Linux-Advocacy Digest #13, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading ("ax")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Programming Languages (David E. Thomas)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions ("John W. Stevens")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Jeff Grinnell)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451642 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Rumors ... (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT] (Jim Dabell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:10:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8cjf4m$87c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> HEADLINES!
>
> Microsoft stocks plummet! Investors jumping out of Windows!
>
HEADLINES!
Linux stocks plummet! Investors jumping out of XWindows!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:15:26 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:11:06 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:43:02 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate
when I
> | > | > > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> | > | > >
> | > | > > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as
> | well as
> | > | > > revenue that the publisher lost?
> | > |
> | > | > FFS revenue is not a right.
> | > |
> | > | However, copyright is. That is Clancy's intellectual property, he
> | created it
> | > | and he alone should be the sole person to profit from it.
> | >
> | > Copyright is not a right. Intellectual property is not property.
> | >
> | > | By making illegal copies of his books, you are in essence stealing
from
> | him
> | > | because those people might have otherwise bought the book.
> | >
> | > And in writing a competing book on the same subject I am also in
> | > essence stealing from him because people might have bought his book,
> | > but the bought mine instead. Correct?
> |
> | That's not theft, nor does it violate copyright, or any other law. The
> | market is both free and competitive.
>
> But by your reasoning making a copy of his book is theft because of
> the potential revenue Clancy might has received if I hadn't made a
> copy.
>
> | > | I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with this.
> | > | Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have been
> | > | common law for centuries.
> | >
> | > Just because it's a law does not make it right.
> |
> | Not THAT again. Go back and review chapter one.
>
> So you disagree? The law decides what rights you and I have? That
> seems contradictory to what you said earlier. (Quoting from memory)
> "my rights are not doled out by the government."
Not at all. I was referring to your propensity for juvenile rhetoric.
Copyright based on common law has been around for centuries, so the burden
of proof is on you to offer a more cogent arguments than "Just because it's
a law does not make it right". You're waiting to get hit by a wild pitch
when you should be trying to hit home run off an inside fast ball.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
From: David E. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 14:16:35 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg Yantz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David E. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is silly.
>
>I can see a distinction between interpreted and compiled
languages
>(though it seems to be blurring over time).
>
>Trying to make the additional distinction that a scripting
language
>is one where the "commands are interpreted BY THE SHELL" is
>nonsense. The shell (pick a shell) is an interpreter, just like
>any other (perl, python, tcl...)
>
Well as I said, I'm not defending the definition only, pointing
out that your example wasn't using it as it was written.
A shell is an interpeter and an interpeter is a shell. But
ulitmately they are no different than compilers. A compiled
program can do anything a shell script or interpeter source
code can do. Some things are hard enough to make them
impractical perhaps, but can be done nevertheless.
Thus, any distinction becomes artificial. Doesn't mean the
distinctions aren't useful. We make the distinctions for a
reason. If someone has reason to make a distinction between
an interpeter that executes calls to the shell and an
interperter that executes calls to machine language, it could
be important.
David E. Thomas
Rivercrest Technologies, Inc.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:15:37 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
> I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
> things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
> I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
> automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules.
Automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules: procmail.
> A contact list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
> one list of contacts/email addresses.
Ok, I don't understand this one . . . what are you asking for?
> The news reading programs are very weak. I simply want the ability to
> select what articles I want to download, tell it to download, and have
> it happen.
So, how does SLRN (as an example) fail to do this?
> I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
> and decode messages. Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
> have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
Actually, Linux has several of these. I wrote one. In fact, it was
written as a generic, portable program that would run on DOS, Windows,
OS/2 and Unix, and was completed and in use before version 1 of Linux
was released.
A German site picked up the program (it was/is freeware), and used it to
fill up their hardrives in a matter of days.
The modern version assumes that it is running partially over a PPP link,
so it has an optional module that will, if you have a shell account on
your ISP, undecode (either uuencode or base64 format) before moving the
resulting file to your home machine (thereby saving 25% of the
bandwidth), as well as having built in data base support (based on
PostGRES). The modern version is, of course, Linux only.
> Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
> needs?
There are modern applications that are *finished* that meet these needs.
> Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
> found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
> programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
> text based programs I used 10 years ago.
Ok. What, precisely, is wrong with text based programs? If they work,
why do you care that they are text based . . . especially as what you
want to do is text processing.
Hey, if the interface is more important than the functionality, then be
my guest, insist on GUI'fied stuff. . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jeff Grinnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:17:16 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> My point was that if Windows had not embraced the internet, it likely would
> have stayed a geek thing. Since Windows would still be the primary OS that
> people were using.
Sorry to interject here in what has been a rather entertaining thread so
far, but I just couldn't let this slip by.
If Windows had not embraced the internet as it did then Windows market
share would be much less than it is today. It may even be another OS
that sits on the majority of home desktops.
Even Bill Gates himself recognized the threat to MS market share and
rushed to provide a browser. Heck, they even had to use another
company's code to save their bacon from the fire because they had missed
the proverbial boat.
Internet availability can be considered a "killer app" which many people
would have abandoned Windows for if MS did not make it available in
Windows.
If you think that even Microsoft could have ignored the internet and
still be where it is today then you may be more delusional than Bill
Gates himself is.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:27:25 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 20:24:46 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:03:45 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> | > | > Information is not property.
> | > |
> | > | Nonsense. Open a book sometime.
> | >
> | > What good would it do? According to you, the information in the book
> | > belongs to someone else and I would be violating their rights I used.
> |
> | You can read the book. The copyright does not retain that right to the
> | author, does it?
>
> Let's take a textbook, example; specifically, a textbook. I can read
> the textbook, but according to you, the information in the textbook
> belongs to the publisher. It's pretty clear that if I can't use the
> information in a textbook, the damn thing is useless for anything more
> then a paperweight.
You can use the information to gain new knowledge, insights, and skills.
You can't do that with a paperweight.
fmc
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451642
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:35:59 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> And it's great to be digested by you.
That doesn't answer my question about your use of "again".
1> But you forgot to digest me in a reply of yours earlier on.
On what basis do you make that claim?
1> I didn't like that at all.
What you do or do not like is irrelevant, Pascal.
1> Look, what I did was wrong.
On what basis do you make that claim?
1> But I'm through with that now.
Why?
1> I promise I won't disappear again.
Famous last words.
1> Don't be mad.
What makes you think I'm mad, Pascal?
1> I just needed some time on my own to sort things out.
Take all you need, Pascal.
1> That's all.
Start now.
1> Perhaps they hate to love you?
Illogical. That doesn't explain why they claim one thing and do another.
1> You can be so demanding, Dave.
You're the one who jumped to conclusions, Pascal.
1> Really if we want this to succeed you'll have to leave some room for
1> my feelings too you know.
The key word here is "if".
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:40:30 -0400
On 7 Apr 2000 20:01:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> That's exactly what Judge Jackson ruled. Microsoft is a monopoly in the
>> Intel Desktop PC market, not the Desktop PC market.
>
>There are dozens of manufacturers of Intel equipment. There is one manufacturer
>of apple equipment.
>
So an OS monopoly can only happen when the OS in question runs on PCs
made by multiple manufacturers?
If this is a law that's spelled out somewhere, I'd sure love to see
it. If not, then this just confirms my suspicion that Judge Jackson
pretty much made up the law as the case went on. There's nothing wrong
with that, mind you; it's just not the judge's job.
By the way, if things are as you say you are, where does that leave
Sun, whose OS runs on a multitude of vendors' Solaris-compatible
machines? Where does it leave the Apple of several years ago, before
they killed the market for MacOS-compatible PCs?
>
>I'm not sure that I understand why youre missing the exceedingly obvious
>here.
>
Probably because the exceedingly obvious doesn't support your point.
In fact, it does the exact opposite.
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT]
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:39:52 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Jim Dabell wrote:
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > > > > So I just "programmed" my monitor to be brighter when I turned the
> > > > > > brightness up?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is your monitor a computer?
