Linux-Advocacy Digest #723, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Bob Hauck)
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! (Ulric Eriksson)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Mike Marion)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19:15:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I give up. [...]
Good. Promise?
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:27:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> I never "refused" to learn anything in my life. If your explanations
>> weren't clear enough for me to learn from, that's your fault, not mine.
>
>What a totally arrogant thing to say. That's right, never take responsibly.
>It's always someone else's fault.
I've said things that are far more arrogant than that, to be sure. I do
not blame the student for their ignorance, that is all.
>Which means you should never had entered this discussion since you had
>absolutely nothing to contribute.
Forgive me for pointing out that this is not a development project where
I'm making recommendations. Entering into discussions in public
newsgroups should not require anything but the intention to learn, and
this I have. If you can't bear the thought of interacting with people
that don't have CS degrees, then stick to non-advocacy groups.
>> Much like, I still figure, most people just took their word for it when
>> they were taught that CMT is not feasible. 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.
>
>It is not a question of being taught. It comes from experience and simple
>logic.
As you will insist, I know. The experience of the Mac and the simple
logic that it works cannot dent that insistence. Perhaps you merely
wish to over-simplify the case, or the issue. Perhaps you're merely
arrogant in your supposition that all your knowledge is absolute and
self-evdident.
>> The reason you and Gary are being assholes, I figure, is because you
>> simply refuse, despite numerous suggestions, to ever make the effort to
>> teach.
>
>Hu? Where in the world did you get the idea that this ng is a place to come to
>be taught? Teaching you is not my responsibility.
Communication is teaching.
>> You expect your explanations are sufficient for those who don't
>> understand something, simply because they make sense to someone who
>> already knows what is being explained. But obviously your ability to
>> teach someone something they didn't already know is severely limited.
>> At least in Gary's case, that's what I'll presume. Since I've had a
>> longer experience with your posts, I'd say you simply don't want to
>> teach, as it is counter to your objectives. What they may be, I still
>> haven't figured out. Self-aggrandizement, perhaps.
>
>No, I simply have no desire to teach YOU. Go read a book or take a course.
They aren't fast nor efficient nor focused enough for my uses, as my
intended application of this knowledge is pragmatic discussion, not to
become a system developer. If you don't want to teach, shut up. All
your doing now is teaching people to be obnoxious by badgering someone
who is trying to make amends for an inadvertent gaff which got some
people on an advocacy group upset (like that's hard to do?) and still
continue what I find a semi-interesting discussion of the conceptual
relationship between technology and people in the desktop platform.
--
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] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 23:30:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 16 Jul 2000 23:06:22 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Okkay, this brings up another question: how does a copyright lawsuit fail
other than being well-based on the law? I would assume that the only other
way would be that the facts aren't enough to support a claim of copyright
infringement in such a case, although the law would support that claim were
the facts sufficient. Even so, a baseless lawsuit can still impoverish the
victim of such a thing...
In the case of RIPEM, this isn't as much of a consideration...since the
whole discussion is about the law as applied to the specific case of
distributing a program that links to a library, not supplied with the
program. ...or is it? If this were to be litigated, do you think it'd be a
case of failing on the law, or failing on the facts?
------------------------------
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 19:30:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>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.
Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
"experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
Now, perhaps we will move away from the kernel and discuss whether the
Mac would have disappeared soon after its introduction if not for the
assembling of a monopoly to inhibit the freedom of the PC market. Care
to begin?
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:33:22 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:22:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>If you want to be able to talk on the network and have some sort of user
>>interface beyond pushing some buttons on the remote, having an OS makes
>>the product much easier to design and debug.
>I see what you mean, but I again don't think there are any efficiencies
>in over-complicating these devices.
No, but then again having network interfaces and the like sort of sets
a floor on complexity. Even networks optimized for such devices have a
certain amount of overhead and there are good cost reasons to stick with
standard hardware as much as possible.
>>I think the manufacturers would like to sell a special "home
>>entertainment computer" with some kind of realtime OS.
>Didn't I just say, and you agree, that this is a dumb idea?
I agree that PC operating systems shouldn't become realtime DVD
players. I do think that there is in fact a market for something
somewhat less functional for entertainment purposes only. The
continued success of game consoles seems to imply that there's more to
it than just manufacturer greed.
I can envision some sort of home entertainment appliance that controls
the audio and video gadgets and integrates with an HDTV display. This
is one of the applications of Bluetooth networking, to enable this kind
of thing to be done in a way that allows multi-vendor interoperability
in a way similar to existing component stereos and the like.
There's no need to have vendor lock-in for this type of equipment any
more than there is for current A-V components. It is just a matter of
standards, as existing RCA jacks, standard signal levels, and such were.
>If it doesn't run off-the-shelf software, it isn't a computer by my
>definition.
I think I said that too. It is an "appliance" of some sort.
>>these could benefit from some amount of customization of the OS that
>>controls them.
>
>Why not just customization of the application that controls them? They
>are appliances, after all. A decisive difference, I think.
In an appliance it's all one thing to the user. To the engineer it
isn't, but to the user it is what it is since he can't replace
individual parts. The engineer will want to customize the OS to
eliminate parts he doesn't need and enhance parts that influence his
application. The user doesn't need to care about this, only about the
external interfaces.
>Thus my concern about continuing the progression by thinking that
>integration is better than interoperability between autonomous systems.
I have not been following develpments all that closely, but I am aware
of some standards efforts in the areas under discussion. The important
players seem to be involved, so it is not clear to me that we are
heading down the "all in one" road. If there is a standard way for the
computer to talk to the TV and the DVD and so on, then you can mix and
match as you can with existing systems. I agree with you that we don't
want to be on the "all in one" road.
