Linux-Advocacy Digest #4, Volume #28 Wed, 26 Jul 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Bob Hauck)
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (Chris Costello)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (John Jensen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (matts)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:18:55 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > It is moot in anything except computer science. Ie, most of the
world.
> >
> > Glorifying ignorance benefits no one.
>
> It's not glorifying it at all, it's just a statement of fact.
>
> > > Then by the computer science definition, anything that isn't a kernel
> > > constitutes tying.
> >
> > Nope. Tying requires some extra stuff, like financial incentives,
> > secret and proprietary interfaces, and leveraging unrelated systems.
>
> Why ?
>
> > > It is not Microsoft's fault that no-one else can develop a viable
> > > alternative.
> >
> > Yes it is.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > MS has deliberately created a number of secret, proprietary interfaces,
>
> As has any vendor selling a proprietry product.
>
> > modified existing open, public standars to be incompatible (Ex: Kerberos
> > V5), tied the lot together, then regularly churned these interfaces.
>
> Kerberos was modified in *exactly* the way it had been designed to. I'm
not
> aware of any ways MS Kerberos is incompatible with <other vendor>
Kerberos.
>
> > All this in order to guarantee that no-one else can develop a compatible
> > system.
>
> So now you want a compatible system instead of a viable alternative
> competitor ?
>
> <swoosh> there go the goal posts.
>
> I will never understand why people who spend hours of their time bashing
> Windows because of its deficiencies, just want to emulate it (and its
> deficiencies) on another platform. What's the point ?
>
> > > Anyone is free to join in the Winows market as well, if you can male a
> > > compelling alternative.
> >
> > Actually . . . MS has several times tried (and finally succeeded) in
> > getting Federal laws passed to actually make it *ILLEGAL* to create a
> > compatible system.
>
> Again, you are arguing compatible system while I am arguing viable
> alternative system.
>
> Not being a US resident, I don't know what laws you're referring to, but I
> imagine they have something to do with protecting the millions of dollars
> invested in developing their intellectual property.
>
> > > That it is so easy to make a compelling alternative in the Linux
market
> and
> > > not in the Windows market is not Microsoft's fault.
> >
> > Yes it is. This is so very obvious, I'm surprised you even attempted to
> > deny it.
>
> No, it's not. The Unix world just wants Unix. They don't want an
> *alternative*, they just want identical reimplementations of the same
> system, with its same quirks, same deficiencies, same problems and same
> software.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 27 Jul 2000 02:11:20 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 16:34:24 -0600, John W. Stevens wrote:
>Python is easier to learn than Perl or Java, requires less re-learning
>than Perl does, by it's very nature is easier to read, and due in part
Hmmm ... if you know awk, sed, shell script and C, you more or less know
perl. So how hard it is to learn depends on who you are. Perl is fine as
long as you understand its limitations.
Personally, I love it as a shell
script replacement ( since its more robust by a long way than shell
scripts ) but I wouldn't dream of using it for serious application
development ( and I say this having written a moderate sized
GUI FTP client in perl ... )
Speaking of python, I just checked out the Qt bindings. Very nice -- like
the C++ bindings, only the language is easier to work with ...
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 02:11:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> welll guess what Aaraon - you couldn't be more wrong. I don't think there
> are barely 10 lines in that code that would eactually execute. you dont know
Remember that there are many more than one dialect of BASIC, almost all
incompatible to each other. That is, by the way, one of the most significant
problems with BASIC.
The algorithm is correct. As long as the interpreter can deal with the
integers long enough, it should work. The specific syntax is just a
matter of dialect and it should not be too hard to port it by hand. For
example, in Microsoft BASICs, the integer division is denoted by \, not
by /.
> shit about basic let alone any programming at all. your application is not
> only unable to compile into BASIC but is wrong anyway.
How so?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can
be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues.
-- Elizabeth Taylor
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:43:55 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:55:53 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:06:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>>>That makes perfect sense to me. So why can't Windows come with even
>>>one browser?
>>If it came with three I think MS would have had less trouble with the
>>DoJ.
You seem to have snipped the part where I said that OEMs wanted to
install other browsers and MS told them that they could not. Why does
MS get to decide that?
>Excuse me? "Less trouble with the DoJ"?! Come on now; either Microsoft
>broke a law or they didn't, right?
If they had allowed OEMs to install another browser in addition to IE,
they would have had a credible defense that integrating IE was not anti
competitive. I do not know if this would have changed the outcome of
the case, but it would have looked a lot better than "we must cut off
their air supply".
