Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Marty)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Blatant anti-MS trolling... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Bartek Kostrzewa)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:26:53 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Loren Petrich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Loren Petrich wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Responsibility can mean giving others handouts, it would seem.
> > > > > It's called CHOICE, retard.
> > > >
> > > > > Can you comprehend the idea of DECIDING to give something to a particular
> > > > > person, as opposed to having the fruit of one's labors CONFISCATED and
> > > > > distributed to shiftless and lazy drunks, drug addicts and whores, and
> > > > > their demon spawn.
> > > >
> > > > You sure have a vivid imagination, don't you?
> > >
> > > Are you alleging that the welfare rolls are NOT filled with drunks,
> > > drug-addicts, and out-of-wedlock-breeding sluts.
> >
> > One of the tenants upon which this country was founded is that it is better to
> > let 1000 guilty men go free than it is to imprison an innocent man. Applying
> > this logic a bit further, the government has decided that it is better to feed
> > 1000 people who don't deserve it than it is to let someone who does go
> > hungry.
>
> Here's a solution: GET A FUCKING JOB.
>
> The remaining *TRUE* hardship cases can be handled through private charity.
Here's a scenario:
An individual relies on the use of their body for a job. They have worked at
this job all of their lives and have become expert in this field (whatever it
is). A drunk driver smashes into them head-on and paralyzes them from the
neck down.
I guess this falls into the latter category you mentioned. Unfortunately,
it's a very common scenario.
> > Sure there are loads of folks living off of welfare and government
> > programs who have no intention of working or changing their situation, but
> > there are some hard-working individuals who have hit hard times and need the
> > government's support to get them back on their feet.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> First...AFDC, WIC, SSI, etc, do NOT encourage anybody to "get back on their
> feet"...quite the opposite...it encourages them to further indulge in their
> pathological behavior.
>
> FUCK THAT!
Admittedly, there are loads of problems with the way many of these programs
are structured. It's just proof that good intentions are rarely enough to
accomplish something truly good and lasting.
> If the government wasn't confiscating %50 of what I earn, I could
> be helping numerous people actually
I'd be interested to see a study of some sort comparing voluntary charitable
donation rates as income increases, to determine if needy folks would actually
be better off without the mandatory systems in government today (given how
"leaky" these organizations can be).
> By the way...since when was it an American principle that 1000 people
> should be held accountable for the self-destructive behavior of one?
>
> Answer: Never...this country was founded upon the principle of
> PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
That's the flip side of the coin, and one that the founders of these
organizations in the government obviously didn't forsee.
> If you FUCK UP and find yourself impoverished, then you had best
> start to un-fuck yourself if you want to get out of poverty.
>
> Being broke is a matter of circumstance
> Poverty is a way of life.
I imagine that 50 years ago, if one walked up to a common street bum and asked
him/her how he/she got there, that they'd have an interesting story to tell.
If you did the same today, I'd wager they'd be much more likely to tell you
that the street is where they've spent their whole lives.
One interesting and unfortunate exception comes to mind. A man named Tim used
to be an IBM employee (a software engineer I believe) in Endicott, NY. One
day he suffered from a severe stroke which took away most of his mental
capabilities. He had to quit his job because he could no longer serve IBM in
his previous capacity. Today, he spends his days gathering up soda cans from
around town and recycling them, as it is all he can handle anymore. He's out
there every day, and somehow he manages to gather enough to keep a humble roof
over his head and stay fed. (We always make it a point to help him out and
bundle up some cans for him and leave them on the porch of our building.)
This man could have been earning $100K/year easily and fate smote him to the
point where he can barely scrape by even though he's working his ass off (the
only way he really can) every day. Unless he receives a very generous gift,
he'll be confined to a life of poverty in spite of a strong work ethic. Folks
like him are few and far between, but they do exist.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:30:03 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Darin Johnson wrote:
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > From what I have heard, Win4Lin is quite good. It is similar to
> > Vmware, but cheaper (I think about $40). It's not the same, though, as
> > Wine. Both Win4Lin and Vmare allow you to boot up Windows under Linux
> > rather than implementing the Win32 API. You still need copy of Windows
> > for Win4Lin and Vmware.
>
> And you really need a copy of Windows to run WINE properly too,
> because most Windows apps rely on a few more DLL's and OLE objects
> than what is properly "Win32".
