Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway? (Courageous)
Re: Switch to NT? (Courageous)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Switch to NT? ("Laurie")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: 19 Aug 2000 00:42:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nk814$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nk18b$qbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> What irks me about "Godwin's law", is that it isn't a
>> "law" at all. It's merely a "principle". That whole
>> Godwin thing is abused to bloody much these days.
>>
>> Someguy1: "And Microsoft is like the Nazis!"
>> Someguy2: "Ooh! I invoke Godwin's law! Am I cool now!"
>>
>> People shouldn't reference things they don't understand. :-P
>>
>> Godwin's principle stemmed from the idea that no matter
>> what a topic of discussion was, that after a certain
>> amount of time, it would degrade into a discussion
>> about Nazi Germany, at which point, the discussion
>> would become completely pointless and useless.
>
>Along the lines of Murphy's Law?
Not really. Murphy's law is more geared
towards how things will happen precisely
when we don't want them to.
Godwin's principle is more like an observation
on how a thread gets more useless with time.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
| | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
|_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Aug 2000 00:42:28 GMT
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>The entire reason BASIC was developed was to provide rudimentary
>programming constructs which were familiar to those unfamiliar with
>programming languages.
Yes. Basic was essentially a type of shell script, and essentially
made it easy for users to string commands together.
Shell script was intended to do the same thing -- ordinary users could
automate things by putting commands in files. Shell script was basically
the same as the command line, with a few control structures added.
>might be missing. But these will require detailed examination of
>specific syntax and some general framework for judging the relative
>familiarity and accessability of the concepts and structures involved.
>I don't have those resources, and presume you don't. You may wish to
There are a number of criteria I could propose for deciding what syntax
is and isn't "intuitive". FYI, by these criteria, perl, and the C family
don't score that well.
The problem is that I don't see many things about basic that makes it
substantially nicer than tcl or python. Syntax-wise.
>insist that, lacking them, I am "unsupported" in my assertion, but that
>smacks more of an argument from ignorance than a coherent presentation
>of an opposing opinion.
Well I am ignorant of the criteria that you use to conclude that basic
is more intuitive, which is why I am requesting that you explain to us
why you feel that basic is more "intuitive". So far, your only explanation
is that it's more "intuitive" because it's more familiar to you than
other languages.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: 19 Aug 2000 00:44:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nk815$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8njupf$hvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
8<SNIP>8
>> made fun of them and left it at that. Any more static from them and
>> they get plonked.
>
>The problem is that an often repeated lie that is not challenged can
>become considered almost as a fact in its own right or form a foundation
>for even more extreme lies. That is one of the principals of "the art
>of" disinformation.
Don't worry. COMNA'ers aren't that weak-minded. ;-)
For a claim to become considered true here, there
has to be undeniable proof... otherwise, AFAWC, it's
bullshit.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
| | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
|_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:44:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> As in "cogent evidence" or "a cogent analysis of a problem", both from
>> Merriam-Webster's at the above url.
>
>I'm suprised you didn't realize that I don't care about any court's
>opinion about "cogency". It's about the meaning and use of "cogent".
>
>I guess I'll have to eat (some) crow in this case. I don't remember the
>old cases well enough to comment on. But please consider the following
>and use the word with more care.
>
>"Cogent evidence" sounds fine. And I can see that "the work is
>software" can be cogent evidence. But I have real trouble reading
>"the work is software is cogent". And "whether the work is software
>is cogent" is just wrong if "whether..." is read as a question (as I
>do), because a question can't be cogent -- only the answer can. So the
>question seems to be whether the indirect question is to be read as
>a question or not. It probably should not, so I'll have to admit that
>your sentence should make sense. And it doesn't sound correct for
>a mere fact ("the work is software") to be able to be "active" enough
>tb be "forcibly convincing".
Please consider this and read the word with more care: I am not the
court. The cogency of the fact that the work is software relates to my
arguments concerning copyright, not their decision concerning Accolade.
I'll admit to spraining the concept of 'cogency' during the course of
this discussion of "cogent". I don't believe, in the end, that it is
cogent to begin with. But I'll humor you, because words and concepts
are rather close to my heart.
The mere fact that the court found it "weighty" and "pertinent" that the
work was software and not any old literary work is a cogent argument for
my point (contrary to Lee Hollaar, Resident Expert's opinion) that the
functionality of software might not be protected by software, but is
very relevant to software's copyright protection.
>I wouldn't have had a problem with "the fact that the work is software
>is cogent evidence". Maybe it's only my problem, but I doubt it.
I doubt it too; I understand your concern. Yes, I tend to consider
something that is relevant and which has a characteristic, in my
opinion, of being a critical path, if you will, in understanding the
concepts which underlay the words in discussions or decisions of legal
matters to be "cogent", even when it is a "cogent question". This isn't
probably the kind of usage that most people are used to hearing, but a
meaningful question, I've found, is actually much more common, or at
least much more important, than a meaningful answer.
>I find that you and I share the same problem: We both make shortcuts
>in our arguments and in our composition to save time and space, and
>we wind up not knowing what the other is trying to say half the time.
