Linux-Advocacy Digest #808, Volume #25 Sat, 25 Mar 00 17:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Weak points (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
NT vs Linux vs Whatever.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:17:53 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 21 Mar 2000
20:05:25 -0500
> >> He's not saying how hard it is to install Windows; he's saying it is
hard to
> >> install Windows.
> >Despite reading your sentence a bunch of times and making lots of
guesses, I
> >was never sure what you meant, exactly.
> >I'm thinking maybe "how hard it is to install Windows" is a regionalism?
> No, I don't think so, but maybe. I'm not sure how much colloquialism is
> involved. The phrase "it is hard" seems rather an 'absolute with known
> relative connotation' (that connotation being that "hard" must, by nature,
> have a relative definition). The phrase "how hard it is" read, to me
anyway,
> as 'relative with an [imagined] absolute connotation'.
Uh, well that explains it . . . to someone, maybe. That doesn't make
anymore sense to me, though. "Absolute with known relative connotation"
sounds almost meaningless to me, although you might be able to explain why
it isn't.
I agree that hard, as in difficult, is relative to the person applying the
term. I don't agree that that makes "Absolute with known relative
connotation" make sense.
As for "Relative with an imagined absolute connotation," I vacillate between
thinking it makes more sense (at least it wouldn't have to be contradictory)
and even less sense.
As if _that_ makes sense, lol.
> Sorry for the confusion, but subtle word play like this is often very
> difficult to express directly.
I can appreciate that. In terms of formal education, I'm coming primarily
from analytic philosophy.
> I understood the discussion to be using a list
> of procedural steps for installing Windows on a specific system as an
> illustration of the premise that installing an OS is difficult and
sometimes
> extremely intricate, as opposed to an illustration that installing Windows
> itself is difficult and intricate, though it often is by reason of the fac
t
> that *all* OSes are difficult and intricate to install in some cases, and
> "click, click, done" in others.
Oh, you just mean that you took it to be that "Windows is hard to install on
my machine" rather than "Windows is hard to install on all machines."
I didn't think that was his intent, though I could be wrong of course. I
read Norm to be implying that his machine was a typical case, since he
posted in the context of a general discussion of ease of installation of
Linux vs Windows and he said something like, "You think that Windows is easy
to install??! Here's how you install it, straight from Gateway."
> A proposition that Windows is particularly difficult to install (in terms
of
> hardware configuration at least) can be refuted by the number of people
with
> "click, click, done" experiences.
Right.
> OTOH, a proposition that OSes are generally
> difficult to install (and that Windows is no exception to this case, even
> despite an illegal monopoly causing it to have more specific and complete
> hardware support than others) is unaffected by such examples of times when
it
> *wasn't* intricate or difficult, as such examples are, by nature, the
majority
> of end-user experiences.
Well, a statement about what is generally the case would depend on a survey
of all known cases, or at least a "representative sampling" (if there indeed
is such a thing, I agree it is arguable) of the population in question.
> OK?
Okay.
> >> >Well, I live in New York City and it would work for me to take a trip
to
> >> >Boston by first flying to South Africa, taking a slow boat to China,
etc.
> >> >but that's not what I really need to do to get to Boston, is it?
> >> It is if you have to go by way of South Africa because there's only one
> >> airplane and you don't know how to fly it...
> >The kicker is that I don't need an airplane to get there, though.
> Says you.
No, says facts about the way the world is. I can easily show that I don't
need to get on an airplane to go from New York City to Boston.
> You want to try make your metaphor unnaturally appropriate, you
> can. But don't expect me to go along with it.
"Unnaturally appropriate?" Once I understand what that means, I'll ask you
to explain why my example is unacceptable.
> >I agree
> >if you don't know that that you might have to take the airplane. That
> >doesn't make it "the way" to get to Boston, though.
> I have no idea why you think this refutes my statement.
I have no idea why you think that, necessarily, either (that is, that it's
really supposed to refute your statement). I was pointing out that if you
only know of one way to go to Boston (the airplane) then that might be the
way you have to go (which coheres with your statement), but your not knowing
that there are other ways to get there doesn't make it the case that there
aren't other ways to get there, and doesn't make your way to get there "the
way," meaning the "only" or the necessary, or most direct, etc. way to get
there.
> It is possible that
> you wish to simply de-rail any productive discussion by concentrating on
> entirely unimportant details,
I was answering a statement you made: "It is if you have to go by way of
South Africa because there's only one
airplane and you don't know how to fly it..."