>
> So the advantage is that you get a more robust product, the drawback
> is that you may not be able to do more with it than Windows itself
> does (better registry handling, sharing cut buffers with X, having
> MAPI use sendmail, etc).
No Windows needed to run Lotus Notes.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 11 Oct 2000 03:51:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : Not if you want the code to remain understandable. Mixing
>> : OO and functional code is a BAD idea for one thing. It may
>> : or may not be inevitable but it's certainly undesirable.
>> Since there is no hard and fast definition of what is and isn't
>> OO, splitting things up as OO vs functional isn't going to
>> work. The dividing line is too fuzzy.
>There is a simple practical definition; OO is what you get
>after you rip out every low-level concept that evolved into
>the functional paradigm from the procedural paradigm. Then
>you take these concepts and take them to a higher level of
>abstraction.
The above sentences don't make any sense. OO is what you get
by ripping out the concepts from the procedural paradigm
that evolved to the functional paradigm, and taking them to
a higher level of abstraction? If I parsed your sentences
correctly, the only conclusion that can be made from these
is that you don't understand any of these paradigms. The
functional paradigm did not evolve from the concepts taken
from the procedural paradigm.
Here's the basic breakdown, ignoring the subtleties.
Procedural
Paradigm
-> A process is a sequential execution of a set of statements
Abstraction Mechanism
-> Statement :: PrimitiveStatement | Procedure Invocation
-> Procedure :: PrimitiveProcedure | (SetOfStatements)
Defining feature
-> Named/parameterized procedures
Functional
Paradigm
-> A process is evaluation of an expression
Abstraction Mechanism
-> Expression :: PrimitiveExpression | Function Invocation
-> Function :: PrimitiveFunction | (Expression)
Defining feature
-> Functions as values
OO
Paradigm
-> A process is a set of related objects with behavior
Abstraction Mechanism
-> Object :: PrimitiveObject | UserDefinedObject
-> UserDefinedObject :: BaseObject + SetOfObjects +
UserDefinedBehavior(UserDefinedObject)
Defining feature
-> Runtime Polymorphism
Any language with a decent type system and natural support
for runtime polymorphism is OO, and as such, OO becomes a
matter of whether instances of user-defined types can be
made subject to runtime polymorphism. A "purer" OO approach
would include applying the same principles to the primitive
types of the language. Note that, the abstraction mechanism
denoted above for procedural/functional abstraction doesn't
really include "data" abstraction, which means these
paradigms don't really force a certain kind of data
abstraction to be used. In some sense, OO is merely a style
that emphasizes and makes extensive use of data abstraction
through runtime polymorphism. As such, it can be orthogonal
to the imperative-functional paradigmatic dichotomy (or a
spectrum, if you were to include logic programming), though
much of the OO literature is biased towards the imperative
end of the spectrum and stresses the combination of
procedural abstraction and data abstraction as the essence
of OO.
>OO is the other side of the coin from a still
>unknown (and maybe impossible) Ideal language that treats
>both objects and functions equally, like the procedural
>paradigm does, but at a high level.
What is this "procedural paradigm" that treats objects and
functions equally? You mean your assembler?
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blatant anti-MS trolling...
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 03:59:41 GMT
In article <8s0khc$em6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The really funny thing is, WHY are you using Hotmail then?? You come
> in here in a Linux advocacy group, whining about Hotmail. Hotmail is
> a *FREE* service. You *CHOOSE* to use it. If *YOU* don't like it,
> then *YOU* can *CHOOSE* to use something *ELSE*!
Right. No problem. I'll just ask all my friends to change my email
address in their address books to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Then
I'll try to make sure that all my resumes out there are replaced with
new ones that have my new email address on them. Then I'll have to
forward everything, and of course because that's 100% reliable I'm going
to have to check into my hotmail account ANYWAY.
Your argument is akin to saying that someone who crosses the street
because someone said it was the best place to cross, and gets run over
by a bus because there's no actual pedestrian crossing, has no right to
complain about the original advice to cross there, because he could have
chosen to cross somewhere else. Furthermore, if the city has actually
designated that as one of the best places to cross the street, he
shouldn't get mad at the city either, because he should have known
better. Yes, ignorance can be cured through learning experiences, and
this learning experience is telling me that MS service sucks.
