Linux-Advocacy Digest #32, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640 (Marty)
RE: About GNU kernels ("Pedro Ballester")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Be vs. Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (abraxas)
Re: Comparison between Linux and FreeBSD! (Joe Kiser)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (William Adderholdt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 20:29:52 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett (little bot) wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> Evidence, please.
Haven't you been paying attention?
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > tholenbot 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Careful tholenbot, I'm going to crack you up ...
> > > > >
> > > > > What you are going to to is irrelevant. What you do is relevant.
> > > >
> > > > Non sequitur, as no one has mentioned what he is going to to.
> > >
> > > More reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> >
> > You are erroneously presupposing previous reading comprehension problems
> > on my part, Bennett (little bot).
>
> Incorrect.
Liar. Your presupposition can plainly be seen.
> > > Typical, coming from someone who fails to local the grasshopper.
> >
> > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Bennett (little bot).
>
> See what I mean?
Don't you know?
> > I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot). No
> > surprise there, Bennett (little bot).
>
> You erroneously presuppose the existence of "the question".
Incorrect. There was nothing erroneous about my presupposition of "the
question".
> > > > > > >> >> 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ... and hack you to pieces!
> > > > >
> > > > > Also illogical.
> > > >
> > > > Also pontification.
> > >
> > > Of what relevance is that remark?
> >
> > Weren't you paying attention, Bennett (little bot)?
>
> I see you failed to answer the question.
On what basis do you make this claim? Witness my response to your question
above.
> How predictable, coming from someone who lacks asteroid comprehension
> skills.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> > > > > Meanwhile, you fail to answer the question. Typical.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from someone who typically fails to answer the
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > Who is that, Marty?
> >
> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little
> > bot).
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who erroneously claimed that I
> erroneously presupposed reading comprehension problems on your part.
Incorrect.
> > > > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > Don't you know?
> >
> > I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot). No
> > surprise there, Bennett (little bot).
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who failed to answer the question.
What alleged "question"?
> > > > --
> > > > The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
> > >
> > > What is allegedly "infinite" about it?
> >
> > Still having reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little bot)?
>
> See above.
"Above" does not answer my question, Eric.
> > > > So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should try asking that question in a post made in response
> > > to Bobo, Marty.
> >
> > Aren't you sure, Bennett (little bot)?
>
> Don't you know?
Ask your sex life.
> > > --
> > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> >
> > I've already addressed this issue above, Bennett (little bot).
>
> Reading comprehension problems again, Marty?
See what I mean?
> > [Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his usage of
> > the words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they are
> > derogatory terms.]
>
> What alleged "we"?
Don't you know, Eric? It's your "we".
> --
> The Dave Tholen Show Theme
> (feel free
How free is "free", Eric?
> to provide third verse;
What alleged "third verse"?
> I wrote this back in January and never got around to finishing it)
Typical inconsistency.
> Oh this is a story 'bout a kook name Dave
> And he lived in Manoa with that Bob-O knave
> But the U-Hawaii workers really didn't approve
> So he packed up his telescope lens and had to move
> To a city in Ohio where he lived in a tree
> And he worked in a telescope polishing factory
> And he played on the company trolling team
> And every single night he had a strange recurring dream
> Where he was wearing dirty glasses in a vat of sour cream
> But that's really not important to the story.
>
> Well the very next year he met a bot named Eliza
> With an asteroid tattooed on its arm
> But he didn't keep in touch and he lost its number
> The he got himself a job on a poppycock farm
> And he spent his life savings on a telescope dome
> Twenty miles below the surface of the earth
> And he really makes a mighty fine invective and insult target
> For what it's worth
Then when Dave was on the 'net getting porno for free,
He heard the incoherent ramblings of an actor on TV.
He was on a science fiction show from the seventies
And his mantra was illogical as illogical could be.
It turns out the show's popular for all to plainly see,
So he gives up his personality and whatta ya know?
Now he's got his very own Irrelevancy Theater show!
