Linux-Advocacy Digest #261, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (2:1)
Re: Windows+Linux=True (David M. Butler)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (chrisv)
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Nathaniel Jay
Lee)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (chrisv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:27:32 GMT
> > But helping incompetent users does not necessarily help you, if you
have
> > to simplify the system, you might have to remove some of the power
of
> > it.
>
> Define "incompetent" and please explain how the programmer
> possesses this mythical quality.
I assumed thet I was using your meaning of the word 3 posts back. Besides,
the programmer is able to create a system, so he is able to simplify it
etc...
> No, it most emphatically doesn't have anything to do with bugs. It
> has to do with *high-level architectural decisions* which "hackers"
> never make consciously and explicitly and thus always do badly.
I hack software. I also design things.
> > The programmers, especially OSS ones, *are* the users. They have the
> > emmotional attachment to the software. Why should they bend over
> > backwards to change something that they created and they like,
> > considering that noone is paying them to do it.
>
> Because it's better if they change it? Because the system would be
> simpler, more elegant, more beautiful *and* more powerful?
It might not be better if they change it.
> "I like it" isn't a rational argument for anything. You've just
implicitly
> asked "Why should programmers be rational?"
No I haven't. If a programmer likes a program, then why should he change it.
Like/dislike is not rational, but you can never completely rationalise
anything that is human. It is a perfectly good reason.
> Well that's just damn wrong. And there's a pile of research siding
with
> me. For example, it is known that a certain waist to hip ratio is
> considered
> most appealing across all cultures. Different cultures rationalize it
in
> very
> different ways (some say it's sexy, others say those are "good
childbearing
>
> hips") but that doesn't matter.
What about different tastes in art and music. Some people can stans Wagnerian
operas, other people love them. Those do not coincide in any way.
> There are two components to beauty;
> the hardwired biological component
> the socialized /exaggeration/ of an already existing beauty trait
>
> That tribe is only able to do this because it's already hard-wired
into
> humans that long necks are beautiful.
You're confusing tribes. You're also talking about only one aspect of beauty.
Sticking to that aspect, (put bluntly) why do some men go for thin girls and
others go for fat girls, if there is a hardwired reason to go for one type?
> > As a programmer, I don't share the code just to spiet users. If the
> > users don't like the code, then they can use something else, or
(group
> > together and) pay someone else to make something that thay like.
They
> > can't expect the world to get better with no financial or labour
> > contributions (complaining doesn't actually get the work done).
>
> Maybe. In any case, you asked how programmers' gifts to users
> could be reconciled with hatred of users, I demonstrated this.
They are not gifts. Gifts are actively transferred by the giver. OSS is
cerated by the autoor. The user has to seek it out and get it. There is a big
difference. The license speaks for the software (fitness for a purpose), so
the user is already told not to *expect* too much (though getting a lot tends
to be the norm IME).
There is also no hatred of users among most programmers. I really have no
idea how you got this in to your head. Find some OSS programmers and ask them
if they truly, deeply dispise users.
> This is just bigotry. It is generally incorrect that those who do
> not seek to become academics have a lesser interest in learning
> the subject. What they do have is a vastly lesser willingness to
> submit themselves to unnecessary and unnatural contortions.
I dont agree with this. Someone who is not an academic is not likely to want
to invest the time learning the ins and outs of a system. And why should
academics like unnecessary and unnatural contortions?
> This is not commonly done because academics hold people
> outside their chosen field of expertise (and this includes other
> academics) in contempt.
You don't know many academics then. I know plenty (I'm a student). Most of
them are nice, agreeable people. Of course, there are ill-adjusted bigots,
but then, there are plenty of non academic ones, too.
> Is there a reason why laypeople don't understand what a
> soliton is instead of being presented with the oxymoronic
> (and plain moronic) "duality of light"??
That sentance makes no sense. Besides, what have solitons (in *general*) got
to do with light?
> No there isn't.
> You only think there is because society indoctrinated you
> into being unquestioning of academics,
Please withdraw that. I find it incredibly insulting. I have always
questioned and discouvered, since a very young age.
> Btw, all of the great teachers I've known or heard of have
> always assumed that they were in the wrong wrt any teacher-
> student conflict and have always made their students feel
> worthwhile.
