Linux-Advocacy Digest #687, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Mar 01 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("David Brown")
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brent R)
Re: Do Windows developers settle? (Brent R)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (chrisv)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Karel Jansens)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Karel Jansens)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Do Windows developers settle? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Double Fucking ala MS... (H Dziardziel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:58:24 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>
>>I won't argue either way regarding the desktop functionality, but Windows
>>does not come with any apps (remember, IE is "part of the OS", and not an
>>app)
>
>If IE is "part of the OS", then they've done a lot of work on "the OS".
>Call it what you will, but the point is that you can't dismiss IE as a
>trivial addition to the package. It's an enormous project.
Actually, I would call it an app - it is MS that claims it is an integrated
part of the OS.
>
>> and certainly does not have any development tools.
>
>It has shared libraries.
Shared libraries are not development tools. A developer might take
advantage of existing shared libraries in a program, but that is a far cry
from calling libraries "development tools".
>
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:08:45 GMT
Anonymous wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > A true IQ test would have to involve pictures and patterns, and
> > >> > perhaps have some mathematical basis, because these are the only
> > >> > ideas that translate well all over the world.
> > >>
> > >> I don't believe there is a true IQ test. People are good at different
> > >> thing.
> > >
> > > BULLSHIT.
> > >
> > > There is are VERY strong correlations between doing well on a
> > > well-designed IQ test, and the ability to quickly learn and perform well
> > > at any other randomly selected task. (Quickly as compared to the rate
> > > at which an IQ 100 person [statistical mean] would learn).
> >
> > The only thing that IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests.
> >
> > They put no emphasis on precision over speed, for instance.
> >
> > The kind of person that works slowly but precisely and creatively scores
> > poorly in IQ tests.
>
> they also test for obedience
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
No I believe what Kulkis said. Why else would it take him so LONG to
figure out that his .sig is unwanted, and that everyone has him on
killfile as a result. It's his minuscule IQ.
Now I just have to wait for Kulkis to respond with a lie on how large
his IQ is (note to Aaron: it only tests effectively up to 130 or so, so
don't make it a impossible #, like 25 billion).
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do Windows developers settle?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:16:31 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > I guess that depends entirely on the programmer and on the job at hand.
> >
> > If I were doing socket programming, i'd prefer Unix, since it's a little
> > more straight forward, however GUI programming is much easier and straight
> > forward on Windows than X.
>
> I've just started using Cygwin32. It's pretty neat. I opted to install
> the man pages, and now I'm in heaven. Of course, man, groff, and less
> run really slow because of the unix emulation layer. I imagine Cygwin
> has a wrapper around the Windows socket calls, so it may be possible to
> use standard nix socket calls on Windows this way. Did you try Cygwin?
> It's nice, but sluggish, on Win ME. Don't know what it's like on Win
> 2000 / NT 4.0.
I find Cygwin to be kindof slow as well. The GNU release of BASH for
Windows runs about 10x faster. You can find it here:
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/
It works in the entire Windows partition, not just it's own folder like
Cygwin.
It's not as easy to install as Cygwin, but (in reality) is anything
worthwhile ever easy (especially in Windows)? I would agree that the
Unix
is a much better platform for development (but not for other things).
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: 7 Mar 2001 15:33:06 GMT
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 21:00:29, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Allthough I agree with you, I was using Beowolf as an example only.
> Incidently, the Microsoft clustering solution goes all the way up to
> (brace yourself) 32 nodes, at only $3,000 per node. You work for
> government? Want the price on toilet seats?
>
You might want to remove that 'toilet' reference from your arsenal.
Way back when the '$600- toilet seat' news expose came out it was
revealed that it actually was a custom made fibreglass surround
designed for some NASA (?) special project, not an everyday item one
could purchase at the local hardware store for $15-. In fact by any
standard the taxpayers got their money's worth. But the phoney news
item developed legs and is still, apparently, running today.
--
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:35:36 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>The expressions are always priceless..
>>
>> What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
>> ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
>> the shelves?
>
>Weird. Do you always value your things based on how much money you can
>spend on them?
LOL! That's the first time I've seen someone has argued that a lack
of apps is a GOOD thing! Keep up the good work, Joker!
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:15:55 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > Neither do I. But a simple thing like an engine temperature gauge can
> > prevent an unfortunate nuisance (a broken thermostat) turning into an
> > extremely expensive engine replacement job. Obviously, one needs to
> > learn what the "cryptic" output of the thermometer means.
