Linux-Advocacy Digest #990, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (John Sanders)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (John Sanders)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (John Sanders)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Mandrake not Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (John Sanders)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Maximum Linux (billy ball)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:15:59 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >After all, the boss
> >> is vital because he plays golf all day, and all you do is work,
> >> which makes you expendable, right?
> > Most business owners work at least as hard as their employees. They
> >don't have time to play golf.
>
> What do you think exclusive country clubs are?
Actually, high level CEO's are "on the job" at nearly all hours of the
day, (other than having sex with their wives...well, usually). When
the CEO is at lunch, he's working. When he's coming home from the
office, he's working (why do you think they still use chauffers?
That's right...so they can CONCENTRATE ON THEIR WORK while sitting
in their private, moving office). When the go to a football game,
they are working. When they work in a game of golf, they are working.
Frankly, I don't give a fuck if the CEO of any company spends his entire
life on the golf course, if that's what it takes to accomplish
whatever he needs to do to keep the business up and running.
Everyone needs to get out and get some physical activity if they
wish to avoid looking like Loren (embarassing photograph provided
by Loren himself at the URL below).
One of the necessary qualities of a CEO is to be very highly
driven towards reasonably obtainable perfectionism. Golf, archery,
and firearms marksmanship are all pastimes that attract this sort
of people.
Golf is the best for CEO's because
A) Nobody is (openly) carrying deadly weapons
B) It's quiet
C) Distance from other participants provides security which
EXCEEDS that of corporate offices and meeting rooms.
On that basis, I would say that anybody who aspires to be a CEO
but avoids golf as a way to combine physical exercise AND business
meetings is an IDIOT, and probably isn't going to get very far.
Similarly, Executives ALL have to eat (or do people expect them
to walk around with an IV-pole and a drip bag?). Since they
MUST eat every day, I would be damn disappointed in ANY executive
who FAILS to do business during the course of lunch and dinner.
You people need to get in touch with reality....and the reality
is, being a corporate executive is an 18 to 20 hour/day job,
which does not stop for physical recreation nor eating. A large
number of executives with a private bathroom in their office
have a phone line in the bathroom. Why do you think that is?
That's right...even when they're taking a dump, they are
EXPECTED to be on the job if the situation is critical enough.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:07:16 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Exactly. This is precisely the one legit use of goto I've seen in high
> level code. For example, you use on error goto in basic as a way of
> handling exceptions.
Doesn't this reduce your interrupt to essentially a
polled interrupt? I mean, doesn't the "on error goto"
line have to be reached befor the interrupt is serviced?
> Another point -- exceptions themselves are somewhat dangerous, for the
> same reason that gotos are dangerous -- they make it easy to break out of
> things that you shouldn't be breaking out of. Using exceptions for anything
> other than exceptional circumstances is widely frowned upon and considered
> an abuse ( at least in C++ programming, this is true ).
Unless you jack with the stack any interrupt will return
with a restored environment to where you were before the
interrupt. That's not really a 'break'.
> --
> Donovan
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:09:51 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
> Writing directly to memory? What BASIC class did YOU take? Not the way I
> learned it. I NEVER wrote directly to memory from BASIC. GOTOs - what's
> wrong with properly used GOTOs - do you never use a JMP in assembly? Does
> this make assembly bad? Original old old basic was not structured or object
> oriented, You should review VB6 and rethink your comments.
Doesn't: "Let i = 5" write to memeory? Where else does it go?
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:15:48 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
>
> : >
> : > Traditionally, most UNIX programmers do take up a project with
> : > portability/POSIX compliance in mind. But most Windows programmers
> : > do not concern themselves with anything outside of Win32, because
> : > in most cases, they do not need to.
> : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> : You misspelled:
>
> : "because in most cases, they are unaware of other platforms, let alone
> : the concept of porting."
>
> Making sweeping generalizations is not usually a very accurate
> way to portray a group. I think it depends upon the person.
> .-----.
> |[ ] | Stephen Edwards | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
> | = :| "I'm too polite to use that word, so I'll just say,
> | | 'bite me, you baboon-faced ass-scratcher.'"
> |_..._| --SEGA's Seaman on the "F" word.
But in this case, the generalization was dead-on.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:11:18 -0400
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> *splutter* *squawk!* hyperventilating *invective!* *twitch!* cyberspace!
