Linux-Advocacy Digest #722, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: linux:Unresolved symbol using 'insmod sg' (Alex Chudnovsky)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!! (Pan)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:51:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Browne in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when T. Max Devlin would say:
>>Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>It depends an awful lot on the software. Windows has been sold to tens of
>>>>>millions of people, many of whom didn't want it or need it. Niche market
>>>>>software often sells for a fixed 25% cut over what it costs to write.
>>>
>>>>Only for creative values of "what it costs to write it".
>>>
>>>I dunno. If I have to pay a guy $N/hour to write a piece of software, and
>>>I sell it to the one customer for $N*1.25/hour, I think that's a 25% markup.
>>
>>And what is the markup when you sell it to the next customer, without
>>having to re-write it. The customer after that? The thousand later
>>customers? The million customers over a three year period?
>
>That is a change of topics.
>
>The topic was _not_ that of a piece of software being sold to a million
>customers, but rather of bespoke software written for a niche market
>for _ONE CUSTOMER_.
Says who?
>There are many organizations that sell software based on the bespoke
>model, where there is _NO_ likelihood of a piece of software being
>substantially reused because it was designed specifically to meet the
>customer's requirements. That is the matter at hand, and it changing
>the question means that the answers change.
Quite convenient when you don't have the answer to the other question,
don't you think? I'm sorry; nobody is discussing custom-developed
single-use software, AFAIK. A single customer is not a niche market.
The progression to a million customers is not necessary, several hundred
make the point just as clear.
[...]
>>They were, until Microsoft changed the rules, I've heard. I don't know
>>the specifics, but I have been told by accountants, who would be the
>>ones who know, that the IRS allows software developers to treat fixed
>>costs as variable costs. Essentially, they say that the five hundredth
>>customer still required $N/hour, because they're still paying
>>developers. But the developers are coming up with *new* products, so
>>the company is essentially capitalizing on the margin.
>
>Which shows that you don't understand either accounting or taxation.
>
>What the IRS does is of little relevance here; the _point_ of the way
>the economics of software works is that the cost of producing the software
>generally represents a sunk cost. Once the software is sold once, there
>is no additional development cost involved in selling it 100 times or
>100,000 times.
The IRS certainly does enter into it. By their acceptance of standard
accounting practices in tax disputes, they set the rules for all
accountants everywhere, tax related or otherwise. The description you
provided seems counter to your point, so I must be missing something.
>The IRS doesn't enter into this in any useful way; when the information
>gets recorded in the financial statements, what happens is that they
>report aggregate sales, and aggregate costs, and the fact that
>reselling software doesn't result in incurring more costs means that
>the software developer doesn't get to report additional development
>costs. The effect is that if you want to bring in the IRS, the
>result is that there's no additional expenses from development,
>which, to those that don't understand economics, might elicit the
>thought that this _increases_ the tax burden. (It _doesn't_, which
>is the whole point of the cossts being fixed.)
Yet this seems to me to be in contradiction to the very reason I am even
casually familiar with such things. You're certainly right I'm not an
accountant or tax attorney.
>"Capitalizing on the margin" is utter business-babble, and
>the only place where anybody is going to be pretending fixed costs
>are variable is if they are doing internal management accounting
>reports, and are mandated to allocate fixed costs as some form of
>overhead.
Yes, this is precisely what I meant by the idea. I am well aware that
it is not an actual term, and am quite happy to see that you understood
what I meant. I'll admit, I knew it sounded like business-speak, but I
assure you I did not intend it as obfuscating "business-babble". I
meant it as an efficient way of encapsulating the dangers I have seen.
And that danger, BTW, is in no way limited to software developers. All
over, companies are trying to mandate the allocation of fixed costs as
some form of overhead. It makes their books look good to investors.
Perhaps the FTC is actually more legitimately concerned with this than
the IRS. I don't want to be a businessman any more than I want to be a
kernel programmer. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to discussion
issues related to either.
>It rather looks like you understand accounting as well as you understand
>the CMT and PMT models of multitasking.
Bingo. I am only familiar with the general concepts, and what I've been
able to reason, possibly incorrectly, without any real guidance. Will I
also receive nothing but ridicule for this?
