Linux-Advocacy Digest #790, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Pan)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Oh, this is a good one (abraxas)
Re: Oh, this is a good one (abraxas)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Gilbert W. Pilz Jr.)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:11:14 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> Neither is Delphi (-;
>
Lansa claims that the development lead-time on their product is faster
than delphi. Isn't that rather like saying that cold molasses spreads
faster than warm tar? ;^)
--
Pan
www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:14:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> You can't be serious. For example, when the first PC BIOS were cloned,
>>> it was done using cleanroom, why? Because the final state was not enough to
>>> show that the clone was not a derived work.
>> Actually, I thought it was because the BIOS was considered protected by
>> trade secret, rather than copyright. Clean room replication of
>> protected works is not sufficient to pass a legal challenge, whether the
>> IP is patent or copyright.
>
>This statement is incorrect. Clean room replication *is* sufficient to
>pass a legal challenge; in the case of patent, however, it's irrelevant
>since the patent covers the algorithm (the method) and not merely the
>expression of the method.
I'd like some clarification on how your idea of 'clean room replication'
relates to "reverse engineering", as I don't think they're quite the
same thing. Clean room replication has access only to the API; any
derivative work is merely a novel way to create intellectual property in
modern software. Reverse engineering would actually allow you to
decompile a binary in order to figure out how the software actually
works, which can be particularly important when it does not conform to
the API. I'm not sure which you are thinking of in your statement. If
you perform a "clean room replication", and your code just happens to
come out *precisely* the same as the original, I'd say you're going to
have a tough fight on your hands trying to claim ownership in court.
But you might be able to bring an argument over from patent law; there's
something about if a solution is too obvious, it can't be patented even
if no prior art exists, I think.
>>>> Because only the end states are relevant, and I took your word for the
>>>> end conditions.
>>> I disagree.
>> I believe you are mistaken in this case. In literary copyright
>> infringement, it might get more intricate, due to the subtlety of human
>> languages. Given the functional and precise nature of computer
>> languages, however, I don't think one could consider using different
>> code with the exact same result as in any way different. Not if those
>> results are in truth exactly the same.
>
>*snort* Sorry, but on this one ... you're wrong. For simple behaviours,
>you're right, but once you get above simple math ... there are many
>varieties of ways of doing things.
I overstated the case for illustrative reasons. There certainly cannot
be as many "ways of doing things" as there are in art or literature;
programming is necessarily a functional issue of engineering. I've
already mentioned that this is an argument for not protecting software
by extension of copyright. Unfortunately, changing a law back when
there are vested interests in preserving the new status quo is not a
very simple process. Luckily, RMS saw the whole thing and its
ramifications early on, and developed the GPL.
[...]
>Similar and derivative for infringement purposes are handled
>differently. A derivative work is one that builds upon an extant work.
>A similar work is one that may be 'independent invention' that is
>closely related to another work.
Your insistence doesn't seem supported in reality. Yes, similar and
derivative mean different things colloquially. But I don't believe
copyright says that you can't create similar works. It says you can't
create derivative works, which is how all similar works are legally
classified when examined in copyright law.
>Lee Hollaar has posted what the law says a derivative work *is*. You're
>just blowing hot air.
Lee Hollaar posted a quote from statute, without extensive discussion.
If he thinks that one word is sufficient to calm all discussion, then he
is blowing hot air. The quote wasn't even from the section pertaining
to copyright, I believe, and is hardly a convincing refutation of the
applicability of copyright law to software, merely because of your
gedanken experiment.
>Copyright law cares not about functionality.
Your rhetoric is a statement of position, not fact. Support it, and it
might be worth something. Blind insistence that your ignorance is
sufficient to contradict my understanding are ephemeral, and are rapidly
growing tiresome.
[...]
>This is logically and factually false. Libraries are written because
>the code is considered to be potentially useful for *other* programs.
>The library and the subscriber programs are logically, legally, and
>actually distinct works of IP.
That depends on the amount of actual work of an intellectual nature that
is in the program and functions independently of the library, I would
say. The program may very well be simply packaging, a wrapper which
constituted nothing but the most literal concept of IP.
But if you really want to go to the extreme of "copyright doesn't
protect functionality", then I can't see any reasonable support for the
concept of trade secret licensing for end users. That would be my
preference all along, as it would RMS's. If people are free to read and
learn from source code, and create software which interoperates with or
even replaces other's software freely and without trade secret
restrictions, then you can treat software as protected only in its
literal aspect. Trying to treat software as literature on one hand to
gain protection of copyright, and then treating it like trade secrets to
deny the rights of the owner of the resultant distributable, is little
more than an ill-thought-out justification for profiteering.
>Libraries 'publish' certain services; programs 'subscribe' to them.
>When written properly, either one can be replaced so long as the
>services are published and subscribed to correctly.