I think consumers will demand that of future home entertainment
systems, since they are used to it in existing ones. There's also a
big hobbyist base that will complain loudly if things aren't done
"right".
>>There is more than one "market" on the desktop. The requirements of an
>>engineer doing finite-element analysis are different from those of a
>>secretary are different than those of a home user
>I don't think finite-element analysis is part of the desktop market. I
>do still distinguish between a workstation and a desktop,
Ok, whatever. The fact is that PC's are often used in both roles.
Microsoft for instance sells two different lines of operating systems
to the two markets.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Ulric Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:35:52 GMT
Michael Marion wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Typical Linsux......
> >
> > And what was that about great hardware support of Linsux?
>
> Compaq PCs (especially their laptops) suck! How's that Linux's fault?
>
> My boss has a Compaq laptop that's less then a year old... you should
> see how often w2k eats itself on it. Especially when he puts it in, or
> takes it out of the docking station. The sound sucks under w2k, if he
> does anything when an mp3 is playing (like move a window) the sound pops
> and cracks.
I'm typing this on a Compaq Armada M300 running Slackware 7.
Since 1994, I have installed Linux on every laptop I've had,
and this installation was by far the least problematic. The
only thing I had to do out of the ordinary was to replace the
X server with one that supports the graphics hardware. The
Linux for Laptops page mentioned in the article is a good
source of information.
As for lugging 7 pound machines, the Armada doesn't even come
close, even though it is much bigger than my old Toshiba Libretto.
Ulric
------------------------------
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 19:36:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>What, did you and Max go to the same school? [...]
Without your emotional insistence on beginning your response in this
way, your message would have been much more likely to receive a reaction
based on its technical value. You are sabotaging yourself, Gary, and I
think you should ask yourself why. If you *really* feel it is necessary
to make such a comment, it will be far more effective if you simply move
it to after where you're trying to answer the question. Setting the
reader up to feel defensive is a losing proposition if you expect them
to consider your remarks logically.
--
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] (void)
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 23:28:12 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:16:23 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument.
Tell it to Galileo.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:42:32 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Dunno about Windows 2000, never used it (but from what I hear, it
> takes up about 10 times the space that NT 4 does...).
Yep, it's a hog. I installed it on a 1Gig partition on my laptop, and
the \winnt dir is 691Meg! 468Meg of that is the system32 folder.
I can't even install one decent game to play on the laptop.. I'm putting
98 back on here.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Sorry, please try again. Thank you for taking the Turing test.
------------------------------
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 18:46:02 -0500
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:30:45 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>>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.
>
>Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
What is the reasoning for the fascination with what engineers think?
>was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
>"experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
For other reasons. No one says "Hey, the Mac's got _great_
multitasking, far better than NT/W2k, so let's buy one!". They buy it
for other reasons - easy to use, all-in-one unit, etc.
>Now, perhaps we will move away from the kernel and discuss whether the
>Mac would have disappeared soon after its introduction if not for the
>assembling of a monopoly to inhibit the freedom of the PC market. Care
>to begin?
Why? Are you going to put any more time and thought into this than
you did the last topic?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:50:37 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:38:26 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software
>(*including a ham sandwich),
Unless they have previously agreed to not bundle ham sandwiches and are
attempting to get around the agreement by "integrating" instead.
>It is ludicrous to assert that OEM's should be allowed to delete MSIE
>before distribution or remove the Microsoft Windows start up splash
>screen as some wanted to do a few years back.
Why is it ludicrous? The OEM is the one who answers support calls for
the system, including the installed version of Windows. The OEM is the
one who is responsible for the "user experience". OEM's alter hardware
components and BIOS code all the time on this basis, so what is
different about MS software?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
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 19:51:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> 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?
Not for OS services, no. The dubious amount of "sharing" that goes on
in some environments do raise my interest, though. But that is beside
the point. Do you believe that *mandating* all functionality as shared
libraries is appropriate?
Yes, I agree with you that it is "neater" to implement it once. The
question, however, is if it is *necessary*, IMHO.
>> 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.
No, you misunderstand my comment. Part of the value of desktop systems
is that they can crash without causing problems in the rest of the
network. Not enough effort has gone in to handling crashes elegantly,
either. Auto-save of documents, for instance, and restoration of
application state, should be operating system level services, in my
opinion. When something inevitably happens, it is often more efficient
to deal with it well rather than to try to eliminate it entirely.
[...]
>Successful for a single tasking desktop computer with 128K of RAM. But
>it has been showing its age for most of the last decade.
A valid point, and I'll admit that since I haven't used a Mac in the
last two years, I underestimated 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.
Insistence that I read a list of dense technical textbooks is, to my
perspective, just such a claim. I lack only extremely basic knowledge.
Understanding I have too much of, as it often causes me to
over-generalize on principle. Your hope is unnecessary, I have learned
a wealth of data about PMT scheduling as well as about CMT in the
abstract.
>The only thing you have to blame is your failure to draw logical
>conclusions from the information you were given.
Based purely on your unsupported insistence that they are the only
logical conclusions to draw from the information provided. I am given a
referral to authority, not logical conclusions.
>> >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
Well, if that is the case, I'm merely contributing to that purpose, am I
not? What's your beef? That I won't lie down and take it?
>> 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.
A valid point, and clearly your impression of the issue, in retrospect.
But if people had still been falling off the edge of the earth in the
1900s, would you still feel this was so unsupportable an argument? I do
not try to argue from a position of ignorance. I was merely arguing,
and I was coincidentally and honestly ignorant (about the lack of
minimum quantum in CMT), which isn't the same thing at all.
--
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] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 23:56:33 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:40:40 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> You argue from an intentional position of ignorance. Its boring.
>
>No - a bunch of socialist personality types sitting around agreeing
Max wins that one. Five-yard penalty.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.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
******************************
