Linux-Advocacy Digest #267, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: so what? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Implications (Andreas Kähäri)
Re: so what? ("Philo")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 22 Sep 2000 21:11:18 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:18:42 GMT, Richard wrote:
>> You are asking unpaid programmers to follow management without
>> questioning? You are insane.
>
>No, I'm asking that they stop writing code without doing explicit
>architectural design first. And if they can't do such design then
>let someone else do it.
Why should they ? In fact, why should any hobbyist be forced to pursue
their hobby according to your guidelines ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so what?
Date: 22 Sep 2000 21:12:08 GMT
Philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: booted to linux command prompt...
: then opened dosemu ...
: then from within the dos emulation mode i fired up my cp/m
: emulator...
: it worked but now what do i do?
: so rather than have heated arguements here...has anyone ever done something
: useful like me?
How about...
* started Linux
* started VMWare in Linux
* booted Windows in VMWare
* opened DOS window in Windows
* started an Apple][ emulator in DOS
* played Montezuma's Revenge in the Apple][ emulator
...maybe I can find an emulator that I can run with the Apple][
emulator and add a few more levels of indirection. Think of it
like those Russion dolls, but with emulators and ad-hackery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: 22 Sep 2000 21:15:05 GMT
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:02:18 GMT, Richard wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> 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.
>
>ROTFLMAO. You have no idea how wide your shot went.
>I was weaned on mathematics, I grew up on it and
You're not the only one in the discussion who knows math
( Roberto studied some, I'm finishing a PhD ... )
I don't think a "lack of mathematical ability" is the problem. I
think you've got a lot of big ideas, and big talk, but I don't think
you're capable of implementing anything.
Much like the mathematician who can derive a solution to a problem,
though the solution is so complex as to be unusable.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:16:34 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee writes:
Here he is again, just 12 minutes after allegedly "plonking" me.
>>>> Try directing your fire extinguisher at the base of the flames. It's
>>>> more effective that way. Feel free to count the number of words
>>>> posted by Jason, Aaron, and myself to this global warming thread
>>>> prior to the time of your complaint. Then tell me why you're
>>>> complaining to me and not them.
>>> I came complaining to you because all that you did was
>>> repeat your favorite phrase over and over and over.
>> Incorrect. I see that you didn't bother to count. No surprise
>> there. Here's another "favorite phrase" for you: you just made
>> an unsbstantiated claim.
> I didn't need to count, because quite honestly I was
> bothered by your stupid cut-n-paste tactics.
What alleged "stupid cut-n-paste tactics" are you referring to,
Nathaniel?
>>> I'm sick of seeing you say the same things over and over and
>>> over and I've only read a very few of your posts.
>> See a doctor.
> Fucking twit.
My, what an intelligent argument. Not.
>>> I'm not trying to put out the fire caused by my flames to you,
>> I was talking about the fire that Jason and Aaron were pouring
>> fuel on.
> That was an interesting fire to watch.
No doubt because you found the insults they were spewing to be
"entertaining".
> I personally held no prejudice towards them in this debate, and
> enjoyed watching it (even if it wasn't the most productive debate
> in the world, it was fun to watch).
What was the "fun" part, Nathaniel, the invective?
>>> I'm just trying to prevent others from being burned by flames
>>> that aren't aimed at them.
>> Why aren't you trying to put out flames, regardless of who they
>> are aimed at? Oh, that's right. You like morons as long as they
>> are entertaining, including their flames.
> There's a big difference between saying "I don't mind" and
> "I like". A really big difference.
And the latter applies, given that you specifically stated that you
don't mind them as long as they are entertaining.
> I would consider a moron a friend. But I would watch them from a
> distance and laugh heartily at their idiotic escapades. Have you
> never watched a Jim Carey movie?
Irrelevant to the present situation, Nathaniel. This isn't a movie.
>>> I was not bothered by the conversation between Aaron and
>>> Jason because they were at least writing 'something'
>> Like insults. Interesting that you weren't bothered by that.
> Insults can be funny. Aaron is in my killfile, so the
> only insults I see from him are the ones that someone
> decided to respond to.
With insults of his own. Perhaps we should get Congress to do the
same; you might find it more entertaining that way.
