Linux-Advocacy Digest #710, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Ray Chason)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Ray Chason)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Can the long sigline, please (Damien)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:41:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> > > They have no choice but to enforce the law.
>> >
>> > I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
>> > are right.
>> >
>> > Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
>> > being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
>> > a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
>>
>> The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
>> OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
>> Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
>
>Are you saying Congress should be the one to decide
>whether browsers belong in OSes?
No, he's saying Microsoft should not be the one to decide if Netscape
has an "air supply".
>If all you are saying is that they are the ones
>who *will* do so, then I must sadly concede
>that you may well be right.
You're rather limited in your consideration of this matter, I think.
[...]
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:47:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>[snip]
>> >It's not sufficient for *you* to predict it; your theory must do so;
>> >your theory was that MS's mixing of authentication and
>> >authorization leads to such problems. Did you have this
>> >theory before Windows every came out?
>> >
>> >Did you publish it anywhere?
>>
>> Forgive me for bursting in, but I just can't take it anymore.
>>
>> For a theory to be correct, it has to predict a result before the result
>> is known, not before the result occurs. Your suggestion that when his
>> prediction was published is almost comical in this regard.
>
>I'm happy to have amused you.
>
>When Leslie posted his 'theory', the result *was*, in his opinion,
>known.
By Leslie?
>Even if you agree with his theory, you can hardly consider it proved
>by the mere fact that he proposed it.
Personally, I considered it illustrated, not proved, by his
"prediction". But then, I don't confuse discussion with empirical
science.
>(And you can hardly consider it revelant to interoperability,
>either. I keep resisting his efforts to change the subject
>because I do know that MS's interoperability record
>is much more defensible than their reliability or security
>record)
MS doesn't have much of an interoperability record. Merely a reputation
for not having, and in certain cases intentionally damaging,
interoperability.
Connectivity between a Microsoft client and Microsoft server is not
interoperability, ever. Its functionality, maybe, but not
interoperability.
--
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: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 16 Jul 2000 04:04:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>I finally got off my arse and quickly coded up a quick shell script that
>undoes the "staircase" problem some printers have.
>
>It is:
>
>---begin---
>cat > /tmp/temp
>perl -pi.bak -e 's/\n/\r\n/g' /tmp/temp
>lpr /tmp/temp
>rm /tmp/temp
>---end---
>
>Once chmoded executable, to use you simply type this at the command line:
>
>lprint <file.txt
There's a script to do this in the Printing-HOWTO:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# This script must be executable: chmod 755 filter
while(<STDIN>){chop $_; print "$_\r\n";};
# You might also want to end with a form feed:
#print "\f";
Remove the '#' from last line if you need a form feed at the end. Save
this as /var/spool/lpd/lf-to-crlf.pl, chmod it to 755, and have this entry
in /etc/printcap:
lp:lp=/dev/lp0:sd=/var/spool/lpd:if=/var/spool/lpd/lf-to-crlf.pl:sh
You can then just say "lpr foo" and your file will print without
staircasing.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 16 Jul 2000 04:09:09 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know how to spell, I
>know gramar (fairly well),
^^^^^^
Ahem....
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:56:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>However, none of this bears on my point: a protocol doesn't solve
>the problem of interoperability unless everyone is somehow
>made to use it.
>
>And this, I maintain, isn't really practical to do.
The market disagrees with you, in the absence of monopoly force. And
since it is the market which is autonomously tasked with "forcing"
vendors to implement interoperability, it would be the one to decide if
it is practical or not. Surprisingly 'bad' protocols [from an
idealistic perspective] are often amazingly successful, in fact, merely
because any standard protocol enhances interoperability. And vendors
want to make money by selling products, so they'll adopt standards of
interoperability. Unless, of course, their goal is to profiteer by
maintaining a monopoly. Then they won't. And as its the only reason I
can think of for not supporting interoperability, it seems almost
self-evident that this is why they do so.
