Linux-Advocacy Digest #347, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: programming languages and design (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux? (Grega Bremec)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joseph T.
Malloy")
Re: Linux? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Linux? ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke? (Keith Peterson)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Lennart Gahm")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Linux in government ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: programming languages and design (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 13:33:34 -0300
El jue, 28 sep 2000, The Ghost In The Machine escribi�:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>>: [4] No built-in array bounds checking. None. Nada. Zip. If you want it,
>>: you can use STL vectors, with additional overhead -- and even
>>: then, some implementations may not bother. Or you can roll
>>: your own. (Libraries such as Electric Fence and tools such
>>: as Rational Software's Purify may help in finding trouble spots,
>>: but they aren't quite as easy to use as Java's built-in checking.)
>>
>>I have mixed feelings on this one. I like array-bounds checking,
>>but I don't like it being forced down my throat with no way to
>>circumvent it. Ideally, it should be a compiler-time flag, so
>>I can have it when debugging, but turn it off for speed when not
>>debugging.
>
>Agreed, that would be useful. Of course, how does one do it
>elegantly when the bounds aren't passed?
>
>int ary[5];
>
>someFunc(ary)
>
>...
>
>void someFunc(int * ary)
>{
>...
>}}
>
>someFunc has *no* idea how big ary is.
And that's the whole point. What you wrote is C code. It is also pretty bad C++
:-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:26:12 GMT
...and Flint Slacker used the keyboard:
>
>Hmmmm.... Suse is good, but Slackware, well it makes my knees weak!
>
Wouldn't know about SuSE, but Slackware definitely rules. Unspoiled by
all those sugar flavoured add-ons that are supposed to make lazy users
not have to think about what they're doing, and straightforward enough
to alow one to tweak a box into just about anything they might want to
think of.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 12:24:42 -0400
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00092810411202.25400@pc03...
> >Ever hear of saving for retirement?
> >
> >No???
> >
> >NO wonder you advocate Nanny State policies and programs.
>
> I really hope this temper of yours doesn't cause you a brain vascular
accident.
> You would find that whatever you saved for retirement will be gone much
faster
> than you believe possible.
You might be surprised to find that there are retirement "calculators" out
there that let you take into account inflation. TIAA-CREFF and Fidelity's
403(b) plans certainly assume inflation of varying amounts of about 6%
(which, during the Clinton years, has been significantly higher than it
actually was and is). I certainly feel fairly confident that my spouse and
I will have a fair chunk of change (i.e., income from investments with
TIAA-CREF by our employers and with Fidelity by us) to spend. I learned
long ago not to count on Social Security and have arranged my retirement
accounts so that that amount of income can be 0 and we will nevertheless be
well enough off. If social security come through, which in all likelihood
it will, that'll be gravy (which we can then donate as we see fit).
- Joe
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:32:53 GMT
slackware is for <titel> OberGeneral peek geeks!
nothing to do with "modern" Linux ;)
/IL
"Flint Slacker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Hmmmm.... Suse is good, but Slackware, well it makes my knees weak!
>
> Flint
>
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:45:14 GMT, "Ingemar Lundin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >try SuSe Linux...you will find that it is next to fucking addictive ;)
> >
> >you will never want to try another Linux distro after that ;)
> >
> >/IL
> >
> >[writing this in windows 98, on the work, what should you do?]
> >
> >"Coconut Ming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Which is Linux version or clone that have many user is using now?
> >> Redhat? Corel? Or original linux?
> >> Any thing on that?
> >> Can give some comment on that?
> >> i need some advice.
> >> thanks
> >>
> >> From
> >> kokming
> >>
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:33:03 GMT
slackware is for <titel> OberGeneral peek geeks!
nothing to do with "modern" Linux ;)
/IL
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Flint Slacker used the keyboard:
> >
> >Hmmmm.... Suse is good, but Slackware, well it makes my knees weak!
