Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 19:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: what happens when an old programmer dies? ("Dan Jacobson")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:05:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >The reason you did not respond to my arguments -- and yes, I darned well
>> >presented arguments -- was because they made your position appear
>> >ridiculous.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but that's not enough to prove that your arguments
>> were either cogent or correct.
>
>Well, as usual, I chose my words carefully. I didn't say in the above
>that the arguments were cogent or correct in an absolute sense. (Though
>I thought they were, otherwise I wouldn't have made the arguments.) I
>simply pointed out that James was incapable of responding to them, and
>was representing that he did not do so because "it was boring" or that
>my points were peripheral; they most certainly were not.
I still can't see why you are assuming that James was 'incapable of
responding' to your arguments. I'm not faulting you for making the
assertion, or for holding the opinion, but for basing the opinion, if
you are doing so, merely on the opinion. You sought, as far as I can
reconstruct the situation, to broaden the discussion beyond all reason
by insisting that in order to support his opinion, James *must* defend
the position that the Constitution allows anonymous speech to be
protected from libel charges. I don't think that necessary follows, and
don't see why James would have to address the point in order to hold his
opinion, though I agree with you that it is a potential exploration of
the central issues.
>Just now, he accused me of "ad hominem". The ad hominem fallacy consists
>of attacking the person rather than his arguments. In that very post,
>James complained about what a bad guy I was and simply snipped all my
>arguments without attempting to respond to them. So he was the one doing
>"ad hominem."
Ad hominem is a tricky thing.
>>
>> >In any case, when you claim that I presented no arguments, and was
>> >merely name-calling, you are lying in an incredibly blatant manner. It
>> >does surprise me because I thought you were more honorable than that.
>>
>> Perhaps he is. Try to really picture that he might be a perfectly
>> reasonable person. It never hurts, I swear. Its often wrong, but
>> that's not a problem unless you have your ego too tied up in your
>> intellectual arguments.
>
>If someone is behaving in bad faith, it is a problem if you are trying
>to engage in good-faitehd discussion with that person. Otherwise, it is
>not, I suppose.
Apparently, we've already found common ground. I'm sure James would
agree. He apparently believes that you were not behaving in good faith
when you tried to over-extend the argument and set up a straw man. What
would be the good faith response to such a criticism?
[...]
>> Unfortunately, that argument is more support for his arguments. I'm
>> afraid we'll have to discuss this further.
>
>I think you would have to be familiar with the situation to discuss this
>further. I mean, you seem more interested in gamesmanship than actually
>figuring out what happened.
I'm interested in figuring out what it happening, not what has already
happened. I mean no disrespect, to you or James.
[...]
>> He was within his rights to get enraged; his rights don't extend to
>> satisfying that rage.
>
>He was getting accused of something and his rights do include the right
>to face his accuser. Hence, the unmasking was quite justified.
You only have a right to face your accuser in a court of law, AFAIK.
>> He might be wrong to get upset that someone in a
>> mask calls him a racist. How absurd was the accusation?
>
>It's very hard to judge. If you have full context, it was maybe absurd,
>but people seeing posts on usenet do not typically have full context,
>and it's hard to tell what they'll believe or not.
That would make almost any accusation on Usenet somewhat absurd, to
begin with, don't you think?
>It was quite
>reasonable IMO for Yann (or anyone else) to be concerned about seeing
>his name and "racist" in the same sentence.
Oh, come on. You expect me to believe that a random ad hominem attack
is a serious accusation of inappropriate behavior?
>For example, you yourself seem willing to leap to judgment without
>having full context.
Alas, I'm quite unwilling to leap to any judgement, as I'm not any more
capable of having 'full context' than anyone else. I'm trying to
double-check what happened, not second-guess the participants, though
I'll admit the distinction might seem minor from your position.
>In any case, it's absurd for someone to provoke people in that kind of
>gratuitous way and express such shock when they get a reaction.
Well, I will agree with that. Acting shocked might be disingenuous, but
being offended if others do not limit themselves to merely responding on
Usenet to provocations which were merely posted on Usenet might not,
however, be insincere.
[...]
>That is most certainly not what happened in this instance. It was
>specifically stuff that was blatant slander that pushed the situation
>where it went. It was not simple disagreement over a point of
>intellectual discussion.
