Linux-Advocacy Digest #673, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Jonathan W Hendry)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Daniel Tso)
Re: Debian Potato release? (Paul Kimoto)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Tim Kelley)
Re: which OS is best? (Mike)
Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (mr_organic)
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Debian Potato release? (Tim Kelley)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Tim Kelley)
Re: Offtopic (Tim Kelley)
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Mark Hamstra)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: 17 Mar 2000 15:26:23 -0600
In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2000 14:02:27 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> ...and Sorenson has exclusively licenced them to apple.
>>> As far as cinepak goes, cinepak is quite available and
>>> has been for some time.
>>
>>
>>So quit whining, quit bitching, quit suggesting that your
>>rights are somehow being trampled because you're unable to
>>access a *luxury* item, and write some damn code!
> What is this assinine fixation you have with code. This isn't
> a 'code' issue. It's a PATENT and TRADE SECRET issue. That's
> why you can't point out an example of someone else that has
> produced a sorenson codec implementation and why some 3rd party
> willing to take my money hasn't obliged my interest.
Because they haven't tried, because the coded already exists
on the major platforms, and there isn't enough paying demand on
other platforms?
Besides, what makes you think they *have* to?
>>
>>Again, if open-source development is as powerful as some claim,
>>why hasn't a clean-room version of the Sorenson codec been written?
> Add one assinine assertion to another...
> Do you have any idea what it would take to reverse engineer
> a video encoding scheme. Unless you do, you have no business
> whining that such a feat should have been achieved already.
Okay, then write a better codec.
>>
>>In the meantime, go watch Willy Wonka and see which of the
>>characters you most resemble.
> Go fuck yourself, corporate bootlicker.
"Oi Want An Oompa-Loompa *NOW*"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Tso)
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:31:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
>>
>> Beos? Multimedia is it's game.. Could very well be a challenger.
>> FreeBSD? Incorporating some obvious server security features that
>
>BSD is by no means a new kid on the block. It is about the sabe age as
>System III (I think), but BSD in general is older than Linux and
>Windows.
It would depend on what you mean by "BSD". The BSD's started with
Version 6 Unix I believe, on the PDP-11, and thus predate System III by
a few years. (System III came after Version 7).
However the most influential BSD was probably 4.2BSD because it
had the fast filesystem and the networking/sockets stuff. That was circa
1982 and postdates System III by a couple of years. 4.2BSD was more or
less contemporary with the first release of System V. (System IV was only
released internally to the Bell System).
But user land BSD stuff like vi, finger and w were presenting in
the BSD 2.X for PDP-11's in the late 1970's.
Cheers,
Dan Ts'o, 212-327-7671, FAX: 212-327-7671
The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Ave. Box 138
New York, NY 10021
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Debian Potato release?
Date: 17 Mar 2000 16:40:30 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mr_organic wrote:
> Just wondering when Debian Potato is due for formal release.
>
> Anybody know for sure? I didn't see anything definite on
> Debian's website.
The easiest way to follow the progress of Debian
development is to read the Debian Weekly News at
<http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/current/issue/>.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:40:39 -0600
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Mr. Rupert" wrote:
> >
> > > > According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 Professional may hang after you
> > > > install Microsoft IntelliPoint 2.2. Microsoft says that pressing
> > > > CTRL-ALT-DELETE will not help. To resolve this problem, Microsoft says you
> > > > have to reinstall Windows 2000 Professional.
> > >
> > > This one is a real beaut and will forever keep Microsoft OSs in the Mickey
> > > Mouse league.
> >
> > Misleading and totally untrue. You don't have to reinstall at
> > all, what you have to do is pick through the registry for 70+
> > hours looking for the right things to delete.
>
> LOL
>
> And then apply 'Add' access to all users who would ever want to use it
> to the System32 directory.
>
> It's simple, really.
yeah, I mean some of those registry strings make the code to "dc"
look tame in comparison. Masters of sed cry when looking at the
registry. That's really bad.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike <dsflf@#adfdafalfdjl.com>
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: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 21:47:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Derek
Currie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
Actually NT has no DOS in it other than a dos emulator. However that
doesn't negate your point about Windows being user hostile. For PC's
give me a good working copy of BeOS or Linux any day compared to
Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 17 Mar 2000 20:50:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I posted a rant a few days ago about the cluelessnes displayed by many
Windows developers, and the issue has been percolating in my mind ever
since. Is it *possible* for a Windows-only programmer to truly
embrace the hackish spirit? What does the term "hacker" mean, anyhow?
