Linux-Advocacy Digest #150, Volume #28 Tue, 1 Aug 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it that).
(abraxas)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux? You're kidding right? Some kind of a joke? (Mikey)
Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft (Mikey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:48:02 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > Oh, but all three can use it without problems; voila, a netural
> > > > > > format.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anybody told you that you are a fucking idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > > it's true, it's true.
> > > >
> > > > Oh god, we can't escape Kurt Angle even on usenet!
> > > >
> > > > (THIS JOKE INTENDED FOR WWF FANS. AND IF YOU ARE, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES.
> > > > HINT: It's not just the catch phrase they have in common.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Never watch wresting...I don't even watch TV.
> > >
> > > Someone else used in another newsgroup, and I thought it was...poignant.
> >
> > Ah, so that it's not totally lost on you, here is a brief explaination.
> > Don't take it too personally, it was meant as a joke.
> >
> > Kurt Angle is a former Olympic gold medal winner that now wrestles in
> > the WWF. He is extremely egotistical. He uses his Olympic gold as his
> > excuse for his ego. He comes out and tells the crowd they are nothing
> > because they don't have 'what it takes' to 'win the gold'. They don't
> > know what it's like to work for something. They just don't understand
> > how hard it is to truly work towards your goals. On and on.
> >
> > He also won a tournament known as King of the Ring and it added to his
> > ego. He considers himself royalty (and feels it is only appropriate,
> > after all, he is an Olympic Gold Medalist) and that everyone around him,
> > including the other wrestlers, are just commoners. He typical goes out
> > of his way to insult someone, or to insult that crowd, and then as he is
> > getting booed, he nods his head, holds out his hands and says, "It's
> > true, it's true!"
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> While not a fan of TV wrestling (gag) he does have a very good point.
>
> *HE* won the gold. *HE* reached the pinnacle of achievement which
> none of his opponents have even come within reach of.
My point exactly. While you both have a right to be somewhat arrogant
(after all, you have each achieved quite a bit in your own way) and you
are nearly as annoying as he is, I occassionally see the tendency to rub
people's noses in it whether they deserve it or not. Although, in the
case of most of the things I see you do that with I tend to agree with
your reasons for doing so (nudge, nudge Drestin...).
>
> >
> > Take any part of that you want as offensive. As I said, it was meant as
> > a joke. As for my wrestling fetish, well, I have my wife to thank for
> > that. I hardly watched any TV when we started dating. Now she's got me
> > watching wrestling, Days Of Our Lives, Friends, Frasier, etc....
>
> Run Away! Run Away!
Yeah, I was OK until I started watching the soap operas. She tapes them
during the week and then we take a day during the weekend and watch
them. I really have got to find a way to get ou....
(THIS BROADCAST INTERUPTED FOR RE-PROGRAMMING PROPOGANDA)
MUST WATCH DAYS OF OUR LIVES, MUST WATCH FRIENDS, MUST WATCH FRASIER....
>
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 1 Aug 2000 13:58:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't "effectively computable" mean computable on a Turing Machine?
> And Church's thesis is that the Turing computable functions are the
> partial recursive functions.
Church's Thesis predates Turing's work, so (by the laws of causality)
cannot refer to it. It states that lambda calculus describes
precisely the effectively computable functions. It has been shown
that lambda calculus is equivalent to TMs and partial recursive
functions (among many other things) but not that that describes the
limit of what is effectively computable, particularly since that is a
deeply nebulous concept.
You can't use Church's Thesis to prove Church's Thesis! In fact, it
will take a mathematical genius of the first order to advance on this
front, since they will need to describe something *beyond* effective
computability. For myself, I'm just about smart enough to know that I
can't do it, and to have some feeling for why this is...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:58:10 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, I guess we heard two completely different stories on this then.
> > What I heard was that there was a divide by zero erro and the entire
> > network of NT machines onboard the ship went down. Whether that was
> > inferred to the people that spread that information (news/media) is
> > unknown to me, all I know is what I heard of the situation. The only
> > ones that really know are the ones that were there I guess.
>
> Well, you can read into it anything you want, but to me it was plainly
> obvious that:
>
> - This was a client/server app with several clients attached
> - It was fed information from some type of database
> - The clients were dependant upon the server for information
> and functionality
> - The server app had poor bounds checking, among other things
> - The server got a bad apple from the database and bombed
> - Consequently, the clients all bombed because they couldn't
> connect to the server.
>
> Now, where out of that do you get that "NT BSOD'd" or "NT
> crashed".
>
> If I run sendmail or qpop, for example, and all these pop3 clients
> are connected, and I stop the mail services, and then try to
> access pop3 or smtp from that server and my client can't send
> mail and reports an error, should I then say, by your logic that
> "*nix crashed" or "the whole system crashed"?
>
> Of course not, that's just plain silly.
>
> There was no mention that the OS crashed. NT certainly cannot
> be brought down by a user mode app except in extreme circumstances.
> I can create a basic app that attempts divide by zero and what
> do I get? I get NT reporting that this app has had an access violation
> and will be terminated. I hit OK, everything is fine, no BSOD, no
> crash in the OS, just the app.
