Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 19:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Pete Mullins")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (mlw)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Windows "speed" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows "speed" (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:10:41 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
13:25:50 -0400;
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Also his demonstrated instability and hostility towards the US government.
>> Officers must be loyal. aaron isn't.
>
>I'm loyal to the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.
>Anyone officer who demands that you swear your loyalty to HIM instead
>of the Constitution is a dangerous individual who should be put out of
>the military IMMEDIATELY.
>
>
>Are you saying that an officer should accept orders from a modern
>day Benedict Arnold, just because said officer is his superior?
>
>Loyalty without brains => police state, moron.
Are you saying an E5 has the power to disobey a lawful order because he
believes it conflicts with his private interpretation of the
Constitution?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Pete Mullins" <pmullin@>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:23:16 +0100
Regardless of how Word users look, they expect the documents that they
receive can be opened and intelligible. Since everyone uses Word, this can
usually be taken for granted. On the odd occasion that they receive a
document that does not originate from Word, of course it is great if the
document can be opened. The odd formatting error can be forgiven in this
case. But then it is a one-in-a-million occurrence.
--
____________________________
Pete Mullins
Email: pmullin@
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan
A Eeckels) wrote:
>
> >This experience has taught me that Word users don't seem
> >to mind "minor" formatting problems when opening third-party
> >documents.
>
> That's because they tend to look pretty crappy anyway, so you don't
normally
> notice.
>
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:25:51 -0400
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is why I think Darwin's theory does not apply to software
> > > development:
> > >
> > > 1. Biological evolution does _not_ look to the future (it cannot, for
> > > there is noone to do the looking), but builds up on the past. - Software
> > > development does nothing but look to the future (this has to be faster,
> > > that could be coded more efficiently...).
> >
> > Evolution is the selection of the "best" survivor for the current environment.
> > Assuming the environment is a steadily changing along a predictable pattern,
> > then changes now, based on natural selection, better prepare the survivors for
> > the future.
> >
> Nicely put, but wrong. "Predictable pattern" assumes an intelligence
> surveying the environment, but, since evolution is not controlled by
> intelligence, the changes in the environment are essentially random and
> will always be so.
A "predictable pattern" implies that an environment is slow to change, not
necessarily controlled. The Earth's temperature is rising, not quickly, but
slowly, in a predictable pattern.
Apply heat to a solid body, it will slowly and predictably rise in temperature
based on the amount of heat and the mass of the body. The Earth is like this.
It is a very large mass which is very hard to change.
>
> > This is, in fact, how evolution works. It is only when we have had drastic
> > changes that we have seen many species extinct within a small period of time.
> > Normally there is time for random traits to develop into recurring traits if
> > they allow a specimen to be more successful and reproduce more so than one
> > without.
> >
> It is now widely (or maybe not) assumed that evolution works in fact in
> a sort of "burst mode", due to how the environment changes: long periods
> of stability followed by short periods of drastic chaanges (of course,
> "long" and "short" are to be understood in the geological meaning).
Regardless of meaning, "bursts" happen in periods measured in thousands, if not
millions of years. These bursts actually prove my point, an initial shock is
applied to the ecosystem, there will be a slow change which happens over
thousands of years, or even millions, and new creatures develop.
Catastrophic events i.e. comets hitting the planet, wipe out species. After the
initial event, the ecology slowly works back to an equilibrium, during which
time evolution is hard at work.
> > >
> > > 2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
> > > it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
> > > programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
> > > he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
> > > it is going to be).
> >
> > This isn't really true either. A particular module of software, especially OSS,
> > can be guided by one person, but there are usually many people working on
> > software projects with their own views and feelings about what should be in it.
> >
> > Plus don't discount the users asking for features, randomly changing the
> > application to be more than it was before.
> >
> > Just look at the Linux kernel, I'd say it "evolved" it grew new features, it
> > has all but lost the Minux file system. It is a picture perfect example of
> > software evolution.
> >
> Still, evolution is an automatic mechanism, software is designed. I
> can't see how you are going to reason yourself out of that.
Do you know anything about chaos? If you take two sets of programmers, give
both sets the same design specifications, you will get two entirely different
products. People are random.
> > >
> > > 3. Biological evolution is never interested in the best possible
> > > solution, only in a solution that works sufficiently. - (I have to admit
> > > I got stuck here, because this is eerily reminiscent of how Windows
> > > "works") Software development should (see my previous remark) be
> > > interested in the best possible solution, to avoid needless future
> > > labour.