The agonies of language. Much of the reason I so enjoy studying it in
its own right.
>I don't expect either of us to change much, but since I'm learning
>things, I expect to continue for a while (though I really should go
>off and organize my licensing thoughts for a while first).
I certainly hope you post them when you've worked them through. They
may be...
screw it. Just get back to me, OK?
Thanks for your time, hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.sys.intel,comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Will MS kill off Compaq and Gateway?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:49:05 GMT
> Who do you know that has actually paid for a
> copy of a MS product?
This is a statement about you and your paramoors. Many, many
people pay for Microsoft products.
> Cell phone minutes will be free if you
> agree to have an ad blasted in your ear before every call.
This won't fly, because people want to be able to use the
phone immediately when they pick it up.
> and they will likely overlook the fact that they are
> being blasted with advertisements every 10 seconds.
That part, at least, is self-evident.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:54:56 GMT
> What I'm looking for are compelling reasons for not using MS Office and
> NT.
There really aren't any to speak of, presuming you don't
categorically rule out Unix back-ends where needed. Before
you go paying for M.S. Office, however, can I recommend
that you check out Star Office? It's fairly full-featured,
and it's open-sourced.
> * MS Office's compatability issues with other suites, older versions.
> * Security, vulnerability to viruses.
Linux is obviously quite a bit less vulnerable, in particular
in that you won't be acquiring any Word macro viruses or any
of those Satanic Outlook Express exploits.
> * Quickly changing trends. Rise of Linux (on the desktop?), ...
You are thinking too far ahead. Your PC hardware won't be
obsoleted by anything but time (which you have no control
over), and as Linux and Star Office are all free, a switch-
over will cost you MIS labor only.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:56:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>
>>In article <8mkb5i$2fja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>>discusses how many angels can dance on the head of a pin:
>
>>>Even more complicated than that: If you accept the oddball concept
>>>that all programs loaded into the same address space become
>>>derivatives of each other, how do you deal with the case where
>
>>Assuming you are talking about "derivative works" as part of copyright
>>law, then nobody with any understanding of the law accepts that concept.
>
>I believe that the only reason this comes up is because the FSF (and
>supporters) are worried about the use of libraries/plug-ins as a method
>for circumventing the GPL.
So there belief, essentially, is that people using the intellectual
property of GPL library authors might substantially reduce the value of
their property by significantly utilizing the value of that property
within their own related works? Yea, sounds like copyright infringement
to me. Arguments could certainly be made on each of the four major
points which attempt to defend the use of someone else's work as "fair
use".
My brother yesterday observed, as I was explaining these discussions,
that there wasn't anything in copyright law preventing a software
developer from reading the libraries to see how to provide the
functionality which they uniquely (potentially) provided and
incorporating that functionality into their own work. As I've observed
before, this merely highlights the fundamental conflict of software as
literary work by illustrating that the functional engineering benefit of
shared libraries is counter to the purpose of copyright law itself.
>Someone may have a great idea to extend a GPLed applicaiton, but may not
>wish to put their extensions under the GPL. So, they put their extension
>code into a library/plug-in and modify the GPLed applicaiton to call it
>if it's present. They then license their library/plug-in as they wish.
>
>"Aha!" say the FSF (and supporters). "This is just a thinly veiled
>attempt to create a derivative work from our GPLed applicaiton, and
>we're convinced any judge would agree with us. Give us your source code
>under the GPL."
>
>And in this case it's true, the intent was to avoid the GPL but still be
>able to extend the GPLed application.
>
>Over time the sentence "a library/plug-in linked to GPLed code with the
>intention of avoiding the GPL is really a derivative work of the GPLed
>code" seems to have changed to the bizarre "any two code segments linked
>together are derivative works of each other".
>From an engineering perspective of "derivative", that would be true.
>From a literary perspective, of course, its an abomination. But that's
not my fault, or the FSF's.
>Modifying the GPLed application to run a separate program that contains
>your code is apparently OK with the FSF, because running a program is
>"normal". I'm sure in the end the FSF will have to accept that calling a
>library or plug-in or any dynamic code through a defined API is also
>normal.
As an engineering feature, it is normal. As copyrighted material, it is
an counter to the purpose of copyright.
>What they need is a good way of demonstrating an intent to avoid the GPL.
>Just saying "you put it in a plug-in instead of compiling it in" isn't
>good enough these days.
Since software can't show intent, it can be assumed if the results are
as predicated.
>It seems to me that code with a custom API that nothing else uses is
>much more suspicious than code using an API that lots of other code
>uses. Maybe they should focus on this aspect... but there are problems
>there too :(
If you want to steer clear, there's a simple an obvious answer: write
the program and the library, and GPL either which you wish. Preferably
both.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 00:54:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 01:24:52 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >fred wrote:
> >> Come on Aaron, out with it. When did you first
> >> install Linux, and how
> >> many upgrades have you done since?
> >
> >first install: 1996.
> >two upgrades at home.