If you thought that pursuing the analogy was unimportant in the first place,
I'm not sure why you'd bother further discussing it. You can choose to cut
all this stuff out of your reply if it want. It doesn't matter that much to
me either way.
> like whether the transportation mode "airplane"
> is in any way, shape, or form central to the analogy.
We could have used a boat, I suppose :-)
> My point is, in case you simply missed it, that "the way" is defined by
those
> who supply the transportation mechanism, not the passenger (which is all a
> Windows user is, as MS tends to blame bad drivers for any problems with
their
> products). [I think it is worth pointing out that I in no way meant the
> preceding remark to be a pun, though I gotta admit, it works.]
My point was that Norm's way was not wholly a necessary way as it stood.
The way is defined by how it is possible to get to the destination. When
you take a long way around, but it's not necessary, then it's wrong to imply
that it is necessary.
> >> By the way, most OEMs restore disks are entirely irrelevant; this is
the
> >> procedure to install Windows; the OEM restore disks are a way to
reinstall
> >> a system state; they cannot be used to reinstall Windows, even on those
> >> machines.
> >Not true at least in every case I've had personal experience with. I've
had
> >machines, and I've experienced friends machines where something or
another
> >became really screwed up and we restored with the rescue disk(s). At one
> >point, they'll ask you to stick in the Windows disk while you sit back
and
> >massage your feet or something, but that involved opening the CD tray and
> >putting the disk in.
> >I suppose you could deny my experience, though . . . I can't really stop
you
> >from doing that.
> I don't deny your experience. I deny the validity and importance of your
> experience.
The issue is reinstalling Windows. Rescue disks are one way to do that.
Hence, it's valid in terms of relevance to the issue. I would also say it
is important to the issue, since we're discussing what is necessary to
install Windows and the possible ways that one can do that.
> >> MS loves this idea, and you parrot how "easy" it is,
> >Well, I've done it a bunch of times. Would you prefer that I lie about
my
> >experience just because you don't like Microsoft?
> I would prefer that you not use anecdotal evidence at all, actually.
Why? I thought we were talking about facts about how one installs Windows.
You need some empirical evidence to make an accurate statement.
> I would
> like to be able to do the same myself.
Of course you could, and have, introduce empirical, anecdotal evidence.
That was the whole idea behind my suggesting doing some actual research on
this, as well.
> I admit it is difficult for both of
> us. I am willing to believe that there are *millions* of people with
> experience contrary to my own who never have any problems with Windows. I
am
> quite aggravated, however, when someone insists that this is the only
valid
> experience.
Sure. But who was insisting that? Pointing out that your experience is not
the only one isn't insisting that the others' experience is the only one.
> Based on my own experience and those of my friends, neighbors,
> and customers, Windows and other MML (Microsoft Monopoly Leveraged)
software
> constantly cause problems which many *other* people don't necessarily see.
That could be. That's why I say things like "Maybe we hang out with
different sorts of people," or "Maybe there is some regional difference,"
etc. I believe that your experiences are that and I know what mine are. It
makes me curious what causes the different perspectives.
> I do not deny your good experiences; why do you and others deny so
vehemently
> others' bad experiences?
I didn't. I just said that I disagreed that all of Norm's procedure is
_necessary_ to install Windows, that it all describes installing Windows as
opposed to configuring the system to his tastes, and that that's anywhere
near necessary for everyone to install Windows.
I don't doubt that that is what he actually does to install Windows on his
machine.
> >> when the
> >> entire discussion is how disfunctional the situation is that prevents
> >Windows
> >> from being installed by end-users,
> >Seriously, I've installed Windows many many times and never had a problem
> >more complex than having to download a driver from the net.
> Either you're lucky, you haven't installed Windows many many enough times,
or
> your installations were of limited diversity and scope, as is the case
with
> most "knowledgable end users/PC technicians". Simple truth.
I don't know if I'm lucky, but I've done well over a thousand installations,
I would approximate. When I install, I purposefully limit the scope--just
like writing code. I generally make the install cover as few bases as
possible to do what we need the machine to do, and I separate other issues
from the actual install. You run into less problems that way, and you can
tackle whatever you need to as an additional issue that is also limited in
scope.