> >
> > I would go this far either. Biological evolution is based on competition for
> > reproduction. Good features win, better features often do better. Biological
> > evolution refines, over time, the species until they are very well adapted for
> > their environment. You can't say a cockroach is not an almost perfect creature.
> > Long after we humans die out, the near perfect cockroach will still be here.
> >
> If a cockroach were a perfect creature, it would not go "Splat!" if you
> trod on it.
Why do you think that? An immortal cockroach would not be perfect. Perhaps a
cockroach's position in the world is exactly what it is, and it seems perfectly
suited.
The cockroach has been around for longer than anything else, it is only your
view that something other than species survivability is important. That's all
evolution cares about.
It may be very perfect at being a food factory for other creatures. That
doesn't make it any less of a success, just not something I would want for my
life. It may be a happy and fulfilled cockroach which becomes dinner for a
beautiful bird. Giving its life for such a noble creature, happy indeed, lucky
cockroach!
> Evolution tends to pick the first solution that can solve a
> particular problem. Rarely this is the best possible solution, because
> if the _better_ solution works, there is no reason to keep investing to
> come up with the _best_ solution.
This isn't true either. Evolution often has many parallel solutions competing
for survival. Many times, competing solutions can coexist. How many types of
ants are there? How many types of birds? There are constant wars between birds,
insects, etc. All fighting for survival. Maybe in a thousand years, we'll lose
a species of ant.
>
> The idea of refinement over time would be correct, if the environment
> would keep changing in the same direction (if the temperature would drop
> constantly, we would see a constant refinement towards better-insulated
> organisms). However, the environment canoot be bothered with pleasing
> evolution, and it will do its own thing i.e. swing wildly into every
> possible direction.
You are forgetting competition between species, not just environmental factors.
In changing environments, many species are competing for the resources. Hunter
becomes hunted, others become food.
The environment does not change drastically all that often, and when it does it
often kills off many species.
>
> > >
> > > Now, if one insists on twisting Darwin's scientific theory into a
> > > philosophical system (for which it was never meant BTW), one might come
> > > up with a utopian construct (in the line of marxism) that said that
> > > software _ought_to_ develop according to the laws of natural selection.
> > > It'd be dead wrong, but one might fool a number of people for some
> >
> > Science and philosophy walk hand in hand. One can not realize that truths about
> > physical universe and not internalize them. Philosophy is what bridges
> > knowledge and understanding. A theory as profound as the origin of species must
> > generate a philosophy. One may not agree with it, nor even intend it's
> > creation, but it will exist.
> >
> It is very easy for me to realise the truths about the physical universe
> and not internalize them. The biological environment essentially shows
> me that the biggest bastard wins, yet I can choose to donate money to
> charity.
That isn't always true either. Smaller creatures, which can survive on less,
can live longer on less than larger creatures during hard times. (Seems
relevant these days.) Faster creatures can often outrun the larger ones. Slower
creatures typically use less energy and can be in areas where larger/faster
creatures can not exist due to a lack of food. Smarter creatures can outsmart
larger or more powerful ones. There are lots of different combinations of
features which aid success of a species.
Evolution is not a simple theory, it is quite complex. The "survival of the
fittest" is a fact. Understanding what is "fittest," is the hard part.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:23:39 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:54:09 -0400;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:50:25 -0500;
> >> >On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:27:22 -0500, someone claiming to be JS PL
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
> >> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >>> Off topic for this thread, but Max has claimed at least two
> >> >>> conversations with you re: a problem with IE which was solved by
> >> >>> replacement of a video card. Since he originally claimed it was me,
> >> >>> in spite of being corrected before (and since it is, after al, Max)
> >> >>> I'm inclined to take his recent version of the fantasy with a huge
> >> >>> grain of salt.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do you recall the threads he's babbling about?
> >> >
> >> >>I remember having a problem with a bad video driver causing screen
> >freezes a
> >> >>couple years ago, right about the time Win98SE came out. It was a
> >problem
> >> >>with a Viper V550 and WinSE which reared its ugly head most often while
> >IE
> >> >>was open. Changing the card out fixed the problem.
> >> >
> >> >As I thought: driver, not hardware, and not exclusively IE.
> >>
> >> He replaced the card; claiming now that he did so merely to replace the
> >> driver hardly supports his expertise, I'd say.