> As far as any other insults, you take things way to personally to
> be a part of usenet
Illogical, Nathaniel. There is no rule that says USENET is only for
people who never take anything personally. Perhaps you've heard about
some of the lawsuits that have resulted?
> if you take every insult as some grand injustice.
I take them as the tool used by someone who lacks a logical argument,
Nathaniel. That much should be obvious.
>>> instead of just hitting 'cut-n-paste' a thousand times and
>>> trying to pretend that showed how intelligent they were.
>> Who allegedly did that in the "Global Warming" thread, Nathaniel?
> Who alledgedly did that was you moron.
Liar. Do you know how many times I posted in that thread prior to
you jumping in and making rather grandiose unsubstantiated claims?
Twice. Once to Jason, containing just two words, and once to
Stuyck, who couldn't resist playing more of his game. So, where
is this "a thousand times", Nathaniel? Can I expect a retraction
of your claim?
> Every post you make is a direct copy of something else
Liar.
> (except this one suprisingly).
On the contrary, there are plenty more that are not direct copies,
Nathaniel.
> Oh, why don't you make up some non-sensical crap name to call me
> every time you use my name.
Why should I? Do you desire to be addressed by some title, the way
that Stuyck desired?
> Here's one for you:
> "Our-guy-that-can't-put-up-with-tholen's-stupidity-any-longer".
Why should I want to do that?
> Cut-n-paste that a thousand times
Why should I want to do that?
> you fucking moron.
My, what an intelligent argument. Not.
> I won't see it. You've joined Aaron in my illustrious
> killfile.
Famous last words. Your "plonk" was 12 minutes prior to the timestamp
on the posting of yours to which I am now responding. But I'm not
surprised that you would now want to pretend not seeing the evidence
for your lies. That way you can avoid issuing a retraction and claim
that you never saw the evidence. How convenient for you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen & Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:19:11 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee writes:
> Joe Malloy wrote:
>> Tholen tholes, unfortunately for everyone save him:
>>>> My second point: show some goddamned originality.
>>> Why should I waste originality on someone like Mark Kelley?
>> Nathaniel, you have to realize, Tholen *can't* be original, he *must* employ
>> his stock phrases because that's all he has. If ever he were to enter into
>> the spirit of a debate, he'd be lost...which, come to think of it, isn't
>> that bad of an idea...
> Yeah, sometimes I'm thick headed enough to actually think
> that people are basically interested in stimulating and
> intelligent conversation.
And the rest of the time you encourage people to spew insults because
you find it entertaining.
> Sometimes it takes me a while to realize that there are those people
> that just are so totally enthralled with their own stupidity that
> even when given the oportunity to learn something, they refuse on
> the grounds that 'learning is the key to losing my soul'.
How ironic.
> Tholen and hard-core Christian activists probably have a
> lot in common.
Such as?
> Rational thought flees them like flies flee a fly swatter.
How ironic, coming from someone who doesn't mind invective as a
substitute for rational thought, as long as it is entertaining.
> And the few rational thoughts that don't escape, well, they
> probably end up in the same shape that the flies that don't
> escape do.
And what shape might that be, Nathaniel?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.software.config-mgmt
Subject: Re: Implications
From: Andreas Kähäri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Sep 2000 23:19:25 +0100
In article <8qgdcb$mma$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Andreas Kähäri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <%0Iy5.12646$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Implications
>> >========
>> >
>> >So suppose that you are required to come up with a model that
>explains not
>> >only what your software does (which various OO technologies do with
>varying
>> >success), but also where your software comes from.
>>
>> Your software comes from you.
>
>I don't write every program I use, and I know I didn't write every
>program he uses.
Then I feel that choice of forums were a little bit misleading.
>
>>
>> >This requirement would
>> >force you past the von Neumann model, where the program store P
>defines the
>> >execution environment E:
>>
>> I fail to see the connection to the von Neumann model.
>> The program store does not define an execution environment.
>
>Your machine is off. You turn it on. Something executes. What
>defines that something?
Ah.
>
>>
>> >
>> > P --> E
>> >
>> >Non-trivial computer systems are constructed from a collection of
>> >software, installed in some order.
>>
>> If you're not talking about microcode, cache protocols or the like,
>> then I would say that this is nonsense. The complexity of a computer
>> system does not depend on e.g. the operating system it runs.
