Linux-Advocacy Digest #257, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 05:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Peter Ammon)
Re: Newbie question: Setting up RAID 1 and RAID5 (moonie;))
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
hypocritical Unix apologists (Richard)
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (D. Spider)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (D. Spider)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (FM)
Re: angry programmers (Richard)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:33:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon wrote:
>
> > dc wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:05:05 -0500, Mayor Of R'lyeh
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
> > > >>> realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
> > > >>
> > > >>Yes, frankly, I do.
> > >
> > > LOL! Apparently I missed this the first time around. C'mon
> > > Peter...think about it. That's a riot!
> >
> > You can't argue with facts.
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/starringapple.html
> >
> > "It’s sometimes as easy as the director saying, ‘It has to be a Mac, and
> > we can’t use anything else.’ That happens a lot.”
>
> I can't argue with someone who uses Apple propaganda as "facts". Get another
> source that claims the same thing and you win some credibility.
>
Do you want quotes from movie producers, maybe? Here's a few from
Michael Crichton, producer of Sphere, Twister, etc.
"...it was immediately clear that the Mac was a better computer in every way."
"...the real reason I prefer Macs is because they stimulate my
creativity more than other machines."
"I am certainly aware that my experience using a Mac has been
incorporated in my writing — sometimes very directly."
So Michael says that he prefers Macs, and that he incorporates them into
his work. His decision, based on his personal preference...not Apple's dollars.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: moonie;) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Newbie question: Setting up RAID 1 and RAID5
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 01:52:03 -0400
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, J Sloan wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Hi, Linux Gurus!!
>>
>> I am a Linux newbie. I am trying to learn the concept of
>> RAID system. Can someone tell me the step-by-step procedure
>> on setting up a RAID 1 and RAID 5 system, please.
>>
>> Once I have installed another diskdrive, formatted and
>> partitioned it, I don't know what to do next!
>> Maybe, you can tell me the URL of the site or share what
>> you did when you setup your RAID system.
>
>http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO.html
>
>told me all I needed to set up raid on Red Hat 6.2 servers
>
>(This may even be on your Linux system in /usr/doc/HOWTO)
>
>jjs
As a side note, RAID 5 requires at least 3 drives.
--
moonie ;)
Registered Linux User #175104
http://counter.li.org
KDE2
Kernel 2.4.0-test5
XFree86 4.0 Nvidia .94 drivers
RAID 0 Striped
Test-Pilots-R-Us ;)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 22 Sep 2000 05:59:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Bob Hauck wrote:
:> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:39:41 GMT, Chad Myers
:> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> >How about if a foreign telco company bought out some
:> >of our major infrastructure companies.
:>
:> Scottish Power recently bought Pacificorp. Pacificorp provides
:> electricity to several western states, including California.
: Uh oh. I can see it now. The damn meter reader's gonna be wearing a
: kilt. I guess that'll make it more fun for my dog :-)
"Scotty! Give me a status report on those L.A. brownouts!"
"Cap'n, We're givin' ya all she's go'. She canna take no more!
If we keep this up much longer, she's gonna blow."
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:08:53 GMT
FM wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I object to the title of this post. DOn't know about you, but I haven't
> >heard of any notable Linux developer by the name of "FM".
I probably should've titled it as "angry Linuxers" then. (*)
> Of course not, since I'm not a software developer.
> I also don't go by FM in the real world.
And you claim that one needs to have programmed in
order to know anything worthwhile about design?
What a hypocritical son of a bitch!
If you're going to insist on credential X (no matter
how idiotic it is) then make sure you have it asshole!
You are such a completely useless flake.
*: this doesn't invalidate my accusations against
programmers but it makes proving them much more
complex (possibly beyond any USENET discussion) as
it forces socio-politics into the subject domain.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 22 Sep 2000 06:01:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Both. What I wanted to say is that they are rude with anyone who comes
: in and posts in all-lowercase, bizarre encodings and such. They are
: very strict when it comes to following and enforcing RFC 1036 and
: common conventions such as "there's no space between punctuation and
: the word it belongs to".
That's weird because some punctuation clearly doesn't "belong" to
any word. A comma, for example is a separator that belongs between
the words. It's simply an arbitrary rule that says it gets attached
to the preceeding word, it's not that it "belongs" to that word.