For a good grounding, the curious reader should consult some
background material: "Hackers", by Steven Levy, which covers the early
days of SAIL and MIT's AI lab ; the Jargon File, maintained by Eric
Raymond; and "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" by Neal
Stephenson. "Open Sources", published by O'Reilly last year, is also
very good.
It should be clear that hackers, first and foremost, know their own
history. They have a sense of people who came before them and who
helped create a culture with its own customs, language, and ceremonies.
Most Windows coders I know aren't even *aware* of the Jargon File;
they have no idea such a thing exists. Few even know the names of
Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond; fewer still the names of Bill Joy,
Marshall Kirk McKusick, or other pioneers of the field. They know who
Bill Gates is, but not Gary Kildall, who might have won that long-ago
IBM contract for the PC operating system had things turned out a bit
differently. A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore
driver-writers and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth
"Programming Windows" book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion
Book, the Demon Book, or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those
books are, or where they can be found.)
My point here is that Windows programmers are most often careerists
who only want to get on the gravy train. This is not a bad thing; we
all have to make a living. But many if not most of these folks do not
learn the most rudimentary aspects of software or system design; they
have no skills at debugging complex systems; and they are trained to
use "packaged" solutions rather than figure out things for themselves.
Few of them know how to write common algorithms or solve common
problems; ask an average VC++ coder to whip up a custom quicksort
algorithm or doubly-linked list, and all you're likely to get in
return is a blank stare. These programmers harm the entire trade
because they give us a bad name -- they produce shitty, unstable code
and have no real ability to do otherwise.
Now, this kind of thing happens on Unix,too (probably more often than
it should!). But as old Unix hackers have known for a long time,
peer-review is one of the best ways to get good, solid code. It
promotes correct design and good coding practices. And over time it
leads to best-of-breed software -- Apache, Sendmail, Emacs, gcc, mutt,
etc. Bad code happens but it dies out quickly; the evolutionary
environment of Open Source assures that only the best-adapted
survives.
It's no accident that version-churn on Windows is continuous. Windows
software is feature-driven; stability and security is of secondary
(and often tertiary) concern. New "features" are integrated without
much thought as to their overall impact on the system; often these
features are included even when the vendor *knows* they will cause
problems. Active Directory is once such "feature" -- Microsoft
assures us that it works fine...as long as you have a Windows-only
network. Introduce Novell or Unix servers into the mix, or mix in NDS
and Unix-based DNS/BIND implementations, and you're asking for bad
trouble. Microsoft never admitted that the old domain-based
administration model was broken, either; they insisted it was fine
right up until they replaced it with Active Directory. *Then* they
admitted that it might have been a little broken.
I blame a lot of this on the whole mindset of Windows programmers.
They are never taught precepts that are second-nature to most Unix
programmers -- that stability and "correctness" are not features, but
core assumptions from which all else must flow. Windows coders love
GUI screens, and love messing around with COM/DCOM, but have no real
idea how most of this stuff works at a lower level. I've seen Visual
C++ programmers who don't really know C++ at all -- they've never used
anything but an IDE, so they have no idea how to use the preprocessor,
tweak the compiler/linker, or just ditch the IDE altogether and invoke
the compiler from the commandline. ("Not the CLI!" they shriek, and
hide their eyes.)
The attitude fostered by Microsoft -- that programming can be "easy"
and "intuitive" -- has nurtured an entire generation of programmers
who are sloppy, careless, and short-sighted. Part of this is due to
the tools they use, but part is also their lack of training in *real*
programming. They are not taught to design first and code later; they
are not taught to code around data structures and not the other way
around; they are not taught to debug. And this is why Windows is
flooded with millions of lines of badly-written code.
Most of the really good hackers I know (I don't consider myself one
yet, but I'm working on it) learned their craft on Unix. Even if they
spend their days crafting software for Windows NT, these hackers
harbor a secret love for Unix. Even good Windows programmers who have
never used Unix -- a purely speculative animal; I have never met one
-- must know they are missing something vital. To hack is to attempt
to understand the inner workings of a thing and bend it to your will;
it is to move beyond eye-candy and focus on the engine.
But a programmer out there might reasonably say, "I use Windows
because I like it and I am productive with it; I don't want to learn a
different operating system I'll never use." This is reasonable...but
wrongheaded. Good hackers usually have experience on a multitude of
architectures -- from mainframes down to handhelds. They may not be
experts in all of them, but they are conversant. They can contrast
and compare approaches to certain problems and choose the one that
best fits a given situation. Oftentimes a bug will show itself on one
platform and not another, even given the exact same piece of code --
this even happens in Windows when porting from Win98 to WinNT and
vice-versa. Oftentimes this illustrates not just a bug in the code,
but a bug in the *approach* -- the programmer may have made certain
assumptions that are not valid on other platforms. (This is a fault
that Windows coders almost universally share.)
