Linux-Advocacy Digest #496, Volume #28 Sat, 19 Aug 00 00:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: LINUX SUCKS...TRY IT FOR YOURSELF AND SEE.... (Adam Shapira)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ? (Paul Kimoto)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:33:08 -0400
From: Adam Shapira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX SUCKS...TRY IT FOR YOURSELF AND SEE....
Hey, we *need* Steve here! Wouldn't any pulp-fiction
Action-Genre comic suck without a Supervillain to give
the Superhero a challenge to overcome?
And wat Supervillain plot could you conceive of that
is more sinister than someone trying to spread
misinformation about Linux, and thereby helping the
dark SoftwareLord Micro$oft take over the world?
We need Steve, because of this:
No Steve -> No Villain
No Villain -> No Conflict
No Conflict -> No Story
therefore
No Steve -> No Story
Steve is this newsgroup's Supervillain.
TimL wrote:
> Still a pathetic loser after all this time? Amazing!!!
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So now the Lino-Nazi Police wan't to throw Maximum Linux into Treblinka
> > because it isn't accurate to the letter.
> >
> > Typical Linsux LinoNut behavior.....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And you Neo-Nazis wonder why you are losing the war and why nobody is
> > really interested in Linsux?
> >
> > Sure they try Linsux, and then they dump it... Wonder why?
> >
> > Try asking them....
> >
> > Ever wonder why Linsux is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO popular in the
> > fatherland......
> >
> > Take a good look and you will see. Just following orders mien kampf....
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:35:51 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >
> > > The renaissance, despite achievements in arts, was pretty much
> > > a very bad time to live.
> >
> > Worse than the Middle Ages?
>
> Depends on where you were in the middle ages, and what you were
> doing, I suppose. But it sure was worse than many other times.
>
Was the Renaissance better for the "average" person than the
Middle Ages?
> > >
> > > So everyone was evil.
> >
> > Someone was evil.
>
> Who?
>
Cassini (filed the original charges against Galileo), Cardinal Bellarmine
(commanded Galileo to appear before him), Pope Urban VIII (did not
intervene), and of course, the members of the Inquisition.
>
> > > > > > And why did they "perceive" it that way?
> > > > >
> > > > > Education and the reigning morality of the age, again.
> > > >
> > > > Or more precisely, the lack of such.
> > >
> > > Which one, education or morality?
> >
> > both
>
> There was education, in the sense that everyone was educated
> to act as a member of that society.
> There was a morality, you
> would be hard pressed to find a society that cared more about
> the subject (and no, it was not our morality).
>
> > > >
> > > > Thucydides might disagree.
> > >
> > > Of course. He was doing history in HIS modern sense. He was
> > > modern ;-) I meant, of course, in OUR modern sense.
> >
> > Thucydides was pretty objective.
>
> Haven't read him, I must confess.
>
I haven't, either, but that's what I've heard of Thucydides. His basic
thesis was that Athens had lost the Pelopennesian Wars because
its people had been too proud.
> > > > We started this off discussing the Holocaust, not World War II.
> > > > You said that the ethics of the Holocaust (not WWII) were complex,
> > > > and that is what I challenged.
> > >
> > > WWII is a thing that affects the holocaust. Everyone fighting on WWII
> > > had effects in the holocaust, and thus have a ethical link to it.
> > > I am just providing an example where you can appreciate the complexity.
> > > Of course other examples are way more trivial.
> >
> > I was speaking of those directly involved with the camps. Those fighting
> > elsewhere may have had more suble effects.
>
> Ok, where do you draw the line? Someone who was a guard at the gate, and
> only a guard at the gate, is he in or is he out?
>
I wouldn't draw a line, but instead say that the blame diminishes as distance
(both in miles and authority) increase. The gate guard has some blame.
Rudolf Hoess (the commandant at Auschwitz, not to be confused with Rudolf
Hess) and of course Hitler and Himmler also deserve some balme.
> >
> > OK. Let's take your 16-year on the Eastern Front in 1944.