> Well, then I guess we've found our common ground, then. Because you are
> perfectly correct, Norm's procedure is [much more than a bit] ridiculous,
and
> is obviously an extreme case. Nevertheless, I know Norm's procedure to be
> correct and nominally necessary, as ridiculous as it may be. You can
blame
> Gateway, you can blame 'laptops' in general, or you could blame Microsoft.
> I certainly understand why "our regular viewers" (as Roger the Troll is
fond
> of repeating over and over in leu of providing a useful or valid response)
> would expect that I am some foaming-at-the-mouth nut who insists on
blaming
> Microsoft for everything concerning computers, even when they obviously
had no
> hand in building the Gateway hardware which requires such difficult
> installation procedures. I would hope that if they were, in fact, regular
> readers, they would know (or at least be willing to consider) that I am an
> exceedingly even-minded person, and am not doing so based on emotional
> agitation. I blame Microsoft because they were the ones with the funny
> licensing that made it so difficult for Gateway to provide an adequate
> installation for that Gateway.
> I know this to be true because one of the
> reasons *I* had such problems with the Gateway laptop is because of a
"forced
> update" to the Windows distribution which caused bootstrap problems.
Gateway
> had entirely no options but to use the distribution that MS had
authorized.
It could be that I've never come across that update. Was it around for
long?
If there was such a serious problem with that distribution, it seems (a) the
re would have been a patch right away, and (b) you'd seek out an alternate
(older or newer) distribution on subsequent installations to work around the
problem.
> Now, that's Gateway's fault again for agreeing to MS's ludicrous
licensing
> requirements. At least according to those who don't understand the law
and
> justice in a free society, where monopolization which causes Gateway to
make
> such apparently self-defeating choices in order to stay in business is
> considered illegal.
> >> Its double-talk and horse hockey, by the way.
> >Again, what do you want me to do, lie about my experience? I refuse to
do
> >that for any political point, whether pro, anti or neutral-Microsoft or
> >Linux.
> What ever gave you the impression I wanted you to lie about your
experience?
> That isn't what's horse hockey. What I want you to do is to stop acting
as if
> your experience is universal and comprehensive.
If you think I'm acting that way, I'd think it's because you are making
assumptions about language that aren't intended. I'm the last person to
claim that anyone's experience is universal, and the reason I'm pointing out
my contrary experiences is to ensure that no one else assumes that anyone's
experiences (like Norm's) are universal, either.
> >The problem is that I suspect that some other people _are_ lying, or at
> >least grossly exaggerating for the sake of making their political points.
> They are not minimizing, that's for sure. There comes a point where this
is
> natural to do. I would never defend that (and on occasion go out of my
way to
> point out when someone opposed to MS is doing that), but it is human
nature to
> do so when faced with such overwhelming opposing force (such as an
economic
> monopoly of such proportions).
> >On the other hand, I've also said in a number of posts that maybe there's
> >some other reason that my experiences are so different than whoever's
> >experiences that I'm responding to.
> You have a more typical experience, I'll admit. But this "if more than
50% of
> the people are happy, then a monopoly is OK" idea is what causes me such
> consternation.
I think monopolies are okay even if _no one_ other than the people in the
monopoly like it. I'm not a fan of a majority being able to decide what
others are allowed to do. I think people should be allowed to do anything
consensual, regardless of how strongly anyone else is offended by, or takes
issue with it.
> >Explorer, like it or not, _is_ integrated to a large extent with the rest
of
> >the OS, especially in Win2K.
> That word "integrated" has far too much weight with most people. Its a
> smoke-screen. Explorer isn't "integrated to a large extent"; its "welded
in
> so as to be intentionally unremovable and essentially irreplaceable in
order
> to allow Microsoft to do what they specifically signed a legal contract
with
> the U.S. Government promising they wouldn't do."
Well, it's certainly arguable that since Explorer is what the Win2K file
system functions within, at least in terms of user interface (which a lot of
what OSs are all about, anyway), it is part of the OS.
I'm not saying that to make it justifiable that MS is incorporating it. I
have no problem saying something like, "They are not allowed, per the
government's ruling, to incorporate that into the OS." It's just that I
could care less about such a ruling. In my opinion, they shouldn't be
restricted from incorporating anything they'd like, whether it's realted to
the OS or not.
> >> Microsoft is the one who insists that Explorer is part of the OS, I'd
say
> >> that's more doubletalk and horse hockey from the MS-lovers camp.
