Linux-Advocacy Digest #95, Volume #26 Wed, 12 Apr 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT] (Jim Dabell)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Vehical Comparisons ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Curtis Bass)
Re: Linux for a web developer ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft Haiku (Bastian)
Re: Microsoft Haiku ("Davorin Mestric")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:14:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
[snip]
> > > Is writing a program to control the volume of your computer's speaker:
> > > programming?
> >
> > Perhaps. Most people consider "writing a program" to be programming.
[snip]
> > > (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.
>
> So . . . what't the difference? Why, suddenly, is the exact same set of
> operations "programming", where before it was definitely "no"?
It's not the exact same set of operations AT ALL. How is writing a
program (typing and swearing) *anything* like moving your hand up to the
brightness button and pressing it? Or are you talking about the
computer's operations? In which case how is sending a bunch of
keypresses to a text editor process anything like brightening up the
screen?
[snip]
> > > > 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".
>
> But my point is: how do the processes differ?
The level of abstraction.
> > Writing a set of instructions
> > to change arbitrary filenames is programming, clicking a couple of times
> > and pressing 'b' is not.
>
> But why not? Every time you run a program, you insert specific values
> into your variables . . . every time you run "cp" (copy) from the
> command line, you place specific values on the command line . . . every
> time you select "copy" from the menu, you insert specific values into
> the instruction . . .
>
> The set of instructions being executed is *IDENTICAL* in both cases!
No, it isn't. How can typing the source to 'mv' be executing the same
instructions as when I rename a to b in KDE? Maybe when you *run* the
program, you *may* cause the same thing to happen, but *running* the
program is not programming.
> Planning (designing a program) to change a the name of a file, then
> executing that plan (executing the program) is programming, right? By
> your own statements, programming does not require a computer, and
> "programming is programing" . . . therefore writing the program to
> change a file name is programming.
Yes, writing the program to change *arbitrary* filenames is
programming. Executing the program is not programming though.
> In short, using is programming, therefore every interaction with a
> computer is programming.
Some using is programming. That doesn't imply all using is programming.
> > 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.
>
> That definition applies to your example of "not-programming" above (the
> file name changing example),
No it doesn't. Perhaps you should read my example again?
> so therefore the operation you describe
> above as "not-programming" actually *IS* programming, and therefore, so
> far, you have yet to disprove the assertion that "all interaction with a
> computer is programming".
It probably applies to a lot of examples of "not-programming". I
deliberately made the definition wide. However, as far as I can tell,
it includes everything I consider to be programming, and rules out a lot
of what I don't consider to be programming. Consider it a list of
requirements that an action has to fulfill if it is to be considered
programming.
> Typing "rename" or "mv" or "move" on the command line is: "creating a
> set of instructions", the mv command changes the computer's path of
> execution, and the process of "renaming a file" applies to an entire
> class of computers . . .
But it isn't the process of "renaming a file" - it's the process of
renaming a *specific* file. That *specific* file may not exist on every
computer, or if it does, it might not contain the same data. It
wouldn't make sense to apply it to another computer, and certainly not
an entire class of the buggers. Therefore it's not programming by my
definition.
> > It requires some degree of thought.
>
> As does renaming a file.
The difference is in the degree of thought needed. Writing an 'mv'
clone takes more thought than executing it.
> > It's not a complete definition, it's very vague, but it rules out a hell
> > of a lot of computer uses.
>
> Such as?
mv ~/a.txt ~/b.txt
It cannot apply to an entire class of computers. However, the source
code to 'mv' can apply to the class of computers that run UNIX.
[snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Your response is irrelevant. "What most people would not consider as
> pornography" is simply, irrelevant to this discussion.
I see a direct relevence to this discussion.
> > The key phrase is "most people", the term is subjective,
> > and IMHO, so is programming, as proven by this thread.
>
> Pornography is not at all subjective, once you have created a definition
> for it. What you've really proven is that people are *UNWILLING* to
> create these definitions, *NOT* that these definitions cannot be
> created.
The definitions can be created, it's just most people will disagree with
them. If that is the case, then what is the point of the definition?
If the word is not as people understand it, then it can't be a very good
definition, can it?
> > > 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.
