Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ("Mike")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:09:59 GMT
http://netscape.zdnet.com/framer/hud0022420/www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2635894,00.html
claire
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:29:52 -0500
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The problem with Linux and hardware is that the vast majority of drivers
for
> > Linux are not written by the vendor, but by the Linux kernel developers
(or
> > as contributions to them). So in the case of Linux, it usually *IS*
Linux's
> > fault when drivers are bad. In the case of MS, most drivers are written
by
> > the hardware vendors, and thus it's their fault when the drivers are
bad.
>
> So because Microsoft can't be bothered writing drivers, it escapes the
blame?
> Can't Microsoft write drivers?
MS does write a few drivers, but the vast majority are vendor supplied. Why
should MS write it's own when the vendor *SHOULD* know the hardware much
more intimately than MS ever could.
> Besides, does this mean that Linux deserves credit for good drivers?
Absolutely. And blame when a driver fails.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 4 Oct 2000 00:15:30 GMT
On 3 Oct 2000 23:41:51 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: This is social Darwinism in its purest form. Maybe it's because you
>: Americans have got neither history nor memory that you simply don't
>: get what this kind of ideology inevitably leads to.
Responding to Matthias -- I'm in America at the moment, and rest assured
that the vast majority of people here are a lot nicer than Mr Kulkis ( if
they weren't, they'd probably have all killed each other by now. Imagine
a nation of Aaron Kulkises ! )
>The people who DO understand the logical and inevitable outcome of
>bigotry, and want precisely that outcome, scare me a LOT.
What was that guys name, the guy from the "World Church of the Creator"
who went on a rampage and shot a bunch of people with an illegal gun ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:59:39 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> I did. It's just crap. Retrodictions have zero scientific value.
>> >
>> >Then neither do predictions.
>>
>> Predicting what you don't know is the single most important measure of
>> science's value.
>
>Wrong. Science's most important, in fact *only*, measure of value is
>explanatory power. The value of prediction lies only in the fact that
>many humans don't recognize bullshit when they see it and fool themselves
>into accepting theories with little or no explanatory power. IOW, the
>value of prediction derives entirely from the value of explanation!
It is simple to explain Napoleon as a solar myth. Try it. Predictive power of
science is paramount. Why do you think relativists were so happy after that
particular eclipse when the light was bent by gravity?
>> >You're just giving more proof that you're a total idiot talking out of his ass.
>> >Guessing the equation that gives rise to a massless spin two boson (the
>> >graviton)
>> >is *impossible*. You have a bigger chance winning the lottery ten times in a
>> >row.
>>
>> All other theories that didn't match that equation would simply have been
>> discarded.
>
>Wrong. Because it's impossible to easily verify that massless spin two
>bosons arise from a given equation. You just have *no* idea how complicated
>superstrings is, do you? It's so fucking complex that they have to invent
>the math as they go along!
You claim to understand superstrings?
>And it was later found that ALL the internally self-consistent superstring
>theories predict gravity and they /have/ to in order to be self-consistent!
They don't predict gravity. You seem to ignore the meaning of prediction. They
AGREE with gravity, because gravity was known and preexistent.
>> It's a verification of the theory, which sure is handy. However,
>> there are probably an infinite number of theories that "predict" the same
>> equation.
>
>Idiot. There are only 6 such theories and they were all found to be dual
>to each other!
There are only 6 theories that can possibly predict that equation? I find that
interesting.
>> >Give it up, you don't know the first thing about philosophy of science.
>>
>> Well, I have the university courses that say I do. So I will not.
>
>The horror! What is university coming to?!
Don't know, have not been there in a while.
>> >Human cells in a body get replaced with other human cells with the same
>> >DNA and the same chemical signals. You're such a stupid witless moron.
>> >Are you specifically turning off your brain for this discussion? I'd
>> >hate to think you were this much of an arrogant idiot all the time.
>>
>> If you mean all cells, you are just wrong. Neurons are not naturally replaced,
>> and if you replaced all neurons, by, for example, a brain translpant (from a
>> clone if you want), I would venture that the continuity as perceived by the
>> original (now discarded) brain would be lost.
>
>And if I "replaced" the management in a company by firing every single
>manager (upper, middle AND lower), shot them all, and then brought in
>a completely different management from some other company, then I would
>not expect any continuity either.
But you will. Experience in the real world says so.
> I don't know if you're an idiot for
>rhetorical purposes or you're just an idiot, but your expecting any
>continuity after, say, you fire all the employees in a corporation is
>ludicrous.
It's trivial to prove: corporations have replaced all employees and had
continuity. It is a gradual process, though.
