Linux-Advocacy Digest #263, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: "pure" Linux?? ("Alan Murrell")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Unix user 10yrs + is a fool (Salvador Peralta)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alan Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:26:58 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Cogburn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There'd be a hell of a lot of compiling for one thing. But why do
> all this in the first place? "Linux" technically refers to the kernel,
Well, for the learning experience, mostly. I'm fairly new to Linux, and I
love taking things apart to see how they work,. I am currently running
Mandrake 7.1, and got a lot of "crap" installed. Okay, maybe not "crap",
but definately a lot of stuff that I don't even know is on there, and/or
have never really used. Yes, it is my fault for not being more "picky"
during the installation process, and perhaps that I should be more so when
I do further installations, but at the same time, I want to do all the
work so that I can feel confident that I know what it's all about, and can
do a lot more to not only help myself, but help others as others here have
helped me!
I actually regret using the term "pure Linux", as I now see that there
really isn't such a thing.
Anayway, many people have been helpful to me in pointing me to different
sites that will help me in this project, and I am aware that it will not
be an overnight thing, but one that will take some time, frustration, etc.
But all things that are worth learning are this way, no? :-)
--
Alan Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: 1147394
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Comet/1777
Remove the NOSPAM to reply
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 6 Aug 2000 15:28:33 GMT
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:29:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>What about when the user wants to put code in a seperate function ?
>>Basic would teach about "goto", while structured programming languages
>>would encourage the use of "functions" and "proceedures".
>
>I learned these as "sub-routines". Its putting code in a separate
>*file* which is problematic; putting often used sub-routines in a
>separate section of your code is what "GOSUB" is all about.
GOSUB does not return values or take arguments. ( or it didn't when
I used it, though that was a long time ago )
>>If you don't want to go further than if/then, while, and
>>friends, you might as well just teach shell script.
>
>If I could get shell scripts to do more than shell things, I'd agree
>with you.
If you want to do more than shell things, you will need to understand more
than basic control structures.
>Yes, new *users* which want to be able to *automate* computer
>functionality have to learn a "real language", which is to say a
>structured, 'OO', language.
I am not clear why 'OO' is necessary. BTW, "structured" is not the same
as "OO".
> There is a need, I think, in order to
>empower end users to benefit more from professional programming, rather
>than less, for a "high end procedural language".
I am confused by this remark. A "high end procedural language"
is a "structured language", and therefore would have to count as a
"real language".
>>That's no excuse for making poor developer tools. In fact it's even MORE
>>important that the development tools be well polished if a beginner is
>>going to use them.
>
>I'm not talking about developer tools.
A tool that one uses to develop software is a "development tool".
> It isn't a question of being
>"well polished"
But it is. If it's a badly designed language, the user will produce
incomprehensible, unmaintainable code. This is OK if it's just used
for once-off hacks for personal use ( which is probably what you have
in mind ) but makes it unfit for deployment in any kind of commercial
environment. It also means that the user will learn bad programming
habits.
Remember, since we're talking about tools for *learning*, there's an
implicit assumption that the user in question is interested in learning
how to program, not just write some quick and dirty hacks for their
own convenience.
> so much as "efficient and accessible for relatively
>trivial and often ad hoc tasks".
shell script. tcl. python.
>>This doesn't make much sense. You act as though basic is "easy" and it
>>is good for end users. I'm not dissing basic because I'm some kind of
>>elitist who thinks everyone should program in C and assembly. My point
>>is that there are better and easier languages out there.
>
>My lack of experience prevents me from providing such judgements. BASIC
>is pretty much all I know. It is, therefore, easy for me, in comparison
>to any other.
This is an easy trap to fall into. I used to think of basic as "easy" too.
Then I used to think of perl as "easy". In fact, perl is still "easier"
for me than python, because I am used to it, but I can sense that this
has more to do with the fact that I'm used to perl.
>It is certainly more an issue of environments, rather than languages,
>which drive my concerns. I want Visual Basic and Win32 without
>Microsoft, you know what I mean?
I believe there's a "visual python" tool under development.
I'm not clear how much easier these things make it though. Their main
advantage IMO is that they reduce development time.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix user 10yrs + is a fool
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 08:30:46 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why not go to a lug? We have one in la that does an installfest on the
3rd sunday of every month for 3 hours. I know we'd welcome another unix
guy into the fold.
Your issue brings up an interesting point. The inclusion of oracle
opens up a whole new path for sysAdmins and programmers trained on
linux. I use linux to web-enable systems for an enterprise environment.
