Linux-Advocacy Digest #56, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Terry Murphy Demonstrates Bald-Faced Lying -was- Open Source Programmers
Demonstrate Incompetence (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: G4 in space! (Mayor)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: iMac: the iFormation Appliance (Gary Connors)
Re: Boring (JEDIDIAH)
Re: democracy? (Robert Hampf)
MS Windows WM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Terry Murphy Demonstrates Bald-Faced Lying -was- Open Source Programmers
Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: 13 Jun 2000 18:22:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Jun 2000 00:14:20 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>He claims to believe that VMS is the only usable operating system.
>Incorrect. At home I use VMS, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, BeOS, MacOS,
>NetBSD, and others. This is documented on my public website, and is
>public information. I find all OS'es highly usable.
A DejaNews search with author = tsm@* and keywords = vms
pulls up Murphy's articles on VMS, many expressing the
viewpoint that it is the only worthwhile OS. He refers to
Unix as "Eunuchs".
>In fact, the application I am currently writing in my own time is for
>Linux _only_.
God help us. And why would Murphy write software for an OS
that he claims crashes frequently (see below)?
>>It's a little strange that the *only* VMS advocate that
>>posts in c.o.l.a is a major lying propagandist against Linux
>>and Open Source. There are people here who like Macs, *BSD,
>>and even Windows NT who are much more reasonable. Maybe
>>he pretends to be a VMS nut to appear more credible than
>>he would as a Microsoft advocate in his job here, which is
>>obviously to frighten people away from using Linux. Hmm,
>>now which enormous corporation would that benefit...
>
>You think I am feigning VMS advocacy in order to promote my
>(financially motivated) anti-Linux agenda? Are there black helicopters on
>your front lawn? Go to my website. Look at all of the VAX'es I own. My
>fricking name is patterned after a DEC logo, for crying out loud. If you
>think I am _anything_ other than some DEC geek who wants to see VMS given
>a chance in this industry, and that I have _any_ other agenda, you are
>seriously mistaken.
Who knows? The only verifiable evidence is that Murphy
posts lots of derogatory lies about Linux and OSS, and
advocates VMS to the point of recommending that people run
it in emulation on pentiums. For example, here's the open-
ing of his article that started this thread. He's deleted
it now, because he's trying to back away from it:
[RESTORED]
>>>As most computer professionals know, "open source"
>>>software has a reputation for being extremely unreliable,
>>>buggy, and prone to constant failure.
I also wouldn't trust any benchmark figures he claims to
have measured comparing Linux with other OSes. His recent
scam about Unix mail programs on Sparcs taking several
minutes to open or modify a mailbox, which many people noted
was exaggerated by a factor of 100 or so, demonstrates his
lack of credibility in such matters. He's now claiming that
he somehow said it by mistake.
>As for major corporations who would benefit from Linux's downfall, let's
>see: Compaq. Sun. HP. IBM. Microsoft. SGI. Be. SCO. None of which I work
>for, or even own stock in.
Wrong. Those who sell hardware -- Compaq, Sun, HP, IBM,
and SGI -- will still sell it, regardless of which OS people
use. In fact, if their customers start using free software,
they'll have more money left to buy computers.
That leaves Microsoft, Be, and SCO. Which of these has the
immense resources, the proven history of astroturfing, and
the extensive record of unethical business practices, that
would make it likely to be the force behind much of the
lying astroturf propaganda in Usenet against GNU/Linux/OSS?
[RESTORED]
>>>Of course, since the source code is available, one need only
>>>look at it to see how devastatingly bad it is. Sourceforge has a
>>>service where programmers are allowed to share their work with others.
>>>One such contribution is the following, which allows an fgets-like
>>>function to read from a file descriptor:
http://sourceforge.net/snippet/detail.php?type=snippet&id=100122
>>Oops! Murphy the self-proclaimed expert programmer has
>>totally screwed up. The very simple function ... actually
>>does a printf operation *to* a file descriptor!
