Linux-Advocacy Digest #658, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (abraxas)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Steve Mading)
Re: C2 question (abraxas)
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Sitaram Chamarty)
Re: which OS is best? (Derek Currie)
Re: Giving up on NT ("mr_organic")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
("mr_organic")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Bill Godfrey)
Re: Giving up on NT (nohow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 16 Mar 2000 22:10:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
>> >around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
>> >running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
>>
>> Except for the part about running on Solaris, AIX, VMS, Linux, Amiga, and
>> just about every other OS ever made.
>> Hey there are good editors on Windows, some of them are even free (as in
>> beer...I like PFE). But all the world is _not_ Windows Chad.
> You know, it seems like you guys dwell more on this than anyone else does.
> We're simply comparing functionality in text editors. Emacs is definately
> feature rich, don't get me wrong, but it takes a PhD to get them to work,
> let alone master them.
I dont have a PhD. In fact, I dont have any kind of college degree at all.
Emacs does exactly what I want it too. It isnt terribly difficult to learn
how to use, but one must posess a DESIRE to learn it if this is to be the
case.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 16 Mar 2000 22:17:21 GMT
Mike Kenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I think the goal of ISO-9000 is a consistant result, not nessesarily the
: best result. The goal is to have the company survive when the hotshot
: developer decides to leave.
The theory behind the iso9000 stuff, as it was told to me by the
QA guy who was in charge of it where I used to work, is this:
If your company has a buggy process that causes problems, it will
never get noticed by anyone with the authority to change it unless
people are forced to follow the bad process to the letter. As long
as people are allowed to 'fudge it' and ignore the official company
policy, they can keep getting work done with the bad policy in place.
(Which means the bad policy is never fixed.) When a policy is not
working, and iso9000 is in place, they get noticed, and the "right
people" can be called in to draft a new policy to replace it.
Well, that's the theory. In practice it isn't so nice. In practice
it ends up trying to codify processes that are more efficient when
they are left flexible. It's not possible to come up with a checklist
that tells you how to write software, for example. You can only
take so much of "official policy on how to write a for-loop" before
you start pulling your hair out in frustration.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: 16 Mar 2000 22:23:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8argtl$1d47$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > So that would allow you to have more than one group have permissions to a
>> > file? What if you wanted 3 groups?
>>
>> I think that groups work slightly differently than youre thinking....Theres
>> no reason to have three groups have access to a file at the exclusion of
>> the rest, you simply add the individual logins that you want to have access
>> to the file to the group to which you are granting access.
> So I'd have to create a different group for each set of permissions I wanted
> to create? That's rediculous.
You probably would have carried a bit more weight with this opinion if youd
spelled 'ridiculous' correctly.
>> The backhanded techniques are nessesary when youre talking about an operating
>> system like unix. You should have seen it BEFORE sudo. It was an enormous
>> pain in the ass to do everything that Sudo does by hand.
> So why don't they just get out of the 1970's and catch up to what everyone
> else is doing and has proven to be the best way of doing things? The TSEC
> isn't stupid, and they're not fly-by-night. They know what they're talking
> about.
Yes they do. I wonder if you understand that there are unix-like operating
systems that handle file permissions and accessability in a very similar way
that have B series classifications? This is a much more complex issue than
I think you're crediting.
> Isn't it about time Un*x got out of the stone ages?
You seem to have some kind of thing against unix. I'm not entirely sure where
it comes from, but it most certianly isnt warranted. I dont have anything
against windows in particular--I'm not attacking you or any operating system
here. I'm simply offering some information about the way things work.
>> And there are utilities beyond Sudo that give you naturally even finer grained
>> access (with easier to understand conf files too).
> But it's still a hack upon a hack. Two wrongs don't make a right.
You've just discredited every living programmer in the world; I wonder if you
realize that.
>> I daresay that if you are going to define linux by distribution, it wouldnt
>> be too terribly difficult to come up with a distribution that would earn a C2
>> readily. All youd need is a few good programmers---again because its all a
>> matter of reorganizing existing functions. (which are more often than not
>> themselves a reorganization of existing functions).
> But, you'd have to incorporate DAC and several other things, which would result
> in the creation of a "Trusted Linux" which would be a branch from the main
> kernel path.
There are already linuxes that branch from the main kernel branch; this would
simply be another one. It is also not an altogether new idea. If you have the
urge, take a look at some mach-kernel whitepapers and see what its up to these
days.
I think that the reason that no one has seriously attempted a "trusted"
distribution is that the market simply doesnt exist yet. When it does exist
(and I believe it will), such a distribution will certianly come to be. It
isnt rocket science. Hell, rocket science isnt even rocket science.
