Linux-Advocacy Digest #974, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation (Loren Petrich)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Spud")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (Loren Petrich)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windows98
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Spud")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: 26 Jul 2000 05:21:55 GMT
[a lot of stuff on Linux plug-and-play...]
The ideal would be to have it as transparent as the MacOS's
plug-and-play (the AmigaOS is supposed to have good PnP, but I have much
more experience with the MacOS).
How close can one get with Linux-x86? How do non-x86 Linuxes
fare? How far do BSD, Solaris, etc. go?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:27:39 -0700
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Not that I'm aware of. And personally, I _very_ mych mind trojans.
I
> >avoid that by not running unknown scripts. OE doesn't run them at
> >all... I have to manually choose to do so; I don't.
>
> OK, so can you tell us any context in which launching VBSes from
Lookout
> would actually be useful? Remember that "untrusted sources"
translates to
> "anyone who isn't me."
>
> If no such circumstance exists, then it should be perfectly clear
that
> including this "feature" in Lookout was a massive fuckup.
Simple: you _don't_ run them from Outlook.
This is the fundamental misconception Linux people have about how
Windows works. Once they overcome that misconception and actually
understand the methods Windows uses, they'll understand how all this
fits together.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 26 Jul 2000 05:34:32 GMT
In article <X_jf5.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Not For Smoking!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >By mutual agreement.
>> You have a funny definition of "mutual."
>Ummm...
>They both agreed to it because it made them more money than a non-exclusive
>contract would have.
And how is that supposed to be the case? BE SPECIFIC.
That's like saying that paying taxes is 100% voluntary because if
one does not like paying taxes, one can move elsewhere. Such as to some
floating city in international waters (none exist at the moment, but there
are plans to build such cities, usually by those wanting to build
libertarian utopias).
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: 26 Jul 2000 05:39:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sun makes its money from the hardware, not the software. So they can
>afford to give away Solaris ( and charge lots for the hardware and the
>software they do sell). Linux has helped Sun by introducing lots of
>people to the Unix paradigm and letting them know that there is an
>alternative to Windows. But Sun has always hedged its bets, by not
>supporting Linux too much.
Linux also has the nice feature of being a good development
platform for Solaris, since it is heavily source-compatible, something
that cannot be said of Windows.
I've seen the claim that x86 Solaris is mainly supported to
provide a development platform for Sparc Solaris; the rise of Linux makes
x86 Solaris less necessary for that task, and also creates a larger
developer and user base for Unix-compatible software, which only helps Sun.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 26 Jul 2000 00:51:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Copyright infringement normally must involve actually copying
>>the covered work. Even if the running program is considered
>>a derived work, the user may obtain a copy of the gmp library
>>on his own [...]
>
>I think the issue lies in this right here. Copyright infringement
>involves copying the *intellectual property*.
No, it involves copying a specific expression of a work. No
copying, no copyright violation. The concept of copying is
slightly open to interpretation in that translations of
various sorts are covered, while backups, short excerpts and
the parts needed for normal use (i.e. interface/header
files) are permitted as fair use. However, I am not aware of
any case that did not involve the copying of a literal work
in some way (experts, feel free to correct me...). In the
case of shared libraries, or distributing sources or object
files where the user does the link there is no such literal
copy being made, at least not by the entity distributing the
other parts of the code.
>>without any violation so the copied material
>>isn't really the issue here unless someone copies a
>>static-linked binary - and even then it seems odd
>>since the user has the right to obtain and use this
>>himself.[...]
>
>End users have the right to pretty much absolutely anything they want
>with their source code, just as they own and control a book. But where
>does the intellectual property come into it? Only when we're talking
>about redistributors and developers. Any end-user can become one of
>these at will. But then they're dealing with the intellectual property,
>not a copy of it which they own. Is anybody following this?
I follow it, but I don't see how it relates to laws covering copying
materials that they are *not* copying.
