Linux-Advocacy Digest #272, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low (Jacques Guy)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Richard)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one (Tony Tribelli)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one (Tony Tribelli)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (Tony Tribelli)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 23 Sep 2000 05:42:11 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:50:16 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Because bad music only makes people's ears bleed while bad software
>drives people insane?
>
>And hey, I'm fine with hobbyists writing crap software so long as they
>never distribute it ....
And who makes you the sole arbitrer of what is and isn't "crap" ? Maybe
I want to download their "crap" software. If you don't want to do so,
then feel free not to. If you only want to use software that has been
designed with "high level architecture", then email the author and
ask them how they designed it before using it or something. Or just don't
use free software in the first place.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 23 Sep 2000 05:51:28 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:45:36 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Suffice it to say that design is an essential part of programming. Any
>> good programmer knows something about design, because writing a decent
> ^^^^
>> nontrivial program requires some basic design skills.
>
>Someone once explained that a "good" engineer should know music so that
>he was able to correctly tighten the skeins on ballistas just by pitch.
This is a somewhat peripheral skill, since it is not essential, and possibly
the engineer doesn't need to use it. On the other hand, a programmer makes
design choices all the time.
>> You are trying to pretend that programming and design are orthogonal skills,
>> but simply put, this is a load of baloney. You can't program without some
>> design skills.
>
>You can program without any design.
But you can't program *well* without design.
> It will be total inextensible non-
>maintainable crap but you can so program.
So in other words, if you program without design, you end up with a lousy
program. And what do you call someone who writes lousy programs ? A
lousy programmer.
>> And I'd argue that you're in no position to design unless you can program,
>> because sooner or later, a design needs to be implemented and unless you
>> have some basic understanding as to how it gets implemented, you are not
>> going to be able to produce a good design.
>
>And you're wrong here too. If anything, my knowledge of computers has
>only hampered my ability to design. You have to have *incredible*
>powers of imagination to compensate for the limitations imposed by
>knowing how "it has to be".
Well it's funny how those with the wildest imaginations come up with ideas
that have absolutely no hope of ever being implemented. A design is useless
unless there is a way to implement it and implement it well.
> I don't have that good an imagination
>so I'm very scared that I won't be able to design anything novel in
>the years to come simply because I Know Too Much.
I don't think this will cause you too much trouble ! You're more likely
to produce a lot of hot air and noise, and then not implement anything.
This is what usually happens every time some usenet kook starts spouting
some nonsense about a "new (X)" that is going to "be better than everything
else". Sorry for being sceptical -- it's just that you're not the first
to run around bashing (X) and talking about doing something very ambitious
and grand, but inspite of the hot air, there's nothing to show. Kooks
come and go all the time, and right now, you're quacking like a kook.
>To do good design, you have to abstact over /all possible/
>implementations of your design. And the only way to do that
>with ease and without flaw is to 1) know nothing about any
>particular implementation, or 2) be able to conceive of all
>implementations.
Wrong. If you are ignorant about any implementation, then you are
unable to appraise the design properly because you don't even know if
it's possible to implement it, yet alone implement it well.
(2) is the only way. Obviously, you can't conceive all implementations,
but you need to come as close to doing so as possible.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 05:58:02 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back! This group has sunk to a new low
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jacques Guy
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> >Thatz beecourze Tymb Palmre yz own hollidaze. Butt ime
> >stan-digging inn four imb wen leasuire hallows. Dguzt
> >queepp tooned.
> I was not aware that a delicious sauce made from egg yolks
> could be construed as a hallucinogenic substance... :-9
Whell, eye ham knot Byl Gaitz (luv ewe Byll *smoooch*), sough
heye kan knot a Ford T-oo hieghr peepel two throe kreem pighz
inntoo mie faiss. Ie half two (is that "one"?) maiq doo wee
thegg youkxz.
(Tyyyyymmmmbbbb! Hur ree-yup! Eye kan knott haul don mutsh
longre inn yo roll! Pleez! Releev mo(*) kwiqq!)
(*) "o" of "mo" by kind permission of "o" of "women" -- thank you
ladies.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:00:00 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> This is not about weak typing. This is about gratuitous
Yes it is, and you prove it. If the application writers
don't assume the OS is a strongly typed environment for
some bizarre twisted reason then deleting the type is
not a big deal.
