Linux-Advocacy Digest #368, Volume #29 Sat, 30 Sep 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
AMEN!!! ("George")
Re: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("George")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("George")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
AMEN again!!! ("George")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: AMEN!!!
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:49:09 GMT
AMEN!!!
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Bruce Malmat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CaaB5.893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I heartily disagree.
>
> A good operating system CANNOT be crashed by poorly written applications.
> Poorly written apps don't crash a good O/S. Rather, the O/S dumps the
poorly
> written application.
>
> A good operating system rejects invalid requests made by poor apps.
>
> A good operating system restricts access to system resources that should
not
> be monkeyed with by apps.
>
> A good operating system is ... NOT WINDOWS.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
> <RvTA5.3419$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I'm Sorry but I disagree with you completely I am running Windows 98se
> >and have not experienced a lock up in over a year. Believe it, it's
> >true. Lock ups are caused by poorly programed applications, not by
> >Windows98. The key to a stable operating system is purchasing reliable
> >software and keeping to a minimun the number of TSR's, and applications
> >running in the background of your machine. If you are constantly
> >installing and uninstalling programs/TSR's your OS will become unstable
> >eventually weather you are using Windows98, Linux or even MacOS.
>
> After a year of running my Windows 98 SE system is starting to crack
around
> the edges. Recently, the scan registry program decided there was a problem
> and reverted my system to a configuration from several months ago. I'm
> still picking up the pieces of that one.
>
> I would not say I am constantly installing/uninstalling programs. As for
> TSR's, they went out yonks ago - this is Windows 98, it doesn't need DOS
> style TSR's anymore.
>
> As for your assertion that the same will eventually take out Linux or even
> MacOS, I couldn't say, but I doubt it. Windows 98 SE was never designed as
> a real OS - it doesn't have proper memory protection for applications,
only
> Windows 2000 does, and does Linux.
>
> My beef about Linux is the lack of decent software for it, and the desktop
> seems to be behind Windows.
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:43:51 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Peter Thorsteinson made this argument earlier and I pointed out to him
> >that if I feel wronged by someone's actions, I can respond in any way I
> >see fit, as long as it is lawful. To lodge a complaint with the ISP or
> >company from which the abusive material emanates is certainly lawful
> >and, as far as I can see, quite appropriate.
>
> I realize I'm butting in to a flame-war which I have no knowledge of,
> but I think it is worth pointing out that, if you feel wronged by
> someone's actions, you only have the right to respond in a way that a
> *reasonable person* would see fit, as it alone would be lawful.
I don't quite understand your point, Max. And I think you're wrong.
AFAICS, my rights (or anybody else's) are not defined in terms of what
is "reasonable" or not. That's a very problematic idea, since just what
is "reasonable" is a very subjective notion.
You know, what I actually said there is tautological. I said I can
respond in any lawful way. i.e. the law allows me to do that which is
"lawful". Tautologies are kewl things in a debate, Max. They give people
some very granite-hard thing to bang their heads against....
But in any case, if it is not "reasonable" to file a complaint with
someone's ISP, then it surely is not reasonable to file a lawsuit, since
the latter is a more extreme course of action.
>
> >BTW, Peter Thorsteinson seems to have gone to the James Robertson school
> >of debate, which is simply to walk away when he cannot respond to the
> >other's points.
>
> Or perhaps he got bored responding to the endless and cyclical trolls of
> certain annoying personalities....
No, not in this case. You can find the threads on deja looking at clja
stuff.
In the case of Thorsteinson, he was the one who initiated the thread
entitled "This newsgroup is pathetic" in which he criticized certain
people's behavior. I wrote a rebuttal in which, among other things, I
asked him to clarify the grounds for his criticism. He simply walked
away from the thread. He later claimed that it would be too "boring" to
respond to my points. But note that he was the one who initiated the
thread in that instance -- making moralistic pronouncements.
In the case of James Robertson, he made statements from which I inferred
that he meant to say that the United States Constitution accords
citizens a right to anonymous slanderous speech. That was such a
shocking notion to me that I asked him to clarify whether he really
believed that or not.
He disdained to do so. Apparently, also, clarifying his position on that
would have been too "boring".
