Linux-Advocacy Digest #881, Volume #25 Thu, 30 Mar 00 10:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Need help on compiling Linux stats ("Tom Steinberg")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Matthias Warkus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:22:09 -0500
To the group: I wish I could snip some of this, but I'd better not, or I'll
forget what T. Max and I were talking about :-)
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> 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.
> Well, it certainly requires quite a bit of [convoluted] thought to work it
> out, I'll admit.
LOL
> Not that it was a very well put together statement to begin
> with.
I take it a further explanation isn't forthcoming.
> >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.
> I'll agree with that. Do you have a point?
Yes, trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about. You said
it. Don't get upset when someone tries to decipher it. You see, when
you're positing an argument, you can't expect statements, or even phrases to
just slip by unnoticed or unchallenged. The argument may rest on one of
them, and if there's a problem with it, then it will be pointed out.
> >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.
> That's certainly not relevant.
Yes it is--to the sentiment of "subtle word play like this is often very
difficult to express directly." I'm sympathizing and I'm telling you _why_
I sympathize. Otherwise, I might not sympathize.
> I guess the point is that if you can't
> understand the difference in the connotation of the phrases "how hard it
is"
> and "it is hard", then it doesn't help to ask. :-/
Maybe there isn't a difference? You certainly didn't explain one in a way
that even you could understand.
> >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."
> Not quite, but you're getting warmer.
Why not say what you meant rather than play 20 questions, then?
> >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."
> This doesn't makes sense to me. I can see no reason why Norm, by
providing an
> example of Windows being difficult to install, would have silently implied
> that his example was typical.
It wasn't a "silent implication." There was a statement something like,
"Everyone's talking about ease of installation of Windows vs. Linux; well,
here's how you install Windows . . . "
> It seems far more likely (so likely, in fact,
> that I suspect, correctly or not, that you are being obfuscatory in your
> response in interpreting it otherwise) that he was pointing out that an
> assumption that Windows is easy to install in all cases or that other OSes
> (ostensibly Linux) are hard to install in all cases is specious.
Who had made universal affirmative statements, though, that he was
responding to?
> > > 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.
> I don't believe that "what is generally the case" can be considered
> illustrative when the case is being used to consider a monopoly situation.
What would being a monopoly have to do with this? You're not saying that
there aren't enough Linux installations to know, are you? How many are
there, again, 10 million or something, right?
> That's like thinking that all OSes similar to Windows because Windows is
the
> most common OS.
What??
> The debates I have seen on these issues tend to focus on "all
> cases" and "exceptions", and this is, in some regards, appropriate, for
the
> reason I've stated.
I really didn't notice anyone making a universal affirmative. I usually
pounce on those because they are more often than not wrong.
> > > OK?
> >Okay.
> Okay.
Okay :-)
> >> >> >Well, I live in New York City and it would work for me to take a
trip
> >> >> >Boston by first flying to South Africa, taking a slow boat to
China,
> >> >> >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.
> Sorry, that's an entirely inappropriate and senseless extension of your
> analogy.
What? That was my analogy. I can go to Boston from New York City via a
plane to South Africa, but I don't have to. I could take a car, bus, train,
walk, boat, etc. and yes I could take a plane.
> >> 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.
> Don't bother;
LOL--but I'm really curious. Seems kinda oxymoronic to me.
> your example is unacceptable because you want to assume that
> there is a relationship between geographic travel and a software procedure
> which extends beyond a linear relationship (legs of a trip for steps of a
> procedure).
It's simply about necessary steps in the procedure to arrive at a goal.
> This analogy was quite illustrative in your original point, but
> you want to insist that all aspects of the software procedure (my
metaphorical
> "if there's only one airline and that's the route they fly") have a
> corresponding aspect of geographic travel ("I don't need an airplane".)
I do? No I don't. I was just pointing out that it has unnecessary steps to
get to the goal--hence I don't _need_ an airplane to get to Boston. I think
I took your "if there's only one airline" literally, which is a case of
_you_, not me, extending the analogy, but it's not the case that _that's_
the only or necessary procedure for installing an OS. So we're back to
square one :-)
> I
> used the tortured phrase "unnaturally appropriate" (which I still find
highly
> understandable, but then, I would, having written it)
Well, define it then. Pretend you're authoring its dictionary entry.