And as if THAT weren't enough; all filesystem operations
are reversible in a logging FS! Oh, yeah ... eh? :-)
> I don't see how you can sit there and deny the fact that
> allowing the user to accidently change types while trying to
> rename is not error prone.
>
> >how proper typing is the *same* operation as
> >naming THEN the first solution is more elegant.
>
> I disagree. Again, it's error prone.
> This is the main reason why I disagree.
It doesn't matter. As I already explained, if the users
need the separation for some weird reason then it is
trivial to add this at a higher layer WHERE IT BELONGS!
Next you'll be telling me that email addresses should be
encoded into file metadata so as to "increase safety".
Have you ever considered the safety of a straightjacket?
> This is flase. One may often write timestamps. They are not
> read only. ( and there's no reason why they should be )
There is absolutely NO legitimate reason to be able to write
timestamps! Backups of a filesystem should be done at the level
of segments of a log and so you never need to fuck with time-
stamps or even with anything as high level as files.
Objects have createTime and deleteTime timestamps and these
MUST be read-only! The same goes for all other timestamps;
you have to make them read-only in order to guarantee they
have valid data.
> Whatever. I believe that your "system" is fragile and error prone,
And I believe you've forgotten about versioning achieved through
logging. Do you seriously believe you can find a serious flaw in
a week that I haven't thought of in more than 3 years?
> and I doubt the users would like it that much. I wouldn't. But then,
> if it's what you want, I don't have a problem with you trying to
> implement it. Though I'll admit to being sceptical about your chances
> of actually implementing any of it.
My two horsemen are named Depression and Distraction.
> You are babbling pure nonsense here. Learn C++, and learn it
> properly, and then talk. You can make C++ act like smalltalk
> if you want. Most of the time, C++ programmers don't want. But
> when they do, it can be done.
I know it *can* be done; I recall hearing about some programmers
that ended up reimplementing the VM because they were denied access
to C++ virtual functions (someone realized they were "inefficient"
and came up with the bright idea of forbidding them).
But it doesn't change the fact that once a program is finished,
C++ developers don't expect to have to change or reuse it much,
let alone allowing *users* to extend it! If you're a programmer
and you make such an assumption about the OS then you deserve
to be flogged.
> Well, I can't say I think that much of your system. It's hampered by lack of
> compatibility which means that it is unlikely to ever even exist, and I
> don't believe you've offered any compelling advantages regarding your
> way of "designing" things.
When do you write specifications?
The difference between architecture and design is that architecture
is visible to the end user, design is only visible to you (assuming
you do it right). Mixing the two is a great way to screw up software.
> I am reminded here of the fact that a lot of projects ( for example java )
> were supposed to produce something better than C++, and despite the
> apparent advantage of not having compatibility burdens, they didn't do
> substantially better.
Well, that's a lie. Java *WAS* hampered by compatibility. The only
reason the keyword "new" exists is so it would be familiar to the
hordes of C++ losers. Do you seriously think that Java syntax is
so ugly because they couldn't think of anything better? Take a look
at Smalltalk code sometime!
> I suspect that if you had to actually implement anything, instead of
> just doing your ivory-tower "enlightened high level design", you'd
> get a dose of reality. I do pure math research and one thing I've
> learned in my programming experience is that it's not like math. In
> math, you don't care that much about efficiency ( "a solution exists" ! )
> and you don't need to be terribly pragmatic. When you're programming,
> you do.
1) make it work,
2) make it correct,
3) make it fast.
Of course, this fundamental design strategy might be alien to C++
programmers who need a rationalization to code in a low-level language.
If I have to worry about speed that much, I'll get a better compiler,
improve the compiler myself, systematically de-OO the code, or write
a translator to compile generic Smalltalk to C++. I don't have any
interest in doing things half-assed; the project is certainly complex
enough to absorb the initial overhead.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one
From: Tony Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:04:06 GMT
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>> Your willingness to comment on subjects you are ignorant of is only
>> matched by your ability guess ot wrong. The developers are quite familiar
>> with Unix, they are not a Win32 shop.
>
> I expect, therefore, that they were deeply concerned to be writing such
> code for a platform the knew to be inadequate for the task in hand.