--
The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
"It sounds as if you think somehow queers are better than morons and idiots
and we know that is not the case."
Jeff Glatt says:
"'Idiot' and 'moron' are not descriptive labels for people with learning
disabilities despite your own inability to grasp this very simple fact."
Bobo responds:
"I agree that it is not descriptive so why do you insist on using labels long
improperly attributed to the learning disabled?"
[Editorial: Note the admission that "idiot" and "moron" are derogatory in
nature and are not proper ways to refer to those with mental disabilities.]
Bobo says:
"I never suggested that it was proper to address a retarded person in this
way."
[Editorial: Re-affirming that referring to retarded persons as "idiots" and
"morons" is unacceptable.]
Regarding his position on the matter:
"My argument may not be of any importance to anybody, but at least it is
consistent"
[Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his usage of the
words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they are derogatory
terms.]
"It sounds as if you think somehow queers are better than morons and idiots
and we know that is not the case."
So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Ballester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: About GNU kernels
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 20:40:00 GMT
Thanks everyone for your answers.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:15:13 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 08:55:11 GMT,
> fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 04:56:53 GMT,
> >> fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> brought forth the following words...:
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >35 USC 271, Infringement of patent
> >> >> >
> >> >> >§271. Infringement of patent
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC §§1 et seq.],
> >whoever
> >> >> >without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any
patented
> >> >> >invention, within the United States or imports into the United
States
> >any
> >> >> >patented invention during the term of the patent therefor,
infringes
> >the
> >> >> >patent. "
> >> >> >
> >> >> >fmc
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> I stand corrected,
> >> >>
> >> >> However, this would imply that those people who used the Barnes and
> >Noble
> >> >> "violation" of Amazon's "one click" patent, were as liable for
patent
> >> >> infringement as B&N.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >If they can be considered users, that is. IMO, Barnes and Noble is
the
> >only
> >> >user of the invention. They are using it to service cutomers who
visit
> >> >their site. Anyone who buys from their site is being served, much as
> >they
> >> >would if they took their purchase to the checkout line at the brick
and
> >> >mortar B&N (The B&M B&N). You wouldn't consider them to be users of
the
> >> >cash register, would you?
> >>
> >>
> >> If they were the ones poking the buttons, sure, which is exactly what
they
> >> are doing in the one click example.
> >> (of course, the Cash registers, if patented, are presumably legit
copies
> >> since noone is suing B&N for patent infringement for them.)
> >>
> >> The section of Title 35 you quoted made no such distinction as "being
> >served"
> >> it said uses.
> >>
> >
> >If Amazon suggested suing B&N's customers, their lawyers would stop them
> >before it came to a filing, even if they could be defined as users, and
> >technically might be violating Amazon's rights. They'd gain nothing by
> >suing them except the ire of B&N customers, most of whom are also Amazon
> >customers.
> >
> >fmc
>
> Whether Amazon would sue them is irelevent, are the users in violation of
> title 35 USC?
>
Any customer who continues to use the one-click system after B&N loses the
suit will be in violation.
fmc
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:36:49 GMT
On 5 Apr 2000 04:23:50 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>> happens.
>
>> Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>> couple of seconds.
>
>Lesse:
>
>[yttrx@self yttrx]$ locate Gtk-Perl-0.6123.tar.gz
>/opt/stage/Gtk-Perl-0.6123.tar.gz
>
>That was under 1 second.
You realize of course that this wont even slow that shill down.
"using the right tool for the right job" or "avoiding the problem
entirely" is not something that would even occur to that sort.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:38:35 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 08:58:23 +0200, Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd imagine that a BeOS equivalent of LinDVD or Xmovie would
>> illustrate the point quite nicely. You could just feed both
>> VOB files and note the framerates.
>fine
>
> which are the BeOS equivalent ?
I haven't the foggiest idea actually.
That's why some disclosure in this area would be useful.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:42:47 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 04:08:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I> Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for
>> Linux would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the
>> apps are widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use
>> Windows; and once other software vendors can write just as
>> effectively for Windows, there won't be the same pressure to use the
>> Microsoft apps; if that happens, they've lost the stranglehold on the
>> market, and that's good.