In the Open Source world, "good enough" often isn't. The enormous
popularity of Linux in recent years has given rise to a floodtide of
mediocre (and often outright *bad*) code, but it is to the community's
credit that this software disappears in short order. It is
peer-review in action -- if software sucks, it dies. If it has value,
it is enhanced and debugged and survives. It is not driven by
marketing, but by *need* -- either by end-users for a given product,
or by programmers for a particular tool. Windows software, on the
other hand, does not exhibit this trait. Crappy software stubbornly
lives on, generation after generation, driven by the vendor's need for
revenue. The only part of the Windows world that partially escapes
this fate is the "Shareware" world, where sometimes products morph
from merely okay into truly excellent products (TeraTerm pro is a good
example of this).
Windows is not, technically, a bad platform. Like any other OS, it
has good points and bad points. The problem with Windows is that it
reflects Microsoft's need for *control* -- control over developers and
over end-users. Microsoft needs developers, but they don't want you
mucking about with "infrastructure", so they give you sugarcoated APIs
like COM/DCOM, ODBC, TAPI, MAPI and all the rest. They (kind of)
work, but they also hide a lot of critical detail from the programmer,
and when a program fails, it's difficult or impossible to find out
why. Constrast this with Linux or *BSD, where if a problem develops,
you can trace back through every single piece of code if you have to,
and locate the problem. Even if the fault exists in the kernel
itself, you can either fix it yourself or submit a patch to the kernel
maintainers. But this flexibility comes at a price -- a programmer
has to *know how* to do all these things. Debugging is at least as
important a talent as knowing how to code, but among Windows
programmers this is almost a lost art.
It is possible to be a programmer without being a hacker, but I don't
know why anyone would want to. Programming, as I have said before, is
as much an art as a craft, and most good programmers are like artists
in that they take enormous pride in their work. The consider good
code to be an end in itself, not simply a vehicle to personal wealth.
I have to wonder how much better software would be if more Windows
coders would take this philosophy to heart.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 17 Mar 2000 21:58:11 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 18:55:45 GMT, Ian Mac Lure wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 02:27:35 GMT, Christopher Browne wrote:
> I have no idea what property goes for in rural Ireland though.
I'm from Australia. WHen I lived there a 3 yrs ago, I could get a place
about 1k from the middle of the city (Melbourne)for $54 per week ( ie $108
total for a two bedroom apartment ) Keep in mind that this is Australian
dollars ( so it's about $75/week US )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian Potato release?
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:59:31 -0600
mr_organic wrote:
>
> Just wondering when Debian Potato is due for formal release.
>
> Anybody know for sure? I didn't see anything definite on
> Debian's website.
Actually it's "Woody" I think, and I've been following the debian
news and there has been any statements about a release, but it's
getting real soon now.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:07:09 -0600
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You need to put down that giant crack pipe you've been smoking and take
> a look at the market. Linux has grown so enormously in the last couple
> of years because Windows apps *are not* superior, especially on the
> server side. Windows is a buggy, obscure, badly-designed mess.
Wait. You're claiming that Linux apps of several years ago are superior to
all windows apps, and this is why Linux is growing?
I think you're the one with the crack pipe. Linux is growing because of a
philosophy, not because the quality is better. It is getting better all the
time, but the quality is not the reason it's growing.
> Visual C++ runs on Windows and *only* on Windows. GCC has been ported to
> nearly every computer I can think of (and probably more that I've never
> heard of). Furthermore, Visual C++ is inseperable from its atrocious
> IDE and MFC underpinnings, both of which are disasters. Molest me not
> with your idiotic Visual C++ maunderings. Windows programmers with a
> clue use Borland C++ Builder (or Cygwin and GCC!).
Visual C++ has a command line compiler, which is called by the IDE. You
don't need to use the IDE or MFC to use this. You don't seem to know what
you're talking about.
> If you think Office and Internet Exploiter are great products, feel free
> to suffer with them for the rest of your miserable, drone-like life. We
> want something better. If we don't like StarOffice (I don't), we use Abi
> Word or WordPerfect for word-processing, Gnumeric or Wingz for
spreadsheets,
> and so on. And *our* software is Free; we didn't have to rip a CD from a
> Warez board because we couldn't afford the usurious fees M$ charges for
> Office.
