Linux-Advocacy Digest #983, Volume #25 Thu, 6 Apr 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (jt)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ("Tim Haynes")
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640 (tholenbot)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: From the Horse's Mouth ("doc rogers")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) ("Tim Haynes")
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ("Tim Haynes")
Re: From the Horse's Mouth ("doc rogers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 03:45:21 -0500
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cfr1o$m3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
> >> implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
> >> illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
> >> ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
> >> product.
> >
> >Wow. That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one.
What's
> >Linux if not stolen ideas from other Unix OS's and now stealing ideas
from
> >Microsoft and Apple?
>
> The creators of Linux, GNU, KDE, etc., have been totally
> upfront about creating a public-domain version of Unix, and
> enabling KDE to look like Windows if desired, so that MS users
> can switch over easily. This is ethical, because much of Unix
> and its associated software tools were developed with public
> money at UC Berkeley, and by people elsewhere contributing
> their work freely. The whole window/icon/menu/pointer paradigm
> was developed by Xerox, and ripped off by Apple and Microsoft.
You're a piece of work Mark. Hold Unix to the same standard as you hold
Windows.
That means if it's ok to copy others ideas for Unix, it's ok for Windows to
do so as well.
I don't see the KDE developers acknowledging Apple for their designs or
Xerox for that matter.
> The GNU/Linux/KDE folks admit using the ideas of others, give
> credit where it's due, and give their products away for free.
So giving it away makes it OK to pilfer others ideas. Don't you consider
open source projects that try to duplicate commercial functionality the same
as, Microsoft giving away IE? Both hurt the sales of the commercial
product.
> Microsoft uses the ideas of others, does not give them credit,
> and makes a profit from it. This is theft.
profit does not come into any theft argument. Theft is theft wheter you
make a profit or not.
> >> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
> >
> >I always question articles that only show one side of the story. For
> >instance, the article mentions Stac, and that they won their court case
yet
> >mysteriously doesn't mention the fact that Microsoft won a countersuit
> >against them (showing that Stac wasn't playing fair either).
>
> The article mentions a lot of other companies besides Stac
> that Microsoft ripped off ideas and even source code from,
> and then nearly destroyed.
And what doesn't the article mention about all those other stories, given
that it forgot to mention very important facts about the Stac case?
> >Rigged benchmarks? Even Linus and the others that KNOW linux agreed that
> >the benchmarks showed faults in Linux, and they did lots of work to fix
> >those faults. If they were rigged, why did Linux have to be improved?
>
> At the time, and subsequently, none of the Microsoft propa-
> gandists have been able to come up with even a single example
> of a real-world system serving small static web pages via
> four 100 Mb/sec network interfaces. So Microsoft designed
> that unrealistic benchmark solely to create a situation in
> which NT could outperform Linux -- at doing something useless,
> as it turned out.
An unrealistic benchmark is not "rigged". The details of the benchmark were
fully available for anyone to see. "rigged" would indicate that the results
were false. The results were not false, thus your statement that they were
rigged is a lie.
> However, testing on that high-speed equipment did reveal some
> previously unknown conditions in the Linux kernel that could
> slow down throughput, so they were fixed.
In other words, it revealed problems that caused it to lose to Microsoft in
those benchmarks.
> >Additionally, in true Mark Bilk fasion, you portray events that did not
> >happen as actually having happened. The "stealth blitz" you link to
states
> >specifically that it never happened, yet you claim that it did. Why is
> >that? Are you exagerating and lying?
>
> >> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
>
> Apparently Funkenbusch thinks that readers of his article
> won't access the URL, and will just take his word for it.
My word is correct, as even you point out below.
> The L.A. Times article says that the *Microsoft spokesman*
> whose name was all over the documents denied knowing anything
> about them, and then changed his story and said that it was
> only a proposal. The article also stated that other know-
> ledgeable sources who were interviewed said that Microsoft
> told them it was a "done deal", and that they were told to
> come to the meeting with plans for carrying it out.
In other words, *THE PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN NEVER HAPPENED*. Whether he said it
was a "done deal" or not doesn't change the fact that nothing was published.
How do your statement contradict what I said? And how does it support your
claim that the pubilicity was actually published when it wasn't? Again, you
lied.
> There seems to be an arrogance that possesses Microsoft
> propagandists (by which I do not mean to imply that they are
> necessarily *paid* for what they do). When our poor, obsessed
> Boris called someone "an idiot and a loser" (and he was being
> relatively nice, since he left out the "stinky" 8^), I said
> that he was expressing Microsoft's attitude toward the public.
> It is also the attitude of our dedicated MS propagandists.
No more arrogant than your posts which claim as fact that things happened
which did not. No more arrogant than your posts which claim that Microsoft
is a convicted criminal, despite the fact that no criminal code has been
found to be violated (anti-trust is civil law, not criminal law).
