Linux-Advocacy Digest #676, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Growing dependence on Java ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:42:21 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:47:50 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I will concede windows can be stable_in_a_controlled_environment. But
>>the real world often does not cater to that.
>
>Yes, I know what you mean. Like, never run too much in case the system goes
>p'tang! I run a mail client and one other app. Seems to be stable. Start to
>run much more and you might run out of system resources.
If you use Win98 enough, and don't let the frustration overwhelm you,
you learn how to control it's environment and it becomes more
stable. At least in my experience, being forced to use it on the
job. I might suggest you take the same approach towards Linux
i.e. don't let frustration overwhelm you. It's always better to back
off of a problem if possible.
>I haven't forgotten how at Digital we had huge clustered environments on
>room size machines that stayed up for months at end. When desktop machines
>appeared, they never got turned off. Windows 98 PCs seem to get turned off
>every night, saves electricity I suppose 8).
>
Yeah, it's ironic. I use the Win98 machine primarily as an X terminal
to IRIX. And because the machine is owned not by my employer but my
employer's subcontractor, who maintains thousands of them for us, I
can't just simply slop Linux on it. Of course, if it ever needs a
reinstall, it's up to the subcontractor to do it, not me. And all my
work is on the IRIX machine, so it's safe.
And need I say MIPS/IRIX is way ahead of Linux in stability,
scalability and hard real-time support. Of course, MIPS/IRIX is also
way way ahead of my wallet for personal use:(
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:43:18 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:14:50 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>"stopped qualifying"??? That's funny. A review of your posting history at
>>www.deja.com indicates you have been generalizing "Linux" and
>>"Windows" all along.
>
>No I started by specifying which Linux (Mandrake 7.1) and Windows 98 SE.
Ok, perhaps I missed that post.
>>Mature people can respect one another's differences. I am willing to
>>accept that Windows_lags_behind_Linux_for_Pete if you can openly
>>accept that Linux_lags_behind_Windows_for_Perry.
>
>I'm trying to see if its more than just personal preferences. I mean, it
>can't be personal preference if one thing works better than another?
Well certainly if your brakes fail when your car is going 100 km/hr it
is not "subjective" for you or the pedestrians up ahead. But for OS's
I am usually willing to give up one thing to get another. So it
becomes a matter of priorities.
For me it is not desirible not to have things that plug and play out
of the box. Because when they do, they do things to the configuration
my system without telling me, and I lose control. Then...what do I do
when things break and I haven't the foggiest knowledge where to even
start troubleshooting.
>
>Politics! Dirty word!
>
Dirty word yes. But still a better alternative to warfare, which is
what you get when politics fails.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:44:33 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:38:29 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Yes, I understand. I see KDE as something less than Windows desktop because
>its different. It has two toolbars and nothing is where I'd expect it to
>be. I've been using Windows too long now.
It's funny how we sometimes find a new way of doing something hard to
learn when we already know one way of doing it. Try going to another
country where they speek a different language, for example.
>>And there are. There are also many areas where Windows needs
>>improvement as well.
>
>Tell me about it. All those reboots just to setup a TCP/IP address! A lot
>of controls in Windows 98 are _still_ based on 16 bit controls. Notepad
>cannot load a file bigger than 64k (it politely lets you select WordPad,
Huh..I had thought they fixed that.
>which uses the Rich Text control, a fully 32 bit control)! Notepad on Win2K
>can but only because the controls are 32 bit.
OK.
>Did you know that multimedia drivers were the last thing to be developed on
>Windows, and that they were the ones that could be reinstalled without
>rebooting? Well, in theory, as I descovered it doesn't actually work! When
>I build a new driver, I reboot, it's the easiest way. Trying to go through
>de-install, re-install is a pain.
They have improved on that in Win2K, haven't they??
>>And has it ever occured to you that maybe what you find on Linux
>>depends directly on what you are looking for, which depends directly
>>on what you want? That's what the concept of subjectivety is all
>>about. We all see the world thru our own minds and mental filters. And
>>as long as you don't understand that, you'll never understand what I
>>mean when I say you are being arrogant.
>
>Thank you for that explanation. Rather than the posts I've seen where
>people simply call me an ARROGANT FOOL, yours is informative and helps me
>understand your point of view.
I'm glad I can be of help.
>I see what you're saying. I've been seeing the world for too long in a
>Windows perspective (and I resisted MSDOS/Windows a long time as well, I
>picked the Archimedes RISC OS until it proved too slow a machine - no
>floating point to do raytracing).
>
>I tried the Matrix theme in KDE. Yeehaaa! Although I thought the docking
>was a bit naff - it didn't seem to know where the edge of the window was! I
>hope KDE 2 is better. Mind you, getting that sort of thing right is a pain,
>I had to do it myself.