I'm getting burned by bad service, so I'm going to speak up about it.
You ninny.
This is my personal history. I took a hotmail account because it was
free and I didn't need an internet account to access it. I then
discovered Netscape Webmail, so I took an account there, too. I have
since dropped the Netscape Webmail account because its performance
sucked. I kept using the Hotmail account much to my chagrin because its
performance was at least better than anything else I tried -- wowmail
sucked too. I'm going to give linuxmail.org a shot just for the hell of
it, but from its speed thus far I'm not too hopeful.
I have noticed outages only now since the switch from BSD to Win2000. It
is perfectly possible that you may notice no change and I may notice
tons of changes, because depending on the individual email account, and
depending on WHEN you started it, you're going to be on different
servers. Another hotmail account that I had was perfectly accessible.
The one I usually use is currently not. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in
this problem. It is also possible that these switches have absolutely
nothing to do with BSD or Win2000, but some clod who can't stop spilling
coffee all over the hardware. But if you read more carefully, you'd note
that this is not the original complaint.
>From my footer you'll also know that I use deja news. It too is a free
service, and the best thing available for me because I don't have a
fixed ISP. I don't think that invalidates any argument I may have
against deja news services, either (what's up with the "*" thing,
anyway?), so long as I can tie it down to something vaguely approaching
OS advocacy.
And let's not mislead ourselves about how free these services are. It's
a marketing ploy, and if I don't pay in actual cash then I pay by being
inundated with advertising. I'm as entitled to whine about hotmail's
service as I am to whine about a free weekly newspaper that makes its
own living on advertising. If they claim great service, and give us
crap, I'm allowed to speak up about it.
> Ok, is that clear? :)
It's clear you're a doorknob.
> > Rant mode = off. Thank you for your patience.
>
> I believe your real intention is simply to lie about Hotmail
> performance once it changed to Windows 2000. I haven't even noticed a
> difference. I use Hotmail *all* of the time.
Oh my. You're a big boy, aren't you?
> If you wanted a reliable email service, then you would have done so
> already and not complain and whine about Hotmail. Otherwise, you are
> probably just a troll.
Christ, I'm not the first person on a Linux newsgroup to trash
Microsoft, am I? I can see how it'd be trolling if I did this over on
comp.os.windows.advocacy, but over here...?
Read the original complaint. Microsoft's idea and implementation of
customer help sucks. It is in direct response to anybody who claims that
Microsoft offers great service. Not that this is a widespread rumour, or
anything...
-w
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 04:14:46 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
> So, you claim that languages that use concepts humans don't
> understand intuatively are a bad thing, but then propose as
> a better language one that has circular definitions in it??!
> That makes no sense to any human who knows basic logic.
> Infinite recursion in a definition is definately NOT an
> example of something being intuative for humans to figure
> out. (Unless you are cynically referring to the fact that
> many humans eschew logic and accept illogical things (
> like a self-creating God.) )
Heh, I was going to argue just that. In fact, when humans finally
accept a contradiction, they typically feel a sense of achievement;
that they've "got it" while lesser people have not.
But most Smalltalk programmers can be blissfully ignorant of the
circular definitions. It isn't the circular definitions that hurt
understanding, it's the object/class confusion which, if implemented
cleanly, leads to a circular definition. Circularity is a symptom,
not the disease.
None of this is very relevant. Smalltalk is vastly more OO and intuitive
than C++, and Self is in turn vastly more OO and intuitive than Smalltalk.
And even Self isn't perfectly OO though at the moment I don't know of any
language that's better than it is. This contrasts with the other side of
the coin since as far as I understand it, Miranda is a perfect functional
language.
> No, quite the opposite. I was using that as an example of
> how the same thing is both a class and an object, to counter
> what you had said before that. It was not my intention to
> say that they were different words. If that's how you read it,
> then you got the wrong impression. It was my intention to point
> out how one thing does double-duty and therefore humans most
> certainly *are* familiar with that concept. It is reflected as
> such in our languages (or at least it is in English).
