Linux-Advocacy Digest #754, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Craig Kelley)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: I just don't buy it (Craig Kelley)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Misconceptions about Mozilla (was: Star Office to be open sourced) (Darren
Winsper)
Re: Linux is just plain awful ("MH")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("MH")
Re: I just don't buy it ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: I just don't buy it
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I just don't buy it ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Russell Wallace)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("MH")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 11:08:32 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The boy isn't to perceptive, is he.
[snip 28 lines of signature]
Please trim your signature -- your newsreader should refuse to post
such a lengthy sig (I know tin, trn and gnus all refuse to support
such gross net abuse).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:16:35 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, KLH wrote:
> If Unix is an open technology, then how come we must call GNU/Linux a
> Unix-like OS rather than an actual version of Unix?
Others have addressed this, but basically, Linux doesn't conform to the
UNIX standards, and so can't be called UNIX. It uses a lot of the good
ideas from UNIX, hence is UNIX-like.
Ironically, from a certain point of view, Linux can be regarded as
proprietory(ish). The Linux community is well known either ignoring
an established method of doing somehting (and re-inventing the wheel),
for example RPM vs packages, or making extension to existing standards
and then insisting that they be used for other projects, eg, reliance
of certain free project on GNU make.
> True, but I was thinking as far as software goes. Sorry for my
> miscommunication. I think I am trapped within a mindset.
Aren't we all? :-)
> If I am not mistaken, didn't Sun invent the phrase "Open System" ?
Nope - at least, I don't think so. I don't know for sure who invented
the phrase, but "Open System" has been associated with UNIX for years.
So has free, source distributed software. It just didn't have the Open
Source nomenclature.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 11:15:59 -0600
Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes in comp.sys.sun.misc:
> |If Unix is an open technology, then how come we must call GNU/Linux a
> |Unix-like OS rather than an actual version of Unix?
>
> Because no one has done the work to make a Linux distribution conform
> completely to the Unix specifications & arranged for it to be tested and
> certified. (Since the Unix specifications cover more than the kernel,
> each distribution would have to certified seperately I believe.)
>
> See http://www.unix-systems.org/ for details on just what it takes to
> become "UNIX (R)".
Actually, Linux has been certified UNIX-98 compliant (and has also
succefully gone through at least 2 POSIX suites).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:08:18 GMT
In article <8l1un0$dob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Payed - paid. I don't get it. Is inventing words a way around grammar
> issues?
> Chilling.
>
> Contractions. Oh momma. Did these programmers take English?
> How can you program and not posses basic English skills such as
> how to use a contraction?
> And the guy is bitching about "goto" in C code? Yikes.
>
If this is an attempt at trolling for an emotional response, you
succeeded. I usually refrain from emotionally driven threads and
I never post when I am out of town on business. I am now doing
both.
HOW DARE YOU, SIR?
How dare you equate "proper" English skills with computer ability
and logical thinking?
"Payed" is much more logical than "paid". Just try to *logically*
explain why "shure" is a misspelling.
Unfortunately, it boils down to English speaking presumption in general
and, all too often, "American" middle/upper-class arrogance in practice.
You, sir, are a typical example of the latter.
You ignored the posts earlier in the thread about people who process
things differently than us (dyslexic) and I am sure our multilingual
peers could provide more forceful response in languages you don't
have even enough grasp to misuse.
> I could go on but a dead horse is quite an ugly image.
>
Then go back to COBOL. I'm *shure* open-minded, logical thinking
will never die, and I trust it over your kind of high-minded
arrogance every time.
Upper/Middle Class English Speaking U.S. Citizen,
David Petticord
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:19:47 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Even a cursory reading of history should convince you otherwise.
>
> No. A cursory reading results in knee-jerk answers, as you have shown. A
> thoughtful, reflective reading leads one to analysis and different answers.
> -- Is government perfect? No. People aren't either and certainly not people
> driven only by the profit motive -- which you are suggesting would do a better
> job on everything if left alone.
Try the cursory reading, at the least, and come back prepared to discuss the issue.
--
Mark
------------------------------
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 11:20:43 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 17 Jul 2000 16:35:58 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The only difference is: Ford doesn't own 90% of the roads, and
> >designing them to only work with Ford-Compatible(c) cars.