>No. However, so conforming is not the same as interoperating
>with anything except, of course, for other conforming systems.
Interoperating means being able to communicate with conforming system,
yes. Did you think it meant communicating with non-conforming systems?
How does *that* work?
>What I mean is that Unix has made very little effort to
>interoperate with anything but itself.
You are aware that the entire Internet, including Microsoft systems, use
standards and protocols that were integral in Unix's development, and
have always supported non-Unix interoperability, don't you?
>I object to saying that the mere fact of standards
>conformance is, in and of itself, interoperability.
That is literally all that is required, by definition. If you conform
to interoperability standards, then you do, in fact, enjoy
interoperability with all conforming systems.
>I do not mean to say that standards conformance
>prohibits or prevents such interoperability.
Such standards *are* interoperability.
[...]
>However, in this case I think you have misunderstood
>me.
Not at all. You're simply very mistaken in your understanding of
interoperability protocol standards and implementations.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:05:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I didn't say that, actually. I have tried to avoid harping on
>the *bad* open protocols out there, because I don't think it's
>relevant: I am not questioning whether such protocols are
>good or not, but whether they amounts to interoperability, all by
>themselves.
>
>If you say these protocols are good, I'll take your word for it.
Considering that the entire purpose of these protocol's existence is to
support interoperability, that is the same as tacitly agreeing with the
opposition to your argument. Are you sure you're willing to agree to
that proposition?
[...]
>> And everyone else that uses internet email.
>
>Oh yes. This is one of the standards everyone else
>had to adopt because they wanted to use the internet,
>and Unix won't understand *your* protocols, so
>you've got to learn its.
It is not Unix's protocol. Unix merely has consistently implemented it
for more than a decade, so you think of it as a Unix email scenario.
SMTP and POP/IMAP don't have any direct relationship with Unix at all,
other than successful interoperability between Unix and any other host
implementing SMTP or POP/IMAP according to the standard.
>> It is the one you can use without pre-arrangement.
>
>This is sounding very like Windows.
As soon as a standards body develops and publishes Windows, you'll have
a point. Until then, you're greivously in error.
>Windows works well for it what it is for, you know.
Yes, we know MS has quite a bit of cash, but that's beside the point.
As an OS it sucks. As an interoperable server, its not and
interoperable server.
>No, on second though, you probably have weird ideas
>about what "works well" means that involve
>not crashing. :D
No, MS's stock price doesn't seem to be effected by how much Windows
crashes, so I don't think that's an issue.
[...]
>> Of course it is possible to get them wrong, but that turns
>> out not to be a problem when you can easily replace a buggy
>> implementation with any other version you like. If you
>> are stuck with a proprietary protocol with only one version
>> any problem is fatal.
>
>I wouldn't say that. The thing I would wish to avoid is
>being stuck with *any* protocol, open or not.
There is no such thing as being "stuck" with an open protocol.
[...Your trolling is getting tiresome, Daniel. You're too
intentionally dense to be even mildly amusing. Try to come up with
something that isn't so absurdly and patently false...]
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:10:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>[snip]
>> >> If you want to claim that dropping an incompatible dialer
>> >> on every desktop didn't break the standards-conforming
>> >> existing hardware, you should provide the evidence, except
>> >> there obviously isn't any.
>> >
>> >If you want to play the "shifting the burden of proof" game,
>> >you really ought to do it more subtlely.
>> >
>> >You are being *so* blatant about it that the only people who
>> >will be convinced are the sort of people who would
>> >had already agreed in advance, for other reasons entirely.
>>
>> Just for the record, 'cuz this needs to be done more often:
>>
>> You are the one who played "shift the burden of proof",
>
>I don't recall doing it on this thread, lately, but then again I'm
>hardly above it. I do have a mind like a steel, er, sieve and all... :D
Perhaps if you bothered to look, you'd see I was quoting a relevant
example, and then went on to document and explain it. How much more
intentionally stupid are you planning to be?
