Linux-Advocacy Digest #328, Volume #28 Wed, 9 Aug 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Wishful Thinking was(Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the
fish.....) (BOB)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: C# is a copy of java ("Spud")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: - Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) - (I got to say it again!!!) (Mark Lloyd)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: No Gnome for me :-( ("[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
Re: Does Linux have core design flaws? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Paging BIG DON (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Paging BIG DON (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Steven W. Mentzer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (BOB)
Crossposted-To: alt.ask.phred
Subject: Re: Wishful Thinking was(Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for
the fish.....)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:23:01 GMT
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 08:42:05 -0500, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> just
might of wrote, but I'm not going to swear to it:
>Checking the headers......Why its BOB! Now I know what M$ hired him
>for. I always knew that his writing skills about OSes would be just what
>MS wanted.
>
>
Best check them headers again OSguy.
You're gonna need better bait to hook me
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:21:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >>It is primarily, I believe, due to this part of section 106,
enumerating
> >>what exclusive rights a copyright holder enjoys:
> >>
> >>(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted
> >> work;
> >>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
> >>
> >>It is for precedent, not statute, to define what 'based upon' means
and
> >>the current debate is testament to the fact that this is definitely
an
> >>open-ended discussion as concerns GPL and libraries.
> >
> >Actually, the copyright statutes could define what "based upon"
means,
> >much like it does many other things in Section 101 and other places.
> >There is no requirement that definitions come only through
"precedent",
> >and plenty of cases where definitions come from the copyright
statutes.
> >
> >The statutes didn't define "based upon", but they do provide a number
of
> >examples that illustrate what "based upon" encompasses: "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."
> >
> >Note that all these examples are similar to taking a computer program
> >and reimplementing it in another programming language, or modifying
it
> >it in some way. None of them are like writing a computer program to
> >make use of another computer program that is part of a library.
>
> Yes, that certainly seems accurate. I suppose writing a book with
> similar characters, plot, and dialog is truly dissimilar to linking to
> someone else's source code.
No. Doing that may (or may not) be copying the original book, much like
just copying source code and including it in the new work.
Linking is more like "now, imagine our character Jane goes through
what the main female lead in 'Gone with the wind' went through, and
go from there". Linking is referencing.
> Still, I can't help but wonder (independent
> of any legal precedent, perhaps) that a work of software authorship
must
> be useful as software, and if your work is critically dependant on
> someone *else's* original work, then you are basing your work on
theirs.
Then no software would be a work except some very basic one (say, the
BIOS). Terribly impractical.
> They do indeed have the right to determine whether you can "use" their
> intellectual property, whether you physically distribute it or not.
Sure. You need valid licenses to use libraries in order to use
programs that depend on them. That doesn't make the program a
derived work, or not a work.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 09:32:03 -0700
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mrpo1$7m4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8mf4t8$i2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sure memory leaks can happen; avoiding, detecting and correcting them is
a
> > part of the job. Depending on a solution that would consume resources
of
> > the end user is not an option that I would ever select.
>
> A lot of programmers feel the opposite way; depending on a solution
> that would require them to detect and remove *all* leaks by hand is
> not an option they would vote for. We've got these computer gizmos,
> why shouldn't they keep track of this sort of guff for us? (If you've
> ever had to deal with the down-side of C's "do it all for yourself"
> mentality, you'll appreciate what I mean!)
>
> In any moderately complex data structure, keeping track of when it is
> safe to deallocate it will take up an appreciable amount of the
> complexity and bugcount of the program... :^(
If it does, your fundamental design is broken. The simple approach of
acquire, use, release is very simple and very robust; the most frequent case
of resource leaks is trying to acquire too early or release too late, both
of which, barring possible optimization issues, are design errors.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:26:59 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:13:47 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >>So where's the "teaching language" for structured programming? Isn't
> >>there anything more accessible without a CS degree that perl, python, C,
> >>C++, or Java?
> >
> >I completely object to you lumping python in with C and C++. C and C++
> >require preprocessor directives and compilation. They both require the user
> >to allocate memory.
> >
> >Python doesn't. Can you explain to us why python is "hard" ? I don't see
> >anything about it that is more "hard" than basic.