> >I don't have a real opinion on it. It doesn't really matter to me if
they
> >consider it part of the OS or not, frankly. On the other hand, it also
> >doesn't bother me at all that it is installed with all the recent Windows
> >OSs.
> Do you also think it doesn't really matter if your car needs the engine
> overhauled every six months,
I wouldn't like that, but if it needed that, and there was no other car
available, I certainly wouldn't try to have other alternatives legally
enforced.
> and don't get bothered at all if it is because of
> the very large billboard that the manufacturer bolted to your cylinder
heads?
Well, that would be how the car is. If the manufacturer doesn't want to
make it otherwise, that's their choice. I certainly don't think they should
be forced to make it otherwise. If they want to, they should be able to
make the car with a unremovable porno viewer on the inside windshield and
with square tires made of bricks.
In the IE case, at home, I use IE more than any other app. I also like IE
better than any other browser. Further, I don't have system problems
because of it. So if we apply that to the car analogy, it would be like my
liking the billboard a lot, looking at it more than I look at or use any
other part of the car, and the car not having any problems because of it.
If I was in the IE/MS hater camp, in the analogy, I'd probably walk.
> [GET THIS EVERYBODY. MAX JUST USED A CAR ANALOGY. OH NO!]
We have lots of them here, lol.
> IOW; your complacency is duly noted, and much appreciated by those who
wish to
> rip you off some more.
Ripping someone off is pretty subjective, though. If I like something and
don't mind paying the money I have to pay for it (which is very little for
me in MS' case . . . you just have to be a little creative), I'm not really
getting ripped off.
> >Well, he claimed to have no idea why I was LOL'ing, and keeps arguing
that
> >it is the actual procedure he has to go through. I've come to believe
that
> >he's serious.
> So you got the point now. But, yes, the fact that his procedure seems so
> entirely the product of an unreasonable newbie is the reason it is
serious.
> >In other words, presenting that account with the implication that it is
the
> >standard method of installing Windows isn't factual.
> Nah; we just got at cross-odds because you seemed to be intentionally
ignoring
> anything but your personal experience. Sorry for the flames. He did not,
> AFAIK, implicate that this was a standard method of installing Windows (on
> anything other than that specific hardware), though he was trying to use
that
> to contradict the assumption that all Windows installs are "click, click,
> done" as you seem to be insisting.
I could have read him wrong, sure. Hermeneutics, anyone? :-)
> >I would say the same thing if you posted a similar account of Linux in
order
> >to make a political point.
> I'm told the Red Hat installer in the current versions is quite good...
:-)
> [...]
> >Well, I've offered to do this with a bunch of people here so far for
various
> >different disagreements, yet no one wants to take me up on it. How about
we
> >work out some means through which we can do a little experiment, in this
> >case, installing Windows on a bunch of different machines?
> >I'm not being rhetorical or joking. For the sake of offering factual
> >information, let's get a bunch of PCs together, install Windows, and
record
> >exactly what we have to do to get it installed.
> >If you live far from New York City, I'll try to arrange some way we can
do
> >this long distance.
> I seriously wish I had the time and energy to do this. I learned years
ago,
> however, that modern PCs are far more intricate and potentially even
> non-deterministic than is required to make such an attempt useful.
I think if we assembled a large enough quantity of them it might produce
some valid results, but I do agree with you that the more PC's you use, the
more non-deterministic you realize they are. It's not something one would
think at first, but it seems to be the case.
Hey, at least it keeps a lot of techs in work :-)
>Of course,
> if modern PCs weren't so intricate and potentially even non-deterministic,
> then such an attempt would not be necessary.
Good point.
> In most cases, using a pre-integrated hardware platform, installing
Windows is
> "click, click, done".
Though speaking of indeterminism, I've even had experience with quite a few
machines where you attempted a simple procedure (including installation) and
the machine did something completely bizarre. Most of the time, the
solution was to reset everything and repeat the procedure--the weird
behavior wouldn't occur again. Most of the time, at least :-/
> In most cases, using a pre-integrated hardware
> platform, installing any OS is "click, click, done". How meaningful or
useful
> these statements are is a matter of context.
> >I'm not trying to give anyone shit for its own sake, I seriously have had
> >experiences nothing like Norm is reporting or like you are defending.
Maybe
> >all your experiences have been like Norm's. If nothing else, that
> >fascinates me because of the discrepancy, and I'd be curious to try to
> >discover why that discrepancy is the case.