If you can, when you find bugs/frustrations, notify the developers of
the specific packages. Keep in mind also that they code as
volunteers. If people flamed them for bugs they would find better
things to do with their time. However they do want bug reports. So it
is best to be nice and say how great their work is....but well eh
except for this one little problem....
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares
about.)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:52:53 GMT
Nahh.
Linus is cool.
Gates is the ultimate geek.
I've heard keynotes by both of them and Linus is pretty interesting.
Gates tone of voice irritates my ears. He looks like a bloated geek
these days :)
Scott Mcnealy is pretty cool also as is Bob Young of RedHat.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:05:19 +0100, "Stuart Fox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8klulq$gp4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I was going to post a humorous reply to this, but then I realized it
>> would be attacked by a bunch of losers defending a dying operating
>> system from a has-been company run by a geek and changed my mind.
>
>I'm sure this will probably start a whole set of Linus is geekier than Bill
>Gates discussions...
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:45:59 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:41:59 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8kmd8i$eg1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Oh, I have no idea whether there is an RPM or not.
>
I don't know where you looked but the place to track RPMS down is at
www.rpmfind.net. You will find them at:
http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/cooker/contrib/RPMS/XByName.html
I strongly suggest you use RPM's wherever possible as they will track
dependencies and conflicts for and make software easy to remove.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:47:55 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 07:29:02 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I think what I want is machine that looks after itself. That is easy to
>install, that asks the minimum amount of questions to get it going. I'm
>not really interested in how the guts work (most of the time anyway).
That's nice untill the one day it fumbles over itself. Then you're
screwed becuase there's no way (or knowledge on your part) to get into
the system and fix it. With a Mac you may be OK, only becuase the
proprietize the hardware as well as the software.
>Linux Mandarke 7.1 is a step in the right direction, though their
>installation seems to have a few funnies here there. The idea of
>selecting a percentage of applications just seems so bizarre!
>
>The partition dialogs work but it often reports that something went
>wrong without saying _why_ it went wrong, so I have to guess what it's
>talking about (and there's no command prompt or system to figure this
>one out yet).
And you are comparing this to what. fdisk under Win98? Most machines
are sold already pre-partitioned for Win98. When one is not, Win98
tells you nothing about how to partition your disk.
>So Linux is never going to reach my desire to have hidden from the
>internal workings and let me get on with whatever I'm doing?
And my car is never going to get to a point where I don't have to
change the oil and filter regularly, check the tire pressure
occasionally, check the wiper fluid, change the air filter regularly,
check the brake fluid, replace the wiper blades, etc. etc. And
computers are much more sophisticated than cars. The closest you are
going to get is a Mac, and that's only becuase all it's components are
proprietarily controlled.
>Yes, I realise that you have to know _something_ of how an OS works in
>order to program it, but I like to know as little as possible, if I can
>help it. That's why I think I get on better with class libraries like
>VCL or (groan) MFC. They do a lot of the work for me, freeing me to
>create GUI's. Every now and then I have to drop down to the system api
>to get something done that the classes don't offer, but that's less
>often.
And so their are libraries like Qt/Kde and gtk/gnome and well as tools
like KDK and Glade. I use Glade on IRIX at work to rapidly develop
GUI's to our simulation components. But what does that have to do with
general OS configuration?
>That's why it'll be interesting to see Kylix finally appear on Linux.
>Being able to run Borland's Delphi on Linux sounds fascinating. I'll be
>able to port my 3D Scene Editor over from Windows.
>
Naturally, if you have existing Delphi apps on Windows you would want
Delphi for Linux.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 14:05:53 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Do you have some more specific description of how patents preclude GPL
>>>implementation?
>>
>> The compression code used in GIF's is probably the
>>best-known example
[...]
>Demanded very small and almost un-noticable to the end user licensing
>fees, as a matter of fact. So I guess you've answered your own
>question. Software which uses patented technology will require a small
>fee.
Yes, that's the point. The restrictions applied by others may
be entirely acceptable for the end user, and many such things
are already buried in commercial packages that we take for
granted. However, no GPL'd component can ever be used
with these things in a way that makes a derived work. Or
at least it can't be redistributed, even to people who
already have the other parts.
> [...]
>>At issue is the problem of re-using any GPL'd component in the
>>case where you need to combine it with some patented resource.
>
>Don't re-use GPL components in the case where you want to combine it
>with *source containing patented technology*, unless you want your
>profiteering off of the very small patent license fee you, as a
>developer, needed to use to create the work. The cost of the license to
>use patented software is not a cost to the developer of the software,
>only the user. You can't profiteer off of it, no, but that doesn't in
>any way hinder your use of it otherwise, AFAICS.
This has nothing to do with profiteering. You can't give away
a package containing any GPL'd code that links with your
existing code with other restrictions (with the explicitly
mentioned standard 'system' library exception).