>
> I'd hardly call the output of a thermometer "cryptic".
>
Eh? What's self-explanatory about a thermometer?
> > Good for you. I do hope it was not because your old one ran out of fuel.
>
> Actually it was because the fuel tank sprang a leak! As did the fuel
> pipes under the car, in the engine... several faults. I bought the car
> brand new in 1986 and sold it 14 years later... 8)
>
> > > After learning what it does, it is still cryptic.
> >
> > That's an oxymoron.
>
> No it's just cryptic.
>
Look, "cryptic" means: "something you don't understand". How in the name
of Seven Hells can _anything_ be cryptic if you understand it?
> > OK. Let's talk business then. Assuming you already have the pc, does
> > that mean you are willing to pay the same amount as you would have paid
> > for the programs on your Windows pc to have a linux pc with equivalent
> > programs and a consistent interface?
>
> I might except a Linux PC doesn't have that consistant interface as yet.
>
It can have it.
> > Um, BTW, you do know that this consistence you seek is by no means
> > guaranteed under Windows, yes?
>
> I realise that, but most of what I use is pretty consistant.
>
Was that consistency there right out of the box or did you have to tweak
some of your applications?
> > > You may not like it, but the most popular platform always had more
> > > applications. It's naff in that respect, but that's life.
> >
> > Success = popular ?
>
> Seems to be.
>
In a way, you are correct. Success can be equal to popularity, but only
if the goal set was to be omnipresent.
If I were to set technical excellence as a goal for an application of
mine, success would only be achieved if it outperformed every other
similar application on the market.
Success is not a goal, it is a qualifier of a set goal.
> > "Success" is a relative word: it is basically meaningless unless you
> > know what was aimed for. One of the really good tricks of marketing and
> > advertising is turning relative words into absolute ones, thus creating
> > good-sounding, but meaningless battle-cries.
> >
> > "Windows is successful!" should be immediately followed by: "At what?"
> >
> > As it turns out, your reply appears to be: "At being popular".
>
> Witness the battle between Betamax and VHS. VHS is the inferior product
> but it's the one that won.
>
Won at what? Being the most sold, yes. Being the best, no. Betamax still
exists today, and it is used wherever quality outweighs volume shipping.
It might even be that in the long run the betamax suppliers are better
off: They don't need to compete in a teeth-and-claws market where you
need to ship a gazillion units to break even. They might in fact be in a
position where they can pretty much ask any price they want, because
they are - according to your definition - unsuccessfull.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:23:53 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > Autocad creates graphical outputs; OK, so they're vector-based, and it
> > doesn't "do" your granny's holliday pics, but it _is_ a graphics program
> > and a very popular one too. Autocad has always had the option to draw
> > and edit from a command-line.
>
> What kind of commands are in the CLI?
>
Anything.
You can perform any drawing, selecting, editing, filing, printing,
whatevering command with two-letter command lines, followed by optional
parameters (line length, angle measure, colour, line size...).
> > I've used two programs from Autodesk (makers of Autocad): Home, a
> > DOS-based subset of Autocad, aimed at - indeed - architectural drawings,
> > and 3D-Concepts, a Windows 3.x program for creating and editing
> > 3D-objects. Both were not only command-line enabled, but were in many
> > instances actually easier to use than with the mouse.
> >
> > So yes, I have edited graphics with a CLI and yes, it was easier than
> > with a mouse.
>
> I don't doubt you, I just find it hard to believe.
>
> How would you change one pixel from say red to black with the CLI?
>
[repeating myself, but...] Autodesk makes vector-oriented graphics
programs, aimed at technical users. In theory I could draw a box that
was one pixel in size and change its properties, but that's not how
vector-oriented programs work.
For a pixel-oriented program it would probably be tricky to do
command-line stuff up to pixel level, although there is PovRay, which
creates bitmaps, and is a command-line raytracer.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 7 Mar 2001 15:46:58 GMT
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>>> and certainly does not have any development tools.
>>
>>It has shared libraries.
>
>Shared libraries are not development tools. A developer might take
>advantage of existing shared libraries in a program, but that is a far cry
>from calling libraries "development tools".
Yes, I should have been more clear. The development tools are not part of
what comes on the Win9x CD. However, the APIs *are* developed in tandem
with the operating system, and an operating system with a good set of
APIs tends to offer developers a lot when it comes to writing applications.
