Linux-Advocacy Digest #129, Volume #26 Sat, 15 Apr 00 02:13:22 EDT
Contents:
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Programming Languages (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Matthias Warkus)
Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Nonnaho)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Programming Languages (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux Counter - Iceland is most Linux-dense country (Scott Zielinski)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Counter - Iceland is most Linux-dense country (The Cat)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:27:22 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:33:31 -0600...
...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > It was the Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:06:52 -0700...
> > ...and David E. Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >
> > Actually, the difference between data structures and executable code
> > is paramount to every widely deployed computer architecture in
> > existance.
>
> Umm . . . no.
>
> In fact, one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Von Neumann
> architechture, is that both "code" and "data" are stored in the same
> "store".
Yes. However, for example the computer you are using at the moment
draws a very exact line between code and data.
> In fact, a common computer bug, is to accidentally take "information",
> and start processing it as "instruction".
Which only goes to show how important the distinction is.
> Causing your expected, and quite common, crash.
>
> > Since the 1950s/60s, it's been widely regarded as a
> > confusing and unnecessary practice to treat code like data (i.e. write
> > to the segments storing it).
>
> This discipline has been created and enforced *PRECISELY* because the
> lack of difference between code and data.
Nope. Code and data are different. The operating system stores
metainformation about which bytes in the core are code and which are
data.
> > Even in languages such as Prolog and Lisp, you usually distinguish
> > very neatly between code and data.
>
> Yes. Precisely because the system itself doesn't, so higher level
> languages go to great lengths to help the programmer avoid bugs by
> creating a very strong, yet very artificial distinction between code and
> data.
>
> Or, by example, is the number: 812D stored at address 8CCA an
> instruction to compare and branch, or is it the number of pennies in
> your bank account?
Ask the MMU, it knows it.
mawa
--
eat drink \~~~/ man _ woman _
v _/| | |
><> | | | `T'
--- `-' +
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:28:43 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 8 Apr 2000 03:44:31 -0400...
...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mawa, do you consider shell scripting to be programming (say in Bash) ?
> Jim
Depends.
If your shell script uses any kind of looping or branching construct,
the answer is a resounding yes. Otherwise, it's not exactly
programming.
mawa
--
Gänseblümchenzerrupfer!
Grenzwertbeachter!
Gummibaumzüchter!
Grauhaarüberfärber!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 19:58:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 07 Apr 2000 14:34:05 -0600...
...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Trying to make the additional distinction that a scripting language
> > is one where the "commands are interpreted BY THE SHELL" is
> > nonsense. The shell (pick a shell) is an interpreter, just like
> > any other (perl, python, tcl...)
>
> Or the elf loader...
A loader is not an interpreter. Preparing something for interpretation
by the CPU is not the same as interpreting in software.
Anyway your point remains valid. From a purely theoretical standpoint,
it's completely irrelevant whether the interpreter is a piece of
software or a square slab of silicon.
mawa
--
THINGS THE WORLD NEEDS MORE OF #1:
After Eight mints.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:24:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:55:53 +0200...
...and Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What, for example, would you define an OS as? Is it a program, or not?
> its a programm of course (but no process, even if running :) )
>
> > 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.
> but we expect it to stop, from most OSes :))))
Why should the definition of a program require it to stop?
mawa
--
eat drink \~~~/ man _ woman _
v _/| | |
><> | | | `T'
--- `-' +
------------------------------
From: Nonnaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:07:59 -0700
Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <8ctbnj$icu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Just shut your fucking piehole and provide proof for the statement that
> >> was made. You can't prove anything, you can have a suspicion but good ole
> >> Bob claimed that MS admitted to it and doesn't have the balls to admit
> >> that he was wrong, as usual.
> >
> >Did you even go look at any of the links below?
>
> Yep, they are all old and not one has an admission from Microsoft. That
> was the issue that I responded to. Does Microsoft have keys setup for
> backdoors? Who knows, it is a closed source system and we can't be sure.
> I don't trust them though.
>
I think this qualifies as being related to this thread.
>From http://msnbc.com/news/394810.asp?cp1=1
"Microsoft Corp.
acknowledged Thursday that its
engineers included in some of its
Internet software a secret password —
a phrase deriding their rivals at
Netscape as “weenies” — that could
be used to gain illicit access to
hundreds of thousands of Internet sites
world-wide."
Nonnaho
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:05:46 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:46:23 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > Free software is clearly anti-capitalist.
>>
>> No. Software is clearly not capital.
>
>Is working in a group of equals in spirit of cooperation rather than
>competition and distribitiog products of you labour for free to anyone
>who desires them capitalistic?
>>>If you are free to charge for your labour, then yes. For instance,
one might develope the program >>>(like, say, sendmail) and then make
money doing consulting and custom modifications to same, see,
>>>capitalism happily existing with free software.
