Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
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?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 17:20:54 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rgmo7$jri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi Drestin and Chad,
> >
> > > Actually, you need only two copies of Windows 2000 professional - this
> > > will provide you with the RAID...
> >
> > I thought you were both wrong about this but I didn't want to contradict
> > you before I got the answer from Microsoft's web site:
> >
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/library/resources/reskit/samplechapters
> /fncb/fncb_dis_gxih.asp
> >
> > (NB: FT stands for fault tolerant)
> >
> > "Creating new FT sets, such as mirrored and RAID-5 volumes, is only
> > available on computers running Windows 2000 Server. The disk must be
> > upgraded to dynamic disk before these volumes can be created. You can,
> > however, use a computer running Windows 2000 Professional to create
> > mirrored and RAID-5 volumes on a remote computer running Windows 2000
> > Server."
> >
> > Any response?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>
> You are right - you need the Server edition (not Pro) to create RAID
> volumes. Sorry about that. I use server on just about everything (I advocate
> pro for end-users but I run server myself ("cause I want to") and didn't
> think before typing.
And how much extra does this cost?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 21:21:06 GMT
On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:19:52 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Everything in the Smalltalk language (as far as /you're/ concerned) is
>an object that one can see and manipulate from within one's code (in C++
>classes and primitive types are not objects).
In C++, you can make classes objects if you like. Read a book on
design patterns some time. In java, even the primitive types are
objects. In C++, they aren't ( and they really don't need to be )
> Objects in Smalltalk cannot
>access each other's parts (in C++ friends can access each other's private
>parts).
I don't see how that makes C++ "less object oriented". If you don't like
friends, don't use them. C++ is a multi paradigm language. You can
program OO in it if you like, but it doesn't force you to.
> Programmers don't need to pay attention to operator precedence in
>Smalltalk, which would take attention AWAY from the objects themselves
>(in C++ you have what, *15* levels of operator precedence?).
I don't see how this is a big issue. I don't bother remembering the finer
details of operator precedence.
> In C++ blocks
>of code don't exist as objects (in Java they don't exist as simple objects).
Well I guess you've named one feature. The fact that blocks of code are
objects does not in itself seem to
>OO means "everything's an Object"
I think a lot of people more authoritative than you would disagree
with this. If you add something that is not an "object" to something
that is "object oriented", then do you have something that's no longer
object oriented ?
C++ supports the object oriented paradigm, even if it's not purely object
oriented. It's certainly no more "procedural" than it is OO.
Java comes awfully close to "everything is an object", so even in this
definition, java is OO. Calling java a "procedural language" is the
height of ignorance. It's difficult to write procedural code in java.
( you don't even have "functions" in java, only methods )
> not "polymorphism and inheritance".
>The former's a philosophy, the latter's a bunch of comparatively
>meaningless "features".
Well, apart from philosophical beauty, it's not clear that the former
has any tangible advantages ( i'm not going to argue about whether
philosophical beauty is a tangible advantage or not )
>You can't grow up, can you ?
You're the one who came into this group spewing hateful and bigoted comments
about "programmers". I believe most of the people here have decided which one
of us "needs to grow up
>> You keep crapping on about this "high level design" stuff, but you
>> have *no* credibility on the subject. You are not a "high level designer",
>> you have not implemented or even documented a single "high level design"
>> in your life.
>
>And you know this because you know everything about me and because it
>would be entirely natural for you to trumpet your own credentials and
>the fact that I don't parade them around means that I can't have any,
>right?
I don't need to "trumpet my credentials" because I don't run around claiming
to be a "high level designer".
