Linux-Advocacy Digest #728, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451786.r47hj^.0000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Gary
Hallock)
porting unix/win software to linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: porting unix/win software to linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but... ("Todd")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Todd")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says (Roberto
Alsina)
Whats a good starting point? ("Kevin Wandtke")
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war ("Kevin Wandtke")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451786.r47hj^.0000001
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:13:52 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
fact that he likes to "hear" himself, and keeps talking about how I've
allegedly ignored his evidence, yet he hasn't presented any (indeed, he's so
intent on using "parrot" mode that he's made several ridiculous claims).
He's also ignored the evidence for his reading comprehension problem (and
uses "parrot" mode to talk about some nonexistent evidence for my alleged
reading comprehension problem). Nor did he explain who "Slava" is. Typical.
The digest improper:
[Wake me when Tholen says something that rises above the less-than-mundane!]
Thanks!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:16:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8off6l$f3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:sjGq5.21102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > No, I did not know programs can exist without computer storage.
>
> There have been computers that have a series of SPST or SPDT toggle
switches
> to provide the bits for the processors word size another series of toggle
> switches to provide the bits for the address bus. As well as a few
switches
> to control the processor's operating mode, such as run or pause, and a few
> SPST or SPDT push button switches for thing like execute and load. In
> general there were light, often light emitting diodes that corresponded to
> the address and data toggles as well as a few statue lights.
>
> While the processor was in pause mode, you could set the toggles into
their
> on or off positions to represent 1 and 0 bits. To bootstrap such a
> computer, since they most often did not have ROMs, you would toggle in the
> bootstrap loader program a byte at a time and writing it to the RAM by
> pushing the load (or write push button switch) when the address and data
> toggles are correctly set for that byte of the program. In some cases
> entire operating systems or other software was entered this way.
>
> With many of these systems you could also set the data toggles to the next
> byte/word of the program and press the execute push button switch without
> having to enter the byte into the computer's memory first or ever.
>
> Have you not ever encountered or heard of any of these system?
Of course. But how is the persistent state of a swich interestingly
different than storage? Or in other words, how is this computational model
significantly different than a Turing machine? (Hint: it isn't)
My statement (that storage defines the programs) is provably true. All
computation, and in fact all processes (even biological processes) can be
showed to map to what a Turing Machine can do. And the programs of a Turing
machine are defined by the tape (storage). So I can change the
implementation, and I can build radically different machines as I aim for
performance, but as long as I am doing computation, I am just building
different versions of a Turing Machine.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 08:16:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Mike Marion wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> > It is a funny segment, but I hope you don't take it seriously. It is
> > obviously staged.
>
> I wouldn't say it's staged. Heavily edited to mostly show the moronic
> answers, since they get the laughs... but not staged per se.
It may not be staged in the sense of the people being given a script. But
the people know what the segment is about and know that they are expected to
give a dumb answer. They also know that dumb anwsers will likely give them
their 15 minutes (or in this case, a few seconds) or fame.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: porting unix/win software to linux
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:10:06 GMT
Are there any good books that describe the process to port unix/win
code to linux? I am thinking of buying 'Porting UNIX software -
O'Reilly' but I am not sure it will cover porting windows software.
Any information will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Chris Snow
Can replies please be cc'd to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: porting unix/win software to linux
Date: 29 Aug 2000 08:51:43 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Are there any good books that describe the process to port unix/win
> code to linux? I am thinking of buying 'Porting UNIX software -
> O'Reilly' but I am not sure it will cover porting windows software.
There's a world of difference. Porting UNIX software usually just means
changing non-POSIX code to POSIX code. Then the same code will
compile/run on Linux and non-Linux POSIX-compatible systems.
Marketing literature to the contrary, the win32 environment is not
really POSIX, so you're talking about a whole different and more
difficult problem.
> Can replies please be cc'd to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure, as long as followups go to the newsgroup.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but...
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:58:56 +0800
You've hit on the reason VB is so popular. It is very easy to make fairly
advanced apps. in no time. (Not to say chat is advanced.)
I myself have never wanted to learn VB because I'm just principally against
code a 'real' app. or system in VB. Yet all of my co-IT-workers swear by
it. I prefer rock-bottom C coding myself. Although I do most of my
programming in ASP/SQL/DHTML/Javascript/COM. Hmmmm...
I'm now checking out C#, MS' new language that is supposedly a competitor to
Java. The good news is that it is a true standard, ie. they have submitted
specs. to W3C. And MS has no license on C# either, so anybody can create
their own version for free if they want and/or sell it too commercially.
This is unlike Java where Sun controls it 100%.
C# looks very interesting. MS knows what they are doing on this one. Very
impressive at first glance.
I'm sure some Linux/Windows guru is gonna have a Linux port soon :)
-Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oeufu$h35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sorry, this is probably geared more towards the programmers in this
> newsgroup, but I have a question:
>
> They're making me take VB 6 as part of my studies at school. Me and one
> of the instructors were a little bored so we downloaded some sample VB
> code that sets up a server and client chat program.
