Linux-Advocacy Digest #94, Volume #26 Wed, 12 Apr 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT] ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Programming Languages ("John W. Stevens")
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Mig Mig)
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (Craig Kelley)
Re: Which distribution (Goetz W Kluge)
Re: Why so little discussion of the Netscape 6 preview on c.o.l.a? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Which distribution (Mig Mig)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Jim Dabell)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Jim Dabell)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Jim Dabell)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:42:55 -0600
abraxas wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >Yes, HTML *IS* a set of instructions. The <table> tag instructs the
> >> >computer. What, however, is your point?
> >>
> >> No, HTML is *NOT* a set of instructions,
>
> > How so?
>
> Because that would nessesitate the infinite regression of reason on
> this issue:
>
> If anything that instructs a computer is a programming, then I, by
> pressing one key on the keyboard and watching the subsequent character
> produced in a text editor, am a programmer by definition. If I am a
> programmer by definition, I can put that on my resume:
>
> "25 years programming experience"---I started with teletype terminals
> in my mother's computer lab when I was 5 years old.
>
> With this experience, it should be no problem to land myself a sweet
> job with a place like ILM, no?
Hey, I never said anything about *WHAT* *KIND* of programming, did I?
When you interview at ILM, they want to know what *KIND* of programming
you've 25 years of experience in.
> But it is a problem, and therefore the original defintion is not
> 'programming'. The real world does not reflect this perspective.
Your response is a straw man.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:44:08 -0600
Niall Wallace wrote:
>
> Using the slider is not Computer Programming
My assertion said nothing about "Computer" programming . . . just
programming.
> but there are other types of
> Programming, Including microwave cooking
Yep.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:46:16 -0600
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> So, is a ZIP file a programming language?
Yep.
> It does give instructions
> to a system (ZIP decompressor) to do something useful!
Yep. And what happens when you feed illegal instructions to a zip file
decompressor?
ERROR messages! ;-)
> John> Obviously, super-classes of "programming language" include
> John> such things as English, which can be used to do more than
> John> simply give instructions.
>
> Why is English a superclass? You mean a programming language is an
> instance of English? Wrong... it's possible to design a language with
> all reserved words being Hebrew.
I made a mistake: English is an instance of the super class to the class
of programming languages.
Sorry.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 12 Apr 2000 19:51:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Minix was absolutely horrible. Message passing like that is just wrong.
Hence the Tannenbaum-Torvalds war in comp.os.minix.
The problem is that Minix wasn't ever intended to be a particularly high
performance OS. In fact, I don't think Tannenbaum cared about the performance
at all. He just wanted something that was relatively easy to understand as
a teaching tool. And boy did it show.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "Hint for long-term survival: be tasty, and farmable." -- Tanuki
"And that's the real message of 'The Matrix'." -- Abigail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 12 Apr 2000 20:12:18 GMT
In article <8d2i9r$f3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R. Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>M. Vaughn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> We need to see a rich, integrated, and
>>> consistent UI on MacOS X, so that Linux hackers can see it ... and then
>>> try for something better.
>>>
>>
>>And fail due to the fact that while Apple can pay trained designers a
>>shitload of money to desigh such an interface, the people who try to
>>one-up them in the freenix development communities are going to be working
>>for nothing and under little real management. Open-source GUIs, so far,
>>look like they were designed by a committee because THEY ARE. Every UI I
>>have used on Linux or FreeBSD (besides the command line) is a
>>feature-laden (or leaden, if you will) beast that lacks any sort of
>>consistency or real flair.
>
> Let me assay an opinion that the latter will not work or look as
>well as pay software because they were designed by programmers. A lot of
>computer types have this mistaken notion that because they think they know
>what looks good, they are as good of a designer as a professional who
>makes their living doing design (i.e., all I really need to know about
>design is in the Pagemaker/Quark manual).
>
> It takes both TALENT and PRACTICE to be a good designer; being a
>part time hacker on Pagemaker and Photoshop isn't going to hack it....
And study doesn't hurt, either. E.g. studio arts, industrial graphics,
etc.
--
"Ballpark nachos -- you don't buy them, you just rent them." -- Hank Hill
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:52:01 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Looks like the fragmentation of Linux has already started. FWIW I
> couldn't get Worperfect included with Corel Linux Deluxe to even
> install on RH or SuSE or Caldera despite it being a *.deb file and my
> using the kde package manager which supports deb files.
Well Steve... kpackage even has support for BSD packages.. why dont you
download some BSD packages and try to install them ?
Maybe you should spend more time with computers Steve
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Apr 2000 14:54:52 -0600
"Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How did us UNIX users ever manage to create the world's largest
> > network (ie, distributed system) without all these buzzwords?
> >
> > It boggles the mind...