> Gosh, I do so like speculation. It's fun.
I wouldn't know, I checked the developer's website before commenting on
them.
>>> ... Either way, it is the fact that we have no basis
>>> for a comparison against Win32 that I so loudly and stridently point out
>>> that Windows and all Microsoft software is crappy. If there were a
>>> competitive environment, I wouldn't be saying that, for two reasons: 1)
>>> I wouldn't have to; everybody would recognize it themselves, and 2)
>>> crappy software doesn't survive in a competitive environment, so there
>>> would be no issue to begin with.
>>
>> Naive, ex. AOL.
>
> It's an interesting thing, but I've found very few folk who have any
> grievance with AOL, whereas I know stacks who really object to Microsoft.
> Speculation is lovely :)
The truth is even better, some friends do quite a bit of in-home upgrades,
sales, support, etc. and they have upgraded many AOL users to other
providers and these customers are generally pretty happy.
>>> You now seem entirely delusional. Are you trying to tell us that
>>> Windows handles application failures well?
>>
>> If an application does not supply it's own exception handler the default
>> WinNT handler will terminate the app. If an application uses Structured
>> Exception Handling internally it is not unlike C++ exception handling.
>> However since it is provided by the core OS it is available to any
>> language that can use the Win32 API. The exceptions range from processor,
>> to OS, to users defined exceptions. The handlers have the ability to
>> handle the error themselves, pass the error to a higher level handler, or
>> to continue execution.
>
> Then why does it crash so often? Are the exception handlers as bad as the
> DOS ones used to be?
That troll gets a B-. Taking advantage of the overloaded term "exception
handler" in two different contexts, "Structured Exception Handling" and "x86
Exception Handlers" was a good effort.
>> The ignorance and misrepresentation is on your side. You demonstrate an
>> ignorance of WinNT and yet you attempt to comment upon it, grossly
>> misrepresenting things along the way. Your above troll only rises to about
>> D+. It could have been a good solid C if you had refrained from mentioning
>> trolling, raising the subject only makes your efforts more transparent,
>> and the cursing is definitely a losing gambit.
>
> No, he's made a huge number of valid points - it's a shame that the
> Microsoft folk couldn't brief you to deal with them more effectively.
> I imagine that there'll be another course up soon - get booked on it!
Your slipping, that troll is about a C-. Please try harder.
Tony
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one
From: Tony Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:08:21 GMT
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli wrote:
>> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> No, PCs don't work great for these applications, even ruggedized ones.
>>>> Custom designs can be made much more reliable, repairable, etc.
>>>
>>> No you don't need a 'custom design'. You need a COTS solution that
>>> meet's applicable mil-specs. Have you ever worked with complex
>>> control systems, or with mil-specs?? Obviously not.
>>
>> You are quite confused, you mentioned VME backplanes with special purpose
>> CPU boards and such. That is a 'custom design' compared to a PC.
>
> VME is a published spec. I'm surprised that you'd suggest otherwise.
You misread. The "custom design" is the overall system, as opposed to an
off-the-shelf IBM PC or UNIX box of some sort.
Tony
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 03:11:00 -0400
Richard wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > This is not about weak typing. This is about gratuitous
>
> Yes it is, and you prove it. If the application writers
> don't assume the OS is a strongly typed environment for
> some bizarre twisted reason then deleting the type is
> not a big deal.
>
> And as if THAT weren't enough; all filesystem operations
> are reversible in a logging FS! Oh, yeah ... eh? :-)
>
> > I don't see how you can sit there and deny the fact that
> > allowing the user to accidently change types while trying to
> > rename is not error prone.
> >
> > >how proper typing is the *same* operation as
> > >naming THEN the first solution is more elegant.
> >
> > I disagree. Again, it's error prone.
> > This is the main reason why I disagree.
>
> It doesn't matter. As I already explained, if the users
> need the separation for some weird reason then it is
> trivial to add this at a higher layer WHERE IT BELONGS!
>
> Next you'll be telling me that email addresses should be
> encoded into file metadata so as to "increase safety".
> Have you ever considered the safety of a straightjacket?
>
> > This is flase. One may often write timestamps. They are not
> > read only. ( and there's no reason why they should be )
>
> There is absolutely NO legitimate reason to be able to write
> timestamps! Backups of a filesystem should be done at the level
> of segments of a log and so you never need to fuck with time-
> stamps or even with anything as high level as files.