>
> You do understand the difference between an APPLICATION and an
> OPERATING SYSTEM, do you not?
>
> -Chad
No, I guess I don't. I'm a complete dumbass.
Look, I stated what I 'heard' and 'read' from news sites and on TV and
in magazines. If that makes me a fucking dumb son-of-a-bitch, then so
be it. I was informed that the entire network 'crashed', so I assumed
that meant the entire network 'crashed'. Beyond that, I don't know
anything. As I said above, I repeated what I 'heard' and stated it as
'what I heard'. If that means I'm too fucking stupid to know the
difference between an APPLICATION and an OPERATING SYSTEM in your book,
then so fucking be it.
I deal with the information I am given. I don't make shit up to support
my position (and I'm not accusing you of it either BTW). I just use the
information I am given. I guess using the information I was given means
I'm a dumbass. Thanks. It's been almost two whole minutes since my
boss told me what a dumbass I am.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:09:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:01:48 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:43:46 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:06:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> put all effort into getting KDE2 out the door. Personally I
> >> >think
> >> >> >the right
> >> >> >> decision was made.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Allow me to add a 3.5 item:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >3.5 No desktop or toolkit, except KDE, Qt and JX, had announced
> >> >>
> >> >> This is why the 'uberdesktop' concept is so limited.
> >> >>
> >> >> Drag and drop is orthogonal to making pretty windows. One
> >> >> doesn't necessarily need to imbedd the functionality of
> >> >> one into the other one.
> >> >
> >> >This is why I know you have no idea what you are talking about.
> >>
> >> WHY?
> >
> >Because if you knew what you are talking about, you would have
> >known the reasons I gave (and you deleted), and would know that
> >those reasons are enough to make what you say impractical.
>
> This is not an answer.
I honestly can't think of something more clear and direct:
Q: Why do I think you don't know what you are talking about?
A: Because what you propose would be, to anyone who did know,
obviously impractical.
> It is an avoidance of an answer.
hopefully the above will be direct enough.
> What is it about the KDE implementation of DnD that keeps
> their DnD implementation code from being ripped out into
> a seperate library?
Ok, let's get technical.
GUI applications are event driven. On X, that usually means that
the toolkit filters the events and reacts to some, by triggering
callbacks, or in Qt/KDE, by emitting a signal.
The first obvious problem with putting DnD in a separate library
is, of course, WHAT would go in that library?
Let's consider drop. Drop happens when a certain atom is passed onto
one of the application's windows. Those atoms are catched by the
toolkit's event loop.
Then, the toolkit must trigger the application code through a callback
or a signal. I can't see how ANY of this can be moved away from the
toolkit, unless every toolkit had a universal mechanism for messing
with its internal event loop from the outside. Something like Xt
on which to base the kits would probably do it, but it's, in this
day and age, totally impractical to achieve (consider how many
toolkits would need BIG internal changes).
Something very similar happens on the drag.
The final result is that the functionality can not be moved away from
the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all current
toolkits. Which will not happen.
So, it's impractical.
Now, was that enough of an answer for you?
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:14:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:55:52 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:40:45 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:47:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >If you want a simpler way to use it, try something newer,
like,
> >> >say
> >> >> >> >KDE 2.0 beta 2.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> IOW: cite an example.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Done, twice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Done never actually.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Actually, done thrice: "If you want a simpler way to use it,
try
> >> >> >something newer, like, say KDE 2.0 beta 2."
> >> >>
> >> >> That is not an example.
> >> >>
> >> >> For someone obsessed with mathematically precise definitions
> >> >> you have a very crude notion of proof.
> >> >
> >> >Ok, let's try again. You want an example of what, precisely?
> >>
> >> Working drag & drop between diverse examples of applications
> >> that have been built with Xdnd support including some variant
> >> of KDE, preferably one that is sufficiently well working to
> >> be included in one of the Linux distributions.
> >
> >Happy to do so. Get KDE 2.0 beta 2 as I said (or, today, beta 3).
> >
> >For Xdnd:
> >Start xmms.
> >Start konqueror.
> >Drag a mp3 from konqueror into xmms.
>
> This examples fails the 'production code' criteria from above.
You didn't establish any "production code criteria" (in fact, that
would be strange. Perhaps a "production code criterium"?)
You said "including some variant of KDE,"
Which KDE 2 Beta 3 is.
" preferably "
But not exclusively.
"one that is sufficiently well working to be included in one of the
Linux distributions."
I expect KDE 2 beta 3 to be included in distributions. Perhaps
even KDE Beta 2 is already in SuSE 7, I don't know. Beta 1 is
included in a Caldera distro, too.
Go ahead, concede that I did everything you asked. Changing the
requirements postfactum is unethical.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A funny thing about Windoze networking (if you can really call it that).
Date: 1 Aug 2000 14:21:49 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Another strange thing equally amazing: Create an empty Word Document.
> Logic
>> says it must be 0 bytes, right? WRONG! 10.5 KB!