>Hopefully there's some area that
>you _are_ expert in that allows you to demonstrate expertise; you have
>been doing an excellent job of showing off areas you _aren't_ expert in...
Networking. Network management, specifically, SNMP, but the
technologies being managed, as well; ATM, TCP/IP, Ethernet, Frame Relay,
routers & switches & hubs (oh my!), that kind of thing. Oh, and
teaching. The fine art of not ridiculing people for not already being
an expert in something, while gently and repetitively explaining it to
them. I am by no means accomplished to a master level at either of
these things, but I did manage to help enough to receive an
acknowledgement (along with a large group of others; my contribution was
by no means extensive) in the SNMPv3 documents. No technical
development, to be sure; I just helped clarify some conceptual problems
by asking questions in the absence of assumptions. None of the members
of the IETF working group ever ridiculed me for matching my lack of
assumptions with a lack of classical education. If they recognized an
important detail that I was missing, they merely provided it without
rancor or unnecessary blustering.
--
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: 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 22:51:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Mea culpa. You had not explained anything about why I was
> >> incorrect, in my re-reading; you provided indirect consideration
> >> of my questions. I apologize, because I did become frustrated
> >> without cause. I appreciate you efforts. I will point out, for
> >> your benefit, not mine, that the fact I didn't understand CMT had
> >> no max quantum made your explanation of PMT seem to miss the mark
> >> and fail to address the concerns I was raising. I was told the
> >> difference was whether the app or the OS was "in charge", not that
> >> it was whether there was any maximum amount of time the active
> >> process could fail to yield.
> >
> >Your problem is that you lack the ability to think logically.
>
> I'm sorry, this is patently absurd. My problem is that is all I
> have.
>
> >If you had thought about it, you would realize that, if the app is
> >in charge as in CMT, then there is no one to enforce a maximum
> >quantum. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions.
> >Yet you do not learn.
>
> I did not assume that there was any need to enforce a maximum
> quantum. So long as all processes implement the notion, no
> enforcement is necessary.
Isn't it just neater to implement this once? Are you against shared
libraries as well?
> Does this mean the system will crash if an
> app fails in the wrong way? Yes. But the fact is that system
> crashes are tolerable on a desktop system,
Your standards are too low.
> and they are not on a
> multi-user host. Which brings us back to precisely why the Mac
> implemented a putatively successful CMT, in direct contrast to the
> considered opinion of a large number of people.
Successful for a single tasking desktop computer with 128K of RAM. But
it has been showing its age for most of the last decade.
> >I will say again what I and many others have said. Get a good book
> >on the subject and read it.
>
> It isn't that interesting in the abstract, I certainly don't need
> that level of knowledge. The idea that understanding requires every
> cogent fact is patently and obviously untrue.
Nobody claimed that. You seem to lack extremely basic understanding,
however. Perhaps you are picking some up, but I'm not too hopeful.
> I'll point out that it was beyond the ability of many here to
> recognize which fact was important for correcting my
> (mis)understanding of CMT, even though you are the ones with all of
> those facts available to you.
The only thing you have to blame is your failure to draw logical
conclusions from the information you were given.
> >This is not the place to learn about CMT and PMT. This ng is an
> >appropriate place to debate the pros and cons of CMT vs PMT, but
> >first you must have some understanding of the subject.
>
> I didn't hear anyone complaining when Christopher Smith suggested
> this is a place for trolls and religious wars.
That's what this is. Are you new to the *.advocacy groups? ;-P
> I thought a more interesting examination of the issues would be
> appreciated, possibly one which is more accessible to the people who
> still defend the Mac without having even as much technical knowledge
> as I do. According to you, there is no debate about the pros and
> cons of CMT, so I can't help but notice that your statement isn't
> entirely appropriate.
There is debate about everything. Some people would still argue that the
Earth is flat.
--
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>
------------------------------
From: Alex Chudnovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: linux:Unresolved symbol using 'insmod sg'
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:08:27 +0300
Carlos Villegas wrote:
> My goal is to have the 'sg module' load automatically.
