Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #29 Wed, 4 Oct 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
2.4! (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:52:25 -0500
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:39:21 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>@>@>@>@>@Do you have any proof that it can do that?
>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@> Machine #21, AUDB room #307c, UNT campus, Texas. IOW, the very
>@>@>@>@>machine we've been discussing this entire thread.
>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@The *ONLY* thing we know about the machines in question is that
>@>@>@>@you're
>@>@>@>@getting a disk error @ login. Aside from that, *EVERYTHING* else
>@>@>@>@mentioned in this thread is pure conjecture.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> You asked for "any" proof. Is this not "any" enough for you?
>@>@>@
>@>@>@No, because it isn't proof. You have no proof that the -profile- (and
>@>@>@limiting it via quotas) is the issue here in any way, shape, or form.
>@>@>
>@>@> So, now you want quotas too?
>@>@
>@>@I want you to fix this problem by finding someone to help you, rather
>@>@than simply giving up.
>@>@
>@>@>Before I run around trying to prove
>@>@>things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
>@>@>before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules" to
>@>@>your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start
>@>@>losing.
>@>@
>@>@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
>@>@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
>@>@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
>@>@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
>@>@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
>@>
>@> You don't want me to prove it. OK.
>@
>@I don't? I didn't say that. Learn to read. I said you can't because
>@you don't have proof. You aren't capable of doing so. You may want
>@to do it, but it probably isn't going to happen.
>
> I told you to be specific in what you wanted me to prove, and you
>refused. So, no matter what I prove, you'll later saddle it with more
>qualifiers/exceptions, and make me prove it all over again. But as soon
>as you're willing to tell me what to prove, I'll be happy to prove it.
Prove the disk issue would be solved by quotas.
>@>@>@>@I haven't given contradictory information. I've given information
>@>@>@>@that could apply in a variety of different scenarios, and you got
>@>@>@>@confused.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> Yes, you gave a variety of scenarios. However, when you presented
>@>@>@>them, you gave _no_ indication that they were different.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Your lack of technical understanding clouds the issues.
>@>@>
>@>@> By "technical knowledge," do you mean "familiarity with windows," or
>@>@>do you mean "ability to read my mind"? Perhaps there is another
>@>@>definition I did not consider. Please, elaborate.
>@>@
>@>@Familiarity with Windows, NT/2k in this instance.
>@>
>@> So, it's not really a lack of technical knowledge, as you stated, but
>@>a lack of familiarity with windows. Calling me nontechnical implies
>@>that I am incapable of understanding, whereas I merely lack knowledge.
>@>That was rather dishonest of you. Now, we've established that I don't
>@>really lack technical understanding, merely a lack of information, how,
>@>exactly, would that explain how I got confused, without assuming that
>@>you're a poor writer?
>@
>@Spin...spin. Joe Ragosta would be so proud! (But he's off slinking,
>@after we handed his guts to him on a platter for his incredibly
>@numerous debacles and screwups.)
>
> It's not my fault you cannot write intelligently.
I write *very* intelligently; you're spinning.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@> Yes.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@At what, exactly?
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@> machines.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>Two users: root, and me.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@that
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@no
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@or
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@a
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@be
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week,
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@setting
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP,
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@and
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@OS
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@X
>@>@>@>@>@>@>@beta. That's silly.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at
>@>@>@>@>@>@> all?"
>@>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@>@> I
>@>@>@>@>@>@>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question.
>@>@>@>@>@>@>How
>@>@>@>@>@>@>am
>@>@>@>@>@>@>I
>@>@>@>@>@>@>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative
>@>@>@>@>@>@>experience
>@>@>@>@>@>@>that I would consider impressive?"
>@>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@>@Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an
>@>@>@>@>@>@account
>@>@>@>@>@>@operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a
>@>@>@>@>@>@"multi-user"
>@>@>@>@>@>@(heh) Win95, too!)
>@>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@>@> Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....
>@>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@>@You were being stupid. The question was perfectly valid.
>@>@>@>@>
>@>@>@>@> The question: "Do you have any administrative experience at
>@>@>@>@> all?"
>@>@>@>@> The answer: "Yes."
>@>@>@>@> You didn't qualify it, but you meant to. Hence, it's a stupid
>@>@>@>@>question.
>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@You were being stupid, juvenile, and a smartass. "Administrative
>@>@>@>@experience" means administering systems, not setting up a single OS
>@>@>@>@on
>@>@>@>@an old machine with "Root and me" as two users.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> I stated quite clearly that it was talking to my quadra, ie.
>@>@>@> network.