Now that is a more clear interpretation of the interaction, I'd bet. It
is, of course, still just your perspective, but it is a reasonable
sounding presentation.
[...]
>Well, this is not what happened. At one distinct point, I asked James
>Robertson whether he believed that Gary Van Sickle was at the receiving
>end of such hostility simply because he was critical of Java. James
>declined to answer the question.
Yes, I saw that part reposted, and it did seem illuminating.
>And that was central. You see, James himself is critical of Java (the
>guy's a smalltalk fan from way back) and nobody has ever considered
>complaining of abuse of the medium in his case. In general, James is
>treated very civilly on clja. I myself have treated James quite civilly
>on clja until recently, when he's really annoyed me.
>
>The thing that set off the complaints to Gary Van Sickle's employer was
>clearly slanderous statements made from behind a mask. That, combined
>with 2+ years history of extremely persistent troll behavior, repeating
>the same lies over and over again...
>
>It was most certainly not a case of people complaining to his employer
>for him simply saying things in good faith that people didn't agree
>with. It was abusive behavior -- slander, blatant repeated lies (which
>is itself a form of provocation IMO) -- occurring over an extremely long
>period of time.
On Usenet. From an anonymous person. I don't know if there is any
possible standard for something which requires that it be taken less
seriously. I didn't say it was an issue of complaining to his employer
for him saying things in good faith that people didn't agree with. I
suggested that the issue, however, has nothing to do with whether he was
saying things in good faith, and whether they were true, as well as
whether anyone agreed with them. It is a form of intellectual
intimidation of the lowest order, plain bullying, to involve the
employer of someone who is posting outside of professional affiliations
(and I don't just mean 'using company bandwidth', as that's a separate
matter altogether) because you don't like what he posted, regardless of
faith or truth, IMHO.
>> >Now, after all this mess, Gary Van Sickle (JTK unmasked) draped himself
>> >in the flag. And the constitution and the bill of rights. In so doing,
>> >he was following a tradition of countless 2-bit scoundrels before him.
>>
>> He sounds like a complete asshole. So are JS/PL, and Roger, and several
>> others.
>
>I'm not familiar with all of those posters because I am not a regular on
>cola. But I think that cola basically suffers from the same kind of
>"anonymous shill plague" that clja does. I cannot help but believe that
>this is because -- though linux and java are 2 very different things --
>they are technologies whose success is threatening to the interests of a
>certain corporation....
And that said corporation has 90% of the industry locked up in
maintaining the monopoly....
>And yes, I'd like the whole bunch of them to disappear. I think it's
>worse when they hide who they are, because they are always reserving the
>right to come back under a different identity. Also, for at least 99% of
>people, the fact of signing their own name introduces some inhibitions;
>once there's not even the minimal accountability, then some of these
>jerks are always just testing the limits of what they can get away with
>in the medium. So I think there have to be real-world consequences
>somewhere down the line.
Well, you face me with an interesting conundrum, as I have long and
often, separately, held that anonymous posting, particularly on
technical forums, is base silliness to begin with, and indicative,
without evidence to the contrary, of a lack of integrity and sincerity.
But yet I have always known of the complexity of the 'anonymous' issue.
Separate from whether it should be condoned at all, I can't see
reporting someone posting something I don't like to their employer
unless I believe their posts are at the behest of that employer, or
somehow otherwise professional in nature. I'll call my lawyer, their
NNTP service (if that was their employer, that's an entirely different
situation than I've understood so far), or the police, if they are
posting malicious lies and slanderous statements, but there's no reason
to involve the employer unless you were seeking to harass him, which I
can personally tolerate less than calling someone an alcoholic, a
racist, or a pedophile.
>> >Unfortunately for him (though fortunately for the rest of us) the Bill
>> >of Rights does not provide for a right to spread libel anonymously.
>>
>> I will again disagree with you, and point out that if its anonymous, it
>> might not be considered libelous.