>
> No doubt because you know both Python and BASIC. Since I know only
> BASIC, Python is hard. ;-)
>
> >> However important it may be to "learn the right way", the
> >>nature of the problem for 'beginner's languages' is to provide enough
> >>potential for even bad code to provide something practically useful all
> >>the way from the beginning. I honestly don't think FORTRAN or Pascal
> >>are quite right.
> >
> >If you want something that's going to be useful straight away, try shell
> >script. Python also makes it easy to write useful programs in very little
> >time though.
>
> What can I say; I want something 'intuitive'. For me, that means BASIC.
BASIC is anything but intuitive. In fact, there is no programming
language that is intuitive (although some are even less intuitive
than others....see: LISP)
> You want structured programming? Fine; give me a BASIC without a GOTO.
> The real issue isn't how *easy* it is, in my opinion, to write "useful"
> programs. The real issue for me is whether it is trivial to write
> "useful" programs to begin with. I'm afraid I've already lost my
> interest in simple shell automation. I've been literally waiting for
Bourne Shell and Korn Shell are far superior.
> years for a *PC* automation system, similar to Windows/Win32, in fact,
> but not broken, fundamentally flawed, and grossly inadequate for
> anything but maintaining a monopoly.
Well, it's kinda like math. There's no way to do calculus without
first learning algebra.
>
> Hell, I don't want shell scripts. I want application macros.
I don't want an automatic transmission. I want transportation.
Well, you have two options:
1. Learn to do it yourself
2. Pay for someone else to do it.
If you can afford a cheaufer, or want to put up with the "one size fits
all" solution of mass transit, option 1 usually gives superior results.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
--
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 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: Mark Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.windows2000,alt.linux,alt.windows98,alt.linux.os
Subject: Re: - Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) - (I got to say it again!!!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:33:57 GMT
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 07:01:33 -0400, New_User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was doing so well with computers, I had a BBS going, I was
>programming, etc...
>
>Then Windows came out and turned me into a point and click idiot.
>
>I had a bright future in the IT industry, but Windows has turned me
>into a win-idiot.
>
>I'm hoping Linux can rehabilitate me. Make my brain work again.
>
>
>Thanks for nothing windows.
>
I feel like that sometimes. I used to write programs before Windows.
Mark Lloyd
http://nav.to/notstupid
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 9 Aug 2000 16:39:16 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac) writes:
>I don't seem to have the self control to stop responding to Max, so
>I'm using a mechanical aid that only allows me to see his posts after
>someone has already followed up. Not quite a kill file but perhaps
>it will increase the light to heat ratio if I mellow out for a bit.
Just consider what would happen if we all did that.
But then, this is probably the only thread in gnu.misc.discuss that
doesn't have somebody calling somebody else a communist.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:34:04 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 23:08:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>BASIC was created as a teaching language, yes. But I think you might
> >>consider it a horrendous language for teaching because you might not
> >>realize how "basic" the level of teaching is supposed to be. It wasn't
> >>built to teach how to program in terms of *design* of a good program.
> >>It was designed, itself, to teach the rudimentary concepts of
> >>conditional processing. "If...then", and little more.
> >
> >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;
Actually, that practice actually makes things EASIER.
> putting often used sub-routines in a
> separate section of your code is what "GOSUB" is all about.
>
> >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.
nearly everything that you can do on a Unix machine CAN be
accomplished with shellscripts. (the exception being graphics
like what is done in CAD programs).
>
> >>The problem is there's no middle ground for the common user. You either
> >>have something entirely broken, or you have a "real" language, where you
> >>have to start worrying about *design*.
> >
> > The way you're saying this makes it seem as though new programmers have
> > to be OO design wizards to learn a real language, and you say
> >"real language" as if it means the same thing as "hard language". It
> >doesn't. There are well designed interpreted languages that encourage
> >good programming habits and are not hard to learn. For example, python.
>
> I would have to say that your assessment of "hard language" is most
> prominently that of someone who has already learned "real" programming.
> 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. 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". But that might just be
> my twisted thinking based on my own experience. It may very well be
> that a low end structured "real" language is more appropriate, or perl
> or python or what have you.
Basically, the problem is ... users want intelligence to magically
flow from their fingertips, even though they themselves are clueless.
Strangely enough, I have NEVER heard of anyone demanding that flying
an airplane be made "simple" for first-time occupants of the pilot's
seat, even though flying a plane is a MUCH simpler task.
Basically, user's expectations in this respect are unreasonable.