The question I was addressing is "what is modern about Windows". While the
header files and compiler do not come on the Win9x CD, they do add value
to the platform from a users perspective, because they make it easy for
the developer to write user friendly applications.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 7 Mar 2001 15:51:29 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:35:36 GMT, chrisv wrote:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>The expressions are always priceless..
>>>
>>> What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
>>> ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
>>> the shelves?
>>
>>Weird. Do you always value your things based on how much money you can
>>spend on them?
>
>LOL! That's the first time I've seen someone has argued that a lack
>of apps is a GOOD thing! Keep up the good work, Joker!
He didn't say that at all.
In the Linux world, you don't have to spend enormous amounts of money to
obtain some decent applications.
Even if it's true that you can't get "Linux apps on the shelves" (it isn't!
Linux box sets ship with hundreds of applications), that does not imply
you can't get Linux apps.
I know, you can't get that warm and fuzzy feeling one gets from knowing
they've blown a lot of money, but you know, some of us can live without
it.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Do Windows developers settle?
Date: 7 Mar 2001 15:53:31 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:16:31 GMT, Brent R wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>It works in the entire Windows partition, not just it's own folder like
>Cygwin.
>
>It's not as easy to install as Cygwin, but (in reality) is anything
>worthwhile ever easy (especially in Windows)? I would agree that the
>Unix
>is a much better platform for development (but not for other things).
Cygwin is more or less a complete POSIX environment though ( or at least
it tries to be)
It's not terribly useful, I like to think of it as a UNIX migration path.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 7 Mar 2001 15:54:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>>
>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Edward Rosten wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > A true IQ test would have to involve pictures and patterns, and
>> > >> > perhaps have some mathematical basis, because these are the only
>> > >> > ideas that translate well all over the world.
>> > >>
>> > >> I don't believe there is a true IQ test. People are good at different
>> > >> thing.
>> > >
>> > > BULLSHIT.
>> > >
>> > > There is are VERY strong correlations between doing well on a
>> > > well-designed IQ test, and the ability to quickly learn and perform well
>> > > at any other randomly selected task. (Quickly as compared to the rate
>> > > at which an IQ 100 person [statistical mean] would learn).
>> >
>> > The only thing that IQ tests measure is how good you are at IQ tests.
>> >
>> > They put no emphasis on precision over speed, for instance.
>> >
>> > The kind of person that works slowly but precisely and creatively scores
>> > poorly in IQ tests.
>>
>> they also test for obedience
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>
>> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>> more even than death
>> - bertrand russell
> No I believe what Kulkis said. Why else would it take him so LONG to
> figure out that his .sig is unwanted, and that everyone has him on
> killfile as a result. It's his minuscule IQ.
> Now I just have to wait for Kulkis to respond with a lie on how large
> his IQ is (note to Aaron: it only tests effectively up to 130 or so, so
> don't make it a impossible #, like 25 billion).
You've shown your ignorance. Actually, there are over a dozen "legitimate"
iq tests.
IQ is intelligence quotient, mental age over chronoligical age, to over
simplify a little bit. The stanford binet series errors abruptly at
a chronological age of 14; higher ages must have their iq's extrapolated
from test results---on the stanford binet.
There are other tests, however, in which this extrapolation happens
at a larger age, or not at all. I am aware of at least three IQ tests
which can fairly reasonably measure iqs of up to 190 for almost
any age.
And the score at which the stanford binet begins to fall flat after age
14 is 140, not 130.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 7 Mar 2001 16:02:13 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 15:08:45 GMT, Brent R wrote:
>Anonymous wrote:
>>
I'll butt in here and say that IQ is certainly not a terribly reliable measure
of anything, but it's true that it correlates with a "intelligence", no matter
how you define "intelligence".
Note that the fact that it correlates doesn't mean it's accurate. There could
exist a genius (however you want to define that) with an IQ of 75, and it would
still be true that the median IQ of your group of "geniuses" is 150 (or
whatever).
In practice, it's unlikely that you'll find any sort of "genius" with an IQ
of under 100.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H Dziardziel)
Subject: Re: The Double Fucking ala MS...
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 16:12:26 GMT
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:57:48 -0800, snoopygates
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>w2k just came out and they haven't sat down to fix the bugs. Now they are
>forcing the new windows on us. When will it ever stop?
>
So how are "they forcing"? Who cares what 'they' come out with.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