> >> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> >> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> >> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> >> at no cost.
> >
> >At no cost for personal use. Commercial use still costs money in many
> >cases. More Mark exagerations? Which comprehensive Office Suite is
> >completely free for commercial use? Since you say "almost all of them"
are
> >free?
>
> My statement meant: for each common requirement of Windows
> users, there is at least one app satisfying it that runs
> under Linux, and is most likely free.
Which is meaningless. If that's your intent, it's ludicrous. No user wants
to run a different program for each of their requirements. That's why
integrated suites are so popular.
> It would have been
> absurd to claim that almost all apps satisfying each require-
> ment are free, which seems to be the way Funkenbusch wants
> to interpret it, in order to claim that I exaggerated.
How else is one to interpret "Almost all of them at no cost" other than
"Almost all apps are free"?
> >> "Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
> >
> >Ha! I'm not anti-Linux, no matter what you believe. I use Linux every
day
> >and enjoy it.
>
> It's only necessary to look at Funkenbusch's posts in Deja
> News to see that almost every one of them defends Microsoft
> or bashes Linux. Here are a few recent quotes. Readers
> can decide for themselves.
I don't defend Microsoft. I do question stupid statements and try to bring
realism to arguments. My arguments are typically negating exagerated
anti-microsoft claims, not defending what Microsoft has or hasn't done.
> "X is unstable and shouldn't be used for real work."
That statement is taken out of context. The full statement was:
"Yes, you know that X is unstable and shouldn't be used for real work." and
this was in response to someone claiming that they have never lost any work
due to GUI's because "he knows what he's doing". My comment was stating
what I perceived to be his opinion, not stating my own opinion.
> "Learning Unix ... requires a masochistic bent."
And it's true. That doesn't mean I hate linux.
> "Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of this
> magnitude ever developed."
Also true. There has been no evidence to counter that statement.
> >I simply don't believe that it's going to take over the world
> >or replace Microsoft. I also don't believe that in it's current form
it's
> >any kind of replacement for windows.
> >Most knowledgeable Linux advocates seem to agree with that.
>
> That depends on exactly what is meant by "replacement for
> windows". It isn't an exact replacement, but most of the
> functionality of commonly used Windows applications (except
> for particular games) can either be found in Linux apps, or
> in Windows programs that run under WINE.
By "replacement for windows" I mean, take windows off of an end users desk
and put Linux in it's place. Will the end-user be as productive? Will they
be able to do all the things they used to be able to do before?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 6 Apr 2000 09:25:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Well thanks for answering the question. Er, not. Obviously you
>>> don't know what 'Open' as applied to 'Open Source' means in the
>>> first place, as the GPL doesn't seem particularly restrictive
>>> to me.
>>
>> Im sure that he does know what "open" means. Its quite
>> simple.
>
> (You are? How so?)
He can be sure now, since I assert it to be the case. :^)
> More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"' is *defined*
> quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude", merely
> discussion.
I find this flamewar^Wdiscussion to be exceedingly tedious, since it
has been done to death in many groups for years. Nobody's going to
change their position now, and it doesn't even have the TIC-value of
the emacs vs. vi holy war. It just makes a lot of people very angry
at each other when they should just let go. Me included.
However, as a final word on the matter, it seems to me that the two
sides of this debate both feel that the other is simply not living in
the real world. I tend towards the non-GPL side of the debate due to
not feeling that the concealment of code is necessarily a bad thing.
Donal (stopping now before I get worked up...)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: jt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:27:47 -0500
Why do you keep referring to release dates? I wasn't aware that there
ever was a release date. Rushing to reach a date is a bad thing. It
means you turn out shitty code that leads to buggy software. I myself
would rather wait and get something that was worth my time and my money.
jt
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 06 Apr 2000 10:43:19 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
[]
> > More to the point, '"open" as applied to "open source"' is *defined*
> > quite clearly and brooks no argument nor talk of "attitude", merely
> > discussion.
>
> I find this flamewar^Wdiscussion to be exceedingly tedious, since it
> has been done to death in many groups for years. Nobody's going to
> change their position now, and it doesn't even have the TIC-value of
> the emacs vs. vi holy war. It just makes a lot of people very angry
> at each other when they should just let go. Me included.
Anyone see a flamewar around here? *Blink* did I miss something
interesting?
You'll never get your views to sustain if you can't present them to folks
new to them coherently. Or maybe they're just not worth it, of course.
> However, as a final word on the matter, it seems to me that the two sides
> of this debate both feel that the other is simply not living in the real
> world. I tend towards the non-GPL side of the debate due to not feeling
> that the concealment of code is necessarily a bad thing.