On the other hand, you, having made bold claims about being a "high level
designer" seem unwilling or unable to address questions regarding your
credibility. You've attacked me for calling you a kook, but you haven't
refuted the claim.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [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
Date: 6 Oct 2000 21:21:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > "." wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:8riija$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
>> >> >> >> > very different indeed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax
>dollars
>> >> >> > goes
>> >> >> >> towards welfare at all. In fact, until the clinton administration, every
>last
>> >> >> >> penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the
>missisippi
>> >> >> >> river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that
>we
>> >> >> >> have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been
>> >> >> > restructured
>> >> >> >> nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards
>> >> >> > supporting
>> >> >> >> anyone on welfare.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > WHAT?! Are you kidding? Have you seen a recent budget? More than 1/3 of the
>> >> >> > U.S. budget goes to supporting Welfare and welfare related programs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, actually just a little bit less than 1/3 is dedicated to domestic social
>> >> >> programs; ONE of which is welfare. Most of the rest are not related to
>welfare.
>> >>
>> >> > Hint fucking hint ... all 'social programs' are welfare.
>> >>
>> >> Oh really? Does that include federal support for college scolarships?
>>
>> > Government grants: Yes
>>
>> > Private grants and loans...no biggie, as they are not taxpayers' money.
>>
>> >> Job training?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> >> Etc?
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> So what would you suggest we do with illiterate, untrained people?
> make an example out of them to the nation's youth.
>> Export them?
> Who would want them
>> Hang them?
> Only after they commit a capital offense
>>
> I think that converting them into productive members of society is
>> probably the most long-term-positive option. And who exactly is
>> going to pay for that?
> I have no problem wiht LOANS...but outright grants at taxpayer
> expense are immoral...especially when said taxpayers already paid
> for their OWN education.
Actually, by and large, we didnt. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:28:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Since you're a pitiful academic asshole who couldn't synthesize himself
> out of a paper bag despite your conceited pretense of over-arching
> knowledge of formal logic, you fail to realize that I'm entirely
> unconcerned about EXACTLY what you said, and am purely interested in
> what you meant. No, that isn't what you said, exactly or otherwise,
> though I'm happy to see you agree that it is what you meant to say. I'm
> not repulsed by "the thought of acquiring such 'classic training'" as
> might turn a person into an egotistical asshole such as yourself; I'm
> merely repulsed by people like yourself, who seem to illustrate that
> classic training is not enough to ensure that you have the ability to
> think clearly and productively.
My, how precious. I retract (one of) my earlier accusations: you are
infinitely more interesting than Roberto!
> >I already gave a definition earlier in the thread. You claimed
> >to have followed this thread.
>
> And you claim to be reasonable, but won't clearly state what your
> current definition is.
And you think that this is unrelated to my repeated refusal to start
any kind of philosophical discussion with you?
> I said I followed the thread, not that I found
> all of it worth remembering.
> Perhaps you missed the fact that refusing to discuss things while
> posting to Usenet is generally a measure of your ignorance. I think the
Posting to USENET does not give anyone an obligation to talk with
every arrogant cretin that comes along.
> readers are more than capable of understanding why you would refuse to
> discuss morality, metaphysics, epistemology, or philosophy of science
If they know anything about you, yes they would know exactly why.
> with me. Because it makes it rather obvious that your long hours of
> study were useless in providing you with even a passable understanding
> of the actual concepts and ideas inherent in these branches of
> philosophy, though you seem to have memorized enough convoluted bullshit
> to impress those who give up quickly when you start yelling and
> screaming and swearing and calling them 'cretins' because you thought it
> meant 'uneducated person'.
LOL. You definitely are interesting to read.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:12:22 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>> >Logic is value-less.
>>
>> Vulcans do have values. They apply logic to act according to those values. At
>> least, that's as much as I gather.
>
>Psychopaths have values as well. Unless you're using the word 'values'
>in some kind of fuzzy enobling sense.
Let's say "good values". They also have empathy, because, what else is a mental
meld?
>> > Psychopaths behave only based on logic as well.
>>
>> If they did, they wouldn't ever kill people. After all, I don't think they want
>> to die in the chair, which is one of the logical outcomes of such actions.
>
>This is probably why most psychopaths never kill people.
Then, the "only" you gave was not really right, was it?