> > > >
> > > > What about laptops?
> > >
> > > What about 'em? Can the laptop continue to compute without it's screen?
> >
> > Laptops have a monitor embedded in the system. Is turning the
> > brightness/contrast/whatever up on them programming?
>
> Are monitors computing systems?
YES FFS! That, along with hard drives, memory, and other nice things.
All in one package, as opposed to the average desktop system, with
monitor separate.
> > Some of them need
> > you to press a key combination to do so. Others have buttons especially
> > for it. Are they both programming? Or just one?
>
> Is writing a program to control the volume of your computer's speaker:
> programming?
Perhaps. Most people consider "writing a program" to be programming.
> (a) Is using the slider on the GUI to the volume control program
> programming?
No.
> (b) Is using the monitor control panel to brighten the display:
> programming?
No.
> Is doing steps (a) and (b) in order to be able to do step (c): Running
> your video display software to show a movie: programmming?
No.
> If after starting the movie, you go back to step (a) to turn up the
> volume, is that programming?
No.
> (d) If you write a program to do steps (a), (b) and (c), then back to
> (a) for you, are you programming?
Perhaps. "Writing a program" is usually considered to be programming.
> If instead of using the monitor control panel, you use the monitor
> hardware brightness control, are you not-programming?
You are not programming.
> If the program you wrote in step (d) instead of using (b), uses a
> robotic arm to reach up and adjust your monitor hardware brightness
> control, are you not programming?
Perhaps. Again, since you wrote a program, most people would probably
call it programming.
> > > In the olden days, they had hardware called "patch boards" . . . can I
> > > take it from your opposition that you don't consider modifying the
> > > hardware settings on a computer to be programming?
> >
> > It depends on the situation. As I said, the *act* doesn't change just
> > because you are using a computer.
>
> Ok, so programming can be done independently of computing systems. . .
> which implies that just 'cause you are the one executing the program in
> your head (the one you just wrote in your head), you are still
> programming.
My point wasn't the fact that you can program without a computer. My
point was that the thing you are doing doesn't change because you use a
computer to do it. Are you deliberately missing the point?
> > If the act is to *solely* change the
> > way the computer is running, then it's a lot more likely to be
> > programming. If the act is to get something else done directly (i.e.
> > turn the brightness up) then no, I wouldn't consider it to be
> > programming (unless you can think of an exceptional case).
>
> If the monitor is part of the computer, and you adjust the brightness,
> isn't that the same as "change the way the computer is running?"
No. It doesn't change the way the computer runs.
> > I meant that I was missing part of your argument because I couldn't
> > accept the fact that your opinions could be so, well, I'm not sure how
> > to describe them,
>
> Insane? Irrational? Elitist? Dumb?
e) all of the above :)
> The whole discussion was provoked in order to create a philisophical
> basis for a next generation "User Interface". The very first question
> that must be asked when creating a user interface, is just what,
> exactly, differentiates a user interface from any other kind of computer
> interface. One of the critical distinctions that must be addressed, is
> the difference, *IF* *ANY*, between "using" and "programming".
I don't see it as a critical distinction at all. If there is no
difference, then why does it matter? If there is a difference, why does
it matter? Either way, you are focusing on the ways in which people use
the computer.
> My assertion generates a lot of heated response, because people are
> knee-jerking . . . the perpetual fight between people who want "user
> friendly" (their definition of user friendly) vs. the other guys who
> also want "user friendly" (THEIR defintion of user friendly) generates
> unthinking, dogmatic responses.
I don't see it as knee-jerking. The "dogmatic responses" you see, I
percieve as the fact that most people can say easily that most actions
with a computer are not programming, whereas actually defining
programming is hard, if not impossible. Just because you can't easily
say why exactly an action is not programming, doesn't automatically mean
that it is.
> > > In short: If I say do, and the computer does, under what conditions
> > > would you call the action I took programming, and under what conditions
> > > would you define my actions as "not programming"?
> >
> > As a general rule of thumb, when the (short term) act you are performing
> > is intended to complete a specific task, then it's not programming.