But I'm curious, for what purpose are other people using linux? I think
that it'd be interesting to read people's accounts here,
Check all that apply:
<FORM ACTION=http://fidm.los-angeles.ca.us METHOD=Post>
<INPUT TYPE=Checkbox NAME= VALUE=>
<INPUT TYPE=Checkbox NAME=linuxUse VALUE=>
<INPUT TYPE=Checkbox NAME=linuxUse VALUE=>
</FORM>
What are you using linux for?
[ ] I am using linux to to administer unix systems
[ }
[ ] I am using linux to program
[ ] I am using linux pc's to build enterprise architectures
[ ] I use linux on non-pc architectures
[ ] I run my business on linux
[ ] I am a student
[ ] I am a hobbyist
[ } Other
if other, please specify:
trem wrote:
>
> I am not a Yokel for heavens sake, I know Unix (ok here goes; Dynix 4.2.3
> most recent, HP-UX, Solaris, Ultrix [ remember that ], oh, it goes on) but
> none of them was on a PC cos Unix does not go on a PC.
>
> But Linux, hype, hype all you here is MS bashing beater Linux, but the
> f*cker will not install on MY PC's. I've done the support channels at RH,
> complete McDonalds X employee replied to my query.
>
> btw I need Linux for Oracle 8i, so other PC clones of Unix won't cut it.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > trem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >This is my second PC that I can't get Linux to work on. This time cos
> > >I've got a UDMA66 controller.
> >
> > SuSE 6.3 or 6.4 will run on a box with UDMA/66. I'm using it on an
> > Abit BP-6 now, and I boot off the Primary Master of the 66 bus.
> >
> > >Linux is frustrating the shit out of me.
> >
> > Don't go into it blind then. There's lots of people to talk to, lots
> > of books to read, lots of newgroups to ask in, lots of LUGs willing
> > to install it for you, etc etc. Most of us have no trouble to speak
> > of, but there are places to get help.
> >
> > If you're not interested in reading and learning, then linux isn't for
> > you at the moment. It takes someone who's willing to learn their
> > tools--but the rewards are excellent.
> >
> > Steve
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 6 Aug 2000 15:38:41 GMT
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 02:29:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>programs. The real issue for me is whether it is trivial to write
>"useful" programs to begin with.
This goal is in itself somewhat at odds with the goal under discussion --
teaching users to program.
There is a difference between a language that helps a user become familiar
with good programming practice, and a language that Max can use to get
his "real work" done without having to spend too much time becoming a
"real programmer".
I suspect the issue is one of differing goals. You are talking about a
language that an end user can use to write quick and dirty once-off hacks
without having to learn good programming practice. My agenda is that of
a language that can help a user learn good programming practice, so that
they can become a "real programmer".
>Hell, I don't want shell scripts. I want application macros.
KDE are working on this, with python. I believe Applixware already have their
own scripting language too.
But I think application macros are a really poor way to learn programming.
Again, I suspect that your goals are different -- you aren't really looking
for a language that helps you learn programming, you are interested in
looking for automation tools to script your applications, preferably without
having to bother with "hard" programming concepts like patterns, OO design,
memory allocation, algorithms, etc.
That's a perfectly valid goal, but it is also completely orthogonal to the goal
of learning good programming practice.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 15:56:01 GMT
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 07:48:57 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>And this is the premise I don't buy. It seems that in the matter of PC
>software, at least, a plug in is to an application as a program is to a
>library.
>
>>You don't accept the final premise, but I don't see any need to push
>>you over the last hurdle. It wouldn't be necessary for someone with
>>who is familiar with the technical details of plug-ins and libraries
>>to accept that there problem with the argument lies elsewhere.
>
>I'm not sure at all what you meant to say, perhaps merely because of a
>couple small grammatically errors. Nevertheless, I would insist that
>knowledge of technical details is, must be, considered irrelevant;
>source code is protected as a literary work of authorship, not a work of
>engineering design.
>
Fair enough. I'll put it simply. You don't know seem to know
enough about what plug-ins and libraries are to have an informed opinion
about them.
>>The conclusion is of course absurd, but that is of course the entire
>>point. Your premise is the problem, but because you are ignorant of
>>the technical details of the other premise you don't have to accept
>>that.
>
>My premise is that there is no real distinction vis-a-vis copyright law
>between library and program. As Lee is fond of pointing out, "copyright
>law does not protect functionality".