But that is not the scenario provided by the imaginary example, so it
really doesn't have much bearing on the matter. I'm aware of how
libraries are actually used, and how they are perceived to be used. I
guess its worth pointing out, though, that 'copyright does not care
about libraries.'
>> Any other programs using that library are likewise derivative works
>> of that program.
>
>Nope. If I statically link, then other programs may be considered
>derivative works of the library -- but not the first program.
That would have to depend on the code. If the program is an empty
shell, then nothing could be derivative of it, and all protectable IP
resides in the libraries. Likewise, if the libraries provide common and
typical calls, the program may contain all the IP, and even RMS wouldn't
insist that it is derivative of the library. The penchant people have
for thinking that copyright law is a matter of ascertaining *per se*
rules is understandable, as that's often the only experience or even
explanation they've ever had of them. But the law is not simply a
series of per se tests; it is an abstract of principles of justice.
[...]
>No ... the author of a program that requires a non-existent library
>knows what *must be* in the library. If Roberto and I were working on a
>program together, he might require certain information from a database
>access library. He would say "I expect the following information, and I
>want to call it in this way." I could then write three or four database
>access libraries (one for each type of database we might access,
>natch).
I am familiar with the mechanics; I do know what an API is, in theory
and in practice. But the discussion under examination is, again, a
question only of theory, not practice. In practice, per se rules, not
even the FSF linking rule, are not directly enforceable, but merely
provided as a guideline of reasoning.
>> Are you sure that "writing software" and "coding software" are entirely
>> and completely identical in all aspects?
>
>Yes. Logically and in the view of the law.
I'll take that as a no.
>> I would submit that you wrote the library, because you must have,
>> even if you hadn't coded it yet.
>
>Logically, factually, historically, legally, and practically incorrect.
>He may have *designed* the *interfaces* for the library, but that is
>not the same as *writing* the library. (And, as the person who could be
>the one who writes the library, I could push back and say: "no, it
>needs to work -this- way for what you want.")
There are no engineers in any other copyrightable work. Your assumption
that this makes the act of creating a piece of software precisely
equivalent to the process of creating a book is tragically flawed.
>> Because unless you had an idea of what the library is going to do (a
>> pretty explicit one, in fact), then you couldn't have written a
>> program that calls it.
>
>Again, not true. Could he have written a stub library? Absolutely --
>that's something so that he could manage the front-end code without
>worrying how the back-end works, as long as it works with the
>interfaces that have been designed.
As long as somebody else's intellectual property actual enables his
functionality, you mean. Which seems to mean that the program would be
derivative of the library, in a clear and simple example.
[...]
>He probably should have said API-compatible, because it's clearer and
>doesn't let you get away with your ignorance.
No shit. Saying what you mean prevents me from being ignorant of what
you mean. Go figure.
But don't bother coming back to me until you've tried to figure a lot
harder than you have so far.
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:13:45 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I certainly don't want to get back in to this, but I think its worth
> noting, in general, that most desktops are used for a SINGLE application
> at a time.
Excuse, Max, but you are wrong.
> When I'm using a word processor, my computer is a word
> processor.
Just because a car is just a car, does not mean that it only has one
part.
A word processor might spawn off as many as 31 different, separate
threads of execution.
And, just as importantly, there are a number of tasks running on your
average workstation even when *you*, the *user*, hasn't started any
application.
> >I don't work on automatic transmissions . . . and I'm just barely smart
> >enough to *KNOW* that I shouldn't work on an automatic transmission!
> >:-)
>
> I don't work on any transmissions, and don't plan to. But I do drive a
> manual transmission car. I like the control it gives me. ;-)
Ah . . . I see you prefer PMT over CMT in your automobiles . . .
> >Nope. If by broad you meant: "randomly" selected, then you'd have a
> >point, but remember: nobody takes a class that they don't need.
>
> Nobody "needs" the classes I teach; they're selected by their employer
> to take them because somebody forgot to mention this stuff is supposed
> to intuitive.
In which case, you'd still have a set selected by a limited set of
criteria, not as a random sample.
Now, maybe what you are saying is that those criteria are sufficienly
useless as to be the equivalent of a random sample . . . I wouldn't
know.
> >I'm ignorant: what's an observational study? I never ran across that
> >term in my study of statistics.
>
> Uh... not a statistical study? Where exactly did you get the idea that
> my opinion based on my experience was a matter of statistical validity?
Ah. I thought you were trying to prove a point, not just air an
opinion.
> Are you honestly trying to tell me that you have a statistical study to
> refute my observation?
Yes.
> I didn't think so.
Oops. Spoke to soon . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Jul 2000 22:21:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:54:52 +0100, phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>One measure that would help achieve this would be to invalidate clauses
>in contracts of employment which attempt to limit an employee's future
>employment once he has left his present employer.