>Yea. How about that. Why are you assuming you need to use the
>intellectual property of another, rather than come up with your own?
My assumption that is apparently wrong is that a thing called
'free software' is intended to be re-used and redistributed
and that the point of it existing at all is so it does not
have to be re-written again so that it really can be redistributed
freely. When it does have to be re-written separately (and
note that this is the case for most of the *bsd code that is
maintained separately) why have the restricted version at
all - and (remember the start of this thead?) why call it
free when a freer version has to be kept too?
>And why do you call writing your own software "re-implementation"?
What would you call it if you wanted to give away the equivalent
of readline, but you wanted it to be usable in a program that
manipulated GIF images? You aren't inventing something - the whole
idea is to keep the known user interface. Re-implementation is
the correct term.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:13:50 GMT
On 14 Jul 2000 14:05:53 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>Do you have some more specific description of how patents preclude GPL
>>>>implementation?
>>>
>>> The compression code used in GIF's is probably the
>>>best-known example
>[...]
>
>>Demanded very small and almost un-noticable to the end user licensing
>>fees, as a matter of fact. So I guess you've answered your own
>>question. Software which uses patented technology will require a small
>>fee.
>
>Yes, that's the point. The restrictions applied by others may
>be entirely acceptable for the end user, and many such things
>are already buried in commercial packages that we take for
>granted. However, no GPL'd component can ever be used
...which makes it quite fortunate that Free Software != GPL.
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:22:07 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:45:59 GMT,
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:41:59 GMT,
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8kmd8i$eg1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I have no idea whether there is an RPM or not.
>>
>
>I don't know where you looked but the place to track RPMS down is at
>www.rpmfind.net. You will find them at:
>
>http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/cooker/contrib/RPMS/XByName.html
>
>I strongly suggest you use RPM's wherever possible as they will track
>dependencies and conflicts for and make software easy to remove.
>
An update:
http://linux.3dfx.com/open_source/download/voodoo5_dri.htm
Voodoo 5 reference dirvers from 3dfx with OpenGl support. So now you
can play quake under linux with your voodoo5.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 14:36:22 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sorry for the subject, I'm just looking for help and expediantly
>resorting to a cheap attention grabbing line (-;
>
>I'm having a hard time with an NFS server. It's running:
>Kernel 2.2.5
>knfsd 1.2 ( IIRC )
>Something's definitely wrong with this NFS version -- it crashes frequently,
>and since it's not a userland program, when NFS goes out the server needs
>a reboot. Needless to say, this is a PITA.
>
>So my question is -- what is the recommended configuration for a Linux box
>running NFS ? SHould I upgrade the kernel ?
>What is currently the most *reliable* version of NFS ? The
>server is not busy enough that I care that much about performance. I just
>want it to work, dammit!
The easy way is to install the VALinux modified RH 6.2 that you
can find at:
ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/software/VALinux/6.2.1/
(iso images or unpacked).
Some other distributions may have all the fixes by now, but I've
found this one to be very stable and able to accept all
RedHat and most Mandrake RPM updates.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:40:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 04:44:14 GMT
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >> Better something in the background gets slower than my typing into my
>> >> newsreader, you betcha, damn right. Whatever *I* am interacting with
>> >> should have absolute first shot at every cycle it needs.
>> >
>> >Sure, but it doesn't work that way. The foreground app in a CMT system
>> >will often to something like hog 75% of the CPU when it doesn't need
>> >more than 2%, slowing background tasks to a crawl and not providing any
>> >benefit at all.
>>
>> Once again, you are making an assumption that it doesn't "need" it
>> because it doesn't use it.
>
>That's a logical conclusion, not an assumption.
Well then its an incorrect logical conclusion, whether you want to
recognize it or not. You cannot second-guess whether an app needs
whatever it has taken; you can only change the software if you disagree
with it. An assumption that it was "wrong" would be just that; an
assumption. The alternative is a claim of omniscience. You cannot say
absolutely that you know all of the reasons why it did it to begin with.
That, again, is merely second-guessing. You are free to double-check
whether it is the way you want it to work, but that is a different thing
altogether.
[One of these days, I'm going to get through your first comment in
response without cringing from the utter failure of your argument. Feel
free to keep trying, but don't assume I'm simply avoiding pointing out
the additional fallacies within the balance of your remarks. When I can
get to the second point you try to make without losing either my
patience or my desire to be helpful to you or others, we'll consider it
an improvement, OK?]
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 14 Jul 2000 14:51:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yes, really, it is. The concept of only have one application that you
> care about on the computer running at any given time is archaic - as
> is the expectation that it would be the frontmost app.
Even if it isn't "archaic", it certainly is only one perspective, based
upon one person's use of computers. Sure, that person represents one
of many... but not necessarily most, and certainly not all.