>>The case would have to involve some unusual
>>concept of how the derivative is forbidden by the
>>license terms and how not distributing the library
>>is an attempt to circumvent the law. Given the number
>>of people who now have gmp as a standard system
>>library (in a linux distribution) I think it would
>>be pretty hard to make that argument today. Perhaps
>>a few years ago it would be unusual to distribute
>>source that needed such a library without including
>>it, but it would be normal today.
>
>But as soon as a "developer" starts linking libraries, we aren't dealing
>with the copy of the IP which is the source code, freely distributable
>and without restrictions. Once the matter is a process of distribution,
>rather than a programmer enjoying the freedom of his legally owned
>software source code, then the intellectual property starts
>'manifesting' again.
The libraries in question aren't being distributed by the same
people who distribute the other code.
>How close is the actual source in the non-GPL library to the original
>library? According to my reasoning, the fgmp library is a derivative
>work of mp, regardless of the "interface copyright" issue.
This isn't part of the issue. According to RMS, the existence of an
alternate library absolves any dependence on the GPL version because
at this point it is clearly the user's choice whether or not to
link to GPL'd code. There is no claim at all on fgmp.
>It does, I
>think, coincide with your supposition that not distributing fgmp with
>RIPEM, and PTF not distributing RIPEM, is an attempt to outfox the GPL.
No - fgmp can be distributed with no questions. The issue was that
code that used the interface to gmp was considered (by RMS) to
be a derivative when gmp was the only known library providing
the functions.
>I'm sorry to say it also might seem "some unusual concept of how"
>derivative works work in software copyright. But I think it holds up.
I find it odd and unlikely at best, although I don't have any interest
in being on the wrong side of a lawsuit to prove it. Unless gmp
was included in the distribution or copyright law has provisions
about things other than actual copying, it becomes becomes an
exercise in guessing intent on the part of the author/distributor
of the linking code.
>I did, however, get confused by your last two sentences. Could you go
>over that again?
RedHat linux, and probably most other distributions include gmp as
a standard shared library. It would be normal practice to distribute
code, either source or binaries without including the gmp library
itself (or any other system shared libraries). I think it would
be very difficult to establish that someone distributing such code
was doing so in an effort to avoid breaking copyright laws - or that
copying such code is somehow restricted by any license applied to
your system libraries. If such restrictions could be applied,
Microsoft would be free to prohibit any competitors from shipping
applications that used any system libraries.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:49:56 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
See the other branch of this fork of this thead for a refutation of your
position.
Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fQrf5.7512$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8lj5fk$k86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:q87f5.6575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [snips]
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8lhvfr$lpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > There are other reasons for using partition images besides
> "Large
> > > scale
> > > > rollouts".
> > >
> > > Perhaps; I've yet to encounter them. Well, other than the "golly,
> > > gee, my OS can do this..." benefits. :)
> >
> > Then why did you introduce the subject in relations to Windows now
> > supporting that feature.
>
> I didn't; someone else brought them up, asking how Windows did them.
>
> > > If nothing else, it's
> > > horribly wasteful. Let's see; I have a 27Gb drive, and about 8Gb
> of
> > > files on it. I can choose to back up all the files (about 8 Gb),
> the
> > > files changed since the last backup (about 800Mb worth, more or
> less)
> > > or I can do an image backup - 27Gb. Guess which way I'm going to
> go?
> > > :)
> >
> > Or you could apply compression to the backup copy of the image. A
> properly
> > created partition image file of a 27 Gig partition that contains
> only 8 Gigs
> > of data would normally compress down to less than 8 Gigs.
>
> Unlikely at best... especially so if the disk has been used at all.