>
>It's when the *victim* is anonymous that the statements aren't
>libellous, since libel is an attack on another person's "good name". If
>the person is deliberately hiding his identity, you can't really libel
>him. OTOH, the *perpetrator* can be anonymous. For example, if you
>walked out the door one day and saw a whole bunch of unsigned graffiti
>saying that you, T. Max Devlin, are a drug addict, and you later found
>out who had written the graffitti, that person would definitely be
>guilty of libel. (Well, he was guilty of libel before you found out who
>he was, too... but there wasn't much you could do about it...)
I personally wouldn't agree, but I have a much different view of libel
laws than most people, and probably disagree with the courts, as well, I
think.
>So it seems that you are confused about some of the fundamentals of the
>case. If you want to know anything more about the incident in question,
>please write me in private, and I'll provide deja references etcetera,
>so that any debate on the matter is on a more equal footing.
I'm sure you'd prefer if I just let it ride. I think the point is
clear; one really can't tell very well from past conversations who is
misunderstood and who is unreasonable. I'll have to just keep looking
for posts from you and posts from James, and figure out how reasonable
either of you the hard way.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:10:05 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:51:47 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:02:26 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:53:59 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>>>On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>>>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>>>>>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>>>>>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>>>>>>> junior high students.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
>>>>>> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
>>>>>> system to crash more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
>>>>>> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't fully shut down the system and come up in BeOS
>>>>
>>>> What exactly is lingering around to provide problems for
>>>> the new kernel? Should you trust an OS that doesn't
>>>> completely flush the state of the system once it takes
>>>> control?
>>>
>>>It's meant as a demo. You can't really do much with the
>>
>> IOW: it's a big fat ad.
>>
>> As such, it reflects upon the full version. If this
>> "well, it's really just a demo" version is percieved
>> as a piece of shit than it will certainly reflect
>> badly on Be and "real BeOS".
>>
>>>'Personal' edition. As such, it is meant to provide you
>>>with a basic idea of what the final system will run like.
>>>
>>>You would not be trusting the personal edition for much of
>>>'real' use as it doesn't provide you with a lot of data
>>>storage capabilities and it doesn't really give you a lot
>>>of the options of the full version. I'm not sure about
>>>installing apps on it, as I've never tried installing
>>>anything more on the personal edition, only on the Pro.
>>
>> Demos aren't an excuse to be sloppy.
>>
>
>Hell, it's worked for Microsoft for the past 25 years,
>even in the non-demo shit.
>
>I do use Linux, and enjoy it fully. But seeing people
>like you makes me feel like the entire idea of the 'Linux
>Community' is nothing more pleasurable than a baseball bat
>covered with spiked being shoved up my ass.
Simple curative: don't be an idiot.
[deletia]
Corel botching their version of Linux isn't quite like
Be bowing to their marketing department and seriously
undermining the integrity of their operating system.
This kind of BS is why people like me AVOID Microsoft.
If Be screws up, their actions shouldn't be overlooked
just because they aren't Microsoft.
--
The distinction between true and false appears to become increasingly
blurred by... the pollution of the language.
-- Arne Tiselius
A plucked goose doesn't lay golden eggs.
------------------------------
From: "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.windows98,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,sci.geo.satellite-nav
Subject: Re: what happens when an old programmer dies?
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 06:10:51 +0800
"Thomas Tonino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ?????
> Followups set as this is one CRAZY crosspost.
I think I overdid it and it got deleted. So let's try again with just the
importaint groups.
Ahem,
Hi, just thought of a new topic; you see in the past programmers were young,
but now that set got old and sooner or later they're gonna die. Previously
ones life works might be given to a library, etc. hmm, well, a programmer's
contributions might be all instead in the form of software & manuals, this
could still, say in a boxed shrink-wrapped set be given to a library to
gather dust. Or perhaps there could be an on-line shrine of her/his
contributions set up.
But this brings up a question of software maintenance and licenses. Once one
kicks the bucket, it sure seems real hard for your hard work of software
craftsmanship to live on past you much longer, especially if you took the
keys with you in terms of passwords for access to source code or code
availability & use legal rights...
One would be concerned, once I pass away [not me, I'm just 40], how can I
leave somehow some kind of positive thing behind to society, not necessary so
that people remember my name, and not necessarily that I have good karma in
supposed afterlives, etc. but, um, so that I can "sleep good at night,"
knowing that all wasn't for naught.