> >
> >That's because your not an expert I'd say. Here's what an expert does:
>
> Let me just say here that I'm very pleased you were dumb enough to get
> into this again.
>
> >Sees that there are random screen freezes. Knows from experience that screen
> >freezing is almost always due to a video card (hardware or driver). Also
> >knows from experience that he's looking at two choices A.) 30 minutes to 3
> >hours of troubleshooting the existing card and driver for a 50% chance of
> >fixing it at all. B.) 10 minutes to replace the card with a known good card
> >for a 99% chance it will be fixed for good. There might be some people who
> >choose A but the smart money is on B.
>
> No, an expert asks the first question anyone else would when you first
> notice a problem. You ask yourself "what changed?" This question you
> had answered in your very first post on the subject: you had installed
> IE5. Knowing from experience that these random screen freezes did not
> occur before you installed IE5, and knowing from your observation that
> they did occur after, it is worth considering that installing IE5 may
> have been the problem, had you any expertise in the matter at all. You
> bought a brand new video card, who's drivers obviously did not make
> apparent the bug which nevertheless still exists in IE5 (in reality, we
> know it may not, but only because it is not possible to distinguish
> between IE5 and Windows, once it is installed), and then loudly
> proclaimed your cluelessness on alt.destroy.microsoft.
>
> How on earth can replacing the video card because IE5 screwed up your
> system *possibly* be anything but IE5 being crappy, and you being
> clueless?
>
The effect I noticed after IE5 installation on my laptop, was that the
cards of the solitary game I used to play, had become transparent during
their movement, letting see through the backgroud. Subsequent disinstall
of IE5 didn't remove the visual change.
I couldn't believe that there was a relation, so I cross checked with a
desktop at work. I verified that solitaire cards were opaque, I
installed and uninstalled IE5, and cards were now transparent. The
effect was pleasant, so I didn't complain too much, but I had some
feeling of a situation very far from "clean".
--
Giuliano Colla
*** The best way to convince another is
to poke on his head with a club until he's
convinced. - J. Stalin (attrib. to) ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:28:43 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 20:17:48 GMT;
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:34:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Jeffrey Siegal in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001
>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>> but using this trick he has convinced himself
>>>> that time travel has a bearing on copyright law.
>>>
>>>Never mind. Sorry for barging in.
>>
>>No, please, barge in more often. I didn't mean to offend you, I was
>>just explaining the confusion. Believe me, this is not an exclusive
>>conversation; if it were only me and Les, neither of us would bother,
>>for sure.
>
>I think your characterization of the argument as being about time travel
>is a gross misrepresentation.
It was a relatively flippant closing remark. All by itself it would
have to be wrong to be "grossly misrepresentative", and its not. Les'
thought experiment requires somebody to go into the past and write
software which existed but was somehow not written.
>The real point is that since the statute
>defines derivative works as being based on one or more pre-existing works,
>a program by definition cannot be derivative of a given library if it exists
>before the library is even written.
Other than very painfully extended special cases, the idea, as I
remarked, is ludicrous.
>Apparently you don't believe it to be possible to write such a program,
>but most others know better. For example I can write a program that can
>use currently existing gimp plug-ins. Assuming I write my program
>correctly, it could also use gpl'd plug-ins that have yet to be written.
Well, you might get lucky, but if your goal is to support an interface
(gimp plug-ins) that has only ever existed previously in a GPL product,
writing such a product would certainly bring up the question of whether
your work is derivative of the GPL work. I know precisely where this
division lies, don't worry, and I know that it seems non-sensical, at
the same time, from a different perspective, that one could infringe by
using an interface specification. Still, the question is not whether
you are infringing on the interface specification, but on the
copyrighted works which cause it to exist.
This is the same recurring issue I've argued Les to ground on several
times; there is indeed a conflict between software as software, and
software as copyrightable works. That would ALL have to sorted out
before you could use any conflict in the concepts to try to undermine
the GPL, I think. Les insists there are no conflicts, or that they have
all been previously worked out, so he's merely waiting for a *single*
court case to challenge the GPL, and he's probably quite sure that at
that time it will all fall apart like a house of cards.
He might be right, but if he is, then it means the US is no longer a
very free society, once information can be owned.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:30:22 +0400
In article <9a9vg7$qo7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Taavi Hein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Can someone give me a web address for Konqueror?