> I'm not trying to give anyone shit for its own sake, either. I am quite
happy
> to hear, now that you realize it was not a joke, that you are intrigued by
the
> issue. While there may be many many people with your experience, I think
> there are many more people than you expect who have experiences like
Norm's.
> That's one of the problems with a monopoly: if a given very low percentage
of
> people have problems, it is very difficult to determine if the situation
would
> be any different given some other alternative being available.
> One final note, Doc: feel free to delete the comments in the original
message
> which you are not responding to. These mega-posts are huge enough as it
is.
Geez, now you say that! LOL.
Next time.
--doc
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:16:03 GMT
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:24:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>
>> Bob Germer wrote:
>
>>> It is quite obvious that you are totally unable to comprehend the Findings
>>> of Fact. They clearly, absolutely, unequivocally, without question, beyond
>>> a shadow of a doubt contradict what you state above. That makes what you
>>> said a lie. That makes you a liar.
>
>> You were right the first time. I was unable to comprehend the
>> Findings of Fact because I found them to uninteresting.
>
>Just as I said: you're not interested in the facts but rather in what
>someone thinks.
The facts referred to are the legal opinion of a Judge. They
happen to carry the weight of law, but it is essentially another
persons opinion.
>Tell me, when you want to know whether it's going to rain tomorrow,
>do you ask some random person what they think, or do you consult a
>meteorologist for some facts?
Actually, I generally just go outside and check for myself, because
it's about as accurate as the weather report. How about you, do you
find the weather report from a meteorologist to be highly accurate?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:26:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:31:23 GMT, Itchy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[someone had written "sucky tools like slrn and krn"]
> > >If you think slrn is sucky, you havent a clue. Allow me to
demonstrate,
> > >the power of slrn.
> > >
> > >"k"
> > >kill from: subject: etc ?
> > >"from"
> > >kill -9999 ?
> > >-9999
> > >expiry date ?
> > >01-12-2000
> > >activate kill now. Y, N ?
> > >Y
> > >
> > ><plonk>
> >
> > And allow me to demonstrate the power of Agent, which by default is
> > running offline withoput any helper programs like LeafNode, Suck,
> > SlrnPull etc and thus keeping my phone bill in check.
> > You can run SLRN offline without any of the above right?
> >
> > Click on message.
> > Click on Filters.
> > Author (tjporter in this case) is already filled in.
> > Click on kill
> >
> > By by...You are gone.....
> >
> > Whant to do the same for subject?
> > one extra step. Click on subject, which will replace tjporter with
the
> > subject of the thread.
> >
> > By By...gone again...
Allow me to demonstrate the power of current KRN (to go full circle to
the other "sucky tool" ;-)
Right click on message, Score->Author->Unreadable (-500) (or
alt-m,s,a,u)
And off it goes. You can later modify the generated rule, if you want
to give the author another chance, or change his score.
Scoring is more powerful than killing, in that it allows articles
on interesting subjects by bad authors get through if you want
(just declare the author not as bad as the subject is good).
On KRN 0.6.11 you can do this but it's more work because the UI is not
all there.
It's all offline and standalone too (but you can make it cooperate with
leafnode if wanted).
--
Roberto Alsina (KRN author, victim of a readonly feed ;-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:49:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> George Marengo writes:
>
> > No, I'm not a die-hard supporter of any OS. The OS is simply a means
> > to an end for me -- using software that I want or need to use.
>
> Then what is your participation in this newsgroup for you?
What is yours, Tholen, given your claim to have taken a similar stance on the
matter ("right tool for the job") and your vehement and thorough denial of
being an OS/2 advocate? Will the hypocrisy never end??
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NT vs Linux vs Whatever....
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:07:58 GMT
I've been reading this newsgroup for a while, and watching the "NT vs
Linux" threads for some time.
It seems lik a bit of a waste of time.
Linux has some challenges it has to overcome, as do NT and other MS
products.
If you like MS Win9x or 2000, seems like your time would be more
productively spent using it than talking about it. If Linux is a threat
to MS Os's, debating it in newsgroups like this isn't going to help your
case. If it's as antiquated and outdated as you claim, then you have
nothing to worry about and can laugh off the Linux community as a bunch
of oddballs.
At least Linux gives users a choice, rather than being forced into doing
things however MS decided to do them.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