Cheers,
Jonathan Revusky
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> ======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
>
> Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>
> http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 30 Sep 2000 17:54:49 GMT
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:41:26 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:04:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> >No, but unlike other investments, you get use value out of the house
>> >while you live in it.
>> > That needs to be considered in the win-lose
>> >equation.
>>
>> What it really comes down to is whether your costs as a home owner are
>> more expensive than paying rent. And that depends on how much rent you're
>> paying and how fast you pay off the loan. My rent is about 4K / year,
>> the interest payments on a decent house in my area would be somewhat more.
>
>When you rent 100% of your money goes out the window.
No, it doesn't. The money you spend on rent goes out the window. The rest of
your money can be invested, and it can be invested in something that is
both low risk and high return when compared with an undiversified real estate
investment.
On the other hand, when you buy a house, the interest payments go out the
window.
> There's no comparison
>between renting and owning.
>Factor in appreciation, tax deductions and there's alot of places in the
>U.S. where ownership is profitable.
"factoring in appreciation" is a dangerous strategy. As I mentioned, housing
is an investment like anything else and you can win or lose.
In fact ownership is a big gamble, because you're financing a substantial
and risky investment with debt. And that's a great way to lose big ( ask
any stock market loser )
BTW, the standard practice tends to be to "factor in depreciation" for
accounting purposes. The property becomes more valuable, but the building
itself is going to degrade and hence become less valuable.
> Where I live, each monthly house payment
>is less than my return in appreciation and deductions. I'm getting paid to
The problem is that you're taking your appreciation for granted. I could
take out a loan for a huge some of money and buy stock with it, but it's
hardly risk free.
The fact that the "return from appreciation" is high compared to the interest
payments says little more than the fact that you can make profit by making
risky investments.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:58:22 GMT
According to my experiences and that of many others, I would agree with that
conclusion, whether it's a fair conclusion or not.
The only thing that's unfair is that I paid good money for a system that
isn't dependable.
I'm sure that there are many who have bought Ford Bronco's with the
defective Firestone tires who would (comparably) agree with your assertion.
What about those who "Can't" agree or disagree-agree???
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cDeB5.4117$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That is correct, However this threat is insinuting that Windows98 freezes
up
> all the time. And the fact is that it does not. There are plenty of people
> who have managed to run it nearly seemlessly myself included. I am not a
> Linux expert and do not claim to be, but I have had no problems using
> Windows in it's intended environment. For you to wholesalely deminish
> Windows to Not a Good Operating System is an unfair conclusion.
>
> "Bruce Malmat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:CaaB5.893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I heartily disagree.
> >
> > A good operating system CANNOT be crashed by poorly written
applications.
> > Poorly written apps don't crash a good O/S. Rather, the O/S dumps the
> poorly
> > written application.
> >
> > A good operating system rejects invalid requests made by poor apps.
> >
> > A good operating system restricts access to system resources that should
> not
> > be monkeyed with by apps.
> >
> > A good operating system is ... NOT WINDOWS.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --
> > Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
> > <RvTA5.3419$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >I'm Sorry but I disagree with you completely I am running Windows 98se
> > >and have not experienced a lock up in over a year. Believe it, it's
> > >true. Lock ups are caused by poorly programed applications, not by
> > >Windows98. The key to a stable operating system is purchasing reliable
> > >software and keeping to a minimun the number of TSR's, and applications
> > >running in the background of your machine. If you are constantly
> > >installing and uninstalling programs/TSR's your OS will become unstable
> > >eventually weather you are using Windows98, Linux or even MacOS.
> >
> > After a year of running my Windows 98 SE system is starting to crack
> around
> > the edges. Recently, the scan registry program decided there was a
problem
> > and reverted my system to a configuration from several months ago. I'm
> > still picking up the pieces of that one.
> >
> > I would not say I am constantly installing/uninstalling programs. As for
> > TSR's, they went out yonks ago - this is Windows 98, it doesn't need DOS
> > style TSR's anymore.
