Linux-Advocacy Digest #337, Volume #28 Thu, 10 Aug 00 09:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: And the winner is... ("Slava Pestov")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ???? ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Come on, Jedi, where are you? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Karri Kalpio)
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Perry Pip)
Re: No Gnome for me :-( (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How to configure display of Openlinux2.3 (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And the winner is...
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:16:55 +1000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mikey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...of the Troll Luser without a life award....
>
> it's: Steve/Mike/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/"S"/Sponge/Syphon/
> "Sewer Rat"/Sarek/steveno/scummer/McSwain/piddy/pickle_pete/
> wazzoo/"leg log"/mike_hunt/Heather/Amy/claire_lynn/
> susie_wong/Ishmeal_hafizi/"Saul Goldblatt"/Proculous/
> Tiberious/Jerry_Butler/"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/bison/Wobbles/
> screwbilk/deadpenguin/"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com"/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/etc!
Actually, as far as I can tell, Tim Palmer posts from a different IP.
So it's not Steve.
Slava
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 08:11:37 -0400
Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > A combination of amazing industrial production and technology solved
> > > the U-boat problem. The convoy system, fast destroyer escorts in
> > > large numbers, radar, sonar, and long range recconaisance planes
> > > (which didn't just look for, but attacked submarines on the surface)
> > > that could cover the Atlantic "Gap" were the technologies that
> > > doomed the relatively obsolete U-boats (US "Gato" subs in the
> > > Pacific were better), along with the US's ability to build "Liberty"
> > > ships faster than the German and Japanese submarines acould sink
> > > them.
> >
> > That plus the fact that the British had broken the German codes. It
> > does help your hunting if you know what the subs orders are... :^)
>
> Yes, but they coundn't risk routing all convoys around the areas
> where the U-boats were, if they did they risked tipping off the
> Germans that the Allies knew where all its U-boats were. Instead they
> often sent heavily defended convoys deliberately into known U-boat
> waters. One of these convoys resulted in a massive multi-day battle
> ('43/'44, can't remember) between convoy defenders and a U-boat
> wolfpack. The convoy lost ships, but the wolfpack took huge losses.
> After that things went downhill for the Germans.
Convoy HX-223 if I remember correctly
>
> -----= 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: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000 ????
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:22:28 +1000
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff
Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2000 18:38:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>Wrong. It would have been correct if you had said "linux doesnt support
>>as many sound cards as windows 2000 does" or something along those
>>lines, but it most certianly supports orders of magnitudes more hardware
>>than any kind of windows does.
>
> Lets put it this way...
>
> It doesn't support as much MODERN/USER level hardware as well as any
> modern flavor of Windows does.
Prove it, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:08:33 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 09 Aug 2000 02:28:01 GMT...
...and Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Payed" is much more logical than "paid".
> > > > > Just try to *logically*
> > > > > explain why "shure" is a misspelling.
>
> "Shure" is a misspelling, because it *is* -- by
> definition. But if you want a system that makes
> sense, switch to a purely phonetic system which
> makes use of natural dipthongs. All you would need
> is some mechanism of distinguishing long vowels
> from short ones.
Using a phonetic alphabet that makes all the words that sound the same
*look* exactly the same, too, would reduce the information content of
the text. Not a good idea.
That's the reason why the discussions about introducing phonetic
spelling for French never went for long...
mawa
--
If a man is uneducated, he may steal a freight car. If he has a
college education, he can steal the whole railroad!
-- David Johnson, NPR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Come on, Jedi, where are you?
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:12:29 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 9 Aug 2000 12:42:22 GMT...
...and Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An additional problem is that having a single base layer (like Motif
> used to be in practise on commercial Unix) can mean that some
> astonishing brokennesses get in (there are some really nasty flaws
> with Motif DnD which can lead to locked X servers or even crashes)
> unchallenged by the fire of "market" competition. Having a bunch of
> closely matched systems forces a serious shakedown.
Like I said in my talk about GNOME at LinuxTag 2000: The peaceful
competition between KDE and GNOME is one of the best things that ever
happened to the free software community.