>
We all agree on this. But why don't you then conclude that it's just as
true that a library can be derivative of the programs which call it.
I'll explain.
Applications call plug-ins in order to invoke the functionality of
the plug-in. The plug-in itself may be either another application or
a just a dynamic library.
Programs call library functions in order to invoke the functionality of
the library. The library function can by in a dynamic library or it
can be a function in an application.
You are the one inverting the relationship. But I see that you must.
It is the only way to escape the unavoidable and unacceptable
conclusion that your premises lead to.
>>Finally though you have added another factor to the mix. You now
>>insist that the program must derive "a great deal of its value
>>from the plug-in." You didn't require this for libraries, but
>>strangely you do for plug-ins.
>
>Likewise, a library would have to derive a great deal of its value from
>the availability of a program to be considered derivative, I think.
>Your inversion of the concept of "basic function/feature implementation"
>from the library and the program which calls it, to the plug in and the
>program which launches it, is not difficult to understand, but I must
In your view, Photoshop and Gimp are merely application launchers for
plug-ins. Apparently you also belive that programs simply do a little
bookkeeping and then call libraries to implement their functionality.
Perhaps that is true for some programs and some libraries, but it's certainly
not true for all.
>confess it is difficult for me to agree with. If only because it is a
>meaningless dichotomy in either form; software is source code, and
>library and program and application and plug-in are labels which are
>meaningless in copyright terms, in the end.
>
You have attached lots of meaning to those terms. Meaning which you
now dismiss. It has been my intention to show that the meaning you
attach leads to absurd conclusions.
The terms are relevant to the discussion if they allow you to
understand the context. By saying an application which is dynamically
linked to a library the hope is that everyone will understand and
agree on the technical details.
>
>Selective reading? That's bullshit. If you can't understand that it
>doesn't matter to the consumer (or the producer) what order the chapters
>were written in, then I'm afraid you're trying to fit something you do
>understand (software) into something you don't understand (copyright
>law) and you're losing something in the translation.
>
Read the following again and notice how your mind slides over the word
'preexisting' and is not impressed.
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent
an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
That paragraph is the entire statutory definition of a derivative work.
Of course the law is interpreted by courts. If you wish to argue that
the courts have not required that a work must be created after the
base work to be considered derivative then you have a convincing argument.
Otherwise you are reading selectively. Can I expect some cites to
court decisions or will I hear more arguing from "first principles"?
But order is a side issue. The only reason for bringing it up is that
for circumstances in which a program is created before a library exists,
it is clearly the law that the program is not a derivative of the
library. Clearly in at least that instance, your analysis gives the
wrong result. The cases cited further down suggest other situations
where you would give a different result than the courts do.
>
>Mr. Hollaar didn't post any urls. I don't have a law library handy, so
>his citations were little more than a referral to authority. I have
He did not post urls, but he did post excerpts. I understand that
you are busy so I don't fault you for not looking. But to then conclude
that Lee probably didn't know what he was talking about without checking
is something I really find unacceptable.
On the other hand, I freely admit that I have student access to Westlaw
and Lexis so it is veru easy for me this stuff up. Perhaps my
intolerance with you not following up on cited cases is a little unfair.
>access to an extensive amount of information through the magic of web
>browsing; it is knowing where to find concise information, not general
>statements of principle, which is most helpful. If you could simply
You can find lots of summary and discussion on the Sega v. Accolade
case by doing a simple web search. I'm really surprised that that
case isn't cited more frequently by people who feel similar to the
way I do about linking to dynamic libraries. If you feel up to
debating about the relevance of that particular case I'd be
intrigued.
Here you can find the actual case. The case is interesting because
it discusses reverse engineering. Also of interest is that Sega was
unable to prevent Accolade from writing computer games which called
software in Sega's game console. I'm sure you'll understand the
relevance of that.
Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/2/977/1510.html
A second case in which the issue of making game cartridges for a
game console was litigated more fully was Nintendo v. Atari. I
could not find this case on the web. There are a number of discussions
of the case on the web. Since you'd need to evaluate their credibility
yourself, it's probably best if you do your own search.
The final case I'd point you to is Feist v. Rural Telephone Service.
You can find that one here.
It deals with the need for creativity in a copyrightable work. The
relationship to this discussion has already been pointed out.
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co, 499 US 340 (1991)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/499/340.html
I'm going to stop short of doing an executive summary for you. A good
starting point is to look at initial fact summary with the holdings of
the case.