>Still, I stand by my statement: If Leslie is going to do it, he should
>do it better. Doing it clumsily hardly makes him look good.
Your constant horse-crap makes you look like a fool.
[...]
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:10:25 -0500
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:34:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 02:05:09 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
>>>>>>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
>>>>>>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
>>>>>>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
>>>>>>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
>>>>>
>>>>>But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
>>>>>for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
>>>>>connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
>>>>>technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
>>>>>technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
>>>>>that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
>>>>>powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
>>>>>systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
>>>>>ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
>>>>
>>>>That's touching. Please try to address what I said and stay on topic.
>>>
>>>I did. What's wrong with you? Why does the rendering job die? Can't
>>>you answer?
>>
>>Because the foreground app has "control" of the CPU. C'mon - wasn't
>>it obvious?
>
>No. A process can get starved either way; what does it matter to the
>renderer whether it is another process or the scheduler which restricts
>whatever "breath of life" it needs which impedes its ability to work on
>a multi-tasking system?
Exactly. Which is why CMT is dead.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:17:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>[snip]
>> >Computers, well, compute, and were very popular before
>> >the web came along. "Exchanging" data you can do with
>> >the post office; Computers can do much more.
>> >
>> >Don't get fixated on the web. Comptuers are used for
>> >much, much more.
>>
>> This in the middle of a discussion of network protocols? This attempt
>> at mis-direction is a 1.3, at best; it may be buried deep, but its
>> hardly subtle.
>
><shrug> We all have our off days. I'll try to do better next time! :D
>
>However, network protocols aren't exactly limited to the internet
>either. I do think he is being fixated one *one* application
>of these technologies to the exclusion of all others.
No, he's not. He's using one example to show a constant and menacing
predation on *all* interoperability with Microsoft systems. You weren't
talking about any other interoperability, and nobody was talking
specifically about the Internet or HTTP. Your intent in this statement
was clearly to try to back-pedal from a conclusive argument illustrating
that your position is invalid by refocusing attention on non-network
interoperability issues entirely.
Just so you know that readers notice these things.
>Leslie's arguments on this subject isn't entirely clear to me,
>but it does *seem* to depend upong computers being
>simply "internet terminals", and no more.
Leslie's arguments on the subject are decisively clear and poignant, and
is in no way reflective of the straw man you wish to build. You, on the
other hand, have no validity in your position, and have not been able to
defend your vague and inaccurate notion of "interoperability" in the
slightest bit. One would suspect from the behavior you've shown that
you may indeed merely be an astroturfer, as I've never seen a worse
assault on logic to confuse the issues as you have demonstrated, outside
of an intentional effort to obfuscate.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:20:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Which?
>
>If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>available or the recipient already has it.
That's because it is not yours to give away. It is a derivative work of
both the GPL and the "anything else", and some rights of ownership for
your end result still resides with their authors, according to copyright
law. When you said you can't give away GPL code, I had assumed you
meant the code itself, which you are always free to distribute. Of
course you can't give away the intellectual property; it is not entirely
yours.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:31:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>You're also allowed to manufacture a product which runs only using Microsoft
>>>libraries under Microsoft Windows. That is not considered a derivative work
>>>of Microsoft's libraries, even though it runs under nothing else. (RMS
>>>seems to think otherwise on this, too.)
>>
>>Well, if there were any Win32 API libraries other than Microsoft's, then
>>RMS would be consistent, not to mention accurate, in that assessment, I
>>think.
>
>WINE is an approximation.
Yes, but only an approximation. You could not modify WINE and even
begin to consider that you've modified the Win32 API itself. WINE
emulates, it does not implement, the Windows libraries.
>>Therefore, (since whether someone else does something can't
>>change whether a work was derived or not) all software which only runs
>>under Windows does certainly seem to qualify, and would in law if it
>>could ever come up (it can't; don't bother with hypothetical arguments
>>unless you're up to the challenge) as derivative works of Windows.