------------------------------
From: D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:24:20 -0400
It appears that on Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:14:08 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <8qasqn$im1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith) wrote:
>
>> Really? Which ones were those that came with the source code?
>
>IBSYS, SCOPE, SOS, MTS, OS/360, CP/67, TSS/360 and many more. Several of
>these had fixes distributed only in source form; you had to reassemble
>in order to install the fix.
>
>--
Don't forget CPM.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:30:53 GMT
Peter Ammon wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Peter Ammon wrote:
> >
> > > dc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 11:05:05 -0500, Mayor Of R'lyeh
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>> Also the movies are a business not an Apple welfare office. Do you
> > > > >>> realy think that if Compaq made a better offer they'd turn them down?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Yes, frankly, I do.
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Apparently I missed this the first time around. C'mon
> > > > Peter...think about it. That's a riot!
> > >
> > > You can't argue with facts.
> > >
> > > http://www.apple.com/hotnews/features/starringapple.html
> > >
> > > "It’s sometimes as easy as the director saying, ‘It has to be a Mac, and
> > > we can’t use anything else.’ That happens a lot.”
> >
> > I can't argue with someone who uses Apple propaganda as "facts". Get another
> > source that claims the same thing and you win some credibility.
>
> Do you want quotes from movie producers, maybe? Here's a few from
> Michael Crichton, producer of Sphere, Twister, etc.
>
> "...it was immediately clear that the Mac was a better computer in every way."
> "...the real reason I prefer Macs is because they stimulate my
> creativity more than other machines."
> "I am certainly aware that my experience using a Mac has been
> incorporated in my writing — sometimes very directly."
>
> So Michael says that he prefers Macs, and that he incorporates them into
> his work. His decision, based on his personal preference...not Apple's dollars.
Cite the source Peter...
Crichton makes his living thes days from movies. And maybe from his dinner
companion, Steve Jobs.
Mike Byrns
Microsoft Windows Software Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 02:30:16 -0400
It appears that on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:19:51 -0300, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> For most early-era operating systems, there was not much of a
>>> difference between binary and source code.
>>
>>Have you ever written anything in machine language. The difference
>>between machine language and even a primitive assembler is HUGE.
>
>Z80 machine language inserted in a REM statement in a Sinclair 1000
>(ZX81 clone) counts?
Hahah you too? I did the same thing, well, not on the 1000, but on the
related Timex/Sinclairs, the 2068 in particular.
I also did some (very small) programs in 8086 machine code, via DOS
debug, much later. Pain in the butt to do it that way, but of course
there just isn't any way to do something faster or in less space.
>
>Usually we just did the asm in paper, then converted to opcodes (by memory
>after a few months of practice ;-) on paper, then injected the opcodes through
>diverse misterious mechanisms, usually involving a self modifying BASIC
>program :-)
>
>Even the most rudimentary asm would, indeed have cut development time
>by 10 or so.
Yep. Of course, it would also add some overhead. Remember, Assembler
was the first *high level* language ;^)
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: 22 Sep 2000 06:26:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> Of course not, since I'm not a software developer.
>> I also don't go by FM in the real world.
>And you claim that one needs to have programmed in
>order to know anything worthwhile about design?
>What a hypocritical son of a bitch!
And you complain about personal attacks. One needs
not be a software developer in order to have had
experience in programming. Nor have I claimed that
programming is a necessary prerequisite for one to
understand design. But when a person clearly shows
the lack of understanding of a particular design
and doesn't seem to know what design really means,
you've got to question whether this person has
experience in programming. The amount of math
required in programming is minimal, but when a guy
is showing complete inability to understand
abstract concepts, you can often attribute that to
the lack of basic mathematical skills.
>If you're going to insist on credential X (no matter
>how idiotic it is) then make sure you have it asshole!
>You are such a completely useless flake.
LOL.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 06:55:18 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Technical and objective facts ???
>
> Just trying to "objectively" define whether an individual meets
> the above criteria is a non trivial task.
Hey, I didn't say it was an easy subject, just that it was objective.
Physics is that way too.
> (1) is possibly true if the programmer is isolated from their users.
> 2,3, and 4 very improbable if the programmer is isolated from their
> users.
On the contrary, projection increases with lack of knowledge of the
target. Programmers would be more projective, not less, the more they
are isolated from users. I don't know about reversal though, it seems
like it's independent of distance (or at least, that there is no
simple relationship between the two). Resentment is only a function
of perceived need ("the users need X, Y and Z within two hours"),
and not distance.