Great teachers (1) do not assume that they are unquestionably right and (2)
treat schoolchildren as people. I don't think teachers should assume that
they are wrong, but assuming you are wrong and not assuming you are right are
different.
> > Programmers are not responsible for the users mental well being at
all.
> > In fact, the OSS programmmers (esp. GPL ones) are not responsible
for
> > anything. No fitness for a particular purpose guarntees. Since the
>
> Blatantly incorrect, illegal, unethical and immoral.
There are no fitness for a particyular purpose guarntees. Read the license,
esp. GPL The programmers are making avaliable something that may be of
utility if the user wishes to try it. There is nothing unethical illegal or
immoral about that. Only malicious software is immoral, illegal and
unethical.
> > programmer is coding for himself, and merely allowing the user to
take
> > what advantage of his work that they can, it is in no way up to him
to
> > make sure that the user likes it.
>
> Of *course* it is. If you offer a gift then you are taking
responsibility
> for that gift. You can't give someone of bottle of hydrochloric acid
and
> say "by the way, don't drink it" and expect to get away with it!
OSS is not a gift. Read above about that. You should use it with the caution
that you would use something that you took out of a skip (with permission, of
course). You get some great things out of skips.
If you were making HCL(aq) and someone asked you if they could have some, and
then thay drank it, it's their fault if you gave it to them with a license
saying that it might be dangerous--use at your own risk.
> > If someone gave you a box of hard drives and said 'these are a
faulty
> > batch, some might work, some might not, take them if you want them',
you
> > wouldn't complain if some didn't work or gave corrupted data.
>
> I would certainly complain if they turned out to not be hard drives
Than the person was lying, and you have the right to complain. I have never
seen those evil, user-hating programmers distribute sw with the wrong docs,
just to spite the users.
> or to connect only through some proprietary interface which nobody
> has access to.
I wouldn't complain about that, if I made no enquirey about the interface.
I'd just dump them in the bin and have done with it.
> > I thought that you were trying to blur or eliminate the difference
> > between processes and programs (ie persistence).
>
> Only by eliminating programs wherever possible.
So how are these processes instructed to do what they have to do. You have to
have a program at some point.
> > A sequence of commands operates on data.
> > It does not matter if they are resident in memory or not. That is an
> > artificial abstraction necessitated by computer architecture and
OSs.
>
> I agree. And it doesn't matter whether processes are in memory or not.
> But a program is not a process and never will be. The two are
*completely*
> different entities. Saying that a program is a process is like saying
that
> source code is machine code or that source code operates on anything.
Source code is machine code if you write in machine code. Besides a compiled
program is machine code. I think that your are drawing an artificial
boundery. I know a process is different from its programs from a computers
point of view. But they are both (the same) operator. You're saying:
f(x) = x^2 + x*4
That function is not an operator because it's not operation on anything.
y=f(10)
Aaah, now it's an operator because it is operating on something.
A program is an operator. A processor is an object used by a computer to make
a program work.
> > Compatibility is very important, so is good design. Trying to make a
> > brand knew OS compatible with an older, nastier, but fairly
different
> > version is bound to involve nasty hacks. Besides, that is a very
> > negative point of view of yours. In the case of a commercial OS,
money
> > is put in one end and a (say) substandard product gets out the
door.
> > That is a failure. With free software, nothing goes in, something
comes
> > out, that is only success.
>
> Incorrect; I honestly think you should read Nikolai Bezroukov's paper
> 'A Second Look at the Cathedral and the Bazaar' at
> http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_12/bezroukov/
I have. It's boring, rambling and I don't agree with most of it.
> I hate commercial software because it isn't free. But I don't think
that
> Linux is free in any meaningful way either.
Free as in speech or beer? As for linux, you can do with it what you will
except make it less free. Seems quite free to me (but people argue till the
cows come home aboout how `free' the GPL is, but I won't do it here).
> Compatibility is about the only design goal that will conflict with
every
> other design goal in existence. I don't care much for it. Nearly all
of the
If you don't care for compatibility then ytou an evil programer who doesn't
give a monkeys for users mental health, because they can't run their programs
on your system.