>Also, why should Microsoft (or anyone else) be required to distribute
>a third party's software with their own?
I don't believe I said that _MS_ should be required to offer more than
one browser. Do you want to debate what I actually said, or what you
wish that I would say?
>Look, I'm not asking for much. I just want to hear one sensible
>reason why Windows shouldn't include a browser when every other
>desktop platform does.
They had previously agreed to not "bundle" the browser.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:43:48 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:51:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>3. Telnet to that port and connect to your shell, running as whatever
>> user the original daemon was running as.
>
> This is the critical part which may or may not be present.
You still don't get it. I'll try one last time. The cracker does not
need a pre-existing telnetd to get an interactive remote shell on a
target system. That *does not matter in the least*. Systems that run
unpatched versions of bind but no other services at all can still be
rooted and the cracker can still get a shell on the system.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:44:10 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:19:01 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>> Slackware is still around, and is still Slackware.
>
>Do they have an FTP install feature yet?
I dunno. Why not visit the web site and find out?
<http://www.slackware.com/>
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 02:14:52 GMT
In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Smitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> p.s. Skip the BSD Linux emulation. It is not reliable and is more of a
> gimmick.
In what way is it unreliable _or_ a gimmick? If you have any
problems with it, please submit a bug report--that's how free
software works!
- Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:29:08 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:35:41 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I suppose commands like PS and top don't need to know how BIG the
> >[process] table is.
>
> Not really. On Linux they read the info about running processes from
> the /proc filesystem.
Let's use BSD instead, which doesn't have a /proc filesystem. Linux isn't
Unix.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:23:39 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8llv2c$mef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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've been reading the same news reports, web pages etc as everyone else.
> 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.
Specific examples would be nice.
An argument by the PC vendor of "we had to stock only Windows because that's
all our customers wanted" isn't go to be particularly convincing.
> >> 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.
PCs without Windows have always been available. This "major vendor"
condition always gets thrown in eventually because it's the only way people
like you can make your point remotely true. However, it's not relevant, as
"major vendors" will sell to the majority market (or rather, that which
maximises their profits) and have no obligation, legal, ethical or
otherwise, to stock a product for every potential customer.
Your arguments of "you couldn't get it from a major manufacturer" are akin
to saying "I couldn't buy a Rolls Royce off Ford".
> 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.
On what grounds, were they refused ?
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 02:17:00 GMT
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen wrote:
: > I've been in the situation where I have two (or more) apps referencing the
: > same library. I'd like to upgrade one of my apps, which requires a
: > library update. If all of my apps have been upgraded to match the new
: > library it isn't a problem. I can just upgrade them all at once. If, for
: > some reason, an application has not been updated I have three choices:
: > [...]
: Why not rpm -i --replacefiles? It will uninstall the the files of the
: previous package that have the same name as the files of the
: newer versions, but it will leave other files of older package alone.
: Of course, this leaves multiple versions of the same library, but
: given today's hard drives, that's preferable to *.so hell.
I've never tried 'replacefiles', I guess I thought it might allow
conflicts to be created. I don't know how often that would happen,
perhaps only when confilicts arise from non-library files?
If a complete solution is possible at the package management level, I
certainly won't be dissapointed. On the other hand, I don't think we are
at the point where we can really call this problem solved. My definition
of a complete solution would be one in which an end-user could keep his
Linux system up-to-date over the course of two or three years ... simply
by clicking the 'update' button. This would mean new kernels, new
libraries, new applications, and so on. A complete solution would also
allow a user to customize his system, and load some alternate packages,
without breaking the ability to use automatic upgrades.
My suggestion is that this problem should be tackled from both ends. It
might be that we can improve component design to reduce dependancy, as
well as improve the ability of our tools to manage those dependancies.
Microsoft would like to provide just the same kind of automatic upgrade,
in their case to create a subscription system. I would hate to see them
mine years of research in component systems, while Linux developers come
down with a sudden case of Not Invented Here syndrome. I'd consider this
especially galling, because as I said earlier, much of this wasn't
invented at Microsoft either.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 27 Jul 2000 02:18:17 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:50 -0600, John W. Stevens wrote:
>Hmm? I wasn't refering to the Elian thing . . .
Oh, I get your point now. You are kind of OT (-; We were talking about Elian.