(No matter how many KDEers try to reason that GNOME is useless and
should vanish...)
mawa
--
DIE TALSOHLE IST ERREICHT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:10:36 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 9 Aug 2000 14:27:13 GMT...
...and Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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!)
That's why we've got stuff like the Boehm garbage collector that you
can use in your C programs whenever you feel the need to have garbage
collected...
mawa
--
DIE TALSOHLE IST ERREICHT
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:36:13 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Aside from more stringent security implementations, do you notice any
> significant performance differences between FreeBSD and OpenBSD?
On single proc systems there isn't much difference. But on my main
workstation at home I have 2xPII 333 processors and there is a huge
difference in speed between the two there. I attribute most of the
difference to the fact that FreeBSD has good multi-proc support and
OpenBSD is just starting to work on that support. But in general on a
single processor system I find FreeBSD edging OpenBSD out by just a hair
most of the time. Not enough to make a difference if security is any
concern at all (which is why my 'firewall' system at home has OpenBSD),
but enought to occassionally notice.
But for the most part the same software will compile on each system (or
will with very little tweaking back and forth) and there aren't any
'huge' system differences between them.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:38:23 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 17:05:11 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> > You may want to consider reading in cola (comp.os.linux.advocacy) to
> >see why some of 'us' don't 'get it' as you put it. There are enough
>
> He has. Mr Edwards was a Linux advocacy nut in the olden days.
> Check deja for a rabid Linux zealot by the name of "Stoney Edwards".
>
> BTW, IMO cola hasn't changed that much in the last three years.
>
> --
> Donovan
Well, I do notice a LOT more activity in here today than there was 3
years ago (I used to come in here as *talekeeper* back in the day). But
for the most part all the additional people are noise producers. If I
killfiled all the morons, I think I'd see maybe three posts a day.
(slight exageration)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: 10 Aug 2000 15:38:23 +0300
Pontus Lidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now that's a funny joke. Emacs needs the keys you find on a
> typewriter, and also escape and control keys. Nothing
> else. Specifically, it does not need meta, alt, windows, arrow keys,
<PEDANTIC>
Actually... Emacs does need meta key but not escape. (This may not
be obvious because sometimes the keyboards have such a brain-dead
layout that there is _no_ meta key at all and in those cases it is a
common practice to use the esc to simulate the meta key.)
</PEDANTIC>
--karri
--
/"\ : Karri Kalpio
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
/ \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: 10 Aug 2000 12:48:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 23:47:59 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that people who write free software do it out of
>> empathy?? The reasons why people write free software was the context
>> of this thread and of what I said but that seems to have gotten
>> snipped out. I can see a situation where someone writes code for some
>> other self-interested purpose and then releases the code under a free
>> license because of their morality. But I don't think too many people
>> write free software purely it out of empathy and morality.
>
>I agree. However, you seemed to assume that the only reason people
>would release code (all the work having been done already) under the
>GPL would be because they want to appear nice and that isn't so.
I never made any such assumption or suggestion. If you go back and
read the thread, myself and others agreed there are many reasons
people relaease code under GPL. One of the best reasons is the
improvement to your code that can result from others looking at it.
>Even when you're talking about a person who just pretends to be nice,
I never made any such suggestion. However, it is not uncommon at all
for a business to release code (all the work having been done already)
under GPL as a loss leader. For that matter, an individual may write
GPL'd code in order to be able put it on his resume.
>the idea that it's purely self-interest is nonsense since getting
>approval from the group is a powerful need for most people, a need
>they will try to fulfill *to the detriment* of their self-interest
>(eg, joining the army and getting killed).
Your point? There is nothing that says one can't do what one thinks is
in ones self interest and have it turn out to be harmful to him. Drugs
are a good example of that.
>The problem with any talk of self-interest is that you can assume
> 1) that humans are self-interested and /irrational/ (and since
> the person is irrational, it may not even be meaningful to
> speak of self-interest), or
> 2) that humans are rational and /not/ self-interested
>
>but you cannot assume both self-interest and rationality simultaneously
>because that just defies everyday experience of everyday human behaviour.