>@>@>@>You should be more careful when you toss around "any." If anyone's
>@>@>@>being stupid, it's the one who asked a very open-ended question, and
>@>@>@>then got miffed with an answer. It's like asking for a car, and then
>@>@>@>bitching that you got a pinto instead of a porche. Besides, if
>@>@>@>you're
>@>@>@>going to play it that way, no matter what kind of experience I detail
>@>@>@>to
>@>@>@>you, you can just ask for more/refine you definition retroactively.
>@>@>@>It's a trick alt.f/lamers like to pull. I actually have perfectly
>@>@>@>good
>@>@>@>experience above and beyond what I stated, but I know it won't
>@>@>@>"measure
>@>@>@>up" to your ever-changing definition of real experience. So, rather
>@>@>@>than pring that up, and defend it, I'll stick with my two
>@>@>@>machines/users
>@>@>@>tale, and let you sit on it.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Sorry; installing a single machine isn't administrative experience, no
>@>@>@matter how you try to spin it.
>@>@>
>@>@> Reread the above. Try not to be (so) stupid.
>@>@
>@>@Spin...spin...spin.....
>@>
>@> To think I wasted so much rational reasoning on you when I could have
>@>just called you a dumbass in the first place. Such a shame.
>@
>@Spin...spin.... by your logic, driving a car gives you serious racing
>@experience.
>
> Depends on how you drive it. By your logic, when you ask "Do you
>have any driving experience at all?" you really mean "Do you have any
>Indy 500 racing experience?" And, when someone who is just a regular
>driver says yes, he is being stupid, juvenile, and a smartass. Why do
>we have to read your mind?
Sorry; administration experience isn't "Well, I hacked together one
computer!" experience. Not by a long shot.
>@>@>@Can't you help yourself? "Pathetic" is the term that comes to mind
>@>@>@when presented with a person that just gives up, and then vents in
>@>@>@here all of his frustrations.
>@>@>
>@>@> I have not. I'm going through the proper channels. The fact that
>@>@>you are too dumb to realize this even after multiple explanations is
>@>@>not
>@>@>my problem. Tell me, are you unable to read, or do you simply refuse?
>@>@
>@>@You're a whiner.
>@>
>@> And you're a moron. Cope.
>@
>@How am I a moron? *YOU* are the one with the problem. *YOU* are the
>@one that can't get it fixed. *YOU* are the one wasting time in here
>@complaining. Sounds like you're the moron to me.
>
> You repeat false statements again and again, you cannot write a
>coherent sentence to save your life, you like tossing about labels, and
>you lay blame indiscriminately. Then, once you have finished all that,
>you blame it on me. Truely astounding.
Can you back any of that up? YOU are the one with the problem on your
lab computer; that's pretty self-evident.
>@>@>@I'm tired of telling you what's wrong;
>@>@>@go find someone who works in the labs and tell him to help you. If
>@>@>@you can't, tough cookies; that's not Microsoft's fault - it's yours,
>@>@>@for giving up rather than getting help. If you want to attack me for
>@>@>@suggesting you see the dean, more power to you, but you aren't any
>@>@>@closer to solving the problem. Get off your ass and fix the problem.
>@>@>
>@>@> Your suggesting that I see the dean is one of your dumber comments
>@>@> in
>@>@>this forum.
>@>@
>@>@Fine; see someone else who can help you. Obviously you've been
>@>@powerless up to this point; you really ought to figure out how to do
>@>@-something-.
>@>
>@> Are you familiar with the practice of "stonewalling"? Basically, an
>@>individual or group decides not to let someone do something, and it
>@>(stonewalling) happens. UNT (or this portion of it) has decided not to
>@>fix the problem or listen to me. Now, UNT is an institution with
>@>milions of dollars and thousands of employees. I'm a student living
>@>from paycheck to paycheck. Just what the fuck should I do? I've
>@>explained why the dean is not an option.
>@
>@Fine - see someone else who can help you, rather than simply giving
>@up.
>
> I'm sorry, did I call you a moron? Oh, wait, you earned it.
You're the only one wearing that label.
>@>@>@>@B) Everything we've said here is a guess based on the slim
>@>@>@>@information you've been able to provide?
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> If my information is so slim, why do you feel justified in using
>@>@>@> it
>@>@>@>to accuse damn near everything of being incompetent just to defend
>@>@>@>Windows, a stupid piece of software? Doesn't make much sense to me.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@If their lab doesn't work, the people responsible for it have
>@>@>@problems. But then, every step of the way YOU have been the one to
>@>@>@attack your administrators, so I'll let you defend that.