>
> Excuse, but that describes why people write programs: to complete a
> specific task.
Sorry, I don't mean specific as in "one class of problems", I mean
specific as in "I need to rename a to b". Writing a set of instructions
to change arbitrary filenames is programming, clicking a couple of times
and pressing 'b' is not.
> > I think that the definition of programming is a moving target, and a grey
> > area. I don't have to define it completely to be able to say that a
> > certain action is not programming.
>
> You have to define programming at least enough to be able to show the
> difference between programming, and not-programming, in order to say
> that a certain action is not-programming.
>
> Since, so far, nobody has provided a way to define either (programming,
> or not-programming), I'd say that the discussion has been resolved to
> indicate that not-programming is the empty set.
OK, an incomplete definition. Programming: creating a set of
instructions for changing a computer's path of execution that can apply
to an entire class of computers. It requires some degree of thought.
It's not a complete definition, it's very vague, but it rules out a hell
of a lot of computer uses. As far as I can tell, it doesn't rule out
anything I consider to be programming.
> > It's about as hard to define as pornography, I guess.
>
> Pornography is trivial to define. I don't understand why you think it
> is hard to define.
>
> Simply define what parts of the body may not be represented in any kind
> of persistent visual storage format.
>
> Done. What's so hard?
It includes many works of art that most people would not consider as
pornography. The key phrase is "most people", the term is subjective,
and IMHO, so is programming, as proven by this thread.
> > You know it when
> > you see it. Your argument is similar to "any picture of people is
> > pornography",
>
> No, no similarity at all. You think pornography is hard to define,
> because you have attempted to apply a legal argument, wherein the legal
> argument is bushwah.
There's nothing about the law in my post. I'm talking about the
definition in terms of what people mean when they talk about it. Your
argument is similar because most people view it as too broad. You have
a lot of "false positives".
> > at least that's how absurd your argument appears to me. I
> > don't have to define pornography to be able to say that, without a
> > doubt, some pictures of people are not pornographic.
>
> Yes, you do have to define pornography to be able to say, *AT* *ALL*,
> that some pictures of people are not pornographic.
I don't have to define it completely, which is what I meant, sorry.
[snip]
> > > is not programming. When I program a computer, I say: do this, and the
> > > computer does what I tell it to do. When I tell the computer to record,
> > > transmit, then execute an HTML program . . . what am I doing that is
> > > different from what I do when I program?
> > >
> > > If telling the computer what to do *ISN'T* the basic definition of
> > > programming, then what is?
> >
> > When you are writing HTML, you *are not* telling *any* computer what to
> > do.
>
> Which simply indicates to me that you not only share my definition, you
> find it to narrow. . .
Huh? It indicates to me that I am contradicting you. What am I
missing?
> > It is not a set of instructions,
>
> Yes, HTML *IS* a set of instructions. The <table> tag instructs the
> computer. What, however, is your point?
It doesn't instruct the computer. Lynx ignores it, for example. It is
information. Algorithms and programs can be considered to be
information, but the reverse is not true.
> > it is information.
>
> Point of order: all programs are information. Defining something as
> information, does *NOT* define it as a not-program.
I agree that it doesn't define it as a not-program. When I say "it's
not a program, it's information" what I mean is "it's not a program,
it's *just* information". I'm not attempting to define it as a
not-program with the statement "it's just information", I am describing
it as a not-program with the statement "it's not a program".
> > It is not a
> > programming language, it is a markup language.
>
> But, once again, how is the *ACT* of creating HTML not programming? You
> claimed that HTML is not a programming language. . . fine. But that
> wasn't the assertion, was it? The assertion was that the *ACT* of
> creating HTML is programming. Even if the result is not, *ITSELF* a
> program, you have to write a program to write the HTML, right?
Iff I write a program to generate the HTML, then the writing of the
program is the act of programming. When I execute the program, that is
not programming. Neither is writing the HTML by hand. At no time is
creating HTML programming.
> > "Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that a
> > particular interaction with a computer is not programming."