IMO, the "criminals" vs "patriots" thing is more a moral issue than
anything else. Someone rising up against a foreign power is on
stronger moral ground than someone rising up against a democratically
elected government enforcing laws that have a reasonable level of
public support. ( the usual disclaimers re allowances for "tyranny
of the majority" type exceptions apply ... )
I don't know if you've heard any Aussie history, but
the rebels who built the "Eureka stockade" were "criminals"
at the time ( btw, they lost. Badly. ) but are considered
folk heros today ( indeed, the Aussie flag honors them )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:29:56 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lletm$mu6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [snip]
>
> > > And it isn't what "might" happen because of a monopoly
> > > which is a crime; it is simply the act of monopolizing, of restraining
> > > trade, of doing *anything* to hamper or interfere with competition.
> >
> > Like, say, having a better product ?
>
> Internal documents show that Microsoft didn't think that was quite
> enough....
>
> "Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80%
> marketshare and we have <20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use
> Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to be
> competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows
> integration."
This is to *beat* Netscape. You should be acutely aware of the power of an
entrenched market, being a Mac user and all.
Not only that, but Windows integration does offer added features that
Netscape didn't and thus did make it a better product. I presume there's a
lot more to that particular quote ?
> > The Sherman Act talks a lot about things that might happen, if it is not
> > enacted. Are there any reasonably modern examples of these things
> > *actually* happening ?
>
> There are antitrust cases quite often. Most aren't very high profile. Go
> see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/ if you want some examples.
>
> You can even read a copy of the relevant laws for yourself at
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
Can you please provide some specific examples ? I ahve little patience for
legal bullshit at the best of times.
> > > There isn't anything unclear
> > > about it; even setting Real Media as Mark Furman isn't enough to
> > > consider that MS might not be guilty. They admitted it themselves in
> > > internal documentation, and have been flaunting their market dominance
> > > more and more unguardedly for years.
> >
> > Internal documentation continuously taken out of context.
>
> Please give an example of a context in which...
>
> "If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that
> we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows
> together. This must come from you. . . . Memphis [Microsoft's code-name
> for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade, but most importantly it must
> be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape never gets a chance on these
> systems."
>
> would be an innocent statement.
If it was immediately followed by a reply saying "No".
If it was one in a number of paragraphs offering alternative methods for
beating Netscape.
If all Microsoft wanted to do was tie IE and Windows to exclude Netscape,
then they woulnd't have bothered redesigning the entire product form the
ground up to be modular and compentised.
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:28:43 GMT
Right. DDoS attacks and spamming don't count. :) Some guy said he was good
at it, so i gave him the ip.
Courageous wrote:
> > 24.121.14.222... system is windows 2k server, running proxy server,
> > http port 80. no rpc, netbios or other shit running...i would love to
> > see you get in....haha
>
> Is this an invitation for anyone on the internet to attack
> your computer any time they wish with any attack they wish,
> without complaint from you?
>
> C/
------------------------------
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, 26 Jul 2000 22:37:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> Don't get me started, please. Markets can only be created or modified
>> by *the markets*.
>
>Now, just how did you manage to separate marketing and advertising
>people from "the market"?
The question is how did you manage to make them part of the *market*. A
company *investigating* the market's characteristics and demands is
engaging in "marketing". A company providing information about the
existence and capabilities of its product is "advertising". A company
attempting to *manipulate* market demand through propaganda and worse is
unacceptable, whether you want to pretend that "everybody does it" or
not. The 16 mega-corporations which now own the vast majority of *all*
media certainly do it. But if you're Christian (which I'm not) I would
assume that you base your ideals of behavior and ethics on Jesus, not
Judas. Even though they both ended up dead, Judas had the gold.
>> They cannot be manipulated by producers any more than
>> they can by consumers, ethically.
>
>'Ethically'? Is that your limit?
Absolutely. It should be everybody's limit.
>Markets can indeed be manipulated by producers. The most obvious form
>of manipulation is to introduce a new product.
That is not *manipulation*! That's *contribution*.
>> Modern 'marketing' practices and
>> advertising is, in fact, successful at manipulating the market.
>
>Why contradict yourself?
I haven't. Perhaps the limits of the language prevent you from
understanding the abstractions you need to grasp in order to recognize
the conflicts inherent in the word "market".
>> What
>> does that say about the such practices?
>
>That they are highly effective.
Bank robbery is a highly effective way of getting cash. Profiteering is
a highly effective way of amassing capital. Murder is often a highly
effective method, as well. Does this make it right?
>> Marketing is supposed to be about finding out what the market wants,
>
>Nope. Marketing is not just a glorified form of polling.