>
> As root I typed: 'insmod sg'
> And I got this:
> Using /lib/modules/2.2.14/scsi/sg.o
> /lib/modules/2.2.14/scsi/sg.o: unresolved symbol
> is_reg_chrdev
>
> How can I get the sg module to load automatically given the above
> obsticle?
>
> --------------------------------------
> -- Carlos Villegas
> -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------
>
> --
> --------------------------------------
> -- Carlos Villegas
> -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Try to use "modprobe sg" instead of "insmod sg" ( without the quotes).
--
Regards,
Alex Chudnovsky
e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ : 35559910
------------------------------
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 17:51:29 -0500
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:48:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>That 'quantum' marks the difference between a CMT- (which doesn't have
>>>>it) and a PMT-system (which does have it).
>>>
>>>Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
>>>that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
>>>the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
>>>but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
>>>kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
>>>answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
>>>misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
>>>the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
>>
>>Oh come on! What do you think controls the quantum? The OS. It's
>>settable and in the nature of the OS.
>
>Precisely. It is in "the nature" of the OS. It doesn't need to be
>directly controlled or enforced by the OS. If all the apps implemented
>the notion of a quantum in a CMT environment, it magically becomes a PMT
>environment, without the necessity of implementing a scheduling
>algorithm in the OS.
And by this you tell me you either A) don't know or care what a
quantum value is and what it does when it's 'hit' or B) you don't have
any idea what a CMT system is.
I give up. You've outlasted me, and very few people manage to do
that. You just don't have any idea of what you're talking about, you
keep regurgitating the same tired arguments that have already been put
to rest, and you are essentially stating, here, "Well, if I have a bow
& arrow that shoots gunpowder, it will fire harder and with higher
potential velocity" - well, no shit, but then it won't be a bow &
arrow anymore. Similarly, if you've got a system that can take time
away from apps when the system wants, rather than when the apps want,
it's not CMT anymore. And that's the quantum (value).
>>>That makes a lot more sense. Multi-tasking without a maximum quantum;
>>>now that *would* be a stupid idea. ;-)
>>
>>Well then, you agree CMT is a stupid idea. Very good. It only took
>>what... a week?
>
>Try three or four days. And it would have been less if I'd been taken
>seriously to begin with.
You were. I think the phrase you're looking for is:
"It would have taken less time if I (T Max) had seriously read and
seriously thought about what everyone else was saying, rather than
burying my head in the sand, talking about Ethernet, and otherwise
making myself look very silly."
>The assumption that I knew that CMT had *no*
>maximum quantum is, I will admit, an automatic one for people who
>learned all the technical details years ago. But it was still an
>assumption, you see? And as painfully obvious as I made it that I was
>approaching the discussion from a conceptual, not a technical, level, I
>would have hoped somebody here was bright enough to realize it was an
>issue. I have constant practice figuring out what small detail such as
>this somebody is missing, and trying to point it out to them from a
>non-technical perspective. You all thought that's what you were doing,
>I'll grant, but I became frustrated too easily expecting that others
>could do it as well.
>
>No, "the app, not the OS is in charge" does not automatically mean the
>app has no notion of maximum quantum.
Would you *please* look up the meaning of CMT again for me?
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:55:01 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about discussing Win 2k or Win98se or Linux SuSE 6.4 and Caldera
> 2.4 instead of RedHat 5.2 and Windows 95?
Okay. Usually, when Win98se locks up on me, it doesn't BSOD the way
that windows 95 used to. I just lose all io from the keyboard and mouse
and am forced to power down by just turning it off. A Winvocate
acquaintance of mine,explaining that win98se was more stable than 95
said that his pc "only" crashes about once per day running 98se
(compared to my 1-3 times per day under 95 and zero times per month on
my servers running Debian, Caldera, Mandrake 6.1, Mandrake 7.1, and
Mandrake 7.1). I've only had 1 linux server crash (due to a bad HD)
though my current desktop system running Mandrake 7.1 occasionally
crashed under xfree86 v4.0 when I would try to run the Pan or KDE
newsreaders.
--
Pan
www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 17:56:21 -0500
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:59:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Much like, I still figure, most people just took their word for it when
>they were taught that CMT is not feasible.
