Linux-Advocacy Digest #677, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Pipes (Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?) (Pete
Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 14:54:24 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>No, you misunderstand. They *don't*. It is not a "practical" issue.
>>>It is a legal issue.
>>
>>In what way is that not a practical issue as well.
>
>In the way I was using in the context of my statement, obviously.
>
>I would point out that its up to you to provide reason to believe it is
>a practical issue. You have attempted to do so and have found fault
>with your reasoning because of your assumptions that one must be free to
>profiteer in order to earn profit.
I've said no such thing. I've said you can't give away GPL'd
code in many contexts.
>There are no practical problems,
>because copyright and patent don't cover the same things, and do not
>therefore conflict.
They do cover things that can end up in a derived work useful
to an end user. A developer can build a copy containing
GPL'd code, but he can't give it to an end user.
>It is only your insistence that copyright be used
>as a justification for trade secrets, and your belief that using the
>intellectual property of another without permission is ethical, that
>causes you to miss the point.
I have said nothing of the sort.
>Nor could I; I believe what you say is true. GPL unnecessarily
>restricts the possibilities of re-use of covered software. That is its
>purpose and function. Where we differ is not in that, but in why. You
>believe it is because of some flake's politics and his dishonest hatred
>for free markets and capitalism, I think.
I said nothing like that, either. That must be your own idea. I
have said, and still do, that the GPL is unnecessary and prevents
many useful developements with its restrictions.
>I believe it is because of
>the widespread acceptance through ignorance of unethical profiteering on
>intellectual property of a unique nature. GPL is necessary. The
>restrictions it places *should be* unnecessary.
And no one has yet shown a single case where it is necessary.
>In practice, it turns out they do, according to you. Luckily, I think
>you over-state the case. Nobody needs GPL code as much as you pretend,
>and yet people use it much more freely and easily than you pretend, as
>well.
If you consider the GPL code base unnecessary then why bother
with the argument that the GPL itself is needed?
> [...]
>>>Anybody producing GPL code would have to pay for a license from the
>>>patent holder, I would assume.
>>
>>But that license would have to permit unlimited redistribution
>>and modification of the patented code (effectively a non-exclusive
>>re-licensing arrangement) and would likely be extremely expensive
>>or impossible to obtain.
>
>No it wouldn't. It wouldn't have to say a damn thing, since that
>license isn't GPL. GPL is a copyright license, not a patent license.
>Nobody but you is trying to apply GPL to patents. Did you realize
>that's not possible?
>
> [...I'll stop here, if that's the case...]
Yes, I'm the one who said it was impossible in the first place.
However it *is* possible to have copyrighted software containing
patented algorithms and the restrictions of both must be met.
What makes it impossible is if a component is under the GPL
copyright and another is under any different restrictions.
With software only under a different copyright, it would be
at least legally permitted to duplicate the functionality
in re-implemented GPL'd code (apparently the dream of GPL
proponents...). Where patents are involved, even a
clean-room reimplementation of the algorithm is covered.
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 15:56:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:50:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>If you differ with someone else's use of a concept, explain how yours is
>>different, don't tell them they're WRONG, and that's *it*. That doesn't
>>help anyone teach or learn; only defend their little hoard of
>>cluelessness from everyone else.
>
>But you've had things explained to you again and again. Not only do you
>keep espousing your misguided position, you make snide comments about
>"engineers".
>
>The hostility you're experiencing is a direct result of your refusal to
>absorb any of the clues being lobbed your way. Read a fucking book
>already.
You seem to have made my point, and lived up to your namesake, both
admirably.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:54:37 -0500
OK, we agree that Windows software is crap. We agree that in some cases
you can slow down some of the bugs, some of the time, by following
certain guidelines. You consider that waving dead chickens, I consider
it common sense.
As for your insistance that you didn't accuse me falsely of the things I
listed above:
>Now do you understand what I mean, and why I couldn't just let you guys
>go on basing your troubleshooting on invalid assumptions?