>
> Took us about 15 minutes to get it working, and there was probably less
> than 100 lines of code (error handling included), and after a few
> minutes, we were already playing around with the data we were sending
> back and worth (not just text messages but modifications and function
> outputs using the text messages as input, etc.). Real easy stuff. The
> basis for the chat program is the use of the Microsoft Winsock control,
> which probably has its limitations etc. etc. but I had to say I was
> impressed with how quickly we could have started something big based on
> this one control.
>
> In my spare time I'm trying to learn GTK+ programming, and I was
> wondering if there was anything comparable to this sort of control
> available for Linux programmers? A bonobo component, maybe?
>
> Methods were: Accept, Bind, Close, Connect, GetData, Listen, PeekData,
> SendData
>
> Properties were: BytesReceived, Index, LocalHostName, LocalIP,
> LocalPort, Name, Object, Parent, Protocol, RemoteHostName, RemoteIP,
> RemotePort, SocketHandle, State, Tag
>
> Don't know if it inherits from a different class or anything like that.
>
> (ps: I know some of those properties wouldn't be present in a linux
> implementation, I just included them for the hell of it...)
>
> -ws
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:08:31 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]I figure I'll come out ahead as long as I'm honest[...]
You have proven here several times that you are not honest.
So, you will not come out ahead.
Thanks for playing.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:09:58 +0800
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jen wrote:
> >
> > On 22 Aug 2000 16:46:42 -0700, petilon
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Many MS supporters opposed the idea of NCs
> >
> > Not to mention the buying public. Just ask Larry.
>
>
> The MS supporters prefer to keep handing over their $$$
> to get their hands on "the only(sic) operating system
> designed just for you and your home PC."
>
> http://shop.microsoft.com/product/windows/msline.htm
>
> $289 for Windows ME...
Actually, Windows ME is going to sell for $209 retail price for the full OS
license (not an upgrade). This is not the street price which will be lower.
Also, upgrades from 98 will only be $59. That ain't much.
>
> ...that's MORE EXPENSIVE than Windows 2000 Professional.
Windows 2000 is just under $300 for the full OS license.
> I don't want to get overly cynical here[1] but it seems to
> me like this is a marketing excercise to find out just how
> ignorant/gullible the "buying public" really is.
I think it is pretty incredible what $209 will buy you these days. I mean,
consider what you are getting.
It is a complete OS that works with a myriad of different PC configs. with
zillions of different hardware devices. It has the best multimedia API out
there (DirectX -- not just Direct3D, but DDraw, DPlay, DMusic, DSound,
etc.), movie editing capabilities included, the arguably best Media player,
the best web browser, built-in home networking, the list just goes on and
on.
Consider that a long time ago you payed a lot of money just for DOS. And
money back then was worth more.
Personally, I think Windows ME is worth the money. No, it isn't the best OS
in terms of stability, but that's not the way it's marketed by MS either.
It does allow me to get more done than any other OS out there for what I
need to do. And, that's what makes the price worth it.
Yes, Linux is probably more stable for what Linux does, but I've seen Linux
crash trying to run Quake and Netscape. I'm talking the OS crashed
completely.
Windows ME is a lot more stable than 98 in my usage so far. (I'm a MSDN
member and have already received the gold code).
Finally, I use Windows 2000 more than ME for almost everything now, and 2000
is a couple magnitudes better than ME for almost everything. I definitely
prefer 2000 over any version/distribution of Linux.
But then again, I prefer HP-UX over Linux too :)
-Todd
>
>
> --
> <\___/>
> / O O \
> \_____/ FTB.
>
> [1] I'm sure that this *must* be more that Windows 98 with a
> copy of the latest Windows Media Player added.... right?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:13:07 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >
> >I have decided to post a second reply to this message.
> >Sorry for the poor netiquette, but this one is really
> >much better. I should supercede the other, but I lost
> >the ID.
> >
> >[snip]
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Oh, right. Just because what you said is not true, it's no reason
> >> >to retract. How nice.
> >>
> >> Just because you claim it is not true is not reason for me to retract
> >> it. I notice you're not actually able to provide any reason for me to
> >> actually believe it is not true.
> >
> >Oh, Max, but I AM able to provide reasons for you to believe what
> >you said is not true: YOU SAID IT WAS NOT TRUE!
>
> In various contexts, I say a lot of things.
Oh, yes.
> You have to understand what I'm trying to say, not just what I'm saying.
If you can't say what you want to say, correct yourself instead of
lying.
> That's the bitch of
> natural language, you see. Whether KDE is "a *commercial*" development
> project is still a debatable issue,
No, it is not debatable. It could be debatable, if you could
show even the slightest reason why it could be considered
one. Until then, it is only debatable in the stupid way
things are debatable.