*Shrug*, each to their own. I can't see what there is to get het up about,
myself. GPL is one open-source license, there are others, and open-source
is cool. Next?
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 6 Apr 2000 09:32:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>> Some of us prefer to put the emphasis on Open, and feel that the GPL
>> is way too restrictive. Something to do with not having a dog-in-a-
>> -manger attitude?
>
> To answer your question, no. Nothing to do with a dog-in-a-manger
> attitude. Quite the opposite.
>
> Only those with a dog-in-a-manger attitude have problems with the GPL.
Obviously I disagree. I don't want to say to someone "You must share"
but instead "Here are some things I think are interesting. Do you
have anything interesting?" The online community I participate in is
probably friendlier than yours. :^P
Donal (dratted newsfeed)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 05:57:32 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Today's Haakmat digest:
>
> I'm so happy to see you're digesting me again. I was beginning to think
> you
> had become oblivious to all that is wonderful about our relationship.
Your entertainment is irrelevant, Pascal.
> >> There's something irresistible about you.
> >
> >Then explain why so many people claim to kill-file me (and I emphasize
> >the word "claim").
>
> Perhaps they love to hate you.
Aren't you certain? Predictable.
> >> fl. 10 or fl. 15 if you star in it.
> >
> >And how many others would be willing to pay the same?
>
> Just you and me, Dave.
Evidence, please. Did you ask all others?
--
Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 6 Apr 2000 09:57:37 GMT
In article <32RG4.416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Other then you, who cares about the color of the cursor.
I was going to provide some detail about this, but instead I decided
to just call you a stupid dolt. It's more efficient that way.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 6 Apr 2000 09:59:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone see a flamewar around here?
Yes, but maybe I'm in a different "around here" to you. :^)
> *Blink* did I miss something interesting?
No. You can doze off again...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: From the Horse's Mouth
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 06:12:06 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >As for T. Max's vehemence about installing Win95 on Gateway 2600's, you
make
> >you mind up about that. One mention could be excused as a typo, but . .
> Another might be I don't remember nor care a whit about model numbers, and
am
> more interested in substantive debate than quibbling about details.
However, the "substance" of your comments in this context was based on the
fact that you had claimed repeatedly that you had _the very same machine_,
so Norman knew what he was talking about--you were backing it up with your
own experience.
Furthermore, when first confronted with this fact, you argued "to OEMs, any
model over 2 years old 'doesn't exist.' " That's a claim that you are in
fact correct and the OEM is incorrect to say that the model doesn't exist.
That's not not caring about model numbers.
> [... a hopelessly complex 7 step install which resembles Norm's
nightmare
> far more than doc roger's "put in the disk, hit enter a couple times, and
> you're done", and includes far more typing than I would ever consider
> reasonable for a commercial end-user OS installation, not that I would
ever
> consider a commercial end-user OS installation procedure reasonable...]
Why is that that you'd never consider a commercial end-user OS installation
procedure reasonable?
> >***************************************************
> >Note from doc:
> >
> >Note that OS installation is done here. The text below is for
configuring
> >various other elements.
> >
> >***************************************************
>
> Note from Max: The software has been copied to the hard drive, but the
system
> is in an entirely unusable state as concerns video,
You don't have to change your display resolution to get the video in a
usable state.
> network support,
Network support obviously doesn't have to be a part of an OS installation.
Of course, it's an important step and when installing OSs like Linux and NT
you can do all the network stuff while installing the OS (although you
certainly don't have to), but with Win95 it is an additional step, not the
OS install itself.
> and many
> other parts of the computer. Doc may want to quibble about the definition
of
> a computer, but either way we're a long way from being done cleaning up
after
> Bill Gate's messes.
> [... multiple procedures which are far LONGER and MORE COMPLEX than
Norm's
> nightmare to begin with...]
>
> I suppose if your intent is to sling mud (i.e.. ad hominem attack) simply
by
> pointing out minor discrepancies,
"pointing out discrepancies" isn't "slinging mud" or ad hominem.
> instead of substantive discussion
Who is defining substantive here? Is it "whatever Max cares about?"
> on the
> issues discussed here, you may well consider showing Gateway's current
>2300
> install is different than the one Norm (or the one I used on my Gateway
> laptop, regardless of model numbers or hardware revs) got an indeterminate
> time in the past (and when a 2300 had an indeterminate similarity to the
one
> Gateway is currently providing a standard install procedure for).
The url Norm gave describes a different procedure. It has similarities, but
it is different.
> However, I
> believe the fact that your posted procedure is much WORSE than Norm's,
What does worse mean there? More steps? More mentally challenging? And
which procedure are you referring to that I posted? The one that Gateway
emailed to me?