>
> Wrong. You brought up the subject of "pornography". Pornography is a
> legal definition . . . one that totally fails to be useful, precisely
> because the legal definition of pornography . . . isn't even a good
> *LEGAL* definition.
I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about how people understand
what you are saying. The fact that even the law doesn't have a precise
definition surely hints that they are hard to come by for some things.
> > > > 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.
>
> Yes, actually, you do. Without a complete definition, you have no way
> of saying that something is or is not categorizable under that
> definition.
I can at least set out a few requirements, which is what I consider to
be an incomplete definition. This can rule out things, but can't rule
them in.
> > > > 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.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > Lynx ignores it, for example.
>
> Netscape, however, does not. Are you trying to say that any instruction
> that may be ignored by any single, specific interpreter is not an
> instruction?
If it is an instruction that is meant to be executed, then how can an
"interpreter" quite legally (in terms of the precise definition of HTML)
skip it?
[snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Bingo! Do you get it yet? My original assertion was: "every
> interaction with a computer is programming" . . . and you've just
> supported that assertion with one example.
Nope. Only if you consider interaction with the computer to be
programming, which I don't. Writing a CGI in C that generates HTML
depending on the form variables is programming. Writing a static HTML
page is not.
> However, to dispute my assertion, you shouldn't support my assertion
> with examples, you should supply examples that are contrary to my
> assertion, right?
>
> > When I execute the program, that is
> > not programming.
>
> So, every interaction with a computer is programming . . . right?
No. Please read it again. How you can possibly come up with that
conclusion from what I said, I don't know.
> > Neither is writing the HTML by hand.
>
> Excuse, but you just contradicted yourself.
How?
> > At no time is
> > creating HTML programming.
>
> But, above, you just stated that:
>
> "Iff I write a program to generate the HTML, then the writing of the
> program is the act of programming."
>
> Now, how, precisely, do you write HTML without writing a program?
By typing it into a text editor. Generating navbars using PHP is
programming. Typing the plain HTML out by hand is not.
> > > 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?
>
> Simple. By using the one of the many different processes that can be
> used to test any theory or assertion . . . if you can provide an example
> that invalidates the assertion, you've tested the assertion completely.
>
> If you cannot provide an example that invalidates the assertion, you've
> still tested the assertion, though not completely.
I gave the example of smacking your head into the keyboard. If that
doesn't invalidate the assertion then I don't know what will. The
assertion is that every interaction with a computer is programming.
Smacking your head into the keyboard is an interaction with a computer.
Smacking your head into the keyboard is not programming.
[snip]
> > > And I respond by showing you how your examples of not-programming
> > > include things that you also define as programming.
> >
> > Where?
>
> I did it before, I did it in this post . . . by now, you should be able
> to infer that the act of programming is one I define as:
>
> "The process of designing that step, or series of steps, neccessary to
> accomplish a specific goal".
>
> Those steps may include, but are not required to include, conditionals
> and/or iteration.
This would seem to include making a cup of tea. Are you an AI
professor? Granted, my definition might also includes things that are
not programming, but it's not this ridiculous.
> Since to write HTML requires designing that series of steps neccessary
> to accomplish the goal of creating a specific bit of HTML, then the
> process of creating HTML is programming.
>
> As such, every interaction with a computer is programming.
Yes, using that definition. Now come back when you find somebody that
agrees with you.
> You may not like that definition, but whether or not you like it is
> irrelevant. What would be relevant is an objective measure of
> programming.
An objective measure of programming might include asking a number of
programmers what they consider to be programming, since they do it all
day long. Have you found any that agree with you yet?
[snip]
> > Again, using a computer doesn't [automatically] change the
> > nature of what you are doing. What is wrong with that?
>
> Nothing. In fact, I agree.
>
> The only thing the computer does is *automate* part of the process . . .
> in short, the computer does part of the the thinking for you.
>
> To be "not-programming", by my definition of programming, you'd have to
> be submitting random input to the computer.
I thought *any* interaction with the computer was programming? Or are
you backtracking now?
[snip]
> > I don't think that using a [typing device] involves
> > programming.
>
> You cannot reasonably make this statement, since you cannot define
> programming.
>
> > YOU do, under certain circumstances (when the typing
> > device is a computer).
>
> Didn't you just say, above, that using the computer does not not change
> the intrinsic nature of the interaction?