> >
> > "But since you stand by the blanket statement "any interaction with a
> > computer is programming" it is impossible to do so."
> >
> > Perhaps I should have said that it is impossible to prove it *to you*.
>
> Not at all. To prove it to me, provide a counter example. My assertion
> can be tested, it is not an assumption or a definition. Show to me how
How can it be tested?
[snip]
> If, indeed, you define the difference between "using" and "programming"
> as the intervention of a persistent store, then you'd be able to show
> that using a computer when your actions are not being recorded, isn't
> programming.
That is not my definition of programming.
> But, unfortunately, you'd also prove that designing and writing a
> program in my head, but never saving it on the computer, is not
> programming.
Your memory can be considered storage space.
> > > Trolls are simple to deal with: prove 'em wrong. You *STILL* haven't
> > > given anything but bald assertion (re: For the Record) to prove me
> > > wrong. :-)
> >
> > It's hard to prove you wrong, because you are relying on ambiguities.
>
> Then define the terms. Which term do you find ambiguous? Please start
> by defining the term: programming.
It's impossible to do so completely, because as this thread demostrates,
it is very subjective; what one person calls programming, another
doesn't. Such a definition would have to include general consensus,
which is liable to change from one moment to the next. Thus, the term
"programming" is ambiguous.
[snip]
> And I respond by showing you how your examples of not-programming
> include things that you also define as programming.
Where?
> > > In that case, can I assume *YOUR* assertion would be: "Programming is
> > > the act of telling any computing system what to do?".
> >
> > Nope. Too broad. Again, using a computer doesn't change the nature of
> > what you are doing. Don't try and sidestep it, what is wrong with what
> > I said, apart from the fact that it conflicts with your definition?
>
> I answered you above. Your definition does not *EXCLUDE* activities
> that *YOU* seem to define as programming, therefore it cannot be used to
> define the set of actions that are not-programming.
I'm not using it as a definition. I'm disagreeing with your reasoning
that because it involves a computer, it changes the nature of what are
doing. Again, using a computer doesn't [automatically] change the
nature of what you are doing. What is wrong with that?
> > > A typewriter is not a computing system, a computer is. The universe
> > > could reasonably be defined as, at the very least, being a computing
> > > system. You could even define a cat as a computing system. . . the flaw
> > > in your response is in your attempt to draw an analogy between a
> > > typewriter, and a computing system.
> >
> > The analogy is perfectly justified.
>
> Nope. Tell me how to use your type writer to compute, say, the square
> root of PI?
I am not doing that when I type a letter.
> > Somebody is typing something that
> > they want to end up with on paper. The fact that it is done
> > electronically or mechanically doesn't change the act. I say they are
> > typing something; you say they are programming if they use the
> > computer.
>
> Oh, well, if that is your argument, then we agree. The act of using the
> typewriter is computing, because part of the *SYSTEM* is a computing
> device: YOU. In which case, my assertion stands, as to interact with a
> computer makes you part of the system there, as well.
Excuse me? I don't think that using a [typing device] involves
programming. YOU do, under certain circumstances (when the typing
device is a computer).
> If you define programming as an activity that takes place within the
> human mind, then any interaction that includes a human being is
> programming, right?
Nope. p->q doesn't mean q->p. You might as well say that "if you
define skateboarding as something that happens on the street, then
anything that happens on the street is skateboarding."
> So far, it seems that my assertion can only be proven false by defining
> programming as the act of *SAVING* a program in a persistent store.
> Unfortunately, that has the side effect of making the act of designing a
> program that you don't store, not-programming.
No, your assertion [that any interaction with a computer is programming]
can be proven false by simply finding an interaction with a computer
that is not programming. Since you consider smacking your head on the
keyboard to be programming, I think that it's obvious that it's
impossible to prove your assertions false *to you*.
[snip]
> It seems clear to me that *OTHER* interactions are programming: A
> teacher in front of her class, or a preacher in front of any audience,
> for example.
I've never said that programming requires a computer. Writing down
psuedocode on a napkin is usually programming, IMO.
Jim
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