On the contrary - I learned that CMT wasn't feasible from my own
experience. I learned on the Amiga, with PMT, and I routinely (in
college, when the Mac was in its' heyday) had people tell me CMT was
the best thing around. It was all I could do not to laugh. The PMT
experience I got was very rare - most people realy started with PMT in
either NT3.51 or Win95, almost a decade after I was already convinced
it was the best. 30 minutes with an Amiga Mac emulator quickly
convinced me Mac multitasking was horribly, horribly, horribly behind
the times (at that time, the "times" was the Amiga. Now, it's
W2k/NT4.) On the same CPU, the Mac emulator just couldn't handle
simple, simple things that that same CPU (running the AmigaOS) could
handle easily and with lightning speed. The difference, even now
thinking back, is just stunning.
>Much like those who insist
>the Mac was a stupid idea. All I did was point out that there seemed to
>be some inconsistencies in that argument.
You have? Where? Seriously! You have done nothing of the sort -
you've yet to post a technical reason for your beliefs.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:00:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Precisely. It is in "the nature" of the OS. It doesn't need to be
>: directly controlled or enforced by the OS. If all the apps implemented
>: the notion of a quantum in a CMT environment, it magically becomes a PMT
>: environment, without the necessity of implementing a scheduling
>: algorithm in the OS.
>
>Look Max, if you really care, I found an amazing resource on the net
>yesterday. It is the Creating Your Own OS FAQ:
>
> http://mega-tokyo.com/os/os-faq.html
>
>Go for it, and let us know how it all worked out.
Thanks anyway.
>--
>
>Max: Know how to keep an engineer busy?
>Eng: How?
>Max: I'll post again tomorrow ...
Didn't realize I was keeping you from your monumentally important task
of engineering.
[You do realize you just told a joke which insults engineers, don't
you?]
--
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: 16 Jul 2000 19:03:23 -0400
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 05:11:38 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Shock Boy wrote:
>> We were discussing the installation on a PC where the hardware
>> selection is far greater...
>LoseDOS is restricted to Intel x86 clones.
>Linux works on everything from 1960's IBM 370's up to the latest
>chips being put out by IBM, SGI, SUN, HP, Motorola and, of course
>Intel.
>And you're talking about a "lack of hardware selection"
>This must be some new meaning of the word "lack" which with the
>people at Oxford and Webster are unacquainted.
Yes. The Windows version of "lack of hardware support" means the
affected system doesn't have drivers for one or two pieces of
obfuscated, PCI or USB hardware whose interfaces and protocols
are considered to be trade secrets by the vendors, who only write
drivers for one or more mutations of Microsoft Windows.
--
Microsoft Windows. Garbage at your fingertips.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:05:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ray Chason in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
>>that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
>>the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
>>but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
>>kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
>>answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
>>misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
>>the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
>
>That's part of the difference between PMT and CMT. The other part is that
>an I/O event -- a key press, a mouse click, a character arriving or
>departing on the modem -- can at any time wake a high priority process,
>which then gets a chance to process that event.
This would be a result, not a difference, I think. CMT systems are, in
fact, the "event driven" ones, aren't they? A proper implementation
allows for this method just as PMT does. It does, however, require the
cooperation of all processes, a trade-off which those tasked with
ensuring the OS itself is most robust are not willing to take, for
obvious and understandable reasons.
>There isn't really any difference, in the OS code, between the maximum
>quantum and the wake-on-I/O. The quantum is enforced by a timer which
>generates a pulse when the quantum expires. It's just another I/O event.
And thus can be implemented by a convention of having the active process
yield at an appropriate interval, without the necessity of pre-emption.
Not as easily as pre-emption, true, but it can be done.
--
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] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 23:06:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Okkay, so back to my original question, slightly modified: in copyright
>lawsuits, how often does someone who gets sued and wins recover their costs?
>Is it even a substantial minority of the time?
That's not something that I track. But since the Supreme Court ruled
that it doesn't make any difference whether you are the plaintiff or
the defendant, I expect that it's many, if not most, cases where the
suit wasn't well-based on the law.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