>
>If you *really* want to be a master at troubleshooting computers (and,
>yes, I do consider myself a master, capable of instructing others in
>this regard, even those with a good deal of experience, and possibly
>even a greater duration in the trade then myself), then you have to
>remember that the fix for the problem needs to be validated and tested
>every bit as much as the original problem you're fixing. You can't just
>assume that correcting something is what fixed it, or even, if this is
>true, that it fixed it for the reasons you think it did. I think maybe
>at least some of these cases that convince you guys that proper
>administration improves Windows behavior substantially is that changing
>an incorrect setting often forces Windows to re-construct part of its
>internal interconnections, and it was the loss of these
>interconnections, as opposed to the incorrect setting you identified and
>changed, thus re-applying those connections, which fixed the problem.
Indication I'm a poor troubleshooter because I don't agree with your
assesment that I am wrong.
>Maybe its just a difference of perspective, but I think my perspective
>is a larger one. I will not draw lines and say "well, that's someone
>else's screw-up".
Indication that I am blaming my problems on others and I am narrow
minded (drawing a line and saying...).
> That isn't of course, Nathan's issue, and my
> repeatedly deriving it is no doubt why he is convinced I don't
> understand his real issue. But I guess then the real issue is whether
> an administrator that doesn't know that Windows can screw itself up very
> easily with no help from humans doing so accidentally can truly consider
> himself competent in this regard.
One I missed earlier, you also say I am an incompetent Windows
administrator because you somewhere got the impression that I said
competence is the way to solve *all* Windows problems, when what I said
was it is the way to solve *some* Windows problems (and I believe that
you would agree with this statement if you stopped falling over the
semantics).
>Nathan seemed to disagree, and stated 3 supposedly specific conditions
>which will reliably produce the result of non-crashing Windows systems
>with a high degree of confidence. I'm merely pointing out that he is
>over-stating the case, and using it as an illustration of the dangers of
>voodoo troubleshooting.
Again attacking my ability to troubleshoot because you have the mistaken
idea that I said I can un-equivocally removing all cases of Windows
crashing, when I actually said you can remove some of the cases where
Windows crashes some of the time by following these guidelines. It
still doesn't mean Windows isn't crap to begin with, you just need to
find a way to work around what problems you can work around. I did not
say this will produce non-crashing Windows systems with a high degree of
confidence as you said. I said these conditions will keep Windows from
crashing *a lot* and in fact still believe that this is true. The
crashes are still random, and non-predictable, but they will be less
likely under these three conditions (as you said, skill and luck is
better than luck alone).
>Pardon me. I think I said you were "passing the buck", or blaming
>someone else for your problems, not dodging responsibility, exactly.
Again telling me I am blaming my problems on someone else, passing the
buck.
I could go on, but what's the point. You took a general statement from
me to mean something completely different from its intended meaning and
used that to tell me I had all sorts of problems that I don't have. I
dislike Windows because you cannot predict when it will crash. Exactly
the same thing you have said. But to me that does not mean that in
cases where Windows is used you should not use the three conditions I
provided. Those three conditions will provide you with a setup that is
more likely (since you don't like me using the word commonly) to give
you a *more* stable set of systems. This has been my point all along,
and worded every which way it isn't correct to you unless I say it
exactly the same way as you do. I have attacked your "assumptions" that
I am a poor trouble shooter, and that I am passing the buck because I
have yet to see the place where I said anything that could lead you to
that conclusion.
You still keep coming back to the idea that I am somehow supporting MS
(or their position) by saying that you can at times prevent some of the
problems in Windows. In part I understand why you say this is incorrect
(the randomness) but I expect you to be able to acknowledge that by
saying that I am not saying "with 100% accuracy you can predict" which
is what you seem to be railing against. I am simply saying that using
common sense+skill+luck will yeild you better results than your case of
using skill+luck (which in turn you said is better than luck alone).
>From what I have seen using common sense in the IT industry in any way
shape or form has basically been forbidden. In my opinion, this is what
allows MS to continue to make the crap software that they are making
now.
OK, I do see some of your point. You say I am stating things that look
like I am saying "You can predict with 100% accuracy when Windows will
crash." That was not my intent. And I made a broad and sweeping
statement that I could have been a little better at wording. But I do
not believe that it justified the character flaw attacks that you kept
throwing at me. I did not attack your character. I only attacked your
seeming inability to see any statement but your own held any merit. I
still think you can say it more than one way. And I still think that I
am not using "vodoo" troubleshooting (as you keep saying). My whole
point was that some people just deny that it is even possible to have a
Windows installation run at all (because they "never" saw it happen) and
it is possible, although unpredictable. That was where this entire
discussion got started. And apparently you took that to mean that I
thought you could predict it. This seems to be the entire
mis-understanding between us. Unfortunately, without stating this in
huge paragraphs describing the complete randomness of Windows, and then
saying "but there are things you can do to work around *some* of the
problems *some* of the time, although they aren't foolproof (in other
words, they are not 100% garaunteed to work 100% of the time).... there
is no way to say what you were trying to get me to say. I went for
something breif, and you wanted a more precise, even if more lengthy
explaination.