> > Also, let's have him in a regular military unit as opposed
> > to an extermination squad (the Germans had such groups
> > advance into the Soviet Union).
> >
> > Some questions:
> >
> > Were you thinking about the moral status of his actions
> > with respect to the camps? That is, does he bear some
> > responsibility for the camps because he helped defend
> > them (with the rest of the German holdings) from the
> > Allies?
>
> He has some responsability, indeed. He has some things
> to defend himself, too.
>
> > In this case, I would say that the assignment/nonassignment
> > of blame to the soldier is not trivial.
>
> Cool, we agree :-)
>
> > However, this does not
> > complexify the moral issues of the Holocaust itself.
>
> There is a core part of the holocaust issue where noone
> can argue. Was Mengele evil? According to any reference
> frame I care about, he was.
>
> There is a part that is arguable, though, as the example
> above.
>
> Another example: for a orthodox jew, the holocaust is in
> itself a terrible dilemma, because god is doing something
> terrible to his chosen people. This is so painful and
> confusing that you end with arguments as the one given by
> a rabbi a few days ago, that the holocaus was some sort
> of karmatic punishment.
>
As an atheist, I wasn't considering it from that angle.
> >
> > The prosecution of the war may have permitted the extermination, but
> > how does it affect the moral status of death camps? True, if the camps
> > had reflected military necessity, such necessity might mitigate the moral
> > condemnation. However, the camps served no military purpose, and
> > did not help Germany in the war. So how does the war affect the moral
> > status of the camp?
>
> Because the people who ordered one ordered the other. They are two
> actions
> of the same actor, that affect each other. I have some trouble with one
> thing, which is whether the number of victims matters. Would camps that
> killed 1M instead of 6M be any better? 100K? 20K? 20? 1?
>
I would say yes, as those who would have been spared are valuable.
>
> If we say number doesn't matter, then the holocaust is trivial, because
> there were hundreds of things like it. If the number matters, then
> continuing the war does matter, because it increased the number.
>
But now you are on the moral staus of WWII, which is a different
question. Even though the events were causally related, their
moral status might be (partly) encapsulable (?).
>
> I am personally not decided yet.
>
The ethics of continuing a war are somewhat different, but I
would blame the Germans for starting it, and the British and
French for not opposing Hitler sooner.
> > >
> > > You asked "is it moral to be wrong?" and later modified it as
> > > (paraphrasing) "is it moral to be wrong when you can see facts that show
> > > you are wrong?".
> > >
> > > Well, it depends on what those facts are. If the nazis were winning WWII
> > > in 1940, and we knew for a fact that they would win even if the US
> > > joined
> > > the allieds, would it be moral for the US to join the other side?
> >
> > No.
>
> So, sometimes it's moral to be wrong :-)
>
But the US wasn't claiming that Germany would lose, so how were
they wrong? Although it might be wrong to fight an unwinnable war.
> >
> > Inquiry is usually better when there are actual objects about
> > which to inquire, as opposed to mere mythological constructs.
>
> Well, when dealing with abstractions, inquiry is all you have :-)
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:45:07 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ack! COBOL is *TOOOOOOOO**** close to human language!
>
> The least economical and most "chatty" computer programming language I have
> yet encounterd and we used to have to write the program up on coding sheets
> and then punch it into the cards. Using such a slow and uneconomical entry
> method on the most verbose language, what a combination!
>
> Which is why so many COBOL programs of the time were written with so many
> line appearing to have been made from a standard mold. To speed up punch
> time I and others would write the program like this so that we could let the
> keypunch machines duplicate a supply of prepunched cards and we would use
> them to assemble our decks. For statements that had too many element the
> same to puch by hand and to many elements uniq to prepunch. I used to
> duplicate what I could and the using the programming drum would use those
> semi-prepunched cards in the hopper, the keypunch would the skip the
> standard part of the card and all I would have to puch in was the unique
> part.
>
> For example:
>
> 05 FILLER PICTURE IS X
>
> would be the prepunched section and all I would have to punch was what
> followed the X as in:
>
> 05 FILLER PICTURE IS X(5).