>
> Right and neither does Microsoft. The roads, in this case an x86 PC,
> allows one to choose many different OS's.
>
> I guess I just don't consider it shocking that MICROSOFT wants
> everyone to use MICROSOFT products.
Right.
Now, go down to Fred Meyer. Pull a piece of software off the shelf.
Look on the side or bottom where it says "System Requirements".
Repeat until you find one that doesn't require Microsoft Windows.
Lemmie know when you leave the store (if ever).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:23:39 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, KLH wrote:
> Sometimes I don't understand how anything as complex as UNIX can be as
> stable.
An interesting comment - one of the reasons why UNIX became popular in
the first place was it's beautiful simplicity! When you think of what
a multi-user, multi-threaded, demand paged OS must do, espcially when you
throw in networking into the mix, some degree of complexity is inevitable.
> It's complexity is one reason I think it should be killed. Not that I know
> of any suitable replacement for a general-purpose operating system, but I
> don't think it is the OS I want the future to use.
UNIX has become bigger and more complex over the years, I agree, but so have
the tasks we expect of it. Back in the old days, the whole kernel was just
a few thousand lines of C, with a smattering of PDP assembler. You can even
buy a book with an annotated listing of the early kernel - the Lions book.
As someone's signature says: "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to
re-invent it - poorly".
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 11:22:55 -0600
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) writes:
> [...]
> >Just don't try to print anything and then have your box immediately
> >respond; even on our new G4 (which is some seriously cool hardware,
> >BTW) the whole machine locks up for a few seconds when you print. Oh,
> >and what was that new feature in 9? You could actually use the
> >machine while it was copying files? :) Fun stuff.
>
> I thought that was a new feature in System 7. It was, in fact. But
> then, Windows uses the same line of bull.
Nope. I have a PowerBase 180 with System 7.5x and it locks the whole
thing up while copying a file.
> Can anybody tell me where precisely the bottleneck is that makes copying
> files slow down the response so badly?
Sorry, no open source (yet). You'll have to wait for Darwin (MacOS X).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 11:33:59 -0600
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
> > advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business perspective.
> >
> > 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
> > some remote server?
>
> yes, if those 'private documents' are actually book orders or something.
> where would you store your amazon.com order?
>
> as for running word over the internet, this will bomb, but this is not
> what .NET is about. .NET is about developing web sites in a better way, the
> only C# demo i've seen so far was for a web store.
Read the interview with Ballmer in this week's eWeek.
.NET is going to be their deployment system for everything, including
Office, in the future. You won't "buy" software in the store anymore,
you'll just lease it from Microsoft's .NET servers.
[snip]
After all, .NET is simply the next version of ActiveX/DCOM (which was
the next version of COM (which was the next version of OLE)). Nothing
magic about adding SOAP and MS-XML to the mix.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:34:00 -0400
MH wrote:
>
> > > You cant' programm as good as Microsoft.
> >
> >
> > Are you saying that causing system-crashes is "good programming" !?!?!?
>
> Having to write script to remove almost daily Core files is?
You're right...it's better to do it the MS-way...
NEVER generate a core file, so NOBODY can ever figure out why
the program crashed.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 11:35:28 -0600
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> VB is much more than a scripting language. Are we going to compare what
> tcl\tk offers linux to what VB offers windows? Please. What planet are you
> people on?
Please elaborate.
Look at [perl|python]/gtk as well.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Misconceptions about Mozilla (was: Star Office to be open sourced)
Date: 18 Jul 2000 17:52:13 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:27:04 -0400, Austin Ziegler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > The only reason why the participation in Mozilla looks less than
> > impressive is that Netscape themselves employ about 300 developers.
IIRC Netscape have 100 people working on Mozilla full time.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:52:55 -0400
The irony is just that. People in glass houses often do throw stones.
Usually to their own dismay.
> >A friend of mine showed me a kernal-code sample sent to a friend of
> >his (by a microsoft programmer)
> >Freaking GOTO statements all over the place.... in C CODE!!!!!
> I wouldn't be throwing stones...
