Linux-Advocacy Digest #390, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 02:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Mike Marion)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Mike Marion)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Mike Marion)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Mike Marion)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:02:31 GMT
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> http://www.be.com/support/documentation/be_book/The%20Kernel%20Kit/ThreadCon
> cepts.html#Thread%20and%20Team%20Concepts found out that though the
> application could or could not be mulithreaded, I believe that if you call
> an API function that uses threading, your end result will be a multithreaded
> application.I am not sure how this is handled in other operating systems. Is
> this a fair statement?
It does look like you can, and probably should, code to the thread API.. and
that Be's API makes it much easier to write a program that's threaded.
However, it still sounds like coding for any OS: it's not a multithreaded app
unless you use that threaded API... maybe Be's coding rules require this,
but I don't know. I don't see how writing a simple "hello world" program is
magically multithreaded though. Then again I haven't coded for Be, and don't
really have a desire to.. at least not right now.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:07:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin", a man who seems to be on an ethereal quest to be more
>clever than he really is, wrote:
>>
>> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> >> Your points bored me, and I had better things to do with my time.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a transparent lie, James. It is patently obvious that you did
>> >> >not respond to my points because you were not capable of doing so.
>> >>
>> >> So far, I'd say your statement was false. Nothing is 'patently obvious'
>> >> until it is evidenced,
>> >
>> >Max, if you were to walk into a movie house and watch the last 15
>> >minutes of a movie, a lot of things that were obvious to people who were
>> >there the whole time would not be obvious to you.
>>
>> But Usenet discussions are not a movie; they have no "last 15 minutes",
>> and nothing is obvious to everyone, ever.
>
>The movie was an analogy. [...]
Obviously, my response was that it was an inappropriate analogy.
>
>In any case, I sent you some material by email that would illuminate
>that context.
Yes, I appreciate that. I believe I responded to you. Let me know if
you didn't get it.
>> Indeed, the very reason I'm
>> continuing this discussion is because the basic concept of whether it is
>> obvious who's the troll and who's interested in real discussion can be
>> an incredibly deceptive point to determine. Please don't take offense
>> at my interest.
>
>I don't think the notion is that arbitrary. There are people who discuss
>things in good faith and there are people who are not here for that.
I assure you, I'm one of the former.
>Some, IMO, have a FUD agenda. Others are just here to provoke and
>quibble frivolously. That's what a troll is, basically, I guess. But
>some trolls are so persistent for such a long period of time that I
>perceive something sinister there.
Yet I won't include persistency, simply, in the list of troll
characteristics, as I am quite persistent in maintaining that I have an
accurate, consistent, and practical position worthy of defending.
>>
>> >I can guarantee you that it *is* indeed patently obvious, if you
>> >followed the thread, that James did not respond to my points because he
>> >was unable to. They devastated his entire argument.
>>
>> I've had 'JS/PL', Roger, Mike Byrnes, Christopher Smith, and a whole
>> host of other trolls say the same thing about my own attempts to ignore
>> someone who's trying to harass me with straw-men and trivial
>> ankle-biting. Perhaps he did not at all agree that your points
>> 'devastated his entire argument'. Without having the original text
>> (available, but not necessarily accessible <Please support the Usenet
>> virus in my sig>), are we to merely take your word for that?
>
>At this point, I have sent you material by email that provides some
>context to the discussion. I have also summarized the Gary Van Sickle
>(JTK) incident for you. If there is anything more you want to know, you
>can ask, of course, in private or in public.
Feel free to repost to the group any emails I send you; I might publish
them all myself, some day.
[...]
>> Because your reasoning seems consistent with the response that I get
>> from trolls who are trying to undermine my credibility by insisting that
>> my 'entire argument' has been devastated because of their trivial
>> ankle-biting, which doesn't even begin to address my argument. IOW, you
>> seem to be harassing James, not confronting his arguments.
>
>I am puzzled by this. Which specific arguments has James made that I am
>not confronting?