>@>@>
>@>@> No, I have merely agreed with you. I do not attack the lab people
>@>@> in
>@>@>person because I know they are not responsible for the problem, and are
>@>@>about as powerless as I am. Also, attacking them would only serve to
>@>@>slow things down.
>@>@
>@>@They aren't responsible for the problems, and are as powerless as you?
>@>@Pathetic. They're not as powerless as you. They can FIX the problem.
>@>@You can't. Hence, they're considerably more useful than you in
>@>@solving the problem.
>@>
>@> Dumbass, they can't fix the problem. They can look up MY password,
>@>they can fetch documents, and print. They don't have administrative
>@>access. Therefore, they are as powerless as I am, unless I want to
>@>fetch a printout.
>@
>@Suggestion, 'dumbass' - go higher up the food chain and assume some
>@responsibility for your own progress, rather than limp-wristing it to
>@someone else.
>
> I've been higher on the foodchain. At the lower levels they just
>kick me upstairs, and at the higher levels they don't give a fuck. I've
>made my rounds.
You've spoken with everyone that can help? Next I'd suggest seeing
the admissions department, so you can discuss why you are there if the
computers there don't work.
>@>@> YOU have attacked them, reread the thread if you disagree.
>@>@
>@>@Please, Bryant. Those of us actually following the thread know the
>@>@truth:
>@>@
>@>@On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:53:44 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>@>@>@Call your desktop support staff.
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> ...a bunch of monkies.
>@>@__________
>@>@
>@>@I suggested you call them on the phone. You called them a bunch of
>@>@'monkies' (sic). You are attacking them, not me.
>@>
>@> Oh goody! The quote game!
>@>
>@>--------
>@>Message-ID:
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>@>Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:10:53 -0500
>@>
>@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
>@>@'shit'.
>@>---------
>@
>@And you agreed with me in your very next post. Obviously, you've got
>@some issues with your DT support team.
>
> Like I said, I merely agreed with you.
>
>Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:57:07 -0500
>
>@ No, I have merely agreed with you. I do not attack the lab people in
>@person because I know they are not responsible for the problem, and are
>@about as powerless as I am. Also, attacking them would only serve to
>@slow things down.
>@ YOU have attacked them, reread the thread if you disagree.
Sorry; that's not correct. You called them a bunch of "monkies", as
you can clearly see above.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 20:56:16 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> > 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)).
>
> So a lattice is (approximately) the transitive closure of a DAG
> (Directed Acyclic Graph)?
Actually, no. A DAG is a lattice with the relation "there is a path
from X to Y" defined on top of some pairs of elements. At the time,
I thought there might be a difference between a DAG and a lattice
but there isn't. I'm used to thinking of lattices as being nicely
ordered and DAGs as spaghetti, so that messed me up.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:00:19 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 2.4!
Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop (together
with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
I'm so proud.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:06:02 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fanatics don't have consistent belief systems.
>
> No, fanatics *are not required* to have consistent belief systems.
Their own convictions forces it upon them. It's a psychological
necessity. Normal people don't care if they have inconsistencies
in their belief systems and they never bother to resolve them.
> And the belief system could be consistent, but have no grounding in
> the observable universe (a common occurrence!)
Yes. Extreme right-wing belief systems (eg, Libertarian) are
very self-consistent (which is why you can get a lot of useful
insights from them) but are totally unrelated to reality as
they oversimplify human nature to the point of caricature.
Anarcho-syndicalism is both internally and externally consistent.
*Proving* it is another matter entirely.
> > It is not possible to have a 'consistent belief system' unless your
> > belief system is entirely and only the laws of physics.
>
> Come back, Goedel, we love you!
<groan> The incompleteness theorem doesn't mean what people
think it means. All it means is that the formalists (people
like me) were right all along and that concepts without
any sensible formal definition (like "truth") *do* mess up
everything. Other than that, the thoerem is a trivial statement
about the resolution of infinite problem domains using finite
axiomatic sets.
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:13:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"James A. Robertson" wrote:
Yes, in fact I have. It arose out of a car crash and bogus back injury
claim. Jury threw the guy out.
>
>
>James, have you actually ever been sued by anybody? It certainly doesn't
>seem like it.
>
>You see, the first step in suing somebody is that they have to have been
>"served" with the summons or write or whatever it's called. So that it
>stands on the record that they received notice that they were being
>sued. Now, usually, some officer of the court tries to get your
>attention and toss the papers in your face so that he can say that
>you've been "served".
>
Been there, done that. They actually landed on my front porch with no
actual interaction with me.