>If you replaced neurons in the brain one at a time, letting the new
>ones reattach according to their neighbours, then there would be
>continuity.
That is, I must say, just guessing.
> The same thing with replacing employees one at a time.
But you just said above that if all the employees were replaced continuity
would be lost. Seems you forgot to qualify your previous statement. Tsk, tsk.
>> Ask the body. He will tell you there was discontinuity. Examine the memory of
>> the human, you will have discontinuity. So, there is discontinuity.
>
>Wrong, witless moron. Ask anyone who doesn't communicate with the new
>brain and they will tell you that it IS the SAME body; same scars, same
>characteristics, everything visible stayed the same.
Clones don't share scars, fool. Besides, who cares about the visible part?
that's not the whole. Because a part of the whole continues, that doesn't mean
the whole does.
>> Proving that a specific being possesses thought is possible? Care to give me an
>> example of a similar proof performed in the past?
>
>It begins with a formal definition of thought.
Read what I said. Reply or not. But don't reply to something else.
>> >It does indeed contain information, just no information that is *new*.
>> >But why the fuck should it?
>>
>> Because a definition that adds no information is not quite useful.
>
>The formal definition of "two" does not add any information for
>most people, I would hope.
There is no formal definition of two that I am familiar with. Except the one
that just defines it ordinally, but that's barely formal.
>> >> >This is complete nonsense. You might get away with it for loose and
>> >> >fuzzy (ie, informal) human thinking but not here and now.
>> >>
>> >> Are you engaging in formal human thinking or informal inhuman thinking?
>> >
>> >Both or either, as it suits me. Your inability to be think rigorously
>> >on the subject doesn't place any constraints on me in that respect.
>>
>> By definition, you can't engage on inhuman thinking. You need to brush your
>> logic.
>
>Since you are speaking informally, I assumed what you said wasn't a
>False Dichotomy and interpolated accordingly. The error in logic is
>yours, the error in judgement is mine
A question is not an assertion, and thus can not be an error in logic.
Therefore, I made no error in logic. You REALLY need to work on your logic.
> (most definitely mine for
>continuing this discussion despite the certain knowledge that you
>are an arrogant ignoramus and have nothing to contribute).
Stop, then.
>> >> >Your claim that "we refuse to not define any [words]"
>> >> >is utter bullshit. Most humans are utterly incapable
>> >> >of rigorous definitions and "informal" ones don't count.
>> >>
>> >> Says who? Even though most men can't define words, they all expect the
>> >> definitions to exist.
>> >
>> >No, they don't. Most people are incapable of creating formal
>> >definitions and don't know what a rigorous definition is.
>>
>> Read what I wrote.
>
>Informal definitions *don't* count. And what most men expect
>doesn't count either. Most men expect blacks to be stupid. Does
>it then matter to this discussion whether or not a particular
>black person is stupid?
In "we refuse to not define [words]", the we is not just you and me. It's "we"
the humans, since I had mentioned human languages. We refuse to leave words
undefined, and we fail to provide correct definitions for them. I don't see how
you find that debatable, and further fail to see what you are actually
debating, which doesn't seem to be connected at all.
>> >Talking out of your ass again. In fact, the colour blue *cannot* be
>> >precisely defined in electromagnetic terms. Sensory perceptions do
>> >not have precise analogues in the physical realm. There is no linear
>> >transformation between the physical colour map and the perceptual
>> >colour map.
>>
>> Explain that to Pantone corp.
>
>Explain that to a psychologist specializing in the visual system.
A psychologist usually has no clue on electromagnetism.
>> >But it is not so reducible anymore than a car can be reduced to an
>> >incoherent mass of atoms or to properties of those atoms. There's a
>> >reason why Complex Systems is an entirely separate field in physics.
>>
>> There is a huge difference in complexity.
>
>There is a huge differentce in the essential nature of the field!
You mean, as between sociology and psychology?
>> >I already did. If you want a detailed anatomy of corporate thought
>> >then provide me with rigorous definitions of thought and corporation.
>>
>> You are the one saying "corporations are psycopaths". After a lot of work, we
>> reached a point where we seem to agree that for this to be true, corps would
>> need a sort of thought. So, proving the corporations think is part of proving
>> that they are psycopath. Go ahead.
>
>I would if I had to, but I don't. I need only provide a prima facie case
>for it since everyone acts on the belief that corporations think, even you.
Wrong.
>I am very aware of what is and what is not my responsibility in any argument.
>The ball's in your court.
Returned with slice.
>> >No, it can't. Cells alone do not behave in the same way as cells in aggregate.
>>
>> You are creating a false dichotomy. Man is man and its circunstance, as Ortega
>> y Gasset said.