> >
>
> Wouldn't know about SuSE, but Slackware definitely rules. Unspoiled by
> all those sugar flavoured add-ons that are supposed to make lazy users
> not have to think about what they're doing, and straightforward enough
> to alow one to tweak a box into just about anything they might want to
> think of.
>
> --
> Grega Bremec
> grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
> http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:54:15 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here's a clue: psychopath does not imply human, it only implies 'being'
> > and corporations fulfill all of the criteria of beings.
>
> According to Webster's, a psychopath is a mentally ill or unstable
> person; especially : a person having a psychopathic personality. And
> psychopathy is a mental disorder; especially : extreme mental disorder
> marked usually by egocentric and antisocial activity. Obviously,
> since organizations are not people, they cannot be psychopaths (it
> follows directly from the definition.) However, they can behave in a
> manner that would be indicative of psychopathy if it was exhibited by
> a person.
>
> For someone claiming to have a formal logic training, you are
> remarkably sloppy with your definitions. You must be a mathematician.
Websters has never claimed to give formal definitions of anything.
Note also that 'person' does not imply human. A person is a being
with rights, so Webster's definition is incorrect since you need not
have any rights to be a psychopath. Organizations are not people
since they have no rights but they /are/ beings.
Psychopathy is an aggregate concept diagnosed by scoring a 30 or
higher out of 40 points on the 20-item Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised. <- even that's not a formal definition.
Note that I never claimed to have training or experience in formal
logic, though I do. In particular, my experience has been trying to
formalize various informal systems in philosophy and psychology.
So, coming up with definitions of person, being and psychopath is
right up my alley.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:04:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]$ grep troll /var/log/messages
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:high troll-o-meter reading detected
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:troll factor: 95.5 %
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:whine factor: 97.5 %
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:clue factor: 0.0 %
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:suspected troll post details follow:
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:Subject: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 05:50:19 GMT
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost trolld[668]:running /usr/local/bin/troll-be-gone
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:redirected 1 message to /dev/null
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:updating
> /home/sandrews/News/Score
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:[*]
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:Score -9999
>Sep 28 08:51:22 localhost troll-be-gone[1396]:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]$
>
My god. This is BEYOND geek.
You have WAY too much time on your hands.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:09:15 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> I truly don't know anything about "lattice structures". What are you
> talking about when you mention them?
A lattice is a partially ordered set (poset). A tree is also a poset
but with additional constraints. In particular,
root
/ \
user1 user2
\ /
user3
is a lattice but not a tree. It's called partially ordered
because the ordering operation "is lower than" is not defined
for every pair of elements, but does follow the rules of any
ordering like transitivity (if (a < b and b < c) then (a < c)).
> > I think you meant /not persistent/ for var.
>
> More persistent than RAM! :) Actually, it does store persistent data
> (what about the spool files? aren't these persistent?)
Not most spool files. The printer spools empties quickly on most systems.
> Ummm... what about /proc/filesystems, /proc/ide, /proc/cpuinfo,
> /proc/modules and the /proc/net heirachy?
I don't know. I do know that it's impossible to fork() a process
simply by creating a copy of its representation in /proc. You can't
even do that in Plan 9, though they wanted this exact functionality.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:15:38 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> I guess that they don't seem to think that Linux is too bad!
Maybe they don't have to use it as much as I do. Maybe they don't
have to do weird things. Maybe they're just grateful Linux isn't
Windows. Maybe they're used to thinking of OSes as a bunch of
features and can't imagine something genuinely better than Unix
(most of the stuff on the list isn't and is never supposed to be).
Who knows? Who cares?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:16:06 GMT
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 02:42:27 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8qt3ej$rnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:39d2080d$0$26550$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> > Plus, a lot of networks have TCPIP *and* NetBEUI flying around them.
>I'm
>> > not sure which one Windows uses if both are installed and running, but
>I'm
>> > betting that in Win95 at least it's NetBEUI.
>>
>> Windows uses whichever one is selected as the default protocol first, and
>> then tries the other protocols if it can't open a connection with that
>> protocol.