> OS design principles I've seen are consistent with each other (and
that's
> quite a long list).
Compatibility is the big one that doesn't fit. And it's very important.
> Like I said; programmers are too used to
rationalizing
> their failures by claiming their goals are inachievable.
You seem to insist that all programmers are evil failures, bitter and twisted
through years of hating users. I think you're wrong. really good design and
compatibility with a less good design are exclusive.
> > Plan 9 looks like a very interesting OS. I will look in to it when I
> > have time.
>
> It is. It's also a failure. Of the goals it even attempted to reach,
it
> failed half of them. It was working from Unix semantics after all.
You speak like an expert on using plan 9. are you?
> Its filesystem semantics are *completely* Unix. They had to implement
> "union" directories (a big time kludge), they weren't able to get rid
of
The file system looks like unix. How do you know that unions are a kludge.
Have you looked at the code?
> special devices, or the superuser concept, or even apply the FS
semantics
What's wrong with devices as files? And, yes, they did get rig of the root
concept (I read some docs that said so.)
> to processes. A lot of things in Plan 9 are kludges and it's quite
telling
> since Plan 9 is an extremely timid design; it was only ever meant to
be
> one step up from Unix.
>
> In addition to this, they got the boneheaded idea that disconnected
> namespaces (a totally different concept from merely local namespaces)
> are a good idea. It turns out they were wrong and the last comment I
> read on this was an admission that they would have to kludge their way
> around this massive blunder.
Could you give a reference that says thay are definitely wrong?
> They're bidirectional and implemented by the components themselves;
> and so not dependent on kernel support or any priviledged operations.
> Unlike Plan 9 mounts, they're visible by all users like a normal part
of
> the filesystem, and they don't suppress the mount point below them
> by doing weird kernel shit. And their being bidirectional is extremely
> important as well because it means that all connected computers are
> connected in a user visible fashion.
How are mounts not bidirectional?
> > BASH makes symbolic links to directories look bidirectional. It's
very
> > useful.
>
> Uhh, no it doesn't.
It depends on your definition of bidirectional. In one sense they are. You go
up in one direction, you come back in the same direction, so , uhh yes, it
does.
> Bidirectional links can be *seen* from the other
side.
> If you have a bidirectional link between two directories then it has
two
> names and you can recross the same link over and over by commanding
> goto name1/name2/name1/name2/...
OK, so create 2 symlinks. Easy enough. So you can have unidirectional *and*
bidirectional links.
> The only bidirectional links in Unix are directory links. The backend
> of the link is uniformly named ".." so it's not very useful, is
> inconsistent
It's cnsistent in one way, much like saying `up one floor' is a consistent
way to refer to the floor above whatever the number of the floor that you are
on.
> with the front end of the links, and is inconsistent with file links
(which
> do not have backends).
The links are the same. One end is an entry in the directories information
structure. the other end points to a file inode. All hard links work in the
same way.
> > Why can't you just use the authentication library calls avaliable in
> > linux?
>
> Authentication of users is not a sensible system-wide security scheme.
> Imagine having to provide your name and password every time you
> want to access a process in some way. And conceptually, it just
devolves
> into Access Control Lists, which are inherently broken.
What is wrong with ACLs? You are makeing an un backed up statement.
> For better security schemes you can check out capabilities in
> KeyKOS and EROS as well as the tree of users in VSTa (trees
> are not the most powerful abstraction but infinitely better than
> Unix's flat space of users).
A general graph is probably the best abstraction.
Unix provides a 3 level tree. It's not _totally_ flat, but t could be better.
________everyone___________
| | |
_____group1 group2 group3
| | |
user1 user2 user3
> > I don't necessarily care about anyone. If the status quo is easy for
> > *me* to use, then why should I make it harder for *me* to use. I
know
> "anyone" /includes/ you.
Er, yes. I find it easy to use. I don't want it changed.
> > it's not easy for anyone, I didn't say that. I find the status quo
> > fine---I do not find that I am fighting against the OS to get my
work
> > done. I am willing to try alternatives, though when I have time.
> Surely you've heard of frogs being boiled in water and never
> realizing they were in danger only because the temperature
> escalated gradually?