That's why I said you'd 'spoiled the experiment'. I didn't know which
argument you might have spoiled; you insisted your argument punctured
holes in his argument, and I had no supporting knowledge of the argument
itself, so I pointed out that many times trolls have said that their
remarks had, as you did, "punctured holes" in my argument, when in fact
that wasn't the case. Upon reading the email you sent (why didn't you
simply repost it?) I realized you were probably right, but I still
didn't see how your argument varied from the ones that 'Roger', 'JS/PL',
Christopher Smith, or 'Mike Byrns' present.
>> Again, I ask that you try to take no offense at my accusation, as
>> contradictory as that sounds. I'm really interested in our current
>> discussion in its potential to shed light on the understanding and
>> response and definition of 'trolling'; I'm not trying to take sides and
>> insult you, merely to provoke a flame-war. I'd like to examine this
>> intellectually, not emotionally.
>
>When people claim in all seriousness that people have some sacred right
>to tell malicious lies about me anonymously, my response to that is not
>intellectual. It is visceral and emotional in nature.
Thus the reason your response provided an ideal examination of whether
or not we could tell whether you or James was acting unreasonably.
>To ask people to discuss things like this in a purely intellectual
>manner is rather utopic. It is a human matter and emotion does enter in.
Precisely. I appreciate, and find quite convincing, your reasoned
response to my comments, whereas James has not evidenced any opinion on
the matter. As I said in my email, I think, this alone proves your
position, without quite spoiling the fact that without this response, a
Usenet reader could not really tell who was the troll, so to speak.
>[...]You again
>> have not addressed the central issue of my remark, which was that
>> whether 'any libelous speech' is protected has no relevance to whether a
>> particular piece of speech is libelous, or protected.
>
>At this point, I will have to decline your invitation to debate this
>matter with you. I have already made my views on this matter quite clear
>and argued endlessly about the topic with a bunch of... cerebrally
>challenged individuals.
All the more reason to give it a shot with me, I tell you.
>I am not interested in debating the matter any
>further with you or anyone else "just for the fun of it".
Then how about "to decide the matter intellectually", which you indicate
you haven't been able to do with less worthy debaters.
>It is quite
>clear that there is no general right to spread slanders about other
>people anonymously.
No, but there is some indication that so long as it is done anonymously,
it is not the author's responsibility that it be believed. You get
close the 'shouting fire in a crowded theory' argument, but the fact is
that we aren't in a crowded theater; we're on Usenet.
>That is most certainly *not* the meaning of the
>freedom of speech that the Bill of Rights describes.
But if one had to identify oneself to speak the truth, wouldn't those
with the most powerful physical threat control what people said?
>If you want to play the devil's advocate and argue the other side just
>for the hell of it, you can do so alone.
Unfortunately, I cannot, so I must presume you cannot respond to my
arguments.
I am looking forward to your response. I applaud your reasoning, to
this point.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:10:02 GMT
Todd wrote:
> Hmmm... maybe RedHat Linux isn't as good as the distribution you are using.
> What are you using?
I'm using Redhat, and NS has never crashed the box on me. However, I don't
use the stock NS for very long.. I tend to download the latest version fairly
soon.
> I wasn't talking about the cost of the system. Even so, Windows 2000 with
> the above software allows me to be so productive that software costs are
> irrelevant compared to the cost of developing a solution. I'll gladly pay
> thousands of dollars if I can save a quarter of a million in system
> development costs.
I would too... but often that up front cost is much more then the development,
at least in projects I've worked on or know of... plus 2k hasn't been out long
enough in heavy real world use for projects that I work with to trust on any
mission critical solutions yet. I see tons of projects in my company and
others where they make a claim like that up front, and buy some commercial
solution only to find that little tweaks and changes are needed here and
there.. and they end up negating the whole savings they were supposed to get
in the long run anyway.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:12:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>
>> >I can guarantee you that it *is* indeed patently obvious, if you
>> >followed the thread, that James did not respond to my points because he
>> >was unable to. They devastated his entire argument.
>
>Nope. I don't suppose that it occurred to you that I just got tired of
>you? You don't discuss; you name call. I may disagree with Max (in
>another thread), but I like to think that it's a reasoned, mature
>discussion. With you, it's like arguimg with a 2 year old. It gets
>tiring pretty quickly.
Are you talking to me?