They want to be able to do sophisticated customizations, while
remaining ignorant dolts. Frankly, I have absolutely no sympathy
for such people. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR LEARNING.
>
> >> Programming *isn't* always going
> >>to be a purely professional endeavor.
> >
> >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. It isn't a question of being
> "well polished" so much as "efficient and accessible for relatively
> trivial and often ad hoc tasks". I am, indeed, looking for a "beginner
> development tool", but not a simplistic and limited 'kindergarten'
> environment.
>
> >>they might program professionally. But we need to go back to BASIC, and
> >>bring it forward into "real time", not just abandon the idea of anything
> >>simpler than perl or C or Java and leave the end user at the mercy of
> >>their ignorance.
> >
> >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. I've been repeatedly pointed towards shell scripts, and
> have indeed managed to cobble several simple examples together over the
> years. But I usually get one of the Unix gurus to script anything that
> I can manage to.
>
> 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?
>
> >How about you identify what features a language
> >should have to be "suitable for ordinary users' and I'll tell you why
> >basic doesn't score terribly well ?
>
> Just start anywhere; you under-estimate how clueless I am concerning
> what would make one language score better than another in these regards.
We'll have to get you in some programming courses in various languages.
> --
> 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! =-----
--
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 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: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.ask.phred
Subject: Re: No Gnome for me :-(
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:44:03 GMT
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:59:47 -0500, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> just
might of wrote, but I'm not going to swear to it:
<snip>
>
>Thanks for letting me rant.....
>
><Wintrolls need not make remarks to this post since this is probably
>over their heads...no BSODs were involved.>
>
>
Hey, You brought me here, and now you're saying I can speak up?
BTW, that's why I like Mandrake
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux have core design flaws?
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:00:25 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With reference to the article comparing NT to Linux:
> (http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html)
> Is the poor Linux performance due to core design issues that cannot be
> overcome (ie threading), thus limiting it's potential threat to NT?
You're a little behind the times.
W2K:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000501-00028.html
Linux (Red Hat)
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000626-00054.html
On this benchmark, Linux beats W2K by 3X.
This was also an independent benchmark,
not one designed and paid for by MS.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 9 Aug 2000 16:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 Aug 2000 16:39:16 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But then, this is probably the only thread in gnu.misc.discuss that
>doesn't have somebody calling somebody else a communist.
I can fix that, if you'd like... :-)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dresden's copyrights (Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:41:30 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 09 Aug 2000 01:28:04 GMT
> <8mqc33$qer$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <kZ0e5.3198$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > the syntax for usage is:
> >> >
> >> > command_1 [args] [| ... [| command_n [args]]...] | tee _filename_ [|
> >> command_n+1 [args] ...]
> >> >
> >> > tee accepts input from standard input
> >> > and copies it to both standard output AND to a file named _filename_
> >> >
> >> > This should take all of ... oh... 15 minutes....even for me,
> >> > and I haven't written more than 3 trivial C programs in
> >> > the last 5 years.
> >> >
> >> > Just so everybody knows, I'm sending a copy to Drestin,
> >> > so that everyone knows exactly when he gets a copy of this message.
> >> >
> >> #1) I replied privately.
> >
> >Awww Drestin, you took all the fun out of it.
>
> I'm not sure those two words go together.... :-)
>
> >
> >> #2) I have no idea how to write such a thing in C,
> > I'm not a C programmer.
> >
> >What languages do you program in? Which languages do you use
> >that support a command line interface?
>
> Pedant point: I'm not sure *any* language supports a command
> line interface. Libraries might, though -- cf C's gets/fgets,
> C++'s readline, Pascal's readln (hmm...maybe that is part of the
> language), and Java's BufferedInputReader.readLine().
>
> Or one can specify that the language compiler has a command line
> invocation. I'm not familiar with any language that doesn't,
> although J++ and VC++ try hard to hide it.
>
> >
> >> #3) I could perhaps write this in BASIC,
> > probably. But... why?
> >
> >> A real programmer doesn't have to prove it to anyone...
> >
> >You obviously haven't interviewed with some of the companies I've
> >worked with/for. In 1982, Microsoft made me send a 100 page
> >specification, along with 100 pages of production source code.
> >(much of which ended up in MS-DOS, OS/2, and NT).
>
> That sounds wierd, dude.