>
>Great, you're being inconsistent again.
>
>Here you say that circumstances are integral to a person, and elsewhere you
>claim that changing the circumstances does not change the person!
It only seems inconsistent, if you assume that the person is unchanging.
>And *I'm* not the one who's creating the dichotomy, *you* are. I'm only
>separating one set of circumstances (say, being an employee) from another
>set (say, being a human being).
The human being has the characteristic of being an employee. It's part of him.
>> >That's because you're a cretin. Corporations *obviously* think in a manner
>> >*MUCH* different from the humans within. This is so obvious that I'm in the
>> >position of explaining the difference between grey and mauve.
>>
>> Yawn. Saying that I am wrong doesn't prove shit. Of course, you seem to believe
>> that because men outside of corps would act different, that somehow means their
>> actions within the corp are not theirs. That is so stupid, it defies
>> comprehension.
>
>Corporations are not created by the people who work within them and these
>people are not responsible for the existence of corporations, nor even for
>their own working in such inhuman conditions. Starving is not a choice, and
>the choice of one corporation over another is not a choice either.
Work in a corporation is inhuman? Man, you must have had a sheltered life.
>> >Wrong again, cretin. Management is not the sole source of corporate
>> >decision-making. Every salesman performs decision-making. If a corporation
>> >is reduced to automatic reactions then that is analogous to a comatose
>> >patient and only reinforces the analogy.
>>
>> Read carefully. You said a corp trascends. The corp can become non-trascending.
>> That would make it not a corp according to your definition.
>
>Transcendance doesn't mean that you are greater in all ways. Corporations
>transcend human beings from the mere fact that they are immortal while
>humans are not.
Corporations are not immortal. Corporations cease to exist.
> Multi-presence is neat too. Just because a corporation
>is idiotic doesn't mean it fails to transcend.
>
>> >If you want a proof so formal and rigorous that even an imbecile can't
>> >dispute it, then produce formal and rigorous definitions of corporation
>> >and thought.
>>
>> Sorry, life's too short.
>
>Just as well, I'm certain the imbecile in question would still find a way
>to dispute the formal proof.
If the dispute is not without merit, I would say it's not imbecility to put it
forth.
>> >And as usual, you are being selective and inconsistent. Just how complex
>> >do you think a biological organism needs to be to say it possesses will?
>>
>> Quite a bit. I have no defined threshold in mind.
>
>Which means that you have no argument with my defining a threshold, right?
I reserve the right to disagree with your threshold.
>> >A paramecium is complex enough. A bacterium is complex enough. In fact,
>> >anything self-replicating can be viewed as possessing will. If you have
>> >a better definition, then produce it, otherwise I can just append "that
>> >is more complex that X" to my definition of being and tell you to shut
>> >the hell up.
>>
>> Well, if you agree that complexity is a requirement, you should add it to your
>> definition. I believe I have shown that a 4 line program possesses will
>> according to your original definition, so that would mean that definition is
>> overinclusive, as you asked me to show.
>
>I choose to define the threshold of complexity at "damned low" and I choose
>to regard self-replicating RNA molecules to have will.
It is my opinion that such a threshold is stupid, because it makes will
meaningless.
>> Now, improve it.
>
>If you have a problem with my definition then *YOU* improve it!
You told me what to do to show the inadequacy of your definition. I did. Now
you improved it. It still sucks.
>> ><rolleyes> If every being in the world were corporations then there
>> >would still be plenty of entities left over that are NOT beings and
>> >thus NOT corporations!
>>
>> So what? Those beings, according to definitions you have given, have no value
>
>ENTITIES!
Oops. Should have said entities, alright.
>> system, thus there is no value system outside of corporation's, thus that value
>> system is still universal.
>
>It's not universal to every entity! The laws of physics are universal to
>every entity on the level of abstraction of fundamental physics in our
>reality.
That assumes the existence of a single universe, I must say. Not a large
assumption, at least practically. It also assumes that only entities with
material existence exist. For example, does my mental image of my first
girlfriend exist? I'd say it does, since I can examine it. However, such image
is not subject to physics itself, since for example it lacks a specific number
of geometric dimensions.
>> >Corporations do not like children for the exact same reason and in
>> >the exact same way that psychopaths don't like children!
>>
>> No. Corporations don't like children because corporations have an intrinsic
>> inability to like.
>
>Corporations like tax breaks, legal loopholes, money, property, power and
>many other things just fine. Corporations have definite preferences and
>thus the ability to like or dislike things.
Corporations don't like tax breaks. You will never see a corporation patting a
tax break in the back. Management and stockholders like tax breaks, because
they like money.