> OTOH, if the programmer is in close contact with their users, (1) is almost
> certainly false.
Parents are in close contact with children and many still manage
to achieve abysmal levels of empathy.
> 2, 3 and 4 are certainly not something you should expect
> anyone to just accept without presenting some supporting data.
Can I point to the Hacker mythology? What about burnout rates
among free software programmers? Frankly I find it impossible
to believe that programmers *wouldn't* feel resentment at users,
it would require either complete apathy towards users, complete
ego-disintegration, or something else equally horrible.
> It's certainly contrary to my experience. I know several programmers,
> and it's simply not true that the majority of them are obnoxious, which
> is what you seem to be asserting.
If psychopaths can be charming then projectors certainly don't
need to be obnoxious. A projector can be very "concerned" for
a user's needs, say all the pat phrases and make all the right
noises, and still project their own feelings onto the user; they
will even /believe/ that they care about users, but they don't.
There are reliable ways to single out projectors but you have
to know what to look out for (there was a whole thread on this
a while back so I'm not starting this up again).
> >http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/bezroukov/index.html
> Not at all. What's the problem ? Could you be specific ? It's a long
> rambling article.
That free software development is about Power (its acquisition,
preservation and application) *just* like almost every other
human activity. That Linux programmers aren't doing it out of
the goodness of their hearts and that users are pawns and *not*
players in this elaborate political game.
> BTW, are you pretending that this link is unbiased ?
No, I'm saying that it's correct and accurate. Egoless
programming is bullshit propaganda for the weak-minded.
> >You should note further that if I am correct about my
> >allegations
>
> You're not.
I certainly think I am. How much more do I need?
> Your claims about "programmers" have no substance. A lot of programmers
> do not fit your description of programmers,
I know that but so what? "a lot" means nothing.
> and a lot of the people
> who display the kind of attitude that you are complaining about
> are not programmers.
Granted. And I even further grant that it is hard for me to tell
the difference.
> I'm not going to pretend that there are not obnoxious programmers out
> there. There are also obnoxious waiters, obnoxious basketball players,
> obnoxious scientists, etc etc. But you offer no supporting evidence for
> your absurd claims, and they are certainly contrary to my experience.
It has *nothing* to do with being obnoxious. And my claims are not
absurd since they stem from my understanding of how humans function
as power-hungry and *deeply* emotional and irrational instead of the
laughable rational egoists put forward by ESR (who is a moron on most
subjects).
I don't have access to a research lab where I could study programmers'
personalities, nor to their diaries, or anything else like that. The
only analysis I can do is sociological, on the fantasies promoted by
the group. That these fantasies correspond to the unconscious beliefs
and values of individuals in that group is a fundamental principle of
such analysis and makes perfect sense after you get past the psych
lingo. And two pieces of evidence that immediately leap to mind are;
1) the Bastard Operator From Hell mythos, and
2) the Hacker/Luser dichotomy
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:31:19 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:24:41 GMT, Richard wrote:
> I completely disagree with your contention that filenames and file types
> are ( or should be ) strongly related.
>
> Consider this -- which is more intuitive:
>
> pulldown menu ->
> rename file
> ....
>
> or
>
> pulldown menu ->
> rename file
> change file type
>
> I'd consider the latter more intuitive.
I think *neither* is intuitive but the first
is more elegant.
IF you understand what weak typing means, why
it is important and why an OS must be weakly-
typed (and that application developers who
deserve to be shot for assuming that an OS is
strongly typed has nothing to do with putting
typing into object names) and IF you understand
the role of typing as distinct from class, and
how proper typing is the *same* operation as
naming THEN the first solution is more elegant.
In a multi-user system where you can share
objects (which you cannot do in Unix), the
name of an object will dictate how other
users will use it. Now think of the system
as a (dumb) user and you can see that the
first part of the name is meant for human
users and the second part for machine users,
but *both* are only meant as an *indication*
of the semantic content of a file.
> from a cli perspective, you could do something like this:
>
> file change [tab]
> and tab completion gives the following output:
>
> name
> type
> mtime
> access
> ...
>
> IOW, I think these could be "related", but I believe your coupling
> of these two things is artificial.
It's not. Just look at the access semantics of the different
parts of objects.
Timestamps are read but never written by /all/ users. Users
perform operations which change timestamps as side-effects.