>
>Huh? I can't for the life of me figure out what he could possibly mean
>here.
He? You mean me?
I mean that the software does not make the machine. The only ware that
makes a machine into what it is are the small routines implemented
into the ROM. Without protocols for maintaining cache coherence an SMP
wouldn't be an SMP. Without the microcode, the Motorola 68000 would
never have been able to execute the early Mac OS.
>>
>> >So in non-trivial computer systems, there always
>> >exists some independent definition of P. Call this definition X.
>> >
>> > X --> P --> E
>> >
>> >Furthermore, X is not generally a single source. If X is a disk
>image
>> >applied to the hard drive (the P of a computer system), then X may
>in fact
>> >be a single source. But usually it isn't.
>>
>> (void)
>>
>> >
>> >So X is made up of a set of components representing the number of
>installs n
>> >required to build up P in a given computer system.
>> >
>> > X = {X(1), X(2), X(3),...,X(n)}
>> >
>> >Our current software architectures do not model X. In fact, they
>doesn't
>> >tend to model installation and integration at all. IT spends 75
>percent of
>> >their money in this area, but it doesn't seem to be important enough
>to
>> >study.
>>
>> Eh, what's "software architecture"? I know that the hardware
>> architecture does not model X (the software). That's because it's not
>> its task.
>
> X is the set of software that can be installed on a computer system.
> P is the set of installed software in a computer system.
> E is what you get when you turn your computer system on.
>
>I get the impression that he didn't have a clue.
That's me again, isn't it?
Do you have a clue? *I* don't know how much IT companies invest in
various areas, and I don't know where you get your numbers from.
Why do we want to model X?
>
>> >
>> >With open software, modeling X is even more important, since the
>various
>> >components of X come from different sources, and in many different
>releases
>> >and versions. Understanding and modeling how this is done will lead
>to
>> >better solutions and mechanisms for software development and
>distribution.
>>
>> Buggerit.
>>
>> Why do we want to model software?! Please, tell me! Oh, don't bother
>> BTW, I just killfiled you anyway so I won't see your answer.
>
>Everything we do is patterned around some model of the problem. That
>is what math is, a model of the relationships between concepts. If you
>can prove things about the real world using mathmatical models, you can
>reach the moon.
>
>My claim is that we have a big integration, development, and deployment
>problem with software. And we do not have an appropriate model of the
>problem. Why would we need such a model? Well, so we can make
>progress, do things better, understand what and why we do what we do.
I did a Deja-search on you and found a lot of this... I'm going to cut
a little...
[cut]
>>
>> Intresting views, but really off topic.
>>
>> *plonk*, sir.
>>
>> What a strange person...
>
>Thanks.
I'm truly sorry, but I wish I had a reference to an article that you
might like (or is it a book?). "The Selfish Gene" (I don't have the
name of the author here right now). It's about how our genes are in
fact using us as a vessel. It sounds something like what you wrote in
that last part of your original post. Make a web search, you ought to
find it.
Good night all.
/A
--
Andreas Kähäri, <URL:http://hello.to/andkaha/>. Junk mail, no.
========================================================================
What part of "GNU" did you not understand? <URL:http://www.gnu.org/>
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so what?
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:20:04 -0500
wow...i can see i've been beaten badly already :) !
i think i'll have to go up into my attic and bring down my 8088...
and try to put it on line
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:24:23 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> However, it's worth pointing out that good programmers most certainly
> do design things. For example, C++, java, Corba, HTTP, XML ... were all
> designed very carefully.
I don't know about Corba, but *none* of the others were designed.
The only "design" involved nothing more than "let's take this pile
of features and put them together somehow" instead of genuine high
level design; which involves the /creation/ of new abstract concepts.
XML is just a spin-off on SGML; the design involved nothing more
than taking a look at SGML and throwing away or twiddling stuff.
HTML involved no design at all; someone just said to themselves,
"gee, I want inter-document links" and implemented it with no
thought about the consequences.
Copying or cobbling together other people's designs isn't design.
Even thinking in terms of "features" instead of "principles" or
"concepts" strongly indicates that you're not doing design.
> He put it badly. A better way to say it would be that those who
> "intend to join" tend to show a better than average willingness to
> learn. However, the converse is blatantly false -- it's certainly
> wrong to say that those who don't want to become academics don't show
> interest and motivation.