> >
> > As for your assertion that the same will eventually take out Linux or
even
> > MacOS, I couldn't say, but I doubt it. Windows 98 SE was never designed
as
> > a real OS - it doesn't have proper memory protection for applications,
> only
> > Windows 2000 does, and does Linux.
> >
> > My beef about Linux is the lack of decent software for it, and the
desktop
> > seems to be behind Windows.
> >
> > --
> > Pete Goodwin
> > ---
> > Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> > My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:00:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> So you're assuming there is no benefit to being able to navigate a
>> filesystem?
>
>No. I'm saying that those people who won't or can't learn how to
>do this for some reason should not be arbitrarily penalized for it.
How is not being able to use something which you haven't learned how to
use an 'arbitrary penalty'?
[...]
>Orthogonal Persistence isn't something I thought might be a good
>idea. It's something I *need*!
But without selectability in the application of such persistence, it
merely becomes a different kind of problem to deal with. IMHO, there is
no more brain-dead way to run a document-centric application than to
remove the 'Save' command. I did read an interesting article in
Scientific American several years ago which discussed such an approach.
But I don't think its merely the fact that we all learned the 'Save
document' paradigm which makes it a sensible way to do things.
[...]
>> No, not off the top of my head, because I believe that a Unix OS can
>> provide all the benefits of a general purpose OS, since it is a general
>> purpose OS, in the perfect sense, though not necessary a perfect general
>> OS.
>
>You lack imagination.
Now that's something I've never been accused of before.
>It doesn't matter that Unix can "provide everything" (and it can't (*))
>since it must provide those things *easily*. Performing a given operation
>should not be more complicated than it needs to be.
If it is more complicated than it needs to be, all you have to do is
write the software to make it simpler. Or else, possibly, it needs to
be complicated because it is complicated. Your presumption that you can
make using a computer a natural process is something of an unsupported
fantasy, in my mind.
>*: As a simple example, it is impossible for users on *the same machine*
>to share their own objects in any way, shape or form.
Users don't have 'their own objects'; objects are a programming
abstraction, not real life.
>> Yes. Entirely bereft of assumption and intellectually capable of
>> dealing with any concept; understanding being entirely subjunctive and
>> synthesized by unique recognition of cognizant relevance. Just like me.
>
>An anti-formalist who doesn't believe in formal logic or otherwise
>verifying that what he says is in any way meaningful. No thanks.
How quaint; you've fabricated a position from my statements (how, I
don't know) which is entirely unrelated to my position or my statement.
>> >People who have given up on their ideals and have "learned" to be
>> >non-judgemental are eager for youth to follow in their diseased
>> >footsteps because of fundamental insecurities about their positions.
>>
>> Never trust anyone over thirty, eh?
>
>Something like that.
>
>> No, it proves, as thousands upon thousands of years of cultural
>> development have proven before them, that 'angry young men' may, or may
>> not, turn in to wise old men.
>
>And apparently it is your opinion that almost everyone over thirty
>is a "wise old man" instead of merely a sell out.
Perhaps you missed the 'may, or may not', which I thought was rather
clear.
>> The ultimate problem of your generation is, indeed, that you know too
>> much and understand too little.
>
>A trite aphorism, nothing more.
A rather poignant truth, little else.
>> Yes, you're right. Yet your idealism is misplaced. Unix is a 'best
>> guess effort', and will not be overturned by your fanciful ideas of
>> end-result sans user abstraction.
>
>I've said it before and it seems I'm doomed to repeat it: I don't
>give a shit about overturning Unix. I'll settle for pissing on it
>and wiping it off my hard drive.
Have fun. Why again are you posting these glorifying fantasies of your
own intellectual superiority in comp.os.linux.advocacy?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:03:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Peter Thorsteinson made this argument earlier and I pointed out to him
>> >that if I feel wronged by someone's actions, I can respond in any way I
>> >see fit, as long as it is lawful. To lodge a complaint with the ISP or
>> >company from which the abusive material emanates is certainly lawful
>> >and, as far as I can see, quite appropriate.
>>
>> I realize I'm butting in to a flame-war which I have no knowledge of,
>> but I think it is worth pointing out that, if you feel wronged by
>> someone's actions, you only have the right to respond in a way that a
>> *reasonable person* would see fit, as it alone would be lawful.
