Linux-Advocacy Digest #274, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Tholen Global warning. (was Public v. Private Schools) ("Joe Malloy")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jason Bowen)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Colin R.
Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Tholen Global warning. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:38:09 GMT
Tholen tholes:
> >> The morons are going to be present with our without
> >> encouragement. I don't encourage them, I accept them.
> >> Are morons any less human just because they are morons? I
>
> > Look at Tholen, and tell us what you see.
>
> They see someone who doesn't post to this newsgroup for entertainment
> purposes.
>
> > Heeeeeeeee!
>
> As opposed to sheeeeeeee?
No, Tholen, but it's not surprising that you're playing dumb (waitasec,
you're not playing!). But some truth can made of your senseless response:
"Sheeeeeeeeeeeit".
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:54:51 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/17/2000 at 04:16 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
> > The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible.
> > You >have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what
> > causes the >changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the
> > PGA tour did >it.
>
> > Well hell you can't provide proof of other claims you make so you drop
> > those threads so to a new one you go. You know an asshole like yourself
> > wouldn't know cursorary evidence if it hit you in the face. The pga
> > tour doesn't produce cfc's, ergo it isn't at fault. The are a by
> > product of aerosols though and guess what, they have only existed in the
> > last century. Care to try again? So why do you not like having the
> > truth in front of you?
>
> You really are a retard aren't you. I used satire to show how full of
> holes your claims are. You have nothing but UNPROVEN THEORY to back up
> your claim that CFC's are causing any changes in climate.
>
> Now I doubt that anyone other than you was stupid enough to take my satire
> for a claim of responsibility. Every other reader here understood what I
> proved: That you haven't yet provided a shred of demonstrable fact to
> support your claim that CFC's are altering climate.
>
> Not only were you stupid enough to misread my post, you were even dumber
> in using circular "logic" to prove your claim.
>
> Let me put it in words of a child can understand:
>
> 1. You claim CFC's are altering climate.
>
No I don't, I said we were changing the composition of the atmosphere.
You persist in repeating the lie that I claim we are changing climate
one more time and I will write abuse@pics.
> 2. You provide not a whit of proof. (In science proof means that
> something is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable.)
I didn't make the claim, simply stated they didn't exist till we started
producing and that is verifiable.
>
> 3. Rather you rely on unproven theory as proof.
Not appearing in the ice core until this century is quite proven. Do
you believe the ice core was changed by aliens?
>
> 4. One can not prove a theory by citing the theory.
>
> Now do you see that all you do is make a fool of yourself and the
> University of Colorado.
I didn't prove any theory. I didn't claim that we are warming the
planet or changing climate. All along I've said we were modifying the
atmosphere. I expect an apology or I will write abuse@pics, we'll see
what they think of you going at it again so shortly after being
rempremanded.
>
> You have no proof that CFC's didn't exist in nature or don't exist in
> nature. If nature could created the much more complex chemical which form
> living creatures, it sure as hell could produce CFC's. Whether or not they
> existed before this century is not proven.
Give us a lecture in chemistry Bob, please we all need it since we all
haven't actually taken it like you.
>
> Climate is a changing thing. You have no proof that CFC's have any affect
> on climate. Until every other possible explanation of climatic changes are
> eliminated no one can validly claim that CFC's affect climate.
Didn't claim it Bob. The fact that you went into a tizzy shows you
don't know how to read. I never claimed we were warming the climate.
We are chaning the composition of the atmosphere though. Take the earth
system minus all the cars. Now add the cars pumping their exhaust into
the atmosphere. You've just changed the compostion of the atmoshpere.
Have a good day Bob and stop lying.
>
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 23 Sep 2000 14:20:55 GMT
On 23 Sep 2000 07:35:39 GMT, FM wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 23 Sep 2000 00:46:05 GMT, FM wrote:
>
>>>C++. As is generic programming without getting
>>>buried in OO. There's really no reason why one
>>>would use C++ if one was to follow OOP rigorously.