[That's why I've set up the DanJ International Trust Partnership, your
contribution of only $JUST JOKING... back to the story...]
OK, so we're talking how can one's software contributions live on after one
kicks the bucket.
I suppose if one worked at Microsoft, or other corporate situations, one
could rest assured that ones code would live on, well maintained by other
members of the team. Perhaps one's very bytes might be still around in
XYZ.DLL of Windows 2100.
For the smaller software guy, however, he croaks, 1/2 year later the client
has a problem but nobody knows how to fix it any more, he hires another
consultant who, I'm sorry, is just one header file away from perhaps being
able to maintain the stuff, but File not Found. So within a week your stuff
is DEL *.* and they start anew without your legacy.
OK, another way to leave an impact, especially if you are a professor, might
be to leave behind not code itself, but some useful algorithms, perhaps even
named after your initials... sounds
good, but, e.g., me: brain not high powered enough to leave behind
algorithms. Hmm, I wonder how many fresh algorithms are say at in the load
of contributions at ftp.gnu.org
Now we turn to the GNU Free Software types. Sure, lots of free code that
couldn't all possibly live on in today's rapidly changing computer scene.
But, as a GNU type author, at least you get to put you name in your code as
opposed to the anonymous corporate code scene. Oops, forgot, name not
important, contribution to society important. But hey, at least people can
see clearly what you weren't responsible for. [unless later your code gets
"repaired" with no comment field noting that you didn't do that.]
OK, so at least the GNU style programmer's contributions are available 24
hours for ftp, hopefully benefiting generations at least for copying parts
of your code's cool subfunctions, etc., whereas conventional make-a-buck
programmers' code just goes rotating round the disk until one day when the
units are replaced, with not one cold file access in hell.
So that's what I was telling my ~60 year old GPS [you know, the handheld
navigation thing] programmer pal. I said [Bob], you've got a great package,
you even allow folks to download it and use a limited set of features if not
registered yet. However, if one day you um, kick the bucket, all I see is
that effort going down the drain. Sure you've made a buck you can give your
kids, but it sure seems a waste to see all that software go down the drain:
you won't be around to add the features that will keep it competitive next
year; you won't be around to port it to Win2001.5, you haven't got a vice
guru or student primed to carry on your legacy, and I don't suppose your wife
will be any good at helping netters if one day you aren't around to hit the
power on switch.
Comments? Have I said anything out of date as usual? Please reply to the
newsgroups. Creatively crossposted by:
--
www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." Dan Jacobson = ???
Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:14:15 -0000
On 2 Oct 2000 21:34:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 2 Oct 2000 18:49:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On 30 Sep 2000 06:40:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "." wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus generating alot of the reasoning behind the arguments of some of
>>>>>>> the most illogical and vehement anti-linux people on COLA. Try it,
>>>>>>> you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>>>>>>> many others have ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you even tried any other journalling FS? Reiserfs, xfs, even journalled
>>>>>> ufs on solaris come to mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ive used (and use currently) reiserfs and ufs, and neither one of them can
>>>>>touch bfs in terms of filesize and speed...
>>>
>>>> When is that ever a significant concern?
>>>
>>>When youre dealing with high end media application. You know, the stuff that sun
>>>keeps trying to convince people like Pixar to use solaris for.
>
>> Sure, and Pixar is going to bet a rather large farm on Be...
>
>You have no idea what youre talking about. I never mentioned the term 'farm'.
Are you sure you aren't a finite state automata?
BTW: Pixar, with their own tools support Unix (including Bughat)& NT for
the numbercrunching side and support Irix and NT for the client
side.
So, when's that Maya port going to be here for BeOS?
--
A vivid and creative mind characterizes you.
He hadn't a single redeeming vice.
-- Oscar Wilde
------------------------------
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 18:25:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> You make a strong case, but just how much more damaging was the behavior
>> from merely being 'provocative'. Again, the anonymity of the poster
>> *should* certainly be taken as an indication that inflammatory derision
>> such as claiming someone is an alcoholic or, archetypically, that they
>> are a "pedophile", is entirely false to begin with. Is it his
>> arguments, or his facts, which you wish to dispute? I'll question
>> either one, entirely, if he was posting anonymously. Why do you think
>> people post anonymously, and why I hate it?