At least in right-to-work states such as Texas, these contracts have been
severely limited already, on the basis that an employer has no right to
limit someone's employability. (See? Unions have their definite disavantages
even for working people.)
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:24:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Despite these figures, I can count one hand the number of small
> computer shops in my hometown that have survived longer than a
> Quantum Harddrive warranty.
A couple of years ago, I compared Orlando Yellow Pages (an old copy
versus the new one I just got), and out of the dozen or so cheapie
PeeCee cloners, *one* had survived the intervening 24 months. And that
one was an electronic parts store that also happened to sell PC parts as
a small part of its business.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:19:05 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 'Course, CMT stopped being the "right" decision for any system about 4
> > and 1/2 years ago . . .
>
> You're being quite generous.
Somewhat.
> I'd say 10.
The total cost of switching from a CMT based system (MacOS) to a PMT
based system (such as, say, Windows NT), vs. the return on that
investment, did not reach break even until about 4 1/2 years ago.
Were you making the decision solely on the basis of "best art" for use
in a new system, you'd probably be right with your 10 years figure.
Sadly, there are more factors to consider than just the engineering
ones.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:23:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:43:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>I certainly don't want to get back in to this, but I think its worth
>>noting, in general, that most desktops are used for a SINGLE application
>>at a time.
>
>Nonsense. At work just about everyone has at *least* their e-mail
>going in the background at all times.
Yes. In the background. I don't have a problem with your disagreeing
with my position, but I'd appreciate some indication you're trying to
comprehend them, instead of making up things for you to refute without
even trying to understand my point.
>>When I'm using a word processor, my computer is a word
>>processor. It might not be such a bad thing for it to be tweaked, at
>>that moment in time, to be a word processor. Likewise when I'm using a
>>web browser, or a database, or whatever.
>
>And that might take what....2% of the cpu when you're furiously
>typing? 5%? And so wouldn't it be nice if your OS were efficient and
>distributed the other 95% or so to other apps, so your CPU would seen
>even faster and would be used efficiently?
No, it is all of the computer when I'm typing, without regard for which
component is which; that's the software's job. And when I am using a
wordprocessor, it makes sense to give some priority to printing tasks,
while my graphics software would provide more opportunity for scanner
operations. The lack of pre-emption is still a critical flaw, so I'm
not trying to argue for CMT; the CPU isn't a bottleneck often enough.
But optimizing a computer's operation for the task at hand, even while
supporting the ability to change that task at a whim, is really what a
desktop and application software is all about, isn't it?
It would, as a CPU scheduling mechanism or in any other fashion (dynamic
driver loading to conserve RAM, or modular network connectivity),
require a vast new set of innovative ideas and development, which
generally fall under the classification 'engineering problems'. The
cost-benefit analysis for things like that changes all the time, though.
And it is useful to understand the nature of something if you wish to
design it effectively, so that it can be efficiently implemented, and
expediently employed.
--
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.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:29:07 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:16:20 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> -- snip --
>>
>> > Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term very
>> > loosely) to buy MS software is because everyone else also uses it.
>>
>> Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
>> rational discussion seems fruitless.
>
>Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality, rational
>discussion seems fruitless.
>
>I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that
>machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of choice have
>*always* been available. You'll have to work hard to convince me the
>computers I've bought in the past without any OS and with OS/2 don't exist.
...kinda like Russian BTR's are "available".
It doesn't disprove the market disparity or address the network
effects problem for the product under discussion. In any area
where there exists unfettered replaceability the level of diversity
even at the mundane consumer level dwarfs that of system software at
any point in the history of computing.
>
>> Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
>
>False.
>
>> Unless you built
>> your own machine from parts, or went to the most obscure
>> hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county, there was no way
>> to not buy Windows bundled with your computer.
>
>False. Certainly big names like Dell, Compaq etc weren't carrying
>non-Windows PCs, but that's because they cater to the majority market, and
>the majority market is only interested in Windows.
OTOH, they were quite willing and capable to alter any other aspect of
the product for you. Yet the system software remained oddly fixed.
>
>Or would you like to see the government leaping into and controlling the
>computer retail market, forcing vendors to carry products with little demand
>and wear the extra cost, as you would like to see the government jump into
Allowing for the 'bare system' option doesn't require any signficant
extra cost in an area where extreme diversity and flexibility is the
norm rather than the exception.
>and control OS design ?
Better the feds than Microsoft.
[deletia]
The 'compatibility barrier' is a very real one for anyone who
would chose to exploit that 'obviously lucrative market' that
Microsoft pretty much has to itself.
It's even a problem when the competing products are faster, easier,
cheaper or even all 3.