>
> I could see someone asking "how does one implement a bucket sort"
> or "give me the 5 most important reasons to use cryptographic
> file transfers", but a 100 page spec just for employment?
> (Or were you already a contractor?)
Behold, the difference between $20/hour and $300/hour.
>
> My prior employer asked me a few questions about how to implement
> a tree descent, IIRC, but that's about it. I know of one person
> who had to answer 'what is the Unix file listing command' and
> failed, mostly because it wasn't on the tip of her mind, but
> buried somewhere in the back. :-)
forgetting ls and/or cat is pathetic.
>
> >
> >Which is why they have the MCSE, so that incompetant programmers
> >can still get jobs playing with their drag-n-drop GUI toys.
>
> If I want a GUI bad enough, I'll program my own, thenkyewverymuch. :-)
> In fact, I'm already doing so; were I not so anal, I'd probably just
> use GTK though; it's harder than I figured. :-) But GTK has some
> key traversal problems (well, so do I at this point), and is a C
> interface -- albeit a very clean one. (Could use a touch more
> documentation, but the examples are easy to work with, for an
> experienced programmer. :-) )
>
> Shrug.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
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 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Paging BIG DON
Date: 9 Aug 2000 16:53:59 GMT
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:06:36 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Come on. You don't think a book that says that the aristocrats and their
>> off spring are born to rule because they're more intelligent than everyone
>> else, and that minorities and the poor are too stupid to do better has
>> some implications ? Basically, it's a perfect excuse for the aristocracy
>> to keep the poor down because they're "too stupid" to do better anyway.
>
>No, that's feudalistic, not right wing.
"feudalistic" and "right wing" are not mutually exclusive. I'd argue that
the above is both.
BTW, it's difficult to formulate a precise definition of "right wing". The
above scenario matches most dictionary definitions.
>Sloppy use of language indicates sloppy thinking.
For more sloppy thinking, see "The Bell Curve"
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Paging BIG DON
Date: 9 Aug 2000 17:01:19 GMT
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 08:37:14 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> US researchers believe they have identified the parts
>> of the human genome involved in developing a person's
>> intelligence.
IOW, it's a conjecture.
>> This means scientists could soon test the potential
>> intelligence of new-born babies.
Note the use of the word "potential", and the implicit
non-determinism it carries.
I am not claiming that genetics are completely unrelated to intelligence,
I am simply claiming that "The Bell Curve" tries to blow the
relationship out of proportion for political purposes.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven W. Mentzer)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 17:04:23 GMT
>
>The problem is that a lot of people from the Windows world come on this
>forum and say the usual stuff like Linux is too hard or Linux doesn't work
>or if they can't get xyz fixed they'll toss Linux out and return to Windows.
>
>This attitude stinks and these people should remain where they are because
>Windows is much simpler to use than Linux [for beginners I hasten to add].
>Perseverence is the order of the day and the reward is breath taking, but
>you don't get the prize without the sweat. Such an insular world is Windows
>that it mostly goes over their head anyway and they ain't worth the effort.
>
Hola,
The problem is that the average user doesn't want to put in the "sweat". Most
people don't eat, sleep and dream about computers and OS's.
Fortunately, I am a "geek", so this stuff comes naturally to me.
But my wife shouldn't be criticized for not having the gumption to stick with
Linux and learn it thoroughly. She has two kids to take care of, dinner to get
on the table, etc etc.
Until the Linux camp realizes that people WILL NOT spend the time to learn the
funky details, Linux will always be the underachieving OS.
I laugh when I hear Linux folks talk about the stability of the OS. "My system
has been runnning for 'x' months....". Do they realize that 99% of the windoze
users turn on the computer, check their email, browse a web site and then turn
the system off. If it crashes, they simply reboot, which in most cases takes a
couple of minutes. This is not a big deal to them.
The stability of the OS is the LAST thing the average user notices. They want
the glitz and the ease of use. If they bring home a new printer, monitor or
joystick, they simply want to plug it in, put in the installation CD and use
it. They don't want to mess around with RPM's or tarballs. And they certainly
don't want to recompile the kernel or mess around with the .conf files.
Like it or not, Linux needs to be like windows. Make things easy for the user,
with little effort and Linux will succeed.. Never expect a user to "learn".
Otherwise, Linux will always remain a "geeks toy".
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