That's utterly absurd. Self-interest and rationality are not mutually
exclusive. If the doctor prescribes me medicine for an infection, it
is both rational and in my self interest to take the medicine as
prescribed.
>
>I can use myself as an example.
You can use yourself as an example of what it true about yourself. You
can't take your own thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. and project that
on the rest of the world.
>It's a lot of fun to fantasize about
>writing free software and being feteed and honoured ever after
Do you fantasize often.....??
>but I
>don't have any genuine expectation of that happening.
Ok...as long as you keep one foot on the ground.
>And I can tell
>you that if I were given a choice between
>
> 1) writing a revolutionary operating system that everyone will use,
> getting none of the credit, and then dying (to cut out the benefit
> from my being able to use the OS as well as the possible good I
> could accomplish /using/ that credit), and
> 2) not writing anything but getting all the credit for it then dying
>
>then I will choose #1 with no hesitation. (Unless I decide that people
>should suffer for my death so let's just change the scenario to my
>retiring to some warm tropical island instead ...)
Which tells us something about yourself and is perfectly valid but it
tells us nothing that pertains to all human experience.
>I can even tell you that if I'm given a choice between being the only
>person to use this revolutionary OS and being the only person to /not/
>use it (assuming no network effects) then I would choose the latter.
>Maybe I need to convince myself that 'I hate Unix and want to see
>other people finally *know* how crummy it is' in order to make the
>right decision, but if this were so then it would only be a lie I
>tell myself to rationalize doing what I want to do anyways.
Which tells us something about yourself and is perfectly valid but it
tells us nothing that pertains to all human experience.
>> >> /Being/ a nice guy is NOT a form of self-interest.
>>
>> Sure. But they need not contradict on another either.
>
>I agree, but I see all too many people use this fact to devalue being a
>nice person; the Libertarian disease
I am not a Libertarian.
>disease
I do not consider opposing beliefs to mine to be diseases. That is
kind of a view is suggestive of intolerance.
>is especially strong in high tech.
That's a gross generalization.
>> There is a *big* difference between "seeing ones self as" and
>> "impressing others as". Percieving ones self in a good way is an
>> aspect of self esteem. Needing to impress others is an indication of a
>> lack thereof.
>
>You're wrong. Needing to see oneself as a good person *also* indicates
>a weak ego and thus lack of self-esteem.
You can make that argument if you want, but it doesn't show any
empathy the person who does not have strong self esteem to begin
with. If writing GPL'd code helps that person feel better about
himself so be it. It is very unlikely it is going to harm anyone else.
>The precise terminology is empathic versus projective reactions. An
>example of an empathic reaction is asking a friend whether they need
>any help and doing what they ask of you. An example of a projective
>reaction is deciding that your friend needs help and "helping" him
>over his vocal objections, then being self-satisfied despite his
>greatly resenting your intrusion or feeling hurt that your friend
>doesn't "appreciate" all you've done "for" him.
I see. And the reason you are telling me this is because you've
decided I need your help??
>An empathic person derives satisfaction from the fact that the people
>they care for have been helped (by someone) and are now better off.
>A projective person derives satisfaction from /helping/ someone;
>whether the victim of the help is better off is merely the yardstick
>by which they judge how much they have "helped".
Are you sure this binary view of human behavior isn't just a
projection of your own. People are alot more complex that that.
>
>Nathan makes an important point when he brings up perspective.
>If you only stick to your own perspective then 'needing to think
>of oneself as good' is identical to 'needing to /be/ good' but
>in reality these two attitudes are light-years apart. The second
>attitude requires you to have a strong enough ego to be able to
>set your own desires aside long enough to rationally figure out
>the situation.
So why don't you do that?:-)
>And even that isn't the full difference between
>an empathic and a projective person.
Oh...well thanks for your help:-)..uh....uhm...even though I didn't
ask:-(
>> People who lack self esteem are two wrapped up in their own
>> insecurities to have any real empathy for others. Thus having self
>> esteem is another prerequisite to being genuinely nice.
>
>Precisely.