And that is really the point that [EMAIL PROTECTED] and others in this thread seem
to be making, and that Max might be overlooking -- different users will have
different needs and therefore it is nice to have a design that is flexible
enough and powerful enough to be tuned and configured to meet all those
needs.
For me, it isn't unusual for the background process to be the very process
I'm "waiting on". The foreground process might very well be some
time-wasting activity (like reading USENET, for example ;-) while I'm
waiting for a large compilation to finish. The last thing I would want in
this situation is to have my news-reading slow my bg process down to a
crawl.
Personally, I think PMT is affective at balancing the work across the
processes of interest to me. But, the important thing is that is also makes
it easy to change those priorities when they matter most -- when you have
one very slow activity that you are waiting on. In that situation, I don't
find it too inconvenient to fiddle with nice levels (if it is that slow,
then I have time to manually change the priorities around).
> NT/W2k lets you add a +1 priority to the app in the fg if you want.
> That's a far superior solution to CMT and the "starve everything else"
> method found in that solution.
Exactly. Put the "policy" decision in the hands of the user... let the
user decide which apps are "important". Not all users will want the process
in the fg to have highest priority all the time, at least not the point of
the near-exclusion of all other processes.
I think a lot depends upon how a person uses the computer. I won't claim
that I'm typical, but I am wary when I hear others claim that they are
typical. Max claims that a "typical desktop user" cares only about the one
app that is in "front", to the exclusion of all others. I question how
"typical" this really is, and I wonder how much this "typical use" is driven
by limited exposure to other options allowing for more varied use of a
desktop environment.
...just thoughts.
--
Will
===========================================================================
William K. Sterbenz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(at home) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:44:32 GMT
That explains the rumorous remark in the user commentary section of
[download.com] (for StarOffice something) that temporarily set me off into a
panic of research over whether I'd downloaded massive duplication by getting
the OS/2 Warp, Windows *and* Linux versions of StarOffice 5.1a.
Sheesh.
I think the Commies are piping mental virii over T.V. broadcasts that turn
brains into mush. Either that, or way too many people eat way too many
twinkies.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems funny to me that so many people insist that StarOffice is
> written in Java. I think what happened is some ill-informed reviewer
> saw that StarOffice asks where your Java run-time is installed (for java
> in web viewing) and decided that this meant it needed Java to run. "If
> it needs Java to run it must be Java...." and the rumor got started and
> spread from there. I have seen it repeated all over the place.
>
> Note: StarOffice will run even if you tell it you have no Java installed
> on your system. It depends on Java only for Java in it's web browser
> app. It doesn't depend on Java to run at all.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:54:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>It would make no difference. People make mistakes, often. Especially when
>they're dealing with anything non trivial.
Yes, but we've got a new way of dealing with it that is perhaps less
efficient in the individual case, but vastly more powerful in the
aggregate, because it is self-correcting. Its called the market. The
old way, of assuming that engineers are all brilliant, software is very
expensive, and omniscience is available to software developers, doesn't
go as far as you think. It is simply not as efficient.
>Maybe in 50 years when the software development process has matured more,
>there will be a set, repeatable methodology that will efficiently produce
>verifiably bug-free code (or, at the very least, allow bugs to be
>quantified). But right now there isn't, so mass-production software is
>buggy and is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.
How about 50 sets of repeatable methodologies that will efficiently
produce almost bug-free code, right now? You think you can handle the
concept. According to your thinking, the Internet wouldn't work,
because there's no central control mechanism to make sure everything
works perfectly. Mass produces software is buggy now because the market
hasn't gotten anywhere near most of it yet; people are still buying
trade secrets, instead of software.
>That's just the way life is down here in the real world.
>
>> Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
>>
>> Would you like to start over?
>
>Sure.
>
>"Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly" is a stupid,
>dangerous and pointless assumption to make when there are well understood,
>mature and often practiced methods to avoid having to make that stupid,
>dangerous and pointless assumption.
There's only one that reliably works, though. Competition between
programmers. All of the other methods are based on stupid, dangerous,
and pointless assumptions which have the added problem of contributing
to engineer's egos and user's lack of control of *their* computers.
>CMT has no place in a general purpose desktop system. It has no advantages
>and many, many disadvantages which are addressed by PMT. There is no reason
>to use CMT, with its inherent flaws, when a superior system exists.
So the conventional wisdom goes... I just wish it weren't so pig-headed
so it could consider that maybe CMT has a "place", even if it isn't
where you think it might be, oh all-knowing, all-seeing most high
engineer. I wouldn't disagree with your comment at all, if it weren't
an annoying side-stepping of my real issue. Which is that software
engineers have a tendancy to use annoying side-stepping to avoid
contemplating that they make assumptions that what they learned in
school cannot be contradicted, regardless of context or circumstance.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