I meant to raise an objection, not throw your own words back
at you. You seemed to claim that "reptile" and "reptiles" are
an example of a single thing that is both a class and an object
but "reptile" and "reptiles" are not the same thing. In fact,
they're both classes. As for treating a whole class as a single
object at the meta-level, that is not problematic for people
/precisely/ because there is a sharp distinction between the
level and the meta-level. In situations where the two levels
are confused, humans get confused too. This is analogous to
treating a composite object (say, a mob) as a single entity
when viewed from afar. I think that "simultaneous" was the
wrong word for me to use although I could argue that humans
never think on two different levels at the same time, they
just switch between them instantaneously (as swiftly and
easily as their imagination zooms in to see people and out
to see a mob). IOW, I could argue that as long as the two
conceptual levels are distinct and well-defined, then they
are never perceived simultaneously but "simultaneous" was a
very poor choice of words.
(Btw, the word 'reptile' is decomposed into the label you can
find in the dictionary and the concept it denotes. The label
is an object but it is never a class. The concept reptile is
either class or object depending on the conceptual level.)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 00:23:00 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:04:05 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> Purdue out-of-state tuition is NOT subsidized, and I wasn't
> >> > >> getting anything from my parents, either.
> >> > > Cry me a river. I presume that you reimbursed the government for the
> >> > >cost of military training also.
> >> > Yes I did, with hard work, sacrifice and months and months away from
> >> > my family, whilst you enjoyed the freedoms I was protecting.
> >>
> >> Enjoy feeling sorry for yourself. Did you pay in MONEY???
>
> > Loren, you owe every serviceman a LOT more than what you have paid
> > them. If it was not for us, you would be the impoverished subject
> > of some totalitarian regime.
>
> Hah. If it wasnt for you sitting in a comfortable chair in front of
> some kind of 'communications' console? You arent FIGHTING, friend, you're
My "office" is my rucksack. I'm the commo NCO with an infantry line company.
you know...where the fucking battle is.
> (if youre in the reserves, especially) wimping out.
Sorry, Loser, but you're behind the times...about 2 fucking decades,
to be exact.
If you're in the reserves, you are MORE likely to go to war than
in the Regular army. Why? Because the US Army Reserves hold nearly
all of the logistic units required to fight a protracted war. The
remainder are in the National Guard... almost ZERO are in the active
duty army.... General Abrams (for whom the tank is named) deliberately
broke up the army like this, so that never again could another bunch
of politicians get the nation mired in another fiasco like Viet Nam...
Therefore, he made it IMPOSSIBLE to fight a protracted war without
mobilizing the Guard and Reserve.
Reserve troops have been mobilized in large numbers for EVERY war
except the Viet Nam War.
Nearly 100$% of state militia units saw combat in the Civil War.
75% of the combat troops in Cuba and the Phillipines in the Spanish-American
war were State Militia and Reservists
90% of National Guard and Reserve divisions saw combat in WW1
90% of National Guard and Reserve divisions saw combat in WW2
80% of the Combat units in the Korean War were National Guard
95% of the logistical units in the Gulf War were National Guard and Reserve.
If the Gulf war had lasted 2 weeks longer, National Guard troops would have
composed 2/3 of the COMBAT troops in theater.
For your info. When I was in 1-138th ADA (Stinger), Lafayette, Indiana,
our unit had the HIGHEST weapons recertification rate in the entire army,
we set the range record on the Ballistic Aerial Target range (using
obsolete Redeye missiles, no less!), and in general pissed off the cadre
at Fort Bliss because we were more proficient soldiers than our Regular
Army counterparts.
Currently, the majority of the US Army Bosnia is 49th Armored Division,
Texas National Guard. In fact, the ENTIRE US Army, Bosnia force is
under the command of the 49th Armored Division commander....who is,
of course...a National Guard officer.
> You are a coward
Why don't you tell us about the last time YOU saw machine gun bullets
flying mere inches above your head....
Tell us about the last time YOU felt the concussion of a grenade's shock wave.
How many dead bodies have YOU seen?
> and an idiot.
Then your intelligence must be down with the snails.
>
> -----.
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 06:29:36 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> HI,
>
> If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and on
> linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
>
> #include <iostream.h>
> main()
> {
> for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
> cout << i <<endl;
> return 0;
> }
>
> What I get is 5 seconds on Linux 2.2 and it takes 2.30 minutes to show all
> the
> 100000 numbers.
>
> Yours Truly,
> Rizwaan
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
> http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
> NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
> made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now you said something useful man...
Gosh, the tty consoles are faster than the windoze consoles, that's the
only answer.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