> because *your analogy*
> involved flying.
Well it could have involved anything--"I _could_ make fried eggs by taking
two eggs out of the refrigerator, juggling them for 10 minutes, drawing
cartoon characters on the shells, saying a few prayers, then cooking them,
but I don't _have_ to." That would have worked as well.
> When I pointed out that if someone else controls the means
> of transportation (regardless of what you wish to transmute it to), then
you
> have to follow their route, regardless of what the means of transportation
is.
If that was the case, then that would be true. However, it isn't the case
that Norm's procedure was necessary to install an OS as it stood. That was
my point.
> To consider that you could use "some other means" may be appropriate for
the
> analogy, but is unnatural for the relationship you are trying to
illustrate.
What about it makes it "unnatural?" How are you using that word?
> >> >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.
> Yes, this illustrates well where we crossed wires. Your choice of an
airplane
> as an example of your first hop was meant to correspond to...?
It wasn't meant to correspond to anything, really. I was just pointing out
that I could get from state of affairs A to state of affairs B by inserting
A', A'', A''', etc. but I don't _need_ to. I was emphasizing that it isn't
_wrong_ to get to B via the various A primes, but neither is it _necessary_.
> I assumed it was meant to correspond to the path, while you now seem to be
> saying it was meant to correspond to the mode of transportation.
Hopefully you're trying to gradually turn this into a Monty Python sketch
:-)
> As long as
> you want to keep both variable, the analogy is rather useless, IMHO.
I think you might just be reading a little too much into it.
> Either
> way, my point is quite valid: it is not the passenger, but the one who
> controls the transportation, regardless of mode, who determines the path.
Whoever drives some piece of transportation will determine where it goes,
yes.
> It
> seems apparent that you did not mean for the path and mode to be
controlled > by
> a monopoly, which is a shame, because we are discussing a monopoly.
We were discussing, in _this_ thread, that Norm's procedure, while maybe not
wrong, wasn't all necessary.
> >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.
> I may have only hinted at it before, so now I will be direct. I find the
use
> of apathy as a discussion technique to be quite frustrating and useless.
Is that my problem? My comments aren't bothering me.
> If
> it didn't matter that much to you, why did you bother further discussing
it?
It made my point to someone who actually understood it, I'm sure. It isn't
important enough to me to write a book to you about it just so you can try
to understand it, though. For some people, importance is a continuum. Not
an on/off switch.
> Personally, I "bothered" further discussing it because I find
inappropriate
> use of analogy to be one of the most common difficulties in discussing
> Microsoft.
I don't think that's exclusive to Microsoft. But I meant to translate the
point into a concrete example of "I can get from state of affairs A . . ."
Sometimes plugging values into variables can make more entertaining reading.
Sometimes, T. Max reads it.
> From cars to six-packs, they have been mangled so badly and abused
> so routinely that I think it is quite important to point out when this is
> occurring.
Well, it's better to point out the error itself. Are you arguing that it
isn't the case that A, A', A", A''', B isn't the necessary path when A, B is
possible, or are you arguing that A, B isn't possible in Norm's case? I
already specified where he's adding the unnecessary steps _to install an
OS_.
> I will admit, however, that I misread your original response to my
statement
> concerning this specific analogy. Allow me to try to recoup the lost
ground:
I was going to lose sleep tonight unless you did that :-)
> "No, you're right, that *doesn't* make it 'the way to get to Boston'. But
it
> does make it the only way available to this particular passenger."
That's not true, however. I already specified many unnecessary steps in
_installing an OS_.
> >> 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 :-)
> We are all "free" to avoid using Windows.
It seems the problem here, and unfortunately my wife does this all the time,
also :-), is that when I'm making the analogy, you're not reading the
statements for what they are saying in themselves, but you're reading them
_as the situation that precipitated the analogy_.
