Linux-Advocacy Digest #99, Volume #26 Wed, 12 Apr 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT] (Christopher Browne)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Itchy)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Itchy)
Re: Vehical Comparisons ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:50:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Dabell would say:
>"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>> But my point is: how do the processes differ?
>
>The level of abstraction.
Indeed.
>> 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.
It all depends on one's context.
I could alternatively argue that "programming" is defined by "an
attitude and a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques."
Of course, that's a rather different sort of "programming."
(See: <http://www.neurosemantics.com/NLPDefined.htm>)
>> 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.
An alternative definition of "programming" is thus:
Indoctrination via the application of psychological techniques such
as administration of mind-altering chemicals, sleep deprivation, and
repetitive statements.
See: The Manchurian Candidate :-).
But when the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
with that, and "win" the argument.
>> 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.
But since your definition doesn't agree with whatever definition the
person you're discussing the matter with has in mind, that doesn't
matter.
Thus when the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
with that, and "win" the argument.
>> > 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 doesn't matter. Your intent doesn't fit whatever agenda your
"adversary" has in mind, and hence he *will* disagree with this.
When the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
with that, and "win" the argument.
>[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.
I agree; the relevance is that the importance of definitions is in the
eye of the beholder. And if the beholder has decided on some
particular "standard," and holds tenaciously to it, he can continue to
disagree, claiming that your response is "irrelevant."
Your response *is* irrelevant when taken from the solipsistic
perspective that his definitions are what matters, and disagreement
must mean that the rest of us are *wrong.*
Again, when the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
with that, and "win" the argument.
>> > 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?
If a particular definition is useful *within a particular context,*
that may be good enough.
For instance, a rather "sweeping" definition of pornography as being
"naked bodies" may be useful enough for establishing what should be
left out of school libraries used by "impressionable youngsters." But
that is a quite specific context.
Using that definition in *other* contexts, such as establishing what
books can legally be produced in society in general, may be quite
*unacceptable.* It would establish large chunks of medical literature,
for instance, as pornography, and if pornography is forbidden, that
forbids the production of medical literature, which I'd tend to think
is not a desirable outcome.
Which establishes that there is something about the definition that is
somehow unsatisfactory.
[Unless you're holding a solipsistic position, and don't care about
the fact that other positions find this unsatisfactory, blah, blah,
blah...]
>> > > 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.
Indeed.
In my early college days, I knew a Crown Attorney (CDN equivalent to a
district attorney) who had pursued a number of cases relating to the
Canadian "obscenity" laws.
I'm not particularly familiar with US criminal law; I expect that when
it provides recourse to somehow "ban" certain bits of pornographic
materials, that this falls under "obscenity" rather than
"pornography." (IANAL; your milage may vary.)
This attorney definitely stood on the side of finding pornographic
material distasteful and undesirable; he moderated a debate on the
matter which showed off nicely to the participants that trying to pin
down what was, and was not, properly treated as "obscene in the eyes
of the law" was _not_ a trivial matter.
A law that defines an overly broad scope of things as "illegal
obscenity" runs the risk of making illegal things that need _not_ to
be illegal, such as medical literature. And it risks being struck
down by courts.
On the other hand, an under-restrictive law provides the risk that
someone can propose putting copies of Penthouse and Hustler in
elementary school libraries, which would result in a hue and cry that
_that_ is wrong. (With which, I'd hope, few would disagree with the
idea that this is a _bad_ idea.)
This establishes that there needs to be some sort of "balance" in
terms of the "strength" of such a law. Going too far in either
direction has bad results.
But there's *another* problem, in terms of _how to specify_ what is
considered legal/illegal.
--> You can lean towards "principles to be interpreted."
--> Or you can head in the "excruciating detail, denying
interpretation" direction, defining which "square inches" of the
human body cannot be shown, or which words can/cannot be used.
Both of which have problems.
Poor interpretation leads to bad results, which is the problem with
the former approach.
But if you deny interpretation, then that requires a full compilation
(hmmm... sounds like computing, somehow...) of the precise rules that
are to be followed. [Considerable opportunities here to look at
"compile time" versus "run time"!] ... And so, if some rule gets left
out, at "compile time," things will break down at "run time."
The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy provides a cogent comment:
Making a summary of the summary: People are a problem.
>> > > > 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.
You're assuming that you have the ability to influence someone else's
position. I suspect you're wrong about that...
>> > > > 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?