So, I understand where this discussion got started. And if you would
have kept the discussion focused on that initial problem (rather than
bringing up all of my supposed character flaws that you had no evidence
of) we would have been at this point in the conversation two days
ago. I'm sorry you feel that's a strawman. You did in fact tell me all
of the things I accused you of telling me. If that to you is a
strawman, it is because you placed the strawman there. This is not
anger speaking, it is what I saw happen. And now I am trying to get you
to acknowledge that attacking character flaws you have no proof existed
in the first place is not the best way to get your point across.
Now, I think we do understand eachother. I'm sorry if you feel I've
been a complete ass about this. You hit on my pet-peeve (or biggest
fear actually) and I apparently hit on yours. I think in all we are
both open minded individuals with wide views of the world around us and
good troubleshooting skills. The problem is that when anybody has their
(figurative) toes stepped on in exactly the right way, the shit hits the
fan and the brain shuts down (on both sides).
So, I have acknowledged what I feel is the point you are trying to get
across. Windows crashing is random and some of my statements didn't
exactly express randomness, but made the appearance of showing that you
can predict the randomness. Even though this isn't exactly what I said,
it *could* have been taken that way if looked at in the wrong context.
If I am still wrong, then please try again. I am always willing to
learn something new, just use valid teaching methods rather than
attack. In reality we agreed on the actual knowledge behind the
statements, we just disagreed on how those statements were worded (and
which wording was proper) because of a lack of *proof* that I understood
the randomness of Windows crashing in my original and fixed statements.
Is this correct?
Now, can we get on with our lives? I have wasted the better part of two
nights off thinking about some of this conversation and I'm ready to
move forward (I know, I need a life). Now, please accept my apology for
hitting your pet-peeve. See ya!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Pipes (Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:06:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacques Guy) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> Ceci c'est n'est pas un pipe!
>BTW the correct quote, from Magritte, is "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".
>Magritte is Belgian, like Simenon, like Herge, like an incredible
>number of great cartoonists. How could such a small country...
I bow to your superior knowledge.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:14:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Mading) wrote in <8km1p0$m70$1
@news.doit.wisc.edu>:
>One handy ways I sometimes find Linux useful for helping fix
>windows is when I need to help a friend figure out exactly what
>type of hardware they have in their old machine and they lost
>the little hardware pamphlets ages ago. When that happens the
>easiest way to find out has been to boot the machine with a Linux
>boot CD or floppy, and use the hardware-recognition messages that
>spew by during boot to figure out the exact make and model number
>for the hardware. This "don't hide anything from the user if there
>is no reason to" attitude of Linux tends to be very handy. I've
>also fixed older windows partitions' autoexec.bat files by booting a
>Linux mini rescue disk, mounting the windows partition, and then
>using 'vi' on autoexec.bat. I haven't had to do this anymore since
>the newer versions of Windows seem to be relying on autoexec less
>and less (a good thing), but a few years back I did it several times.
Windows Millenium actually removes the need for Autoexec.bat. There still
is one but if you edit it, it doesn't actually get used (confusing?).
Windows NT moved all of the features of Autoexec.bat into the registry and
created environment variables per user and system wide, although it is
still possible to put some things in autoexec.nt, I believe.
Pete
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:16:00 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:54:21 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
Very well; the market has determined CMT belongs in the junkyard.
>>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.
You are aware there is massive redundancy in the Internet, aren't you?
That's what routers are for. What's your point?
>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.
Huh?
>>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.
Would you please make a concrete argument for CMT (if that is, in
fact, your point in all of this)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:08:11 GMT
Ahh.. yet another linux user skirting the REAL issue by attacking my
spelling.. Look PimpleDick..my post is not documentation therefore is
not subject to scrutiny. The Linux Documentation Project on the other
hand is representative of the operating system itself. THAT is the
issue, not my spelling. If Document I cited is representative of the
OS, then whoooo whoooo....no wonder it's so lame.