>>>C++ doesn't even support polymorphism outside of
>>>templates without the use of pointers.
>
>>I am not sure what you mean. virtual method dispatch works
>>on references as well as pointers.
>>
>>// Look ma, no pointers (-;
>> Derived B;
>> Base& C = B;
>> C.foo(); // calls Derived::foo() if foo is virtual
>
>References are just extremely limited forms of pointers
>(constant pointers; what they point to cannot be changed
>once declared, thus they are automatically dereferenced)
>and the above doesn't really do any dispatch other than
>what's originally done for the original object. To do
>anything remotely interesting involving dynamic dispatch,
>pointers are a must.
How is java different ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: dc <[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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:19:53 -0500
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:43:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> LOL. It isn't for me to prove my knowledge whenever you ask, CLund.
>
>Then don't expect anybody to think you have any knowledge.
Sorry, CLund, but whenever you have a question on basic, basic
principles, you need to head on over to www.microsoft.com to educate
yourself.
------------------------------
From: Jason Bowen <[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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 08:32:06 -0600
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 09/21/2000 at 10:05 PM,
> Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > > > It wasn't unannounced. If there is a lab in Engineering with it it
> > > > isn't a public lab. I just wasn't notified till he showed up.
> > >
> > > More proof you are a disgrace to the good name of the University of
> > > Colorado.
> > >
>
> > How does that follow Bob? I thought you were saying that CU was so bad
> > that the counselors in your local high schools weren't going to
> > recommend it to their students anymore and yet you are saying I am a
> > disgrace to it's good name.
>
> The sentence should have said ONCE good name.
>
Yes, you are quite the revistionist.
> > I love wathing you contradict yourself, it
> > makes for a wonderful laugh.
>
> No dictionary of the English language I have researched has a word such
> spelled "wathing". Some spokesman for the University of Colorado. You
> can't even use proper English.
You contradict yourself daily Bob. I mistype and that's all you have
other than trying to chant lies.
>
> > Maybe you can mature to the point where
> > you can realize that you were bested and unable to provide proof for you
> > arguments and you lost. Maybe someday you'll stop lying.
>
> You have never bested anyone in any discussion in which you took part.
> Rather, your assinine claims (half of Canada covered by an ice sheet in a
> single decade) were absolutely refuted by dozens of posters.
>
And not by man made force either(Canada and the ice sheet).
Unfourtunately you are too obtuse to realize it, I never made a claim
about global warming. I did provide supporting evidence for changes in
the atmosphere that were not anthropogenic. So in reality I haven't
been arguing from a leftist standpoint. Some others, Aaron included,
have been talking about balances and I have talked about those balances
in the past such as the deep water formation being changed, and not by
man, by the Earth's natural cycles.
> You are the only one in this newsgroup who posts lies. The Jason
> collection now includes over 300 messages. Another in this group is
> sending them via US Mail to the President of the University.
>
Good for them and what will this do? Annoy the president that a usenet
flamewar is being mailed to her?
> --
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
> MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
> Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 23 Sep 2000 14:48:22 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:00:00 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>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 a load of nonsense.
The "weakly typed" talk is also nonsense. Getting back to reality, it
makes life inconvenient for users if they accidently change the type
of a file, espeically in a system where file type is reasonably important.
IMO, UNIX is more weakly typed than your system. You really can open a
binary in a text editor if you want to. So it doesn't matter if the user
does something wierd with an "extension". However, in your system it
does.
>> 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!
I might want to write the modification time. I can do it manually ( by
changing the file and changing it back ) anyway.
>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.
Nope. There's no reason not to allow writes to modification time.
>> 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?
Ha ! THere's a flaw already. If you've been thinking about it for
three years, and still haven't been able to cough up anything of
merit, then that's a flaw in itself...
>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!
Emacs is a good example of a program written in a low level language
that users can extend. There's no reason to require the users to
write in C++.