>When you can control yourself for minutes at a time and not throw ad
>homeneim attacks, you'll get better results.
I can't tell if you're talking to me or Jonathan Revusky; neither of us
have engaged in an outrageous number of ad hominem attacks, AFAIR.
[...]
>What I was saying is simply this:
>
>-- I was once of the opinion that anonymous postings here showed a lack
>of backbone
>-- after seeing what lengths people like you and pvdl are willing to go
>to, I now
> understand the desire (and even need in some cases) for anonymity.
Who was 'pvdl', and what role did they play in forming that opinion, if
you don't mind my asking? I did post to Jonathan, I believe, that you,
James, might have been presenting just such a 'anonymity is potentially
necessary' position. I'm not necessary agreeing with that position, but
is this the root of the reason John seems to think that you were
'dodging his arguments'?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:13:04 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> under $50 and has better customer support available ( linux uers can post
> questions
> direct to the programmers via usenet, microsoft users have to spend hours on
> the phone
> to ms tech support and often still don't get decent answers or solutions).
That's not just a Linux thing either. 99% of the time I can get an answer
much, _much_ faster searching usenet and/or mail-list archives then I can from
any company's tech support and/or web site. Unless it's failed hardware of
course. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 05:18:05 GMT
Todd wrote:
> I mean everything. And I know my system is good because 2000 is on the same
> system and works OK. Linux doesn't crash a lot, granted, but it isn't
> perfect either. For that matter, HP's UNIX is more stable than Linux by a
> long shot.
Too bad they have the worst automounter on the planet... man it sucks.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. -
http://www.miguelito.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:24:05 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>@> Seems to be rather important if it can render the machine unusable.
@>@
@>@Do you have any proof that it can do that?
@>
@> Machine #21, AUDB room #307c, UNT campus, Texas. IOW, the very
@>machine we've been discussing this entire thread.
@
@The *ONLY* thing we know about the machines in question is that you're
@getting a disk error @ login. Aside from that, *EVERYTHING* else
@mentioned in this thread is pure conjecture.
You asked for "any" proof. Is this not "any" enough for you?
@>@> That's unprovable. Also, you are not a very good writer. It isn't
@>@>my fault I can't understand what you're trying to say. Unloading the
@>@>blame on me, and accusing me of just being ignorant doesn't change the
@>@>fact that your articles are sometimes poorly written and very
@>@>confusing.
@>@
@>@You are very nontechnical and you're asking me to explain some very,
@>@very technical items. Hence, my suggestion to you is to read books on
@>@the subject, so that you can become familiar with the terminology.
@>
@> Actually, I can read technical writings quite well. And I am quite
@>familiar with many of the terms tossed around here. But you have been
@>giving contradictory information, which no amount of experience on my
@>part will get around unless I just flat out tell you that you're
@>lying/misinformed. Hell, you can't even ask a simple question: see
@>below.
@
@I haven't given contradictory information. I've given information
@that could apply in a variety of different scenarios, and you got
@confused.
Yes, you gave a variety of scenarios. However, when you presented
them, you gave _no_ indication that they were different.
@>@>@>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
@>@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>@> Yes.
@>@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@>@At what, exactly?
@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two
@>@>@>@> machines.
@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>Two users: root, and me.
@>@>@>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something that
@>@>@>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no or a
@>@>@>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would be
@>@>@>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week,
@>@>@>@setting
@>@>@>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP, and
@>@>@>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up OS X
@>@>@>@beta. That's silly.
@>@>@>
@>@>@> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?" I
@>@>@>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question. How
@>@>@>am
@>@>@>I
@>@>@>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative
@>@>@>experience
@>@>@>that I would consider impressive?"
@>@>@
@>@>@Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an account
@>@>@operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a "multi-user"
@>@>@(heh) Win95, too!)
@>@>
@>@> Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....
@>@
@>@You were being stupid. The question was perfectly valid.
@>
@> The question: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?"
@> The answer: "Yes."
@> You didn't qualify it, but you meant to. Hence, it's a stupid
@>question.
@
@You were being stupid, juvenile, and a smartass. "Administrative
@experience" means administering systems, not setting up a single OS on
@an old machine with "Root and me" as two users.