Yes. I was pointing out a consequence of your point of view. I notice
that under your definition, typing a letter on a typewriter is
programming as well now, so my point is weakened somewhat.
[snip]
> > > 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.
>
> Which requires, as a pre-requisite, a definition of programming . . .
Or a requirement that must be fulfilled in order to consider calling
something programming. Which I have supplied, and which you have not
refuted.
> > Since you consider smacking your head on the
> > keyboard to be programming,
>
> This is a misrepresentation of what I said.
>
> If you smack your head on the keyboard *AT* *RANDOM*, and you define
> that as "interacting with the computer", then you have disproved my
> assertion.
I guess I've disproved your assertion then.
> In which case, I would be required to clean up my assertion: "any
> deliberate interaction with a computer that is performed for the purpose
> of completing or fulfilling a goal is programming"; thereby ruling out
> random interaction.
>
> Is that assertion more to your liking?
Yes. But it still includes smacking your head on the keyboard. It's
deliberate, and the goal is to render the person unconscious, break the
keyboard, or whatever you like.
> > I've never said that programming requires a computer. Writing down
> > psuedocode on a napkin is usually programming, IMO.
>
> What's the difference between pseudo code that lacks loops or
> conditionals, and HTML?
Did I say anything about lacking loops or conditionals? Writing down
pseudocode that didn't have these characteristics would probably just be
a waste of time. So it would not be the usual case, which I was
referring to.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:32:49 +0200
gee, you mean the same way linux threatens with violence by using GLP?
come on...
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Microsoft DOES use the threat of violence to maintain its monopoly
> thanks to the copyright laws making the government into a violence server.
> You use warez. Now, you are under threat of violence in the form of law
> enforcement. The government acts as the violence proxy due to the laws and
> Microsoft's abuse of them.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:30:10 +0200
good article.
i didn't understand what was that difference between single server and 'all
servers'. i was expecting that they would look at all the individual
servers on a site vs. the site as a whole, but whole sites have bigger
downtime than single servers. does not make sense. did anyone get that?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.heise.de/ct/english/00/08/174/
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:27:42 +0200
nice try.
however, most of the people DON'T have problems when running windows that
are not solvable.
most of the people that run linux DO have problems running and installing
linux.
linux apps crash more often.
i have yet to see someone that actually used source to fix some problem that
he had with linux. "you have source so you can fix your problem" is a myth.
Niall Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Computer OS's were Vehicals then Linux would be a car.
>
> When the fuel runs out you fix the problem your self or you can hit the
horn
> and someone might come out to fill the tank up for you.
>
> When you get a puncture you can either fix the puncture your self or you
> might beable to call out a breakdown company to do it for you.
>
> When you head gasket goes you can either get someone to replace it for you
> or you can dismantle the head your self and replace it.
>
> Now if Windows was a vehical it would be a Ship
>
> If it Runs out of fuel then you drift about until the Helicopter finds you
> If it runs out of food then you starve until the Helicopter finds you
> If the captain has messed up then there is nothing you can do about it
> If it hit an Iceberg, Youre f****d
>
> Niall
>
> So what would you rather travel in
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:36:03 GMT
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, John W. Stevens wrote:
> Bart Oldeman wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, John W. Stevens wrote:
> > > Irelevant. Programming != creating algorithms.
> > > There are a great many programs that are not "algorithmic".
Definition from "How to solve it by Computer, Dromey, 1982":
"A program is an algorithm formulated in a programming language."
(this one disagrees with you)
"An algorithm consists of a set of explicit and unambiguous steps
which, when carried out for a given set of initial conditions, produce
the corresponding output and terminate in finite time."
That way, (the two statements taken together) your definition of a program
is correct but the interpretation is very general (too general IMHO, but
it does not contradict yours as is).
> > > Non-algorithmic programs are DCG's with no stopping point.
> > Funny ... you seem to have different perception/definition of
> > "programming" than many other people in this newsgroup.
> Why is that funny?
Because I think an exception to whatever everybody else says and is
somehow unexpected is funny. (not that it always need to be, but this is a
theme in many jokes.)
> > There is a book:
> > Wirth, N., Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, Prentice-Hall,
> > Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.
> > In my understanding, if you leave one of them out it's not programming any
> > more.