I think that its likely that NT's C2 classification has little or nothing to
do with its market success. I think that a few more likely reasons for its market
success are its incredible ease-of-use, its ridiculously [sic] shallow learning
curve, its software availability and its ontological ubiquity.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 16 Mar 2000 22:34:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:03:36 -0600,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you learn
> > it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor out
> > there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything I
> > do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
> > web-surfing and news reading.
> A matter of hours?
> I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN to
type?
I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN to
use my mouse? I *KNOW* how to use my mouse. BTW, what's that
"click right" and "click left" stuff?
"No, Sir, please put the mouse back on the TABLE!"
> I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
> around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
> running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
You've already been refuted, so ...
If you want a trivial primitive editor, use pico or notepad.
> However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable that
> I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
> things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little training.
So little training does not include some learning on your side?
Well, in that case you just labled yourself a luser.
> This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI. I don't want to start
> that debate, but you have to admit, that, in this one specific case, GUIs
> are just simply more intuitive and have a lot less learning curve.
Those who give up functionality for experienced users in exchange
for a shorter, shallower learning curve neither deserve the
functionality nor the shallow learning curve. And they have have
to relearn each time they need to upgrade to something more
powerful.
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 16 Mar 2000 22:40:55 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:34:18 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your original assertion (to which I replied):
>> >themselves. They were like the old COBOL coders I used to know,
>> >simply plugging in code chunks by rote and staring slack-jawed at the
>> >screen when something went wrong.
What you say now (which I agree with for the most part, oh by the
way you may want to get your blood pressure checked <grin>):
>COBOL is a hideous language and has ruined more promising hackers
>than BASIC ever did. It is a bloated, over-verbose mess that
>is completely unsuitable for any kind of interactive use. It shows
>its roots as a batch-only, data-processing language which was
>designed by committee and implemented mainly by suits who didn't
>know any better.
>
>Porting COBOL to the PC was a perversion for which MicroFocus and
>IBM should burn in hell.
There's no connection between the two.
Nothing you say above seems to justify vilifying COBOL programmers
as equivalent to Windows programmers in terms of "staring
slack-jawed at the screen when something went wrong". The
language may be shit, but most of them know what they are doing.
Anyway - 'nuff said, and apologies to the rest for the OT stuff.
------------------------------
From: Derek Currie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:43:45 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob
Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > MAC? Mac OS is slow, (maybe less) buggy, takes long to load, has
> > > > all
> > > > sorts of problems running old 680x0 software, I've never checked
> > > > but I'm
> > > > sure its just as big as Windoze...
>
> Don't forget no protected memory and no preemptive multitasking.
The time has come to talk about WHICH Mac OS you are talking about:
Mac OS 9, current version of the 'Classic' Mac OS: No protected memory,
but it handles memory as well as Window 95 and 98. The 'protected
memory' in Win95 and Win98 is a joke.
Mac OS 9 indeed does NOT have preeptive multitasking. 5 stars for using
the right terms! It has 'Cooperative Multitasking' which is certainly
effective for the vast majority of uses, but it is slower, less
efficient, and does not allow such 'GeeWhiz' gizmo demos as playing more
than one QuickTime Movie at a time with much success.
Mac OS anything: was NEVER 'slow' relative to any form of Windows.
Windows takes far longer to load. I know. I use BOTH. I'd be willing to
be what you witnessed was someone who had loaded up the Mac OS with
extensions, which DO slow down startup since the all have to be read
into memory. PC users typically do not add extensions into their system.
Mac OS anything: There are no problems running 680xx software on PowerPC
machines. The speed is excellent. You are quoting typical PC Clown
mythology drivel. Get real.
Mac OS X Server: HAS REAL protected memory, drastically better than
Windows 95 or 98. It actually WORKS. No 'Blue Screen Of Death' horrors.
Mac OS X Server: Has preemptive multitasking. I have done demos where I
have had 17 QuickTime Movies all playing with minimal frame dropout. The
efficiency gain is rather remarkable.
> I agree, in a way, but saying that DOS is great is like saying a
> guy on crutches is a great athlete cuz he never falls down. DOS
> never crashes though, that's for sure. Windows was a downgrade!
I keep hearing that. I know I despise DOS. Its this antiquated little OS
that Megalosoft BOUGHT, then used as the basis for their GUI OS
'innovations.' DOS was never intended to be a GUI OS, thus the PAIN IN
THE BUTT problems with Windows. Thus my continually swearing at the user
hostility of Windows 95/98, not to mention NT.
:-D
--
Derek Currie, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://www.frontiernet.net/~derekc/beastbox>
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:11:00 -0600
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8arj3p$f28$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text
editors
> > >around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
> > >running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
> >
> > Except for the part about running on Solaris, AIX, VMS, Linux, Amiga,
and
> > just about every other OS ever made.
>
> > Hey there are good editors on Windows, some of them are even free (as in
> > beer...I like PFE). But all the world is _not_ Windows Chad.
>
> You know, it seems like you guys dwell more on this than anyone else does.