GNU activists will provide custom modifications for free, ruining
your buisness in the process. But this is not the point. Any idea
as powerful and empowering as Open Source desrves better than just a
little unstable niche
providing support, in the world of giant monopolistic corporations. Its
the idea that will kill
corporations and capitalism.
>
>> > ...there will be no money, no private property.
>>
>> There will be private property as long as only one person can possess
>> a given object. There will be money as long at any resource remains
>>scarce.
>
>Why have money when you distribute the products of your labour for free
>and in turn you can have products of other peoples labout for free too?
>>>Because I like to buy my wife jewelry? which is not free?
read: in turn you can have products of other peoples labout for free
too?
You will be able to have everything fopr free under communism. even your
precious jewelry. But of course resources will under Communism will be
distributed
much more efficient than the market system does. So first we'll feed
the starving
and house the homeless.
>>
>> > no monsters like Microsoft.
>>
>> Monsters like the Soviet Union instead?
>
>You must be really stupid if you think Soviet Union was a communist
>country.
>
>>>It claimed it was, it also claimed that communism was a good thing.
Many countries have claimed claim that theyir democratic, commnistic,
etc.
Do you believe tha every country with "Democratic Republic of..." in
their name
is a democracy too?
Vladimir.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Apr 2000 14:25:18 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> It was the 07 Apr 2000 14:34:05 -0600...
> ...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Trying to make the additional distinction that a scripting language
> > > is one where the "commands are interpreted BY THE SHELL" is
> > > nonsense. The shell (pick a shell) is an interpreter, just like
> > > any other (perl, python, tcl...)
> >
> > Or the elf loader...
>
> A loader is not an interpreter. Preparing something for interpretation
> by the CPU is not the same as interpreting in software.
>
> Anyway your point remains valid. From a purely theoretical standpoint,
> it's completely irrelevant whether the interpreter is a piece of
> software or a square slab of silicon.
And nothing is black-and-white.
There probably is a very fine distinction between authoring, scripting
and programming; but the difference is fuzzier every year.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:31:00 -0400
From: Scott Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Counter - Iceland is most Linux-dense country
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Who the hell cares about Iceland?
>
> Figures they run Linux..>Really it does....
>
> Most folks probably couldn't even find it on a map....
The folks that couldn't find Iceland on a map are the ones that use M$
Windoze products....They don't need maps, books, etc, because they have
Mico$oft to tell them what they need to know.
> Steve
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:44:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:54:10 +0200,
> >> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> brought forth the following words...:
> >>
> >> >Did you ever wonder which country is the biggest Linux user?
> >> >According to http://counter.li.org/reports/short.html the answer is
> >Iceland,
> >> >which took the lead in this information poll from Norway late last
> >month.
> >> >
> >> >If, as is the classic estimate, 1% of Icelandic Linux users have
> >registered,
> >> >there are 19.800 Linux users in Iceland, or about 7.5% of the whole
> >> >population.
> >> >
> >> >That's market penetration. Still some way to go until market
> >dominance.
> >> >
> >> > Harald
> >> >
> >> >Do something that counts! Get counted!
> >> >http://counter.li.org/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ISTR a news story a few months ago, that M$ wasn't going to make a
> >version
> >> of Windows for Icelandic, but that a group of volunteers working on
> >the
> >> (all together now) OPEN SOURCE Linux were going to "Icelandify" it.
> >> I wonder how this will pan out in the long term, Icelanders are
> >pretty proud
> >> of their culture, and I suspect that given the choice, they'd far
> >rather use
> >> an OS that "spoke the language", as it were...
> >Micro$oft has already released Windows 98 in Icelandic, but that
> >doesn´t change the fact that none of the Office apps have been
> >translated. A group of Linux users is busy translating KDE and KDE apps
> >so the question willl be do you only want an Icelandic operating system
> >or do want an Icelandic environment mail browser WP and spreadsheet ?
> >Micro$oft is unlikely to win this one.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:24:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > No. Software is clearly not capital.
>
> vladr13 writes:
> > Is working in a group of equals in spirit of cooperation rather than
> > competition and distribitiog products of you labour for free to
anyone
> > who desires them capitalistic?
>
> What does that have to do with the question of whether or not
software is
> capital? Hint: scarcity is an essential feature of capital.
And so is monoplozing scare resources and the dening them to those who
need them first. Farmers destroing their crops in order to keep the
prices up
while hald the worlf is undernurished. This is capitalism for you. It
manages scarce resources so well!
>
> > Why have money when you distribute the products of your labour for
free
> > and in turn you can have products of other peoples labout for free
too?
>
> How do you intend to figure out how much of what is needed where and
when?
> That's what money is for. Eliminating money won't eliminate wealth.
It'll
> just ruin the efficiency of your economy. The rich will still be
rich, but
> the poor will be a hell of a lot poorer.