>
>Which is which one, by default, in Win95 ? I don't have any machines here
>that old to check (in any case, all our machines are configured to only use
>TCPIP).
On all windows 95/98 systems i have seen, it always setts the checkbox for
NETBEUI over tcp/ip, if you install tcp/ip. And it does it in a way so you
can't deselect it yourself from the network config program.
And this is bad, since NETBIOS over NETBEUI is faster than NETBIOS over
tcp/ip.
If you don't belive me, it is easy to remove tcp/ip, and see the network
speed
increase, to other machines using NETBIOS.
Why microsoft has forced this setup is beyond me.
On OS/2 you can select any combination you want. And you can of course use
both
combinations if you like. So you can use the faster NETBIOS/NETBEUI for
server
access even if you use tcp/ip for internet, while using NETBIOS over tcp/ip
for
windows machine with that combination.
If i remember correctly, Linux can only use NETBIOS over tcp/ip.
NETBIOS over tcp/ip has one big advantage then NETBIOS/NETBEUI, NETBEUI can't
be routed, so if you need to route your traffic, then use tcp/ip (IPX can
also
be routed).
Lennart
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:27:24 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> > Linus certainly never wrote any! What passes for documentation of the
> > design is "The Linux Kernel Hacker's Guide".
>
> Hey, works for some!
It's useful, it's just not an architectural document.
> > And postscript is source if someone is stupid enough to write in it?
>
> Yep. It's may not be very nice to look at until it is formatted but it's
> still source.
And that's a flaw in the GPL. It assumes that if one person has
written something in some manner then you can *read* it in that
same form. This is weofully incorrect and anyone concerned with
OO will be able to confirm it. Source form is "the preferred form
for human manipulation" and in order to be able to change source,
you first have to be able to read it.
> Although you're ideas for an O/S sound very interesting, the fact is
> that many many people use Unix and they are more than happy with it once
> they get to know it a bit better. I find it extremely powerful and
> flexible for my needs!
How many people are unhappy with it? How many people are only happy
with it because of leftover euphoria at having left Windows behind?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux in government
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:18:45 GMT
Government Technology magazine released a
supplement pretty much devoted to Linux. Since
the government sector is lagging pretty far
behind in the adoption of OSS, I think this is a
Good Thing(TM). There's an interesting interview
with Eric S. Raymond and a story on Beowulf
Clusters, among other things. Nothing too
technical, but nice to see at any rate.
Heres a few URLs:
The ESR Interview
http://www.govtech.net/publications/techtrends/Aug
00techtrends/raymond/index.shtm
The Beowulf Story
http://www.govtech.net/publications/techtrends/Aug
00techtrends/beowulf/index.shtm
HipNerd
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:31:05 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> Perhaps you should think about what you are saying here. You are asking
> a Linux advocate to leave comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hardly. I just asked him to stop hounding me and saying "me too,
me too, me too" whenever someone else disagreed with me.
> Although I have respect for the fact that you have ideas for a new O/S,
> wouldn't you be better off posting your ideas in comp.os.research?
You know, I've never thought of that. It's worth considering.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:52:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:55:01 -0400...
...and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In what sense are rights given to one by the government? In the sense
> > > that government can refrain from siezing it?
> >
> > Next time pay attention. The constitution is not the government.
>
> OK, in what sense are rights granted by the Constitution?
I hope you accept the fact that contracts can grant or restrict
certain rights?
If you are not alone on the planet, without a society surrounding you,
you are born rightless. The only one who can grant you any rights in a
society is society itself, i.e. the entirety of its active citizens.
This is usually done by a social contract, the manifestation of which
is the constitution. The state is the actual implementation of the
constitution. Unlike most other technical designs, a constitution is
normally designed not only to control itself, but also to extend
itself and change itself, because the whole system is supposed to
always fit the actual society it is strapped to. (A social contract /
constitution / state is nothing but a crutch -- if human beings were
different, we would happily live next to each other in a perfect
anarchy without any need for a higher regulative.)