>
> We're simply comparing functionality in text editors. Emacs is definately
> feature rich, don't get me wrong, but it takes a PhD to get them to work,
> let alone master them.
>
> So, simply because it runs on a bunch of platforms it's a good program?
>
> I could write a "Hello World!" app that runs on just about every platform,
> so is my program more functional than another application?
>
> No. I'm simply stating that Vi, Emacs, et al are incredibly
overcomplicated
> for a not-that-complicated task. For some reason, it seems to be a schtick
> for Un*x and un*x-like OSen that they must take a relatively simple task
> and complicate the hell out of it so as to discourage anyone but the most
> die-hard person from using it.
>
> No, Bob, text editing DOESN'T have to be this difficult. Cutting and
pasting
> DOESN'T have to involve 20 key strokes!.
>
> -Chad
>
Chad, you're a luser. An absolutely prototypical one. If one were to look
up
the word 'luser' in the Jargon File, your picture would be next to it.
People
like you are part of why Windows is such a disaster in so many ways. Emacs
was
not driven by marketroids chasing corporate dollars; Emacs was written *by*
programmers *for* programmers. FWIW, there used to be a really good DOS
editor
called BRIEF (by Borland?) that had many of the same benefits as Emacs. I
know
Windows coders who, to this very day, use their 10-year-old copies of BRIEF.
Editors are deceptively tricky to get right. That's because editing text is
tricky, especially if you're a professional writer or coder. You'll be
lucky
to get rudimentary search-replace capabilities in Windows editors, and most
of
them barf on files much larger than a couple of megabytes. Emacs, on the
other
hand, can easily handle *huge* files and perform sophisticated operations on
them.
You can use regular expressions, macros, and even whole LISP programs to
massage
your text in *just* the right way. You can automate cut/copy/paste
operations in
a way no Windows editor allows. (And it doesn't take 20 keystrokes -- it
takes
exactly three. And you can do it all from the home-row; no jerking around
with
the mouse!)
I'm serious, Chad -- get a copy of Emacs for Windows NT, get the O'Reilly
book
"Using Emacs", and spend a few hours schooling yourself. You'll be
flabbergasted
at how much more productive you can be with a decent editor.
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:17:14 -0600
"Koan Kid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8arjgg$rfe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Michael Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake
thusly:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The information is all out there. You don't need squat from Apple.
> > If you really want a QuickTime clone either copylefted or open
> > sourced, knock off the whining, get off your butt, and do it. Show
> > us what a totally kewl coder you are.
>
> > The world doesn't owe you a living. Others who own things (even if
> > you don't agree with the idea of ownership) can do with them what
> > they want. You can do what you want with what you create.
>
> > It's up to you.
>
> And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in the
> world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
> Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware advocates--you
> know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching
about
> when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
> every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a
CD-R
> for their "archives".
>
> *sigh*
>
> Pardon my rant.
>
> KK
Nope -- I feel the same way. The Lesstif project is a great example; rather
than bitch and moan that Motif was proprietary (or *in addition to* bitching
and moaning that Motif was proprietary), these guys went off and knocked off
a great clone of the system. Now Lesstif is probably installed on more
systems than Motif itself! Samba is another example -- the Samba team
reverse-engineered a lot of the tech because they couldn't get the time
of day from M$.
Open Source software can't just be about the easy stuff -- we have to buckle
down and tackle the really hard projects to make it work.
------------------------------
From: Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:08:17 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Indeed, I hope (and am reasonably certain) that Moore's Law will make
> it possible and beneficial to start to do at least some kinds of
> system work in a language much safer than C.
Use a standard library where time_t is a 64 bit signed integer (the new
C standard requires such an integer type) and keep using C. No need to
change languages.
Bill, enniuum.
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:08:06 -0800
On 16 Mar 2000 20:20:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:03:36 -0600, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
>>around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
>>running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
>
>Except for the part about running on Solaris, AIX, VMS, Linux, Amiga, and
>just about every other OS ever made.
>
>Hey there are good editors on Windows, some of them are even free (as in
>beer...I like PFE). But all the world is _not_ Windows Chad.
>
>
>>There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
>>doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
>>master them in Emacs anyhow.
>
>>I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs, which
>>is an equally likely case.
>
>So, what you're saying is that you have no idea what Emacs can do and
>probably don't even know this "TextPad" that well. But, hey, you are THE
>MAN and you are here to Educate! The! Heretics! so you're not going to
>let a mere lack of knowledge stand in the way of your declaring that
>NOBODY should need to learn the advanced features of an editor, not even
>programmers or writers who make their living sitting in front of an editor
>all day since YOU don't see the need.
>
>You're a buffoon Chad.
Boy do you ever got that right. It's the constant "I don't know
either the tools, technology, methodology, etc what I'm advocating for
or against but I'm the expert" that makes him look like a total ass.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