It's never going to be the case (and yes, that is a universal affirmative)
that all properties of concrete terms in an analogy are going to map
point-for-point onto the properties of the concrete terms of what
precipitated the analogy, and that's not the reason for the analogy.
Analogies work as a kind of "folk" instantiation of logical arguments and
have no necessary validity beyond what the logical argument is.
Unfortunately, if you say, "If if p then q then if and only if r then t" to
most people in a discussion, they just look at you like you're from Saturn
or something. So we often plug in values (or we intuitively understand the
logical point, but can't express it abstractly, anyway).
> In the amoral world of business,
The business world isn't amoral. I don't actually think that anything is
amoral.
> Microsoft is free to try to make it hard for us to avoid using Windows.
Well, if they're clever enough, that can be the case. However, they aren't
_that_ clever and no one is likely to be.
> In
> the immoral world of anti-trust violations,
I don't agree that that is immoral. That can certainly be your opinion,
though.
> Microsoft has abused that freedom
> by locking up the pre-load market and leveraging everything off that
> monopoly.
> >My point was that Norm's way was not wholly a necessary way as it stood.
> My point was that this sentence needs to be tagged with "as far as I
know".
Not true, however. It contained elements that aren't included in
_installing_ an OS.
> >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.
> Well, you take the long way around the curve of the planet when you go
from
> New York to Boston no matter how you get there.
There isn't a "long way no matter how you get there." There is a shortest
way.
> Why don't you take the
> *straight path*, as you seem to be indicating that it is beneficial to do
so?
> It isn't *necessary*. You could *tunnel*.
Tunneling wouldn't be the shortest way in this instance. That would take a
long time. Kind of like what Norm does with all the overly cautious stuff.
> Because it is infeasible, of course. As is trying to change the path of
the
> airline, as is trying to change the convolutions you must perform to
install
> Windows on a Gateway 2600.
T Max. There _is_ no Gateway 2600. And Norm owns a 2300. And lots of the
stuff he specified isn't necessary to install an OS.
> >> 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.
> Rescue disks, even if they were relevant, are not "a way to reinstall
> Windows", regardless.
They are a way to install, but not sufficient. The Windows disk is
necessary, too.
> They are an entirely different process, method, AND
> RESULT from "reinstalling Windows".
Nope. They come with almost all new machines. You don't have to do any
reinstalling. The only thing that has to be done is the OEM creating them.
I have to answer the rest in a few.
Until then.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Tom Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Need help on compiling Linux stats
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:52:56 +0100
I have spent the last couple of days reading endless Linux articles looking
for any and every bit of statistical data I can find concerning Linux. I'm
not getting very far very fast, so I've returned to the wonderful and
generous people on usenet ( butter butter ) to ask for suggestions and info.
Absolutely anything numerical is helpful, but I am especially looking for:
1) Info/guesses about the Linux and opensource user base. Growth patterns
over time and projections are especially needed.
2) Value of markets, quantified cost benefits, market impact analyses of
opensource.
3) Stock valuations of opensource ( esp. Linux ) firms.
4) Revenue streams associated with opensource.
5) Surveys & stats on user/industry opinions.
6) Numbers
7) More numbers
8) er...
9) Thats it.
Thanks very much!
Tom
===========================================
Tom Steinberg,
Institute of Economic Affairs
http://www.iea.org.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:14:21 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:18:57 -0500...
...and Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> > I'm also not sure about aliased fonts, either. To me, it's
> > not that much of an issue.
>
> I think that's the underlying thing about X -- it was designed to be a
> practical, flexible and portable windowing system instead of a
> good-looking desktop system.
It can be both!
Get GNOME! :)
mawa
--
Sorry. I forget what I was going to say.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:13:28 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 29 Mar 2000 17:01:44 GMT...
...and Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Btw, it's well worth taking a look at. It's fast, looks great, is as
> > easy as the Mac.
>
> Looking at the screenshots, I'd disagree. I strongly dislike those
> tags and it looks too cartoony for me.
Heretic! You've been tainted by looking at the decidedly non-childish
and non-cartoonish style of GNOME for too long!
:)
mawa
--
Sorry. I forget what I was going to say.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