Names are changed only by the owner of /that name/ and no one
else. It's the *exact* same thing with types.
Permissions are changed by complex access semantics; perms on
higher links are changed by owners, perms on the lower side
are changed by the owner of the higher side since owners of
lower links are not defined otherwise, and perms on even links
are changed by the owner of the other side. Removing a link
follows the same access rules as changing perms.
Contents of an object are changed by very complex semantic rules
which involve the topology of the space the message traversed
(which determines whether you're an "owner") and the permissions
set on the last two links you traverse to get to the object (but
mostly only the last link).
I do *NOT* have different functions to set the different perms,
or to read individual timestamps! For the same reason, I'm not
going to have different functions for accessing name and type.
Not only that but "type" is a completely meaningless concept
as relating to links and objects. Even /name/ is completely
meaningless in the exact same way (names are keys in dictionaries
with Doorways [links] as values). It's not meaningful at that
level to ask what the "type" of an object since all objects are
of the same class (or a subclass) and thus respond to the same
protocols. It's even less meaningful to ask the type of a Doorway
than it is to ask the type of a Room (unless you take Higher,
Lower and Even to be types).
Permissions are Doorway concepts since doorways are the gate-
keepers of the system. Timestamps can be found on Doorways and
Rooms according to where they are relevant. Doorways may be
created and removed independently of Rooms so they have their
own creationTime and deletionTime, on top of traversalTime
and any other timestamp I could think of.
*Everything* is where it logically belongs. And typing doesn't
belong *anywhere* at that level of abstraction except as an
integral part of names.
> As for APIs, I believe that my way is nicer for programmers, but
> this is really a secondary concern. My primary concern is that storing
> type info in the name is unintuitive *for the user*
Icons are easy to learn because you get different results when
you double click on an object depending on what icon it has.
It would be a *lot* easier to learn the meaning of extensions
if users could expect different results when they perform a
common operation like
$anObject.text
depending on the name extension.
You only think types are "unintuitive" because you don't mean
the same thing by "type" that I do. You think of the C/C++ type-
checking, I think of the empty concept of types in Smalltalk.
If you don't think about them, you never see types in Smalltalk,
just like you never see any distinction between "accessors" and
"constructors" and "destructors" (destructors don't exist because
you have garbage collection but that's another issue).
Often, Smalltalk is described as not having any types. Sometimes
it is said that "type" means "the protocols a class responds to"
and that Smalltalk has dynamic type-checking. For the purpose of
this discussion, I hold to the second view, and I note that an
OS (even a broken inflexible one like Unix) has a lot more in
common with a Smalltalk system than with a C/C++ program since
an OS is *inherently* and *constantly* *dynamic*, just like any
Smalltalk system is meant to be. And one of the reasons that
Smalltalk is weakly typed is because strong typing hampers
dynamic extensibility of the kind found with users who want to
be able to open an object of class TextDocument with different
applications, and may just wish to declare these applications
as associations for their own comfort.
Ahh shit, just yesterday I told myself that I wouldn't write
all this.
> >I'm sure that the fact my conclusions are perceived as a personal
> >attack to the readers has nothing to do with it, right? It's only a
> >reaction to the abstract affront of my /over/generalizing ....
>
> Well, both. Of course people get pissed off when you insult them.
I'd say "indignant when you accuse them" and note that the
judgement of guilt or innocence is rarely based on the level
of indignation in a court of law (nor does anyone in that
setting give a damn about the accused's indignation.)
> For the user, see above. I don't think my way makes things harder.
>
> For programming ? Nothing's more annoying than learning one function
> that does several different things, especially things that you wouldn't
> expect it to do.
*My* kind of typing has no relevance to programmers, unless
programmers want to "learn" from the user a la Artificial
Intelligence. And that kind of stuff is going to be hit and
miss no matter what. Name extensions are only relevant to
1) the users, and 2) the shell. Any programmer that messes
with typing (eg, assumes an OS is a strongly typed system)
should be flogged.
Given this viewpoint, it is actually much harder to write
a shell with separate and joined name extension options if
the underlying layer has separate functions for the two.
'ls' can output name-only or name+extension lists with no
diffictulty regardless of the underlying layer. But for
the shell, it is *much* easier to append the extension
of any object name on the command line than it is to take
a joined name and generate the appropriate changeType
message *only* when the user happens to request a rename.