>
> Objects have createTime and deleteTime timestamps and these
> MUST be read-only! The same goes for all other timestamps;
> you have to make them read-only in order to guarantee they
> have valid data.
>
> > Whatever. I believe that your "system" is fragile and error prone,
>
> And I believe you've forgotten about versioning achieved through
> logging. Do you seriously believe you can find a serious flaw in
> a week that I haven't thought of in more than 3 years?
>
> > and I doubt the users would like it that much. I wouldn't. But then,
> > if it's what you want, I don't have a problem with you trying to
> > implement it. Though I'll admit to being sceptical about your chances
> > of actually implementing any of it.
>
> My two horsemen are named Depression and Distraction.
>
> > You are babbling pure nonsense here. Learn C++, and learn it
> > properly, and then talk. You can make C++ act like smalltalk
> > if you want. Most of the time, C++ programmers don't want. But
> > when they do, it can be done.
>
> I know it *can* be done; I recall hearing about some programmers
> that ended up reimplementing the VM because they were denied access
> to C++ virtual functions (someone realized they were "inefficient"
> and came up with the bright idea of forbidding them).
>
> But it doesn't change the fact that once a program is finished,
> C++ developers don't expect to have to change or reuse it much,
> let alone allowing *users* to extend it! If you're a programmer
> and you make such an assumption about the OS then you deserve
> to be flogged.
>
> > Well, I can't say I think that much of your system. It's hampered by lack of
> > compatibility which means that it is unlikely to ever even exist, and I
> > don't believe you've offered any compelling advantages regarding your
> > way of "designing" things.
>
> When do you write specifications?
>
> The difference between architecture and design is that architecture
> is visible to the end user, design is only visible to you (assuming
> you do it right). Mixing the two is a great way to screw up software.
>
> > I am reminded here of the fact that a lot of projects ( for example java )
> > were supposed to produce something better than C++, and despite the
> > apparent advantage of not having compatibility burdens, they didn't do
> > substantially better.
>
> Well, that's a lie. Java *WAS* hampered by compatibility. The only
> reason the keyword "new" exists is so it would be familiar to the
> hordes of C++ losers. Do you seriously think that Java syntax is
> so ugly because they couldn't think of anything better? Take a look
> at Smalltalk code sometime!
>
> > I suspect that if you had to actually implement anything, instead of
> > just doing your ivory-tower "enlightened high level design", you'd
> > get a dose of reality. I do pure math research and one thing I've
> > learned in my programming experience is that it's not like math. In
> > math, you don't care that much about efficiency ( "a solution exists" ! )
> > and you don't need to be terribly pragmatic. When you're programming,
> > you do.
>
> 1) make it work,
> 2) make it correct,
> 3) make it fast.
>
> Of course, this fundamental design strategy might be alien to C++
> programmers who need a rationalization to code in a low-level language.
Clue for the clueless...
Condition #3 necessitates the use of a low-level langauge.
Where did you learn computing theory? Back of a cereal box?
--
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.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
From: Tony Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:14:02 GMT
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Wrong. In Linux, you can write a signal handler for any signal (other
>>>> than 9--SIGKILL), ***INCLUDING*** mathematic exceptions (which is what
>>>> is produced by a div_by_0 error.
>>>
>>> And with NT you can provide a Structured Exception Handler to handle any
>>> fault except NMI.
>>
>> Exactly. The failure lay in a poorly programmed application that failed,
>> not in the OS. The OS stayed up, but even the most rabid Linux Loony
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> My understanding was that it did not. That is an NT problem, since
> Linux does stay up in this situation, and doesn't require the programmer
> to write additional exeption handlers. This seems to be another hangover
> from the DOS days.
You were misinformed. Programmers don't have to write exception handlers.
The default ones will shut down the app that does the divide-by-zero. The
programmers only need to provide exception handlers if they want the app to
handle the error itself.
Tony
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:41:31 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:11:44 GMT, Richard wrote:
> >Like? And keep in mind that it's in the context of programmers
> >telling angry users what they should do in HOWTOs.
>
> Yes, it's about programmers telling anti social Linux users not to bash
> users of other operating systems.