>At any rate, you can be "served" anywhere at any time, when you're
>walking down the street or at your home, but a very likely place for you
>to be "served" is at your place of work.
>
So?
>So, isn't all of your blather about "going after him at his place of
>work" just that? A bunch of blather? I mean, you're saying, on the one
>hand, that it is wrong to go after a guy at his place of work.
>Meanwhile, the remedy you suggest, a civil court case, in its initial
>steps, very likely involves finding a guy at his place of work and
>serving him with the writ.
>
Nope. A lawsuit is a legal process where rights will be looked after. What
pvdl was doing is harrassment. Big difference. By the same token,
after your house is robbed, do you personally start a manhunt or do you
call the cops?
>It's like one of these cases where you see a guy's lips moving and you
>hear him uttering some verbiage, but there seems to be a total
>disconnect between that and anything that you would describe as a mental
>process...
>
That's about what I get from you. We have what could be termed an honest
disagreement here, but you have no idea that a viewpoint other than your
own might have some rational thought connected with it.
>Jonathan Revusky
>
>>
>> Either:
>>
>> (a) You believe that he's been libellous and should be taken to court
>> (b) you're a gutless wonder who tosses accusations, harrasses people at
>> their place of work, but has no stomach for the actual proper channels
>>
>> Looks a lot like (b) so far.
>>
>> > Van Sickle also pretended to be black to evade a charge of racism, while
>> > accusing other people of drunkenness, drug-taking, being racists, etc.
>> >
>>
>> So what? Are you going to drag yourself down to the level you accuse
>> him of by being a harrassing person, or are you going to attempt to
>> handle it correctly (i.e., the courts). If you don't think you have a
>> legal case of libel, then why are you shouting so loudly?
>>
>> > I think it is a pretty mild response to first complain to the ISP,
>> > and when that had no response, to ask the owner of the systems that
>> > Van Sickle was posting from (i.e. Braemar Inc, of Minnesota), if he
>> > was acting in accordance with their policies.
>> >
>>
>> Pretty fair bit of harrassment, actually.
>>
>> > Since then all the harassment has been from people like you and
>> > Simon Cooke defending the indefensible. Cooke even posted my home
>> > address and phone number in an attempt to harass me.
>>
>> I haven't done any such thing; it's not proper. On the other hand, you
>> haven't had the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. Either
>> develop a court case or go lie down until the bad thoughts go away.
>> Either way, stop bothering the whole group with it. At worst, Gary is a
>> harmless idiot.
>>
>> --
>> James A. Robertson
>> Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 18:22:21 -0300
El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
><groan> The incompleteness theorem doesn't mean what people
>think it means. All it means is that the formalists (people
>like me) were right all along and that concepts without
>any sensible formal definition (like "truth") *do* mess up
>everything. Other than that, the thoerem is a trivial statement
>about the resolution of infinite problem domains using finite
>axiomatic sets.
Please don't speak about G�del. This paragraph alone betrays a very superficial
understanding of the theorem.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: 4 Oct 2000 21:21:19 GMT
Karen Rosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Well said!!!
Thank you :)
: And how newbie linux users will be happier in your opinion?
If I were going to make the whole Linux system work better
for all newbie users, the first thing I'd work on is
figuring out what different people need from it and
customize Linux to their needs. A "one size fits all"
approach need not hold us back.
For instance, new computer users that just need an OS for
reading email, web browsing and minor word processing
can do away with a windowing interface entirely -
relying instead on a Palm-esque "one app on the screen
at a time" appearance that hides all aspects of
the filesystem from the novice user (who doesn't want
to deal with it anyway). And, it can still be a Linux
system.
On the other hand, a "power user" that's new to Linux can
be presented with a nice, powerful-yet-intuitive interface
where most of the underlying OS and hardware concepts can
be exposed, thus allowing the user to get the most out of
his computer and get work done better.
These are just a couple of ideas, of course. In my
opinion is that an OS well-suited to one sort of new
user may not be well-suited to another. But with the
flexibility of Linux, I believe both can be accomodated
without major incompatibilities and without re-writing
the underlying OS each time.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 21:25:03 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> El mi�, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
> >> It is simple to explain Napoleon as a solar myth. Try it. Predictive power of
> >
> >Bullshit. Any such "explanation" will be utter nonsense.
>
> That's why explanatory power in itself is such a vaguely measurable thing.
It is perfectly measurable. That humans tend to consistently fuck up the
measurements is a purely HUMAN problem, completely outside the philosophy
of science.
> >Einstein wouldn't have given a damn.
>
> Einstein *did* give a damn. He was still alive, you know.
Einstein didn't give a damn. He was never on the empirical side of things
and he said as much. He was also an atheist.