>
konqueror is part of KDE 2.x - http://www.kde.org. There is also a
separate web page for konqueror - http://www.konqueror.org/
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:27:11 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
> >>
> > I won't argue that some of it is indeed 'crapware', and I'm not a MS
> > apologist by any means. But I.E. 6 that's in Whistler Beta 2 is an
Internet
> > experience that makes anything under Linux pale in comparison. I know.
I'm
> > running it. --security issues aside (-:
>
> How so? What does it give you that IE 5 and Linux with, what Netscape,
> don't?
I would like to know that too.
Although, comparing IE (any version above 4) to Linux + Netscape isn't very
fair, Netscape (especially -6 version) can't hold a candle to IE.
Try Linux with other some other browser.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 00:40:51 +0200
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Barry Manilow wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that Windows
> > > > (the NT kernel) is unreliable.
> > > >>
> > > We weren't talking about server issues here. We are talking about Home
> > > use stand alone systems. Go to any small town office store or whatever
> > > and all you'll see for sale are Win98 or WinMe based systems. By
> > > reviewing public complaints on microsoft.Win98.performance ng I find all
> > > too often people complaining about how their brand new 1Ghz PIII starts
> > > getting slower .. and ....... slower and.............. slower each day.
> >
> > How slow does it get? So slow as to be depressing and disconcerting?
> > It's the damn Registry, man. You can put Visual Basic on a 233 with
> > NT and watch it slow down to where it feels like a 386-20.
> >
> > > The MSCEs reccomend defragging, scanreg /fix, and scanreg /opt to bring
> > > it back up to snuff once a week. Others suggest a monthly re-install of
> > > the O/S.
> >
> > Ee gads. That is awful! The reinstall is the only thing that works I
> > bet.
> >
> > I find this a very bad solution to an O/S that should have
> > > been fixed a long time ago.
> >
> > That is where a monopoly gets you.
> > >
> > > Dave Cutler designed the first versions of NT using multiple ring levels
> > > of the i386.
> > > Later MS decided to move most processes to ring 0 along with the kernel
> > > and video.
> > > MS did this to increase speed,
> >
> > Well, it gives the illusion of speed but at the price of crippling all
> > background apps. And supposedly it made it prettier somehow. This
> > was one of the issues that led to the fallout with IBM. IBM insisted
> > on keeping that stuff out of the kernel. Especially the GDI and GUI.
> >
> > VMS uses 6 levels of isolation. This one is
> > > very stable.
> >
> > These 6 layers make it stable or secure? Or both?
>
> Both. It keeps processes of varying importance from killing the kernel
> and lower importance processes from killing processes that support the
> system. Usaully an errant process will just get "access violation
> error".
>
It does much more: it also provides stable applications. A good
protection mechanism kills an application whenever it attempts something
illegal, even if it's harmless in the current situation. This makes it
possible to detect errors in the early stages of development, and
increases the likelihood of delivering bug free applications. One of the
elements for judging the quality of an OS is also his capability as far
as debugging is concerned. This of course can be judged only by
developers, but end users get the result. If third party drivers, or
third party applications harm the system, it means that the debugging
capabilities are insufficient.
--
Giuliano Colla
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:55:55 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Our XO said, "Kulkis is referring to Sun Tzu. Maybe if you knew
> > > what he knows, you wouldn't be asking these questions."
> >
> > WOW!!! A compliment from a Lieutenant! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I've also been personally commended by a 3-star.
And this is a big deal how? So have thousands upon thousands of us.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:57:48 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Tell us again about your belief that the Germans, Japanese, North
Koreans,
> > > Chinese, Viet Cong and North Vietnamese *ALL* refrained from ever
shooting
> > > at any of our medics.
> >
> > YAWN
>
> Yeah, it's no fun being reminded of your past indiscretions...
Yawn again. You're such an idiot you can't even keep your lies straight,
wannabe.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 22:59:07 GMT
"Freakster"
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > No...but the penalty for treason still includes death by firing squad.
> > And if it's wartime, drawing-and-quartering is ALSO a valid penalty.
> >
>
> No it isn't. Please cite.
KuKuNut is an idiot. He hasn't a clue about either the MCM or the UCMJ.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:09:50 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> financial problems at the tiem =/= academic inability.
You mean "KuKuNut's financial problems = KuKuNut cashing fraudulent checks".
Still no degree though.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
