a model that explains not
>only what your software does (which various OO technologies do with varying
>success), but also where your software comes from.
Your software comes from you.
>This requirement would
>force you past the von Neumann model, where the program store P defines the
>execution environment E:
I fail to see the connection to the von Neumann model.
The program store does not define an execution environment.
>
> P --> E
>
>Non-trivial computer systems are constructed from a collection of
>software, installed in some order.
If you're not talking about microcode, cache protocols or the like,
then I would say that this is nonsense. The complexity of a computer
system does not depend on e.g. the operating system it runs.
>So in non-trivial computer systems, there always
>exists some independent definition of P. Call this definition X.
>
> X --> P --> E
>
>Furthermore, X is not generally a single source. If X is a disk image
>applied to the hard drive (the P of a computer system), then X may in fact
>be a single source. But usually it isn't.
(void)
>
>So X is made up of a set of components representing the number of installs n
>required to build up P in a given computer system.
>
> X = {X(1), X(2), X(3),...,X(n)}
>
>Our current software architectures do not model X. In fact, they doesn't
>tend to model installation and integration at all. IT spends 75 percent of
>their money in this area, but it doesn't seem to be important enough to
>study.
Eh, what's "software architecture"? I know that the hardware
architecture does not model X (the software). That's because it's not
its task.
>
>With open software, modeling X is even more important, since the various
>components of X come from different sources, and in many different releases
>and versions. Understanding and modeling how this is done will lead to
>better solutions and mechanisms for software development and distribution.
Buggerit.
Why do we want to model software?! Please, tell me! Oh, don't bother
BTW, I just killfiled you anyway so I won't see your answer.
>
>Fun Implications
>===========
>
>This math may remind some (those with a biological background) of DNA. It
>should. I would claim that all process based systems are forced into this
>model, by definition. X forms the DNA for a computer system. Genes are the
>components of DNA, much like some X(i) is a component of X.
>
>Thus there is a very literal genetic component to computer systems because
>both a living cell and a computer system are process based systems.
>
>The genetic nature of computer systems can not be circumvented.
>
>Really Fun Implications
>===============
>
>So software is defined by the "genes" of a computer system, the installation
>medium. That means that a software package, like what I might buy at a
>computer store, represents genetic material.
That is a valid picture of it, yes.
>
>The biological term for the exchange of genetic material is... sex.
Ok.
>
>Adding software to my software library is a literal form of computer sex.
Whatever turns you on.
>
>So all along, our computers have been using us to spread their genetic
>material, like bees.
No. Computers are, by definition, unable to use anything. It has no
free will and can not think. It can't plan or spread its software or
write license agreements or produce new operating systems. A computer
will do whatever you tell it to do. If you tell it to do whatever it
wants to do, you must first tell it about the options it has. It's an
it. It will always be limited.
>
>We are also their agents for developing new genetic material, and we are the
>environmental agents that supply the developmental pressures that drive some
>genetic material to extinction, while other material (like Linux perhaps?)
>flourishes.
Nope.
>
>And most of the alternatives to Linux require people pay for their
>software...
>
>
>Paul Snow
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Intresting views, but really off topic.
*plonk*, sir.
What a strange person...
/A
--
Andreas Kähäri, <URL:http://hello.to/andkaha/>. Junk mail, no.
========================================================================
What part of "GNU" did you not understand? <URL:http://www.gnu.org/>
------------------------------
From: Zed Meek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 14:38:20 GMT
In article <VU2v5.114$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah ...youre sooo hardcore aint you "Zed"?
>
> Standard answer from a peak geek <gasp>
>
> bring me something new will'ya?
Dude Iam a sysadmn at NCSU. Is that hard core enough?
Come to #Linuxwarez on EFnet and we'll all show ya hard core d00d.
> /IL
>
> "Zed Meek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8pi5gr$m9n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <yeGu5.2215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Know what i would like?
> > >
> > > Linux kernel and shell plus Windows 2000:s GUI
> > >
> > > Yeah thats right....easy enough for inexperienced users, and still
the
> > > possibly to do some good ol' fashion die-hard nerd work in the
shell
> > (or
> > > "behind the GUI", whatever you like)
> >
> > Oh my GOD man. You want Linux to be futher corupted by a bunch of
> > ignorant morons? Linux is for hrd core users who know their shit,
not
> > for you windoze weeneez!
> >
> > > KDE and Gnome? well version 1.2 of Gnome comes a long way, but
still
> > not
> > > easy enough for millions of Window users that Linux (hopefully)
will
> > > attract... still no gnome windowmanager and a whole lot of
> > inconsistencies
> > > in the GUI.(AND rather buggy still)
> >
> > KDE..Gnome..bloated desktop mangers. I can do the same thing withthe
> > command line interface. Get a clue, people. go back to windows.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "lots of white guys died to free the slaves
> > and their relatves are no shot at by black guys with guns
> > aint america great?" - me
> > Nigger Control Expert for #Linuxwarez @EFNet
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
"lots of white guys died to free the slaves
and their relatves are no shot at by black guys with guns
aint america great?" - me
Nigger Control Expert for #Linuxwarez @EFNet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:09:52 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@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.
Obviously, except that the C: drive is hidden. We can only save
files to a couple of network volumes, storing the physical data on a
server, or we can save to a floppy. The only thing that can touch the
C: drive is W2K, which seems to have a habit of slowly chewing up the
disk. Also, I asked the lab folks how to fix it, since I can't use my
fucking lab machine, and haven't been able to two weeks now. They said
they basically have to ghost it. On another note, the teacher's
demonstration machine that's hooked to the projector came down with the
same error the other day.
@>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.
It's been done, it didn't work.
@> 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.
Sure, tell that to the lab people.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