>
>Right. A typo discredits my entire point.
Wrong. The difference between his description, "an fgets-
like function to read from a file descriptor", and the
actuality, "a printf operation *to* a file descriptor", is
far too great to be accounted for as a "typo". It's a total
misunderstanding of the subroutine that he himself posted
as an alleged example of bad OSS programming. Note that he
deleted *his* description so readers could not see the
absurdity of his claim that his error was only a "typo".
>>Yes, this second example is ugly and could be greatly
>>improved. However, it does work without error.
>
>Hardly an excuse. The Apple II worked without an error, but it did not
>mean it was the be-all and end-all of computing and that all improvements
>should have stopped there.
There is nothing to excuse here. Terry Murphy's thesis,
which he has enunciated several times, and which is quoted
above, is that Open Source software is "extremely unreliable",
and he's trying to prove it by citing some ugly code that
somebody posted on a public BBS website.
What he's doing is playing propaganda games around the tacit
assumptions -- the commonly agreed-upon context -- that
constitute an essential part of all communications.
It's as if he claimed, contrary to public knowledge, that
automobiles don't work, by pointing to one that had been
crushed in a collision, and saying, "Look, that car doesn't
run, so they're all no good." Of course, when people say
that cars do work, they are tacitly excluding *crushed*
ones -- that's part of the agreed-upon context of their
communication.
When people say that OSS is generally quite reliable, they're
referring to Open Source software that has been created or
packaged by reputable people, such as the kernel, GNU, Samba,
KDE, Gnome, XFree86, and many other teams, and recognized
GNU/Linux distributors, not just any code in the world that
someone has scrawled "GPL" on.
>>Terry Murphy is using broad smear tactics here. The Linux
>>kernel, GNU tools, and the many applications packed in Linux
>>distributions do work properly, reliably, and efficiently
>>enough that they function approximately as well as or better
>>than the best competing systems.
>
>Calm down. My _only_ point was to poke holes in some easy code, and to
>suggest that similar problems might be present in larger projects. It's
>called "debate".
No, considering that he's also claimed that Linux crashes
very frequently (see below), what he's posting is properly
called "lying propaganda".
>My contention is that there is likely to be similarly bad
>code in larger projects since they are more complex. Disagree? Fine. But
>the personal attacks, insults, and charaterizations of my agenda are just
>plain offensive.
If Terry Murphy keeps lying, people will continue to point
out that he's doing it. And if he keeps lying in such
outrageous ways, people may also speculate about *why*
he's doing it.
>>The existence of a couple of less than perfect programs on a
>>public website has no relevance to the quality of distributed
>>GNU/Linux/Open Source software, which *by actual experience*
>>has very few bugs.
>
>Although the core GNU tools, the Linux kernel, Apache, and the X window
>system are of reasonably high quality, often exceeding their commercial
>counterparts, this says nothing about open source at large. These are the
>open source success stories which make up the bulk of the headlines. But
>they only represent about 1% of the code out there.
Major Linux distributions contain up to two thousand OSS
applications. The experience of people who use them shows
that they also are generally of high quality.
Note: Murphy snipped the following paragraph of text that
I quoted from his previous article, so that my response
to it, which he did include, would seem to be an over-
reaction. That constitutes lying (again). The paragraph
itself contains four huge lies in his propaganda campaign
against GNU/Linux/OSS:
[RESTORED]
>>>Linux crashes so much because code like the first quoted
>>>function is all over the kernel. The rest of the apps
>>>are prone to constant failure because of their own
>>>miscellaneous failings.
>>Wow, this guy beats even Chad Myers and Stephen Edwards for
>>quantities of outrageous lies in a single post. Linux crashes
>>are all traceable to hardware problems (as long as user limits
>>are set properly). And almost all of the OSS apps are very
>>reliable.
>Sheesh. Can you be a little more harsh in your characterizations
That harshness is entirely appropriate in response to
Murphy's intentional and destructive lies, which can only
be intended to deceive and frighten prospective Linux users.