>
> >This is not commonly done because academics hold people
> >outside their chosen field of expertise (and this includes other
> >academics) in contempt.
>
> Again, blatantly false. Speaking for myself, I have several friends
> in other departments. And I'm not the exception to the rule.
Hey, I know people in CS, math, engineering, chemistry, biology,
psychology, philosophy .... And I admire Einstein (physics) and
Chomsky (political science) but this has nothing to do with
anything. There are /always/ going to be exceptions in any group.
Some teachers are going to treat their students as independent
individuals with their own legitimate goals, but most are not.
Arguments from analogy don't work very well. I can dig up physicists
who realized that physicists absolutely suck at doing philosophy of
science (eg, Feynman) but that doesn't change the fact that most
physicists arrogently and incorrectly presume they can do philosophy
better than philosophers.
> SUre, there are obnoxious and ill adjusted academics, but there
> are obnoxious and ill adjusted people in any other profession too.
And this excuses it because ...?
You're trivializing systemic fuckups in academia and dismissing
them as "obnoxiousness". Other professions have systemic fuckups
too, and these fuckups are just as intolerable in their own
domains as academic fuckups are for academia.
> However, you must be willing to measure your success in terms of
> what the students get out of the class. I remember one of my favourite
> profs saying that
>
> "if you give a lecture, and the students do not learn from
> it, then that lecture, no matter how eloquent is a failure".
>
> I agree with this, but I don't agree that the "student is always right".
What you just said is half of what I meant by the teacher assuming
they are wrong.
> >Blatantly incorrect, illegal, unethical and immoral.
>
> I don't quite agree with him but I don't agree with you either. As
> long as your software isn't outright malicious, and it's free, I
> don't see how you're obliged to make it fit for any purpose.
Why not?
The line between "outright malicious" and "not fit for ANY purpose"
is arbitrary. The domain is the user's expectations. And a program
that doesn't match even the low expectations of being worth the time
and energy the user spent installing and learning it, might as well
be malicious: it did after all destroy the user's resources (this is
*inherent* in any software).
And on the legal side, giving up all responsibility is illegal in
most jurisdictions. Apparently, in Germany, there isn't even the
anglo-american concept of "public domain" as a garbage dump; there
is an analogous concept in which you still retain responsibility.
> Again, unless the gift is obviously malicious, I don't see a problem.
> Virus writing is clearly unethical but giving the world a harmless
> ( though possibly worthless ) gift is hardly "evil".
Ok, then how about a "harmless" virus?
> Wrong. It is your responsibility not to give the user unrealistic
> expectations. If the user gets funny ideas, it's not the programmers
> fault.
So now you just have to define "funny ideas". Does "basic usability"
count?
> >Compatibility is about the only design goal that will conflict with every
> >other design goal in existence. I don't care much for it. Nearly all of the
>
> We know that you don't care for it. But the fact remains that it's useful
> to a lot of people. In particular, these users, who you keep pretending
> to care about often want compatiblity.
Am I supposed to care about Windows compatibility just because a lot of
Windows users want it?
> >If the latter then in what way is C/C++ "efficient"? Please keep
>
> One way in which it's efficient is that it's compiled instead of
> interpreted.
<rolleyes> There is a native compiler for Smalltalk. It's not used
because there isn't much point to it.
And I didn't mean "in what way is efficiency achieved", I meant
"in what way is efficiency DEFINED".
> The other programmers will come -- if you can put something of
> substance on the table.
Did you get that line from Field of Dreams?
> So far, you have shown us nothing but noise.
There are dozens of decent OS projects out there. Where are the
programmers for EROS, Grasshopper, VSTa, et cetera on end?
> BTW, even if you do have other programmers, writing all the applications
> from scratch is hard. Linux had the advantage of having the GNU utilities
> already availabl. Again, we are back to the fact that compatiblity is a
> huge advantage in practice, and you are just ignoring this.
No I'm not; I just don't /care/.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:06:27 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
<cut>
>>>
>>>Lately I've been getting back into the violin (still
>>>fairly portable) and occassionally pounding the keys
>>>(I have a piano my great grandma gave me when I was young
>>>that was manufactured in the late 1800's). I enjoyed
>>>Queen a little, and I really like bands that mix styles
>>>(Trans Siberian Orchestra is one of my favs at the moment).