>> You know, I don't have so much time to spend on hypotheticals. Are pink
>> unicorns mammals? Are thinking rocks sentient? I don't care.
>
>You seem to not have much time for any kind of thought at all.
You'd be amazed.
>> I gave you one, but I'll give you another: anything that can breed with a human
>> is a human, anything that can breed with something that can breed with a human
>> is a human, and I am human.
>
>Neanderthals could not breed with humans and yet you claimed that
>they were human.
I didn't claim exactly that. And whether they could or could not breed is to be
proven. Besides, I have said that given the example of another thinking
species, I might have to change the definition of human. What I gave was the
definition as of Oct. 6, 2000.
>> >Non sequitur is one thing, what you pulled was sleight of hand by being
>> >inconsistent with your word usage.
>>
>> Then say so.
>
>And obviously, you expect me to do all your thinking for you.
No, I expect to say what you think and not something else.
>It's not enough that you don't know the crap you're pulling, you
>also expect me to give detailed explanations of why it's crap?
I expect that if you believe it to be crap, you will call it crap, and not
walrus.
>> >In fact, they usually do but they are never, EVER given the chance to. In
>> >many states, it is illegal to offer your corporation to employees before
>> >fellow capitalists and of course, it's not like employees can secure bank
>> >loans (because banks are corporations and they won't deal with cooperatives).
>>
>> I am an employee, I can easily get a bank loan. All it takes is a good credit
>> history, and a proof of gainful employment. Where do you get that employees
>> can't get bank loans?
>
>Employees *AS A GROUP* cannot get bank loans sufficient to buy a corporation.
Maybe they could. What is really wrong is that you say that since they can't,
it's because "[banks] won't deal with cooperatives". Banks deal with
cooperatives all the time, and loan them money.
>That *was* the context of my statement, was it not?
It was one possible context. "employees can't get loans"can mean they can't as
a group or as individuals. No big deal, it's clear now.
>> >And you can force someone to liquidate their stock by retaining the stock
>> >for them. This is also how you stop them from selling out their stock.
>>
>> Then it's not quite "their stock", is it?
>
>Oh, so you're one of THOSE people. Do you also believe that if you can't
>dump toxic waste on your land then it's not "your land" and that if you can't
>sell your organs away then it's not "your body"? Fucking right-wingers.
I am probably more left-wing than any major political organization in the US,
but anyway: A property is not mine if I can't sell it.
>> In those conditions, you would have
>> to sell them the stock cheaper than you buy the stock from outside sources.
>
>Since ultimately there are no "outside sources", this is incorrect.
Hm? I thought the plan was to buy all stock belonging to non-employees? That's
what I meant by outside sources.
>> That makes the operation even harder, because you won't have enough money to
>> keep on buying the stock.
>
>And you base this on ... ?
Because stock that you can't sell is worth less than stock that you can sell.
Thus you need more than one share sold to an employee to buy one non-employee
share.
>Owning stock in a cooperative isn't an option, it's an obligation.
And it makes no difference to the argument.
>> >A "rather dry mathematical thing" that has deep implications for the
>> >philosophy of mathematics.
>>
>> Sure. However, you described it as trivial, didn't you?
>
>Reread what I wrote and get that Alzeihmer's test.
You said
"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."
So, you reduce the Goedel theorem to silliness and a trivial statement.
Specially since there is nothing in Goedel about concepts without sensible
formal definitions. There can't be, AFAIK there is no symbol for "things that
are not properly defined" in maths.
--
Roberto Alsina
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:39:36 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribi�:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Well, if I just say "the united states of america", everyone will understand
>> it. So why take chances, by using a less understandable version?
>
>Because it's more precise and conveys more information?
It's not more precise, and the information it conveys is ideological. Of an
ideology I don't share, too.
>Why convey little information to everyone when you can convey lots of
>information to a few?
Why convey information I deem false to a few, when I can convey information I
deem correct to everyone?
>> I could say H2O instead of water, I could say Odiseus instead of Ulysses, I
>> could say immortal instead of ageless.