>of your fellow advocacy participants?
He is engaged in deception, not honest advocacy. The two
are very different. He is no fellow of honest advocates.
>We're supposed to be debating, not exchanging personal
>insults.
He intentionally posts a series of very damaging lies,
and then says people shouldn't point out that he's lying,
on the grounds that that constitutes a personal insult!
The incredible gall of this guy!
>If you disagree with my point, respond in a calm matter.
I'm calmly pointing out what he's doing. He doesn't like
that, presumably because it makes it less likely that his
lies will be believed.
>When you make it out that I am on a smear cmapaign
It's very obvious that he is.
>out to destory your world,
There's a lot more to my world than Linux.
>that is just offensive.
Lying and deceiving are very offensive. Pointing out,
accurately, that someone is doing that, is not offensive,
at least not to honest people.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
From: Mayor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:43:37 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mayor
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Snip]
>> >Maybe a bit of both? So do you like to pretend to take
>> >figures of speech literally in general, or just when a cheap
>> >shot is >available?
>>
>> I didn't think it would need a smiley, it so obviously a joke.
>> How's this:
>>
>> What's this? An actual reasoned response? Well, I
>> _never_... ;-)
>>
>> I've noticed that about you. :)
>>
>> Is that better? Now calm down. :)
>
><splutter> But I _AM_ calm!!!!
></splutter>
>
>I took it as a joke. That's why I'm so calm. You shoulda seen
>me when I was your age! And it was _me_ who forgot the smiley
>on my last response. Or maybe I shoulda asked "for information
>only." ;-)
>
>OK, everybody calm now? ;-)
I'm calmer than you are.
(What a great movie that was!)
--
Come and see my new website!
http://home.pacbell.net/rfovell/tireburn2.html
Generously donated and maintained by
THE Robert Fovell of CSMA fame.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT
On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tiberious wrote:
>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>
>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>
>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>are supported by Linux..
>
>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to scan
>something
>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and cibvert
>it to
>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
trivial.
Any "necessary intermediate steps" can quite easily me made transparent
to the end user quite without the necessity of some Win-style developer
needed to dedicate time to the problem.
There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
machine or copier trick".
[deletia]
Showing the world just how little you know about Unix seems to be
a fulltime job for you.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:49:24 GMT
On 13 Jun 2000 14:03:26 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:22:21 GMT, Robert L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>For the 2 part you have buy, do this.
>>
>>Put the cdrom on the cdrom tray.
>>mount it ( mount /dev/cdrom )
>>go to the good directory ( cd /mnt/cdrom/driver/linux )
>>install it ( ./install )
>
>In Windows:
>
>Put the CD in.
>Close it.
>Click on its icon in "My Computer".
>
>Simple. It works. Does it work on Linux? No.
Sure it does. You might have missed it since you seem to think
that Unix interfaces are stuck back in 1984.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:37:43 GMT
> Linux is a bit more flexible because it has a
number of simplified
> administration tools, but it still takes about
120 hours of deliberate
> effort to really be competent to use Linux
effectively. I usually
> reccomend that new users spend at least 10
hours/week for 90 days
> (13 weeks) actually using Linux and learning as
much as they can
> before making any final judgement.
For an end-user maybe. Companies like RedHat
have streamlined the install so much that you can
have a functional desktop in a few hours. I on
the other hand am a complete newbie who's
suddenly been tasked with setting up Linux boxes
for web-hosting, newsgroup serving, routing, NAT
translation, and firewalling. I spent more than
100 hours just trying to comprehend httpsd.conf.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMac: the iFormation Appliance
Date: 13 Jun 2000 18:46:06 GMT
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> No, I am familiar with ISO 9660, Joliet, and Rock Ridge, which have nothing
> to do with HFS or FAT partitions. You are correct in that the MAC may
Sort of right, sort of wrong. You see, the formats we use on CD's are
nothing more than modifications to the ISO 9660 standard. That is: at the
basis of a HFS, FAT32, or anyo ther CD (note, not hard drive filesystems)
is ISO 9660. This is true with all CD's except maybe audio CD's. So in a
CD, HFS has EVERYTHING to do with ISO 9660, but nothing to do with some
"partitions".