Of course if you want to refute the relevance of the cases you'll have to
read more extensively. I can't do that for you.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 11:59:37 -0400
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 04:07:51 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > >None of the critics have EVER pointed out any particular
> > >assertion in the book which they disagree with.
>
> http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html is a pretty
> good analysis by a very good statistician which
> makes no claims about The Bell Curve either way,
> but does use correct statistical analysis to
> demonstrate the sloppy and erroneous analysis The
> Bell Curve is based on.
Looking through this sight, I see a lot of conjecture about
how the test data might be significantly flawed (suggesting
that correlations are weak because over 50% of test X fail
to take test Y properly because of test takers A,B,C...I,
C,H are "sick," "home for
the spud harvest", "daydreaming about stealing hubcaps",
and "upset because her cat died".
http://www.srv.net/~msdata/data.html
Suppose there were data on 9 students--Albert,
Betty, Carl, Dilbert, Egbert, Frank, Gil,* Hortense,
and Imogene--and that the data consisted of two
test scores, X and Y.
The data are listed to the left below: We have 9 rows (9
students/subjects/cases in our sample) and 3 columns--the
first, an ID and the other two, scores on Test X and Test Y
respectively. The dots (.) in the Test Y column they represent
missing values:
ID Test X Test Y
A 1 1
B 2 4
C 1 .
D 1 .
E 2 8
F 1 6
G 2 .
H 2 .
I 2 .
Cases C (Carl) and H (Hortense) were home sick the day
Test Y was administered; D was helping with the spud
harvest; G was thinking about stealing hubcaps and so
didn't bother with the questions, and I is a very
conscientious student (but her cat died the night before
and she was quite upset). In short, for whatever the
reason, all 5 students have missing values on Test Y.
HELPING WITH THE SPUD HARVEST???
DAYDREAMING ABOUT STEALING HUBCAPS???
Give me a fucking break. Yes, there might be a FEW cases
like this, but to even suggest that such would be the case
for the MAJORITY of those taking two in-school administered
tests is fucking ridiculous.
The website's auther, Claudia Krenze, offers absolutely no
evidence to support that any such mis-evaluations occurred
on such a widespread basis.
If one is going to suggest that a statistical analysis is
flawed due to bad data, then it would be adviseable to show
exactly what data is supposedly flawed.
Claudia Krenz has not done so, merely speculating that "it's
possible". Hell, it's possible for 17 cars to crash in my
front yard...but, so far, it hasn't happened.
>
> > >They just
> > >brand it as "racist" in an effort to make it a taboo item.
> > >Apparently, the manipulation worked on you.
>
> > Actually, most of the specifics of complaints raised regarding
> > racism seem a tad weak.
>
> The following article never refers to "racism":
> http://slate.msn.com/Features/BellCurve/BellCurve.asp
> (Be sure to read the "Case Studies"
> which go into specifics)
Empty document.
>
> "The Bell Curve, it turns out, is full of
> mistakes ranging from sloppy reasoning to
> mis-citations of sources to outright
> mathematical errors. Unsurprisingly, all
> the mistakes are in the direction of
> supporting the authors' thesis."
>
> Arthur
Arthur...you presented us with
A) A hysterical reactionary page, with arguments based on
nothing but speculation, and
B) A page with no content other than an advertising banner.
Surely you can do better than that.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 12:01:59 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:36:22 -0700, Arthur Frain wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 04:07:51 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> >> >None of the critics have EVER pointed out any particular
> >> >assertion in the book which they disagree with.
> >
> >http://www.srv.net/~msdata/bell.html is a pretty
> >good analysis by a very good statistician which
> >makes no claims about The Bell Curve either way,
> >but does use correct statistical analysis to
> >demonstrate the sloppy and erroneous analysis The
> >Bell Curve is based on.
>
> Thanks for the info. This comes as no surprise to me -- usually, these
> kinds of heavily loaded "meta-studies" are little more than a thinly
> vieled attempt to support a manifesto by selectively choosing studies
> that appear to support their claims, and either disregarding or
> misinterpreting those that do not.
Check my reply to Arthur.
Claudia's claims of skewed data are.. at best outrageous speculation.
>
> >> Actually, most of the specifics of complaints raised regarding
> >> racism seem a tad weak.
> >
> >The following article never refers to "racism":
> >http://slate.msn.com/Features/BellCurve/BellCurve.asp
>
> I'll take a look at it.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