>
>I'm afraid this makes no sense. It's as though you think Microsoft is
>the only company that writes Windows software. They're not. MS could
>port its entire portfolio of software, and it _still_ wouldn't make the
>other software vendors port their software to the other platforms. They
>just won't invest unless they think they can make more money porting
>than not porting.
Actually, this makes no sense.
MS doesn't just make the applications. They also make the developer
tools. Any work they would put into porting their own applications
could easily be exploited by all the other Vendors. MS would likely
even make a nice profit from providing those tools.
[deletia]
Once the tools are in place, and there is a good degree of devtool
level compatibility, the problem of porting is much less difficult.
This is why Unix applications have a great tendency to creep onto
other Unix platforms.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:45:47 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:03:13 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is it free for anyone to come up with DIFFERENT versions without any
>consensus from Linus?
Yes.
>What about the name?
Linus owns the trademark "Linux" in the US.
>Will all the DIFFERENT versions have to be under the name of "LINUX"?
You'd have to ask Linus.
>Will Linus be willing to give up control to allow the DIFFERENCEs?
He already did. The GPL says you can modify the code any way you want,
and even distribute it, provided you also make the source available. It
does not say anything about Linus giving permission.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 21:45:03 GMT
On 5 Apr 2000 08:41:23 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> If their applications division is separate from their OS division,
>>>> they no longer have the same interest in having their applications
>>>> only run on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them
>>>> everywhere.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that it is possible to make more money by selling and
>>> supporting MS's Application software on multiple platforms than by
>>
>> Assuming that they coded their applications with portability in mind
>> then deploying X other versions won't be that much more expensive.
>> Plus, breaking it on a wider variety of systems will help expose
>> problems with the reference codebase.
>
>It really depends on how much support they expect to get from the "OS"
>(strictly the OS and several layers of libraries on top of that.) If
>they are very tightly tied to *COM* and the Windows GDI, then porting
>will be a minor nightmare, though possible, and much easier if they
>get in someone else's portability layer. There are quite a few of
>those knocking about.
Then they didn't code with portability in mind...
[deletia]
Loki might have spent more time on the msvc++ -> gcc port of
Heavy Gear II then they spent on the D3D -> GL part. There are
plenty of opportunties to lock yourself in on Windows. This is
true even if you aren't coding applications.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 8 Apr 2000 22:01:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ted Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip about MacOS X]
>> The biggest shame right now is that Linux seems to copy either from bad unix
>> examples or windows.
>>
>> I'd much rather see them cribbing from a better example, or even better,
>> pushing past this and creating their own examples.
> That's funny... MacOS X is simply NeXT Step 2000. Apple is basing
> their next-generation UI on a UNIX box.
This has always been known. Apple did this on purpose, at Mr. Job's
discression.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison between Linux and FreeBSD!
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:05:09 -0400
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> I was running a buggy app with a memory leak (more like a flood). I
> checked memory usage and found FreeBSD was swapping 500M (on a currently
> 64M machine)! Yet FreeBSD was still robust enough that I could easily
> open an xterm and kill it with almost no delay.
I'll bet the program was Mozilla.
> I wonder though if Linux will overtake FreeBSD in the things FBSD is
> best at one day soon with Linux's accelerating rate of development.
Nah, Linux people have never been concerned about stability or speed,
only getting hardware you've never heard of to work so that Linux can
compete on the desktop level. I would never use Linux as anything more
than a UNIX-desktop. If you want stability, FreeBSD is the way to go.
Although I've heard that NetBSD supports more hardware than Linux (and
properly coded, not like Linux where you write a driver, hope it works,
and never touch it again) and is about as stable as FreeBSD. I've never
tried it, so I don't know.
--
-Joe Kiser
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
"Make the sadness go away."
