Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:34:25 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >I just have no idea of what you are saying. Are you saying my answer was
> >> >not an accurate answer to your question? How am I supposed to answer to
> >> >"was he mistaken?" if not by "yes, he was"?
> >>
> >> It is lost in the mist of time, Roberto. I don't have time or patience
> >> to backtrack to review your pedantic point.
> >
> >If you are not willing to answer the questions, don't reply to the
> >posts.
An answer saying "I can not be bothered to reply" is not an answer.
> I did answer the question. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted
> to hear.
>
> >If you don't want others to answer your questions, don't ask them.
> >If the answer to your question id correct and useless, your question
> >is badly formulated.
>
> Yea, sure. Heh.
Yup.
> >> Suffice it to say that some
> >> answers are technically correct, and still not simply useless, but
> >> wrong, within the context of the discussion.
> >
> >Suffice to say that you are willing to say anything, as long as
> >its insulting.
>
> Yea, sure. Heh.
Well, you have tried many different insults, at least.
> >Perhaps you are more stupid than I expected. I honestly believed you
> >were just ignorant.
>
> Stupid, ignorant, misinformed, misguided; I have the full range of human
> failings. I don't deny it.
>
> So why is it you are still unable to keep up with me in honest
> discussion,
So you say.
> and want to keep getting side-tracked into meta-discussions
> where you malign my intent and work furiously to distract the
> conversation by providing technically accurate but realistically useless
> responses,
Coming from the man that believes the effect of the sticky bit
is a "t" that appears on his screen every once in a while.
> and then arguing over whether they are accurate, rather than
> whether they are cogent?
That word again.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:27:54 GMT
>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Marty in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Chris Wenham wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>> "rj" == rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
>>> > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
>>> > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
>>> > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
>>>
>>> And why are you so full of coprolalia?
>>
>> Either you're talking *way* over his head or you just misspelled "crapola".
> I think he meant "coprophilia", actually.
Coprolalia, literally translated, means "shit talk".
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:35:18 GMT
>>>>> "rj" == rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:53:28 Chris Wenham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ¯ > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> ¯ > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
> ¯ > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
> ¯ > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
> ¯ And why are you so full of coprolalia?
> Full of what?
I usually look up words I don't understand :-)
> ¯ Just debate the facts, man...
> What facts are there to debate.
I guess the ones listed in the Findings of Fact. If someone disagrees
with the court's findings, then I think Usenet is an excellent place
to take that argument. You MIGHT even find people willing to humor
you in a civilized manner ;-)
> ¯ Jeez. If he's wrong then it ought to be
> ¯ easy.
> IF??? Please tell me that you are not going to pretend that
> MS WASN'T found guilty.
I think it's uncontestable that the court found them guilty. I know
there are other people who don't agree with what the court used to
find them guilty with. But then, those are "other people" and not
me. I am quite satisfied with the findings of fact and I hope you
understand that I'm only interested in defending "sonny boy"'s right
to disagree with the court. If he finds proof that the court never
considered - hey, more power to 'im.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:47:40 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >The mere declaration of an action as universally wrong is the telltale
> >> >sign of the moral absolutist, because otherwise, what is the meaning
> >> >of "doing wrong"?
> >>
> >> The meaning of "doing wrong" is ethical and local, even if the
> >> terminology used might seem to transcend that scope.
> >
> >Then fix your terminology. How do you expect to communicate when you
> >abuse terms?
>
> You're rapidly making it to the top of my "probably a troll" list,
Does it mean you will killfile me? Please!
> Roberto. My terminology is "fixed", as in unchanging, because I use
> these terms consistently from day to day. I do not abuse terms.
I meant fix as in "fix that washing machine".
> I don't accuse others who use conflicting or even contradictory
> definitions for some terms of "abusing terms". I accuse them of being
> mistaken, and explain the reason why I think so, and my suggestion for
> an alternative which is accurate, consistent, and practical.
Pfft.
> The response I get is mindless insinuation indicating you've gotten your
> panties in a bunch. If you can't keep up, just say so, and I'll try to
> go slower.
Ha!
> >> One tell-tale sign
> >> of the post-modernist is when they gratuitously insist that somebody
> >> (besides themselves) have made reference to something being "universally
> >> wrong" merely because they aren't deferring to wholesale cultural
> >> relativism.
> >
> >Pfft.