>
> Why would logic say that? A word document is an OLE compound structured
> storage file. This allows multiple "streams" of data to be saved in a word
> document (such as versioning information for instance). This flexibility
> comes at the price of a certain amount of metadata, much like a filesystem
> on a hard drive has metadata which controls it's overall format.
>
Sorry, some of us are used to mere 'flipped' INODES and exactly zero length
files.
:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:16:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Pete Goodwin escribió:
> > > >
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bart Oldeman) wrote in
> > > >
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> >
> > > You are confusing the shell with the command names. The command
> > > names were designed to be short, though.
> >
> > Among other reasons the early unix filesystems were not able to
handle
> > filenames as long as the new ones can.
>
> Version 7, circa 1978. Long filenames were implemented in both
> System III, circa 1980 and the first versions of BSD, circa 1979.
>
> I.e. Unix had LONG FILENAMES before Microsoft even started selling
DOS.
Didn't XENIX have a 8.8 filename limit?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:47:19 GMT
In article <8m5arc$t85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Which, IMO, means that the actual meaning/value of the brand has been
>>so
>> diluted it's worth nothing.
>
>Diluted... no. Adulterated, yes.
>A few years ago, there was an interesting company in the wild
>called Softway Systems. They developed a complete POSIX
>subsystem for Windows NT. If you could afford all their stuff,
>you could add full P1003.x compliance to your NT boxen. K&R
>compiler, vi, cron, X11R5, lotsa good stuff. Anyway, IIRC,
>they paid the dues money and joined the OpenGroup, started
>passing the conformance tests, got a lot of industry support
>behind them, and came damned close to getting branded. That
>would've made Windows NT officially UNIX. Trademark and all.
>Scary thought, isn't it?
After they changed their name to Interix, I got a demo CD of
their Open NT (or whatever the name was of their Posix/Gnu/NT)
thing. I never got a chance to install it before it expired,
so I don't know how well it worked. It looked like an
impressive piece of work based on the literature.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Yes, but will I
at see the EASTER BUNNY in
visi.com skintight leather at an
IRON MAIDEN concert?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 14:40:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
[snip]
> > > After that, he published "fiction", with character names like
> > > "Simplicio" and "Intelligentsio"
> >
> > In fact, that was the work he was asked to withdraw. That was a
> > common way of publishing theory, as dialog. In fact, I have read
> > that the reason why he was harassed was that he was not impartial
> > in his exposition, showing the defender of the old theory as a
> > moron (which was, of course, a very stupid thing to do).
>
> Actually, no. His original work was a scholarly work.
Care to cite the name of that work?
> The Catholic Church went absolutely bonkers and did everything short
> of calling for his head on a platter.
They did not. They used the standard language of the age for this kind
of thing. Of course it was a bit more, let's say, colorful than it
would be today.
Going bonkers would be what happened with Giordano Bruno, not Galileo.
When you are supposed to be the guardian of the word of the creator of
the universe, there is no light way of reacting to someone who
opposes that word. The church literally had no choice of action,
short of (in their own eyes) apostasy.
> He published an official retraction of the original book, and
> rewrote the ideas as a sort of discussion between the characters
> mentioned above.
That work, "dialog between two systems of [something I can't recall]"
was previous to his famous trial. After the trial, Galileo didn't
publish anything about the subject.
> My source is lectures I attended at Purdue
>
> Prof. Vernard Foley
> Dept. of History
> University Hall
> Purdue University
> West Lafayette, Indiana, 47906
Cool, my source is reading Galileo's book in an annotated edition.
I'm afraid I don't have it to give the reference, but it was
something published in Spain, circa 1860. Of course that was some
15 years ago, so my recollection can be suspect.
> > > No, no, you can't prosecute me. Any coincidence between my views
> > > and those expressed by Intelligentsio...and the clergy's views,
and
> > > those expressed by Simplicio are....simply coincidental.
> >
> > Those were not just the clergy's view. There is a very unfortunate
> > tendency today to believe people in the past were morons. They
> > were not! That was, simply, the state of the science at the time,
> > just like newtonian physics was a couple of centuries later.
>
> True, but only the church viewed it as a prosecutable offense
> to publish a differing interpretation of the movement of the
> planets and the stars in the skies above.
It was the commonly accepted position at the time that such was the
church's job. Since it was divine right that validated secular
authority, it was all pretty coherent.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux? You're kidding right? Some kind of a joke?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:59:52 -0400
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > Try and find 10 people that are running Linux...Try it.............
> >
>
> Whoah, that was tough. 16 people right here in the office. Oh wait,
> I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a reason that doesn't count.
Nah... The poor sod is can't count past 10. :)
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: comparison.lotus/microsoft
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:03:53 -0400
Just as long as they can't run evil VBA scripts. :)
Nick wrote:
>
> They're both crap. Dump them both and use StarOffice 5.2
>
> Nick
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8m4ta9$jdj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Seeking comparisons between Lotus Smartsuite Millenium Edition and
> > Microsoft Office 2000 for use in a small business.Especially interested
> > in comments on datbase and organiser functions plus ease of email
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