>> It's art of the corporate nature. Psychopaths, on the other
>> hand, had that capability and lost it.
>
>Still talking about psychopaths after it's been shown you know
>nothing on the subject? Imbecile!
It has not been shown, at least not to my satisfaction.
>Psychopaths have preferences and likes and dislikes. If they didn't
>then they would not seek power (since power is the ability to impose
>one's preferences on others).
I was referring to the specific inability to like childrens YOU mentioned,
Richard.
>> They are human, but flawed. Corporations
>> are not humans, and not flawed in the same way.
>
>They are so flawed, you're just going to great lengths to avoid passing
>a negative judgement on your friend Mr. Corporation.
I really don't like corporations. I don't hold that against them, though.
>> >Then cells have separate existence! So do free neutrons, numbskull. I didn't
>> >believe anyone was stupid enough to think that cells can't exist on their own!
>>
>> Well, then why do you <rolleyes> when I say so?
>
>And where have you said so?
Where I said "cells have separate existence", I consider I was saying "cells
have separate existence", and your response was a "<rolleyes>".
>> Looks like you are pretty
>> stupid to disagree with something you agree.
>
>> >> >You're trying to mess up the analogy by applying it selectively.
>> >>
>> >> You claim the analogy to be an abstraction. If it were a good one, it would
>> >> resist it.
>> >
>> >It does but the sheer mass of your idiocy overwhelms it.
>>
>> If a single "idiot" can poke a dozen holes in it, it must be a pretty crappy
>> one.
>
>*Hallucinating* holes is not the same thing as actually showing they exist.
Denial. What a shame.
>> >> In that case, I would agree that what you do is abstraction. Since there are
>> >> obvious places where the analogy breaks down, the analogy is not a valid
>> >> abstraction.
>> >
>> >In fact, it *doesn't* break down.
>>
>> Except in continuity after replacement of components, and all the other things
>> you claim to be irrelevant?
>
>Not even then, nitwit.
Yawn. Proof by blatant assertion. Are you working on a catalog of falwed
debating techniques?
>> >> He can buy or not buy the corporation's products. He can buy or not buy stock
>> >> of the corporation. Both things are corporate decision-making, and he needs not
>> >> be part of the corporation to do so.
>> >
>> >These things are ------******* N O T *******------ corporate decision-making!!!
>>
>> Define, and show why, if you please.
>
>Define thought and corporation, from which corporate decision-making will
>follow!
If you claim we have no working definition, abstain from making judgement
values that require the definition.
>> By buying a certain product, he increases the product's popularity. That,
>> therefore, affects the way a corporation allocates resources. He is, by buying,
>> changing the way the corporation behaves. I'd say that means he is making a
>> decision for the corporation (a very small one, though).
>
>No, he's not. By calling responding to your idiotic articles, I am changing
>the way you behave. Am I then making your decisions for you?
Regardles of the grammar problem, I'd say that indeed, you are influencing my
decisions. If I were this theoretical hive-mind, you would be part of the
mechanism that makes the decisions. I am not, so you are not.
>> >Your typical janitor *cannot* run the corporation anymore than
>> >your typical cell can become a blastocyte.
>>
>> I disagree. I have seen ex-janitors become management.
>
>And this is TYPICAL?
Didn't say that.
>And it doesn't matter since some human cells can become other cells, just
>like some janitors can become managers. If you have any argument at all,
>it's about the degree of interchangeability. In both cases, things are
>generally NOT interchangeable.
Humans are interchangeable. It might take a huge amount of training, and it
might produce a crappy replacement, but it can be done. However, no brain cell
is going to produce insulin, no matter how much you coerce it.
>> >And you think putting a janitor in the engineering department is
>> >sufficient to turn him into an engineer, no matter how incompetent?
>>
>> The janitor can be trained to do the job. You can't train a cell.
>
>Sure you can, it's been done any number of times. But I forget: you
>know absolutely nothing about biology but feel free to pronounce yourself
>about it.
Can you change the functionality of a fully developed cell? I had never seen
that mentioned, but indeed I am not a biologist. Care to cite a pointer?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM announces 64-bit mainframes and 64-bit Linux for S/390
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:33:42 -0500
Wow. Only $1,200,000.00
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IBM announced today the zSeries S/390 servers and support for
> 64-bit Linux based on the 2.4 kernel.
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/900.html
>
> http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:24:03 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >So do you now claim that talking about the behaviour of molecules is
>> >meaningless since it always reduces down to atoms? That's your position
>> >with respect to corporations.
>>
>> I don't say that the behaviour of corporations is meaningless. Yet again, you
>> claim I do.