>
> About the response I would expect from someone who isn't being critical
> enough of post-modern rhetoric. Somebody taught you "we are not any
> more ethical than slave holders", and you believed them. They were
> wrong, and so are you.
You are so confused...
> [...]
> >Always.
> >
> >> but not to recognize that we merely
> >> inhabit reality, we do not literally create it?
> >
> >We inhabit reality, and we create small chunks of it.
>
> You're going to have to be quite a bit more explicit what you mean by
> "create" if you expect that to be a reasonable statement. In essence,
> you're going to have to define it as something other than "create". We
> perceive reality, we do not create it.
Well, I don't mean "create from nothing", if that's what you mean by
create.
I mean create, in the same way a painter creates a painting.
> >> You seem to feel quite
> >> insecure with the idea that we do create and are entirely limited by our
> >> perception of reality, but we do not create the universe by merely
> >> thinking that it exists.
> >
> >I have never claimed to be a solipsist. Since solipsism produces
> >no practical effects, I have decided to ignore it.
>
> Solipsism is the belief that we create reality. You seem to only ignore
> it insofar as you add the qualifier 'small chunks of', whatever that is
> supposed to mean.
We were apparently using different versions of "create".
> >> The sentence "It is wrong" is semantically
> >> identical to "I believe it is wrong",
> >
> >No. "it is wrong" can mean:
> >
> >a) I believe it is wrong compared to my standards of correctness.
> >b) I believe it is wrong when compared to some universal standard
> > of correctness.
>
> Since there is no universal standard of correctness, these are
> semantically identical, as I've stated.
No, if there is no universal standard of correctness, b) is always
false. Are you really this weak in logic?
> >In a discussion like this, it is very important to know which one,
> >because b) implies the existence of such a standard, and the possibility
> >of applying it to any action performed by anyone, thus opening the
> >door to moral absolutism, which in the end leads to religion.
>
> But you are the only one who has ever mentioned any moral absolutes.
> The problem isn't *whether you think it is wrong*, but "what you think
> 'wrong' means". BTW, religion leads to moral absolutism, not the other
> way around, IMO.
Moral absolutism can have nonreligious forms. It's easy to imagine
a atheist moral absolutist.
> [...]
> >> but for the unstated delusion
> >> (which nobody I've seen post here seems to hold) that the concept
> >> 'wrong' somehow transcends morality or ethics and has physical influence
> >> on reality.
> >
> >Who would believe such a strange and unnecessary thing?
>
> That isn't the point, Roberto; you're trying to distract the discussion
> and don't seem to be reading what I wrote in context. To answer your
> question: anyone who believes in a moral absolute, generally.
It's totally unnecessary for a belief in moral absolutes.
> >> >> From "their"
> >> >> view, the moral question has no meaning; the church gets to "redefine
> >> >> the standard", as it were, of what is right or wrong.
> >> >
> >> >Yup. That makes it specially hard for them.
> >>
> >> No, it shows that they have no moral or ethical grounding by nature.
> >> What they do is right or wrong based on the action itself and its affect
> >> on others. "Noble intent" is only a qualifier when one is being
> >> consistent with ones ideals. If you are willing to change your ideals
> >> to whatever is most convenient for justifying your most self-serving
> >> actions, then you are merely paying lip service to morality and ethics,
> >> and have little chance of being either moral or ethical in the end.
> >
> >And here you implicitly say that the church is/was willing to do that.
>
> Yes, which is why the church is ultimately not a moral or ethical
> organization, but a political one.
And what are your basis for that belief? Is it just a general dislike of
the church?
> >> >> That you can
> >> >> 'reverse engineer' it into some noble social responsibility is rather
> >> >> unnerving.
> >> >
> >> >It would be, if I did.
> >>
> >> You have.
> >
> >No.
>
> Yes, you did. You stated that the church was acting to maintain social
> cohesion when they persecuted heretics.
I didn't do that, Max.
> >> Your argument that the church evidenced some social justice
> >> in preventing "heretics" from disseminating scientific ideas is just
> >> that.
> >
> >Oh, my goodness. You have not understood a word I said :-P
> >I have never said such a thing.
>
> No, you never meant to say such a thing. You certainly did, however,
> and continue to do so with this pedantic trolling about it.
You dropped a lot of context. For example, what was the "job" I was
referring to? IIRC, it was "defending the word of God", was it not?
> From <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
I see no reference in my words to "social justice", whatever that might
be.