Not all of it is free, especially if used commercially. QT costs in excess
of $1000 for commercial use, and that's just a GUI toolkit.
> > which did simply exited if the condition occurred. Even the X Windows
> > server does not properly handle failed allocations, and simply exits
> > (bringing down the entire desktop along with it) when the condition
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> but doesn't crash the whole OS, as happens with Windows
What exactly is the difference between the OS crashing, and X crashing? In
both cases you will lose all the open apps and the work you were doing with
no chance of saving it.
> For someone whose programming knowledge is as limited as your own, I'd
> be a little careful accepting anything you have to say at face value.
> I'd be willing to bet that your reading of the code was as losing as
> your other programming efforts.
Or as "losing" as your knowledge of VC++?
> You know, according to you, Unix *ought* to be more crashy than Windows.
> And yet, if you look at any of the uptime monitors, Unix beats Windows
> into a cocked hat. Unix has proven itself over the years to be an
> extremely stable and well-engineered software platform. That's why
> large businesses, governments, and universities use it.
Uptimes matter little if you still lose all your work due to buggy apps and
GUI's.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:02:21 -0600
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft gave away 120k copies of w2k for nothing.
... and it didn't cost them a thing!
They'll sue Spain anyway I'm sure.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Offtopic
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 16:03:25 -0600
Ilya Grishashvili wrote:
>
> Sorry, this msg probably should not be here...
>
> Anyway, I want to get a reallly cooool T-shirt with Linux
> symbolics (like Red-Hat or something...)
>
> Is there any web where I can order it?
Walnut creek has a very cool black slackware polo shirt.
http://www.cdrom.com
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 17 Mar 2000 22:04:29 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:08:18 +0100, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>Someone recently explained it to me, but I forgot it in the meantime:
>what is affirmative action again?
The practice of prefering candidates from "disadvantaged groups" over other
candidates, all other things being equal. Or in it's more aberrant forms, the
practice of discriminating in favour of "disadvantaged groups" even though
the candidates in question may be underqualified.
IMO, this can work for scholarships ( or special funds available only to
minorities ) because these create opportunities. However, when you do this
in ( for example ) admissions policy in the education system, all it does
is bring in a lot of poorly qualified candidates who can't make passing
grades.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 17 Mar 2000 16:28:10 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Just a heads up - using environmental variables in news posts is Unix dweeb
> >rule number three, surpassed in pure annoyance only by using "fsck" as
> >a swear word, and calling "X Windows" anything besides "X Windows".
>
> I note that there is no such thing as "X Windows"... it is called X,
> period.
Not quite; X Window, or the X Window System work fine too.
Neither is there such a thing as an "environmental variable" where
I come from. It's an environment variable -- unless, perhaps, you're
coding for Greenpeace.
> The corresponding "heads up" is an exercise left to the reader.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:04:37 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 15:13:37 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.sys.next.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2000 13:55:06 -0600, Jonathan W Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm glad my previous generation didn't have such cavalier
>> attitudes when it came to free access to information.
>
>Oh really? So when Star Wars came out, you called up Lucasfilm,
>asked for an 8mm print (because you didn't have a 35mm projector
Oh, so you like weak analogies too.
Nothing of the kind was proposed. Trading Cinepak for Sorenson
is not equivalent to what you blathered. Neither would be a
simple conversion utility.
>at home), and they sent you one gratis?
>
>Or did you wail and bitch and moan that Lucas was infringing on
>your rights because they won't pander to you?
Actually, I did send a nastygram to the webmaster of starwars.com
at the time. I also sent a nastygram to Apple.
>
>>>
>>>However, as has been explained, the codec is the issue, and
>>>that isn't Apple's to give away.
>
>> Apple's the one with the exclusive licence. They could
>> certainly give it away in binary form. They do that
>> already. Sorenson can't because of the exclusive licence
>> they have with Apple.
>
>Nonsense. Sorenson sets the terms of the license, not Apple.
Sorenson SET the terms of the licence. For someone who expects
someone like me to reverse engineer a video codec you really
are quite a dolt.
>
>> That was a deal worthy of Microsoft.
>
>Yeah, right. I suppose you think it's okay to violate the GPL?
You are a lying slandering buffoon. At no point in this
discussion have I been advocating the disclosure (forced
or otherwise) of anyone's intellectual property.
Infact it is YOU who has been advocating the violation of
Sorenson's intellectual property rights.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