(The statistical significance of Apple marketshare is disputable)
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Oh, this is a good one
Date: 19 Jul 2000 22:32:16 GMT
http://www.msnbc.com/msn/432208.asp
This may very well be the funniest one yet...Dresden? Any
comments?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Oh, this is a good one
Date: 19 Jul 2000 22:34:03 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.com/msn/432208.asp
>
> This may very well be the funniest one yet...Dresden? Any
> comments?
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
And actually, come to think of it---
Only microsoft could have possibly made the 'good times' virus a
solid reality.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:27:59 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [chomp]
>
> > Time Slice - The minimum amount of time a running process will be
> ^^^^^^^
> > allowed to run before it becomes eligible for being switched out.
>
> Shouldn't that be "maximum" ?
Mmmm . . . maybe. I admit, you made me stop and think for a full 10
seconds.
A time slice is, in effect, the timer value. Since no process can be
switched out before the end of its time slice (in this model, anyway,
though in some systems other interrupt sources can cause process
switching), the process in question will get to run for a minimum of one
time slice before it becomes eligible for being switched out.
To keep it simple, this is a uniprocessor machine, with fixed priorites,
and only the timer interrupt can cause a task switch with the exception
of a call, by the process, to put itself on a wait list . . . which may
be what you meant, but in that case, the process isn't *eligible* to be
switched, it *GETS* switched out, period, as it is not the scheduler
that switches the process out, it is the process that surrends the
processor.
Mind you, the whole thing was over simplified in order to try to teach
Max the basics . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Gilbert W. Pilz Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:38:29 -0500
On 19 Jul 2000 07:39:57 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>...in other words, Microsoft Windows did not get its market share by
>being the best OS, it got there by way of business deals.
And other things . . . For instance, Microsoft realized (earlier than
most), that the key to mass acceptance of any OS was the availability
of applications. After all, most people don't care what OS they are
using, as long as the 3 or 4 core applications they care about run on
that OS.
It may be hard to remember, but in the transition from DOS to
"something else" the success of Windows was far from certain (also
versions of Windows prior to 3.0 were *completely* unusable instead of
merely being mostly unusable). In those days Microsoft bent over
*backwards* in its attempts to woo developers to the Windows platform.
It seemed to me (who, at the time, considered the idea of developing
for anything *less* than UNIX laughable) that there was almost nothing
MS wouldn't do to get you to develop your application for Windows
(Palm, to their credit, has picked up this strategy). The result was a
flood of available Windows applications which helped to kick-start a
self-stoking cycle of people buying Windows because it ran the
applications they wanted followed by application developers developing
primarily for Windows because it was the most popular OS which in turn
led to more people buying Windows . . .
In the days before Windows 95 IBM could have unseated MS if they had
followed this strategy for OS/2. A little more timeliness and a
greater emphasis on getting developers into the OS/2 camp could have
done it.
--
Gilbert W. Pilz Jr.
Senior Consulting Engineer
SeaLion Software, Inc.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:38:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Slava Pestov in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Slava Pestov in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> What do you mean by "responsive"? I think you're only considering the
>>>> average responsiveness of all applications. The whole point of CMT is
>>>> that, when under load, the *average* response can go to hell (to a
>>>> certain level; connections don't time-out in nanoseconds), as long as
>>>> the process the user interface is concerned with at the moment can
>>>> grab
>>>> *almost* the entire CPU, if it needs it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have been proven wrong over and over again, yet you continue to
>>>waffle on and demonstrate your ignorance.
>>
>> Apparently, you miss the point. I'm here to discuss things, not prove
>> whether I'm right or wrong.
>
>Do you equiate "discuss" with "repeat the same argument many times over
>and over again without listening to what others say"?
No, but apparently most other people do. I think this is due to the
fact that most of the time, the responses I get don't really have many
very convincing things to say. Since this is primarily because I've
generally already considered a lot of it (note the relative ease which
the several days of "you're not listening" on this CMT thing was almost
brought to close, once a couple actual technical references, instead of
the standard derivative descriptions, were posted. The general "apps
hang/control/cognizance" 'refutations' I was getting were all quite
valid and correct. Adequate for most purposes, but lacking in critical
issues which appeared minor to those who knew them, and fundamental to
those who didn't. The only crucial issue which derailed my admittedly
speculative conjectures concerning whether CMT was as "stupid" as it was
claimed, was the lack of a hard convention for establishing (and lack of
mechanism for recognizing) a maximum quantum of time which the active
process may use before yielding. It still sounds abstract an almost
secondary to many, I'm sure, to be put that way. But it was, and is, a
true blue "conceptual glitch", I think, a trap lay waiting by the
colloquial explanations of PMT as expressed to non-specialists by
specialists.
Discussion I equate to "providing point, counterpoint, and reasoned and
reasonable argument for a finite but not necessarily pre-determined
period of time". At least on Usenet. More practically, one might call
it "wishing trolls didn't happen, avoiding them when you can, and
covering your ass when you can't."
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