>
First: Do you think that the current market system does a good job off
allocating scarce resources? The growing gap between rich and poor is a
problem of
all capitalist countries. Social-democrats solve the prblem by taking
some money from the rich
in the form of taxes and redistributing it to the poor to make their
lifes more or less
up to the standards. But anyone can see that this is not a real
solution to the chronic
desease but a temp. fix. Resources go to the ones who have money not to
those who need them most.
I hope you wopnt at leat argue with that. Look around you will see
people in luxury
obviously having much more than they need to live decently and people
in extrme poverty
not having acess to basics like housing and decent health-care. There
countries where 90%
of the polulation is starving while 3% of capitalist controlling the
land are exporting
enouigh food to feed twice the population. But from the markets point
of view its perfectly normal.
Humanity and human socities existed much longer than money, markets and
capitalism. This
is not something natural or "god-given".
Vladimir.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Counter - Iceland is most Linux-dense country
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:37:56 GMT
Sounds like Rush Limbaugh.
He reads, digests and "reports" the news so his listeners don't have
to be bothered doing it on their own.
TheCat
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:31:00 -0400, Scott Zielinski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Who the hell cares about Iceland?
>>
>> Figures they run Linux..>Really it does....
>>
>> Most folks probably couldn't even find it on a map....
>
>The folks that couldn't find Iceland on a map are the ones that use M$
>Windoze products....They don't need maps, books, etc, because they have
>Mico$oft to tell them what they need to know.
>
>> Steve
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 20:44:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:54:10 +0200,
>> >> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> brought forth the following words...:
>> >>
>> >> >Did you ever wonder which country is the biggest Linux user?
>> >> >According to http://counter.li.org/reports/short.html the answer is
>> >Iceland,
>> >> >which took the lead in this information poll from Norway late last
>> >month.
>> >> >
>> >> >If, as is the classic estimate, 1% of Icelandic Linux users have
>> >registered,
>> >> >there are 19.800 Linux users in Iceland, or about 7.5% of the whole
>> >> >population.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's market penetration. Still some way to go until market
>> >dominance.
>> >> >
>> >> > Harald
>> >> >
>> >> >Do something that counts! Get counted!
>> >> >http://counter.li.org/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ISTR a news story a few months ago, that M$ wasn't going to make a
>> >version
>> >> of Windows for Icelandic, but that a group of volunteers working on
>> >the
>> >> (all together now) OPEN SOURCE Linux were going to "Icelandify" it.
>> >> I wonder how this will pan out in the long term, Icelanders are
>> >pretty proud
>> >> of their culture, and I suspect that given the choice, they'd far
>> >rather use
>> >> an OS that "spoke the language", as it were...
>> >Micro$oft has already released Windows 98 in Icelandic, but that
>> >doesn´t change the fact that none of the Office apps have been
>> >translated. A group of Linux users is busy translating KDE and KDE apps
>> >so the question willl be do you only want an Icelandic operating system
>> >or do want an Icelandic environment mail browser WP and spreadsheet ?
>> >Micro$oft is unlikely to win this one.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> >Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:48:47 -0600
Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>
> > > > >> I'm a computer scientist.
> > > > > me too
> > > > Really? Which field?
> > > developing high-performance image-processing solutions
> > > for medical diagnosis systems.
> >
> > Which makes you a software engineer . . . not a computer scientist.
> well, I am working in an institut for research of computer aided
> diagnosis,
> imho the part of 'science' in it is realy big.
Cool. What are you researching?
--
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?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:59:21 -0600
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
> >> developing high-performance image-processing solutions
> >> for medical diagnosis systems.
> >
> > Which makes you a software engineer . . . not a computer scientist.
>
> Agreed. To give a contrast, I'm a computer scientist because my main
> work is in hardware verification systems. Spotting problems in a chip
> design before fabrication or, even better, layout is *incredibly*
> profitable.
Yep! ;-)
> It is hypotheses that get proven,
Oh, sure . . . but before proving a hypothesis, I have to come up with
one. Before I can even do that, I have to do some very basic thinking.
A possible hypothesis involves the reasons for the long standing flame
war between the GUI and CLI camps, why those who've used both insist
that both are necessary, and how people interact with computing systems.
The only relatively new work that's been done in that area is based on
some linguistic theories that I find interesting . . . oh, yeah, and
that: "Gotta make it look like a consumer appliance" stupidity.
> When thinking about the real world, you don't get completeness (c.f.
> Gödel) so all you can consider is consistency.
Hence the reason I started with an assertion.
So far, there are two trivial inconsistencies in the assertion.
> And that is what the
> whole of natural philosophy (aka. science) is actually about; trying
> to find a set of rules/definitions that are consistent with reality.
Yep.
The two inconsistencies (within the given assertion) so far are:
1) Random interaction.