Yeah, and they just *happen* to suggest ways to "help the Linux cause", right?
And if the "Linux cause" is advanced then this only *happens* to elevate the
programmers involved. All just one giant coincidence.
> >The psychological destruction inherent in blind obediance to
> >authority. The school system indoctrinates it
>
> Nonsense. If this were true, the more educated would be less questioning
> of authority. Clearly not true.
Where did you get that idea?
And the purpose of university is to *partially* repair the damage done in
the pre-university school system; only what's strictly necessary for the
perpetuation of the academic class (the replacement of the medieval clerical
class). Mostly, it's to channel what little creativity and independence has
survived the ordeal along acceptable channels (acceptable to the academics;
Stalinism is acceptable to academia but Fascism is not, to give one example).
> Forcing ? What, do they lobotomise the students or something ? All
Intimidation. Fear of censure. Fear of disapproval. Ever heard of it?
Or do you exist in a reality where human beings don't have any emotions?
> assumptions are questionable by definition. Any decent school should
> teach students to question all assumptions. Moreover, I don't think
All the ones the school officially recognizes to be assumptions,
certainly not the ones upon which the school (of thought) is based.
You don't see physicists questioning the assumption that "non-
determinism" is well-defined. You're a mathematician so you tell
me: is there any concept in mathematics that corresponds even
vaguely to the concept of "non-determinism" in physics?
> that anyone with a basic awareness of the history of science would
> not understand the importance of this.
Yeah, but how many scientists know the philosophy of science?
Not a fucking lot.
> Well did it occur to you that the physicists may be right ? Or that
> the student really does need to study some more math so that the
> professor can explain the theory in more depth ?
If a contradiction is even *detectable* within a certain conceptual
framework, the answer is *NOT* "just hope it goes away in the next
version of the math we'll teach you, cause you know that everything
we're telling you now is bullshit".
Physics is not programming, right?
> > Which is BS;
> >in 5 years time, the only thing that will have changed is the
> >student's mind has dulled and they've increased their invest-
> >ment in physics astronomically.
>
> Again, utter nonsense. In 5 years, they understand the theory. They may
They understand something completely different from what they
initially sought to understand. This "theory" which physicists
place so much importance on is only relevant to the perpetuation
of the physicists' class and not for an understanding of physics.
Tell me, if you wanted to buy a car and some con artist had sold
you crap then told you "look at the shiny baubles, and now you
can be exactly like me, and isn't that what everyone would want?"
how long would it take you to kill the condescending mofo?
> or may not be happy / comfortable with it after that time. I wouldn't be
> surprised if a lot of physicists weren't that comfortabe with quantum
> mech.
Probably has to do with the fact that after 5 years, they can *do*
it but they still understand jack squat about it. Engineers can
integrate, doesn't mean they understand math.
> I'm going to use it to mean "hobby programmers" since that's my understanding
> of the word. I'd say some hobby programmers are less disciplined than pros,
> but then that hardly matters since they aren't likely to write anything
> complex enough to require careful design.
Enter the marvel of free software!
> >> But that's only the tip of the iceberg. If you use any APIs ( outside
> >> what the language provides ) the user needs to get the bindings.
> >
> >No, he doesn't; *you* do.
>
> If you want dynamic linking, he does.
Nope. What made you think I was speaking about static linking?
Oh, that's right, you were extrapolating from C++!
> What widgets does smalltalk use on a UNIX system ? I bet it doesn't use
> Qt, and I bet that the widgets don't even behave the same way. So IOW,
> you have compatibility issues again. Smalltalk is inconsistent in
> behaviour with the rest of the applications I am using.
And we know that Unix is *so* consistent. Smalltalk is completely
internally consistent, that's enough for me.
Squeak Smalltalk uses the Morphic widget set.
> >much trouble?
>
> Not that much. You need to learn the idioms of the language, because these
> tricks ( usually called "design patterns" ) are part of any expert's
I find it hard to believe you know about design patterns and not Smalltalk.
> vocabulary. The difference between someone who knows the idioms and someone
> who doesn't is much like the difference between a native speaker of a
> ( spoken ) language and a moderately fluent non-native speaker.
>
> > And how many programmers are likely to go to it?
>
> Oh, all the good ones.
LOL!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