> I've yet to encounter a file system that actually writes 0 bytes to
> files which are deleted (or the sectors they came from, if they're
> moved), rather than simply updating link tables; as such, your 27Gb
> image only has 8Gb of useful data... but 27Gb of stuff that doesn't
> generally compress very well. Typical compression on apps and data
> averages about 2:1... so that's a 13.5Gb backup to save 8Gb of data;
> this requires larger storage capacity than is actually needed, plus
> running slower, typically, due to the need to compress. All in all,
> not a good approach other than for very specific needs; if you have
> those needs, fine, it may be a perfectly viable mechanism for you.
>
> > > machines, networked, and an 8-port hub? I'll count the number
> I've
> > > ever heard of: zero.
>
> > > Now, since you were _supposedly_ examining the situation of a
> typical
> > > household, yet have set up a household configuration I've _never_
> > > heard of, let alone encountered, how do you figure this applies in
> any
> > > way to anything remotely "typical"?
> > >
> > > Never mind, you've gone off the deep end.
> >
> > I find it interesting that first you were boasting a new feature of
> Windows
> > 2000 or Windows 98 with the 2000 client utilities package as an
> example of a
> > great feature of Windows.
>
> Right; something having nothing whatsoever to do with the outright
> falsehood of a 6-kid family with 8 networked machines as being
> anything even remotely resembling "typical".
>
> Tell you what... when you decide to discuss things in terms of what
> applies here on planet Earth, rather than wherever you're from, let me
> know, and we'll continue this.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 01:55:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Maybe you're the exception here, Aaron.
>
>Are you saying that most people place political ideology ahead of
>scientific research? In that case, maybe I am the exception.
No, most people use the results of whatever scientific research is handy
to support their political ideology. Like rampant profiteering, just
because its common doesn't mean its good.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:00:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Florian Weimer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > 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.
>
>Of course, this isn't an issue anymore. Nowadays, traditional Unix
>vendors advertise the existence of Linux compatibility layers.
Perhaps, but its no more based in reality than any other "compatibility
layer" markitecture.
>> 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),
>
>Standards are sometimes clearly wrong, sometimes questionable. Most
>standards aren't available for free. Many spare time programmers
>cannot afford them.
You mischaracterize the kind of standards we're talking about. Perhaps
because you may be unfamiliar with them?
>> for example RPM vs packages,
>
>I guess proprietary Unix vendors have their own package "standards",
>there are quite a lot of them.
They each implement their own, by convention, yes, if they have any at
all.
>> 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.
>
>There are many broken incarnations of make(1) out there. No surprise
>that sometimes, developers say "we don't care about that, take GNU
>make instead, it works".
And its free. Where's the surprise? I would think "it works and its
free" would be enough to convince anybody to use something, wouldn'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: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:01:13 -0700
[snips]
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8llnb3$plm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Tell you what, why don't you do all the work, and I'll collect
your
> > > paycheck.
> >
> > No, thanks, I'm not stupid enough to fall for that.
>
> But you ARE! If you're 45, and you've been working with a PC for
> 18 years (the first MS-DOS/PC-DOS machine), you've given roughly
> the equivalent of 3 years salary (adjusted for inflation) to
> Microsoft related "upgrades". You replaced machines every 2-3
> years (avg 2.5),
Which I did in order to run Linux more effectively. Which I also did
to run OS/2 more effectively. Ah, okay, so only a complete and total
moron would confuse _hardware_ costs with Microsoft-induced costs.
Whoops, you just did that; what does that say about you? It says you
have no clue, and are inventing arguments against Microsoft out of
whole cloth and not even bothering to see if they're _sensible_
arguments.
Your hatred for Microsoft has addled your mind. Take a pill. Take
several.
> you've spent between $3000 and $10,000 for
> these upgrades, and you've spent $1000/year just on royalties
> to Microsoft.
Nice assertion; let's see the facts to back it up; I suspect it's as
bogus as the reast of what I laughingly call your "reasoning".
> Of course, you didn't pay it out of your pocket.
> Some highly placed executive (Director of IT, VP of IT, President
> of IT, CIO, CTO) made the decision for you
Excuse? A minute ago, you said _I_ gave my salary over. Now you're
saying someone else did this upgrading? Egads, man, make up your
mind.