Frogs are the most monmentally stupid ceratures to have graced the surface of
this planet. they are worse than sheep. I don't see the relavence, though.
> > That's one way of looking at it. So are you saying that all the OSS
> > programmers who wrote stuff for themselves to use should never have
> > allowed anyone else to use it, just in case someone couldn't use it
> > (nevermind those who could). The coders write for themselves, and
their
> > aquantainces. They don't just churn out code to spite people.
>
> If they only wrote for themselves then they wouldn't have to support
> users or worry about "defeating Microsoft". And that software is
> horrible is independent of its being unusable by some people. A
> particular piece of software doesn't have to be usable by everyone.
Then why are you complaining that users find SW hard to use?
> > All softwaer will have limitations. If you can't tolerate them, then
> > computing is the wrong field for you.
>
> I come not to praise Ceasar but to depose him.
>
> I think that computing is the perfect field. Mathematics is a millenia
> old field so it would be extremely difficult for me to contribute
there.
Computing is a branch of mathematics.
> I'm basically lazy so computing is perfect that way; I can claim to
have
> done something without doing much at all.
I doubt that very much.
> > Only a serious lapse would cause someone to say `grep' to someone
who
> > wasn't a fellow hacker. I also don't see why programmers should be
> > forces to use an inefficient language so that people who have no
> > interest in understanding can understand.
>
> Are you talking about standard english or C/C++?
I was talking about which ever lang you were refering to. I don't know which
, but I still believe what I said.
> If the latter then in what way is C/C++ "efficient"? Please keep
> in mind that a lot more energy has been invested in optimizing C
> comilers than any other language compilers
C is very widely used, soit's going to have the most invested in it. Besides,
some programs I write carefully don't optimize much.
Also, do you mean efficiency of speed, ease or the best oveall compromise?
> > There are plenty of people who do like them and do understand them.
> There are plenty of people who are into pain and submission as a
sexual
> thrill.
It looks like a poor attempt at throwing insults.
> > Why
> > shouldn't the people who find them a powerful communication medium
be
> > allowed to use them? Hell, me and most of my aquantainces at school
> > couldn't get the hang of French or German, bu tnoone proposed that
the
> > language should be abolished because it suopported a minority clique
of
> > `superior' French speakers.
>
> Natural languages are not human artifacts like programming languages
> are so your objection is equivalent to justifying, say, an unusable
camera
> by saying that "*some* people don't find it so and in any case, no one
has
> proposed that human eyes should all be plucked out because some people
> are blind."
Eh? No what I'm justifying is a camera that some people find unuseable and
some people really like. What is wrong with that?
> English is a business language. You can justify chinese by saying that
> the characters are beautiful and it has a rich cultural history but
you
> can't do the same with a language whose single biggest purpose is to
> be an international language of business.
The purpose of english is to allow people who speak it to communicate. It is
coincidence that it is used as the business language. Heaven knows why. It
was probably one of the hardest to choose. (that was a rhetorical question)
> I don't think it fits programmers at all. I think C/C++ is ugly
> because it *doesn't* fit programmers.
Suits me fine. I liek it.
> And yeah, there /are/ plenty of broad minded programmers. Just
> not nearly enough of them!
I expect there are as many broad minded programmers as normal people. If you
don'tt like it, then you should become a hermit.
> > Improving linux is in no way anti social or destructive. it hurts
noone.
> > You can't know that all these people who work on linux would be
> > implementing your one-true-way system if they weren't working on
linux.
>
> But I'm pretty certain that if a thousand programmers stopped
> programming in Unix then at least one would start programming
> in /some OS/ that was a thousand times better than Unix. Even
> Plan 9 would be an improvement, and that is so damned pathetic.
I doubt there is an OS that is 1000 times as good as unix, if that could be
judged at all.
> > How on earth does contributing to linux hurt anyone? It in no way
>
> > hinders the development of a persistent OS. The people who want to
write
> > that aer still free to do so if others choose to work on linux.
>
> Just take 1 typical Linuxer's attitude towards MS-Windows,
> point this attitude towards Unix, and stir. Enlightenment soon
> follows. Serves 4 to 6.
What do you mean by all that. WTF is wrong with enlightenment?