> >
> >At work: All of Kmart corporation's Linux experimentations at the
> >corporate headquarters were done off of one set of RedHat CD-ROM's
> >(as of my departure in June 1999).
>
> Hmm, so does this Linux experiment explain the sudden dip in K-Mart
> stock price in June of 1999?
>
> :-)
Actually. The dip in K-Mart stock (related to a drop in earnings)
may have triggered the interest in Linux.
During the mid-1980s and the early 1990s, when managers had to
do belt tightening, many found that UNIX was a good way to reduce
runaway IT budgets. Switching from a Mainframe to UNIX (enough to
delay or skip an upgrade) could save the company the equivalent of
100 full-time jobs. In the 1990's, more down-sizing triggered a
wave of shifts to UNIX, including UNIX workstations. This actually
"tilled the ground" for the emerging of the internet.
Essentially, the CELLO Web browser was originally intended as a
low-cost way to give users on Windows PCs access to UNIX hosts.
Things got out of hand with Mosaic, and the combination of Mosaic
and Trumpet Winsock (both shareware programs which companies could
distribute cheaply:trumpet or freely:mosaic)
When times are very good and money is flowing freely, no one cares
about the price. When times are hard, the value of UNIX (and now
Linux) is more fully appreciated. In the "Internet Boom", Linux
has had to make constant improvements and become increasingly friendly
to continue to reach wider and wider audiences. Now days Linux is
so friendly they give you a stuffed penguin to sleep with at night.
:-)
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Laurie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:04:08 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8nk0op$gmm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We have a Solaris network with Sparcstation servers and PC's running NT
> Workstation. We use Solstice Network Client to run the Unix programs
> over the network. We have two sites tied by a T1 line, about 40 users.
> We use Applix for an office suite. There is some push to replace Applix
> with MS Office. I doubt that we will get rid of Solaris anytime soon,
> but we may add a Winnt server to provide MS Office. Eventually we may
> go NT. I've been thinking about playing around with Linux on
> a workstation.
>
> The main (and possibly only) reason for the change is the difficulty in
> converting Word documents. Also we have recently started collaborating
> on PowerPoint presentations. In addition, we will be increasing our use
> of GIS, particularly ArcView. ESRI seems to have abandoned Unix in
> favor of NT. In the future we may be more involved with web activity,
> possibly hosting our own web site or setting up an intranet.
>
> What I'm looking for are compelling reasons for not using MS Office and
> NT. I need answers some very non-technical managers can understand
> besides religous fervor. Some areas I've been exploring:
>
> * Cost. Upgrade cycle, maintenance, administration.
Cost is a stronger argument now, since MS is forcing corporate users to "pay
twice" for software. For instance, you buy a machine with Windows on it, and
you install one of your pre-tested images, using one of your corporate
licenses, there is no way to get a credit for the software you wiped out,
nor is there any way to buy the machine without the software on it. Also,
you may not be able to get tech support on the windows machine after you
erase the OS and software supplied by the PC vendor.
This is an issue with Linux or other OSes you may choose to install in that
you would lose the cost of the preinstalled software, but at least you
wouldn't be paying twice for the same software.
BTW, this is not just FUD; I am a licensed Microsoft system builder, and I
just got the letter in the mail myself.
> * Perfomance.
I have heard horror stories about exchange server crashing. If you plan to
do internal mail distribution, UNIX is much better. I don't use exchange
(I'm too small) but I'm sure there are plenty on this group that can
document their experiences with it.
> * MS Office's compatability issues with other suites, older versions.
> * Security, vulnerability to viruses.
Read up on the OpenHack project in e-week. I think all the articles are on
line. E-week recommends a mix of software and operating systems to provide
the best security (put your eggs in many baskets.) For web sites, and
especially sites that do e-commerce, it's OK to use NT, but don't use JUST
NT.
> * Quickly changing trends. Rise of Linux (on the desktop?), antitrust
> suit, Star Office,
How about Corel Office or WordPerfect? It's a standard windows product that
is now available for Linux and may run on other Unices. It may also handle
Word documents better than Applix, due to the long Windows rivalry. I
wouldn't use their version of Linux though.
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
If you plan to build an internet/intranet site, UNIX servers are much
better, IMO. I developed some web sites which are hosted externally (by
ISPs) and I had more problems with NT servers handling the Microsoft
FrontPage extensions than I did with UNIX servers running Apache!
As far as my own experiences go, I use Linux for web development, intranet
web sites, and for development of hardware and software. (The tools are MUCH
cheaper, and we are a VERY small company. I am willing to put up with a
little bit of instability in some applications because the OS is NEVER
affected.
My Linux machines just run and run, in spite of the fact that I play with
them constantly (adding new packages, trying new versions of programs and
desktops, etc.) My windows (98) machine is supposed to be up all the time to
receive faxes. Frequently I come back to the office after an absense of a
few days only to find that the machine has crashed, and the FAX server is
unavailable. I don't believe that if I used NT the odds of success would be
much better. My next project is to migrate the fax server to Linux.
--
Rich C.
(Posting from a different computer.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