Phhht.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:10:08 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
> >
> >
> >From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
> >
> >"The bilt in Linux firewall..."
> >
> >"...new firewall utility with more feachers"
> >
> >How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
> >
> >http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-6.html
> >
> >"Because most distributions don't dome with a kernel usefull to your
> >perpose."
> >
> >Or this;
> >
> >"You need to turning off any unneeded services."
> >
> >"This script will count ever packet"
> >
> >And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has
typos..
> >
> >Check page 47, "If this is the cas, it should be explicity stated on
> >the package"
> >
> >--- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much
time
> >geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
> >rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
> >
> ^^^^^ Typo or misspelling?
> Does this mean you are a retard? (By your own definition of course.)
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
>
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 16:19:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>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.
The technical relationship between these two are no longer as they once
were. Obviously, the concepts are archaic, as they are still
universally implemented.
>>"user-oriented tasks" which need to be accomplished in the background,
>>but its still the background. Its not *what I'm waiting for right now*.
>
>However, "what you are waiting for right now" only rarely would stress
>the CPU and more frequently would just be waiting for YOU, so it's
>wise to have a more efficient way to distribute CPU cycles. PMT
>offers that. CMT doesn't.
But what is "rare" at 60 seconds a minute might turn out to be extremely
frequent at millions of cycles a second, don't you think? CMT doesn't
all by itself offer anything near what you know the technical
requirement are, and I recognize that. But CMT never purported to. It
is CMT plus the implementation of scheduling, *cooperatively*, the apps,
which is of value, and can indeed, as proven in the marketplace, provide
effective solutions which end users can benefit from, even if engineers
want to insist they're "stupid".
[...]
>>And it doesn't provide the mandate of cooperation that CMT does to
>>benefit the market, either.
>
>Err...huh?
Yea. That's what I mean.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:20:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>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.
Nope, still there in Millenium.
>>which uses the Rich Text control, a fully 32 bit control)! Notepad on
>>Win2K can but only because the controls are 32 bit.
>
>OK.
NT and 2000 have been 32 bit from the start.
>>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??
I wish! You'd have thought enable/disable driver would allow me to replace
it, but noooo. The only way to do it is to remove the driver and reinstall
it. Or reboot.
>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....
With commercial companies, you report an error, it seems to disappear into
a beaurocratic (sp?) nightmare somewhere. I guess I got tired of reporting
errors and simply look for solutions myself.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:29:57 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Obviously, my revised connotation, more appropriate for admins than
> programmers, is meant to take into account that the chicken-waver is no
> longer necessarily aware of the dubious nature of voodoo. People have
> become convinced, quite firmly, as evidenced by Nathan's insistence that
> I'm attacking him personally with mere word-game pedantics, that waving
> dead chickens is no longer as technically futile or unnecessary as it
> seemed, before Windows. I'm sure I'm not alone in considering that this
> might be a result of the practical futility of any alternative to simply
> performing rain dances in explaining any particular instance of a
> Window's glitch.
>
You did attack me personally (see my other post). I have yet to see any
proof that I "blamed others for my problems" or any of the other things
you accused me of. And you were playing word games as well. I can say
randomness is randomness is randomness is randomness and you still say I
am saying it isn't random because I didn't word it to exactly express
the randomness. As for your insistance that I do not understand that
Windows is random, well what can I say. I may express it differently,
but I believe the same thing.
I still think our number one difficulty came from a problem with
language, and not a problem with our minds. This is why I say you were
playing word games. We both understand exactly what the situation is
with Windows (crashing is random, you can't predict it) but we express
it in slightly different ways. You seem to indicate that I am being a
blocked mind abou this, but in fact I am saying this is a language
problem more than an understanding problem.
I wish I would have been born into a world without Windows (and
sometimes I wish without computers). I understand computers for the
most part, but I don't understand Windows. Everybody (IT sups,
Management) tells me that "Windows is the future" and I need to "learn
it or be lost in the coming MS age" and it won't change the fact that I
can't understand it. I can at times make it perform in certain ways,
but I'll always be holding my breath just waiting for that moment of
crashing that we have been bandying back and forth.
Sorry, had to respond to your comment that I am basically making it up
that you attacked me.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