> (you also paid his
> salary). The total price - assuming only 6 upgrades, at $5,000
> each,
Who in their right minds pays $5,000 to upgrade _anything_? I've
never done so. At work, upgrading hardware runs under $300 a year...
so by your numbers, that $5000 is for over 15 years worth of upgrades!
Do please, at least *pretend* to make some sense here.
> And let's not forget those people who work for Microsoft but
> collect their payroll from your company.
Never met one, actually.
> You know the ones.
> The guys who insisted that Windows 3.1 would make a good server
Excuse? I can't recall _ever_ encountering such a person. You really
*do* work at a totally screwed up office, don't you? $5000 upgrades.
Windows 3.1 as a server. No wonder you're so bitter... you're
surrounded by complete idiots. Get yourself into a _good_ Windows
shop, or even a Linux shop, anywhere, as long as you're away from
those idiots, it's having a deleterious effect on you.
> Just figure that 1/2 your salary goes to feeding the Microsoft
machine,
Except that not a single person in any organization I've worked for
meets the descriptions you offer. If your organization has them, find
a better organization.
> and smile. You love Microsoft (maybe you're one ofthese guys who
> works for Microsoft ond company time). Nice work of you can get it.
I love Microsoft? Why, because I'm not swayed by blatantly stupid
arguments "against" it... arguments which often, as you demonstrated
above, have absolutely no actual basis in reason or in fact? Sorry,
wrong door, brain insertion is down the hall. I don't love Microsoft;
I don't even particularly _like_ Microsoft. I do like some of their
products, but then I also like products from other vendors... whoopee.
I realize that your total inability to say anything sensible must
frustrate you, but that still leaves it as your problem; it doesn't
imply any particular relationship between myself and any organization.
Do, please, play again though.
> > What, the UNIX community *is* stupid enough to hand over their
> > paychecks? Silly them; maybe they should get some people with a
clue.
>
> Look at the intellectual property that Microsoft has expropriated
> and taken as their own. The entire Internet was build by UNIX
people
> for UNIX people, with UNIX people creating an inteface that gave
> Windows users access - now Microsoft is claiming that they had
> something to do with it.
Something to do with popularizing it, certainly. Something about
100+million installed Windows boxes, allowing end users to use
friendly and comparatively simple browsers. Oh, sure, similar
browsers exist on other platforms... but how many of those platforms
have such a huge installed base... and how many have _had_ a user base
of comparable size for years now?
> Just like Microsoft, the Internet software was published under a
> very specific publish license, one that assured there would be
> no proprietary extensions.
BZZT. No such license did any such thing. Try again.
> Microsoft violated the trust of those who contributed to Internet
> Engineering Task Force RFC validation through the generation of
> reference model source code. Microsoft literally took Bill Joy's
> code and drove Sun off the desktop with his own code.
Boo hoo. Maybe Joy should have thought about the implications of not
maintaining tighter controls on things, if he wanted them to be used
only specific ways.
> Again, nothing wrong with Microsoft taking it's fair share of
> a competitive market, but Microsoft seems to think that their
> "fair share" was 99.7% of the market.
Not correct at all; Microsoft doesn't seem to have any publicly stated
views as to how much is a fair share. What we have to do is examine
their actions; their actions are, as readily witnessed, based on
greed, sheer money-grubbing greed. Thing is... so are virtually all
businesses. Welcome to the real world. All MS has done is played the
game *better* than others... and apparently, people hate a winner.
> The software was released under certain terms and conditions,
> Microsoft violated those terms and conditions without properly
> compensating the originators. I personally designed the technology
> used to uniquely identify users,
"Please enter your e-mail address"?
> and the technology used to provide
> internet security.