>
>Marketing includes teaching. Sometimes, you manipulate a market by
>*teaching* the consumer about what they need, and why.
You manipulate a market by *LYING* to your customers, let's not
pussy-foot around. Lying so you can't get caught in a lie, certainly.
But generally lying, by any means necessary. Because people like *you*
(if you'll excuse me) are too stubborn to admit something we all learn
as children: it is not "OK" to be dishonest, regardless of the results.
Hell, its better to lie up front, tell a fib, maybe. But being
dishonest is NOT tolerable.
Anybody who believes information provided by someone who has something
they're trying to sell is a putz, a sucker. Yea, there's one born every
second. That's why civilized people frown on taking advantage of them.
No, a business's duties do not include "teaching" the consumer what they
need and why. It does include teaching them how their product works,
and what it might be useful for. And that might indeed be part of
"marketing". So now we have "gathering information about your market"
and "providing information to the market" (hey, isn't that last very
much like "advertising"?).
>> >What was silly about the statement?
>>
>> I don't know, it was snipped. What was the statement?
>
>I pull a Max'ism on you here: just cause you didn't understand it,
>doesn't mean that the statement was silly.
I knew that. Remember, I'm Max. ;-)
>> >No, PMT's benefit is that it optimizes the return on your CPU cycle
>> >investment.
>>
>> PMTs benefit is that it provides the optimum *average* return on your
>> CPU cycle investment.
>
>No. PMT's benefit is that it optimizes the return on your CPU cycle
>investment.
>
>Period.
>
>"Average" doesn't enter into it.
>
>Before learning "subtlties", you must first learn "the obvious".
>
>CMT produces both a lower instantaneous, *AND* a lower average return on
>your CPU cycle investment.
>
>Period.
You still don't see the average I'm talking about. Intermittent
inefficiency is often more efficient. Your "optimizes the return on
your CPU cycle investment" sounds awfully like a mantra that you repeat
as if you're chanting. Why is that?
[...]
>> Millions of computer consumers probably heard some
>> person say that in the great PC/Mac holy wars.
>
>I seriously doubt that. The market for information that contains terms
>such as CMT or PMT is so limited that reaching even 10's of thousands
>would be a miracle.
I said they'd heard it, not that they understood it. It is information
about Mac V. Windows, not CMT or PMT itself, which was the context they
heard it in.
>> And it isn't a
>> code-phrase, by my understanding, but the fact of the matter, in some
>> perspective.
>
>"Fact of the matter", only if you accept a simplified and ambigous
>statement as "fact".
Which you'll note I very rarely do.
>Note that for sufficiently limited values of the word: "world", and
>"flat", the statement: "The world is flat." is a statement of fact.
No, but the statement that "'the world is flat' is valid in some
contexts" is a statement of fact. You see the difference?
--
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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:35:52 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 03:19:01 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >> Slackware is still around, and is still Slackware.
> >
> >Do they have an FTP install feature yet?
>
> I dunno. Why not visit the web site and find out?
>
> <http://www.slackware.com/>
Still only supports NFS, not FTP installation. :-/
------------------------------
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 21:42:18 -0500
In article <8lo2s6$c9p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
>> > irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
>> >
>>
>> IE is far more then the browers. Removing IE will damage windows. Removing
>> the web browsers will effect nothing.
>
>Removing kfm will damage KDEs ability to act as KDE.
But removing KDE still leaves a very usable system.
Les Mikesell
[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, 26 Jul 2000 22:45:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:26:55 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, you've already noted that the term 'task' is problematic.
>
>Only when dealing with people who are incapable of learning new terms
>that happen to have the same names as words already in their vocabulary.
>Anyone who wants to understand computers has to learn a lot of very
>specific specialized meanings for words that they already know, and they
>have to learn how to use those terms precisely.
Now if only everyone who learned different specific specialized meanings
for the precise terms, we wouldn't have a problem. But just as easily
as "application" gets shredded and maimed between different specialties,
so does the term "task". You may think of yours has having special
merit, but those who study "human factors" such as ergonomic engineering
or interface design have a different, no less specialized, and no less
precise (though certainly less obscure), meaning.
Not that there is really all that pristine and perfect a set of
nomenclature even within a specialty. One of my email correspondents
pointed me to a question asked on a web board by someone engaged in the
honorable pursuit of knowledge to which you specifically refer (Computer
Science). The response was quite explicit in recognizing that the terms
"job", "task", and "process" are not at all as absolute or precise as
most assume or believe, even within that field, though it did give an
example of the common usage.
--
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
******************************