>
>Who wouldn't understand Odysseus ??
Anyone who has not bothered to learn about classic literature.
>And H2O isn't the same thing as water.
Pretty much.
>> However, I would be using a less efficient mechanism of comunication, or
>> rather, would use the mechanism of communication in a less efficient manner.
>
>So you'd rather efficiently communicate nothing?
References to the united states of america convey information: I am referring
to the country between mexico and canada. The information is attached in the
rest of the sentence.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 23:12:02 +0100
MH wrote in message <8rhtgq$43j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Why would you care? Linux users despise anything MS. Why would you *want*
to
>run MS applications? Oh, I get it...if the Linux OS can run MS applications
>in any way, shape, or form, it would validate Linux as an OS somehow? I
>thought it already was valid?
>
Because it gives users a convenient way to upgrade to linux and still run
anyting they have
already paid to use while learning to use the linux equivalent to give them
the best of both worlds
as there are quite a few users (and businesses ) that would like to upgrade
to linux but are only
putting off the change because they need to run a certain application and
wine allows them to
change operating sytem and run all native software where there are free
equivalents without losing
access to the commercial software they may have invested large sums of money
in obtaining.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 17:39:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >BS. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> I always know what I'm talking about. I might not know all the facts
>> which you do, and I might not be correct, but what I'm talking about
>> happens to be my specialty, and I'm quite the expert on the subject.
>
>So that explains why you dare pronounce yourself on metaphysics, ethics,
>epistemology and psychology; because you know you don't have all the facts
>(which you have admitted) and you know you're not correct but this happens
>to be your specialty and you're an expert on those subjects???
No, because I've learned that being honest, indulging in studious and
clear thinking, and presenting my opinions with integrity is far more
important in being correct than pretending to know every fact in
creation.
>> I don't deny the existence of any field, merely the reality of anything
>> "meta-physical". You aren't discussing metaphysics with me because you
>> know it would go absolutely no-where outside the ranks of amateur
>> philosophers you've interacted with so far.
>
>Nope. I'm not discussing any philosophy with you because you have no
>interest in learning any philosophy or the thought processes by which
>one does philosophy. You've condemned yourself to be the rankest of
>rank amateurs and you're proud of the fact.
You're not discussing philosophy with me because you know I don't take
your 'trust me I know' bullshit seriously. I'm quite well acquainted
with philosophy, and have engaged in serious philosophical discussions
with real philosophers. You, sir, are most definitively an amateur
philosopher. I'm merely a hobbyist, myself. But I can understand your
reluctance to engage me, as I am somewhat accomplished, as a hobbyist.
>> It must be even more confusing if you think I don't believe in formal
>> logic. Of course I believe in formal logic. That doesn't mean I agree
>> with every application of supposedly formal logic.
>
>Riiiiiight. This is obviously why when I demand solid reasons for your
>disputing an obvious fact, you come back with "I don't like it" and
>have the gall to claim that this is solid reasoning?
I certainly don't have any idea what you're talking about, and it is
certainly obvious you're misrepresenting something I've said. I'm not
impressed, or hesitant to discuss the matter with you, if you decide to
say what you actually mean instead of relying on veiled straw men you
concoct out of context and privately congratulate yourself over.
>> Oh, that makes LOADS of sense. You really are just an amateur
>> philosopher who knows too much and understands too little, you know
>> that? If you worked *really* hard, you could be a professional
>> philosopher, but that's not saying much, as you'd just be another
>> shithead in a field mostly filled with post-modern idiots. The few
>> truly competent professional philosophers find that type to be foolish
>> and unreasoning.
>
>I see ... And one of your stature in the field of philosophy (who
>refuses to ever step foot in a philosophy class IIRC) is able to
>discern the "few truly competent professional" philosophers. Please
>dispense your wisdom oh great one.
You recall incorrectly. I merely pointed out that I haven't derived my
understanding of philosophy from a college professor, but from reading.