I stated quite clearly that it was talking to my quadra, ie. network.
You should be more careful when you toss around "any." If anyone's
being stupid, it's the one who asked a very open-ended question, and
then got miffed with an answer. It's like asking for a car, and then
bitching that you got a pinto instead of a porche. Besides, if you're
going to play it that way, no matter what kind of experience I detail to
you, you can just ask for more/refine you definition retroactively.
It's a trick alt.f/lamers like to pull. I actually have perfectly good
experience above and beyond what I stated, but I know it won't "measure
up" to your ever-changing definition of real experience. So, rather
than pring that up, and defend it, I'll stick with my two machines/users
tale, and let you sit on it.
@>@>@>@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
@>@>@>@>@'shit'. Since you have no idea what's wrong with the machine, any
@>@>@>@>@other analysis you could make would be silly.
@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@> 1. My support staff IS shit.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@That, folks, is the root of the problem.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@> 2. They did just fine with 95/98.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@Immaterial. See #1.
@>@>@>
@>@>@> Very material. 95/98--OK, w2k--failure. Staff hasn't changed,
@>@>@>hardware hasn't changed, usage hasn't changed, even the damn weather
@>@>@>hasn't changed. All that's changed is the OS.
@>@>@
@>@>@...according to you, who isn't an administrator, can't look at the
@>@>@machine in question, and generally is clueless about NT / Microsoft
@>@>@OSs. Sorry, but that's not an authoritative answer.
@>@>
@>@> Umm, nope. That has nothing to do with it.
@>@> DC, is it just me, or has out conversation slipped away from
@>@>hollering at eachother? It's a nice change, don't get me wrong, but
@>@>it's still a little odd.
@>@
@>@I'm trying to have a technical discussion with someone who is quite
@>@non-technical AND is assigning blame left and right to a machine which
@>@may or may not have a problem with quotas, profiles, or disk space -
@>@but we don't know - and may or may not have other problems - which we
@>@also don't know - and you refuse to get desktop support out there to
@>@fix it - and you're calling THIS odd?
@>@
@>
@> You make far too many assumptions. I've been bugging the support
@>staff for the entire semester. Unfamiliar with windows' methods != lack
@>of technical knowledge. The issue long ago turned from broke machine to
@>bugging you about your continual contradictions. Then, even when by all
@>common sense, what windows is doing is stupid, you accuse me of not
@>understanding, yet you don't explain why, you accuse my support staff of
@>being incompetent, then you turn around completely and accuse me of
@>assigning blame willy-nilly?
@> I don't mean to be rude, but you sure do seem to be an asshole.
@
@...because:
@A) You can't be bothered to try to go to someone to fix the problem
@(like, say, the dean of com-sci departments, for example)?
@or because
Dean of CSCI has NOTHING to do with this, and has about as much clout
as I do in this matter. Do you know how a university operates? The
university is divided into several schools, each of which is divided
into departments. The division of schools is a little fuzzy, but the
division of departments is clear. People in one department have
absolutely no power in another department--even in the same school.
Also, jumping straight to a dean, when my beef is with a lab, is a very
good way to get myself blackballed.
The first logical choice for me is to find who in the English
Department is in charge of the writing labs, then talk to her. If that
doesn't work, talk to the counselor for undergraduate english. Then the
chair of the english department. Then the dean of the Arts/Sciences
school or the dean of the School of education. Then the Chairman of the
university.
Along the way I'd mostly be talking to secretaries/paperwork/
complaint boxes/schedules. On the rare occasion I get to talk to an
actual person, they'll likely blow me off since I'm a) one student, b)
not a greek or athlete, c) already on-file with the english department.
As if that isn't enough, I have stated countless times that I have
complained repeatedly of my problem. Can't you read?
@B) Everything we've said here is a guess based on the slim
@information you've been able to provide?
If my information is so slim, why do you feel justified in using it
to accuse damn near everything of being incompetent just to defend
Windows, a stupid piece of software? Doesn't make much sense to me.
@Which of those? Without an admin password, I really can't help you.
@Hence, I suggest you bother someone who can - like the abovementioned
@dean. If you're paying for the course, you should have a working PC.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