Oh? Which technology? SHA? MD5? DES? Triple-DES? Wait a sec...
http://www.open4success.com/rex.html - that wouldn't be you, would
it? Interesting, I don't see anything on the front page saying "I
personally designed the technology used to provide internet security"
despite the fact that this would probably be the first thing on the
list for most folks. I also don't see the word "security" in the
plaintext version. Okay, well, maybe that's not you, then.
> > So what you're saying, then, really, is that MS, unlike the *nix
> > vendors, understands business and is willing to do what it takes
to
> > win.... even if it sometimes gets them into hot water.
>
> Even if it means violating federal and state laws, committing
felonies,
> and demanding that their customers commit felonies (receiving stolen
> goods, conspiracy, accessory after the fact...).
Indeed. If MS can be accused of anything, it's following the sterling
examples set forth by past U.S. Presidents, among others. And, like
them... it got away with it for a long time. This is the big leagues,
if you're not ready to play the game, take your ball and go home.
> > Yeah, so?
>
> This put you and Bill Gates in the same boat as Al Capone,
> Adolf Hitler
Uh huh. Let's see; Microsoft engages in what has, for many, many
years, been _typical_ practice of _many_ businesses. I point out that
all you've really done so far is whined about it. This, of course, is
comparable to putting 6 million people up against a wall and shooting
them.
Any pretense of honesty, integrity or rationality you may have wanted
to preserve is now totally gone. Anything else you have to say...
well, doesn't really matter if you do, right? After all, if you can
stoop to that pathetically low a level, there's really no bottom for
you, is there?
Good-bye, Mr. Twit. Enjoy your little cry-fest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 26 Jul 2000 01:05:00 -0500
In article <8lletm$mu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> It is illegal to not compete with an inferior product, but to force
>> >> consumers to accept the inferior product in order to acquire another
>> >> product (in this case, also inferior, but that's beside the point).
>> >
>> >No one was forced to buy Windows, as far as I know.
>>
>> That qualifier means a lot. Would this be then, a dishonest truth, or
>> an honest lie?
>
>You can only be dishonest or lie if you know the truth. Ergo, if I wasn't
>aware of anyone who had been forced to buy Windows, it would be a mistake,
>nothing more.
How far out of your way have you gone to avoid finding out the truth?
I suggest you read some of the PC vendor's trial depositions and
why they had no choice but to agree to pay for an MS license for
every processor they sold whether the customer wanted it or not.
>> Whether you know it or not, millions of people have been
>> forced to buy Windows, because Microsoft acted illegally to prevent
>> alternatives from being accessible to them.
>
>Alternatives have always been accessible. Sticking your fingers in your
>ears and repeating statements to the contrary will not make them true.
Of course, after you paid for windows by buying a PC from
a major vendor you could delete it. The people who tried
to get refunds were refused - another thing you could hardly
have missed if you were at all interested in the subject.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:02:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>
>>> Logo is a great language for beginners (but did you ever try Snail Logo
>on
>>> your Spectrum? It was terrible - it was so incredibly slow, as it was
>>> written in Basic! Turtle Logo on the BBC was much better). Do you have
>any
>>> idea if there are free / cheap Logo packages for Windows? It would be
>great
>>> for intoducing people to some basic programming.
>>
>>
>>Oh god, and interpreted language in which the interpreter is written
>>in another interpreted language.
>>
>
>
>Yes - I said it was slow. The Turing principle in practice. Logo on the
>BBC was *much* more useable.
I'm familiar with the Turing *test*, but not the Turing *principle*,
though I can grasp something of it from the example. Can you fill me
in?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 02:07:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Drestin Black wrote:
[...]
>> oh give me a break - aaron you've demonstrated ZERO computer knowledge and
>> even less programming skills. All you've done is insult.
>
>Insulting people like you is not merely acceptable, it is a duty.
"I lick's yuz cuz I can, and cause I likes, and cuz yuz the kind that
licken's good fer!"
- Horatio Hornblower, I believe.
--
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
******************************