> [hauck@lab linux]$ cd /usr/src/linux
> [hauck@lab linux]$ find -name \*\.c -exec grep -w goto {} \;|wc
> 6781 15167 123774
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:58:49 -0400
Like most (L)users, I have just the sort of time to try and parse a core
file to determine why the applet dejour barfed. A better question might have
been why do these "bullet proof" linux distributions have the propensity to
leave these core droppings littered about in the first place?
> > > Are you saying that causing system-crashes is "good programming"
!?!?!?
> > Having to write script to remove almost daily Core files is?
> You're right...it's better to do it the MS-way...
> NEVER generate a core file, so NOBODY can ever figure out why
> the program crashed.
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:56:19 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
> >> advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business
perspective.
> >>
> >> 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
> >> some remote server?
> >
> > yes, if those 'private documents' are actually book orders or
something.
> >where would you store your amazon.com order?
>
> That's hardly your private document. It's Amazon's.
great. then there is no problem in storing it on the server.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:16:35 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:56:19 -0700, Davorin Mestric
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
>> >> advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business
>perspective.
>> >>
>> >> 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
>> >> some remote server?
>> >
>> > yes, if those 'private documents' are actually book orders or
>something.
>> >where would you store your amazon.com order?
>>
>> That's hardly your private document. It's Amazon's.
>
> great. then there is no problem in storing it on the server.
...which is a 'conventional' local server relative to Amazon.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: 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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:18:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Slava Pestov in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Then why do you continue to insist that CMT is still viable? [...]
Well, I don't, generally. I never *insisted* it was viable to begin
with; I raised the question in order to consider the question of whether
it could be viable given certain potential innovations. I abandoned
even that argument, essentially, the day before yesterday.
>> I'd appreciate it, too, if you
>> would only use quote marks when you're quoting me. I understand what
>> you're saying, and I can't rightly disagree, as in some respects you've
>> very adroitly captured my original comments on that matter.
>> Nevertheless, you are not quoting me.
>
>My apologies. I put the "CMT gives me more control" argument in quote
>marks to emphasise that it is not my opinion. I didn't intend to put
>words in your mouth.
Thank you for your attention. Single quotes or italic/asterisks would
have provided the emphasis you want without ostensibly indicating that
they were direct quotes.
--
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: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:16:15 -0700
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Ian Pulsford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
> > > advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business
perspective.
> > >
> > > 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
> > > some remote server?
> >
> > yes, if those 'private documents' are actually book orders or
something.
> > where would you store your amazon.com order?
> >
> > as for running word over the internet, this will bomb, but this is
not
> > what .NET is about. .NET is about developing web sites in a better way,
the
> > only C# demo i've seen so far was for a web store.
>
> Read the interview with Ballmer in this week's eWeek.
>
> .NET is going to be their deployment system for everything, including
> Office, in the future. You won't "buy" software in the store anymore,
> you'll just lease it from Microsoft's .NET servers.
so, where does it says that you have to store your documents on the
server? you can rent the software (which will be very unpopular, i think)
from a central server, and still have all your documents saved localy.
right now, the net is mostly new APIs for developers, CLR, common
language runtime, which basically becomes a new API you program to, and,
thankfully, it will be based on WFC. then you have stuff like GDI+, which
is more new APIs.
then you have ASP+, which allows a HTML client to actually do more work
than now (not less, as the original poster was complaining about). ASP+
allows you to run your controls on the server, so the data exchange between
a server and a client can happen on the control level, rather than on the
page level. (but it is still supported for old clients). this actually puts
more control on the client, not less.
> After all, .NET is simply the next version of ActiveX/DCOM (which was
> the next version of COM (which was the next version of OLE)). Nothing
> magic about adding SOAP and MS-XML to the mix.
but it is also more than that, .NET becomes a new Windows API. CLR
classes become what win32 is now, but the fact that win32 api was terribly
hard to use from VB is a thing of the past. also, OLE controls which were
much easier to use from VB than VC become as easy to use from VC. (via
WinForms). also, we get a completely new Java like language which will fit
perfectly for this new APIs, the same way C/C++ was natural for the old
Win32 API.
so, you see, .NET is actually a new platform, a new API, Whistler will
be the first to have it, but if we are lucky, those classes will be easilly
installed on Win95, 98, NT, 2000, in a similar way the Java is doing it...