OK, so the constitution exists, and its regulations allow certain
things and forbid others. There is no higher authority.
Unfortunately, some loss occurs at every stage of the system. Only one
example: for practical reasons, most political systems postulate that
any citizen accepts the social contract at the moment of their birth,
and that the only way to express rejection of the social contract is
a) organising an effort to peacefully change it; or b) emigration.
(I'm leaving suicide out.)
mawa
--
Recently on #linux...
<PAULUS> Do I Find something about that in manual of adduser ???
<Barfie> paulus: That is easy to check, isn't it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:46:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:29:01 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
>> C++ is a hack to add OO to C.
>
>And (oh, I am going to start a language flame war! Quick,
>my asbestos armour) in the words of Philippe Kahn (remember
>Borland?) "C is a disease".
Tally Ho!
I will merely comment that, at one point in the 80's or
so, ANSI-standard Pascal was so sanitized one couldn't do
a *thing* with it. No modules, no way to open arbitrary
files (they had to be specified in the program invocation),
no inheritance (although, to be fair, that concept came later
with OO anyway), and no analogue to C's unary '&' operator (every
pointer had to be created using 'new', which C++ apparently
appropriated for its memory management). Yuck.
It wasn't a bad language otherwise -- for starters, it had
nested procedures and functions and very strong type checking,
which included differentiating between pointers to items,
and pointers to arrays. For example:
type
t: record ... end; typedef struct { ... } t;
p: ^t; typedef t *p;
a: ^array[1..10] of t; typedef t (*a)[10];
b: array[1..10] of p; typedef p b[10];
Written this way, it's very clear that a and p are different.
But not many users will bother in C; one other difficulty with Pascal
is that variable-sized arrays are very hard to support (standard Pascal
doesn't have any sort of pointer arithmetic). This is about the only
good thing I like about ISO-sanitized Pascal (back in the 80's,
anyway; hopefully they've updated the spec by now, and one can always
use Modula, which looks very similar I understand, or perhaps Ada :-) ).
C may be a disease, but one alternative might have been worse. :-)
[rest snipped, although I should mention www.rapideuphoria.com and
try it out someday :-) ]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random "someday I'll do..." comment here
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:49:48 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mi�, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
> But you claim to be designing a OS. Obviously, if you are sane, you will not
> design something "stupid" and you will design something "good", so hopefully
> you will design a small non-mk OS, right?
My mistake, I said 'bloated' instead of 'incredibly overcomplicated'.
I don't much care about the actual code size. I'm not running a server,
I'm running a powerful machine dedicated to *me* and I want that
machine to do what *I* want, no matter how costly.
> Blah, blah, blah. Maybe you can be a tiny bit specific.
And maybe I'd care to teach Operating System Design?
Naaaaah.
If you ask a specific question then I'll give a specific answer.
> >Linux is also "getting" logging and looking at the design
> >documents of Dtfs, anyone can tell that it's a monster that
> >falls far short of the potential (on top of being ugly,
> >inextensible and unmaintainable).
>
> Dtfs? What's Dtfs? The journaling fs I know are Reiser, ext3 and XFS.
<rolleyes> logging != journaling.
Run a search on Dtfs, you'll find it.
> >The Unixer's treatment of everything as a "feature" to be
> >slapped on top of an already large mountain of "features" is
> >ludicrous and contradicts reality. That's not how design works
> >but you'll have a hard time explaining this to people who
> >think that Dr. Frankenstein was involved in "design" work.
>
> At least the collage works.
Only in your opinion. Since it doesn't do half of the things I
want to be able to do, it doesn't exactly "work" for me, does it?
> You said L4 is an example of efficiency. Yet, of course since L4 is a
> microkernel, you also said it is inherently (and massively) stupid, and sucks.
And I also said that I didn't give a damn about efficiency and that there
were dozens of design principles more important than it. And you think
there's some kind of contradiction in that?
