Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jack Troughton)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("JS/PL")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("JS/PL")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:00:54 -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Bowen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> >>
> >> > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make
> >> > claims
> >> > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably higher
> >> > than
> >> > it has been in 600k years.
> >>
> >> You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago based on
> >> experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in North
> >> America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
> >
> >You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as a
> >continent produces less CO2
> >than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world produces way
> >more than is consumed.
> >It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and elementary
> >algebra class will help
> >you understand.
> >
> >here you go Bobby 1st grader
> >place output-co2 used-co2
> >North america 5 6
> >Elsewhere 100 50
> >total 105 56
> >
> >See how math works North America outputs 5 but uses 6
> >The rest of the world outpus 100 but use 50.
> >
> >These aren't real numbers just done for illustration
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You claim half of Canada is covered with an ice sheet. Another fiction.
> >>
> >
> >Didn't say that, said in the past in one decade the ice sheet advanced
> >over it.
>
> You've said this a lot of times now, and my bullshit meter is going wild.
>
> Care to show a reference for this? Frankly, I suspect that you're
> talking through your hat and that the rest of your "science" is no
> better.
I'll look it up, going from memory.
>
> According to the Encylopedia Brittanica that fast current glaciers
> advance at as much as 25 metres a day. That's 9.125 kilometres a year.
> To advance over half of Canada (say conservatively, 1800 kilometres)
> glaciers would have to advance at roughly 200 times that fast or 5
> kilometres a day. I just find that a little hard to believe.
I should say formation and not advancement, sounds wrong.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
> bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:16:59 -0600
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Bowen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/18/2000 at 06:38 AM,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> >>
> >> > Except I didn't do that. I pointed to some facts and didn't make
> >> > claims
> >> > as fact. CFC's are man made and the CO2 level is verifiably higher
> >> > than
> >> > it has been in 600k years.
> >>
> >> You claim the CO2 level is higher now that it was 600 years ago based on
> >> experiments on artic ice. You claim that CO2 levels are higher in North
> >> America when the facts prove they are in deficit!
> >
> >You don't understand what is being discussed. North America as a
> >continent produces less CO2
> >than the plant life on it consumes. The rest of the world produces way
> >more than is consumed.
> >It is called the addtive property of numbers and perhaps and elementary
> >algebra class will help
> >you understand.
> >
> >here you go Bobby 1st grader
> >place output-co2 used-co2
> >North america 5 6
> >Elsewhere 100 50
> >total 105 56
> >
> >See how math works North America outputs 5 but uses 6
> >The rest of the world outpus 100 but use 50.
> >
> >These aren't real numbers just done for illustration
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You claim half of Canada is covered with an ice sheet. Another fiction.
> >>
> >
> >Didn't say that, said in the past in one decade the ice sheet advanced
> >over it.
>
> You've said this a lot of times now, and my bullshit meter is going wild.
>
> Care to show a reference for this? Frankly, I suspect that you're
> talking through your hat and that the rest of your "science" is no
> better.
>
I have a feeling that I'll have trouble finding that paper so I have
this. Holland in the 15th and 17th centuries routinely had the canals
freeze over. It happened one year when it wasn't happening the previous
year. Glaciers in Switzerland overtook towns, there are etchings of
it. YOu want proof of Holland look at one of the famous paintings of
some guy I can't remember ;-). Art is acutally a good keeper of records
as nobody would believe that the canals were freezing over if they were
just told it. The national academy of science has the Swiss etching
next to a photograph of the same town. I'll be honest and say that I
probably should go up a power to 100 years. In one century the Vikings
greenland colonies were lost because of the ice covering the sea. Some
of this is coming from the book The Earth System.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:24:21 GMT
FM wrote:
> Not really. Operator is also data. Programs are
> executable data. Other files can be executed, when
> specified with behavior. The problem is that you
> should give up the notion that "your" way of
> looking at things is the only way to do so.
Oh, piss off. Programs are not operators and everyone
who's bothered to give an argument (which excludes
you) sees the distinction.
And I understand now what Mawa said about the
most obnoxious assholes not programming nor
contributing anything.