>
> If it needed a value clause, the period left off and the next card in the
> deck would contain:
>
> VALUE IS SPACES.
>
> or what ever the value was. That also came from a semi prepunched set of
> card containing:
>
> VALUE IS
So COBOL encourages code reuse?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: rpm 4 ? gcc 2.96 ? What gives ?
Date: 18 Aug 2000 23:47:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I noticed that on the redhat beta site, there's RPM 4, and gcc 2.96. But
> these aren't available anywhere else. Is this a new version of gcc that
> the gcc maintainers don't know about ?
The next version of gcc (which may be called "3.*") is being developed
under the number 2.96:
$ gcc-2.96 -v
Reading specs from /home/florizel/kimoto/builds/gcc-2.96/gcc/specs
gcc version 2.96 20000807 (experimental)
> I'd like
> to get hold of a newer gcc, because 2.95 is having fits ( internal
> compiler errors ) with some of my C++ code
My impression is that the gcc maintainers don't think that the development
version is anywhere near ready for release. Try perusing the gcc and
gcc-bugs mailing list archives: http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html.
--
Paul Kimoto
Disclaimer: Other than explicit citations of URLs, hyperlinks appearing
in this article have been inserted without the permission of the author.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:52:06 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:52:26 -0400,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Perry Pip wrote:
> >
> >
> >And how many were there in the original Transcontinental Railroad.
> >I thought they went through Wyoming instead of Colorado to avoid
> >the high Rockies.
>
> Soemthing like 14 but it really doesn't matter. First of all,
> railroads back east in the mountains were built across the best
> possible passes as well, not the highest mountains. Secondly, it is
> not simply a matter that one terrain is more difficult than another
> (which it is), but also the fact that the terrains are radically
> different. For example in the east you might build a bridge accross a
> river. To do that you have to build peirs into the banks and under the
> water in a terrain that consisted of soil and mud with underlying
> granite. In the west you might build a bridge across a canyon. To do
> that you have to build peirs into steeply sloped canyon walls made of
> sedimentary rock so soft an experienced rock climber wouldn't want to
> brave it. To deny that building the transcontinentals were engineering
> accomplishments that were the first of their kind is utterly naive of
> what really goes into civil engineering.
Was is so different from previous practice that no private firm would
have done it?
>
>
> >Also, we made the Gadsden purchase to build a route that would
> >avoid such mountains altogether.
>
> Irrelevent. That was for a Southern route. And even after the purchase
> in 1853, no private investor was willing to do it. Have you driven
> I-10 from West Texas to L.A., say in the month of July?? West Texas to
> this day is one of the most sparsely populated areas in the lower
> 48. I can see why no one back then would have wanted to build a
> railroad across such a grueling area.
>
> >> It would have slowed it. The opening of the West provided a wealth of
> >> raw materials to the industries in the East and industrial products to
> >> people in the West. A winner all the way around.
> >>
> >
> >But if there were sufficient raw materials to justify a railroad, then why
> >wouldn't a private firm do it?
>
> This is really getting boring, Colin. You have asked this question at
> least half a dozen times now and I keep giving you the same very simple
> and obvious answer. Private companies did not want make the required
> up front investments in technology and infrastructure. Once those
> investments were assisted through Government subsidies, it then became
> viable for private companies to develop those resources.
I'm not posting this for your entertainment. If private companies would
not have made that investment, should the government have done so?
>
>
> >>
> >> >but the
> >> >resources that were used by the government could have been
> >> >directed elsewhere,
> >>
> >> You have failed to show that it could have been to similar benefit.
> >>
> >
> >People might have been more or less productive with them.
> >Hard to tell.
>
> You haven't made one practical suggestion on what could have
> alternatively been done that could have had as much benefit as the
> transcontinentals.
Railroads in more populated areas, for one.
>
>
> Perry
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:52:54 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> > Let me guess. You are a Linux fanatic. You hide it so well. I'm
just
> >> > waiting for one of you psycho Line folks like Kulkis to mount a
grassy
> >knoll
> >> > outside the Redmond campus and REALLY stand up for your cause. Then
the
> >>
> >> Don't tempt me. Gates has destroyed so many lives that he has
> >> sacrificed any right to his own.