-Iced Earth, Melancholy (Holy Martyr)
------------------------------
Reply-To: William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Adderholdt)
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:06:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Adderholdt wrote:
> > So, to sum up, my definition of programming is now "the act of
> > creating an algorithm in a machine-readable format that details a
> > series of operations to be executed in a regular definite order."
> > (Furrfu! I can tell this definition is going to get longer and
> > longer as this discussion continues -- if it continues.)
>
> Urmm . . . not quite.
>
> The act of using a paint program fits your definition, as the button
> clicks, mouse drags, etc. constitute "the act of creating an algorithm"
> (the algorithm used, to be precise, to paint your picture), the
> algorithm is presented in macine readable format (the button clicks,
> mouse drags, etc. are of course all machine readable, or the machine
> wouldn't have responded to your clicks, drags, etc.) and the operations
> were definitely presented to the computer in a regular, definite order.
I think you might have misunderstood my definition a bit. When you
use a paint program, you are following a procedure, and each operation
is indeed in a machine readable format, but the procedure itself is not
readable by a machine. When I say the algorithm is "in a machine-readable
format," I mean that it is in a form such that the computer that should
be able to execute the algorithm. For example, if the algorithm has
a conditional branch, it should be the computer, not the operator,
that tests whether the condition is true or false, and it should be the
computer that automatically chooses which branch to execute.
Given your objection above, plus a number of other comments in your
dispute with Jim Dabell in another thread, I think I have finally
figured out what your position is.
>From <news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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.
[snip]
> The hope was that somebody that had been part of that argument long
> enough, would have actually stopped to think about it, and had at least
> the beginings of a description between "using" and "programming" . . .
> 'cause as far as I can see, "using" is just programming with a higher
> level set of functions/sub programs/processes, wherein you write the
> program in your head, act as part of the computing system (some of the
> conditional processing is executed by you, some by the computer) to
> execute the program, then throw the program away after you are done.
Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that when you
are programming, you are producing a procedure for the computer
to follow. A specific task that a computer operator performs can be
described as a procedure. This makes sense, as I've seen a number of
"troubleshooting guides" that are printed using a flow chart, and I'm sure
many step-by-step instructions on how to perform a specific task could
also be represented this way. Since you are producing a procedure to make
the computer perform the task, you are in fact programming the computer.
I have two objections with this:
1) This sort of "programming" is done when operating pretty much
any device, and no computer is really required. By the above
definition, I could say that when I am doing a repair on my house
that I am in fact "programming" my box of tools. This definition
just doesn't fit what people normally mean by programming. To me,
programming requires that the algorithm itself, not just each
individual operation, be performed by the computer.
2) You waited a bit too long to make your position clear. This
newsgroup was getting quite agitated just trying to figure out what
you meant when you said that "every interaction with a computer
is programming." :-)
> It seems that, so far, you definition doesn't work the way you seem to
> want it to. I'd say that for the definition you seem to want to create
> to work, you'd have to add in the requirement of storing the complete
> set of instructions in a persistent store first.
I agree that a persistent store of some kind is necessary, but that
seems to be implied in the definition. How could the machine access
the algorithm if it wasn't stored somewhere?
> > I guess the only difference between my view and John W. Stevens' view is
> > whether or not a single computer operation counts as a program or not.
> > I don't believe it does, as the notion of programming seems to require
> > a series of operations, with some procedure to put those operations in
> > the correct order. (If I've misunderstood, please correct me.)
>
> Ok, but . . . how do you define "single computer operation?".
>
> When you click a GUI button, the machine ends up performing tens of
> thousands, if not millions of operations (instructions). The question
> then becomes one of view point: does something stop being programming
> when you start using sufficiently powerful sub programs, one that are
> designed to use the currently set default values?
[snip]
I can't think of a good way of defining a "single computer operation."
I looked it up in the dictionary, which only says that it is "a single
step performed by a computer in the execution of a program."
But I think we've wrangled with definitions long enough here. I think
we understand what everyone is saying by now. :-)
William Adderholdt
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