>Your idea is sensible in principle, but it remains that the
>standard Unix system presents a more consistent interface
>than what I can infer from your posts the system you have in
>mind. Then there's all those compatibility problems.
I haven't put anything about serious OS design into my
posts, and Denis Ritchie himself acknowledges that Unix
is wildly inconsistent (a fact which anyone who knows
anything about OS design would never dispute). You're
a complete flake trying to pass off ignorant and incoherent
ramblings as criticism. I'd tell you to learn about OS
design before commenting (either that or basic reasoning
but I have a nagging doubt that reason is forever beyond
you) but the odds are better than 100 to 1 that you wouldn't
even know where to start.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:08:24 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 04:38:15, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
eotron.
>ca...
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 03:23:44, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I can't say why someone would need to buy a CO2 generator though, It
>> >doesn't seem cost effective for growing food. :-))
>>
>> On the other hand, most of the dope growers I know think they're great
>> ;)
>
>They still have those? Man I'm out of the loop! What's it going for per lid
>these days?
Dunno... besides, I would expect to be highly sensitive to local
market conditions; the going price here is not necessarily the going
price in BC, for example.
I mostly brought that up because I read recently that the best
marijuana is grown in Canada now. We're talking about hydroponics
here. According to the article I read, the big war is between the
growers in Manitoba and British Columbia for getting the best yields
out of their plants.
The last dope grower that I personally know stopped growing almost ten
years ago... mind you, he grew great weed, but we've all grown out of
that since quite some time. And he used a CO2 source to help it grow
faster.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:12:01 -0300
El dom, 17 sep 2000, Rev. Don Kool escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Rev. Don Kool had pity:
>> >Roberto Alsina whined:
>> >>Rev. Don Kool had the patience to explain:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >> Rev. Don Kool explained:
>> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
>> >> >> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
>
> [...snip...
>
>
>> >Good move on your part as LINUX will obviously will never pass
>> >certification as a UNIX systems.
>
>> Prove it. Or at least give a little evidence. Since it is "obvious", it should
>> be a piece of cake.
>
> Find another PC kernel that has been certified as a UNIX system.
>Since you erroneously belive that LINUX would pass with flying
>colors, this should be a piece of cake for you, my malodorous
>italian friend.
a) I am not italian.
b) I am amazed by how you smell even through the internet
c) I never said Linux would pass anything.
>> >> You said Linux would not pass. You are the one making judgement
>> >> without facts, I am the one witholding judgement.
>
>> > You are the one confusing a kernel with an OS Bob.
>
>> Oh, sorry, I meant "Conectiva Linux 5.0" which I have in my desk right
>> here. Linux for short.
>
> LINUX consists of a kernel. Hardly a UNIX operating system, my
>pasta eating friend.
So you say. Linux is often used to refer to what some call the GNU/Linux
system.
>> >> >> >> You said Linux can not pass.
>
>> >> >> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
>
>> >> >> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a fact,
>> >> >> again, you should provide *some* proof.
>
>> >> > Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
>> >> > Bob.
>
>> >> That F in logic I gave you is starting to look like a gift!
>> >>
>> >> As I said: "you should provide *some* proof". Notice that when I say "you"
>> >> It means Rev. Don Kool, not Roberto Alsina. I am not saying it would pass,
>> >> (or not) so I need not prove anything.
>
>> > You choose to erroneously call a PC kernel a UNIX system. You are
>> >the one with plenty to prove, my child.
>
>> I have made no statements of fact regarding Linux in this thread, so I have
>> nothing to prove, my logically impaired reverend.
>
> You have much to prove, my child. Manhood, maturity, personal
>hygeine, respect for your elder, knowledge of UNIX systems, etc....
Not to you in any case, my inert confrêre.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:18:01 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:00091809141100.07154@pc03...
> El dom, 17 sep 2000, Rev. Don Kool escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> Rev. Don Kool had pity:
> >> >Roberto Alsina whined:
> >> >>Rev. Don Kool had the patience to explain:
> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool explained:
> >> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
> >> >> >> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> >
> > [...snip...