> and
> quite frankly shocks me (they didn't have any standard install procedure,
just
> an installation troubleshooting process, when I had my difficulties in
1997)
That could be, sure.
> with both its extent and its intricacy, should put to rest any claims that
you
> are concerned with the issues involved, and are far more interested in
> character assassination (i.e.. ad hominem attack).
Can you provide some of the relevant quotes here?
--doc
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:12:27 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8cgcfk$l2t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hey, Linux is better than Win95, that's something to brag about. Woohoo.
I know that you're a big NT/2K advocate and that you dislike Windows9x,
however I think there is no "better" OS, it entirely depends on your
computing needs.
IOW an OS is better at doing "this" and/or "that".
I'm willing to bet that fits the need of many people better [for them] than
many of the alternatives including NT/2K.
> -Chad
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: 6 Apr 2000 10:06:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think Java's attempt to reimplement `make' is annoying; it gets in the
> way of tools like automake and brings no benefits that I can see; there
> is no way to determine what .class files will result from compiling a
> given .java file, and so on. Argh.
Well, you can know that foobar.java will create foobar.class, but
that's it. So far, the most make-friendly way of using Java I've
found is to rebuild a package at a time. Which sucks. Not that
anyone should take that to imply that I'm happy with the way C handles
this sort of thing either.
I prefer, once I've built the main architecture of a program, to have
a makefile that specifies all dependencies explicitly. Maybe it's not
perfect, but it sucks less than the alternatives that I've tried...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: 06 Apr 2000 11:26:12 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think Java's attempt to reimplement `make' is annoying; it gets in the
> > way of tools like automake and brings no benefits that I can see; there
> > is no way to determine what .class files will result from compiling a
> > given .java file, and so on. Argh.
>
> Well, you can know that foobar.java will create foobar.class, but
> that's it. So far, the most make-friendly way of using Java I've
> found is to rebuild a package at a time. Which sucks. Not that
> anyone should take that to imply that I'm happy with the way C handles
> this sort of thing either.
You can? In my even brief encounters with java, I know that there is not
100% correspondence between $f.java and $f.class; not to mention, nested
classes!
[]
~Tim is not a major coding hacker
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 06 Apr 2000 11:33:06 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyone see a flamewar around here?
>
> Yes, but maybe I'm in a different "around here" to you. :^)
*That* would explain alt.flame ;8^)
> > *Blink* did I miss something interesting?
>
> No. You can doze off again...
Phew. Thank heavens for that :)
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: From the Horse's Mouth
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 06:35:00 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:04:16 GMT
> >On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:43:37 -0500, someone claiming to be doc rogers
> >wrote:
> >>Below is the response I received from Gateway's techs.
> >>Note that since T. Max kept talking about a Gateway 2600 and having
> >>experience installing Windows on it, that was the model I asked for,
which I
> >>was told was non-existant.
> >Our regular viewers may not be, but * I * am surprized. Wrong for Max
> >is pretty much old hat, but * this * wrong is rare.
> It has been suggested that it is rather important to refrain from ad
hominem
> attacks, Roger. Please speak with doc roger about your insistence on
spewing
> personally derogatory comments.
Pointing out that someone's claims were wrong isn't ad hominem.
Here's a couple definitions of ad hominem:
""For Aristotle, a fallacy in which 'persons direct their solutions against
the man, not against his arguments' (_Sophistical Refutations_, 178^b 17).
Locke sees it as a 'way to press a man with consequences drawn from his own
principles or concessions' (_Essay Concerning Human Understanding_, IV.
xvii. 21) Locke's _ad hominem_, though he does not describe it as a
fallacy, is not a proof 'drawn from any of the foundations of knowledge or
probability."--John Woods, in _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_, ed.
Honderich
"If an argument is made to turn on facts which are irrelevant but of such a
nature that their irrelevance would not be obvious to some particular
person, then it is an Argumentum ad Hominem; that is, an argument addressed
to the man. A skillful and unscrupulous persuader, if he knows the foibles
and prejudices to some particular individual, can play upon these to create
conviction. The same argument would probably fail with another individual
whose 'blind-spots' were different. An Ad Hominem is fallacious for the
same reason that an Ad Populum is fallacious: how an individual feels about
facts has nothing to do with their logical relevance in support of some
proposition."--Alburey Castle, _A College Logic_
"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents'
motives."--American Heritage Dictionary
Claiming that someone is wrong isn't a "personal consideration," rather it
is a matter of fact; neither is pointing out that that person has frequently
been wrong in the past and that this doesn't surprise the poster.
> Just "how wrong" is changing one digit in a model number, and why on earth
do
> you guys think it is at all important?
It is important because the crux of your argument was, "Hey, Norm is
right--I know because _I have the same model and had the same exact
problem_!"
--doc
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