> If you're a programmer
>and you make such an assumption about the OS then you deserve
>to be flogged.
It's not like it's impossible to have a scripting language without
building it into the kernel.
>1) make it work,
Which means avoid error prone languages
>2) make it correct,
Which means avoid error prone languages
>3) make it fast.
Which means pretty much rules out smalltalk.
>Of course, this fundamental design strategy might be alien to C++
>programmers who need a rationalization to code in a low-level language.
Not at all. Unlike sloppy scripting languages, C++ uses compile time
checking to catch errors early. So "correct" and "fast" are more likely
to happen here. As for "fast", well C++ will run rings around most
other alternatives ( besides possibly C and assembly )
>If I have to worry about speed that much, I'll get a better compiler,
>improve the compiler myself,
Hahahaha ... no you want. You'll just blow a lot of smoke and make big
promises.
> systematically de-OO the code, or write
If you're going to de-OO the code and forgoe the benefits of OO, why
bother using smalltalk in the first place ?
>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.
Yeah, it's gonna this, it's gonna that. Show me something of merit and
I'll take you seriously. At the moment, you just look like another usenet
kook blowing a lot of smoke on a pointless usenet forum of no consequence,
and getting nothing done. It's like the guy who lounges around in the bar
drinking beer and talking about how he's gonna change the world.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 23 Sep 2000 14:53:40 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 07:41:31 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
[ bullshit snipped ]
This is so absurd that I'm not even going to respond to it.
Look, if you want anyone to take you seriously, go and produce something
half useful. Anyone can produce hot air, though admittedly you seem
to display an unusual talent for it.
Every so often, some usenet kook comes along and talks about this idea
for a radical new project that will "be better than everything else",
and the project never even gets off the ground for a few reasons:
(*) It's impractical.
(*) Typically, those who cannot come up with practicle, implemenetable
solutions are also not capable of implementing anything.
I don;'t see how you're helping users by hyping some grand and pretentious
idea that's unlikely to even result in an OS that can so much as boot
( let alone do anything useful )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:51:40 +0200
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 21:29:10, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >No...FASCISM is a socio-economic model characterized by a vertically
> >integrated commercial sector, and where the business sector essentially
> >"owns" the government (much like Japan).
I guess "the business sector" thought of the same definition when they
supported the Nazis. And the military thought of the definition where
the military "owns" the government. And all the others thought they
would control the Nazis when they supported them. And guess what Aaron,
they were just as wrong as you are.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:51:45 +0200
Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
>
> @I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
> @in W2K.
>
>
> Well, it's been put in all the labs at UNT, so far nothing works. I
> suppose that's a "feature."
Yeah, but is it a *new* feature ;-)
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:26:39 -0400
Richard wrote:
> "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.
But who cares about trolls such as you?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:33:49 -0400
Matt wrote:
> > I don't think Microsoft ever got a whole lot of money for Windows. Not
> > compared to apps. But Windows was a lever for apps and MSN and etc.
> > Depending on how that DoJ thing turns out, Microsoft might wind up with no
> > reason not to develop everything for Mac and Linux, as well as Windows.
> >
>
> HAHAHAHHAHAHaHaHAHHAHAHa
> The operative word is THINK! You are making this up to support you point a
> of view.
>
> The Facts:
> from microsoft's site:
>
> "WINDOWS PLATFORMS revenue was $4.92 billion, $6.28 billion, and $8.50
> billion in 1997, 1998, and 1999."
Does this include OEM copies, and if so, does it OEM prices?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:00:06 -0400
Richard wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:48:32 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I agree completely. I'd just like to point out that "things it's
> > >not intended to do" includes "being used by any human being".
> >
> > Sorry, but you simply can't subsitute your inability to use more
> > than one interface as an excuse to bash any other particular user
> > shell, including KDE.
>
> Sure I can. It's a well-known fact in OS circles that a
> single uniform interface is a fundamental principle of
> good design.
Cite, please.
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