>
>I am not sure why *you* hate it. If you want to know why I hate it, I
>made my reasons pretty clear in this post:
>
>http://x51.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=662203720
>
"I am curious to see what kinds of response I get to these questions. I
will also be curious to judge them on the basis of their cogency and
logical soundness. Maybe that could provide some objective test of my
aforementioned mass-insanity hypothesis."
Yes, indeed. I found your article very interesting and quite
worthwhile. But I do disagree with your position.
First, I think if you have to come up with a new 'law' or 'force' to
explain how something works, you're out on a limb to begin with. You
can't create a 'law of accountability', and then try to compare it to
real-world activities like anonymity.
Your comment that, outside of the Internet, the availability of
anonymity does not exist, except for special cases. To a great extent,
that is true, but I'll point out that the special cases are not of a
pre-defined nature, and so I do not believe you are within your rights
to claim that someone doesn't fit into the classification of special
cases, as that would be second-guessing their circumstance, not
double-checking their responsibilities.
The 'vacuum' of the lack of the law of accountability, in your analogy
of astronauts learning to survive without the law of gravity, so to
speak, is the natural order, I'm afraid. It isn't so much that we do
not have a 'law of anonymity' allowing people to speak while hiding
their identity, it is that your belief that such a thing could exist is
an extension of the law of privacy. There has been much debate on the
fact that there is no 'right to privacy' established in the Bill of
Rights or Constitution, though even the highest courts recognize that
this is a manifestation of everyone's basic rights, to at least some
extent. While you can't speak at a town meeting, normally, with a hood
over your head, you can author a work under a pseudonym.
The lack of any 'law of accountability' in the natural order provides
the reasoning which blocks your 'theory of mass insanity', I think. But
it points the arrow of "personal responsibility" in the other direction.
It is up to the people listening to the statements, true or untrue, made
by the anonymous person, and weight them rationally. It might not seem
comforting to think that this argument would, in fact, allow anyone to
go around 'spreading lies' about you, that 'someone might believe', and
that could harm you and your 'good name' in ways that you might never
even become aware of. But the fact is, all you have to prevent someone
from ruining your good name, should they decide to make a conscious
effort to do so, is the truth of your honesty in maintaining your good
name. A 'good name', a reputation for integrity, is not just a brand
label, so that people who don't know you can judge you. Again, the
arrow of responsibility points the other way: it is up to people to
judge you based on your actions, not your name. And this *promotes* the
'personal responsibility' which people are afraid will be unsupported,
undemanded, when we realize there is no 'law of accountability'.
Because it requires any person interested in having a good name to do
more than simply manage to get one; they have to constantly re-earn it,
and ensure that when faced with a choice between believing what an
anonymous source says about you and what your actions show, any
reasonable person is going to recognize that in remaining anonymous, the
source has removed all credibility from his words.
That's why *I* hate anonymous posters. Not because it enables them to
hide their identity. But because there real name cannot provide the
reputation which they deserve, whether positive or negative, regardless
of how true or false their opinions are. It does, I think, encourage
people to post crap, not because it removes 'accountability for their
actions', but because it removes the ability of others to take
responsibility for being able to honestly evaluate their words.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:27:55 -0000
On 2 Oct 2000 21:58:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 2 Oct 2000 18:43:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On 30 Sep 2000 06:42:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>>>>>> news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>>>BeOS actually is *perfect* for pulling betacam signal, dumping it to a small
>>>drive array, compressing it into mpg, rv, AND avi on the fly and subsequently
>>>pushing it to a huge solaris streaming video server cluster with a total from-
>>>live buffer of about 6 seconds.
>>>
>>>But you probably wouldnt have known that.
>
>> QNX would be even better.
>>
>
>There are no QNX drivers for 128mb Elsa style cards with natural betacam
>ins.
...and they exist for BeOS? That would certainly be
an interesting pattern of sparseness...
[deletia]
--
A shapely CATHOLIC SCHOOLGIRL is FIDGETING inside my costume..
Command, n.:
Statement presented by a human and accepted by a computer in
such a manner as to make the human feel as if he is in control.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