> >
> >Are you saying you are tempted to kill someone, namely Bill Gates? Please
> >expound on the threat. Who do you want to kill?
>
> Personally, I'd probably want to kill JS/PL, first. I want to kill
> JS/PL. Did you get that? Would you like me to repeat it?
>
> Hahahaha. :-) I'm with Aaron, actually. If someone took out Bill
> Gates, the only ethical considerations I would worry about is whether it
> might have the tendency to make that lying cheating despicable bastard
> (or "poor man", alternately) some sort of martyr.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
I have notified your ISP nbn.net and newsfeeds.com. Monday I will contact
the Pennsylvania Attorney General. I do not take death threats very lightly.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:52:42 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
> >
> >Now what did I say the earn a reply with that tone from him?
>
> Well, you insulted his integrity, obviously. Whether it is deserved or
> not is the question, and you're not making points by denying that you
> believed there was reason to do so.
>
> >That alone speaks volumes about the future of Linux, if he is a true
example
> >of the current developers of the big Linux projects.
>
> No, it doesn't. And saying so repeats the ad hominem (circumstantial)
> attack of which he as accused you.
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.htm
I was referring to his wording of what I could go and do to myself, which is
the same sort of language that he has used on me before, when I never have
used any language of that sort with him or anyone and have tried behave as a
reasonable and respectable person at all times. I interpret his use of that
phrase as additional proof of his lack respect that I was referring to
earlier in this thread.
I think that strongest languague that I have ever used on-line was "idiot"
and that was not used in relation to Roberto in anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 19 Aug 2000 03:59:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nkri5$c6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nkkv7$are$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nk80v$v1c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp
>
>Is this URL currently functional for you? I tried it a couple of times
>but by wbe browser died on it each time.
^^^ --> ?
Yes. It works fine with my browser. What browser
are you using? Also, did you try the index page's
search engine?
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:57:23 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> So COBOL encourages code reuse?
On its own, no. With a Model 29 Keypunch and deadlines, it is mandatory.
;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 19 Aug 2000 04:07:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8nkri7$c6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 14:05:43 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
8<SNIP>8
>> >have less right or even no right to state their concerns over the
>> >future
>of
>> >the OS, as opposed to the desires of those who have never used Linux.
>>
>> Where does he say this ? Can you give us a quote or a deja URL ? I
>> believe you are misrepresenting him.
>
>Read back this thread and the "Why my company will NOT use Linux"
>thread.
>
>Here are a few choice fibers from the threads:
===== quote
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nathaniel Jay Lee escribió:
>>
>> > I don't want to see it become a Windows clone. You say it won't
>> > be, or if it is I can just fork it. What if neither of those
>> > options sounds good to me (either use the clone, or fork the code)?
>>
>> Let's put it this way: if linux somehow did become a windows clone
>> (as unlikely as that is), and you didn't find it "good" to fork,
>> why should you be provided a free OS by those who spend money and/or
>> effort creating one?
>>
>> Quid pro quo, sir. You HAVE been provided a OS for free. Now you
>> use it or you don't. You improve it or you don't. You influence its
>> development or you don't. And that's all there is.
===== quote
>After that post of Roberto's I emailed him suggesting that he should use
>caution with the assumption of the lack of contribution by members of
>the Linux community to the community. Even if he is not familiar the
Personally, I don't see any problem with his
statements. Frankly, I do think that most
of the members of the Linux community are
simply riding on coattails, and not contributing
much or anyting at all. I say this, only because
it is what I have experienced when I was a Linux
user.
8<SNIP>8
But look, this quarreling is serving nobody. I
for one can understand why some OSS developers
have an axe to grind concerning their users,
and I think that telling them that they must
be civil to people who either don't contribute,
or don't care about the project is going way
too far.
But this is just my opinion.
--
.-----.
|[_] | 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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