> >
> > :o)
> >
>
> I guess Al Gore didn't know anything about Microsoft's COM DOO-DADs!
And what if Microsoft *had* invented the Internet.....?
o Versions. Lots of them. This e-mail client won't work with that
MSPOP-97 mail server. This usenet client can't read the latest
posts from MSNNTP-99. This Internet Explorer(r)(c) won't work
with this MSHTTP-00 server or MSHTML-99 osr/2.
o Overkill. Lots of it. Instead of a simple text-streaming server
which sends out RFC-compliant data, we'd have intel-endian
x86 objects flying around. They would take up twice as much
space every 18 months, and the net would slow down by as much
during the same time. DNS would be gone, replaced by the
super-easy-to-program-for Internet Registry. Where do you want
to go today?
HKEY_INTERNET\MSHTTP\VERSION\7\COM\MICROSOFT\WWW
Of course, you'd need the Internet Registry Wizard to even
use the "easy" to use system. The Wizard would simplify the
task of finding websites by inserting statements like "It looks
like you're trying to find a MSN Web Site" while you're typing.
o Pay-for-Play. All internet functions would be handled by
Microsoft, including MSdomain registration, MSIP allocation
and even the allowed MS-IP Ports you could run on their
Windows NT servers (What? You want to have your *own* server?
No way!)
Considering that Bill Gates didn't even mention the internet in his
book, "The Road Ahead" -- I'd wager that all of the above isn't far
off what he envisioned the network to be.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Goetz W Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: 12 Apr 2000 21:04:34 GMT
Peter
>Instead of putting up with getting stupid answers to an
>extremely stupid set of questions, why not save yourself
>the pain and saveus our nerves by reading the FAQ for the
>linux newsgroups and any others that may meet your fancy.
Aren't we Germans extremely charming?
Goetz
Munich
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Why so little discussion of the Netscape 6 preview on c.o.l.a?
Date: 12 Apr 2000 21:05:23 GMT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:05:57 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Kiser wrote:
> > Mozilla is still buggy, and hasn't even reached a BETA stage yet.
>
> M14 is considered to be Beta1 i believe.
OK, let's clear up the confusion here:
There will be no Mozilla betas. That's right, none, nadda, zip.
Netscape 6PR1 is based on M14, with only stability enhancements added.
Mozilla is for developers. They are going to concentrate on things
like feature and API freezes rather than betas. Netscape plan on
branching at various points to provide new betas. The next beta will
likely be based on M16, and will have more focus on speed than beta1.
There will almost definately be a beta3 based on M18, and perhaps a
'gamma' release at around M20 if need-be.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:13:04 +0200
Goetz W Kluge wrote:
> Peter
> >Instead of putting up with getting stupid answers to an
> >extremely stupid set of questions, why not save yourself
> >the pain and saveus our nerves by reading the FAQ for the
> >linux newsgroups and any others that may meet your fancy.
>
> Aren't we Germans extremely charming?
Maybe you are but he's absolutely right.
No need to answer questions to those that are to lazy to search for the
information themselves. These kinds of users are getting too common these
days.
Greetings
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:23:28 +0200
that guy is one of the biggest microsoft haters in the world. he has no
objectivity at all. look at the choice of words he uses. 'infested' with
microsoft, but 'superb' anything that has to do with linux.
pretty sad.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Petreley has got to be kidding in his latest Infoworld column.
>
> First he says "The superb new suite for Linux".
>
> Then he says " How much I like this suite and how You'll have to pry
> it out of my hands".
>
> Then, incredibly he goes on to state that one of the first things the
> suite did was crash, and of course he finds a way to blame it on
> Windows because apparently parts of Corel Linux Office 2000 runs under
> a customized version of Wine.
>
> I have the Windows version and it runs fine.
>
> On top of that he can't get it to print on any other version of Linux
> except Corel (sound familiar?).
>
> So much for "I can take any program and run it on any Linux".
>
> Looks like the fragmentation of Linux has already started. FWIW I
> couldn't get Worperfect included with Corel Linux Deluxe to even
> install on RH or SuSE or Caldera despite it being a *.deb file and my
> using the kde package manager which supports deb files.
>
> Wonder how many months he'll have to screw around with it to get it to
> print under other Linuxen.
>
>
> This is an unbelievable piece of biased journalism and I find it hard
> to believe Infoworld would print such crap. I can't wait to read the
> Letters to the editor next week.
>
> It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
> are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
> community.
>
> It's incredible the crap Linux users have to suffer with in regard to
> shrink wrap applications.
>
> He should send it back and run the Windows version which works
> properly, at least on my system.