> > Who is undermining you. How are they doing this? And other people
> > working on a big project that they like and enjoy (linux) does not
count
> > other people as undermining you, unless you are very paranoid.
>
> You definitely have to read Nikolai's paper.
I have. I don't agree with it.
>
> Here's the short version:
> there is no way in freaking hell that I can write an entire operating
> system on my own along with all utilities, shells and applications
> even if I write in a high-level language that makes me a hundred
> times more productive than a low-level coder. So my success
> depends on attracting other programmers. And my success in
> *that* depends on attracting a user base. How Linux development
> undermines that little venture is left as an exercise to the reader.
>
> The same applies for *every* other OS project out there.
If your OS is interesting then people will lend a hand with it. But having
flame wars on an OS ng will not help the cause.
-Ed
--
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: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 11:47:27 -0400
Zed Meek wrote:
> 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.
Oh, wow! That sounds about as hardcore as my 90 year old grandmother!
[unnecissarily immature sig removed]
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
(BTW, repeating over and over that you're a sysadmin at NCSU doesn't make
anyone any more impressed than the first time you said it... which is to
say, no one was impressed, so shut up already.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:46:46 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee writes:
>> I don't mind trollers,
>
>Why not?
>
>> and I don't mind morons so much as long as they are entertaining.
>
>So, we can add you to the list of people actually encouraging such
>behavior and therefore contributing to the overall decline of USENET.
The morons are going to be present with our without
encouragement. I don't encourage them, I accept them.
Are morons any less human just because they are morons? I
think if you look through history you will find that the
majority of people act like morons at some point. But we
can be entertained by their inane actions. I have yet to
really be entertained by your repititious stupidity. And
that was my point.
>
>> But saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over
>> and over and over and over... do you get the idea yet?
>
>The real question is whether you get the idea.
>
I'm starting to. You're an idiot that gets a bigger
thrill out of being an idiot than you do out of
intelligent conversation. It's almost an interesting case
study in and of itself. People fascinated with their own
stupidity really amaze me. Unfortunately, it is common
enough that it no longer holds my interest.
*PLONK!*
Bye, bye. Enjoy your stupid blathering. Try not to drool
on your keyboard.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:47:30 GMT
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 21:40:40 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FWIW, this is not the failsafe design that everyone supposes it is. It is provable
>that such multi-node systems are tolerant to < 1/3 of nodes failing, *not* <= 1/3.
>Thus three nodes do not provide good protection against a single node's failure.
>You would need 4 nodes to protect against one failure, 7 to protect against 2
>failures, etc.; i.e., 3n+1 nodes to protect against n failures.
That's probably why the shuttle uses FIVE redundant computers, not
three.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:50:17 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Malloy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Tholen tholes, unfortunately for everyone save him:
>
>> > My second point: show some goddamned originality.
>>
>> Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
>
>Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he *must* employ
>his stock phrases because that's all he has. If ever he were to enter into
>the spirit of a debate, he'd be lost...which, come to think of it, isn't
>that bad of an idea...
>--
>
>"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
>output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
>
>
Yeah, sometimes I'm thick headed enough to actually think
that people are basically interested in stimulating and
intelligent conversation. Sometimes it takes me a while
to realize that there are those people that just are so
totally enthralled with their own stupidity that even when
given the oportunity to learn something, they refuse on
the grounds that 'learning is the key to losing my soul'.
Tholen and hard-core Christian activists probably have a
lot in common. Rational thought flees them like flies
flee a fly swatter. And the few rational thoughts that
don't escape, well, they probably end up in the same shape
that the flies that don't escape do.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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 10:51:50 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:09:52 -0500, Bryant Brandon
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@
@>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
@
@Then someone got around it...
Another security bug in windows?
@or your net admins didn't make C: big
@enough at install time.
Like I said, these worked a month ago, so why did they decay?
@Or any of a host of other issues. For
@example, where are user profiles kept?
On a network server.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[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 15:51:26 GMT
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 13:24:18 +1200, Steve Ballantyne
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lovely calculators, those HP41s. I loved mine dearly, until it wa
>stolen. Too bad they stopped making them some years ago.
While they were "sexy" little things in their day, the HP41 tried to
be two different things (calculator and computer) and ended-up being
bad at both.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