>>
>> *convulse!* psychotic. *denial!* *squaak* infantile hotheadedness *twitch*
>> *jerk!* medical condition *stammer!*
>>
>> you're here?Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't you tell
>> us why you're here?Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't
>> you tell us why you're here?Why don't you tell us why you're
>> here?Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't you tell us why
>> you're here? I don't know how to say anything else!! I don't know
>> how to say anything else!!! HELP ME I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY ANYTHING
>> ELSE! HELP! HELP! I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE! HELP!!!!
>> Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't you tell us why
>> you're here?Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't you tell
>> us why you're here?Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't
>> you tell us why you're here?Why don't you tell us why you're
>> here?Why don't you tell us why you're here?Why don't
>
>> *twitch!* don't use OS2 *convulse!* "I like you M$." *stutter!*
>> don't like IBM *cough!*
>> *twitch!* troll *twitch!* troll *twitch!* troll *twitch!* TROLL! *smack!*
>> can't see straight *convulse!* *invect!* McCoy *twitch!* rampage *
>> screwing *convulse!* someones mother MOTHER! MOTHER! MOTHER!
>> *twitch* claim to be a writer *jerk* idiot *splutter!* tizzy!
>> hyperventilation! *gasp!* *wheeze!* *troll!* M$ feedbag *whine!*
>> *twitch!* intellectual constipation *splutter!* Billy G *twitch!*
>> SATAN! *convulse!*
>> *moan!* troll *twitch!* under the bridge *twitch!* you own fault
>> *spaz!*
> Methinks thou dost protest too much, Ed.
You have not only proved you're a troll, but you are one that is too hot
headed to make a coherent statement. Rephrased: You are an Now, wsshole.
When are you get smart enough to not look for trouble?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:35:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Rephrased: You are an Now, wsshole.
You mis-spelled "wassabi"
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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: 26 Jul 2000 17:36:15 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:29:51 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>MkLinux == Linux on Mach
>
>Mac OS X == BSD on Mach
Darwin == BSD on Mach
MacOS X == high-level UI and APIs on BSD on Mach
But that's a nit-pick.
>So, the obvious-obligatory-conspiracy-theory is that Apple supported the
>development of MkLinux in order to get a free pilot project done by
>volunteers that would prove/disprove the MacOS X architechture. ;-)
Was that ever even in question? That's not a rhetorical question, I
honestly don't know. But I thought it was pretty much, well, as you
said, obvious.
>No, re: UI, Linux + GNUstep == Mac OS X - Aqua.
Hmm, that's an interesting way of looking at it.
>So, a little bit farther apart, but I will bring to your attention the
>fact that the GNUstep developers have been bending their efforts towards
>compliance with the Apple changes to the spec. . . and Aqua is, in the
>end, a sub-system that could probably be pretty easily coded.
>
>So, I stretched the point a little, but when you look under the hood,
>not all that much.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that eventually there
will be a Mac-alike OS composed of Linux, GNUstep, and some free clone
of Aqua?
I'm not too familiar with GNUstep, but it's my impression that it (and
the OPENSTEP software that it clones) addresses a lot of the same
problems as GNOME and KDE. Does anyone here know how GNOME- and KDE-
compatible GNUstep is? I wonder how nicely MOSX will play with these
open object layers.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake not Linux?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:36:42 -0500
Mikey wrote:
>
> Thus Sprake abraxas:
> > >> > btw, Mandrake
> > >> >not Linux?
> > >> >How so?
> > >>
> > >> It isn't your only option and those that choose to install it
> > >> on their machines (OEMs) aren't bound by contracts not to
> > >> change it.
> > >
> > > Do you mean by adding unofficial changes to the kernel for more specific
> > > machines?
> > >
> >
> > Sort of, more specifically, cleaning up the classically munged kernel headers
> > for all platforms they offer. The kernel is no longer linux, this change was
> > not AFAIK approved by torvalds nor implemented by cox.
>
> I never thought about it until you mentioned it. Here's the $dmesg |
> head (or you can do $uname -a)
> , I get...
>
> "Linux version 2.2.14-15mdk (hostname) (gcc version 2.295.2.19991024
> (release)) #1"
>
> So I guess the mdk means that it's a custom kernel. Co-inky-dink?
> Hmmmm.... Well, they still fall under the GPL, so they can't be all
> that evil. :)
Not evil, just different.
However, I will note here that the latest couple of versions of Mandrake
I have seen have said on the box "A Linux Based Operating System", so
they are coming closer to admitting they aren't "Linux" straigt and
true, but they are a bit misleading. It would be better if they said "A
Customized Linux Based Operating System" or even, dare I say "A
Customized Operating System Based (Loosely) On Linux"?