> The title is a bit ambigous: an algorithm plus a data structure is a
> program, but a program is not always an algorithm plus a data
> structure. The old, p --> q, but q !-> p thing.
As you see, I don't agree with you: the "set of initial conditions" is a
data structure and a program is an algorithm.
> What, for example, would you define an OS as? Is it a program, or not?
It is not a program in the above definition. Neither is an
editor, or any other "system" that relies on its input to finish.
Seems a bit strange though, as compared with common perception.
Which brings up the question: why does an algorithm need to terminate,
regardless of its input?
> However, if you insist on being pendantic, you will note that the
> definition of an algorithm does not require that it contain
> conditionals,
True.
> > Example: although you can program in TeX, if I write a LaTeX document, I
> > don't consider myself as doing programming,
>
> Yet, you are, because the document describes an algorithm (how to type
> set the data) and the data (the text of the document).
I don't consider that an algorithm, merely a set of properties.
If I write a .h file in C containing the following:
int a;
I give a property to a but not an algorithm (but in your view this .h file
already contains an algorithm)
> > because I don't need the
> > loop/if structures for most of my documents.
> If you wish to base this discussion on the title of Wirth's book, you
> have made an error, because no where is it required that all algorithms
> have conditionals . . . only that they stop. Which is why you could
> reasonably describe an OS as not-a-program . . . they are not supposed
> to stop.
Agreed. My fault.
> > I'm merely declaring a data
> > structure.
>
> Nope. You are also issuing imperatives (instructions):
>
> \begin{itemize}
> \item Element 1.
> \item Element 2.
> \end{itemize}
>
> Does not just structure your data, it also instructs TeX on how to
> typeset your data.
So according to your logic, all the following are instructions, hence
pieces of a program:
1. \textbf{The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog}
2. The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
because they both instruct TeX to display something in a particular way?
("bold letters" or "normal letters")
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: 12 Apr 2000 21:45:00 GMT
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:21:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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 don't really think it's the fault of either OS. It's a bad design
decision on part of Corel -- trying to port Windows to Linux instead
of writing a native Linux version.
>Looks like the fragmentation of Linux has already started. FWIW I
You keep pulling the chicken-little act on us, but I've been using
Linux for some time and I don't see a trend either way -- towards
or away from fragmentation.
>It just goes to show once again that "supported, working, runs etc"
>are words that have completely different meanings in the Linux
>community.
Not at all. Your "Linux community" is a strawman which you use as
fodder for poorly founded blanket attacks.
>It's incredible the crap Linux users have to suffer with in regard to
>shrink wrap applications.
I've been using Applixware for three years and it has not crashed once.
Unlike Corel, Applix actually wrote their application for UNIX, rather
than writing a windows app and trying to port Windows to Linux. ( No,
I am not blaming Windows. Porting UNIX to Windows would be equally
misguided and fruitless )
>He should send it back and run the Windows version which works
>properly, at least on my system.
The Windows version does not run on Linux.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Curtis Bass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:41:20 -0700
Jim Dabell wrote:
> > William Adderholdt wrote:
> > > 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
Also, a definition that is so broad as to include *everything* is going
to have its meaning so diluted that it has no real meaning at all.
Curtis
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:38:36 +0200
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have no complaints with win32, but there are some strong arguments for
> having your development environment on linux. For one thing, learning
> linux will help you more quickly familiarize yourself with a whole suite
> of tools that are not freely available or well-supported on windows.
like what?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:50:37 GMT
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:21:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[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.
Somehow I think that if we were having a WP9 win32 vs. msword
discussion that you would be claiming that WP9 goes down in
a ball of flame every 5 minutes.
[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] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Haiku
Date: 12 Apr 2000 21:53:19 GMT
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:10:18 -0400, Kathy wrote:
>In Japan, Sony Vaio machines have replaced the impersonal and unhelpful
>Microsoft error messages with their own Japanese haiku poetry, each only
>
>17 syllables:
>
>-----------------------
>
>A file that big?
>It might be very useful.
>But now it is gone.
I count 16. It's 4/7/5, and not 5/7/5.
Bastian
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Haiku
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:45:13 +0200
i like this one the best:
> Three things are certain:
> Death, taxes, and lost data.
> Guess which has occurred.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