You can start with reading the works of Dr. Paul Kurtz.
>> >Because its formal definition clearly shows it to be nonsense.
>>
>> How?
>
>I've only shown this 2 or 3 dozen times in the last few years,
>sometimes even to professional philosophers. And you know, even
>that two-line proof is beyond you.
Hey, can I help it if most philosopher's are about as smart as most
engineers? Which 'two line proof' are you referring to? How can you
know it is beyond me if you haven't shown it to me? I think maybe
you're just scared I'll understand it quite easily, and might even be
able to point out some flaw that these 2 or 3 dozen 'professionals'
weren't capable of seeing. Maybe not; I'm not making any promises. But
I would like to see it.
>> You obviously have to work on your ability to grasp abstractions.
>
>Just what is it about that word? You must like it a lot considering
>how often you repeat it. Is it new to you? Are you just adding it to
>your vocabulary or do you feel the euphoria of learning something new?
I use it a lot because it seems to be the root of most of the difficulty
you have understanding things. You are repeatedly showing a great deal
of confusion over metaphors, abstractions, and the like. Such as your
inability to grasp the abstraction 'corporation' as establishing a legal
fiction of an artificial person capable of engaging in contract and
owning property while limiting the liability of all real persons
involved.
>> > While you're not a postmodernist, you
>> >are pretty fucking close. Too damned close for me to bother trying
>> >to discuss anything with you.
>>
>> On the contrary, I'm as purely non-post-modernist as you can get. I'm
>> post-post-modernist, you might say.
>
>Riiiight. I'll just shorten this to post-modernist.
>
>> But I haven't missed out on any single part of the discussion. It all
>> replicated just fine, in perfect order. I tried to reason with you in
>> email and it failed; I hardly gave it a second thought. Now you engaged
>
>If by "reason" you mean repeatedly spewing forth your mutually-reinforcing
>insanities like so much vomit and never listening to what the othe side
>says, let alone responding to it, then you have indeed "reasoned" with me.
>And I have grievously failed to reason with you by deliberately terminating
>that discussion.
>
>> Roberto enough to make clear that even he can make you look like an
>> idiot. That doesn't speak very highly of your ability to communicate
>> your position. I'm not willing to pass judgement, at this point, on
>> your actual position, given that fact.
>
>If I were *willing* then you might find out how capable I am of
>communicating my positions. As it is, you'd have a better chance
>figuring out what I'm about from a reading of Tarot cards.
>
>> You really might have some original thoughts deep down, if you'd only
>> stop arrogantly trying to protect them from becoming common knowledge.
>
>I would think the arrogance is on the part of the preacher and not
>the heckler.
You'd be wrong. The preacher is supported by confidence, not arrogance.
The heckler is motivated by lack of self-confidence.
>> You have to work a lot harder at it if you want to express yourself
>> well, though. You really do sound like a moron with an education.
>
>And I assure you, you do sound like a moron without an education.
Well, that's certainly one way to present your incisive ability to
discern the truth, or lack thereof. Your assurances are hardly worth
being concerned with.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 17:40:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You're a post-modernist imbecile.
>
>Hehe. That's funny. It's the same guy who tried to argue that
>there's an absolute standard for beauty and elegance, remember?
No, I don't remember ever arguing such a thing. Or were you referring
to Richard, who my comment was directed at.
>Removing that qualifier would definitely improve the truth
>value of that statement.
Indeed.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:48:05 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, T. Max Devlin escribi�:
>Said FM in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>You're a post-modernist imbecile.
>>
>>Hehe. That's funny. It's the same guy who tried to argue that
>>there's an absolute standard for beauty and elegance, remember?
>
>No, I don't remember ever arguing such a thing. Or were you referring
>to Richard, who my comment was directed at.
Richard did. He mentioned symmetry as one of the universal measures of beauty.
I really hope he believes a cubic building is more beautiful than, say, Bilbao's
Guggenheim. It is, after all, much more symmetric.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