------------------------------
From: Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:24:03 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Even the ungraceful shutdowns aren't too bad, if one uses something
> like reiserfs -- a full-fledged data-journaling file system.
> (Disclaimer: I don't have it on my system, so can't say from personal
> experience.)
>
> By contrast, FAT is flat. :-)
FAT is one of the very few pieces of software I've ever come across that
I really trust. I've seen any number of DOS/3.1/W95/W98 machines
hard-shutdown due to power failures, crashes or whatever in the 12 years
I've been working with them, and FAT doesn't mind in the least - all
that happens is any uncommitted data was lost (obviously) and
CHKDSK/Scandisk sometimes finds some lost sectors (that wouldn't have
done any harm except waste a little bit of disk space).
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Russell Wallace
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:20:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter Ammon in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> Can anybody tell me where precisely the bottleneck is that makes copying
>> files slow down the response so badly?
>
>It was Apple's insistence that a Mac network using AppleShare IP be
>faster than a Windows network running under NT at copying files.
How's that?
--
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: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:23:35 -0400
> HOW DARE YOU, SIR?
> How dare you equate "proper" English skills with computer ability
> and logical thinking?
Your argument is fraught with emotion, therefore most of the points you
attempt to make are mitigated. Show me a logical person with computer
ability beyond typical use of said device and I'll show you an individual
who takes the same care in writing as they do speaking, as they do
programming.
> "Payed" is much more logical than "paid". Just try to *logically*
> explain why "shure" is a misspelling.
Simple. I speak and write English. There and two ways to do this. Right and
wrong.
The above argument to tense aside, if I'm not to abide by the rules of my
native tongue why would not such sloppiness be expected not to spill over
into whatever I do? Writing code included.
> Unfortunately, it boils down to English speaking presumption in general
> and, all too often, "American" middle/upper-class arrogance in practice.
No need for a class war here. But then this is COLA. There is nothing
arrogant in pointing out how some individuals who argue from a position of
knowledge and authority being unable to correctly express themselves in
their native language. I suppose you're a proponent of Ebonics, aren't you?
Let us perpetuate a tower of babble. The hell with all the rulz..oops..
> You, sir, are a typical example of the latter.
Please. You assume too much. As well as protest too much.
> You ignored the posts earlier in the thread about people who process
> things differently than us (dyslexic) and I am sure our multilingual
> peers could provide more forceful response in languages you don't
> have even enough grasp to misuse.
I don't have the other posts you allude to. I don't download 100's of posts
at a time.
I didn't see them. So I can't put this pissy statement in any context to
rebutt it.
> > I could go on but a dead horse is quite an ugly image.
> Then go back to COBOL. I'm *shure* open-minded, logical thinking
> will never die, and I trust it over your kind of high-minded
> arrogance every time.
I don't programm in Cobol. I'm *sure* of it. High minded? No, I don't make
the rules, I just try to abide by them. r u kool wit dat r wat?
> Upper/Middle Class English Speaking U.S. Citizen,
> David Petticord
Lower/middle class human being on planet earth,
Mark Hall
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:24:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) writes:
> > [...]
> > >Just don't try to print anything and then have your box immediately
> > >respond; even on our new G4 (which is some seriously cool hardware,
> > >BTW) the whole machine locks up for a few seconds when you print. Oh,
> > >and what was that new feature in 9? You could actually use the
> > >machine while it was copying files? :) Fun stuff.
> >
> > I thought that was a new feature in System 7. It was, in fact. But
> > then, Windows uses the same line of bull.
>
> Nope. I have a PowerBase 180 with System 7.5x and it locks the whole
> thing up while copying a file.
Actually, it doesn't, IIRC. The Finder isn't multi threaded, so the
Finder become useless while copying. But you can use other programs.
> > Can anybody tell me where precisely the bottleneck is that makes copying
> > files slow down the response so badly?
>
> Sorry, no open source (yet). You'll have to wait for Darwin (MacOS X).
--
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
******************************