This doesn't matter if your comments are being interpreted in the
light of a set of rules that are adversarial to your definition.
>[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.
*I* agree with you, but I don't think you'll see agreement...
When the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
with that, and "win" the argument.
>> 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.
If he's assuming his definition, and then re-evaluating everything you
say in light of that, then it's *obvious* how he comes to that
conclusion.
>> > Neither is writing the HTML by hand.
>>
>> Excuse, but you just contradicted yourself.
>
>How?
By claiming to disagree with his definition, and then saying something
that could be reinterpreted, in light of his definition, to be in
agreement with his definition.
>> > 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.
Ah, but when the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", the action of typing into a text editor _is_
thereby defined to be "programming."
>> > > 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.
Sure it is!
When the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
computer is programming", the action of smacking your head into the
keyboard, which _is_ an interaction with the computer, is thereby
defined to be "programming."
- Putting a floppy disk in the drive is an "interaction," and thus is
defined to be "programming."
- Plugging the computer into the wall is an "interaction," and thus is
defined to be "programming."
- Looking at the monitor is an "interaction," and thus is defined to
be "programming."
- Scratching your finger along the side of the case and listening to
the resultant sound is an "interaction," and thus is defined to be
"programming."
I'll bet you didn't think you did so much programming...
- _Dropping your computer off the top of a 20 story building_ is an
"interaction," and thus is defined to be "programming."
Wow! Isn't this Fun!!!!
>[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.
Play along; you may be able to stretch the definition far enough to
display that it is, indeed, entirely ridiculous.
[Personally, I like the option of _Dropping your computer off the top
of a 20 story building_ is an "interaction," and thus is defined to be
"programming."]
>> > 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?
I don't think you'll get him to shut up about his silly definition
this easily, but this is an appropriate tack to take...
--
If you stand in the middle of a library and shout "Aaaaaaaaargh" at
the top of your voice, everyone just stares at you. If you do the same
thing on an aeroplane, why does everyone join in?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:53:18 GMT
On 12 Apr 2000 21:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>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.
But the fact remains that the "holy grail" of office suites for Linux
has a few leaks in the cup, ir-regardless of who is to blame. The net
result is the same.
>>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.
This is classic fragmentation.
Corel WP installs ONLy on Corel Linux.
Corel WP Office 2k installs ONLY on Corel Linux...
I see a chink in the Linux "let's love everybody" support philosophy
here.
>>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.
Nope. My statements are based on facts reported by a noted columnist.
>>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.
I'm not talkking about Appliz, I am speaking of Corel.
>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 )
A native Linux version would be better I am certain.
>>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.
Exactly, and shows why Linux is a moot point.Choose your applications
and then pick you OS and Linux will lose everytime. Unless you are
some geek of course.
Steve
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:54:13 GMT
Please address the point and the facts instead of wandering all over
the desert for 40 years.
Steve
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:50:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>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]
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 01:56:14 GMT
Yea, it's classic Linux denial syndrome.
Most of these yo-yo's wouldn't know quality software if it fell on
them. They are so used to compiling garbage that they have lost sight
of reality.
Well reality has spoken and even the king of Linux FUDsters has
proclaimed Office 2k (for Linux of course) a loser.
Steve
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:23:28 +0200, "Davorin Mestric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vehical Comparisons
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:29:12 -0500
Davorin Mestric wrote:
> linux apps crash more often.
In Bill Gate's midnight fantasies.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Apr 2000 10:02:03 +0800
On 10 Apr 2000 21:57:25 -0400, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Apr 2000 09:45:28 +0800, Terry Porter wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:48:17 GMT,
>
>>But I've never used it, the Qt lib fiasco put me off, for one, and its too big
>>and bloated for another.
>
>What "Qt lib fiasco" ? Are you referring to the controversial
>"is-it-really-free" thing ?
Yes I am.
> Even RMS says it's free now.
Still I decided in the early days to give it a miss because of this. I looked
at the GTK stuff, and I'm happy with that.
>KDE "big and bloated" ? Well it certainly isn't monolithic.
>It comes with a ton of APIs and all of them take some space.
Yes for sure, I guess I chould have stated I feel KDE is itself
big and bloated. Its a personal perspective I guess, for instance I use
Blackbox as a WM.
>
>IMO, the main reason why "bloat" turns out to be a problem
>on Linux is that you have 101 different shared libraries.
For KDE ?
>
>--
>Donovan
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 3 days 15 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