> >
> >
> >> >Good move on your part as LINUX will obviously will never pass
> >> >certification as a UNIX systems.
> >
> >> Prove it. Or at least give a little evidence. Since it is "obvious", it
should
> >> be a piece of cake.
> >
> > Find another PC kernel that has been certified as a UNIX system.
> >Since you erroneously belive that LINUX would pass with flying
> >colors, this should be a piece of cake for you, my malodorous
> >italian friend.
>
> a) I am not italian.
> b) I am amazed by how you smell even through the internet
> c) I never said Linux would pass anything.
>
> >> >> You said Linux would not pass. You are the one making judgement
> >> >> without facts, I am the one witholding judgement.
> >
> >> > You are the one confusing a kernel with an OS Bob.
> >
> >> Oh, sorry, I meant "Conectiva Linux 5.0" which I have in my desk right
> >> here. Linux for short.
> >
> > LINUX consists of a kernel. Hardly a UNIX operating system, my
> >pasta eating friend.
>
> So you say. Linux is often used to refer to what some call the GNU/Linux
> system.
>
> >> >> >> >> You said Linux can not pass.
> >
> >> >> >> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
> >
> >> >> >> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a
fact,
> >> >> >> again, you should provide *some* proof.
> >
> >> >> > Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
> >> >> > Bob.
> >
> >> >> That F in logic I gave you is starting to look like a gift!
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said: "you should provide *some* proof". Notice that when I say
"you"
> >> >> It means Rev. Don Kool, not Roberto Alsina. I am not saying it would
pass,
> >> >> (or not) so I need not prove anything.
> >
> >> > You choose to erroneously call a PC kernel a UNIX system. You
are
> >> >the one with plenty to prove, my child.
> >
> >> I have made no statements of fact regarding Linux in this thread, so I
have
> >> nothing to prove, my logically impaired reverend.
> >
> > You have much to prove, my child. Manhood, maturity, personal
> >hygeine, respect for your elder, knowledge of UNIX systems, etc....
>
> Not to you in any case, my inert confrêre.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:20:28 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:00091809141100.07154@pc03...
> El dom, 17 sep 2000, Rev. Don Kool escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> Rev. Don Kool had pity:
> >> >Roberto Alsina whined:
> >> >>Rev. Don Kool had the patience to explain:
> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool explained:
> >> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
> >> >> >> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> >
> > [...snip...
> >
> >
> >> >Good move on your part as LINUX will obviously will never pass
> >> >certification as a UNIX systems.
> >
> >> Prove it. Or at least give a little evidence. Since it is "obvious", it
should
> >> be a piece of cake.
> >
> > Find another PC kernel that has been certified as a UNIX system.
> >Since you erroneously belive that LINUX would pass with flying
> >colors, this should be a piece of cake for you, my malodorous
> >italian friend.
>
> a) I am not italian.
> b) I am amazed by how you smell even through the internet
> c) I never said Linux would pass anything.
>
> >> >> You said Linux would not pass. You are the one making judgement
> >> >> without facts, I am the one witholding judgement.
> >
> >> > You are the one confusing a kernel with an OS Bob.
> >
> >> Oh, sorry, I meant "Conectiva Linux 5.0" which I have in my desk right
> >> here. Linux for short.
> >
> > LINUX consists of a kernel. Hardly a UNIX operating system, my
> >pasta eating friend.
>
> So you say. Linux is often used to refer to what some call the GNU/Linux
> system.
>
> >> >> >> >> You said Linux can not pass.
> >
> >> >> >> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
> >
> >> >> >> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a
fact,
> >> >> >> again, you should provide *some* proof.
> >
> >> >> > Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
> >> >> > Bob.
> >
> >> >> That F in logic I gave you is starting to look like a gift!
> >> >>
> >> >> As I said: "you should provide *some* proof". Notice that when I say
"you"
> >> >> It means Rev. Don Kool, not Roberto Alsina. I am not saying it would
pass,
> >> >> (or not) so I need not prove anything.