If one cared to comprehend what I wrote, one would realize that I was
giving examples of OSes that are better at "what Unix likes to do" and
that *in the same article* I implied that what Unix likes to do is not
very worthwhile!
> I think you have a serious case of gataflorismo. Look it up.
I won't repeat what some friends of mine have said about
Argentinians.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:55:57 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mi�, 27 sep 2000, Richard escribi�:
> Now, let's assume that "corporations are psychopaths" is actually a correct
> analogy (it can't be much else, since psychopathy is defined in function of the
> human behaviour, not the inhuman one.
Nonsense. Psychopathy is an abstract concept defined in terms of *behaviour*,
not human behaviour. Of the 20 items in the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised,
only one is not applicable to corporations.
> What is your proposed analogy for treatment? Putting corporations on drugs?
There isn't any treatment for psychopathy. There is only incarceration and
execution. Why does there have to be an analogue for everything that *happens*
to be related to psychopathy in the first place.
> I am not an academic, what gave you that idea?
Donovan said you were a mathematician.
> >Here's a clue: psychopath does not imply human, it only implies 'being'
> >and corporations fulfill all of the criteria of beings.
>
> By that reasoning, hurricanes are probably psychopaths, while gravity fails
> just short. You need to ask your psychyatrist about it.
Hurricanes are not beings. Just how stupid are you?
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[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, 28 Sep 2000 12:56:53 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:04:06 +1000, Chris Sherlock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>To regional areas which have traditionally had very very poor access
>(mainly through old phone exchanges). I think that they are offering
>some country users the use of satellite links.
>
>ISDN links cost too much. How much do people in the US pay for an ISDN
>link, BTW?
>
>Chris
My ISP charges $30/month for 64k and $40/month for 128k. A little
pricy for what you get IMO. We're supposed to get DSL out here next
year. Maybe it'll be a bit more reasonable.
>Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:44:48 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>> >
>> >"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 19:07:25 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I sincerely doubt that. Most all small workgroup type networks will be
>> >> >using NetBEUI (an environment it works quite well in). TCPIP requires
>> >> >actual setup to use - IP addresses or a working DHCP server whereas
>> >NetBEUI
>> >> >is just plug in and go.
>> >>
>> >> I agree that NetBEUI is plug in and go. I disagree that a lot of
>> >> people are still using it. People nowadays have access to the
>> >> internet - and consequently, they (almost) all use TCPIP.
>> >
>> >I think it might be a difference in environment. Net access here in .au is
>> >nowhere near as cheap and easy (and hence ubiquitous) as in the US - ergo
>> >less small networks that also attach to the Net thus less TCPIP based
>> >networks.
>>
>> I thought the government down there has some kind of program going to
>> spread Internet access across the length and breadth of Australia.
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
http://members.xoom.com/Aickman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians"
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:27:45 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
> You may recognise me as the person who announced the perpetual motion
> machine last year. I have a design for it in my head, and I'm still
> looking for engineers to implement it for me, but that's another story.
To quote from Uncle Al (sci.physics):
1) You can't win.
2) you can only break even on a very cold day.
3) It never gets that cold.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:05:43 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> I truely can't understand why you think that free software programmers
> despise users. Some of them do, maybe, but to make a blanket statement
> that all programmers hate all users is ridiculous!
You're meant to parse
"programmers despise users" as
"the class of programmers despises the class of users", and then
interpret that statement as
"the dominant faction of the class of programmers despises, and the
majority conspicuously fails to stop them, most users."
Programmers is a social group, not just a job description, so things
get fuzzy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:06:47 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El jue, 28 sep 2000, Chris Sherlock escribi�:
> >Richard wrote:
> >> Sancho Villa (?) was Don Quixote's sidekick. :-)
> >
> >Oh. I wasn't aware of that!
>
> You do well not to. He is mixing Sancho Panza and Pancho Villa.
It was off the top of my head. Thank you for the correction.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