They aren't that different from Linux just yet, but they are headed in
that direction. And it would be interesting to see how long it is
before we begin seeing larger differences, and binary incompatibilities
showing up. I hope it doesn't happen, as it would lend credence to the
"Unix fragmented, so will Linux" morons, but it might. Only time will
tell I guess.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:20:31 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
>
> Can you be more specific? In what way is VB failing on a large scale that is
> not revealed to us "little scale" programmers who are having no trouble
> using VB for most anything. As for specific hardware interface requirements:
> again, can you be more specific. And cannot a VB (and C) programmer call
> upon a 3rd party support add-in to provide some funcionality that is not
> there in the basic language. All the hardware interfaces I've needed came
> with DLLs that I linked to and called, they were written in "whatever
> langague" and I didn't care. I just called them and let them do the work.
Write a driver for an S3.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:52:23 GMT
Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why? Product tying is still illegal.
>
> OK, but where is the law that defines what may or may not go into the
> product called Windows?
There's not one law that says this - there's a number of them that add
up to "a monopoly can't do certain things." It's all in the Findings of
Fact in the current case.
> >A browser and an operating system are different products.
>
> Then why is every operating system vendor except Microsoft allowed to
> include a browser?
Which OS vendor beside Microsoft includes only one browser, tied into
their OS to the point where the vendor says it's "impossible" to remove
without damaging the OS, while mentioning in internal memos that the
only reason they did so was to "cut off the air supply" of a competing
browser/server company?
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:56:31 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in the
> > > consumer world.
> >
> > That's absolutely, totally wrong. . . like saying the chemical
> > properties of iron are moot in the consumer world, such a statement
> > defies reality. Reality includes things like paint, undercoating and
> > specialized additives to motor oil.
>
> No, it's like saying the chemical *composition* of paint is irrelvant in the
> consumer world. Which it is.
Nope. The chemical composition of paint is *VERY* relative to consumers
. . . hence the advertising based on precisely that.
> > Yep. But the difference between an operating system, and a distribution
> > built up around that OS very meaningful to the consumer world. They
> > just don't understand proper terminology, is all.
>
> Very true, but if you're going to talk to such people you need to talk in
> language *they* understand.
And so the first step is: consumer education.
> > Continuing to use the term "OS" improperly is not a good answer.
>
> Well, when you've come up with a practicaly way to re-educate the vast
> majority of the computing world as to the technical definitions of "OS" and
> "distribution", let me know.
I'm already giving an example here: use the terms properly, define them
for those who use them improperly.
> Until then, I fear, only stress and
> frustration await you in any discussions with non-CS participants.
I don't get stressed out or frustrated by teaching . . . it's part of
what I do for a living.
> > Yes. Distros . . . short for Linux distributions, not short for "The
> > Linux Operating System".
>
> Perhaps you should tell that to most of the commercial distro vendors ?
They are well aware of that fact already, and it shows in their new
product announements, in that line where they tell the customer which
version of the Linux kernel they are basing their distribution on.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:58:05 -0600
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why? Product tying is still illegal.
> >
>
> OK, but where is the law that defines what may or may not go into the
> product called Windows?
The Sherman Anti-Trust act, plus a slew of other Federal laws.
> Then why is every operating system vendor except Microsoft allowed to
> include a browser?
What other operating system vendors include *THEIR* browser into *THEIR*
distribution?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:02:30 GMT
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:38:57 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My take on it has been that for X that capitalization parrter should be X
>Windows, X Windows System. When the word window is not part of the name
>then window should not be capitalized as in "a X terminal window".
>
that's X, The X Window System, X11... *not* X Windows..
man X
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:04:34 -0700
Chad Irby wrote:
> Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Why? Product tying is still illegal.
> >
> > OK, but where is the law that defines what may or may not go into the
> > product called Windows?
>
> There's not one law that says this - there's a number of them that add
> up to "a monopoly can't do certain things." It's all in the Findings of
> Fact in the current case.
>
> > >A browser and an operating system are different products.
> >
> > Then why is every operating system vendor except Microsoft allowed to
> > include a browser?
>
> Which OS vendor beside Microsoft includes only one browser, tied into
> their OS to the point where the vendor says it's "impossible" to remove
> without damaging the OS, while mentioning in internal memos that the
> only reason they did so was to "cut off the air supply" of a competing
> browser/server company?
>
How about any Linux distro with KDE, BeOS, Solaris, or Irix to name a few?
KDE has the browser tied so tight into the interface that there is no way to
remove it without replacing the window manager. BeOS only shipps with Net+.
Solaris installs the HotJava browser without asking if you want it. Irix
installs Netscape Navigator by default and hooks it into the desktop and
documentation system.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