2) Totally, absolutely non-creative interaction ("programming": requires
creativity, right?).
1) is your baby scenario. 2) is simply proof that your UI is only
slightly better than dog food, and badly needs replacement.
Several facts bear on this: AppleScript and WSH. Why, if GUI's are the
perfect UI, did these systems get created?
Why do I occasionally see people translating a bit of computerized
information for the computer that created it? (IOW, why do I still see
people sitting in front of a GUI, watching the GUI's clock, until the
right time, then entering a sequence of instructions . . . ).
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 14 Apr 2000 17:10:11 -0400
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:24:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> capital? Hint: scarcity is an essential feature of capital.
>
>And so is monoplozing scare resources and the dening them to those who
>need them first.
Monopolies are not supposed to exist in "good" capitalism, because
they imply non-free markets.
> Farmers destroing their crops in order to keep the
>prices up
>while hald the worlf is undernurished.
Why would farmers want to destroy their crops ? Surely, if someone will buy
it makes sense for them to sell as much as possible. The problem is in
distribution. It costs money ( and quite a lot of it ) to ship boatloads
of wheat around the world. Who's going to pay for it ? THe farmers ? ( who
are already on the edge profit-wise as it is ) And once the grain gets there,
who's going to fix the political problems in these countries that are
largely responsible for the food shortages ?
> This is capitalism for you. It
>manages scarce resources so well!
It does. Take a look at a capitalist country, like say USA, and you'll notice
that the working class people there are better off than professors in China.
>First: Do you think that the current market system does a good job off
>allocating scarce resources?
Yes.
> The growing gap between rich and poor is a
>problem of
>all capitalist countries.
I'm not clear on what you mean here. It looks like most "capitalist" countries
partly meet your criteria for "social democracy".
Gaps between the rich and poor ? pffft. In the US, the working class are
better off than the educated classes in most other countries in the world.
The "poor" have accomodation with hot water, heating, electricity; as well
as luxuries like television, and computers.
>not having acess to basics like housing and decent health-care. There
It's pretty hard not to have access to shelter in the US. there are homeless
shelters. BTW, the bums are useless anyway. They don't want to work.
>countries where 90%
>of the polulation is starving while 3% of capitalist controlling the
>land are exporting
>enouigh food to feed twice the population.
Again, these problems are largely political.
>Humanity and human socities existed much longer than money, markets and
>capitalism. This
>is not something natural or "god-given".
Nothing ( or at least very little ) is "natural" or "god given"
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 14 Apr 2000 17:15:02 -0400
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:05:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You will be able to have everything fopr free under communism. even your
Yeah, just like you can have "everything for free" in CHina. This
doesn't help much if "everything" doesn't amount to very much.
If I could choose between having "everything" in some communist cesspool
and having a workers salary in the US, I'd choose the latter. As a PhD
student, I probably have less than a worker's salary, and it's still pretty
comfortable IMO.
>precious jewelry. But of course resources will under Communism will be
>distributed
>much more efficient than the market system does.
In the absence of incentive to produce, it doesn't really help if
you distribute efficiently, because you won't have anything to distribute.
> So first we'll feed
>the starving
>and house the homeless.
In the US, this is done already. No one's forcing homeless into houses,
and noone's buying them houses in beverly hills, but there are shelters.
Food handouts are so commonplace that it's pretty hard to go hungry.
>Do you believe tha every country with "Democratic Republic of..." in
>their name
>is a democracy too?
Name one "good" communist country. ( Preferably one where the inhabitants
aren't immigrating to the US in droves )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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: 14 Apr 2000 21:09:44 GMT
In article <8d7i3a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Philip Homburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8d788l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It's a pity Tannenbaum couldn't or wouldn't completely open-source Minix back
> >then... removing the bottlenecks in the Minix kernel would have produced a
> >much more interesting system than just duplicating traditional UNIX did.
> Tanenbaum already had a far more interesting system: Amoeba. Unfortunately
> with many new performance problems.
Amoeba looked very interesting, but it was a development along different
lines than Minix or Linux. And of course it wasn't fully open-source either.
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:18:49 -0600
Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>
> > > > 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)
> > > It gives an algorithm, the empty one (no joke)
> >
> > Urmmm . . . no, not really. The algorithm, in pseudo code, is something
> > like:
> >
> > 1) Allocate sizeof(int) bytes of memory in the data segment.
> > 2) Store 0 in this memory.
> > 3) End
> yes, of course, what makes it a more inefficient version of the
> 'do nothing' algorithm
In a vacumm, yes. However, one of the first things I teach my
OOParadigm students is: there is no such thing as a totally new system .
. . all of the systems you will ever create are, in reality, sub-systems
that will have to be aggregated/composited/integrated into an existing
system.
The above program doesn't do nothing, therefore, in some systems, it
does something where the do nothing algorithm would not.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