>
>Timothy Devlin might know what he's talking about here since the same
>situation almost sent him packing to a new ISP last month.
That's 'T. Max Devlin', whoever you are; I haven't used Timothy in about
seventeen years. And I got a form email; hardly 'almost sent packing'.
They never responded when I asked them to identify who complained, so I
presume they realized that they have no justification for supporting
your attempts to harass me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:01:52 GMT
I don't doubt that you are correct, and I can agree if there is a hardware
problem. But if an OS doesn't protect against software problems, it isn't a
very good OS...
Blaming the problems that 98 has on software and hardware problems is only
hindering any solutions to the problem that everyone knows exists...
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Pm1B5.3922$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Are you sure you don't have anything else installed on your machine at
all?
> I'm willing to bet that there are probably several small programs running
in
> the background or something like that. however this is not my point. my
> point is that far to often the OS is blamed for the crash when in reality
it
> is the software, or some other reason (ie hardware failure). there are so
> many reasons for a computer to crash. And the OS usually has very little
to
> do with.
>
> "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:v00B5.1223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, it would appear that even your information isn't worth the paper
> it's
> > written on...
> > It just so happens that the only additional software that I have
installed
> > is MS Word 2000 and QuickBooks 6, which I have been using since it came
> out.
> > My system constantly crashes. Just yesterday it started giving a Blue
> screen
> > error on boot down. I often get an error when closing Word. I guess you
> are
> > right about the poorly programmed applications. In my case they are all
MS
> > applications.
> >
> > George
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > George
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > "Blacknight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:RvTA5.3419$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I'm Sorry but I disagree with you completely I am running Windows 98se
> and
> > > have not experienced a lock up in over a year. Believe it, it's true.
> Lock
> > > ups are caused by poorly programed applications, not by Windows98. The
> key
> > > to a stable operating system is purchasing reliable software and
keeping
> > to
> > > a minimun the number of TSR's, and applications running in the
> background
> > of
> > > your machine. If you are constantly installing and uninstalling
> > > programs/TSR's your OS will become unstable eventually weather you are
> > using
> > > Windows98, Linux or even MacOS.
> > >
> > > "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Malmat) wrote in
> > > > <uMaA5.4594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > >Axiom: Real operating systems do not lock up all the time.
> > > > >Fact: Windows locks up all the time.
> > > > >Conclusion: Windows is not a real operating system.
> > > >
> > > > Which version of Windows?
> > > >
> > > > You do realise Windows was never designed as a "real" operating
system
> > > with
> > > > memory protection etc.? That every process can see system space and
> can
> > > > overwrite it. It was designed thus to support backwards
compatibility
> > with
> > > > older software.
> > > >
> > > > Windows NT/2000 is a very different story.
> > > >
> > > > >If you want reliability, you gotta get Unix or Linux. My HP Unix
> > > > >systems, used in business and manufacturing applications, never
hang.
> > > > >The only downtime is:
> > > >
> > > > Or OpenVMS
> > > > Or Windows NT/2000.
> > > >
> > > > >Unfortunately, Unix/Linux makes a lousy desktop. If you want fun,
you
> > > > >gotta have Windows.
> > > > >
> > > > >Tough choices.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. If you want fun, run Windows 98 SE. If you want
> reliability
> > > > (but can run most of the same software, and for the first time, a
load
> > > more
> > > > games) try Windows 2000.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pete Goodwin
> > > > ---
> > > > Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
> > > > My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:59:20 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>My point
> is that the "people's" understanding of the law is flawed by
> over-simplification into 'popular wisdom' which presents the law as
> arbitrary and convoluted, when in fact the law is not, nor is
> interpretation of the law.
Over-simplification is the opposite of convoluted. How does over
simplification present the law as convoluted.
I had to snip the rest of the postr because it made even less sense.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: AMEN again!!!
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 18:02:55 GMT
AMEN again!!!
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 02:54:41 GMT, Blacknight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Lock ups are caused by poorly programed applications, not by Windows98.
>
> It is quite unacceptable these days for a general purpose desktop OS to
> not protect itself from "poorly programmed apps".
>
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