It's also much cleaner since in the first case the shell
needs only to know that objects have names and types while
in the second case, it also needs to know that the "rename"
function is very, very special.
If you want both options available to the user then the
underlying layer /has/ to be my way. Which is a pretty
good proof that it's simpler.
> >Side effects are inevitable. The only question is how obvious
> >they are. The meaning of extensions seems pretty obvious to
> >me, as long as you have meaningful extension names.
>
> Yes, because you "grew up" with extensions.
And the first thing that I didn't like about them was
that they didn't have meaningful names.
> >So why is it that programmers keep complaining about "Real Lazy"
> >users?
>
> There you go again, acting like a bigot. Not all programmers "do it",
> not all the people who "do it" are programmers, and the programmers
> that "do it" do not "keep complaining".
I'll have to take your word for it.
> > And why is it that they resent users' perfectly reasonable
> >demands and perfectly accurate criticisms?
>
> Again, you're over generalising, and ranting like a bigot.
I don't mind. <grin>
> > And why is it that they
> >write software that acts like a mean son of a bitch towards users?
>
> Lots of reasons. I've already discussed this.
>
> (*) "Bad design" tends to have a lot to do with design that is hobbled
> by compatibility requirements. Which, may I remind you, are imposed
> by the *users*.
Hey, I'm not the one that demands binary compatibility from CPUs.
Those are /corporate/ goals. And I think this can be generalized.
> (*) Obviously, not every feature in existence can be implemented. This
> is due to development time constraints, which again, are ultimately
> imposed by the users.
A decent interface is not a "feature" it's a damned requirement.
> >But it only seems to be against users, and that's hatred and bigotry.
>
> I doubt that many developers despise *all* users of their software.
We are in agreement.
> >And you should know that intolerance of intolerance does not
> >make one a bigot.
>
> You aren't displaying "intolerance of intolerance", you are displaying
> a blanket hatred directed at a certain group ( namely "programmers" ).
> And that, is bigotry.
So change "intolerance" to "blanket hatred". And collective judgements
need not be prejudice, let alone bigotry. Insurance companies have
actuarial tables proving that blacks are a higher risk than whites so
it isn't prejudice to charge them more. It's still unfair and I don't
believe in private insurance but that doesn't make it bigotry (just
greed, evil and stupidity).
> BTW, this rhetoric against the "programmers" isn't much different to
> the rhetoric levelled at certain groups by histories most famous bigots.
> The "programmers", like the "communists", the "landlords", etc make
> a convenient target for your irrational hatred. However, if you actually
> met a few "programmers", you'd find that very few actually matched your
> propgandistic, bigoted charicature.
<rolleyes> I already know that! A lot of nice people I know are programmers;
you're going to have to argue from statistical data or group analysis. And
programmers are *hardly* a "convenient" target. We're on a freaking Linux
newsgroup for chrissake, programmers are NOT some poor abused minority here.
And I have *plenty* of other targets for my hatred (capitalists, bureaucrats,
Libertarians, clerics, war-mongers, physicists, the scientific community,
parents who abuse or neglect their children in any way, shape or form, etc)
so I don't exactly need to add to my collection. Of course, there's no better
target for my hatred of Unix than Unix programmers ....
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:44:43 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> The thing about C++ is that it lets you do it either way, and you learn
> for yourself pretty quickly that there is a right way and a wrong way
> to do this kind of thing. Maybe "Richard" should take a remedial course
> in OO design and get back to us (-;
That is so fucking hilarious. I don't even believe it's possible
to be OO in C++ because you'll always end up making mistakes (if
your own habits don't destroy any pretense at OO first). Besides,
if you have to waste brain power making your code OO then you will
have that much less to spend on high-level architectural issues.
So you're telling ME to learn OO? <rolleyes> I may not program a
lot but what I do is definitely OO.
And hell, most C++ programmers don't even know what OO means in
the first place (too much propaganda surrounding it) so this
discussion is ludicrous.
(And why did you have to encourage FM?)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:48:24 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > The world is full of variety. It isn't an operating
> > system's job to distract you from it.
>
> Nor is it an OS's job to just support "The One True Interface".
> If you can't deal with multiple GUI's, don't expect too much
> respect on this newsgroup.
I don't. And in case you didn't notice, this lack of respect
is retured right back at the newsgroup.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