>
> Steve
>
> Here is the url:
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/04/10/000410oppetreley.xml
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:06:28 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Jim Dabell wrote:
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > > 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
> >
> > Sorry, no. The algorithm to paint the picture is in the picture-viewing
> > software,
>
> So, the picture-editing (I assume you meant that, not "picture-viewing")
> software plans and creates the picture? Not the artist?
I was talking about painting it on the screen, i.e. displaying it. Bad
choice of words, sorry. The thing that creates the picture from scratch
resides within the artist. Whether that thing is an algorithm is a
whole other discussion, which I am not going to get into.
> > which requires information (the picture data). Take this
> > example. I write something down. Is it programming simply because
> > somebody might use a scanner to read it in?
>
> Bad analogy.
Why? Don't you think that I am creating a set of instructions? A
scanner can read the marks on the paper as data can't it? Does it
matter that I am planning to send it to a friend and not interpret it as
instructions?
> > The marks on the paper
> > represent an algorithm using your logic.
>
> Nope. You are misrepresenting my logic.
OK, do you consider the marks on the paper to be a set of instructions?
Even though the person who made them was not planning to create a set of
instructions (as the person understood it)?
> I assert that the act of planning the steps that must be taken to create
> a picture is no different than planning the steps neccesary to complete
> any other task, and that this act is "programming".
I think the word you are looking for is "planning" - using the word
"programming" only confuses the people who already understand that word
to mean something. Trying to hammer a new definition into a word is
only likely to succeed if you can get a substantial number of people to
disregard the original meaning.
Example: hacker. Most people didn't know the meaning of the word (as
applied to computers) until the media started coming out with scare
stories of people hacking into their computers. Any computer crime was
referred to as "hacking" and it's this definition which means the most
to the average Joe.
The average Joe (who uses computers) already has a concept of what
programming is, and it's not what he can do. If a company claims to
come out with an interface that lets him "program" then they are going
to end up in court when he finds out all he can do with the interface is
click buttons.
> > The reason it isn't programming is because clicking on the buttons in
> > the paint program is manipulating a specific piece of information, and
> > not creating an algorithm.
>
> Now, just how did you decide on *WHICH* buttons to press, and in *WHICH*
> order?
I planned it.
> Isn't the process of planning which buttons, and in which order to press
> them, programming?
No, I consider that to be planning.
[snip]
> But, I'll stand aside while you go first and define the difference
> between "information" and "instruction" . . .
"Instruction" implies an action should be taken. Information does not.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:07:41 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Jim Dabell wrote:
> >
> > "David E. Thomas" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Dabell
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I think you need to understand the difference between an algorithm and
> > > >information.
> > > >
> > > This is interesting. The very first thing I was taught in grad
> > > school was code = data.
> >
> > Yes, but data != code.
>
> If by that, you mean that the code that that data represents does not
> constitute a program . . . you are wrong.
I took "code = data" to mean code is data. Fair enough. By "data !=
code", I meant data is not [necessarily] code. A bit ambiguous, I
agree.
> It may not be a program you designed, or even want to be run, but with
> the possible difference between valid data but illegal instructions
> (where, for instance, 81CB is valid data, but the processor does not
> recognize that data as a valid instruction), data == code.
>
> In short, where any possible data value can and does constitute a valid
> instruction, data does equal code.
I don't necessarily agree. Any sound can be interpreted as music, but
that doesn't mean the white noise you get when you aren't tuned into a
radio station is music, does it? Or do you define music as "anything
that can be sensed with the ears"? Likewise, data you just pluck from
anywhere doesn't have to be instructions, interpreting them as such may
be
technically possible, but it wouldn't make sense to do so.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:09:36 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> William Adderholdt wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > This definition
> > just doesn't fit what people normally mean by programming.
>
> Oh, I agree. Consider the negative results, however, of letting what
> "most people mean" control the direction of scientific reasearch, and
> industrial development. . .
>
> Remember, once upon a time, "everybody believed" that the world was
> flat.
As near as the scientific process can tell, that is a fact. The meaning
of a word can never be a fact - it depends on how people comprehend it.
If nobody agrees with your definition of programming, then your
definition is useless, because when you talk about it, nobody will
understand what you are on about. Perhaps you should think of a
different word to use, as "programming" is already in use as something
else.
> > 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." :-)
My point. Your definition of programming was confusing people, because
it's not what everybody else understands as programming.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:34:18 GMT
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
> POS or not, it's the reason why Windows kicked the living shit out of
> <insert your favorite OS> in the market, and why that market will be
> running on some form of Windows for a *LONG* time to come.
Actually, windows owes is market dominance more to the fact that, until very
recently, you couldn't even buy an assembled PC without windows/dos installed.
That and that fact that they destroyed anyone that attempted to compete (DR-DOS
being an example in the early win3.1 days) joined together to give them the
monopoly position they've enjoyed (and abused) for years now.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical reasons* why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