>
>> Well, generally, people who go to parties want to party, i.e. forget
>> about anything serious. Very often, they intoxicate themselves to
>> assist in the process. Your best bet is to find freinds who have
>> similar philosophical interests and hang out with them, not
>> necessarily at parties.
>
>I'm certain he already has.
How do you know that? Did he tell you?? Do you know him personally??
Or are you projecting this on him? Not that I would doubt he has but I
have no way of being certain. I only know him from Usenet.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No Gnome for me :-(
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:44:12 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > Corel isn't *user friendly*. It's *windows cloney*. Including
> > resetting configuration files without being told to, replacing drivers
> > without being told to, screwing up left and right for no apparent
> > reason, and attempting to show you what an idiot you are at every turn
> > (just like Windows).
> >
> > Stay away from Corel. Mandrake actually *is* user-friendly, and it
> > won't make you want to spit blood in the general direction of the moron
> > that directed you to it.
> >
> > (Sorry, I'm feeling bitter over the *WINDOWS CLONING* experimentation
> > that's been going on lately.)
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
> Thanks for the input. I do always try to listen to all info from many before doinng
>someting.
> Sometimes I do make the wrong choice but that is what I have learned from.
That's how we all learn. How do you think I know how hosed up Corel
is? I made the mistake of buying it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 10 Aug 2000 12:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 18:19:15 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>
>> >> Seattle railroad. It's always alot easier to be second than it is to
>> >> be first when you are talking about feats of engineering. And in the
>> >> case of transcontinentals, Great Northern was more like fifth.
>>
>> Oops. I stand corrected. The Great Northern was the sixth
>> transcontinental. One was built in Canada, funded by Canadian
>> Government land grants. So that's a total of five Government funded
>> transcontinentals, built over a period of nearly thirty years before
>> the Great Northern.
>>
>> >>If you
>> >> are basing your argument on the Great Northern, then your are missing
>> >> the fact the I am talking about investing in new technologies, not
>> >> general economic development. It's when something has never been done
>> >> before when up front costs are the highest, and when private investors
>> >> are the most afraid.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I was only claiming that a private firm could have done it.
>>
>> Well then why didn't one?
>> How much longer would it have been until
>> some entrepreneur was willing to take the risk if it weren't for the
>> five Government projects that overcame the technological obstacles and
>> proved it would have a pay back?
This second question has not been answered, though I wasn't expecting one:-)
>
>Because no private firm could tax people to pay for it.
Actually, the railroads were built mostly via land grants, not tax
dollars. And my point was a while back was that no private investor
was willing to make the huge upfront investments and take the risks to
develop these new technologies. You now seem to be agreeing with that.
>Also, didn't
>problems with the lack of return on the first trancontinental railroad
>(and other publicly financed lines) lead to the Crash of 1873?
I can't find any evidence to suggest that, but it may have played a
role. Instability in the late 19th century U.S. economy was primarily
due to failures of the banking systems, not weaknesses in one industry
or another.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:49:58 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The only thing I could see the could cause this situation is changes to the
> kernel that would have a negative impact on the security, stability,
> flexibility, and reliability of Linux. If the distributions are too
> overboard in making Linux seems like windows, then perhaps it is time for a
> few of us Linux old timers to create a new distribution. A distribution
> that will reassert what has made Linux the OS of choice for so many of us.
> That distribution would have an unaltered kernel and the software that we
> need with none of the "easy to use" bells and whistles.
I'm thinking this distro already exists. The original and untainted (by
Corel) Debian distro fits this mold perfectly. As long as it stays true
to 'Linux' ways, I will probably stick with it. I just felt like
venting when I posted yesterday about the whole "Windows only"
mentallity that seems to be pervading the Linux camp lately.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: How to configure display of Openlinux2.3
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:56:01 GMT
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:44:28 +0800 , Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just installed OpenLinux 2.3 on my desktop which has an Inter(R)810e
>Chipset. The system can't identify this graphic chipset, so the X-window
>can't start.
eDesktop 2.4 knows about this chipset. You can upgrade, or you
can download the latest X server from:
ftp://ftp.calderasystems.com/pub/updates/eDesktop/2.4/current/RPMS
Or something like that...
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