> >
> >> > You choose to erroneously call a PC kernel a UNIX system. You
are
> >> >the one with plenty to prove, my child.
> >
> >> I have made no statements of fact regarding Linux in this thread, so I
have
> >> nothing to prove, my logically impaired reverend.
> >
> > You have much to prove, my child. Manhood, maturity, personal
> >hygeine, respect for your elder, knowledge of UNIX systems, etc....
>
> Not to you in any case, my inert confrêre.
Save your breath Roberto, some people (....americans?) in this ng have a
need to feel
somewhat ( pseudo-)superior to others...:-)
/IL
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:31:58 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39c5bbf3$0$26546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Windows 2000 is not NT5. And considering that the typo "save overall
> > features" exists and could mean "lacking overall features" is somewhat
> > misleading as well as the printing of a product name which doesn't exist
> > (NT5) I assumed he meant NT4 since that IS an actual product.
> >
> > As far as anyone running Windows 2000 is concerned... the Help/About in
My
> > Computer (or by simply running "winver' at the command line) shows that
> they
> > are running "Windows 2000 Version 5.0" not NT 5. And the MS website
> > describes it as "BUILT on NT Technology" not NT 5. NT 5 is not now or
has
> > ever been a Microsoft operating system. NT 4 was the last version of NT.
>
> Gawd, this is just plain stupid. NT5 most certainly _was_ a Microsoft
> product, up until beta 2. NT5 was renamed to Windows 2000 somewhere
between
> Beta 2 and Beta 3. Win2k *is* NT5, just like Win95 was Windows 4 and
Win98
> was 4.1.
>
> Just what's the problem in saying Win2k is NT5 ?
Because it's not true. What's the problem with calling it what it says on
the package instead of a fictional name?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 12:45:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> Not really. Operator is also data. Programs are
>> executable data. Other files can be executed, when
>> specified with behavior. The problem is that you
>> should give up the notion that "your" way of
>> looking at things is the only way to do so.
>Oh, piss off. Programs are not operators and everyone
>who's bothered to give an argument (which excludes
>you) sees the distinction.
The problem of course that you CANNOT read a simple
sentence. Where did I claim that programs are operators?
>And I understand now what Mawa said about the
>most obnoxious assholes not programming nor
>contributing anything.
You're obviously the most obnoxious asshole.
>>Your idea is sensible in principle, but it remains that the
>>standard Unix system presents a more consistent interface
>>than what I can infer from your posts the system you have in
>>mind. Then there's all those compatibility problems.
>I haven't put anything about serious OS design into my
>posts,
I'm talking about the interface, of course.
>and Denis Ritchie himself acknowledges that Unix
>is wildly inconsistent (a fact which anyone who knows
>anything about OS design would never dispute).
All systems are somewhat inconsistent at some level.
Unix is NOT inconsistent at the level you criticized.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:51:57 -0400
"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that is rich.
Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in the
atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun watching you
dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:03:14 GMT
In article <Jcfx5.6246$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But he also said "-- same kernel, same overall features" which is
> > > incorrect.
> >
> > So tell us.. what differences are there between the NT 5 kernel and the
> > Windows 2000 kernel?
>
> - Plug and play hardware detection and driver loading
> - Power management (big one)
> - Tons of networking improvements in the TDI which, among other things
> allows for dynamic adapter configuration without all the reboots of
> the NT 4 implementation
> - Drastically revamped file security implementation with encryption,
> inheritance, etc (this is partially the file system, but also part of
> the kernel)
> - An even better SMP implementation than NT 4 (which has one of the
> best in the industry)
> - too many more to list here
That's right. All those things are in the NT 5 kernel, aka Win2K. Which
is exactly what Chad and Alan have been saying.
>
> > Keep in mind that they're the same product, with different names.
>
> Obviously you had no idea what the hell you're talking about, so why
> do I even bother trying to educate you?
Let's see. You're the one who can't tell the difference between NT 4 and
NT5 and you claim to have to do everyone else's reading for them?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:04:01 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Tell me....were you an outcast in high school....
Tell me....are you an outcast in high school....
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
