Linux-Advocacy Digest #143, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Computer and memory ("Chad Myers")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (David Steinberg)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (David Steinberg)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Sam Morris")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:44:29 GMT
Low Earth Orbit satellites don't experience as much of this as
high-orbit satellites do.
Teledisic www.teledesic.com is building a global LEOS network
that will provide low-latency broadband internet access globally.
Now here's an example of a company that's DOING SOMETHING to
solve a problem. Not ironically, it's an American company...
-Chad
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:18:24 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Steve Mading wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> : Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
> >> : there?
> >>
> >> It's two countries fault. If one of them (US) is unwilling to help build
> >> a better link, there isn't a damn thing the other country can do about
> >> it, whether they have the money or not.
> >>
> >> : American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
> >> : are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
> >> : the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
> >>
> >> : Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
> >> : link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
> >> : money and build them a bigger link to us?
> >>
> >> You must be speaking a strange language that is almost but not quite
> >> entirely unlike English, seing as how in your language the word "all"
> >> means something different than it does for the rest of us.
> >>
> >> : Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
> >> : it.
> >>
> >> So are you advocating that they trespass on US waters and build the whole
> >> cable themselves?
> >
> >Satellites are cheap.
>
> Unfortunately, for technical reasons mostly related to retransmission delay
> (I'd have to look up the details; I'm not expert on this stuff),
> my understanding is that satellites will not work horribly well
> for Internet (TCP/IP) transmissions. I'm not sure if this is a
> surmountable problem or not; obviously, for non-live transmissions
> it's merely a matter of mirroring, but for live transmissions, it
> could be a problem.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 16 Sep 2000 18:50:03 GMT
Roberto Alsina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: El sáb, 16 sep 2000, Chad Myers escribió:
: > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
: > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
: And why is fixing a problem a joke?
Because, in Chad's world, the standard way to deal with a problem is to
first deny it as long as possible, and then to claim that it's a
"feature."
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 16 Sep 2000 18:57:25 GMT
Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: > : Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
: > What credentials do you have that make you an authority on this subject?
: Who cares about me, Red Hat and Linus have admitted this. Do you need
: clarification on their Linux authority?
: > I'd be very interested in seeing those credentials.
: www.redhat.com would be a good place to start.
I tried searching www.redhat.com for various combinations of "inherent
design problem" with "Mindcraft", "network" and "SMP", but couldn't find
any documents that make such a claim. Could you please give a direct
reference?
Or, failing that, you could explain how this represents an inherent design
problem in Linux?
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:04:17 -0400
Sam Morris wrote:
>
> > >> > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
> > >tropical
> > >> > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred
> many
> > >> > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it
> since
> > >they
> > >> > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
> > >> >
> > >> > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
> > >> > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
> > >> > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
> > >> >
> > >> > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
> > >> > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
> > >> > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
> > >> > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
> > >> > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
> > >> > to it.
> > >>
> > >> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
> > >> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
> > >> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
> > >>
> > >> Name ..just...one.
> > >
> > >My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
> >
> > Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
> > that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
> > any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
> > weather event has occured?
>
> Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. We are quite good at
> predicting climactic change.
Then why do you have such irrational fears of it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:31:54 -0500
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |Yes. Absolutely.
> |
> |But guess what? You *CAN'T* recall a GPL'd product. The license will
not
> |allow it.
>
> The licence your customers signed wasn't the GPL. You may be able to
recall the
> software under that licence, remove the GPL'd code, and issue a "bug-fix"
update.
>
> I'd also improve your auditing procedures.
We're talking about real-world situations here. It happens. It may not
happen to me specifically, but it will probably happen to someone (and
probably already has numerous times).
It doesn't matter what license my customers have agreed to or not. The
implied useage clause of the GPL, where simply releasing GPL'd code in your
product is implicit agreement to the license makes this impossible.
> |You apparently haven't read the GPL well enough. The GPL doesn't
> |differentiate between who owns the non-GPL'd code and who doesn't. If
the
> |third party releases a product with both GPL'd and non-GPL'd code, then
the
> |GPL requires that the non-GPL'd code be released, regardless of who owns
it.