>
>Does that mean you should need MS's permission to copy/distribute
>your own program that calls their interface? Would this
>depend on whether WINE supported it or not?
Potentially, yes. Like I said, it may indeed be possible for Microsoft
to claim that all Windows programs are derivative works of Windows,
depending on the level of API use they implement. I doubt simply
implementing a display for a program would be sufficient; the software
would have to make possibly extensive use of the more definitive parts
of the specification. For example, if I were to implement a program
which merely provides a wrapper to their HTML renderer, could I say that
I had created an independent work?
So in an extreme case, MS might very well stand on principle. But to
attempt aggressive defense from infringement would certainly be
counter-productive to their purposes.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Can the long sigline, please
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Jul 2000 05:35:04 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:22:29 -0700, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
| >>
| > A good OS should NEVER need to be reinstalled.
|
| Linux needs to be reinstalled on rare occasions. Therefore it is not a
| good OS?
Why would Linux needs to be re-installed?
[1] Author admits to re-installing Linux on more than one occasion to
correct problems he was to lazy or ignorant to correct by hand.
[2] Author also admits that all software sucks, but mitigates that
statement by pointing out Linux sucks a *lot* less then Windows.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 05:46:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Many people mentioned that utilities were available to reprioritize
> >tasks under PMT OSes. If it took them some time, it was probably because
> >your understanding of the basics is so flawed that it wouldn't have
> >meant much to you.
>
> Bullshit. Thanks anyway, though.
Ouch. Even more hostility. You didn't become hostile until you realized
you were in over your head. Does your increasing hostility mean you're
now really running out of air now?
> >Of course, it shouldn't surprise me that you apparently didn't notice.
> >You've ignored just about everything that has been said in this thread,
> >and now that everyone has been driven to the end of their patience and
> >said as much, you've become hostile.
>
> More bullshit. Why is it that people expect me to pay attention to what
> they say when they couch their supposed presentation of information in
> ridicule?
I explained your mistakes in my first response to you, which set off
this entire conversation. Please read
http://x55.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=644947466.1
and point out the "ridicule." Be specifc.
When it seemed you weren't getting it, I explained again:
http://x55.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=645335848.1
Any ridicule there?
The "ridicule" didn't start until you started using the word "engineer"
as some sort of insult and repeatedly asserting things which it had been
carefully explained to you were incorrect.
> I'll admit, I've been a bit grouchy, lately. But all I did
> was defend (to the death, true, but through no disingenuous presentation
> or lack of logic) the possibility that CMT was a worthwhile alternative.
> And the only thing that's wrong with that is that I didn't learn why CMT
> isn't considered worthwhile in college. The bungled explanations I was
> given weren't ignored, they just weren't very incisive. They were
> parroting of the standard line, not technical breakdowns or synthesized
> arguments.
No lack of logic? Please read that first article above. I explained the
problems with CMT, and went on to explain that PMT doesn't have those
problems. Among other things, I stated "The fact is that _any_ app in
Mac OS can grab control of the processor; a background app can cause the
foreground app to lock up, for example."
Your response was "Any app grabs control, and can screw it up royal
you are correct, *when the foreground application yields*. All good
foreground applications, of course, yield on a routine basis. But that
only highlights the lack of necessity for pre-emptive multitasking,
when it is assumed that all of the programs running on one computer are
under the cognizance and control of one operator."
I'm not sure what the point of the first sentence was, because it's
irrelevant in light of your correct statement in the second sentence.
The third sentence doesn't follow at all from the first two. You have
yet to explain just what that means, and that has been a major issue in
this thread.
> Nobody said 'you're not arguing for CMT, you're just saying we need a
> lot better scheduling systems.' If they had, I'd have agreed, and we
> could move on.
I guess everyone should apologize. I'm sorry I can't read minds.
[snip]
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