> If you want to state for the record that you are not defending this
> position, then I suggest you stop defending it. 'Torture was considered
> OK, so there wasn't anything wrong with the church using it.'
This simplistic drivel is what drives me mad. I have said before, that
I have lots of problems applying the word "wrong" like that, and yet,
you do it in my behalf.
I think (and have said so) that it would have been better (IMO) if they
had acted different. I just say that THEY didn't see it as "wrong"!
> That kind of mindless post-modern pablum.
That kind of mindless simplifications of the words of others?
> You may not wish to be held responsible
> for the positions which you defend, but I'm afraid you're going to have
> to. From what I have read, you are saying that the church could not be
> considered unethical for torturing people because torture was common and
> there are no moral absolutes. I am saying that moral absolutes are not
> necessary in order to recognize, regardless of social construction, that
> torture is wrong.
If something is wrong (morally) regardless of social construction, then
the opposite is a absolute moral value. You are contradicting yourself.
> >> >> Although it is certainly not inappropriate as a line of
> >> >> reasoning, it doesn't seem like much of an issue.
> >> >
> >> >This is an experiment in thought. Think. Don't be afraid.
> >>
> >> Ha. That's positively ironic. I thought I was clear from the way I
> >> phrased it that it is not fear, but boredom, which prevents me from
> >> pursuing such a line of reasoning.
> >
> >After what I just read, I would blame incomprehension.
>
> Perhaps on your part, certainly not on mine.
Maybe in both. Yours I'm pretty sure of.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 11:41:40 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
Marx would be proud of the above thesis. Here's an idea...move to Cuba, they
look like they are thriving on the philosophy above....join the big party in
the streets down south Max.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:58:55 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > The explorer being discussed in Windows Explorer not Internet Explorer.
>
> Two heads of the same beast.
Exactly. The distinction between a broswer that finds and exectutes
files a local filesystem versus a remote one is fairly arbitrary. But
can someone please explain to me why I can't do something like lynx
-dump www.la-online.com in a graphical browser?
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:03:44 -0400
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ngn2q$74o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
> >software arena, Microsoft is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
> >Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
> >system, Linux.
>
> I talked to a Mainsoft representative at the LinuxWorld Expo
> today. He told me two things:
>
> o They pay Microsoft for access to the source code of
> Windows.
>
> So, buying any Mainsoft-ported software (even if it isn't
> Microsoft software) puts money into the pockets of Bill
> Gates.
>
> o In comparison with Winelib, he said, the Mainsoft
> libraries implement the full 32-bit Windows API, whereas
> Winelib can only handle the 16-bit Windows 3.1 API.
>
> Farther up the same aisle at the show, a Wine programmer
> (from CodeWeavers) assured me that (as I had thought) Wine
> and Winelib certainly do implement the Win32 API, and much
> more. See http://www.winehq.com/about.html
>
> So the Mainsoft guy had told me a very serious and self-
> serving untruth.
>
> >The results, so far, have been disappointing.
>
> The full quote is interesting:
>
> >http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
>
> But the process is even more complex than it sounds, since
> most Microsoft applications -- especially those in the
> Office suite -- use a number of proprietary interfaces,
> and each application requires specific workarounds. The
> results, so far, have been disappointing.
>
> In other words, Microsoft's applications use secret Windows
> system calls and facilities that it doesn't make available
> to other software vendors.
Given the fact that it is not only MS's operating system that is unsecure
and unstable, I can't imagine anyone concerned with these issues picking a
stable unix-like operating system and then using applications like word
(which crashes frequently when trying to print, for example) or Outlook
Express.
--
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:09:19 GMT
>>>>> "JS/PL" == JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
>> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
>> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
>> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
>> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
>> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
> Marx would be proud of the above thesis. Here's an idea...move to Cuba, they
> look like they are thriving on the philosophy above....join the big party in
> the streets down south Max.
What Max is advocating is not communism.
Companies really do exist to provide a service to the community, but
they were all started by men and women who wanted to control their
own destiny and do things according to their own ideas and principals
- willingly taking a risk in the process.
The relationship between the buyer and the seller ought to be one of
peer to peer, that is what I think Max is talking about. Not the
relationship of a peon to a modern-day lord. Not a relationship
between a consumer and an abuser.
But there is nothing unethical about a company that keeps trade
secrets. What's unethical is a company that abuses trade secrets such
as the way undocumented APIs are abused to lever an unfair advantage
over competitors.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