> despite the tenuous potential links
> between KDE, TT, and QT, and all other software and producers and things
> on the planet. But it isn't true in the way that I meant when I first
> said it was true, that is true.
And you knew it, and you saw no reason to retract. That's why you are
a liar, Max. Being wrong is ok. Being wrong, knowing it and not
retracting makes you a liar. Or in your case, a foolish liar.
> >Allow me here to go back to what exactly Max and I are writing about.
> >
> >Max had said:
> >
> >"Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project."
Now here Max deleted the place where I show him to be a lying
fool:
> [...]
>
> I was wrong about that, Roberto, I'm sorry. My apologies, sincerely, if
> you took any offense, or if it caused you any other undue difficulties.
Cool. Nice of you to finally come out and accept you are a liar.
Now you are an appologizing liar.
Next: apologize for calling me a whore.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Kevin Wandtke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Kevin Wandtke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:34:40 GMT
OK.. I'm a Windows guy.. been using it for years. I'm also a Netware admin
type ... been doing that for years too.. I've played around with Unix/Linux
a little .. I understand the advantages .. now I want to get into it. I'm
not trying to become a "shun a gui, purest, nuts & bolts guru" type .. just
somebody who can use Linux comfortably on a desktop ... then we'll see about
moving into the server world.
That said hat distro's do you guys recommend? I did dl Corel's latest and
was very impressed by the install.. I've been telling people I know that
Widows never installed that easy.. which surprised me since you read about
one of the "weaknesses" of Linux is that it's so hard to setup. Anyway, is
Corel a "good" place to start? What about Calera's which I hear about a lot?
I also have Red Hat 6.2 . Keep in mind ... I'm coming at this from a
Windows point of view ... I'm trying to learn to be a simple user first..
you know ,, walk then run. My first job is to do everything on my Linux box
(an older Dell 233MHz) that I do on my Win98 Compaq .. Internet, email,
burn CD's,finance (quicken) , taxes, scanning and basic office suite. If I
could handle my wife's program that creates cross stitch patterns I'd dump
Win98 on the Compaq in a heartbeat... well at least re-configure it as the
smaller of a dual boot system maybe.
So where does a guy start?
Kevin Wandtke
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Kevin Wandtke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Kevin Wandtke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:51:17 GMT
> If Linux must gain some grounds over Windows, it'll have to be totally
> transparent to the average Windows user. I don't think the avereage
Windows
> user will ever migrate to Linux otherwise. All Linux users, even people
like
> me who started from scatch with no Unix or Linux experience whatsoever, is
> definitely NOT the average Windows user. There's room for everyone, and
> distributions targeted at more interested users will always be around. But
> let's not be selfish. I think even the average Joe deserves to use Linux.
> Even if we have to make a totally transparent Linux version just for him.
>
>
I think you have a valid point.. but keep in mind that users, and by that I
mean the corporate and home users by the bazillion don't run Windows, or
Linux, or OS/2 or VM .. they run applications. What user do you know (see
my definition above.. not one of your buddies) has ever installed Windows?
.. none.... 99.5% get it on a pre-configured machine ... so why do we carry
on about how much easier Linux is to install? The thing holding back Linux
(imho) is that my wife loves her program that lets her scan a picture and
convert it to a cross stitch pattern... OK .. I installed the scanner..
which was pretty easy (USB plug in & load the CD) .. she installed the
program .. load the cd and click OK .. how hard is that? Applications
gentlefolk's is what is needed to establish Linux on the desktop as
something other than a "hobby" system.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:49:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> > >
> > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But the USA is the only country where the leftists
have committed
> > > > > > > > > to causing societal collapse from within. If the US
is weakened,
> > > > > > > > > the rest of the world is easily blackmailed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What exactly are you talking about? The more "leftist"
countries, on
> > > > > > > > average, have lower poverty rates and better educational
systems than we
> > > > > > > > do. How do you account for this? Do they simply have
fewer of these
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The leftists in THIS country are in collaboration with the
leftists
> > > > > > > in the other countries. The overall goal is to weaken the
US relative
> > > > > > > to the other countries, so that the US will become even
weaker than
> > > > > > > them. Simply put...a large percentage of the education
establishment
> > > > > > > should be put on trial for treason.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you not have a brain capable of figuring this out
yourself?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron, are you claiming that there is a conspiracy between
school
> > > > > > teachers in the US, and, say, the french education minister,
to
> > > > > > make the french students superior to the US ones?
> > > > >
> > > > > The NEA leadership is overrun with Marxists.
> > > >
> > > > What's the NEA?
> > >
> > > National Education Association, the leftist union that controls
the
> > > teaching establishment.
> >
> > Then you have not answered my question.
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink....
Ok, you got the ad hominem out of your system.
Can you answer my question now?
Even if the NEA was a nest of marxists, that would not
be proof of the conspiracy, because for a conspiracy
you need at least two parts, and you need to show
them communicating.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