>
>
> IANAL, but my take on this follows.
>
> Did the licence you used when you sold your program permit resale?
>
> What conditions did it place on resale/distribution?
>
> If they didn't have your permission to release the source code, then
> they don't have the legal ability to agree to the GPL and you don't
> need to release your source code.
Agreeing to the GPL has nothing to do with whether you have the source code
or not. If you ship GPL'd code (with or without the source) you are
agreeing to the GPL (even if you're violating it).
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 20:27:47 +0100
> > > >> > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
> > > >tropical
> > > >> > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which
occurred
> > many
> > > >> > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it
> > since
> > > >they
> > > >> > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
> > > >> >
> > > >> > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human
processes
> > > >> > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that
human
> > > >> > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time
scale
> > > >> > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing
a
> > > >> > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
> > > >> > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
> > > >> > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to
adapt
> > > >> > to it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
> > > >> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
> > > >> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Name ..just...one.
> > > >
> > > >My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
> > >
> > > Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
> > > that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
> > > any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
> > > weather event has occured?
> >
> > Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get. We are quite good
at
> > predicting climactic change.
>
> Then why do you have such irrational fears of it.
I have no irrational fears of climactic change. I do have some quite
rational concerns that how we are affecting the climate will be detrimental
to ourselves in the long run if we continue.
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:28:02 GMT
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q0fql$nsu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : >
> : > : Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
> : > What credentials do you have that make you an authority on this subject?
> : Who cares about me, Red Hat and Linus have admitted this. Do you need
> : clarification on their Linux authority?
>
> : > I'd be very interested in seeing those credentials.
> : www.redhat.com would be a good place to start.
>
> I tried searching www.redhat.com for various combinations of "inherent
> design problem" with "Mindcraft", "network" and "SMP", but couldn't find
> any documents that make such a claim. Could you please give a direct
> reference?
>
> Or, failing that, you could explain how this represents an inherent design
> problem in Linux?
Read some of the articles on the Mindcraft debacle. You'll see that
Redhat admitted it was a problem in Linux that needed to be solved and
that they weren't going to work on fixing it.
This wasn't a bug, it was a design problem.
Linus later, in an interview, acknowledged that the Mindcraft tests showcased
some of the major flaws in Linux and that he and others (like RedHat) were
working on a solution for 2.4
-Chad
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 Sep 2000 20:01:42 GMT
The split of Microsoft as proposed by Jackson will save Microsoft.
That is proven owing to OS/2. When OS/2 was divested, the product
continued to be supported and in 1999 a kick butt OS/2 server was
released and in November of 2000 the corresponding kick butt
OS/2 client is to be released.
Microsoft, not having to support OS/2 anymore
was able to devote resources to other OS products and to
applications and OS/2 consumers still benefit from
the divestature today. There was only good and not a bit
of consumer or corporate harm caused by the OS/2 divestature.
Jackson's split is identical to OS/2's only the
current Microsoft is to divest of all and not just one of its
operating system products.
Microsoft = the application company. The operating system
company is like OS/2 and IBM.
What 65 million consumers of Win95 can expect from the split
is decades of meaningfull support of an OS product
that the current Microsoft will kill in a blaintantly anti-
consumer forced march to Win2000. The same is true for
NT workstation (which has at least as many users
as OS/2, if not more) and the 5+ other operating system
products sold by Microsoft.
There just is no downside to the Jackson splitup.
The operating system company will make its money the
same way IBM does with OS/2 - with 10 year support contracts.
The current Microsoft refuses to provide those contacts for
any of its OSes because that does not fit its criminal business
model. Jackson's split increases the size of the revenue pie
available to the MicroSplits by introducing a ligitimate income
stream involving maintenance contracts.
This OS/2 experience is likely why Maritz is out at Microsoft.
Maritz, as reported by Nasdac, was responsible for getting
Gates to divest OS/2, thereby creating the model Jackson
followed in his remedy. It is next to impossible to argue that
Jackson should have had more testimony involving remedies
after the OS/2 solution had been introduced in his court.