>
>So do corporations think or do they not?
No. At least not in the same way a man thinks and an abacus doesn't.
>And if you say they don't then what words would you use to describe
>corporations?
Many. "a", "the", some nouns, some verbs.
>> >> What is foolish is applying the wrong tool to the task. Just like the gas has
>> >> no spin, the groups are not psycopaths.
>> >
>> >If gas has no spin, then what's a tornado?
>>
>> Spin in the quantum sense.
>
>Corporations don't have dicks. That doesn't stop them from being
>corporations.
It stops them from being male mammals.
> Not every property of objects on the subvenient level
>transcends to the supervenient level. The fact that corporations
>do not have snivelling noses says nothing about whether or not they
>can be psychopaths.
The fact that corporations are not human, does.
>> >Except I'm not relying on my own opinion.
>>
>> References, please.
>
>I'm not going digging for you!
Then, AFAICS, it is just your opinion.
>> >> >Joe Blow the employee is not the same as Joe Blow the person.
>> >>
>> >> They are the same person. Are they not?
>> >
>> >Joe Blow the employee is not a person at all!
>>
>> Joe Blow is still a person while he works. he has not lost his consciousness
>> into some sort of corporate hive-mind.
>
>Consciousness is irrelevant. He *has* lost (some of) his rights
Such as?
>and thus his personhood. And in any case, you're confusing Joe
>Blow the employee with /the body of Joe Blow the person/.
No I am not.
>> Employees have rights. You might like them to have more rights, but they do
>> have them. And what you say is patently false. All human rights apply to people
>> while they work. You can't kill them, you can't torture them, you can't coherce
>> their religion, and so forth.
>
>This is bullshit.
Nice, pointed argument.. NOT.
>And btw, there is no human right about freedom of religion, only FROM religion.
The UN disagrees.
>> >Then how about: cars don't move since car movement is always reducible to
>> >atom movement.
>>
>> If the atoms of the car are moving, in average, in a certain direction, the car
>> is moving.
>
>Then by your reasoning, cars never move.
According to the reasoning I actually wrote, I would say they do move.
>> Only if that doesn't break their fiduciary duty, I'd say. Since the corporation
>> would have to provide value to the stockholders while buying back all the
>> stock, the corporation would probably self-destruct.
>
>Corporations buy back their own stock all the time. Toys 'R Us did it a
>while ago and it expected to have to do it for years to come.
Not *all* their stock.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:18:55 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 23:05:33 GMT, Marty wrote:
> >> Now that's what I call a Tholen-war.
> >
> >On what basis do you make this claim?
>
> On the basis that it satisfies the definition of the term previously
> posted.
Classic illogical circular reasoning.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 21:27:52 -0300
El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >It makes them not count as APIs.
>>
>> Because you say so? Excuse me if I'm not too impressed.
>
>Everyone working on an original OS project raise their hand.
><Richard raises his hand>
I have developed to different OS APIs. So, I am in position to say what counts
or doesn't count as an API, from a programmer point of view. What you are doing
in this post is like saying that only construction workers know about walls.
Stupid.
>Now everyone who's designed their own API raise their hand.
><Richard raises his hand>
I could raise about 12 hands on this one.
>Everyone who's studied interfaces extensively raise their hand.
><Richard raises his hand>
Depends on what you mean. Studied specific interfaces, or studied the subject
of interfaces in the abstract? I could raise hands in both cases, though.
>Everyone who understands what Object Based Alternate Reality
>means, raise their hand.
><Richard raises his hand>
I ain't even touching that.
>> > My implying that increasing the number
>> >of APIs increases the complexity of the system is a simplification that
>> >generally holds because Unix/C++/Java people can't even *conceive* of
>> >transparent APIs.
>>
>> Opinion. A pretty popular thing to have.
>
>An "opinion" that is *widely* shared among Smalltalkers and anyone who
>knows a pure OO language.
Sectarism. Popular, too.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:34:25 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> Netzero makes a linux client
>
> Interesting, as a search with "Linux" at Netzero's site produced 0
> matches. Also, Netzero claims to only support Windows, with Mac support
> to come later.
>
> www.netzero.net
>
> Colin Day
>
Hmmm, maybe its just vaporware.
I based my statement on this article.
http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_403361,00.html
and this one
http://industry.java.sun.com/javanews/stories/story2/0,1072,27296,00.html
I've never used the service personally.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:26:03 GMT
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:44:53 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around
>general
>> > purpose OS out there today.
>>
>> and the most expensive
>
>Haven't priced Solaris lately, have you?
>
Bought the CD's from Sun for $10 plus shipping.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