>>
>>A geniune late 1800s piano should be something of a museum
>>piece now, since manufacturing techniques have changed so
>>much in that time - do you get it tuned? What does the
>>tuner think about it?
>
>The last person I had tune it said he thought it was a
>beautiful instrument, and he doesn' see too many people
>play pianos that old. He said he liked the tone of it
>though (and I do too). It's an upright, but it has a lot
>deeper tone than most uprights I've seen.
This kind of takes me back to where we started. If you feel so moved,
you could hang a quality microphone over the piano, play it (each note,
soft, medium, hard) and do an FFT using your soundcard to sample - should
be much easier than when I was doing it with an HP spectrum analyzer,
approximately when the 6809 was the height of technology :) If you
happen to go that way, a Bechstein Model B gives approx:
120 harmonics at c-7 to c-6 octave; can split into 5 groups; no significant
hammer-thump; 5 groups should have separate ADSR envelopes and go sharper
with each group as per taught-strung steel characteristics.
0 harmonics (ie., fundamental only) at c6 and up, with 80% of the power of
the note being made up from the hammer-thump (you need to analyse that as
well). You need a logarithmic law for:
120-1 harmonics up each key;
Power associated with each harmonic group (groups of 5 or less, typically
split such that fundamental has own group, 2,3,4,5 have 2nd group,6-10
have 3rd group, 10-20/30 have 4th and rest have 5th - don't forget they'll
go sharp).
power associated with hammer-thump is inverse log up the keyboard.
Argghh - this is more complicated than I thought :)
>
>[snip]
>>>>>I guess that's one of the reasons I levitated into the Linux/BSD/*nix
>>>>>arena so easily. It wasn't unusual for me to think of things a little
>>>>>differently from the 'norm'. It just fit me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've found over the years it's largely advantageous to be able to see
>>>>things from a different/self-formed viewpoint. Helps in all sorts of
>>>>ways.
>>>
>>>Yeah, it helps you to laugh at yourself when you realize
>>>you are taking something too seriously. You see yourself
>>>acting like the morons that called you an 'outcast'
>>>growing up and think, "Whoah, ease up there pard."
>>
>>Ah, indeed - much of the time!
>>
>>>
>>>Of course, it also helps with a lot of other things, but
>>>that's one of my personal favorite things about it.
>>>Zealotry can only take you so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I'm beginning to think I'm getting to old for zealotry - is
>>there any truth in my feeling that zealots are typically
>>young? (At least the non-biblical era ones, anyway).
>>
>
>No, I don't think you are mistaken. The problem now is
>that there are so few things to really 'believe' in. A
>few years back (OK, decades) there were things to get
>excited about and things you could remain 'zealotous'
>about without really being unreasonable. Being youthful
>usually means you are uninformed (not always, no teenagers
>need to find my house so they can egg it now;-). The
>uninformed are the zealotous. They don't have the
>information from both sides of a debate, they just have
>the information from one side. As they grow older, they
>begin to see how much both sides lie, and how little truth
>there is other than in the 'middle-ground' arguments, and
>they become slightly jaded to either side (of the
>hypothetical argument). You tend to lose your zealot
>stance when you realize that your leaders are just as full
>of shit as the other side's leaders.
>
>It's basically a sign that the world is pretty much
>indifferent to ANY topic right now. As you grow and learn
>more, you lose interest in jumping up and down on things
>you think you 'know', because you realize that no matter
>how much you think you know, there is always going to be
>something you are missing. An end to simple times (ah,
>I'm beginning to sound philosophical, better stop before I
>bring the armchair philosophers running at me;-).
When I was younger, I was on a mission to learn everything that I
could. It proved useful - I successfully managed to learn more than
virtually everyone I dealt with on any (paying) subject. It proved
beyond doubt that it would take me millions of years to learn everything
about all subjects :)
One lesson I've gained over the years is that, whilst I'm right,
the chances are that the person I'm discussing with is also right,
just looking at things from a different perspective. The only time
I still get hacked off about this is when I sniff bullying going on;
which is why Microsoft kind of piss me off ;)
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