> utilize
> multiple data sessions on a CD, and may present these sessions as separate
> volumes
> to the user, and that the PC can only recognize ONE data partition on a
> CD-XA.
> But these are NOT partitions in the classic sense. They are merely
> interpreted that
> way by the OS.
Probabally true. I've actually gotten three CD writes to work on a Mac
before.
>
> I guess I misinterpreted your post, and thought you were equating CD
> sessions with
> hard drive partitions. The PC can't mount these sessions as multiple drive
> volumes
> (letters) because of the architecture of the PC (actually it's Windows'
> fault.)
Actually it's DOS's fault. If Windows finally abadoned its DOS
compatibility, it would probabally fix the problem.
>
> > On the Mac, ISO 9660 is just another installable filesystem. If I put
> > in, say, a Zip cartridge that was in ISO 9660 format, it would mount on
> > my Mac exactly as though it were a CD. The Zip driver doesn't need to do
> > anything special to support this: it's handled at the filesystem level,
> > not the disk driver level.
>
> Right. And Windows treats Zip drives like removable hard disks, which can be
> formatted and partitioned just like fixed hard drives. That's why PC and MAC
> Zip disks are not compatible. It's a different philosophy.
Uhh..No. Mac's treat Zips like removable hard disk also. It appears no
different than a USB harddrive (you can make the icons the same). It can
be partitioned, formatted for Mac AND PC. You see the reason they are not
"compatible" is that MOST Mac users make HFS formatted Zips, and WIndows
doesnt know what to do with them. I can easily take your PC formatted
disk and stick it a Zip Drive on a Mac and read its contents.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:51:53 GMT
On 13 Jun 2000 14:03:57 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
>>>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>>>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
>>
>>
>>I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
>
>Uhm, no. Not even close.
>
>>What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
>
>The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By then,
>this whole
>UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
>
>>
>>If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
>>what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
>>
>
>That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant ontop
>of UNIX, but
...it seemed to work for Microsoft...
...putting a thin veneer over a remarkably hostile CLI.
[deletia]
This sort of argument coming from a WinDOS user is simply absurd.
This kind of argument coming from someone like Ragosta would make
some sort of sense.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Hampf)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:41:46 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> hélt ŝessu fram:
:
: In case you haven't noticed, the USA is NOT a "democracy"! The people
: who conduct these invalid polls would love for you to think it is, but
: if you'll read the Constitution (RTFM) you'll see we're actually
: configured as a "republic".
I would be tempted to call this American bullshit. Instead I'll just
call it bullshit.
The reason I nearly called it American bullshit is that over there in
their language republican is opposite of democrate and liberal is
not-liberal.
rh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:46:00 GMT
I know I'll get flamed for this, but I really don't hate Microsoft.
I've tried W2K, and while I think Linux is the more solid operating
system, I think the W2K user interface is still the best in the
business. Gnome and KDE have gone a long way towards giving Linux
people a slick, polished desktop environment to use, but overall, I
think MS still has the edge as far as interface goes. It's by far the
most flexible, intuitive interface ever slapped on an OS. Okay, so
said OS is a little lacking in horsepower and stability...I'm just
talking purely about the interface itself.
Granted, a lot of my little complaints will probably be addressed in
future versions of Gnome, but there are definite annoyances right now.
Why doesn't MC highlight the folder I drag a file to in the right
pane? Why can't I drag and drop to create a launcher on the desktop?
Why can't I get a right-click menu on the left pane? Why do I have to
highlight the parent folder on the left and click on the one I want in
the right pane? These are the little details that make me say MS has
still got Gnome beat. Can't speak for KDE too much. I've been using
Gnome mostly.
Now if only they'd replace their kernel with Linux's, they might
actually have an OS worth owning.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