> > And neither would I since unlike most
> >scientists I don't need predictions to be able to separate sense from nonsense.
>
> If the light had not curved, what would have happened to relativity?
It would still be a beautiful theory.
> >immortal = does not age
> >eternal = does not die
>
> Stop redefining english, please: "immortal: exempt from death", says Mr.
> Webster.
Stop using dictionary definitions, cretin. But then, you've yet to produce
a rigorous definition.
Immortal is not "exempt from death" since physical objects do not die and
they are NOT immortal.
> You have a very poor grasp at words, or change the definitions when they don't
> fit you.
I *define* words that have not been rigorously defined. You're too stupid
to be able to do the same, or even recognize the need for it.
> >> I did. Now
> >> you improved it. It still sucks.
> >
> >It matches MY conception of will just fine.
>
> Your conception of will sucks.
Too fucking bad.
> >You'll never see me patting chocolate ice cream on the back either. Doesn't
> >mean that I don't like it, MORON!
>
> chocolate ice cream lacks backs, and you lack any taste in metaphor.
I don't do metaphor. I do abstractions. Don't assume that everyone is
as limited as you are.
> >Cooperatives like children. Corporations actively dislike them.
>
> Cooperatives don't like children. Cooperatives don't have feelings.
"like" is not a feeling, cretin!! Like is a derivation of PREFERENCE.
> >> >They are so flawed, you're just going to great lengths to avoid passing
> >> >a negative judgement on your friend Mr. Corporation.
> >>
> >> I really don't like corporations. I don't hold that against them, though.
> >
> >Same thing.
>
> What is the same thing as what?
"not holding it against them" is the same thing as actively and deliberately
avoiding passing a negative judgement.
> >No, I claim that YOU have no working definition. I have one but it's not my
> >job to produce it and since you're an utter idiot, I would gain nothing from
> >producing a working definition.
>
> Expressing value judgements based on a definition exclusive to you makes the
> value jdgement exclusive to you. Therefore, the value judgement is subjective,
> and undebatable. How convenient.
Irrelevant since whether or not they're subjective, at least I *can* make
value judgements; you can't!
> In Dolly, the genetic material was removed from an embryo cell and replaced
> with the DNA from a cell of the original sheep. The functionality of the embryo
> cell was not changed, and the otiginal cell was simply gutted and discarted.
You're an ignorant imbecile. In Dolly, they had to reactivate all the genes
that were inactive in the original cell's DNA. That qualifies as training.
> The functionality of the mature cell was not changed, since that cell was not
> even present in the embryo.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:25:25 +1300
Hi Chad,
>> 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
>> computers.
>
> Windows 2000 professional will do all this.
I wasn't aware I could set up software RAID using Win2k Professional. The
only ability I could find was to set up a larger logical partition.
>
>> 2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
>
> MSDE (essentially a free copy of MS SQL Server 7.0 limited to 2GB of db
> size) is free and runs on everything from Win95 to Win2000 DC server.
What does "essentially a free" mean? Will this mean I won't be able to use
the server to also serve content?
>> 3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
>
> Win2K has ICS (with NAT functionality) built in.
Odd, I wasn't aware it came with firewalling, which was part of the
requirement.
>> 4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
>
> Outlook Express is free and comes with IE which is free. FrontPage is
> not necessary for web development, in fact, it's not recommeneded unless
> you've never written one line of HTML in your life.
I did ask for a "full MS solution" (probably unfair).
> So the list actually comes down to:
>
> 1.) 2 x copies of Win2K Professional at ~ $200ea. You can get OEM prices
> since you purchased new hardware, contact your vendor.
>
> That's it!
Jason addresses the licensing issues.
<snip>
> Sure, it's anecdotal, but then, you really haven't provided any evidence
> to the contrary.
Funny, I don't need anecdotal evidence, they're working right now!
>> Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO if
>> a MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time?
>
> Everyone who has deployed an MS solution properly and is reaping the
> benefits.
Well you'd have to because the costs are so great :-)
<snip>
>> and the development rate appears much faster.
>
> And quality has fallen through the floor as a result. Cite: Red Hat
> 2500+ bugs in a rushed 7.0 release.
Haven't noticed any significant ones yet (apart from being hacked off that
they didn't compile in the IDE backport, making the installation rather
difficult. They will finally be officially included in the 2.4 kernel
though).
Rushed? I've been waiting for it for ages.
At least I can be rather optimistic that bugs will be fixed, and rather
rapidly. And am actually able to converse with developers. And won't be
told to buy the next version to get bug fixes.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