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/lsmonop.htm
in process of update
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 19:49:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > I guess you could write an "openfile" command that does this using
the
> > existing functionality. The reason why no one's written such a thing
is
> > more lack of interest than anyone else.
>
> Which is quite telling. But it's not a big surprise that programmers
> wouldn't be interested in helping users, even if they are
(technically,
> not mentally) users themselves.
I think that you are paranoid about programmers. You should try
programming a bit yourself---mabey then you will see the other
positions point of view.
> And writing an "openfile" command would not be sufficient for
> consistency. The shell would still treat "executable" and "non-
> executable" files in completely different ways for no justifiable
> reason whatsoever.
Look at maths for a justifiable reason:
x is a variable (like data)
+, *, d/dx, grad, etc are operators which operate on variables, like
programs operate on data.
Data and operations (data files and programs) are conceptually
different. Porgrams operate on data. Data can not do operations; it is
opperated on.
That is one justifiable reason. I'm not asking you to agree that it is
the way you want computers to work, merely that there are justifiable
reasons for it working that way. Personally, I'm from a mathematical
background (engineering) and I (as a user) prefer it to work that way.
I can also see the argument that if you have a data file and click on
it, it should be opened with an app that can make sense of it, and that
when you click on an app it opens, to await a file to operate on.
However, if you drag a data file on to a program, it opens fine. If you
drag one file on to another, what happens - there is no sense in that
operation.
> There is no conceptual reason between executing a program
> and opening a file.
Depends on your point of view.
> In both cases, the shell is ordered to process
> an object so it must 1) identify the object type, and 2) find the
> associated process.
You run in to problems with more complex processing of files. If you
have a file, say
index
and you order the shell to open it. How can the shell know whether to
open it in a viewer/editor, run it through sort, archive it or use the
list of files in it to create a CD image, compile it or execute it?
If you're in the habit of processing data, some of the above choices
would be reasonable.
> In some OSes, the creation of a process
> from a program is done through a separate server process
> and the identity between opening and execution is obvious.
Sorry, I don't follow.
> > The people who care about file
> > associations usually prefer to do this kind of thing via a GUI.
> > And the problem has been addressed at the GUI level.
>
> You wish.
I have to say that I agree. In a GUI, I and most of the people I know do
simple data manipulation: open the file in an editor, do some edits
,print it then quit. With the kind of operations done in a GUI, it
usually makes sense to have a simple assosciation. that is, until you
get DnD, but then you don't really need assosciation as much.
IME the shell is usually used for complex manipulations and having no
distinction between data and operators would be a pain.
> > Well if that's what you want, just don't close the program ( duh !
). I
> > don't see the benefit of forcing the user to leave the program open.
>
> That's because you've never heard of Persistence before.
>
> And not closing a program is *not* the same thing as having
> useful persistent process. Unix processes are designed to be
> one-off entities and Unix counts on this fact.
Why is this a bad thing? With most programs you can keep configurations
in an rc file, so all instances open with the same configuration.
> > Well yes, there is. Even a web server typically starts a seperate
process
> > for every user. There is no clear benefit to running everything in a
single
> > process.
>
> There is in running everything in a single *task*. A single input
queue for
> one.
Why should a server have a single input queue? Surely it needs to handle
multiple connections? Also, a collection of server processes could be
considered as a single task.
> And instead of creating a new process for each user you can
create
> a new thread instead. The important thing is that users don't have to
know
> anything about starting processes; whether a new process is actually
> started is an implementation detail completely invisible to the user.
How does creating a new thread and creating a new process really differ?
If necessary, processes could always share config information via a file
or shared memory or something.
> > >But this would be Design,
> >
> > Stay away from design, you are not very good at it.
>
> Considering the source ...
The problem with your design is that you are ignoring one group of
users, and providing for a different group. This is your main complaint,
but with the groups reversed.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K | Edward Rosten
Acorn DFS | Engineer and Jupiter ACE advocate
Basic | fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
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
******************************
